Introduction

The present chapter takes up the Nandakovāda-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya and its parallels, which report the teachings given by the monk Nandaka to the nuns.

The extant versions of this discourse are:

• the Nandakovāda-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya,[n.1] [4] MN 146 at MN III 270,9 to 277,19.
• a discourse in the Saṃyukta-āgama.[n.2] SĀ 276 at T II 73c9 to 75c17.
• Sanskrit fragments,[n.3] SHT VI 1226 folio 5R to 11, Bechert and Wille 1989: 22–26, and SHT XI 4560, Wille 2012: 120.
• a discourse quotation in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, preserved in Chinese and Tibetan translation.[n.4] [6] T 1442 at T XXIII 792a17 to 794a17 and D 3 ja 50b7 to 59a4 or Q 1032 nye 48b5 to 56a5, translated in Martini 2010; cf. also D 4106 phu 81b5 to 83a7 or Q 5607 mu 94b6 to 96b5.

After translating the Saṃyukta-āgama version, I study some of its aspects that reflect a different attitude in regard to the nuns when compared with the Nandakovāda-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya.

---

Translation

[Nandaka Teaches the Dharma][n.5] [8] The translated discourse is SĀ 276 at T II 73c9 to 75c17. SĀ 276 does not have a title, hence I follow Akanuma 1929/1990: 44, who assigns the title 難 陀說法 to SĀ 276. In order to facilitate comparing my translation of the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse with the English translation of the Nandakovāda-sutta in Ñāṇamoli 1995/2005: 1120–1125, I adopt the same paragraph numbering.

1. Thus have I heard. At one time, the Buddha was staying at Sāvatthī in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's Park. At that time, in the Rājakārāma at Sāvatthī there were various great disciples from the community of nuns, with nuns from the community of nuns by the name of the nun Chandā, the nun Míntuó, the nun Móluópó,[n.6] [10] SĀ 276 at T II 73c12: 民陀比丘尼 and 摩羅婆比丘尼. In these two cases and one case mentioned in the note below, I have been unable to arrive at a reconstruction of the names; hence I simply transcribe the Chinese renderings in pīnyīn. the nun Paṭācārā, the nun Āḷavikā, the nun Khemā, the nun Nánmó,[n.7] [11] SĀ 276 at T II 73c13: 難摩比丘尼. the nun called Kisāgotamī, the nun Uppalavaṇṇā, the nun Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī.[n.8] [12] A listing of famous nuns is not found in MN 146, which proceeds directly from mentioning the Buddha's whereabouts to reporting how Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī approached him. T 1442 at T XXIII 792a19 and D 3 ja 50b7 or Q 1032 nye 48b5 agree with SĀ 276 in this respect.

2. At that time, the nun Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, surrounded by five hundred nuns,[n.9] [13] The number five hundred often has a rather symbolic sense and may best be understood to represent a "substantial group." Bareau 1971: 80 takes the number five hundred to represent "many" ("beaucoup"). Rhys Davids and Stede 1921/1993: 388 speak of it being "equivalent to an expression like 'a lot'". Wagle 1966: 16 speaks of "a sizable group". Wiltshire 1990: 176 comments that "no precise significance need be attached to this number since it is a literary stereotype denoting a sizeable collection of people." approached the Buddha, paid respect with her head at his feet and withdrew to sit to one side.[n.10] [14] According to MN 146 at MN III 270,13, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī remained standing: "she stood to one side. Standing to one side, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī spoke like this to the Blessed One," ekamantaṃ aṭṭhāsi, ekamantaṃ ṭhitā kho mahāpajāpatī (Be: mahāpajāpati) gotamī bhagavantaṃ etad avoca. T 1442 at T XXIII 792a25 and D 3 ja 51a4 or Q 1032 nye 49a1 agree with SĀ 276 that she sat down.

Then the Blessed One taught the Dharma to Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī [and the other nuns], instructing, teaching, illuminating, and delighting them.[n.11] [15] MN 146 does not record any teaching given by the Buddha to the nuns. Instead, in MN 146 at MN III 270,15 Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī requests that the Buddha give teachings to the nuns: "Venerable sir, may the Blessed One exhort the nuns; venerable sir, may the Blessed One instruct the nuns; venerable sir, may the Blessed One give the nuns a talk on the Dharma," ovadatu, bhante, bhagavā bhikkhuniyo; anusāsatu, bhante, bhagavā bhikkhuniyo; karotu, bhante, bhagavā bhikkhunīnaṃ dhammikathan ti (Be and Ce: dhammiṃ kathan). In spite of this request, the Buddha does not address the nuns, so that MN 146 does not report any delighted reaction by the nuns or that they were given leave and then left. T 1442 at T XXIII 792a25 and D 3 ja 51a4 or Q 1032 nye 49a1 agree with SĀ 276 that the Buddha gave a teaching to the nuns. SHT VI 1226 folio 5Rb–c, Bechert and Wille 1989: 22, has preserved (saṃpra)harṣayitvā samāda[pa](yitvā) and (bhagavato bhāṣita)[m-abhi]nanditvā anu(m)o (ditvā), so that in the Sanskrit fragment version the Buddha also gives a talk to the nuns and they delight in it. Having in various ways taught them the Dharma, instructed, taught, illuminated, and delighted them, he gave them leave to return by saying: "Nuns, it is the proper time for you to leave."

Hearing what the Buddha had said, the nun Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī [and the other nuns] were delighted and rejoiced, paid respect, and left.

When the Blessed One knew that the nun Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī [and the other nuns] had left, he addressed the monks: "I have become old, I am no longer able to teach the Dharma to the nuns. From now on those of you in the community of monks who are senior virtuous elders should give instructions to the nuns."[n.12] [16] Such an injunction given by the Buddha to the monks is not recorded in MN 146. A similar injunction can be found in T 1442 at T XXIII 792a29 and D 3 ja 51a7 or Q 1032 nye 49a4, differing in so far as here the Buddha indicates that he is too old to keep giving talks to the four assemblies, i.e., monks, nuns, male lay followers, and female lay followers.

3. Then the monks, on receiving the Blessed One's instruction, took turns in giving instructions to the nuns until it was Nandaka's turn.[n.13] [17] SĀ 276 at T II 74a5 renders his name as 難陀, Nanda[ka], thus the transcription does not reflect the last syllable of the name he has in MN 146. Then Nandaka did not want to give them instructions, [even though] it was his proper turn.

Then the nun Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, surrounded by five hundred nuns, approached the Buddha, paid respect with her head at his feet … up to … they were delighted and rejoiced in hearing the Dharma, paid respect, and left.[n.14] [19] A second visit by Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī is not reported in MN 146. T 1442 at T XXIII 792b6 and D 3 ja 51b2 or Q 1032 nye 49a6 agree with SĀ 276 in this respect.

When the Blessed One knew that the nun Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī had left,[n.15] [20] An indication that the Buddha politely waited until Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī had left before enquiring from Ānanda about the matter is not made in MN 146, where the Buddha's question to Ānanda comes after Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī had asked the Buddha for teachings (during what in MN 146 is her first visit to him); cf. MN III 270,19. T 1442 at T XXIII 792b6 (abbreviated) and D 3 ja 51b6 or Q 1032 nye 49b2 agree with SĀ 276 in this respect. he asked the venerable Ānanda: "Whose turn is it to give instructions to the nuns?"

The venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha: "Blessed One, the elders have been taking turns in giving instructions to the nuns until Nandaka's turn has come, yet Nandaka does not want to give them instructions."

4. Then the Blessed One said to Nandaka: "You should give instructions to the nuns, you should teach the Dharma to the nuns. Why is that? I myself give instructions to the nuns, so you should also do it. I teach the Dharma to the nuns, so you should also do it."[n.16] [21] In MN 146 at MN III 270,26 the Buddha just tells Nandaka that he should teach the nuns, without setting himself up as an example in this respect: "Nandaka, exhort the nuns; Nandaka, instruct the nuns; brahmin, give the nuns a talk on the Dharma," ovada, nandaka, bhikkhuniyo, anusāsa, nandaka, bhikkhuniyo, karohi tvaṃ, brāhmaṇa, bhikkhunīnaṃ dhammikathan ti (Be and Ce: dhammiṃ kathan). In this way at MN III 270,27 the Buddha even addresses Nandaka with the honorific term brāhmaṇa. Such a term is not found in the Buddha's injunction to Nandaka in T 1442 at T XXIII 792b12 and D 3 ja 52a1 or Q 1032 nye 49b4, which agree with SĀ 276 in reporting that the Buddha set himself as an example.

At that time, Nandaka silently accepted the instruction.[n.17] [22] According to MN 146 at MN III 270,28, Nandaka replied to the Buddha, accepting the mission. T 1442 at T XXIII 792b17 and D 3 ja 52a3 or Q 1032 nye 49b6 report that he acquiesced by remaining silent. Then, in the morning, when the night was over, Nandaka put on his robes and took his bowl to enter the city of Sāvatthī to beg for alms. Having partaken of the alms, he returned to the monastery, put away robes and bowl and, having washed his feet, entered a room to sit in meditation.[n.18] [23] MN 146 does not report that Nandaka sat in meditation before approaching the nuns. T 1442 at T XXIII 792b21 and D 3 ja 52a5 or Q 1032 nye 49b8 agree with SĀ 276 in this respect.

Having arisen from meditation, he put on his outer robe and in the company of another monk approached the Rājakārāma. On seeing the venerable Nandaka coming from afar, the nuns swiftly prepared a seat and invited him to sit on it.[n.19] [24] MN 146 at MN III 271,6 stands alone in reporting that the nuns also prepared water for him to wash his feet: udakañ ca pādānaṃ upaṭṭhapesuṃ.

[When] he had sat down, the nuns paid respect with their heads at the venerable Nandaka's feet and withdrew to sit to one side. The venerable Nandaka said to the nuns:

5. "Sisters, I shall teach you the Dharma now. You should ask [questions]. If you understand, you should say that you understand. If you do not understand, you should say that you do not understand. If you understand the meaning of what I say, you should keep it well in mind. If you do not understand it, you should keep asking, so that I may explain it to you."

The nuns said to the venerable Nandaka: "On hearing the venerable one's instruction now, inviting us to ask questions and telling us: 'If you do not understand, you should now ask about it all. If you have understood, you should say you have understood. If you do not understand, you should say you did not understand. If you have understood the meaning of what I say, you should bear it in mind. If you do not understand it, you should keep asking further.' On hearing this, our hearts are greatly delighted. If we do not understand the meaning, we will at once ask about it."[n.20] [25] In MN 146 at MN III 271,16 the nuns do not repeat Nandaka's injunction, but merely reply that they are pleased with just that much, ettakena, when he invites them in this way. In T 1442 at T XXIII 792c2 and D 3 ja 52b6 or Q 1032 nye 50a8, the nuns repeat Nandaka's injunction, although in an abbreviated manner.

[The Senses][n.21] [26] The headings are not found in the original, but have been supplied by me to facilitate keeping track of the main arguments in the exposition given by Nandaka.
6. Then the venerable Nandaka said to the nuns: "How is it, sisters, on examining the internal sense-sphere of the eye; is this 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"[n.22] [28] On this formulation cf. above p. 70 notes 31 and 32. The parallel to the present passage in T 1442 at T XXIII 792c5 simply reads "is there an 'I' [or what is] mine?", 有我, 我所不. According to D 3 ja 53a1 or Q 1032 nye 50b2 he enquired if the nuns consider that "this is mine, this is me, this is my self," ’di ni bdag gi’o, ’di ni bdag go, ’di ni bdag gi bdag go.

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka!"
[He asked further]: "On examining the internal sense-sphere of the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind; is this 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"[n.23] [29] The instructions in MN 146 at MN III 271,18 differ in as much as Nandaka at first takes up the impermanent nature of each sense-organ, before turning to the other two characteristics of dukkha and anattā (the same holds for the examinations of the sense-organs and of consciousness). T 1442 at T XXIII 792c5 and D 3 ja 53a1 or Q 1032 nye 50b2 directly approach the topic of notself, similar to SĀ 276.

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? Venerable Nandaka, we have already known and seen this principle as it really is, in that we have examined the six internal sensespheres as not-self. We have already mentally determined like this: 'The six internal sense-spheres are not-self.'"[n.24] [30] SĀ 276 at T II 74b1: 作如是意解, where my translation assumes that 解 here renders adhi + √muc, in fact the corresponding passage in D 3 ja 53a4 or Q 1032 nye 50b4 reads mos pa; cf. also T 1442 at T XXIII 792c9: 信解了. On adhimuccati and vimuccati cf. also Lévi 1929: 44 and Wynne 2007: 79. This part of the nuns' statement does not have a counterpart in MN 146, where they only indicate that they have already seen this well and with proper wisdom as it really is; cf. MN III 272,3. This corresponds to the first part of their reply in SĀ 276 (the same holds for the examinations of the sense-organs and of consciousness).

The venerable Nandaka said to the nuns: "Well done, well done, sisters. It is appropriate for you to determine like this: 'The six internal sense-spheres are not-self.'"

[Sense-objects]
7. "Nuns, the external sense-sphere of forms; is this 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka!"
[He asked further]: "The external sense-sphere of sounds … odours … flavours … tangibles … mental objects; is this 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? Venerable Nandaka, we have already examined the six external sense-spheres as really being not-self. We constantly keep mentally determining that: 'The six external sense-spheres are really not-self.'"

The venerable Nandaka said to the nuns: "Well done, well done. It is appropriate for you to contemplate the meaning of this in this way: 'The six external sense-spheres are not-self.'"

[Consciousness]
8. "If in dependence on the eye and form, eye-consciousness arises,[n.25] [31] MN 146 at MN III 272,29 directly turns to eye-consciousness, without mentioning its conditioned arising in dependence on eye and form. The conditionality of sense and object is taken up explicitly in T 1442 at T XXIII 792c19 and D 3 ja 53b1 or Q 1032 nye 51a1. is that eye-consciousness 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka!"
[He asked further]: "If in dependence on the ear … nose … tongue … body … the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises, is that mind-consciousness 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? We have already examined the six types of consciousness as really being not-self. We also constantly keep mentally determining that: 'The six types of consciousness are really not-self.'"

The venerable Nandaka said to the nuns: "Well done, well done, sisters. It is appropriate for you to contemplate the meaning of this in this way: 'The six types of consciousness are not-self.'"

[Contact]
"In dependence on the eye and form, eye-consciousness arises, and with the coming together of these three contact arises; is that contact 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka!"
[He asked further]: "In dependence on the ear … nose … tongue … body … the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises, and with the coming together of these three contact arises; is that contact 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"[n.26] [32] MN 146 does not apply the instruction to the topics of contact, feeling, perception, intention, or craving. T 1442 at T XXIII 792c23 and D 3 ja 53b6 or Q 1032 nye 51a5 only apply the insight treatment to contact, feeling, and craving. SHT VI 1226 folio 7Rz, Bechert and Wille 1989: 24, appears to have preserved a reference to craving, (ca)kṣ[u]saṃsparśajā [tṛ](ṣṇā).

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? We have already examined the six contacts as really being not-self. We also constantly keep mentally determining like this: 'The six contacts are really not-self.'"

The venerable Nandaka said to the nuns: "Well done, well done. You should contemplate it as it really is: 'The six types of contact are really not-self.'"

[Feeling]
"In dependence on the eye and form, eye-⟨consciousness⟩ arises,[n.27] The translation is based on emending 觸 to read 識, following Yìnshùn 1983a: 367 note 4. with the coming together of these three there is contact, and in dependence on contact there is feeling; is that feeling, which depends on contact, 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka!"
[He asked further]: "In dependence on the ear … nose … tongue … body … the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises, with the coming together of these three there is contact, and in dependence on contact there is feeling; is that feeling, which depends on contact, 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? We have already examined the six types of feeling as really being not-self. We also constantly keep mentally determining that: 'The six types of feeling are really not-self.'"

The venerable Nandaka said to the nuns: "Well done, well done. You should contemplate its meaning like this: 'The six types of feeling are really not-self.'"

[Perception]
"In dependence on the eye and form, eye-consciousness arises, with the coming together of these three contact arises, in dependence on contact there is perception; is that perception 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka!"
[He asked further]: "In dependence on the ear … nose … tongue … body … the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises, with the coming together of these three contact arises, in dependence on contact there is perception; is that perception 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? We have already examined the six types of perception as really being not-self. We also constantly keep mentally determining that: 'The six types of perception are really not-self.'"

The venerable Nandaka said to the nuns: "Well done, well done. Nuns, you should contemplate its meaning like this: 'The six types of perception are really not-self.'"

[Intention]
"In dependence on the eye and form, eye-consciousness arises, with the coming together of these three there is contact, in dependence on contact there is intention; is that intention 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka!"
[He asked further]: "In dependence on the ear … nose … tongue … body … the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises, with the coming together of these three there is contact, in dependence on contact there is intention; is that intention 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? We have already examined the six types of intention as really being not-self. We constantly keep mentally determining that: 'The six types of intention are really not-self.'"

The venerable Nandaka said to the nuns: "Well done, well done. Nuns, you should contemplate its meaning like this: 'The six types of intention are really not-self.'"

[Craving]
"In dependence on the eye and form, eye-consciousness arises, with the coming together of these three there is contact, in dependence on contact there is craving; is that craving 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka!"
[He asked further]: "In dependence on the ear … nose … tongue … body … the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises, with the coming together of these three there is contact, in dependence on contact there is craving; is that craving 'me', or is it distinct from 'me' [in the sense of being 'mine'], or does it exist [within 'me', or do 'I'] exist [within it]?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? We have already examined the six types of craving as really notself. We constantly keep mentally determining that: 'The six types of craving are really not-self.'"

The venerable Nandaka said to the nuns: "[Well done, well done.] You should contemplate its meaning like this: 'The six types of craving are really not-self.'"

[Simile for the Senses]
9. "Sisters, it is just like a lamp that shines in dependence on the oil and the wick. The oil is impermanent, the wick is also impermanent, the flame is also impermanent, and the vessel is also impermanent. If someone were to say: 'Without oil, without wick, without flame, and without vessel, the lamplight that has arisen in dependence on them is permanent and persists, it remains and will not change', would such a saying be correct?"[n.28] [33] MN 146 at MN III 273,15 differs in that the point of the simile is not the absence of the oil, etc., but the impermanent and changing nature of the oil, etc. (the same holds for the subsequent tree simile). Another difference is that MN 146 does not mention the vessel, but only the oil, the wick, and the flame. T 1442 at T XXIII 793a4 and D 3 ja 54b6 or Q 1032 nye 52a5 do mention the vessel.

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? The lamp shines in dependence on the oil, the wick, and the vessel. The oil, the wick, and the vessel are impermanent. If there is no oil, no wick, and no vessel, the lamplight that depends on them will consequently cease, be extinguished, disappear, and become truly cool."[n.29] [34] In MN 146 at MN III 273,27 the reply by the nuns just affirms the impermanent nature of the radiance (the same holds for the subsequent tree simile, where they affirm the impermanent nature of its shadow). Their reply in T 1442 at T XXIII 793a9 and D 3 ja 54b7 or Q 1032 nye 52a7 covers the different aspects of the lamp as well.

[The venerable Nandaka said]: "In the same way, sisters, these six internal sense-spheres are impermanent. If someone were to say: 'The pleasure that arises in dependence on these six internal sense-spheres is permanent and persists, it remains, it will not change and [provide] comfort', would such a saying be correct?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? We have already examined as it really is that in dependence on this and that factor, this and that factor arises. In dependence on the cessation of this and that factor, this and that arisen factor will consequently cease, be extinguished, disappear, and become truly cool."[n.30] [35] In MN 146 at MN III 273,35 the nuns no longer point out that they have already undertaken such contemplation and their reply is about the arising or disappearance of the three types of feeling in dependence on this and that condition (the same holds for the subsequent tree simile); T 1442 at T XXIII 793a15 and D 3 ja 55a3 or Q 1032 nye 52b3 agree with SĀ 276 that the nuns keep on indicating that they had already understood that much and that the point of the simile is to illustrate the dependent nature of pleasant feeling.

The venerable Nandaka said to the nuns: "Well done, well done. Nuns, you should contemplate its meaning like this: 'In dependence on this and that factor, this and that factor arises. In dependence on the cessation of this and that factor, this and that arisen factor will consequently cease, be extinguished, disappear, and become truly cool.'"

[Simile for the Sense-organs]
10. "Sisters, it is just like a great tree that has roots, twigs, branches, and leaves. The roots are impermanent and also the twigs, branches, and leaves, they are all impermanent. If someone were to say: 'That tree being without roots, without twigs, without branches, and without leaves, its shadow is nevertheless permanent and persists, it remains, it will not change and [will provide] comfort', would such a saying be correct?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? That great tree has roots, twigs, branches, and leaves. The roots are impermanent and also the twigs, branches, and leaves, they are all impermanent. Being without roots, without twigs, without branches, and without leaves, the shadow of the tree that depends on them will become completely and entirely non-existent."

[The venerable Nandaka said]: "Sisters, what depends on the six external sense-spheres is impermanent. If someone were to say: 'The pleasure that arises in dependence on these six external sense-spheres [is permanent] and persists, it remains, it will not change and [will provide] comfort'; would such a saying be correct?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? We have already examined as it really is that in dependence on this and that factor, this and that factor arises. In dependence on the cessation of this and that factor, this and that arisen factor will consequently cease, be extinguished, disappear, and become truly cool."

The venerable Nandaka said to the nuns: "Well done, well done, sisters. You should contemplate its meaning as it really is: 'In dependence on this and that factor, this and that factor arises. In dependence on the cessation of this and that factor, this and that arisen factor will consequently cease, be extinguished, disappear, and become truly cool.'"

[Final Simile]
11. "Sisters, listen to an analogy spoken by me, with the help of an analogy the wise come to understand. It is just like a skilled master butcher or a butcher's disciple who takes a sharp knife in his hand and skins a cow, proceeding at the level of the skin without damaging the flesh inside or damaging the outer hide, taking [the hide] off from the limbs,[n.31] [36] Adopting the variant 肢 instead of 枝; cf. also Yìnshùn 1983a: 367 note 6. Evans 2012: 134 comments that the present discourse "includes a strikingly Vedic image in which the parts of a butchered cow, equated with features of the cosmos in the Upaniṣads, are, metaphorically here, equated with the senses, their objects and attachment, more or less, the 'all'." tendons, and bones. Afterwards he would put the hide back on it as a cover. If someone were to say: 'The hide and flesh of this cow are complete and not separate', would such a saying be correct?"

They replied: "No, venerable Nandaka. Why is that? The skilled master butcher or the butcher's disciple has taken a sharp knife in his hand and, proceeding at the level of the skin without damaging the flesh or the hide, has taken [the hide] off from the limbs, tendons, and bones completely. [Although] afterwards he put the hide back on it as a cover, the hide and the flesh have already been separated [from each other], it is not the case that they are not separate [from each other]."

12. [The venerable Nandaka said]: "Sisters, I have spoken this analogy, now I shall explain its meaning. The cow represents the gross bodily form of a person … to be given in full as in the discourse on the chest with poisonous snakes.[n.32] [37] This would refer to SĀ 1172 at T II 313c10, which in an explanation of a simile that involves a chest with four poisonous snakes explains that "the chest represents this gross bodily form [made up] of the four great [elements] and what is derived from the four great [elements] whose essence is blood, a body that is dirty, that [needs] to be kept growing through nourishment, that [needs] to be washed and clothed, and whose nature is to be impermanent, to be changing, to be destroyed, to become endangered, and to be fragile" (the four poisonous snakes then stand for the four elements, a correlation also made in the parallel SN 35.197 at SN IV 174,22). The circumstance that in this case a discourse occurring earlier in the collection, SĀ 276, refers "back" to a discourse found later, SĀ 1172, is due to a misplacing of the fascicles of the Saṃyukta-āgama. In the restored sequence accepted by most scholars nowadays, SĀ 276 occurs in fact after SĀ 1172. The 'meat' is reckoned to be the six internal sense-spheres. The outer hide is reckoned to be the six external sense-spheres. The 'butcher' is reckoned to be the trainee who has the vision of the path. What is between the hide and the flesh, the tendons and the bones, is reckoned to be desire together with delight. The 'sharp knife' is reckoned to be sharp wisdom.

"The learned noble disciple uses the sharp knife of wisdom to cut all fetters, bondages, underlying tendencies, defilements (kilesa), higher defilements (upakkilesa), and [mental] afflictions.[n.33] [38] The explanation of the simile in MN 146 at MN III 275,12 does not identify the cow with the physical body or the butcher with the trainee (sekha); identifications found in T 1442 at T XXIII 793b16+21 and D 3 ja 56b2+5 or Q 1032 nye 53b6+54a1, although instead of the trainee they speak of the learned noble disciple (additionally qualified as "wise" in T 1442).

"Therefore, sisters, you should train in this way: 'In regard to pleasurable phenomena our mind shall not be attached, in order to cut off and eliminate desire. In regard to irritating phenomena, we shall not give rise to aversion, in order to cut off and eliminate aversion. In regard to deluding phenomena, we shall not give rise to delusion, in order to cut off and eliminate delusion.'[n.34] [39] This succinct injunction is not found in MN 146; a similar instruction occurs in T 1442 at T XXIII 793b25 and D 3 ja 56b6 or Q 1032 nye 54a3.

13. "In regard to the five aggregates of clinging, we shall contemplate their arising and disappearing. In regard to the six spheres of contact, we shall contemplate their arising and disappearing. In regard to the four satipaṭṭhānas, we shall well join the mind to them and become established in the seven factors of awakening.[n.35] [40] MN 146 at MN III 275,22 sets in directly by listing the bojjhaṅgas, without mentioning the aggregates, the spheres of contact, or the four satipaṭṭhānas. The five aggregates and the six spheres occur also in D 3 ja 57a1 or Q 1032 nye 54a5; T 1442 at T XXIII 793c1 instead refers to the noble eightfold path.

"Having developed the seven factors of awakening, the mind will not be conditioned by attachment in regard to the influx (āsava) of desire and will attain liberation; the mind will not be conditioned by attachment in regard to the influx of becoming and will attain liberation; and the mind will not be conditioned by attachment in regard to the influx of ignorance and will attain liberation.[n.36] [41] MN 146 at MN III 275,22 states that the factors of awakening should be developed in dependence on seclusion, dispassion and cessation, leading to relinquishment, in order to attain liberation from the influxes. Such a specification is not found in the corresponding passage in T 1442 at T XXIII 793b29 and D 3 ja 57a3 or Q 1032 nye 54a6. Sisters, you should train in this way."

14. At that time, the venerable Nandaka taught the Dharma to the nuns, instructing, teaching, illuminating, and delighting them. Having instructed, taught, illuminated, and delighted them, he rose from his seat and left.[n.37] [42] In MN 146 at MN III 276,1 Nandaka tells the nuns that the time has come for them to go: "venerable Nandaka … dismissed the nuns [saying]: 'go, sisters, it is time,'" āyasmā nandako tā bhikkhuniyo … uyyojesi: gacchatha, bhaginiyo, kālo ti; whereon they pay respect, leave, and approach the Buddha. T 1442 at T XXIII 793c7 and D 3 ja 57a6 or Q 1032 nye 54b2, however, report that Nandaka left.

Then, the nun Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, surrounded by five hundred nuns, approached the Buddha, paid respect with her head at his feet and sat back to one side … up to … she paid respect to the Buddha and left.

15. When the Blessed One knew that the nun Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī [and the other nuns] had left, he said to the monks: "It is just as when various people look at the bright moon on the night of the fourteenth day, [thinking]: 'Is it full or is it not yet full?' One should know that the moon is not really full.

"In the same way, the clansman Nandaka has given proper instructions to the five hundred nuns, has properly taught them the Dharma, [yet] their liberation is not really full. [However, if] it were the time for passing away for those nuns, I do not see a single fetter that they have not eliminated due to which they would be reborn in this world."[n.38] [44] MN 146 at this point makes no declaration regarding any attainment by the nuns. T 1442 at T XXIII 793c12 and D 3 ja 57b7 or Q 1032 nye 55a2 agree with SĀ 276 that the nuns had reached non-return; the same is the case for SHT XI 4560 R4, Wille 2012: 120, which has preserved part of the present section.

16. Then the Blessed One said to Nandaka: "You should teach the Dharma to the nuns again."[n.39] [45] MN 146 at MN III 276,19 stands alone in specifying that he should give the same teaching to the nuns: "you should exhort those nuns tomorrow with the same exhortation," sve pi tā bhikkhuniyo ten' ev' ovādena ovadeyyāsī ti.

Then the venerable Nandaka silently accepted the injunction.[n.40] [46] Similar to the earlier instance of such an injunction being given to Nandaka, according to MN 146 at MN III 276,21 Nandaka replies: evaṃ bhante. In the morning, when the night was over, he took his bowl to enter the city to beg for alms. Having partaken of the alms … up to … he approached the Rājakārāma and sat on a

[prepared] seat. He taught the Dharma to the nuns,[n.41] [47] SĀ 276 at T II 75c6: 為諸比丘尼說法. The circumstance that Nandaka's actual teaching is not included in the part given in abbreviation, which only covers the period from his partaking of alms until his arrival at the nunnery, is noteworthy. This makes it less probable that from the viewpoint of SĀ 276 he gave the same teaching to the nuns. To convey that his second teaching had been exactly the same as the first one, the abbreviation "up to", 乃至, could have covered the period from his partaking of alms all the way until his departure from the nunnery. instructing, teaching, illuminating, and delighting them. Having instructed, taught, illuminated, and delighted them, he rose from his seat and left.

At a subsequent time, the nun Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, surrounded by five hundred nuns, approached the Buddha, paid respect with her head at his feet, and sat back to one side … up to … she paid respect to the Buddha and left.

27. When the Blessed One knew that the nun Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī [and the other nuns] had left, he said to the monks: "It is just as when people look at the bright moon on the night of the fifteenth day and have no doubt whether it is full or not full, since the moon is completely full.[n.42] [48] Hu-von Hinüber 1996: 92f clarifies that the comparison with the moon on the fourteenth and fifteenth day does not necessarily imply that the nuns were taught on two successive days.

"In the same way, the clansman Nandaka has given proper instructions to the five hundred nuns, their liberation is complete.[n.43] The description of the nuns' gradual progress from non-return to full awakening through Nandaka's instructions would presumably not refer to Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī or to those of the famous nuns, mentioned at the outset of the discourse, who according to tradition reached full awakening in other ways and thus independent of Nandaka's instruction. If it were the time for passing away for them, nobody could proclaim the course of their destination. It should be known that [they reached] the end of dukkha."[n.44] [49] In MN 146 at MN III 277,15 the Buddha only declares that the least advanced of the nuns is a stream-enterer: "the least advanced of those five hundred nuns is a stream-enterer," tāsaṃ … pañcannaṃ bhikkhunīsatānaṃ (Be: bhikkhunisatānaṃ) yā pacchimā (Be and Se: pacchimikā) bhikkhunī sā sotapannā (Be, Ce, and Se: sotāpannā). T 1442 at T XXIII 794a14 and D 3 ja 59a1 or Q 1032 nye 56a2 agree with SĀ 276 that the Buddha declared them to have reached full awakening.

In this way the Blessed One conferred on the five hundred nuns a declaration of the supreme fruit.[n.45] Adopting the variant 授 instead of 受; cf. also Yìnshùn 1983a: 367 note 8. When the Buddha had spoken this discourse, hearing what the Buddha had said the monks were delighted and received it respectfully.

---

Study

Placing the above-translated Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Nandakovāda-sutta side by side, several of the differences found between them seem to reflect a dissimilar attitude in regard to the nuns. Although some of these variations are rather minor, added together they do give a distinct flavour to each version. Before surveying such differences in detail, however, I first examine Nandaka's unwillingness to teach the nuns. Does tradition preserve any background information that helps to understand why he is shown to avoid doing his duty and needs to be admonished by the Buddha in order for him to teach the nuns?

A discourse in the Aṅguttara-nikāya depicts the types of punishment that the monastic community can inflict on a monk of bad character, who will be divested of various privileges. One of these punishments is that he is no longer allowed to give teachings to the nuns.[n.46] [99] AN 8.90 at AN IV 347,9. Judging from this passage, teaching the nuns appears to have been considered an honourable task, not something best avoided.[n.47] [100] The same would also be reflected in a listing given in AN 8.52 at AN IV 279,23 of the qualities that are required for a monk to become an exhorter of the nuns; cf. also Schopen 2010: 109ff on the corresponding requirements in the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition.

That to teach the nuns was indeed a privilege is confirmed in the Theravāda Vinaya, which reports that a group of notoriously badly-behaved monks had taken to teaching the nuns in the hope of receiving the gains that accrued to monks who undertook this task.[n.48] [101] Vin IV 49,28 reports their reasoning to have been based on the observation that other elders gained the four requisites by exhorting the nuns. The same idea also underlies the background narration to one of the pācittiya rules at Vin IV 57,27, which deals with the wrong allegation that monks teach the nuns to get material gains. The narration reports that these allegations, although misrepresenting the intentions of those who taught the nuns, happened because these monks had indeed received an abundance of material gains in recognition of their teachings. So to give teachings to the nuns was apparently a privilege, instead of being a troublesome duty that was best avoided.

Nandaka in Other Passages

Regarding Nandaka himself, although he is not a prominent disciple in the early discourses, he does make an appearance as the speaker of another two discourses in the Aṅguttara-nikāya. In one of these instances he addresses two laymen;[n.49] [102] In AN 3.66 at AN I 193,29 he delivers a talk on the three root defilements to two laymen. in the other he speaks to a group of monks.

The second instance is noteworthy in so far as he gives a rather long teaching to the monks.[n.50] [103] AN 9.4 at AN IV 359,4 reports that, having joined the monks, the Buddha remarked that Nandaka had been speaking for a long time. Next the Buddha joins the monks. After the Buddha has gone again, Nandaka right away starts to talk to the monks once more.[n.51] [104] According to AN 9.4 at AN IV 360,25, soon after the Buddha had left Nandaka addressed the monks again. This does not give the impression that he was too shy to give a talk to other monastics. Instead, judging from the way these discourses depict him, he seems quite happy to give teachings once an opportunity arises.

The Theragāthā also has a set of stanzas by him. These begin with a curse on bad smelling bodies from which nine streams keep flowing.[n.52] [105] Th 279: dhir atthu pūre duggandhe, mārapakkhe avassute, nava sotāni te kāye, yāni sandanti sabbadā, translated by Norman 1969: 33 as "a curse upon bodies, evil-smelling, on Māra's side, oozing; there are nine streams in your body which flow all the time."

According to the commentarial narration, at the time of speaking these stanzas he had been on the streets of the town begging for food. His reaction was occasioned by a chance meeting with his former wife, who on seeing him had smiled at him with a defiled mind.[n.53] [106] Th-a II 116,28: theraṃ sāvatthiyaṃ piṇḍāya carantaṃ aññatarā purāṇadutiyikā itthi kilesavasena oloketvā hasi. Thus, according to the commentarial narration, Nandaka's curse was in reply to this smile.

A to some degree related nuance comes up in the commentary on the Nandakovāda-sutta, which reports that Nandaka had been unwilling to teach the nuns because these had been the members of his harem in a previous life.[n.54] [107] Ps V 93,8. After he had found out about their previous relationship through recollecting his past lives, he became apprehensive that another monk, endowed with similar abilities, might also find out. If such a monk should then see him teaching the nuns, that monk might assume that Nandaka was still unable to separate himself from his former concubines.

This explanation appears a little contrived because, judging from the way the discourses describe recollection of past lives in general (leaving aside the special abilities of the Buddha), such recollection seems to be about remembering one's own lives, not those of others. Thus for another monk to recollect Nandaka's past-life association with the nuns, this other monk would presumably also have to have lived at the same time and spot to have been able to witness it at that time in the past. Alternatively, the other monk might be able to read the mind of others and thereby come to find out by directly observing Nandaka's mind. Yet in such a case the monk in question would also be able to observe that Nandaka's mind was without any attachment to the nuns, so that the projected misunderstanding of Nandaka's motives for associating with the nuns would not have arisen in the first place.

Leaving aside the somewhat artificial idea of another monk knowing the past-life relationships between Nandaka and the nuns, however, the remainder of the commentary does offer a meaningful indication which is in line with what can be deduced from Nandaka's stanzas in the Theragāthā and the commentarial gloss on them.

Judging from the narration in the Theragāthā commentary, Nandaka reacted rather strongly to being smiled at by his former wife. Now for her to smile at him, even with a defiled mind, is perhaps not so outrageous, given that she had been his wife before. Once he had gone forth, her chances at getting another husband in ancient Indian society would have been rather slim.[n.55] [108] Young 2004: 87, commenting on women being left behind when men go forth as Buddhist monks, explains that "women deserted by their husbands were left in a highly questionable and vulnerable state … without a husband a woman was nothing; she was blamed by his family for not keeping him at home, and due to her possible inauspiciousness she was excluded from the round of celebratory events that make up family life." Hence "tales of wives trying to tempt their monk-husbands to come back home" reflect understandable attempts "on the part of the women to end their ambiguous status as pseudowidows." That is, having rightfully had amorous relationships with him earlier and being quite probably condemned to a life of celibacy without having chosen it herself, for her to feel some sensual longing on seeing him would be, after all, understandable.

According to the commentarial explanation, at the time of this encounter Nandaka was already an arahant.[n.56] [109] Th-a II 116,22; cf. also Ps V 95,22 (commenting on MN 146), where he is also introduced as an arahant. It is not easy to reconcile his strong reaction to a smile from his former wife with the aloofness and detachment that the discourses usually associate with an arahant. This indicates that his reaction would not have been motivated by fear of temptation. Besides, the encounter took place out on the roads of the town, so that at least at that moment it could not have posed a real threat to Nandaka's celibacy. Hence for Nandaka to be depicted as reacting like this presents him as someone who had a perhaps excessive concern that others may witness the scene and misunderstand what was going on. Hence he felt it important to make a public display of his total disinterest in the charms of female bodies.

The same reasoning would also explain his reluctance to teach the nuns. Whether or not there was a danger that others might misinterpret his teaching the nuns, which after all was just fulfilling his duty, given Nandaka's apparent concern not to be mistaken for one who has sensual weaknesses, he might have preferred to avoid any association with females as much as possible.

The Nandakovāda-sutta's Portrayal of the Nuns

This leads me onto the second topic I intend to discuss, namely the way the nuns are portrayed in the parallel versions. Notably, the way Nandaka is depicted in the Theravāda tradition as a monk with a somewhat negative or at least defensive attitude towards women seems to be similar to the attitude responsible for how the Nandakovāda-sutta has been handed down in the Theravāda tradition. As mentioned earlier, some of the variations between the Nandakovāda-sutta and its parallels are rather minor, but taken together they do convey a distinct impression. In what follows I examine these variations in the order in which they appear in the discourse.

1) Introducing the Nuns

The Saṃyukta-āgama discourse begins by mentioning the presence of several senior nuns at the nunnery and then gives their names. The same is the case in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.[n.57] [50] Cf. above note 8. The Nandakovāda-sutta, however, does not mention these nuns. Listing the names of these nuns and describing them as "great disciples" is obviously a way of introducing the setting of the discourse that is more favourable to the nuns.

2) Posture Adopted by Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī

When meeting the Buddha, according to the report given in the Saṃyukta-āgama and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī sits down, whereas in the Nandakovāda-sutta she remains standing and speaks to the Buddha while remaining in the standing position.[n.58] [51] Cf. above note 10.

Now, the posture adopted during a conversation serves as an expression of respect and establishes the position of the participants in that conversation within the hierarchically structured system of relationships prevalent in ancient Indian society.[n.59] [52] The importance given to posture finds a reflection, for example, in one of the minor rules for monks, according to which a monk who is standing himself should not teach someone who is seated; cf. Vin IV 204,33. According to the survey in Pachow 1955: 205, this particular observance is common to the different Vinaya traditions. In the early discourses, the description of the posture adopted by someone who comes to speak to the Buddha acts as a signifier, providing the audience with a hint about the kind of person that has come and about what type of action can be expected of him or her.

Comparing the present instance with other discourses in the same Majjhima-nikāya,[n.60] [53] The formulaic descriptions of how someone approaches the Buddha differ at times between Pāli Nikāyas; cf. Allon 1997b: 39 or Anālayo 2007d: 10f. Therefore contextualizing indications made in MN 146 requires in particular a comparison with other occurrences of related motifs or forms of behaviours in the same Majjhima-nikāya collection. in the overwhelming majority of cases when monastics or lay disciples approach the Buddha, they sit down. In a few instances, the standing posture is taken by those who have just come to deliver a short message.[n.61] [54] MN 85 at MN II 97,13, MN 91 at MN II 142,6, and MN 128 at MN III 153,1, where the last instance is the only case I have been able to locate in the Majjhima-nikāya where a Buddhist monastic remains standing while speaking to the Buddha. In several other cases, the standing posture is adopted by outsiders who do not consider themselves to be disciples of the Buddha, often by those who have come with the intention to challenge him.[n.62] [55] MN 18 at MN I 108,24, MN 51 at MN I 339,8 (which is particularly remarkable as it describes a non-Buddhist wanderer remaining in the standing posture even though a lay disciple of the Buddha who arrived together with him had already sat down), MN 54 at MN I 359,17, MN 56 at MN I 372,2, MN 74 at MN I 497,24, and MN 80 at MN II 40,5. My survey only takes into account human visitors approaching the Buddha. The adoption of postures differs for devas, who are generally depicted as remaining standing when conversing with humans.

Because Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī has come for a talk on the Dharma, her function goes beyond merely acting as a messenger. That she is nevertheless depicted in the standing posture while speaking to the Buddha presents her in a way that is elsewhere associated with outsiders who have come to challenge the Buddha.

Although this is a rather minor point, given the function of such small signifiers in the context of a narration this does invest her behaviour with a subtle nuance of inappropriateness or even challenge. In other words, to an audience accustomed to the mode of narration adopted in the early discourses this would be giving the impression that there is something a bit wrong with her behaviour, in the way it is depicted in the Nandakovāda-sutta.

In contrast, for her to sit down, as she does in the parallel versions, would be normal for a disciple who has come to visit the Buddha in the hope of hearing a discourse from him.

3) The Buddha's Giving of a Talk to the Nuns

According to the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, even without being requested to do so the Buddha gives a talk on the Dharma to Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī and the group of nuns, delighting and inspiring them.

In the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya this is in fact the standard way the Buddha reacts on being visited by Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī and the nuns. Even after he has told the monks that they should take over the task of teaching the nuns in his stead, once Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī and the nuns come into his presence, the Buddha right away gives them a talk himself. Thus he gives a talk to them on four occasions within the time frame set by the narration in the discourse.

In contrast, the Nandakovāda-sutta does not report any teaching given by the Buddha to the nuns, even though Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī three times with slightly varying expressions requests a teaching from him, asking the Buddha to advise the nuns, to instruct them, and to give them a talk on the Dharma.[n.63] [56] Cf. above note 11.

In fact in the Pāli version the Buddha does not even speak to the nuns at all. In reply to Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī's request, the Buddha turns to Ānanda instead. This does convey the impression that he is to some extent giving them the cold shoulder.

Elsewhere in the early discourses, to make three requests is a standard way to express keen interest. The usual pattern in such cases is that, even though the Buddha might hesitate on the first or second instance, once a third request is made he will give a reply or comply to the request.

In the Kukkuravatika-sutta, for example, the Buddha refuses twice to given an answer to an enquiry, as he anticipates that the questioner will be hurt. On being asked a third time, however, he obliges and replies.[n.64] [57] MN 57 at MN I 387,26 and again in reply to a similar query by someone else at MN I 388,27.

The present case differs in as much as Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī makes her three requests in one go, without intervening refusals by the Buddha. Even though the Buddha does not explicitly refuse, he nevertheless does so implicitly by not replying to her at all.

A rather stark impression is conveyed when the Buddha, on being asked with such insistence for a talk on the Dharma, does not even speak to Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī. In this way, the audience of the Nandakovāda-sutta would not fail to get the impression that there appears to be something wrong with her or with her request.

4) The Buddha's Reasons for Not Teaching the Nuns

The Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya report the Buddha's explanation given to the monks that because of his advanced age he is no longer able to teach the nuns, asking them to take over this task.[n.65] [58] Cf. above note 12. This injunction provides a background for the need to have monks instructing the nuns in his stead. Such an explanation is not recorded in the Nandakovāda-sutta, where instead the Buddha, for no apparent reason, just does not comply with Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī's request for a teaching by himself.

5) Timing of the Enquiry Addressed to Ānanda

According to the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, when the Buddha wants to find out from Ānanda which monk has not been taking his turn at teaching the nuns, he at first waits until Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī and the nuns have left his presence.[n.66] [59] Cf. above note 15. In this way, he tactfully avoids addressing the theme of a monk unwilling to teach the nuns in front of Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī and the group of nuns headed by her.

Although the nuns would have been aware of the fact that a monk had not taken his turn at teaching them, it would nevertheless be a polite and thoughtful gesture to avoid discussing this issue right in front of them, which might have been embarrassing for them.[n.67] [60] The importance of avoiding embarrassment in the ancient Indian cultural setting is reflected, for example, in the description of the ordination procedure for nuns in Vin II 271,30, which takes up the problem of discussing personal or intimate matters in the presence of others. As part of this procedure, the candidates are to be asked if they are really women, if they have any disease, whether they are free from debt or obligations, whether they are over twenty years and possess a bowl and robes, etc. On being asked such questions, the prospective nuns are so abashed that they are unable to reply, so that a special procedure has to be devised to enquire from them about such issues in a more private manner. For the same problem when ordaining monks cf. Vin I 93,33. Thus the way the Buddha acts on this occasion can be seen to set an example for the considerate way the nuns should be treated by other monks.

In the Nandakovāda-sutta, however, right after being requested to give a teaching to the nuns, the Buddha asks Ānanda whose turn it is to teach them. Because the text gives no indication that the nuns have left, this exchange with Ānanda apparently takes place still in their presence. That is, not only does the Buddha not speak to the nuns at all, but he even ignores their presence to the extent of discussing a matter right in front of them that in the parallel versions he tactfully takes up once they have left.[n.68] [61] It is only in relation to announcing the attainments of the nuns that MN 146 at MN III 277,9, in agreement with the parallel versions, reports that the Buddha waited until Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī and the nuns had left his presence.

6) Injunction to Nandaka

When telling Nandaka that he should teach the nuns, according to the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya the Buddha sets himself as an example, highlighting that by teaching the nuns Nandaka would be emulating the Buddha.[n.69] [62] Cf. above note 16. This endows the task of teaching the nuns with an air of honour and privilege.

In the Nandakovāda-sutta, the Buddha does not set himself up as an example and instead employs the same string of terms as used by Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī in her initial request to tell Nandaka that he should teach the nuns.[n.70] [63] Cf. above notes 11 and 16 for the same formulation used by Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī when requesting the Buddha to teach and by the Buddha when telling Nandaka that he should teach the nuns. In this way, the Nandakovāda-sutta gives the impression that teaching the nuns is something that the Buddha, on being requested by Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī to undertake himself, prefers to pass on to Nandaka.

7) Mode of Addressing Nandaka

Whereas in the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya the Buddha addresses Nandaka with the personal pronoun "you" or by his name, in the Nandakovāda-sutta he also addresses him with the epithet "brahmin", a laudatory term.[n.71] [64] Cf. above note 16. According to the Apadāna, Nandaka was not a brahmin by birth, hence the use of this term in the present context would be a form of praise.[n.72] [65] In Apadāna stanza 542.14 at Ap II 499,27 Nandaka indicates that in this last birth of his he had been born in a merchant family, pacchime ca bhave dāni jāto seṭṭhikule ahaṃ, so that to call him a brahmin would not reflect his caste. As noted by Horner 1959: 323 note 3, in the present passage in MN 146 the expression brāhmaṇa is used as "a term of high regard". This gives the impression that Nandaka needed to be complimented in order to convince him to teach the nuns. It also to some extent endorses his earlier shirking of this task.

8) Nandaka's Reaction

In the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, on being told by the Buddha that he should teach the nuns, Nandaka remains silent,[n.73] [66] Cf. above note 17. whereas in the Nandakovāda-sutta he replies: "Yes, venerable sir."[n.74] [67] Cf. above notes 17 and 40.

Although this is a rather minor difference, on closer inspection it nevertheless appears to have some significance. In other discourses in the Majjhima-nikāya, monks regularly give an affirmative reply on being asked a question by the Buddha during the course of one of his talks. Instances in the same collection where monks are being reproved by the Buddha differ, however, as the monks will remain silent. In such cases their silence serves as an acknowledgement of the fact that they have done something inappropriate.[n.75] [68] MN 22 at MN I 132,29 and MN 38 at MN I 258,29 report that the monks Ariṭṭha and Sāti remained silent on being reproved for obstinately holding on to wrong views, further describing that they sat with drooping shoulders and kept their head down. In general, silence can have a variety of functions, such as acting as a sign of defeat in a debate situation; or else being a way of expressing approval when being invited to a meal, etc.; cf. also Anālayo 2008f.

Given that Nandaka is being taken to task for having neglected to do his duty, silent acknowledgement would have been quite appropriate to the situation. This is self-evident with the narration according to which the Buddha had personally entrusted the task of teaching the nuns to the monks, giving as the reason his advanced age. By shirking his duty Nandaka would not only have disobeyed his teacher's injunction, but he would also have shown a lack of compassionate concern for the Buddha's advanced age.

For Nandaka to give an affirmative reply, however, conveys the impression that there is nothing really wrong with his having shelved his duty and not taken his turn at teaching the nuns. This impression conforms with the circumstance that the Buddha addresses him with the laudatory term "brahmin".

Yet his conduct appears to be far from praiseworthy not only from the perspective of the background narration in the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. According to the Theravāda Vinaya, a monk who does not instruct the nuns when it is his turn actually commits a light offence of the dukkaṭa type.[n.76] [69] Vin II 264,35.

Although this regulation may well have come into existence after the present occasion, even without explicitly being designated as a dukkaṭa offence it would not seem particularly praiseworthy for a monk to avoid doing what is considered his duty. Elsewhere the discourses reckon doing one's duty in relation to one's monastic companions a praiseworthy quality that leads to communal harmony and makes one worthy of respect.[n.77] [70] DN 33 at DN III 267,20, DN 34 at DN III 290,13, AN 5.86 at AN III 113,17, AN 10.17 at AN V 24,10, AN 10.18 at AN V 27,5, AN 10.50 at AN V 90,17, and AN 11.15 at AN V 338,26.

9) Nandaka's Reception by the Nuns

Once Nandaka arrives at the Rājakārāma, according to the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya the nuns invite him to sit on a prepared seat. The Nandakovāda-sutta adds that they also set out water for him to wash his feet.[n.78] [71] Cf. above note 19.

In the ancient Indian setting, to set out water for washing the feet would be a natural expression of welcome, given that those who arrive would have dirty feet from walking, presumably barefoot, on the dusty roads of India.[n.79] [72] Setting out water for washing the feet is in fact one of the duties of a resident monk on the occasion of the arrival of a visiting monk; cf. Vin II 210,25. Hence the feet need to be washed before sitting down to avoid dirtying the robes and sitting mat. In itself, this action is just as innocuous as the preparation of a seat.

However, another question is whether the reciters of the discourses mention such a detail. In the Majjhima-nikāya, the setting out of water for washing the feet is described several times as a way of welcoming the Buddha who has come to visit some of his monk disciples.[n.80] [73] Those who set out water to receive the Buddha are his five former companions who became his first monks in MN 26 at MN I 171,30 (repeated in MN 85), Anuruddha and his companions in MN 31 at MN I 206,4 (repeated in MN 128), Rāhula in MN 61 at MN I 414,7, and Bhagu in MN 128 at MN III 155,3. The invitation to sit on a prepared seat without a reference to water being set out, however, occurs also on other occasions, which besides the Buddha also involve receiving other monks who have come for a visit.[n.81] [74] Mahāmoggallāna is invited to sit on a prepared seat in MN 37 at MN I 252,27, Ānanda is similarly invited in MN 76 at MN I 514,16 and MN 108 at MN III 7,29. The Buddha is invited to a prepared seat, without any reference to water for washing the feet, in MN 36 at MN I 237,17, MN 71 at MN I 481,27, MN 77 at MN II 2,13, MN 79 at MN II 30,21, and MN 81 at MN II 45,20.

So a reference to setting out water for washing the feet appears to be used elsewhere in the Majjhima-nikāya only to signify the respect expressed for the Buddha on selected occasions. For it to recur also in the present context seems to imply a placing of the nuns at so low a hierarchical level that a monk who comes to teach them should be treated as if he were the Buddha himself.[n.82] [75] That the Buddha was held as worthy of special respect can be seen, for example, in Vin IV 173,10, which reports a complaint about a monk who wore a type of robe that made other monks mistake him from a distance for the Buddha and hence act in a particularly respectful way, which they would not have done if they had recognized him.

10) Previously Developed Understanding of the Nuns

In the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, after each of the doctrinal teachings that Nandaka delivers the nuns indicate that they have already understood that much. This includes their insight into the principle of conditionality, expressed in terms of the arising of this and that factor in dependence on this and that factor.[n.83] [76] Cf. above note 30.

In the Nandakovāda-sutta they make such a remark only in reply to his earlier teachings on the senses, their objects, and the corresponding types of consciousness, but not when it comes to the topic of conditionality.[n.84] [77] MN 146 at MN III 273,35. Because there would have been no reason for them to stop giving the indication they had given in regard to the other teachings with which they were already familiar, this conveys the impression that they had not yet understood this key aspect of the Buddha's teaching on their own (which in view of their previously described level of insight seems improbable).

11) Level of Realization of the Nuns After the First Teaching

The Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya report that, with the first teaching given by Nandaka, the nuns had all become non-returners, an attainment also recorded in a Sanskrit fragment parallel.[n.85] [78] Cf. above note 38. In the Nandakovāda-sutta the Buddha does not make any pronouncement about attainments by the nuns, giving the impression that they may not have reached any particular level of attainment.

12) Nature of the Second Teaching

Regarding the second teaching delivered by Nandaka, the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya simply indicate that he taught the Dharma to the nuns. According to the Nandakovāda-sutta, however, the Buddha had told Nandaka that he should repeat the same teaching to the nuns.[n.86] [79] Cf. above notes 39 and 41.

Now in an oral setting the repetition of an instruction does have its place as a guided form of meditation whose function goes beyond the mere conveying of information. However, when considered together with the absence of a reference to any attainment by the nuns, the impression could easily arise that the nuns were not really up to it and needed to be given the same teaching once more to understand it fully.[n.87] [80] Falk 1989: 162 comments that "the implication is that they were a little on the slow side."

13) Level of Realization of the Nuns After the Second Teaching

The Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya report that with the second teaching given by Nandaka the nuns all reached full awakening.[n.88] [81] Cf. above note 44. According to the Nandakovāda-sutta, however, they had only reached various levels of awakening, with the least developed among them having become a stream-entrant.[n.89] [82] Cf. above note 44.

The presentation in the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya receives an unexpected confirmation from the Pāli commentary on the Aṅguttara-nikāya, according to which with Nandaka's second instruction the nuns had indeed all become arahants.[n.90] [83] Mp I 314,11 explains that with his first teaching Nandaka established all nuns in the attainment of stream-entry, and on hearing his instructions the next day they all reached full awakening, tā punadivase dhammaṃ sutvā sabbā va arahattaṃ pattā. The same is also reported in the commentaries on the Theragāthā and the Therīgāthā.[n.91] [84] Th-a II 116,24 reports that with a single exhortation on an observance day Nandaka caused five hundred nuns to become fully awakened, ekasmiṃ uposathadivase pañca bhikkhūnisatāni ekovāden' eva arahattaṃ pāpesi. Thī-a 136,14 (in the first edition of Thī-a this is on p. 141), after mentioning that Gotamī had already become an arahant earlier, reports that the other five hundred nuns attained the six higher knowledges at the conclusion of Nandaka's exhortation, sesā pana pañcasatā bhikkhuniyo nandakovādapariyosāne chaḷabhiññā ahesuṃ. The same commentary at Thī-a 4,14 mentions their attainment of full liberation, sesā ca pañcasatabhikkhuniyo nandakovādapariyosāne arahattaṃ pāpuṇiṃsu. It is remarkable that these Pāli commentaries should agree with the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya against a Pāli discourse in this respect.

Summary and Assessment

Summing up the results of the above survey, it becomes clear that, even though some of the points mentioned are rather minor and on their own quite insignificant, added together they result in depicting the same event in a different light.

The Nandakovāda-sutta does not allot any special importance to the task of teaching the nuns by having the Buddha set himself up as an example (6). Moreover, Nandaka is addressed with the honorific "brahmin", thereby implicitly endorsing Nandaka's way of acting and also giving the impression that he needs to be given compliments in order to convince him to teach the nuns (7). In reply to being told to take his turn at teaching the nuns, Nandaka's reaction does not convey the impression that he might regret having done something inappropriate (8). In this way Nandaka's shirking his duty of teaching the nuns does not appear as a serious matter in the Nandakovāda-sutta.

The Nandakovāda-sutta indicates that Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī remains standing when speaking to the Buddha (2); and she receives no reply to her request to hear a teaching from the Buddha (3). This presents her in a more unfavourable light, compared to the parallel versions.[n.92] [85] A similar difference in attitude occurs between the Theravāda and Mahāsāṅghika Vinayas. Roth 1970: xl notes that according to the account of the promulgation of rules for nuns in the Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya a misconduct is reported to Mahāprajāpatī Gautamī, who then approaches the Buddha to inform him about it. In this way Mahāprajāpatī Gautamī acts as a mediator between the nuns and the Buddha. In the Theravāda Vinaya, the mediating role is taken not by her, but by monks. This diminishes the importance of the role played by Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī and also more explicitly subordinates the nuns to the monks, in so far as even for reporting another nun's misconduct they need the monks to mediate between them and the Buddha.

The Nandakovāda-sutta does not begin by giving the names of famous and great nun disciples (1). It does not mention the Buddha's advanced age as a reason for his wish to hand over the teaching of the nuns to others (4); nor does the Buddha make a special effort to avoid discussing Nandaka's unwillingness to teach the nuns in front of them (5).

When Nandaka eventually comes, the nuns receive him as if he were the Buddha himself (9). The way they react during his exposition gives the impression that they had not yet developed insight into conditionality (10). With Nandaka's first teaching, no particular attainment of the nuns is reported (11). Even when he repeats precisely the same teaching (12), some of the nuns do not manage to reach the full liberation that they attain in the parallel versions (13).

There can be little doubt that the Theravāda version of events in the Nandakovāda-sutta conveys an attitude towards nuns that is considerably less favourable than the attitude underlying the parallel versions in the Saṃyukta-āgama and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.[n.93] [86] Skilling 2000: 55 draws attention to another instance of disparity of treatment, where the listing of eminent nuns in AN 1.14 at AN I 25,17 mentions thirteen outstanding nuns, whereas its counterpart in EĀ 5.1 to 5.5 at T II 558c21, translated in Anālayo 2014i, lists fifty-one eminent nuns (in the case of monks the ratio is considerably less, as the Ekottarika-āgama lists only about twice as many outstanding monks as the Aṅguttara-nikāya version).

In principle, the presentation in the Nandakovāda-sutta could be the outcome of a later change, or it could represent the more original version. Now the Pāli commentaries obviously contain later material than the discourses. Hence the circumstance that the commentaries to the Aṅguttara-nikāya and the Theragāthā and Therīgāthā report that all nuns became arahants whereas the Pāli discourse mentions a lesser outcome could be taken to imply that a later development has enhanced the abilities of the nuns.

Yet the difference regarding the level of attainment of the nuns is not merely a question of commentary against discourse, because according to the commentary on the Majjhima-nikāya the nuns did not all reach full awakening. The explanation given in this particular commentary indicates that with Nandaka's second teaching some nuns only reached lower stages of awakening.[n.94] [87] Ps V 97,10: sabbapacchimikā sā sotāpannā; cf. also As 229,14, which quotes the Nandakovāda-sutta to the effect that yā pacchimikā bhikkhunī sā sotāpannā. Hence the disagreement regarding their level of attainment is also found between commentaries in the Theravāda tradition. So the significance of the commentaries to the Aṅguttara-nikāya and the Theragāthā and Therīgāthā does not appear to be that they allow us to assign the idea that the nuns became arahants to the commentarial period and therefore to a later stage of development. Rather, their significance lies in the fact that their presentation is in disagreement with the Pāli discourse and with another commentary of the same Theravāda tradition.

The hypothesis that the nuns were only at a later time held to have all reached full awakening would require that either the Theravāda commentarial tradition influenced the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya (and the Sanskrit fragment version), or else these influenced the commentarial tradition preserved in Pāli, because it seems improbable that the same idea arose independently in these different textual traditions.

Although such cross-tradition influence is certainly possible, it would be easier to imagine that the Nandakovāda-sutta underwent a later change in this respect, which then also influenced the commentary on the Nandakovāda-sutta. Given that those who recite the discourse would also be those who transmit the respective commentary, such a change would involve the same reciters, without requiring influence from outside groups. This explanation would be simpler than assuming that an idea arose in one tradition, be this the Theravāda or the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition, and was then taken over in the other.[n.95] [88] For a more detailed study of the close relationship between commentarial exegesis and the transmission of the discourses cf. below p. 441ff. For a survey of differences between the commentaries on various Pāli Nikāyas, probably reflecting preferences and opinions held by the respective reciters, cf. Adikaram 1946/1994: 27–32. On the emergence of differences among groups of reciters cf. also Goonesekera 1968: 689, Dutt 1978: 42, Mori 1990: 127, and Endo 2003a and 2003b.

In its gloss on the attainments of the nuns, the Majjhima-nikāya commentary explains that some of them had from the outset only aspired to lower stages of awakening.[n.96] [89] Ps V 97,12. Hence the image of the full moon, used according to all versions by the Buddha when informing the assembled monks of the level of development of the nuns, is according to the commentarial explanation meant to convey the idea that these aspirations have been fulfilled.[n.97] [90] In MN 146 at MN III 277,10 the image of the full moon illustrates that the intention of the nuns had been fulfilled, whereas in SĀ 276 at T II 75c11 and T 1442 at T XXIII 794a12 as well as D 3 ja 59a4 or Q 1032 nye 56a5 the same motif represents their attainment of full awakening.

This explanation seems somewhat forced, because one would be at a loss to understand why some nuns should only aspire to lower levels of awakening. I am not aware of a precedent for this idea elsewhere in the discourses, in the sense that a monastic who sincerely aspires for liberation (as opposed to going forth for any other motive) should nevertheless from the outset have the wish to attain only a lower stage and would be fully satisfied with that. In a way this results in yet another instance where the nuns are presented in a less favourable light, in that their aspirations are inferior to the normative type of motivation regularly associated with the going forth of monks.

The image of the pure or full moon stands elsewhere in the Pāli canon for those who have reached full awakening.[n.98] [91] Cf. e.g. Sn 637 or Dhp 413, where the moon, qualified as stainless, pure, clear, and unstained, stands for the (true) brahmin who has destroyed delight in existence, nandībhavaparikkhīṇa, a reference that unmistakeably intends an arahant (cf. Pj II 469,13 and Dhp-a IV 192,8, which explain that nandībhavaparikkhīṇa refers to having destroyed craving for the three types of becoming). Another instance can be found in Th 306, which compares one who has destroyed the net of craving and eliminated (faring in) saṃsāra to the moon on a clear full-moon night, expressions that again unmistakeably refer to an arahant. Hence it would be more natural if in the present context it were to carry a similar nuance, that is, if the original point of the moon simile delivered by the Buddha were to illustrate the attainment of full awakening by the nuns. In fact the image of the moon being almost full on the fourteenth and then completely full on the fifteenth day would fit well as an illustration of almost reaching full awakening with the attainment of non-return and then completely reaching full awakening.

Such high attainment would be more natural in view of the fact that the listing of outstanding disciples in the Aṅguttara-nikāya reckons Nandaka foremost in exhorting the nuns.[n.99] [112] AN 1.14 at AN I 25,10; the parallel EĀ 4.5 at T II 558a3 reckons Nandaka to be outstanding for teaching disciples in general. In part this would be a reflection of Nandaka's skill in deploying the similes of the lamp, the tree's shadow, and the powerful simile of the cow and its hide. [n.100] [111] The simile of the different parts of a lamp, although without explicit reference to its light, is a recurrent theme in the Pāli discourses; cf., e.g., MN 140 at MN III 245,5, SN 12.53 at SN II 86,22, SN 12.54 at SN II 87,10, SN 22.88 at SN III 126,20, SN 36.7 at SN IV 213,16, SN 36.8 at SN IV 214,25, and SN 54.8 at SN V 319,31. The simile of the tree's shadow recurs in AN 4.195 at AN II 198,34, which differs from the present instance in as much as the tree is cut up into pieces and these are then burnt, making it impossible for the shadow to arise again. The simile of the cow whose hide has been removed does not seem to occur in the four Pāli Nikāyas and thus appears to be specific to the present discourse. Hence this simile should be attributed to Nandaka's own ability at devising an illustration. A version of this simile can be found in the Yogācārabhūmi, T 1579 at T XXX 748a6, for the Tibetan version cf. Schmithausen 1969: 44,27. At the same time, however, had his teaching not had a powerful transformative effect on the nuns, leading them to full realization, the delivery of these similes would hardly have sufficed to earn him the rank of being outstanding among all monks for instructing the nuns.

The assumption that the original version of the discourse may have been more favourably disposed towards the nuns than the presentation we now have in the Nandakovāda-sutta finds further support in the circumstance that for Nandaka to be presented in a rather positive light does not square well with the fact that he has done something the Vinaya eventually considers an offence.

Moreover, for the Buddha to ignore a sincere request by a group of his monastic disciples for a teaching given by himself is astonishing, given that the very defining mark of a Buddha is that, having reached awakening on his own, he teaches others. The most straightforward interpretation of such difficulties in the Nandakovāda-sutta would be that they arose as unintended by-products of later changes affecting the Pāli version.

The hypothesis of later changes affecting the Pāli version receives further support from another difference between the parallel versions. The Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya report that, when the first teaching is over, Nandaka leaves.[n.101] [92] Cf. above note 37. In the Nandakovāda-sutta, however, Nandaka tells the nuns that it is time for them to go, whereon they leave.[n.102] [93] Cf. above note 37. The same injunction gacchatha bhaginiyo recurs in Vin IV 50,7, Vin IV 51,18, and Vin IV 54,29 in situations where a group of nuns has approached monk(s) in order to receive instructions. This is puzzling, because the Nandakovāda-sutta agrees with its parallels that the venue of Nandaka's teaching was the Rājakārāma, a nunnery to which Nandaka had come himself to instruct the nuns.[n.103] [94] MN 146 at MN III 271,4: yena rājakārāmo ten' upasaṅkami, with its counterparts in SĀ 276 at T II 74a12: 往詣王園, T 1442 at T XXIII 792b23: 向王園寺, and D 3 ja 52a6 or Q 1032 nye 50a1: dge slong ma’i dbyar khang rgyal po’i kun dga’ ra ba ga la ba der song go. The Rājakārāma recurs in SN 55.11 at SN V 360,19 as the venue for a teaching given by the Buddha to the nuns; cf. also Deeg 2005: 293f.

A regulation in the Theravāda Vinaya provides some background to this internal inconsistency. This regulation prohibits monks from going to the nuns' quarters to instruct them.[n.104] [95] Pācittiya rule 23, Vin IV 56,13. The background narration to the promulgation of this rule reports that formerly it had been the custom for exhorting monk(s) to approach the nuns' quarters. A group of notoriously misbehaving monks had on their own gone to the nuns' quarters, without being commissioned to do so, and had given teachings to some of the nuns. When this was reported to the Buddha, he promulgated a regulation that required the nuns to come to the monks' quarters to receive instructions, presumably in order to prevent monks who are not fit to teach the nuns from just going to the nunnery and setting themselves up as teachers on their own.

From the perspective of this regulation, the event narrated in the Nandakovāda-sutta and its parallels would have taken place at a time when this rule had not been promulgated, as all versions record that Nandaka approached the nunnery.[n.105] [96] The instructions given in the present discourse would also be earlier than another regulation found at Vin IV 52,12, according to which a monk who instructs the nuns should begin by ascertaining if they were keeping the eight garudharmas; cf. Hüsken 1997b: 454 and Sujato 2009: 67f. Alternatively, it could also be that such a formulaic beginning of an exhortation given to nuns was not considered worth mentioning and for this reason has not found a place in MN 146 and its parallels. The narration at the conclusion of the Nandakovāda-sutta, however, seems to reflect a time when this rule was already in existence, as its description proceeds as if the nuns had approached the monastery where Nandaka and the Buddha were living in order to receive instructions.

Nandaka's dismissal of the nuns and their departure from the venue of the discourse appear to be a change influenced by a Vinaya rule that would not have been in effect at the time the introductory narration came into being. For reciting monks, who are used to the idea that monks do not go to nunneries to teach, it would be natural to formulate the narration in such a way that Nandaka dismissed the nuns and they thereon left. In contrast, it would be rather improbable for the opposite type of change to occur, once the idea that monks do not go to the nunnery had come to be established. Hence this internal inconsistency in the Nandakovāda-sutta can with high probability be identified as the outcome of a later change.

In sum, it seems to me that the above-mentioned differences between the Nandakovāda-sutta and its parallels point to the conclusion that presenting the nuns in a less favourable light is a later development that affected in particular the Theravāda version of this discourse.[n.106] [97] Thus Falk 1989: 162 is probably right when she takes MN 146 to be a case where "stories initially intended to celebrate the nuns' achievements had been altered to play down their accomplishments." Falk 1989: 163 considers such alterations to be an expression of "two separate and somewhat contradictory understandings of sexual difference … the first is the more authentically Buddhist of the two and by far the more consistent with the greater body of Buddhist teachings", according to which "the process of spiritual development … tends to nullify sexual identifications and limitations." The other model of sexual differences "comes not from the Buddhist tradition itself but from the norms of the surrounding culture", where a woman's function is "that of a child bearer", "her proper place" is with her "husband and surrounded by her children". By taking up the role of a female ascetic a woman is "out of place, she is suspect." Falk 1989: 164 notes that "the early community's efforts to stay at least somewhat in line with the conventional practice of the day" compromised "early Buddhism's rather remarkable tolerance for renunciant women."

Although in the present case this probably later development manifests in a discourse transmitted by the Theravāda tradition, in the case of the Bahudhātuka-sutta and its parallels the Mūlasarvāstivāda version is more negative towards women than the Theravāda discourse. Whereas the Bahudhātuka-sutta stipulates that a woman cannot be a Buddha, according to its Mūlasarvāstivāda parallel a woman also cannot be a Paccekabuddha.[n.107] [98] Anālayo 2009a: 163. The Theravāda version's stipulation would only involve a pronouncement on the ability to exercise the role of a spiritual leader in the ancient Indian context, whereas the Mūlasarvāstivāda version's extension of women's inabilities to the case of a Paccekabuddha results in equating womanhood with inferior spiritual abilities.

This goes to show that the tendency to present women in a less favourable light is not something that can easily be identified with one particular Buddhist tradition. Rather, it seems to be a tendency that in various ways affected the Buddhist traditions in general.