Vutthapana and Upasampada 

29/9/2007                                                                                                                        Bhikkhu Sujato


This essay is written to address a number of technical issues regarding bhikkhuni ordination. It has three main purposes. Firstly, to clear up my own understanding of this process, especially since I am supporting the establishment of a bhikkhuni Sangha and should be versed in the issues before going ahead with ordination. Secondly, to address various questions of detail that have arisen in discussion, but for which no entirely clear and satisfactory answer had been given. This includes particularly the nature of the brahmacaryopasthāna in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya and its relation with the other Vinayas. Finally – but perhaps most importantly – I believe that the bhikkhuni Vinaya holds many undiscovered clues as the the historical evolution of the Buddhist scriptures. It is, in part, an outsider's text, complied and passed down among the bhikkhunis, and insulated to some degree from the mainstream redaction process controlled by the bhikkhus. This applies particularly to the bhikkhuni patimokkha, which would have been recited among the bhikkhunis each fortnight, with no bhikkhus present. It is thus not surprising that in this text we meet important terms that are entirely absent from the bhikkhu Vinaya.

The method I use is comparative. I make no assumptions about the relative antiquity or authenticity of any particular Vinaya tradition. I endeavour to cover all the different Vinayas as best I can, given my limited knowledge of Chinese, where the vast bulk of the material is preserved. I cannot read Tibetan, so the massive Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya lies beyond the scope of this essay. Nevertheless, from what I can judge, it seems that the main outlines at least are similar to the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya in Chinese translation. In addition to the Pali and Chinese sources, I make extensive use of the Lokuttaravāda Vinaya, of which we are fortunate to possess the complete bhikkhuni section in an excellent edited edition. This Vinaya is very close to the Mahāsaṅghika Vinaya in Chinese translation (Lokuttaravāda is a sub-school of the Mahasaṅghika), and this allows us to observe directly the Chinese translater's work to see how they handled the obscure technical terms we are discussing here. I have attempted to utilize other Sanskrit sources, but have not been able to locate any other material directly bearing on these questions.


Ordination terminology

The normal term used for ordination of a Buddhist monk is upasampadā, both in the patimokkha1 and the kammavācās.2 However, in the context of bhikkhunis we meet an altogether different term, vuṭṭhāpana. The bhikkhuni Vinaya uses this term as well as upasampadā. But the distribution of the terms is not random. In the Pali, vuṭṭhāpana is found only in the patimokkha, and sometimes in the explanations for the patimokkha rules. Upasampadā is used in the rule explanations to gloss vuṭṭhāpana, and is also found in the Bhikkhunikkhandhaka, where we never find vuṭṭhāpana.

My historical hypothesis is that vuṭṭhāpana is the original term used by the bhikkhunis, preserved in the text they themselves preserved and recited every fortnight. But when the bhikkhus came to compile the Vinaya as a whole, they needed to explain what vuṭṭhāpana meant in their own jargon, hence the gloss found in both Pali and Lokuttaravāda Vinayas: 'vuṭṭhāpana means upasampadā.'3 Due to the control the bhikkhus exercized over the redaction process, the bhikkhu terminology gradually supplanted that of the bhikkhunis. Hence the bhikkhuni ordination procedure described in the Bhikkhuni Khandhaka uses upasampadā exclusively, which is one of the signs indicating that text was compiled primarily by the bhikkhus, not the bhikkhunis.

The Lokuttaravāda Vinaya presents us with a similar situation. The only substantive difference is that vuṭṭhāpana does appear in the text where the ordination procedure is given in full. This is comparable to the Bhikkhuni Khandhaka of the Pali; but in the Lokuttaravāda it is given at the start of the Bhikkhuni Vinaya, as part of the explanation of garudhamma 2 following Mahāpajāpati's ordination. This text, like the Pali, does indeed use upasampadā mostly during this section. However there is a preliminary passage where the 'agreement to ordain' (vuṭṭhāpana-sammuti) is asked from the Sangha. This precedes the upasampadā. The key to distinguishing this extra 'motion & three announcements' from the ordination as such is that it occurs before the preceptor is appointed and the candidate is taken outside the Sangha for the instruction in private.

The same procedure occurs in the very closely related Mahāsaṅghika Vinaya. There, after completion of the sikkhamana training, the preceptor requests the 'karma of taking on a disciple'.4 Here the term for 'disciple' (弟子) appears to stand for upasthāpita. This is a recognized rendering according to the Fu Yuan Chinese>Skt vocabulary. However, there is nothing in the Chinese word itself that would allow us to make this connection, since 弟子 is neither phonetically nor etymologically linked with vuṭṭhāpana; only the context permits the connection. This problem in identifying the Chinese rendering of this obscure early term recurs throughout this essay.

A comparable passage is also found in the Pali, but not in the main section on ordination. Rather, it appears in the pācittiya rules dealing with ordination (vuṭṭhāpana), which says one should not give ordination without preliminary agreement.5 First the applicant who has completed the sikkhamānā training requests the Sangha to agree to give the vuṭṭhāpana.6 Then a skilled bhikkhuni should make the formal motion to the Sangha; in the Pali this is a motion and single announcement,7 while in the Lokuttaravāda it is a motion and three announcements.8 This is a sign of greater development in the Lokuttaravāda text; it is also more developed in that the initial request by the candidate who has completed the training is preceded by an announcement by a bhikkhuni to the Sangha that the candidate will ask for the agreement to ordain.9 This rule and explanation is also found in the Lokuttaravāda, but they have taken the extra systematic step of copying the extra procedure into the full ordination text.

Pācittiya rules comparable to this one are found in several other contexts. These are found in different orders and sometimes different wordings in the various Vinayas, and it is no easy matter to appreciate all the ins and outs of the details. However, an overview of their occurrence allows us to discern some general patterns. It should be remembered that this is just a summary, and in some cases the rules, while slightly differently worded, have been scrunched into the same Procrustean bed. The purpose of the table is to get an impression of the overall pattern, not to examine the detailed differences.

The overall pattern of progress is: first, there is an age requirement; second, an educational requirement (she must be taught the relevant rules: deśitaśikṣam, Roth, pg. 242 §211); third, a training requirement (she must actually practice the relevant rules for a set period of time, or in the preceptors's case, until she is accomplished); and finally, the Sangha must make a formal agreement to give ordination. This paradigm is applied in several cases, with appropriate adjustments. Seeing the pattern play out in various contexts helps us to appreciate the inner logic guiding the procedure.

This process is found partially or completetly examplified in five cases:

  1. The woman of 18 years age who wishes to take sikkhamana training. These sections are usually included only in the rule explanations, not in the actual patimokkha.

  2. One who wishes to take full ordination. This case has no explicit age qualification.

  3. The gihigata10 of 12 years who wishes to take full ordination.

  4. The woman of 20 years who wishes to take full ordination.

  5. The experienced bhikkhuni who asks permission of the Sangha to take on students for full ordination.

1. Sikkhamana

Receiving Full Ordination

5. Giving Full Ordination

2. (No age qualification)

3. Gihigata

4. 20 years old


18 years


Lok-v <97>

Mahā <97>i

Mahī 106ii


Dharma <121>iii

Mūlasarv <115>iv








12 years gihigata

Pali 65

Lok-v 100

Mahā 100v

Mahī 104vi

Sarv 108vii


Mūlasarv 108viii

20 years old

Pali 71

Lok-v 96

Mahā 96ix


Sarv 116x

Dharma 121xi

Mūlasarv 115xii

12 years ordained

Pali 74

Lok-v 92

Mahā 92xiii

Mahī 102xiv

Sarv 106xv

Dharma 131xvi

Mūlasarv 106xvii









Taught 6 rules


Lok-v 101

Mahā 101xviii





Taught 6 rules


Lok-v 97

Mahā 97xix




Mūlasarv 116xx

Training Completed

6 rules for 2 years

Pali 63



Mahī 113xxi

Sarv 111xxii


Mūlasarv 119xxiii

6 rules for 2 years

Pali 66

Lok-v 102

Mahā 102xxiv



Dharma 125xxv

Mūlasarv 109xxvi

6 rules for 2 years

Pali 72

Lok-v 98

Mahā 98xxvii


Sarv 121xxviii

Dharma 122,xxix 123xxx


10 requirements


Lok-v 93xxxi

Mahā 93xxxii





Sangha Agreement


Pali <63>

Lok-v <97>

Mahā <97>xxxiii

Mahī 107xxxiv


Dharma <121>xxxv


Full ordination

Pali 64



Mahī 114xxxvi

Sarv 112xxxvii



Full ordination

Pali 67

Lok-v 103

Mahā 103xxxviii

Mahī 105xxxix

Sarv 109xl

Dharma 126xli


Full ordination

Pali 73

Lok-v 99

Mahā 99xlii


Sarv (117xliii), 122xliv

Dharma 124xlv



Pali 75

Lok-v 94

Mahā 94xlvi

Mahī 103xlvii

Sarv 107xlviii

Dharma 130,xlix 132l

Mūlasarv 107li

Note: < > indicates found in vibhanga, not the patimokha rule itself.

A few interesting points may be noted. It seems that most of the patimokkhas, with the exception of the Pali and Sarvāstivāda, say that one must be 18 years to take sikkhamana ordination. The implication of this is that the sikkhamana is not, as it is often perceived, an extra requirement for women making it harder to ordain; rather it is an allowance for younger women to take up a training similar to the bhikkhunis at an earlier age. Without getting into the complicated interpretive issues here, I would wonder whether in these Vinayas there is, or was originally, no requirement for women over 20 to do the sikkhamana training. Of course, it may be the case that the developed understanding as represented in the rule explanations of these schools may not always agree with the rules themselves.

Thus the Pali and Sarvāstivāda, with no rule specifying the sikkhamana is 18 years old, have extra rules in the 'No age' category, making it quite explicit that for these schools all women must perform the sikkhamana training. Of course, if the candidate is 18 years of age, she is allowed to take sikkhamana ordination, in which case the rules requiring minimum 2 years training for one of 20 apply.

For the Lokuttaravāda, Mahāsaṅghika, Dharmaguptaka, and Mūlasarvāstivāda, on the other hand, there is a requirement that the candidate be 18 years before taking sikkhamana training, and corresponding to this, that such a woman be 20 years at the time of ordination. But there is no 'no-age' requirement that all women must take sikkhamana training. Regarding Mūlasarvāstivāda 119, the expected rule corresponding to this that requires one of 18 years age to train for two years is missing, hence the age requirement may perhaps have simply been lost from the text transmission.

This speculation, if there is any basis to it, would explain why the Pali and Sarvastivadins have the extra section with no explicit age requirement, which would otherwise seem to be redundant and subsumed under the other cases. The Pali and Sarvāstivāda are the only schools that have both this set and the set requiring minimum of 20 years.

The Mahīśāsaka, extraordinarily, has no requirement of 20 years, while, like the Pali and Sarvāstivāda, it has the extra 'no age' section. Perhaps it is no coincidence that this same school is the only one that has the requirement for the sikkhamana to be minimum 18 years included in the actual rules, rather than tucked away in the Vibhanga. It should be borne in mind that, for all these Vinayas, the requirement of a minimum 20 years age before ordination is always redundant, as it is already included in the bhikkhu's rules, and even if there were no rules on the matter for bhikkhunis, it would be inferred from the bhikkhu's rules, like so many others. Thus I would suggest that the rules requiring the candidate be 20 years are primarily concerned with the allowance for taking the sikkhamana training at 18, rather than enforcing the 20 year age restriction. If this is so, perhaps the Mahīśāsaka preserves the most logical layout here.

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya is unique in not containing pācittiya rules requiring formal agreement of the Sangha before taking sikkhamana and bhikkhuni ordination. Perhaps they included such requirements elsewhere in their Vinaya; indeed we shall see a hint that this is the case.

The Mahāsaṅghika and Lokuttaravāda Vinayas are, as usual, extremely close, having all the same rules in the same sequence. They exhibit a more systematic tendency than the other Vinayas, having a more logical sequence of rules (first the preceptor is appointed; then the case of the 20 year old woman is dealt with, which is presumably the normal case; then the gihigata of 12 years is addressed), an explicit requirement for the preceptor, the extra preliminary that the sikkhamana must be actually taught the rules (Roth pg. 242), and the rules themselves are 18 in number, as opposed to the normal six (six plus six in the Mūlasarvāstivāda).

It will, of course, be noticed that these rules throughout display massive redundancy. This is a decided inconvenience for those of us who want to make sense of the maze of rules, but it is also a good sign of authenticity. The rules were liad down in an ad hoc manner, according to circumstances, and were collected in only a roughly organized form. The tendency of the traditions, sensibly enough, was to arrange these in a systematic order. This systematic procedure may be seen in the corresponding sections dealing with ordination in the Khandhakas, or in the case of the Dharmaguptaka, for example, in the extended explanations of the rules. The fact that the unsystematic arrangement has been preserved in so many patimokkhas attests to the fidelity of the traditions.

If we were to arrogate the task of 'improving' the patimokkha, we could sum up all the above rules under three headings.

  1. A bhikkhuni who wishes to give ordination must have been ordained at least 12 years, be suitably qualified, and be agreed on by the Sangha.

  2. A woman who wishes to take sikkhamana ordination must be 18 years of age and must obtain the agreement of the Sangha.

  3. A woman who wishes to take full ordination, whether she is 20 years of age or a gihigata of 12 years, must have completed the sikkhamana training and must obtain the agreement of the Sangha. In the Pali, Sarvāstivāda, and Mahīśāsaka, all women must complete the sikkhamana training,

Discussion of Term

Vuṭṭhāpana usually appears in its verbal form, vuṭṭhāpeti. It would seem that the term is based on vy-ud-√sthā. However according to Norman, quoted by von Hinuber, it is rather a dialectical variant stemming from upa-√sthā. And this is indeed the form it appears in in both Hybrid Sanskrit Lokuttaravāda and Sanskrit Mūlasarvāstivāda. The Pali form is the same as the term to 'rehabilitate' from an offence. But the Lokuttaravāda differentiates these two, having vyutthāpayitum in this meaning.11

The Pali usually has the causitive form (vuṭṭhāpana as a noun, or vuṭṭhāpeti as a verb). However in certain contexts the non-causitive form vuṭṭhāna is found. This occurs specifically when the candidate for ordination requests the 'agreement for ordination' (vuṭṭhāna-sammuti).12 In other cases the phrase is used in reference to the bhikkhuni who confers the ordination, where the caustive is used.13 The difference is meaningful, since the bhikkhuni is the one who performs the ordination, so it is appropriate that a causitive form be used to express her agency. I. B. Horner has captured the nuance by rendering vuṭṭhāna-sammuti as 'agreement as to ordination'14 and vuṭṭhāpana-sammuti as 'the agreement to ordain'.15 This nuance is not maintained in the Lokuttaravāda Hybrid Skt. tradition, which uses the causitive form throughout.16 But the Mūlasarvāstivāda phrase brahmacāryopasthāna uses the non-causitive form.


I noted above that these Vinayas offer us a unique opportunity to examine very closely related texts in Indic and ancient Chinese versions, enabling us to form an idea of how at least one Chinese translator went about his task of rendering the technical terms. We will use this as a starting point to investigate the terminology as used in the other Vinayas. In the Indic originals of most of these rules the ordination is referred to as a verbal form 'to ordain', rather than as a noun, 'ordination'. Thus sometimes the Chinese renders the term directly with a verb, sometimes with a nound and supplementary verb, as 'to give ordination'.

The Chinese Mahāsaṅghika Vinaya in the pācittiya rules refers to ordination in three ways. The three terms are as follows. 畜弟子 means to 'rear a disciple'. 與受具足 means literally to 'give upasampadā'. Here the character means 'give', has many meanings, here perhaps implying 'undergo', is 'full', and is literally 'foot', which suggests the 'pada' of the Indic term, but also has the meaning of 'sufficient'. Thus this term clearly renders upasampadā. The final rendering here is 度弟子, to 'cross over or deliver disciples'.lii has the basic meaning of 'crossing over, deliverance', and my Fu Yuan vocabulary recognizes this as rendering of the Indic upasthāpayati, as does the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism,17 and also Heirmann, 3.1069: = vy-ud-√sthā.

In all of these cases the Indic uses vuṭṭhāpana. The only case where the Lokuttaravāda patimokkha uses upasampadā is in pācittiya 110 (Roth pg. 255 §224), where the Chinese has again 與受具足. Thus, based on the reasonable assumption that the Indic original from which the Chinese translator was working used vuṭṭhāpana, it seems that the translator felt free to adopt a variety of renderings in the patimokkha.

We might expect that the rule explanations would offer us some help here, as they give a gloss on each of the main terms used in the rule. Thus if the rule explanation explains the term used in the rule itself to denote ordination with another, different term meaning upasampadā (which is what we find in the Indic versions), we could be fairly sure that the term glossed was vuṭṭhāpana. But we are disappointed, since most of the rules where the Lokuttaravāda supplies the expected gloss, the Chinese offers no explanation. Perhaps, having rendered vuṭṭhāpana with a term equivalent to upasampadā, it simply would not make sense to then gloss this as upasampadā, so the Chinese translator left it out.

Nevertheless, we do find a few contexts that are of some use. In pācittiya 106, which deals with bhikkhunis giving ordination every year, we seem to find a relevant gloss: 'to rear disciples means to give upasampadā' (畜弟子者受具足18). Frustratingly, however, the Indic here offers us the unilluminating: 'vuṭṭhāpana means vuṭṭhāpana' [sic!]19 Presumably this is a mistake, and the text means to explain vuṭṭhāpana means upasampadā, as so often elsewhere; but we are left without clarity. A similar level of confusion reigns in pācittiya 108, concerning giving ordination to one who lives nearby. Here we have the helpful: 度人者和上尼20 = upasthāyikā ti upādhyāyinī ('the one who performs vuṭṭhāpana is the preceptor'). The companion phrase is 弟子者共行弟子21 = upasthāpitā ti sārdhe-vihāriṇī ('the one who has received vuṭṭhāna is the one who lives together'). Here the 'one who lives together' is the normal term for the student of an upajjhāya; unfortunately, the Chinese renders here 共行弟子 (together-wander-disciple), but presumably what is meant is (as rendered several times previously): 共住弟子 ('together-stay-disciple').

These renderings capture the general meaning of the term quite well, but they do not express either the exact phonetic or etymological nuances,22 so we could not infer the use of vuṭṭhāpana without the Indic original to fall back on. Unfortunately, the other Chinese Vinayas have no such Indic parallels existing, so this help is not available to us.

It seems, then, that the use of vuṭṭhāpana may well have been current in the Mahāsaṅghika, as we would expect from the Lokuttaravāda and Pali. However, we cannot make much of this, since the rendering is so uncertain.

Furthermore, while in the more exact Indic texts we can see that vuṭṭhāpana is not used in the corresponding bhikkhu contexts, this is not true of . For example, the Mahāsaṅghika Vinaya uses several times in reference to bhikkhus giving ordination.23 This usage is not confined to the Mahāsaṅghika, for the Mahīśāsaka also uses apparently for vuṭṭhāpana in the bhikkhuni patimokkha,24 as well as 受具足戒for upasampadā.25 This Vinaya also uses together with 受具足戒 in a way similar to what we have seen, but in regards to bhikkhu ordination.26


The first mention of bhikhuni ordination in the Dharmaguptaka pācittiyas is in the rule prohibiting ordaining a pregnant bhikkhuni.

If a bhikkhuni knows that a woman is pregnant and she admits her and confers on her the full ordination she commits a pācittiya. (Dharmaguptaka Bhikkhuni pācittiya 119)27

Here, as we have seen above, the characters 足戒represent upasampadā; indicates fulfillment (sam-); means 'foot' and thus represents pada; while is the precepts.

However, before the phrase 'to give 具足戒', we find the term , render by Heirmann as 'admit'. We have already seen that this is a recognized rendering of vuṭṭhāpana. This could, however, by understood merely as giving a verbal function to the noun upasampadā. During the background story for the rule, the bhikkhuni Balā is said to have granted the ordination to the pregnant woman, using as well as the full term 具足戒.28 But later when the case is discussed and she is criticized, the briefer phrase is used: 'Why did you admit a pregnant woman.'29 This is exactly parallel to the Pali phrase: 'Kathaṃ hi nāma bhikkhuniyo gabbhiniṃ vuṭṭhāpessantīi.'.30 Thus can be used to stand on its own to represent full ordination, in which case it represents the Pali vuṭṭhāpana.

It seems that the Dharmaguptaka version of this rule is a little more developed than the Pali. It also includes an extra revision of the rule where the word 'knowing' is added, which in the Pali is implied in the rule analysis but is not expressed in the rule itself. Thus two ideas found their way from the rule explanation into the rule itself: 'one is that 'vuṭṭhāpana means upasampadā', the other is she acts knowing. Perhaps the Indic version of this rule was something like this: 'Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ gabbhiniṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya upasampādeyya, pācittiyanti'. This enlargement of the rule is typical of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, which frequently appears to be more developed than the Pali.

The next rule is closely parallel to this one. It deals with the case of giving ordination to a women who is breast feeding a baby. Here, while the Pali pācittiya 62 is exactly parallel to pācittiya 61, the Dharmaguptaka pācittiya 120 has a telling change in terminology as compared to pācittiya 119. In the beginning of the background story, when the bhikkhuni is first said to ordain the woman, while the previous rule has the full phrase including both and 具足戒, here we just find .31 Again, it seems as if this represents vuṭṭhāpana, which is what is found in the Pali here. This term is, like the previous rule, used in the critical 'Why did you...' passages, and then the rule includes both and 具足戒, which was not found earlier in the background story. Curiously, the final rule formulation omits ;32 but this is presumably just an omission by the translator, as both terms are again used together just following.33

The next rule (Dharmaguptaka pācittiya 121=Pali pācittiya 71) addresses the problems that arose when young girls were ordained. Here again the simple term = vuṭṭhāpana is used in the background story for the rule. But the explanation then proceeds to describe in detail the process whereby the girls are first given the shaving of the hair, then the robes, then the samaneri ordination, then the samaneri precepts, and then are to study for two years and at 20 may take upasampadā.34 This elaborate procedure, which is repeated in the Bhikkhunikkhandhaka, has no parallel in the Pali. The initial rule formulation and the subsequent discussion uses upasampadā throughout.35

For the next two rules, disappears entirely in favor of 具足戒.

In Dharmaguptaka pācittiya 124reappears, in a similar role to to previous case; that is, it is used in the general background phrases where the original misconduct is described, which in this case is ordaining women with various illnesses.36 This rule then forms an important opportunity to describe the entire dual ordination procedure. Again, throughout the formal legal sections disappears. This is also the case in the Bhikkhunikkhandhaka, where the term does not appear at all.

In summary, the Dharmaguptaka is in reasonable agreement with the Pali and Lokuttaravāda, in that vuṭṭhāpana is used in the patimokkha, while upasampadā is used in the khandhaka. However, upasampadā is also used extensively in the patimokkha alongside vuṭṭhāpana. If our hypothesis is correct, this would be an indication that the Dharmaguptaka is suggestive of a more developed phase of Vinaya terminology, where the earlier term vuṭṭhāpana is in the process of being replaced by upasampadā. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the Dharmaguptaka frequently evidences other signs of elaboration as noted above, such as the inclusion of extra terms in the patimokkha rules, or the much more detailed procedure for ordination.


This is used very commonly throughout the Vinaya to signify an 'agreement'. The root appears to go back to sam-man 'together-think'. It appears in Pali both as sammati and sammuti. It is 'hyper-Sanskritized' as saṃvṛti.37 It is not easy to tease out how it is used in the Chinese. Let's start with the rule we just finished with, Dharmaguptaka pācittiya 124.

The outcome of this rule is to require that the permission of the Sangha be obtained before giving the ordination.38 The character for 'permission' is , which here appears to stand for the Pali term sammuti, as found in the corresponding Pali pācittiya 64. This term needs careful handling, for sometimes it stands for the Indic anu-√jñā 'I allow...',39 and sometimes in its more literal meaning of 'listen', where it renders suṇātu.40 It is difficult to compare these passages exactly with the Pali, as there are no close parallels for the procedures for shaving the head, giving the robes and the samaneri precepts. But sammuti is used, for example, when it is said that one who instructs the candidate (in this case for bhikkhu ordination) must be agreed on by the Sangha.41 And this usage is very commonly found, as in the Dharmaguptaka case here, where sammuti in its verb form is the operative verb of a kammavācā.42 We are thus justified in thinking that here is used to stand for the Indic sammuti.

This rule gives the detailed dual ordination procedure. It should be noted that here there is no equivalent to the vuṭṭhāpana-sammati found in the Lokuttaravāda43 or the Mahāsaṅghika.44 The ordination starts with the instruction in private (raho-anusāsana), which follows the vuṭṭhāpana-sammati . This is also the case when the full ordination procedure is described step by step from samaneri, to sikkhamana, to bhikkhuni in the Dharmaguptaka Bhikkhunīkkhandhaka.45 In all this process there is clearly nothing comparable to the asking for vuṭṭhāpana-sammuti.

Skipping a few rules, we come to Dharmaguptaka pācittiya 130 (=Pali 75), which requires that the Sangha give agreement to the ordaining bhikkhuni before she can confer the ordination. In the background story the termclearly stands for anu-√jñā, not sammati.46 But in the final rule formulation appears to stand for sammati.47

Similarly with Dharmaguptaka pācittiya 132 (= Pali pācittiya 75), which establishes that a bhikkhuni of 12 or more vassa still needs the agreement of the sangha before she can give ordination.48 It is clearly parallel with Pali pācittiya 75,49 which uses vuṭṭhāpana-sammuti; and Lokuttaravāda pācittiya 94,50 which uses upasthāpanā-saṃmutin.

However, in the following Dharmaguptaka pācittiya 134, regarding giving ordination without permission of the parents or husband, stands for anu-√jñā.51

Thus we find both sammuti and vuṭṭhāpana rendered in these Chinese texts, but not together in one compound as we have seen in the Indic texts. Nor do we find any procedure in the full ordination procedure that matches the Lokuttaravāda/Mahāsaṅghika 'agreement to ordain'. Nonetheless, as we have seen, such a procedure is found in individual rules.

The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya renders sammata as僧不作羯,52 i.e. 'Sangha has not made kamma', or as 僧不與作53 'Sangha not give act'.

Basic Dharma

The term 本法 (basic dharma) is sometimes used to describe a bhikkhuni who has received the ordination from the bhikkhunis before she receives it from the bhikkhus. This term is best known in the 梵行本法 or 淨行本法, where these terms render brahmacaryopasthāna, a term found only in the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, not in any other Chinese Vinaya. Here 淨行 or 梵行 render brahmacarya, while本法, literally meaning 'root dhamma', renders upasthāna. The reason for this choice of rendering is a little obscure, but the √sthā, among its dozens of other meanings, can imply 'basis, foundation', so it probably interpreted here as being a foundational or preliminary procedure. It is not clear why the Mūlasarvāstivāda prefaces the term with brahmacarya.

The usage of the term in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya is as follows.

The ordination procedure in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya differs from that in all other Vinayas. After training in 6 dhammas and 6 anudhammas for 2 years, she should should request the upasampadā, find robes and bowl, and get an preceptor. Having gathered the minimum of 12 bhikkhunis, they should all agree to give the brahmacaryopasthāna.54 This is the procedure that is equivalent to the vuṭṭhāpana-sammuti as told in full in the Lokuttaravāda/Mahāsaṅghika, although here it is just mentioned in passing. Thus it seems that this procedure is understood, even though it, as we noted earlier, it does not appear in the pācittiyas. When all these things are complete, she should be taken for the instruction in private,55 following which the teacher returns to the midst of the Sangha and calls the candidate in.56 She then returns to the Sangha, pays respects, and requests to be given the brahmacaryopasthāna (淨行本法).57 In the sanghakamma, she asks to be given the upasampadā. But then she specifically requests that the bhikkhuni Sangha give her the brahmacaryopasthāna. This usage is maintained consistently: the ordination in front of bhikkhunis alone is called brahmacaryopasthāna, and is not the upasampadā.58 Following this is the repeat of the questioning regarding the obstructions, then the bhikkhuni Sangha gives the brahmacaryopasthāna by motion & single announcement. (ñattidutiyakamma). Then she is led to the place where the bhikkhus are (苾芻入壇場 bhikkhumaṇḍala). (At this stage the candidate is referred to as 'ordinand',59 not 'basic dharma bhikkhuni'.) Here she asks for upasampadā from the dual Sangha.60 Then she is questioned in the dual Sangha. Finally there is the motion and three announcements,61 during which it is said: 'The bhikkhuni sangha has already given the brahmacaryopasthāna',62 and at the end of which it is said that 'the dual Sangha has now given upasampadā.'63

Brahmacaryopasthāna appears to be used only once elsewhere (unless a different rendering is used that escapes my searching). This is in a different part of the Vinaya, the Khuddhakavatthu, and a different rendering is used (梵行本法) . Here it is allowed to give ordination by messenger. First she takes brahmacaryopasthāna,64 then 'when that upasthāna is done'65 she should quickly take upasampadā, which must be given by the dual Sangha.66

Upasthāna, without brahmacarya, as the 'basic dhamma' is mentioned in just one other place in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, a summary verse.67 Throughout the bhikkhuni patimokkha, ordination is refered to 'pabbajjā 出家, upasampadā 近圓', with no mention of brahmacaryopasthāna.

It seems clear from the above that the initial brahmacaryopasthāna is not in any sense an upasampadā, although it follows a similar procedure, except for using the briefer motion & single announcement. This is confimed throughout the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. A bhikkhuni is defined as upasampannā, and upasampannā is defined as having received ordination by motion & three anouncements; therefore by this definition brahmacaryopasthāna is not upasampadā.68 Again, it is said that anupasampannā means one not ordained by bhikkhus and bhikkhunis.69

This usage of brahmacaryopasthāna is unique to the Mūlasarvāstivāda. However, the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya also uses the term upasthāna (本法), without brahmacarya, once in the same sense.70

The related phrase 'basic dhamma bhiksuni' 本法尼 is found is several later texts, including Dharmaguptaka kammavācās, of which T1804 and T 1808 were by Dao Xuan, who lived between 596-667, and T 1809 and 1810 were by Huai Su, 624-697 .71 Here it is used to signify the bhikkhuni who has received the first half of the upasampadā, in front of the bhikkhunis. But when describing the 'one who has been ordained' and is taken over to the bhikkhus for the second half of the upasampadā, the actual Dharmaguptaka Vinaya itself uses the phrase 'ordinand' (受戒者), both in the Suttavibhanga72 and the Bhikkhunikkhandhaka.73 This agrees with the Mahāsaṅghika,74 Lokuttaravāda75 and Pali76 traditions.

Thus it seems that the term 'basic dharma bhikkhuni' was unknown to the original Dharmaguptaka Vinaya as translated in Chinese, and was adopted as a later usage, perhaps influenced by the Mahīśāsaka, or perhaps all these were influenced by the oral developments in Vinaya terminology among the Chinese Sangha. It may be significant that the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya was brought from Sri Lanka, around the same time as the Sri Lankan bhikkhunis came to perform the upasampadā. The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya was not translated until 710, by which time the term was already current.


Briefly referring now to the usages in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, we find used for vuṭṭhāpana in the patimokkha, as we found in the Dharmaguptaka.77 But right next to this we find 78 or 畜眾,79 to raise or rear. Sometimes also 受大戒 (to take the great precepts) is used.80 In a way exactly parallel to the Dharmaguptaka rendering, we find for vuṭṭhāpana used alongside 受具足戒 for upasampadā when speaking of giving the ordination to a sikkhamana.81


Any attempt at conclusions at this stage are tentative only! But for now I think this study suggests that:

  1. The Chinese Vinayas, due to the variabilities of translation, are not much help in clarifying the exact bhikkhuni ordination terminology. It seems the Chinese translators in this case rendered the sense of the words meaning 'to ordain', but did not clearly differentiate between upasampadā and vuṭṭhāpana.

  2. It seems possible that at the earliest stage the sikkhamana training was intended only for girls of 18 years age.

  3. The Mūlasarvāstivāda bhikkhuni ordination procedure is genuinely different from the others, in that the ordination in front of bhikkhunis alone is by motion and two announcements, and is not regarded as upasampadā; the upasampadā is accomplished in front of both Sanghas simultaneously.

  4. The Mūlasarvāstivāda brahmacaryopasthāna appears to be a relic of the vuṭṭhāpana as remembered in the Indic bhikkhuni patimokkhas. I hypothesize this was the original ordination procedure, carried out by the bhikkhunis alone, without involvement of the bhikkhus. The dual ordination was instigated by the bhikkhus as part of the general reforms and Vinaya tightening that followed the Second Council.




    Note: Footnotes are used generally through the text, and are in Arabic numerals. Endnotes relate to the table only, and are in Roman numerals. 


1 There is only one reference to ordination in the bhikkhu patimokkha. Sanskrit versions also use upasampadā, e.g.

Sarvāstivāda: Pāt.72: yaḥ punar bhikṣur ūnaviṃśativarṣaṃ pudgalaṃ bhikṣubhāvenopasaṃpādayet pātayantikā sa ca pudgalo 'nupasaṃpannas te ca bhikṣavo garhyā iyaṃ tatra sāmīciḥ (retreived from Based on the ed. by Georg von Simson: Pratimoksasutra der Sarvastivadins. Teil 1, Göttingen 1986 (Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden, 11); Teil 2, Göttingen 2000.)

Lokottaravadimahasanghika: Pāc.71. yo puna bhikṣur jānan ūnaviṃśativarṣapudgalaṃ bhikṣubhāvāya upasaṃpādeya, so ca pudgalo anupasaṃpanno, te ca bhikṣū gārhyāṃ, imaṃ teṣāṃ bhikṣūṇāṃ garhaṇapācattikaṃ (retreived from Based on the ed. by N. Tatia: Pratimoksasutram of the Lokottaravadimahasanghika School. Patna 1976 (Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, 16))

Mahāsaṅghika: Pāc.71. yo punar bhikṣū jānantaṃ unaviṃśativarṣaṃ pudgalaṃ bhikṣu upasaṃpādeya so ca pudgalo anupasaṃpanno te ca bhikṣū gārhyāṃ imaṃstathā bhikṣuṇāgarhaṇaṃ pācattikam (retreived from Based on the ed. by W. Pachow and R. Mishra: The Prātimokṣa-Sūtra of the Mahāsāṅghikās. Allahabad 1956.)

2  A Sanskrit example is available at

3  E.g. Pali Vinaya 4.317: vuṭṭhāpeyyā'ti upasampādeyya. For Lokuttaravāda, see e.g. Roth pg. 242 §212: upasthāpayed iti upasaṃpādayet.

4 時諸比丘尼。便度盲瞎癃躄跛聾瘖瘂及餘種種病者 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 756, c28-29)

5  Pali bhikkhuni pācittiya 64.

6  Pali Vinaya 4.321: 'Ahaṃ ayye itthannāmā itthannāmāya ayyāya dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhā sikkhamānā saṅghaṃ vuṭṭhānasammutiṃ yācāmīti... dutiyampi... tatiyampi'

Lokuttaravāda Vinaya Roth pg. 29 § 29: 'vandāmi ārya-saṃghaṃ ahaṃ itthannāmā aṣṭādaśa-varśa kumāribhūtā dve varṣāṇi deśita-śikṣā paripūri-śikṣā | sā ahaṃ saṃghaṃ upasthāpanā-saṃmutiṃ yācāmi | sādhu me āryā saṃgho upasthāpana-saṃmutiṃ detu | dvitīyampi tṛtīyampi |

7  Pali Vinaya 4.321: ''Suṇātu me, ayye, saṅgho. Ayaṃ itthannāmā itthannāmāya ayyāya dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhā sikkhamānā saṅghaṃ vuṭṭhānasammutiṃ yācati. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmāya dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhāya sikkhamānāya vuṭṭhānasammutiṃ dadeyya. Esā ñatti. ''Suṇātu me, ayye, saṅgho. Ayaṃ itthannāmā itthannāmāya ayyāya dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhā sikkhamānā saṅghaṃ vuṭṭhānasammutiṃ yācati. Saṅgho itthannāmāya dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhāya sikkhamānāya vuṭṭhānasammutiṃ deti. Yassā ayyāya khamati itthannāmāya dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhāya sikkhamānāya vuṭṭhānasammutiyā dānaṃ, sā tuṇhassa yassā nakkhamati, sā bhāseyya. ''Dinnā saṅghena itthannāmāya dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhāya sikkhamānāya vuṭṭhānasammuti khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

8  Lokuttaravāda Vinaya, Roth pg. 29 §29: śṛṇotu me ārya-saṃgho iyaṃ itthannāmā aṣṭādaśa-varṣa kumārī-bhūtā dve varṣāṇi deśita-śikṣā paripūri-śikṣā | [sā] saṃghaṃ upasthāpanā-saṃmutiṃ yācati | yadi saṃghasya prāpta-kālaṃ saṃgho itthan-nāmāye aṣtādeś-varṣāye kumārī-bhūtāye dve varṣāṇi deśita-śikṣāye paripūrṇa-śikṣāye upasthāpanā-saṃmutin dadyāt | ovaśikāye eṣā jñaptiḥ || §30 śṛṇotu me ārya-saṃgho iyaṃ itthannāmā aṣṭādaśa-varṣa kumārī-bhūtā dve varṣāṇi deśita-śikṣā paripūrṇa-śikṣā | sā saṃghaṃ upasthāpanā-saṃmutiṃ yācati | tāya saṃgho itthan-nāmāye aṣtādeś-varṣāye kumārī-bhūtāye dve varṣāṇi deśita-śikṣāye paripūrṇa-śikṣāye upasthāpanā-saṃmutin deti | yāsāṃ āryamiśrikāṇāṃ kṣamati itthan-nāmāye aṣtādaśa-varṣāye kumārī-bhūtāye dve varṣāṇi deśita-śikṣāye paripūrṇa-śikṣāye upasthāpanā-saṃmutin dīyamānāṃ saṃghena | sā tūṣṇīm asya | yasya na kṣamati sā bhāṣitu | iyaṃ prathamā karmavācanā | evaṃ dvitiyā tṛtīyā karmavācaneti | dinnā āryamiśrikāyo itthan-nāmāye aṣtādeś-varṣāye kumārī-bhūtāye dve varṣāṇi deśita-śikṣāye paripūrṇa-śikṣāye upasthāpanā-saṃmutin saṃghena | kṣamate taṃ saṃghasya yasmāt tūṣṇīm evam etad dhārayāmi.

9  Roth pg. 28 § 28

10  This is an exceedingly difficult term, usually understood as 'married woman'. The BHS form is gṛhicarita. (Roth pg. 245 § 214). Recently, however, von Hinuber has questioned this and compared with Pali Vinaya 2.288: sant' amhākaṃ sikkhāpadāni gihigatāni..., where the phrase means 'current among householders', i.e. known to householders. If this was the case, these rules should be understood as a requirement that the candidate should have references from householders who have known her. But this runs into problems because the gihigata rules form a set that clearly parallel those that require that she be 20 years old; in other words, they seem to be alternatives. I avoid the problem by leaving the term untranslated.

11  Roth pg. 235 §207. Also the double-causitive form vyutthāpāyayitum.

12 Pali Vinaya pācittiya 64 at 4.320-321; pācittiya 67 at 323-324

13 vuṭṭhāpana-sammuti e.g. pācittiya 75 at 4.330

14 Book of the Discipline 3.368

15 Book of the Discipline 3.385; footnote 1 says: vuṭṭhāpana-sammuti, to cause ordination (in another).

16 E.g. Roth pg. 29 §29 upasthāpanā-saṃmutin. This is the same situation where the Pali uses the non-causitive form, i.e., in reference to the candidate. When the bhikkhuni asks for agreement to give the ordination, the same form is used (Roth pg. 236 §208).


18  CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 536, c20

19  CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 537, a28

20   CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 537, a28

21  CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 537, a28

22  Pācittiya 95 offers a tantalizing false lead: 《摩訶僧祇律》卷38:「共住者習近住。與受具足者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 534, a25-26). Here we find 近住, lit. 'close dwell', an exact etymological parallel with upasthāpana, right adjacent to upasampadā, exactly where the Indic gives us upasthāpayed iti upasampādayet (Roth pg. 237 § 209). But here this phrase belongs rather with the previous clause, 'to stay with means to live together', as reflected in the puncuation of the CBETA text, and in Hirakawa's translation. (pg. 295)

23 E.g. 《摩訶僧祇律》卷23:「爾時諸比丘度」(CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 418, a10), 《摩訶僧祇律》卷23:「爾時諸比丘度」(CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 418, a25), etc.

24   若比丘尼度婬女。波逸提 (CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, b4-5)

25   若比丘尼與未滿二歲學戒尼受具足戒。波逸提 (CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, b5-6)

26爾時諸比丘度負債人與受具足戒 (CBETA, T22, no. 1421, p. 115, a26)

2 7 若比丘尼。知女人妊娠。度與授具足戒者。波逸提 CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 754, c2-3)

28   度他妊娠女人受具足戒已 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 754, b13-14)

29汝云何度他妊娠女人 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 754, b19)

30 Pali Vinaya 4.317

31 度他乳兒婦女 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 754, c17)

32 若比丘尼。知婦女乳兒。與授具足戒波逸提 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 755, a5-6)

33 度授具足戒 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 755, a8). The patimokkhas found in the Chinese canon are abstracted from the material in the Suttavibhanga. The editors chose the final rule formulation for inclusion in the patimokkha. But occasionally it seems that the final rule formulation was abbreviated, presumably in the Indic original, and omits relevant material. Such appears to be the case, for example, with Sarvāstivāda bhikkhuni saṅ ghādisesa 8 (= Pali bhikkhuni saṅghādisesa 3).

34 CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 755, c6

35 As with the previous rule, here too the subsequent rule revision, while its contextual purpose is merely to add that the bhikkhuni must act deliberately for there to be an offense, in fact omits much of the original formulation. 若比丘尼年減二十受具足戒者 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 755, c28-29)

36  時諸比丘尼。便度盲瞎癃躄跛聾瘖瘂及餘種種病者 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 756, c28-29)

37 See Edgerton BHSG&D Vol 1 pg. 17, 2.30; Vol2 pg. 541; Roth pg. 41-42, footnote to §54; pg. 30 footnote §30.15, §31.6. Both of these sources give several Skt examples and discussion.

38 眾僧不聽便與授具足戒。者波逸提 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 758, c19-20)

39 E.g. 聽使人與若置地與 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 752, c8-9)

40 大德僧聽 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 757, c14)

41 Pali Vinaya 1.94

42 Examples: Pali 1.106: ''Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho. Yāvatā samantā nimittā kittitā. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho etehi nimittehi sīmaṃ sammanneyya samānasaṃvāsaṃ ekuposathaṃ... ; Pali Vinaya 1.107: ''suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ vihāraṃ uposathāgāraṃ sammanneyya. Esā ñatti...)

43 Roth pg. 28- 31, §28-§31

44 CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 471, c15-p. 472, a7

45 The sikkhamana precepts are described, finishing here:除為比丘尼過食自取食食 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 924, c3-4).Then the candidate asks for a preceptor (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 924, c4-7). Then it says that the full ordination by motion & three announcements should be given, and the candidate taken outside the Sangha for the instruction in private. (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 924, c7-10).

46 世尊制戒聽度人 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 760, c27)

47 若比丘尼。僧不聽而授人具足戒者波逸提 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 761, b2-3)

48 若比丘尼。年滿十二歲。眾僧不聽。便授人具足戒者波逸提 (CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 762, a7-8)

49 Pali Vinaya 4.330

50 Roth pg. 235

51 C.f. Pali pācittiya 80, 4.334-335

52 CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, a24

53 CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, a21

54 諸苾芻尼先可授其淨行本法 (CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 461, a21-22)

55 CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 461, c3-p. 462, a17

56 CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 462, a17-22

57 CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 462, a22-23

58 E.g. 苾芻尼僧伽已與某甲受淨行本法 (CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 462, b27-28)

59 教受近圓者(CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 462, c3)

60 願二部僧伽授我近圓 (CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 462, c10-11). Compare previous parallel: 願苾芻尼僧伽授我淨行本法 (CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 462, a27-28)

61 CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 462, c20-p. 463, a15

62 苾芻尼僧伽已與作淨行本法 (CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 462, c24-25)

63 二部僧伽已與某甲受近圓 (CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 463, a12-13). Again compare with the bhikkhunis: 苾芻尼僧伽已與某甲受淨行本法 (CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 462, b27-28)

64 in a family [?] 往彼家中作梵行本法」(CBETA, T24, no. 1451, p. 368, b10-11)

65 至其家內與作本法已(CBETA, T24, no. 1451, p. 368, b12)

66 僧尼二眾應授法與近圓(CBETA, T24, no. 1451, p. 368, b16)

67 與式叉本法(CBETA, T24, no. 1453, p. 500, a22)

68 云何苾芻尼性。謂受近圓。云何近圓。謂白四羯磨 (CBETA, T23, no. 1443, p. 913, c22-23)

69 未近圓人者。有兩種圓具。謂苾芻苾芻尼。餘並名為未圓具者 (CBETA, T23, no. 1443, p. 972, a28-29)

70 先明本法 (CBETA, T22, no. 1424, p. 219, a5)

71 《四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔》卷3:「本法尼」(CBETA, T40, no. 1804, p. 152, b1); 《四分律刪補隨機羯磨》卷1:「本法尼」(CBETA, T40, no. 1808, p. 500, a29)《僧羯磨》卷1:「本法尼」(CBETA, T40, no. 1809, p. 515, c28);《尼羯磨》卷1:「本法尼」(CBETA, T40, no. 1810, p. 543, a8)

72 CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 757, c12

73 CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 925, a26

74 我已與某甲受具足(CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 473, b1)

75 Roth pg. 44 §58

76  Pali Vinaya 2.273-274

77 E.g.: 若比丘尼作是言。汝與我衣鉢戶鉤。時藥時分藥七日藥盡形藥。我當度汝。波夜提。(CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, b11-12); 若比丘尼。歲歲度弟子者。波夜提 (CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, b16).

78 若比丘尼。女人夫主不聽。畜為眾。波夜提 (CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, b13)

79 若比丘尼語他言。汝二歲學六法。後當畜汝。若不畜者。波夜提 (CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, b14-15)

80 CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, a24

81 僧當濟度與某甲式叉摩尼受具足戒 (CBETA, T23, no. 1435, p. 292, c2-3). C.f. 僧當濟度與受具戒 (CBETA, T23, no. 1435, p. 295, c4-5).



i《摩訶僧祇律》卷38:「十八童女欲於如來法中受具足者」(CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 534, c17)

ii《五分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼與未滿十八歲童女受學戒。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, a25-26)

iii《四分律》卷27:「應十八童女與二歲學戒滿二十與授具足戒」(CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 757, a9-10)

iv《根本說一切有部苾芻尼毘奈耶》卷18:「十八歲童女應與二歲學六法六隨法」(CBETA, T23, no. 1443, p. 1006, b29-c1)

v《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。適他婦減十二雨。與受具足者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, b21-22) Gihicarita = 適他婦

vi《五分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。與未滿十二歲已嫁女受具足戒。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, a22-23)

vii《十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。畜未滿十二歲已嫁女為眾。波夜提」(CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, a14-15). Ordain = 畜

viii《根本說一切有部苾芻尼戒經》卷1:「若復苾芻尼知曾嫁女人年未滿十二。與出家者。波逸底迦」(CBETA, T24, no. 1455, p. 514, c4-5). 出家 = pabbajja! c.f. 106

ix《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。與減二十雨童女。受具足者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, b13-14). Give upasampadā = 與受具足

x《十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。畜未滿二十歲童女為眾。波夜提」(CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, a29)

xi《四分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼知年不滿二十。與受具足戒。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1431, p. 1037, b24-25)

xii《根本說一切有部苾芻尼戒經》卷1:「若復苾芻尼知童女年未滿二十。與受近圓者。波逸底迦」(CBETA, T24, no. 1455, p. 514, c17-18)

xiii《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。減十二雨畜弟子者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, b6). Vuṭṭhāpana = 畜弟子

xiv《五分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼不滿十二歲畜眷屬。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, a20)

xv《十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。不滿十二歲畜眾者。波夜提」(CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, a11). Give ordination = 歲畜眾

xvi《四分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼年未滿十二歲。授人具足戒者。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1431, p. 1037, c13-14)

xvii《根本說一切有部苾芻尼戒經》卷1:「若復苾芻尼未滿十二歲。與他出家受近圓者。波逸底迦」(CBETA, T24, no. 1455, p. 514, c1-2)

xviii《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。適他婦滿十二雨。不學戒與受具足者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, b23-24)

xix《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。滿二十歲童女。不與學戒而與受具足者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, b15-16)

xx  6 major and 6 minor rules (dhammānudhammā), Kabalsingh 236, note 1.《根本說一切有部苾芻尼戒經》卷1:「若復苾芻尼知童女年滿二十。不與二歲學六法六隨法。即受近圓者。波逸底迦」(CBETA, T24, no. 1455, p. 514, c18-20)

xxi《五分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼與未滿二歲學戒尼受具足戒。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, b5-6)

xxii《十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。弟子不二歲學六法。畜為眾者。波夜提」(CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, a20-21)

xxiii《根本說一切有部苾芻尼戒經》卷1:「若復苾芻尼知女人未滿二歲學六法六隨法。與受近圓者。波逸底迦」(CBETA, T24, no. 1455, p. 514, c23-24)

xxiv《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。已適他婦受學戒不滿學。與受具足者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, b25-26)

xxv《四分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼度曾嫁婦女年十歲。與二歲學戒。年滿十二聽與受具足戒。若減十二與受具足戒者。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1431, p. 1037, c3-5)

xxvi《根本說一切有部苾芻尼戒經》卷1:「若復苾芻尼知曾嫁女人年滿十二。不與正學法而受近圓者。波逸底迦」(CBETA, T24, no. 1455, p. 514, c5-7) Upasampadā

xxvii 《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。受學戒不滿學。與受具足者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, b17-18). The rule just says she must fulfill the training precepts. The vibhanga explains that she must keep 18 rules for 2 years: 二歲應隨順學十八事 (CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 535, a22)

xxviii《十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。滿二十歲童女。不二歲學六法。畜為眾。波夜提」(CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, b7-8)

xxix《四分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。年十八童女。不與二歲學戒。年滿二十。便與受具足戒者波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1431, p. 1037, b26-27)

xxx《四分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼年十八童女。與二歲學戒。不與六法。滿二十便與受具足戒者。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1431, p. 1037, b28-29)

xxxi  10 requirements, Roth pg. 234 §207: pāṭimokkha, abhidhamma, abhivinaya, adhisīla, adhicitta, adhipaññā, āpatti-anāpatti, āpatti-vuṭṭhāna, āpadāsu-vyupakarṣayituṃ, gilāna-upaṭṭhāka, dvādasa-vassāni. For translation Of the same requirements for Mahāsaṅghika, see Kabalsingh, 67 note 3.

xxxii《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。滿十二雨。十法不具足而畜弟子者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, b7-8)

xxxiii《摩訶僧祇律》卷38:「若僧時到。僧與某甲二年學戒羯磨」(CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 534, c28-29)

xxxiv《五分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。雖滿十八歲童女。僧不作羯磨。與受學戒。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, a26-27)

xxxv 《四分律》卷27:「大姊僧聽。彼某甲沙彌尼。從僧乞二歲學戒。和上尼某甲。今僧與某甲沙彌尼二歲學戒。和上尼某甲。誰諸大姊忍。僧與彼某甲沙彌尼二歲學 戒。和上尼某甲者默然。不忍者說。是初羯磨。如是第二第三說。眾僧已忍。與某甲沙彌尼二歲學戒。和上尼某甲竟。僧忍默然故。是事如是持」(CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 755, c16-23)

xxxvi《五分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。滿二歲學戒尼。僧不作羯磨。與受具足戒。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, b6-7)

xxxvii《十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。弟子二歲學六法。未作屬和上尼羯磨。畜為眾。波夜提」(CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, a22-23)

xxxviii《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。已適他婦學戒滿不羯磨與受具足者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, b27-28)

xxxix  No training is mentioned.《五分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。滿十二歲已嫁女。僧不作羯磨。與受具足戒。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, a23-24)

xl《十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。滿十二歲已嫁女。不作屬和上尼羯磨。畜為眾。波夜提」(CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, a16-17)

xli《四分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼度他小年曾嫁婦女。與二歲學戒。年滿十二。不白眾僧便與受具足戒。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1431, p. 1037, c6-7)

xlii《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。學戒滿。不羯磨與受具足者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, b19-20)

xliii  No training is mentioned.《十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。滿二十歲童女。未作屬和上尼羯磨畜為眾。波夜提」(CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, b1-2)

xliv《十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。滿二十歲童女。二歲學六法。不作屬和上尼羯磨。畜為眾。波夜提」(CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, b9-10)

xlv《四分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼年十八童女。與二歲學戒。與六法滿二十。眾僧不聽。便與受具足戒者。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1431, p. 1037, c1-2)

xlvi《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。十法具足。不羯磨而畜弟子者波夜提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, b9-10). Sammuti = 羯磨 (karma)

xlvii《五分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼滿十二歲。僧不與作畜眾羯磨。畜眾者。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1423, p. 211, a20-22)

xlviii《十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。滿十二歲。未作畜眾羯磨。畜眾者。波夜提」(CBETA, T23, no. 1437, p. 485, a12-13). Sammuti = 羯磨 (karma)

xlix  No age is mentioned.《四分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼。僧不聽而授人具足戒者。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1431, p. 1037, c12)

l《四分比丘尼戒本》卷1:「若比丘尼年滿十二歲。眾僧不聽。便授人具足戒者。波逸提」(CBETA, T22, no. 1431, p. 1037, c15-16)

li《根本說一切有部苾芻尼戒經》卷1:「若復苾芻尼僧伽未與畜眾法。輒畜弟子者。波逸底迦」(CBETA, T24, no. 1455, p. 514, c3-4)

lii 108《摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本》卷1:「度弟子」(CBETA, T22, no. 1427, p. 562, c6)