Introduction

In what follows I translate parts of a discourse that throws into relief the expertise of a group of nuns in their satipaṭṭhāna practice. The extant versions are:

• a discourse in the Saṃyutta-nikāya,[n.1] SN 47.10 at SN V 154,20 to 157,30. Be has the title Bhikkhunupassaya-sutta and Ce Bhikkhunūpassaya-sutta.
• a discourse in the Saṃyukta-āgama.[n.2] SĀ 615 at T II 172a26 to b21.

After describing the practice of nuns, both versions continue by instead referring to satipaṭṭhāna practised by monks. This unexpected shift from nuns to monks leads me to examine other discourses in an attempt to ascertain the reasons for this usage. In the course of my exploration, I also take a look at the absence of the term arahantī in Pāli discourses and at an idiomatic use of the proper name of a single person in the plural form. The main point that emerges from what follows is that none of the examples taken up imply a form of gender discrimination.

---

Translation

[Discourse on Nuns][n.3] [29&30] The translated parts are taken from SĀ 615 at T II 172a26 to b10 and 172b13 to b18. The title I supplement follows Akanuma 1929/1990: 65; the original text does not provide a title.

Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was staying at Sāvatthī in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's Park.

At that time the venerable Ānanda put on his robes in the morning and took his bowl to enter the town of Sāvatthī to beg for alms. On the way he thought: "Let me now first go to the monastic dwelling (vihāra) of the nuns." He went to the monastic dwelling of the nuns.[n.4] [31] The parallel SN 47.10 at SN V 154,20 simply reports that Ānanda, taking his robes and bowl, went to a certain monastic dwelling place of nuns.

On seeing from afar that the venerable Ānanda was coming, [172b] the nuns swiftly prepared a seat and invited him to sit down.[n.5] [32] SN 47.10 at SN V 154,22 just notes that Ānanda sat down on a prepared seat. [777] Then the nuns paid respect at the feet of the venerable Ānanda, withdrew to sit to one side, and said to the venerable Ānanda: "We nuns are established in cultivating the four satipaṭṭhānas with a [well] collected mind, and we ourselves know successively more or less [lofty stages]."[n.6] [33] According to SN 47.10 at SN V 154,28, the nuns informed Ānanda that, being well established in the four satipaṭṭhānas, they had reached higher stages of distinction.

The venerable Ānanda said to the nuns: "It is well, it is well, sisters, one should train as you have described. One who is established in cultivating all four satipaṭṭhānas with a well collected mind should in this way know successively more or less [lofty stages]."[n.7] [34] In the corresponding reply in SN 47.10 at SN V 155,2, Ānanda refers to monks and nuns who practise in this way.

Then the venerable Ānanda taught the Dharma in various ways to the nuns. Having taught the Dharma in various ways, he rose from his seat and left.

At that time, after having returned from begging for alms in Sāvatthī, having stored away his robe and bowl, and having washed his feet, the venerable Ānanda approached the Blessed One. He paid respect with his head at the Buddha's feet, withdrew to sit to one side, and fully told the Blessed One what the nuns had said.[n.8] [35] SN 47.10 at SN V 155,12 repeats the full account, instead of abbreviating.

(Ānanda's report of the way of practice of the nuns meets with the Buddha's approval, who then takes this as the occasion for delivering a talk on such practice. The talk proceeds in this way):

"Suppose a monk is established in mindfully contemplating the body as a body.[n.9] [37] In the corresponding statement in SN 47.10 at SN V 155,31, the Buddha also just speaks of a monk contemplating the body, without mentioning nuns. Having become established in mindfully contemplating the body as a body, suppose the body is affected by drowsiness and the mental factors are sluggish.[n.10] [38] SN 47.10 at SN V 156,2 adds that the mind is distracted externally. That monk should arouse inspired confidence by taking hold of an inspiring sign.[n.11] [39] SN 47.10 at SN V 156,4 simply indicates that the monk should direct the mind towards an inspiring sign (nimitta).

"Having aroused a mental state of inspired confidence by recollecting an inspiring sign, his mind becomes delighted. [His mind] having become delighted, joy arises. His mind having become joyous, his body becomes tranquil. His body having become tranquil, he experiences happiness with his whole being.[n.12] [40] My translation is based on the assumption that a reference to 身 here renders an instrumental kāyena in the Indic original, which in such contexts functions as an idiomatic expression to convey personal and direct experience; cf. Schmithausen 1981: 214 and 249 ad. note 50, Radich 2007: 263, Harvey 2009a: 180 note 10, and Anālayo 2011b: 379f note 203. Having experienced happiness with his whole being, his mind becomes concentrated."

---

Study

Even though the first half of the discourse is concerned with the satipaṭṭhāna practice undertaken by nuns, on being informed about this the Buddha describes satipaṭṭhāna practice of monks, without mentioning nuns at all. The same is the case for the Saṃyutta-nikāya parallel.[n.13] [41] Cf. above note 9. This raises the question of whether the shift from nuns to monks is an expression of gender prejudice, in the sense that the actual practice of the nuns does not receive the recognition it deserves.

To explore this further, I turn to the Cetokhila-sutta, a discourse found in the Majjhima-nikāya as well as in the Aṅguttara-nikāya, with parallels in the Madhyama-gama and the Ekottarika-gama.[n.14] [28] I already drew attention to the usage of "monk" instead of "nun" in the Cetokhila-sutta and the Yuganaddha-sutta, in comparison with their parallels, in Anālayo 2008e: 117f. In all versions the Buddha begins a teaching by highlighting the need to overcome two sets of five mental obstructions. I begin with a translation of the relevant part in the Madhyama-gama version:[n.15] [42] The translated part is taken from MĀ 206 at T I 780b17 to b20.

If a monk or a nun has not uprooted five mental defilements and has not become free from five mental bondages, I say that monk or nun will certainly decline in the Dharma. What are the five mental defilements that have not been uprooted? Suppose someone has doubt about the Blessed One and is hesitant …

This presentation appears unproblematic from a gender perspective. The passage sets out by mentioning defilements and bondages that would affect monks just as well as nuns, and then continues to expound the first of these defilements, doubt about the Buddha, by simply speaking of "someone". The same is not the case for the Ekottarika-gama version, which reads as follows:[n.16] [43] The translated part is taken from EĀ 51.4 at T II 817a17 to a20.

If a monk or a nun has not eradicated five mental maladies and has not gotten rid of five mental bondages, that monk or nun day and night will decline and not grow in wholesome states. [780] What are the five mental maladies that have not been eradicated? In this way a monk has doubt in his mind in relation to the Tathāgata …

In the Ekottarika-gama version the passage also sets out by mentioning a problem that can affect monks just as well as nuns. But when it comes to the actual exposition, it only envisages a monk having doubt about the Buddha.[n.17] [44] The passage might at first sight appear ambiguous, since the occurrence of 比丘 could in principle also be rendering a vocative bhikkhave, as a result of which the discourse would then not specify the gender of the one who has doubt. This seems to me to be an improbable reading, however, since the preceding part does not employ any vocative and the Buddha begins directly with the phrase "If a monk or a nun …". This makes it safe to conclude that in the present case the occurrence of 比丘 does not render a vocative, but rather the nominative bhikkhu (or whatever Indic equivalent was found in the original underlying the translation of the Ekottarika-āgama). The same pattern holds for the rest of the Ekottarika-gama discourse, where in the case of each mental obstruction only a monk is mentioned.

On a literal reading of the Ekottarika-gama exposition, one would have to conclude that it considers mental obstructions to be occurring only in the case of monks. Since nuns are not mentioned, it would follow that from the perspective of this discourse they do not experience doubt about the Buddha or any other of the mental maladies and mental bondages discussed in the discourse.

Needless to say, such a reading is made impossible by the introductory phrase, which explicitly states that these two sets of five obstructions need to be overcome by both monks and nuns, not only by monks.

A similar contrast between the introductory statement and the body of the exposition can also be seen in the Aṅguttara-nikāya version, where the relevant passage proceeds in this way:[n.18] [45] The translated part is taken from AN 10.14 at AN V 17,16 to 17,21.

Monks, whatever monk or nun has not abandoned the five kinds of mental barrenness and not cut off the five bondages of the mind, of him deterioration in wholesome states is to be expected, come day, come night, not growth. What are the five kinds of mental barrenness that he has not abandoned? Here, monks, a monk has doubt about the teacher and hesitation …

In this passage the use of the masculine singular genitive tassa, which I have translated as "of him", is already found in the introductory phrase. This is so even though it follows a reference to "a monk or a nun". This shift becomes more explicit when it comes to expounding the first mental barrenness, where the exposition uses only the term bhikkhu. On adopting a prima facie reading in the case of this presentation, one would have to conclude not only that monks stand alone in having doubt, but also that it is only for monks that doubt and the other mental obstructions lead to deterioration instead of growth. Clearly, such a reading fails to make sense.

Besides the Aṅguttara-nikāya discourse, another version of the discourse can be found in the Majjhima-nikāya of the same Pāli canon. The relevant part reads as follows:[n.19] [46] The translated part is taken from MN 16 at MN I 101,5 to 101,10.

Monks, whatever monk has not abandoned the five kinds of mental barrenness and not cut off the five bondages of the mind, [782] that he should come to prosperity, growth, and abundance in this Dharma and discipline, that is impossible.

What are the five kinds of mental barrenness that he has not abandoned? Here, monks, a monk has doubt about the teacher and hesitation …

So here the nuns are not mentioned at all, right from the outset. Had this discourse been from a different reciter tradition, one might even wonder if this expresses an even stronger gender bias, in the sense of discrimination against male monastics. It consistently takes up only the case of monks having these mental obstructions and does not envisage at all that these could be problem for nuns.

The fact that this discourse is part of the same oral transmission of Pāli discourses by Theravāda reciters as the Aṅguttara-nikāya version that does mention nuns points clearly in a different direction. The solution to the conundrum posed by the examples surveyed so far is simply that the term bhikkhu (and its equivalents) does not automatically restrict an exposition to male monastics alone, but can rather act as an umbrella term that includes all monastics independent of their gender or level of ordination.[n.20] [47] A similar conclusion has recently been suggested by Ānandajoti 2014: 4, as in MN 146 at MN III 275,26 a teaching given to nuns on the development of insight describes the cultivation of the awakening factors by a monk only, making it clear that "here the word bhikkhu must include the nuns he is addressing and encouraging with the Dhamma talk, therefore … when bhikkhu is said in the discourses it should be taken as referring to both male and female renunciants." The same has already earlier been pointed out for the vocative form bhikkhave by Kusumā 1987/2010: 42. For a comparable pattern in brahminical text cf. McGee 2002: 36f. In fact at times the usage of the term bhikkhu may not even intend to refer only to monastics, but may also include laity.

Thus it would not be correct to assume that, e.g., because the instructions in the Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta are addressed to monks, for example, it follows that during the early period of Buddhism only monks were expected to engage in mindfulness practice.[n.21] [49] Pace Wilson 2014: 71 and 21, who comments that "the Satipatthana Sutta and the other main mindfulness sources of the Pali Canon are notably male: delivered by a male Buddha to male monastics" and "in this classic presentation mindfulness is taught to monks, not the general Buddhist community." That lay practice of mindfulness is not just a recent phenomena could be seen, for example, in MN 51 at MN I 340,13, where a lay disciple describes his satipaṭṭhāna practice in front of the Buddha as being undertaken with a "well established mind", supaṭṭhitacitta, an expression that points to a considerable degree of proficiency in such practice. Other examples would be SN 47.29 at SN V 177,18 and SN 47.30 at SN V 178,6, which feature lay practitioners of the four satipaṭṭhānas; the same is also reported in a parallel to SN 47.30, SĀ 1038 at T II 271a17. I already drew attention to these Pāli discourses and to the fact that satipaṭṭhāna instructions were not meant to exclude laity in Anālayo 2003: 275f. The same is also the position taken in the commentary; cf. Ps I 241,2.

The functioning of the term bhikkhu as an umbrella term can also be seen in the Yuganaddha-sutta and its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel. In both versions Ānanda is the speaker. Here is an extract from the Saṃyukta-āgama version:[n.22] [50] The translated part is taken from SĀ 560 at T II 146c22 to c25.

If a monk or a nun declare themselves in front of me, I will approve and rejoice, and then enquire which of these four paths they pursued. What are the four?

Suppose a monk or a nun, while sitting [in meditation], in this way settle the mind, well settle the mind, definitely settle the mind, and train the mind in tranquillity and insight …

The discourse continues with more details on this particular path and then describes another three paths adopted by "monks or nuns" who declare themselves in front of Ānanda, that is, who in his presence proclaim to have reached awakening. The corresponding exposition in the Aṅguttara-nikāya parallel reads as follows:[n.23] [51] AN 4.170 at AN II 157,1 to 157,5.

Friends, whatever monk or nun declares to have reached arahantship in my presence, they all do so by these four paths,[n.24] [52] My translation as four "paths" follows Be, Ce, and Se: maggehi; Ee instead refers to four "factors", reading: aṅgehi; cf. also Bodhi 2012: 1706 note 857. or by a certain one among them. What are the four? Here, friends, a monk cultivates insight preceded by tranquillity …

The Aṅguttara-nikāya discourse continues its description of all four paths by mentioning only a monk. In its concluding statement about these four paths, however, the nuns are mentioned again.[n.25] [53] AN 4.170 at AN II 157,24.

The explanations given on each of these four paths to full awakening are as relevant for nuns as they are for monks. The introductory phrase in both versions makes this quite clear. Hence the difference between the two versions, where the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse continues to speak throughout of "a monk or a nun", whereas the Aṅguttara-nikāya version only speaks of "a monk" in its actual exposition, is a formal difference only, without deeper implications. In the Aṅguttara-nikāya discourse the term bhikkhu simply acts as an umbrella term.

The Term arahantī

Another noteworthy aspect of the above presentation in the Yuganaddha-sutta and its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel is that the two versions clearly agree in including nuns on a par with monks when it comes to making a declaration of attainment, specified in the Aṅguttara-nikāya discourse to be a declaration of having become an arahant.

The Yuganaddha-sutta and its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel do not stand alone in offering such a clear affirmation of the ability of nuns to reach the highest goal. Such ability is a recurring topic in the early discourses.

A discourse in the Saṃyutta-nikāya and its Saṃyukta-āgama parallels enunciate the basic principle that women just as well as men can reach the final goal.[n.26] [54] SN 1.46 at SN I 33,11 and its parallels SĀ 587 at T II 156a22 and SĀ2 171 at T II 437a24; translated in Anālayo 2009a: 168. The same collections report the confident reply by a nun to a challenge by Māra, proclaiming that gender has no say in matters of meditation.[n.27] [55] SN 5.2 at SN I 129,23 and its parallels SĀ 1199 at T II 326b6 and SĀ2 215 at T II 454a9; for a translation of SĀ 1199 cf. above p. 208ff. This is only one in a series of discourses spoken by highly accomplished nuns who selfconfidently defy challenges by Māra.

The ability of women to become arahants also features prominently as an argument for founding an order of nuns in a range of Vinayas and discourses.[n.28] [57] Discourse versions: AN 8.51 at AN IV 276,10, MĀ 116 at T I 605a13 (translated in Anālayo 2011d), T 60 at T I 856a11, and T 1463 at T XXIV 803b10 (in MĀ 116 and T 60, as well as in T 1451, this affirmation takes the form of a question by Mahāpajāpatī, which the Buddha's reply implicitly acknowledges). Vinaya versions: T 1428 at T XXII 923a24, Roth 1970: 13,5, T 1421 at T XXII 185c17, T 1451 at T XXIV 350b15, and Vin II 254,33. This indication finds confirmation in the Mahāvacchagotta-sutta and its parallels, according to which over five hundred nuns had become arahants.[n.29] [58] MN 73 at MN I 490,24 and its parallels SĀ 964 at T II 246c14 and SĀ2 198 at T II 446b13; translated in Anālayo 2009a: 171f. The listing of outstanding disciples in the Aṅguttara-nikāya and its Ekottarika-āgama parallel corroborate the same, mentioning a considerable number of nuns by name who had reached the final goal.[n.30] [59] For a detailed study cf. Anālayo 2014i.

Some such references are only found in Pāli sources. Thus a discourse in the Aṅguttara-nikāya with no known parallel reports devas visiting the Buddha to attest to the reaching of arahantship of certain nuns, an encounter the Buddha then repeats in front of the monks.[n.31] [60] AN 7.53 at AN IV 75,4. The Therīgāthā features highly accomplished nuns, a particularly noteworthy example being its report of the attainment of arahantship by thirty nuns.[n.32] [61] Thī 120f. In sum, it seems clear that in early Buddhist thought the ability of nuns to reach arahantship is well established and accepted.

Findly (1999: 76), however, holds that women "were not granted arahant status by virtue of the prevailing social standards". According to her research (1999: 58), "all the individuals to whom the term arahant is applied in the early Pali canon are men. There is not a single case of the term being applied definitively to a specific woman in the Vinaya (disciplinary texts) or the Nikāyas (texts of the Buddha's sermons)." This leads her (1999: 73) to the assumption that, even though the ability of women to reach the final goal is regularly affirmed,[n.33] [62] Findly 1999: 68f surveys several instances where individual nuns are shown to have reached the final goal in terms other than using the epithet arahant and also mentions some passages that affirm the ability of women in general. The inclusion of the last of these references, Ud 7.10 at Ud 79,20, appears to be based on a misunderstanding, however, since it only concerns various levels of realization up to non-return reached by lay women, not the attainment of arahantship; on laity and the attainment of arahantship cf. in more detail Anālayo 2010h: 61f note 2 and above p. 146f note 19. "women renunciants are denied designation by the title because donors are less enthusiastic about giving to arahant petitioners who also happen to be women."

Now according to the Vinaya, fully ordained monastics are prohibited from communicating their status as arahants to those who are not fully ordained.[n.34] [63] Cf. pācittiya 8 in Vin IV 25,22, concerned with announcing uttarimanussadhamma to someone who has not received higher ordination; for a comparative study of the parallels in the Vinayas of other schools cf. Pachow 1955: 124f and on the expression uttarimanussadhamma cf. Anālayo 2008g. This makes it improbable that the term arahant as part of a self-declaration of attainment could have served as a marker to inspire lay donors to give offerings.[n.35] [64] Findly 1999: 70 supports her argument by noting that "several times in the Theragāthā, bhikkhus say 'I am an arahant, worthy of gifts'", and refers in her notes 77 and 78 to Th 296, Th 336, Th 516, to which she adds AN 4.374 and AN 5.23 as other occurrences found "elsewhere in the canon". In view of the above-mentioned Vinaya stipulation, however, these stanzas in the Theragāthā could not have been addressed to lay followers living at the same time as the monks who spoke the respective stanza, as this would amount to presenting arahants as breaking a pācittiya rule, something that can safely be set aside as a highly improbable interpretation of these stanzas. The first of the references given to the Aṅguttara-nikāya appears to be wrong (4.374 must refer to volume and page, as in Ee the Fours only go up to discourse number 271; AN IV 374 has no reference to worthiness of gifts at all). The other reference to the Aṅguttara-nikāya (AN 10.16 at AN V 23,1) lists ten people worthy of gifts: a Tathāgata and nine types of disciple at various levels of progress. This passage clearly correlates worthiness of gift with spiritual progress, without introducing any gender distinction. It thus indicates the precise opposite of Findly's conclusions. Similar listings of various persons considered worthy of gifts can be found in DN 23 at DN III 253,27 and DN III 255,3, AN 2.4 at AN I 63,6, AN 7.14 at AN IV 10,21, AN 7.16 at AN IV 13,10, AN 7.80 at AN IV 145,16, AN 8.59 at AN IV 292,8, AN 9.10 at AN IV 373,1, and Sn 227. All of these passages consistently relate worthiness of gifts to accomplishment at various levels of realization, without the slightest hint at any type of gender discrimination.

Moreover, the masculine form arahant is also not applied in the Pāli discourses or in the Vinaya to Sāriputta, for example, the foremost disciple while the Buddha was alive. The same holds for Mahākassapa, just to give one more example, who took on a central role in the monastic community right after the Buddha's demise.

This does not mean that the status of being an arahant was denied to these two outstanding monks or that they were not thought to be worthy of offerings. Instead, it is simply a chance result of the fact that the status of being an arahant finds expression in various alternative phrases.

An expression used frequently in Pāli texts specifies arahant status with the indication that the influxes (āsava) have been eradicated. Such a specification is indeed used in relation to Sāriputta and Mahākassapa,[n.36] [65] Sāriputta's attainment of full awakening is described in terms of his being free from the āsavas in MN 74 at MN I 501,5 (cf. also MN 111 at MN III 28,26) and Th 996; for the same in relation to Mahākassapa cf. SN 16.9 at SN II 214,22, SN 16.10 at SN II 271,14, and Th 1061. Although other expressions are also used to express their attainment of full liberation, as far as I am able to ascertain neither of these two monks is explicitly qualified as an arahant in the Pāli discourses or in the Pāli Vinaya. as well as in relation to a number of named nuns.[n.37] [66] References to nuns mentioned by name and qualified as being free from the āsavas can be found in, e.g., Thī 4 (Tissā), Thī 126 (Candā), Thī 181 (Uttarā), Thī 336f (Sundarī), Thī 364 (Subhā Kammāradhītā), and Thī 389 (Subhā Jīvakambavanikā), leaving aside Thī 121, where the same is used in relation to thirty unnamed nuns. Needless to say, one who has eradicated the influxes is as worthy of offerings as anyone who is explicitly designated with the epithet arahant.[n.38] [67] The status of being free from the āsavas is ascribed in SN 5.3 at SN I 130,23 to Kisāgotamī with the help of the expression viharāmi anāsavā. This expression has a counterpart in viharāmi anāsavo found precisely in Th 336 mentioned above in note 35 (cf. also Th 47). Therefore, just as the monk speaker of Th 336 is worthy of offerings because he dwells without influxes, so too Kisāgotamī must be considered worthy of offerings.

Contrary to the suggestion by Findly, in at least one case an individual nun is explicitly designated as an arahant, together with her son. The passage occurs in the Vinaya as part of the Sudinna narrative that forms the background for the promulgation of the pārājika regulation against sexual intercourse.[n.39] [68] For a study of the Sudinna episode cf. Anālayo 2012a. The passage mentions Sudinna, his wife, and his son Bījaka, before indicating that "at a later time the two went forth from home to homelessness and realized arahantship".[n.40] [69] Vin III 19,11.

Findly (1999: 59 note 8) finds the passage ambiguous, since according to her it could intend father and son. Hence she concludes, setting aside the indications provided by Horner (1938/ 1982: 34 note 1) and Malalasekera (1937/1995: 293), that "the ambiguity of the construction precludes the definitive attribution of the title arahant to Bījaka's mother."

This seems to be the result of a misunderstanding of the narrative context. Already at the time of fathering Bījaka, Sudinna had been a monk. Thus he had gone forth from home to homelessness a long time before his son could ever do so. As Sudinna was the monk responsible for occasioning a rule against sexual intercourse, he was not punished and thus was not in any need to ordain again.[n.41] [70] This follows a basic principle enunciated explicitly at the end of the exposition of the first pārājika in Vin III 33,32: anāpatti … ādhikammikassā ti, according to which the original perpetrator is not guilty precisely because up to that point no corresponding rule had been promulgated. Therefore the one who occasions a rule is invariably exempt from punishment. Therefore the passage describing a going forth of two who then in turn become arahants can only intend the mother and the son, as in fact indicated in the commentary.[n.42] [71] Sp I 215,24 explains that the reference to the two who went forth and became arahants points to Bījaka and his mother. Clarke 2014: 192 note 99 observes that parallel passages in the Dharmaguptaka, Mahīśāsaka, Mūlasarvāstivāda, and Sarvāstivāda Vinayas only mention the son's attainment of arahantship; cf. T 1428 at T XXII 570a28, T 1421 at T XXII 3a29, T 1442 at T XXIII 629a15, and T 1435 at T XXIII 1b16. Elsewhere, however, the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, Dutt 1984a: 22,9, uses the expression arahantinī (already noted by Edgerton 1953/1998: 67 and Finnegan 2010: 200 note 10); for a study of arahatīs cf. also Feer 1883. The Mahāsāṅghika and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas preserved in Chinese also refer to arahantīs; cf. T 1425 at T XXII 417a3 and 465b22 as well as T 1451 at T XXIV 368b28: 阿羅漢尼.

Turning to Jain texts by way of providing some contextualization in the ancient Indian setting, Roth (1983: 48) notes that, from the moment the female saint Mallī is explicitly qualified as an arahant, the Nāyādhammakahāo switches to employing masculine forms to refer to her, even though she is still a woman. Roth (1983: 139 note 92) explains that even today Jains use masculine forms when addressing a woman in order to express reverence.

In sum, the rare application of the term arahant to women in Pāli discourse and Vinaya literature needs not be seen as an attempt to deprive fully awakened nuns of their worthiness to receive offerings from faithful donors.

Proper Names

Returning to the nominative "monk", in support of the suggested function of this term as an umbrella term, I now examine some instances of the vocative of proper names.

Several Pāli discourses attest to the expression vo ānanda, used by the Buddha when giving a teaching in the presence of his chief attendant.[n.43] [9] Cf., e.g., DN 16 at DN II 138,23. The pronoun vo, the enclitic of tumhe, corresponds to the plural "you". In this way, the combination of the plural "you" with the singular name Ānanda indicates that the teaching was addressed to the Buddha's attendant and at the same time to whoever else happened to be part of the audience of that particular teaching.

When the construction vo followed by a proper name is used for someone who represents a specific group, the proper name itself can also take the plural form. This is the case for Anuruddha on occasions when he is addressed together with his close companions. Here is one such passage from the Naḷakapāna-sutta, which reports the Buddha deciding to ask a question of Anuruddha and his companions:[n.44] [10] MN 68 at MN I 463,11 to 463,14.

Then the Blessed One had this thought: "What if I now question those clansmen?" Then the Blessed One addressed the venerable Anuruddha: "Anuruddhas, do you (plural) delight in the holy life?"

The same type of usage can also be found in the Cūḷagosinga-sutta and the Upakkilesa-sutta. Each of these two discourses reports the Buddha addressing Anuruddha and his companions Nandiya and Kimbila with the plural form anuruddhā, "Anuruddhas".[n.45] [11] MN 31 at MN I 206,9 and MN 128 at MN III 155,34 (giving the first occurrence of the plural form, which continues throughout the respective discourses). This form of address is clearly not meant to exclude the other two.

The same type of usage recurs in relation to Sāriputta in the Pāli Vinaya, taking the form sāriputtā. In what follows I translate two examples. The first concerns the need to deal with the misbehaviour of the monks Assaji and Punabbasuka, on being informed of which the Buddha addresses Sāriputta and Mahāmoggallāna:[n.46] [12] Vin II 12,29 to 12,32; the same recurs at Vin III 182,34.

[The Blessed One] addressed Sāriputta and [Mahā]moggallāna: "Sāriputtas, you (plural) go and, having gone to Kīṭāgiri, carry out an act of banishment from Kīṭāgiri against the monks Assaji and Punabbasuka." [769]

The second instance is related to Devadatta. The Buddha has just been informed that the schismatic Devadatta has gathered a substantial following of monks, whereupon the Buddha asks Sāriputta and Mahāmoggallāna to bring these monks back:[n.47] [13] Vin II 199,18 to 199,21.

"Sāriputtas, would you (plural) not have compassion for those newly ordained monks? Sāriputtas, you (plural) go, before those monks fall into trouble and misfortune." Having heard the Blessed One, Sāriputta and [Mahā]moggallāna [said]: "Very well, venerable sir."

Clearly in this instance, too, the proper name of a single person is used in the plural form to express that the form of address is not meant in an exclusive manner.[n.48] [14] Warder 1963/1991: 165 note 4 comments, in relation to another such instance, where the plural vāseṭṭhā (found in Ce and Se, and noted as a variant in the Ee edition at DN III 81 note 1) forms the way of addressing the two brahmin friends Vāseṭṭha and Bhāradvāja, that this is a case of the "vocative plural, the second name being understood as included in the first." The choice of Sāriputta over Mahāmoggallāna reflects the fact that Sāriputta was considered the chief disciple of the Buddha and thus more prominent than other eminent disciples.[n.49] [15] According to Sn 557, Sāriputta kept rolling the wheel of Dharma set in motion by the Buddha, wherefore Ud 2.8 at Ud 17,29 and Th 1083 reckon him the "general of the Dharma". In this way, a group of two or more can be referred to by using a plural form of the name of the most eminent member in the group.

The case of Sāriputta and Mahāmoggallāna also shows that such usage need not be discriminatory. The fact that Mahāmoggallāna is not explicitly mentioned does not imply that the Buddha favoured Sāriputta over Mahāmoggallāna, or that Mahāmoggallāna's abilities did not receive their deserved recognition and he was slighted at the expense of Sāriputta. Instead, it only reflects the fact that, by directly addressing those higher in the hierarchy, those not explicitly mentioned are also included.

Such usage is not confined to the Theravāda Vinaya extant in Pāli, but can also be found in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya preserved in Tibetan translation. An example occurs as part of a report on how five hundred nuns, who are followers of Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, ask the Buddha to allow them to enter Nirvāṇa. Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī has already made such a request and received permission. In reply to the request made by her five hundred followers, the Buddha queries:

Gautamīs, do you say that in order to enter Nirvāṇa?[n.50] [8] D 6 tha 111b6 or Q 1035 de 107a4: gau ta mī dag. In the Chinese counterpart, T 1451 at T XXIV 248b22, the Buddha uses only the address "you" (plural), 汝等, not a proper name. For more detailed studies of the tale of Mahāpajāpatī and her followers wishing to enter Nirvāṇa cf. Anālayo 2015d and Dhammadinnā 2015.

In this case, the use of the proper name comes to embrace a large following, showing that this kind of usage was not confined to small groups as in the preceding examples.

The same pattern explains why the term monk can be used as an umbrella term that covers nuns. This reflects the fact that in ancient Indian society a male stands in a higher position than a female in any hierarchical order, be this in the lay or the monastic sphere. In this way, addressing the one or those in the highest position suffices to address the whole group, be this a hierarchy based on gender, on age of ordination, or on any other principle.[n.51] In the case of teachings to a lay audience, Kelly 2011: 15 notes that the discourses "simply record the main interlocutor with the Buddha as the person with the highest status in society, most frequently a man, even though many women may also have been in attendance." Such usage does not imply that a teaching addressed to "monks" is only meant for fully ordained male monastics.