Women in Early Indian Buddhism: Comparative Textual Studies

Alice Collett (ed.)

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199326044.001.0001
Published: 2013 Online ISBN: 9780199369324 Print ISBN: 9780199326044

Search in this book

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/3902/chapter/145449326 by Concordia University user on 07 October 2024

CHAPTER

3 Pāli Vinaya: Reconceptualizing Female Sexuality in Early

Buddhism 
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199326044.003.0004 Pages 62–79
Published: October 2013

Abstract
In this chapter, Alice Collett addresses the topic of female sexuality and presents a revalorization of
what has come to be understood as a pervasive social construct on female sexuality in early Buddhism
as evident formally through, on the whole, Pāli sources. The prevailing view understands female
sexuality as voracious. Through an assessment of the saṅghādisesa rules of the Pāli Vinaya, some of the
most elucidating on sex, Collett argues that di erences between the rules for monks and those for
nuns reveal opposing sexualities; here it is the monks and men who attempt to pursue, cajole, and
manipulate women into having sex with them, rather than the other way around.

Keywords: Pāli Vinaya, female sexuality

Subject: Buddhism, History of Judaism
Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

there are many contradictions expressed about women in the Pāli Canon, the texts of the Theravāda
tradition. There are contradictory remarks about women’s nature (itthibhāva), concerning whether women
are “weak in wisdom,” “uncontrollable,” and “envious” or, conversely, “wise and virtuous,” or indeed
1
whether male and female nature are of any importance at all. There are contradictions expressed in relation
to women’s ability both to tread the path outlined by Gotama Buddha and to attain high levels of religious
2
experience. There are contradictions expressed in relation to their domestic roles, ranging from, for
p. 63 example, a passage that classi es various types of wives and approves of, among others, the slave-type
3
of wife, through to acknowledgements that a woman’s duty to serve a man is a form of su ering. As well as
this, there are contradictions in relation to female sexuality. Although a popular choice of topic for scholarly
debate, research on female sexuality in the Pāli Canon has not tended to focus on nuances of the
characteristics of female sexuality and female sexual desire as expressed in the texts, but more on female
sexuality as expressed in relation to male desire. Often, when female sexuality is referred to in the Pāli
Canon, it is commented upon in a male voice; that is, women are depicted as enticers of men, seeking to bait
or ensnare them. Such depictions of women occur in the Theragāthā, and in a well-known passage from the
Aṅguttara-nikāya:
 I do not see, Monks, even one other form so enticing, so desirable, so intoxicating, so binding, so
infatuating, such a hindrance to winning the supreme peace from bondage than, Monks, the form
of a woman. Monks, those who cling to a woman’s form—impassioned, greedy, enslaved,
infatuated, attached—they grieve for a long time, besotted by the female form.

4
I do not see, Monks, even one other sound . . . scent . . . taste . . . or touch, so enticing, so desirable,
so intoxicating, so binding, so infatuating, such a hindrance to winning the supreme peace from
bondage than the sound, scent, taste and touch of a woman. Monks, those who clings to the sound,
scent, taste and touch of a woman—impassioned, greedy, enslaved, infatuated, attached—they
grieve for a long time, besotted by female sound, scent, taste, or touch.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/3902/chapter/145449326 by Concordia University user on 07 October 2024

Monks, a woman, even when going along, will stop to entice the heart of a man, whether standing,
sitting, lying down, laughing, speaking, singing, weeping, stricken, or dying, she will stop to
entice the heart of a man. Monks, if it is right to say of anything, “this is wholly a snare of Māra,”
5
then it is right to say this of womankind, “this is wholly a snare of Māra.” (AN 5.55 at III.68–69)

p. 64 Depictions such as these, coupled with less incriminating ones, such as advice that monks should avoid
women (DN 16,5.9, II.141), and with the occasional non-Pāli sources, such as Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita,
have led scholars to the conclusion that early Indian—or rather, Pāli—Buddhism has one pervasive view of
6
female sexuality. Accordingly, Pāli Buddhism is charged with conceptualizing women with active,
voracious sexual appetites contstantly seeking to drag unwilling men back from path. Certainly, such a
depiction is the thrust of the above and similar passages. So much is this the nature of woman, according to
Aṅguttara-nikāya quotation above, that a woman might even rise up from her deathbed in one last e ort to
ensnare the heart of a man! However, although it cannot be denied that such passages do exist, they are far
from the only depiction of female sexuality in the Pāli literature.

Other recent scholarly discussions of female sexuality include considerations of the bhikkhunīsaṃyutta of the
Saṃyutta-nikāya (Collett 2009a: 108–12), a Chinese parallel of which is the subject of chapter six of this
volume, in which nuns demonstrate that they have gone beyond the a iction of sexual desire. In verses
attributed to Āḷavikā, her initial response to an attempted seduction is:

Sensual pleasures are like sword stakes,

the aggregates the executioner’s block.
What you call delight in sensual pleasure
7
has become non-delight for me.

As in other of the sections of the bhikkhunīsaṃyutta of the Saṃyutta-nikāya, this verse is spoken in response
8
to an attempted seduction, by a male, of the nun in question. This aspect of female sexuality, as a response
to male advances, although evident in the texts of early Indian Buddhism, has received little scholarly
attention. While in contrast to what can appear as a pervasive social construct of female sexuality (both
p. 65 within and outside of early Indian Buddhism), evidence can be sought and found that portrays men as
sexual predators and women as either passively consenting or trying (and sometimes failing) to repel male
advances. Evidence of women as passive and responsive in sexual situations and potential sexual situations
can be found in the Pāli Vinaya. The present study of the saṅghādisesa rules in the Pāli Vinaya highlights that
the di erences between the rules for monks and those for nuns, and the stories behind each rule, indicate
di erent sexual behaviors of monks and nuns and men and women and allude to di erences in male and
female sexuality. It can be ascertained from a study of these rules that, on the whole, male sexuality is
represented as aggressive, potent, and proactive, while female sexuality is passive and responsive. While
there are some indications in other sections of the Pāli Vinaya that women did experience sexual desire, such
as in the pācittiya rules (3, 4, and 5) on female masturbation, there are less instances of women actively
seeking out sex than there are of women responding to the sexual behavior of others. Rather than the rules
 and origin stories revealing women with voracious sexual appetites who are intent upon as much sexual
activity as possible, whenever they can and with whomever they can, it is instead the men’s attempts to
persuade, cajole, and manipulate women into sex acts with them that stand out.

Saṅghādisesa rules in the Pāli Vinaya

Saṅghādisesa rules are the second group of rules in vinaya texts. The rst are the pārājikas, the most serious
9
o ences by which one is usually permanently expelled from the saṅgha. Breach of a saṅghādisesa rules is
less serious. The consequences of committing a saṅghādisesa o ense is not xed. If a monk or nun commits

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/3902/chapter/145449326 by Concordia University user on 07 October 2024

such an act, a formal meeting of the saṅgha must take place in order to determine what sort of consequences
would be most tting in each instance. In the Pāli Vinaya nuns have seventeen saṅghādisesa rules, ten of
which are speci c to them and seven of which are the same as the rules for monks. Monks have thirteen, so
not all of theirs apply to the nuns. Of the nuns’ saṅghādisesa rules that- relate to sex acts or sexuality, only
p. 66 one is shared with monks. There are four rules for nuns that speci cally relate to sex, although, as is the
case with other classes of rules, other of the rules can be applied to or come out of situations relating to sex.
For monks there are ve saṅghādisesa rules speci cally to do with sex.

As noted in the introduction to this volume, the extant Pāli Vinaya is structured so that monks’ rules and
accompanying stories appear rst, and the nuns’ sections follows that. Any rules for nuns that apply to both
monks and nuns are not repeated in the nuns’ Suttavibhaṅga. So, for example, in the nuns’ saṅghādisesa
section there are only ten rules, as the seven they share with monks are not repeated. As noted by Horner
(see the introduction to this volume, page 3–4), the extant structure to the Pāli Vinaya, with the nuns’ rules
after those for monks, may not have been the original structure. Horner asserts this on the basis of two
pieces of evidence: a fragment of a Tibetan text and the (mis-)placement of the indeclinable pi. Further
evidence for her argument comes at the beginning and end of most sections of the extant nuns’
Suttavibhaṅga. With the exception of the rst section on pārājikas, each section both begins and ends with a
10
summary line or passage which details the rules to be recited or which have been told. For example, the
concluding paragraph in the nuns’ pārājika section—concluding the telling of four pārājikas, as the four the
nuns share with monks do not appear—the text reads: “Told, Venerable Ones, are the eight o enses
involving defeat” (uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāya aṭṭha pārājikā dhammā, Vin. IV, 222). At the beginning of the section
on saṅghādisesa rules we nd: “Venerable Ones, these seventeen rules come up for recitation” (ime kho pan’
ayyāyo sattarasa saṃghādisesā dhammā uddesaṃ āgacchanti, Vin. IV, 223), and to conclude that section, “Told,
Venerable Ones, are the seventeen saṅghādisesa rules” (udditthā kho ayyāyo sattarasa saṃghādisesā dhammā,
Vin. IV, 242), when, in fact, only ten rules have been detailed, as the seven that apply to both monks and
nuns have not been repeated. In the extant Pāli Vinaya, it is not stated which of the seven missing
saṅghādisesa rules for nuns are the seven that they share with monks, but Buddhaghosa does enumerate
these in his commentary to the Pāli Vinaya. According to Buddhaghosa, the monks’ saṅghādisesa rules that
also apply to nuns are rule number 5 and rules 8–13. Buddhaghosa’s commentary is obviously a late text,
p. 67 but if we compare his classi cation with the full list of saṅghādisesa rules for nuns in the other extant
Indic vinaya—the Sanskrit Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravāda Bhikṣuṇī Vinaya, we nd almost exactly the same
11
rules listed, although not in the same order. Thus, it seems fairly clear which of the saṅghādisesa rules
apply to nuns and which do not.

Although there are rules to do with sex in other sections of the Pāli Vinaya, the saṅghādisesa rules stand out
as those most suitable for analysis. With the exception of the stories connected with the rst pārājika, here
we nd the most comprehensive stories concerned with sex. The rst pārājika is problematic in relation to
analysis of male and female sexual behavior due to the extant structure of the Pāli Vinaya outlined above. In
the monks’ Suttavibhaṅga, there are many supplements to the rst pārājika, more so than for any other rule.
As this rule is shared between monks and nuns, it is not in the nuns’ Suttavibhaṅga, which is presumably an
 indication that the stories told in relation to monks should apply equally to nuns. However, such an
application is not easy. Many of the supplemental stories involving monks are concerned with sex acts that
would be impossible for nuns to perform, as they are concerned with penile penetration of ori ces, and so
cannot apply to nuns because of the obvious di erences in biological makeup. These are concerned with, for
example, penetration of animals or human or animal corpses, or of inanimate objects, such as plaster
decorations. Therefore it is not easy to exactly ascertain the extent to which the whole section on this rule is
being suggested as being applicable to nuns. If it is only generally applicable, this hinders analysis as much
as any speculative attempts at detailedcomparison.

There are also other rules to do with sex and rules that can be understood to relate to sex in other parts of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/3902/chapter/145449326 by Concordia University user on 07 October 2024

the Vinaya. In these stories, we nd instances of what appear to be mutual consent (to the act in question,
which is often only implicitly not explicitly about sex) as well as instances of apparent and actual female
desire, and also of male desire and sexual aggression. For example, pācittiya rules 11, 12, 13, and 14 are
concerned with nuns talking with men on their own and at inappropriate times or in unsuitable places.
p. 68 These rules may relate to sex—that is certainly the implication—but sex is not explicitly mentioned in
these cases. In pācittiya 14 the intent seems clearest, as in this story Thullanandā dismisses her companion
and whispers in the man’s ear. Thus, this could be an example of active female sexual desire, as are the rules
on female masturbation (pācittiyas 3, 4, and 5). These rules against activities that would cause sexual
arousal and potentially orgasm, such as slapping the vulva or inserting things in the vagina, attest to an
active sexuality on the part of some nuns. However, none of these rules nor the amount of them—there are
few—attest to a voracious female sexual appetite. There are other rules to do with not keeping company
with men on individual occasions or developing ongoing intimate relationships with men, such as pācittiya
36, in which the nun Caṇḍakālī is said to have too close a relationship (saṃsaṭṭhā viharati) with a
householder and his son, but in a case such as this sex is not the sole factor in question. Thus, while in other
parts of the Pāli Vinaya there are some cases of apparent mutual consent in sexual, romantic, or intimate
encounters, as well as indicators of active sexuality in the part of both sexes, the saṅghādisesa rules present
a particularly interesting paradigm. In this study I present female sexuality in the saṅghādisesa rules as
passive and responsive. It is not my intention to deny female agency or to deny instances and examples of
an active and healthy sexuality, but rather instead to pro er an alternative—seen through one set of serious
and detailed rules—to what has been a somewhat overarching view of a pernicious and overactive female
sexuality.

Saṅghādisesa rules for monks in the Pāli vinaya

Saṅghādisesa 3: Not to speak inappropriately about sex

This Suttavibhaṅga rule is said to have been made because of Venerable Udāyin. His dwelling was particularly
picturesque, and many women came to Anāthapiṇḍika’s park to see it. It was while showing women the
toilets that he would speak inappropriately to them about sex, and engage- in other reproachable speech.
The text does not detail exactly what it is he is supposed to have said and simply recounts that after showing
them the toilets, he “spoke in praise and spoke in blame, he begged and implored, asked and inquired,
12
p. 69 related, exhorted, and abused.” It is initially the commentary attached to the extant Suttavibhaṅga that
rst indicates what he may have said, de ning “vulgar words” (duṭṭhullā vācā) as speech connected with
toiletry functions and sex and relating his abusive words as, for example, saying “you are defective in sex, . .
13
. you are a deformed woman.” Some women laughed at Udāyin when he did this, but others complained.
The monks told the Buddha, who scolded Udāyin and made a rule that monks, when lled with desire,
should not o end women with vulgar words about sex.
 The stories in the supplement to this rule give further indication as to the types of things Udāyin might have
said. Many of these addenda are concerned with monks making sexual innuendos to women to whom they
are attracted. For example, a monk said to a women who was wearing a rough blanket, “is that thick, short
14
hair yours?” Similarly, to a woman wearing a newly woven blanket, a monk asked, “is that your matted
15 16
hair?” Other innuendos include, to a woman working in a eld, “has there been some sowing?” On each
occasion the text notes that the women did not understand the innuendo and replied innocently with, for
17
example, “Yes, it is a rough blanket.” Each time, the monk expresses remorse at having spoken as he did.
This shows that the innuendos were not made accidentally, by a slip of the tongue, but intentionally said to
attractive women presumably from salacious motives.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/3902/chapter/145449326 by Concordia University user on 07 October 2024

Saṅghādisesa 4: Not to try to persuade a woman to engage in sexual
intercourse
This is perhaps the most illustrative of the rules under discussion on the question of male and female
sexuality. Udāyin is again the culprit here, and in this case he speaks inappropriately to a laywoman when
she asks him what the monks need and o ers the usual donations. He tells her these items are plentiful and
that a better o ering would be to o er herself to him for sex, as this is hard to come by for monks. The
origin story for this rule is as follows:

p. 70 At one time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was staying at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in
Anāthapiṇḍika’s park. At that time the venerable Udāyin was dependent on families in Sāvatthī [for
alms], and he approached many families. At that time there was a certain woman who was a
beautiful, good-looking, lovely widow. Then, the venerable Udāyin, rising in the morning and
taking his bowl and robe, he approached that woman’s dwelling, and having approached he sat
down on the appointed seat. Then the woman approached the venerable Udāyin; having
approached and having greeted the venerable Udāyin she sat down to one side. The venerable
Udāyin instructed, roused, enthused, and delighted with talk on dhamma this woman who was
seated to his side. Then this woman, delighted with talk on dhamma, said to the venerable Udāyin:

“Do say, Venerable One, what [will be] of bene t? We are able to give to the noble one the
requisites of robes, alms-bowl, lodgings, and medicines for illness.”

“Sister, these are not hard for us to come by, that is, the requisites of robes, alms-bowl, lodgings
and medicines for illness. You should give us what is hard to come by.”

“What is that, Venerable One?”

“Sexual intercourse.”

“[Will it be] of bene t, Venerable One?”

“[It will be] of bene t, Sister.”

“Come, Venerable One”. Entering the inner room, she took o her outer garment and lay back on
the bed. Then the venerable Udāyin approached her. Having approached, he said, “Who would
touch this foul-smelling wretch?” and he departed spitting.

Then this woman became enraged, angry, annoyed and said, “These renouncers, sons of the
Sakyan, are without shame, of low morality, liars. They pretend to be dhamma-farers, possessing
tranquillity, living a holy life, speakers of the truth, virtuous, of good conduct. Among them, there
is no renunciation, no leading of a holy life. Among them, renunciation is lost, the holy life
destroyed. Where is renunciation among them? Where is holiness among them? Fallen from
 renunciation are these, fallen from the holy life. How can the wanderer Udāyin, having himself
begged me for sexual intercourse, say ‘Who would touch this foul-smelling wretch?’ and depart
spitting? What in me is evil? What in me is foul-smelling? In what am I inferior to whom?” Other
p. 71 women became enraged, angry, annoyed and said, “These are without shame . . . how can the
wanderer Udāyin, having himself begged this one for sexual intercourse, say, ‘Who would touch
this foul-smelling wretch?’ and depart spitting. What is evil in her? What is foul-smelling in her?
In what is she inferior to whom?” The monks heard these women who were enraged, angry, and
annoyed. Those who were modest monks became enraged, angry, annoyed and said: “How can this
venerable Udāyin speak in praise of servicing his own desires in the presence of women?” Then
these monks told this matter to the Blessed One. Then the Blessed One, for this reason, on this

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/3902/chapter/145449326 by Concordia University user on 07 October 2024

occasion, having the order of monks convened, questioned the venerable Udāyin: “Is it true as said
that you, Udāyin, spoke in praise of servicing your own desires in front of women?”

“It is true, Blessed One.” The Buddha, the Blessed One, admonished him: “It is not right, foolish
man, it is not appropriate, it is not suitable, not worthy of a recluse, not tting, it is not to be done.
How can you, Foolish Man, speak in praise of servicing your own desires in front of women? Is not,
Foolish Man, the dhamma taught by me, in various ways, for the destruction of the passions, not
for the sake of the passions, taught by me for the sake being without fetters, not for the sake of
being bound, taught for the sake of not grasping, not for the sake of grasping? Then, Foolish Man,
while the dhamma is being taught by me for passionlessness, you strive after passion, while the
dhamma is being taught for the sake of being free from fetters, you strive to be bound to the world,
while the dhamma is being taught for the sake of not grasping, you are intent on grasping. Is not,
Foolish Man, the dhamma taught by me, in various ways, for the stilling of passion, for freedom
from conceit, for the disciplining of thirst, for the uprooting of attachments, for cutting through
the rounds of rebirth, for the destruction of craving, for passionlessness, for cessation, for
nibbāna? Have I not, Foolish Man, declared in various ways, the abandoning of sensory pleasures,
full understanding of the desires, subduing of the thirst for sensory pleasure, uprooting of
thoughts of pleasure, calming of the fever of desire? It is not, Foolish Man, for the bene t of
unbelievers, nor for the increase of believers. But this is, Foolish Man, disparaging for both
unbelievers and believers and for some causes doubt.”

p. 72 Then the Blessed One, having admonished the venerable Udāyin in many ways, spoke in
disapproval of his di culty in supporting and maintaining himself, his arrogance, his discontent,
his clinging (to de lements), his indolence. He spoke in many ways in praise of supporting and
maintaining oneself, contentment, happiness, giving up (the de lements), of being morally
scrupulous, of geniality, of the decreasing (of obstructions), of zeal. Having spoken dhamma that is
suitable and tting for monks, he addressed the monks and said: “Monks, I will make known the
path of training for monks, that is founded for ten reasons: the excellence of the saṅgha, the
comfort of the saṅgha, restraint of malevolent men, for the convenience of well-behaved monks,
for the restraint of the āsavas in this world, for the combating of the āsavas in future worlds, for
the bene t of nonbelievers and the increase of believers, for the establishing of dhamma, and for
the following of the discipline. Thus, monks, this course of training should be set forth: ‘whatever
monk, a ected by desire, with perverted mind, should speak in praise of servicing one’s own
desires in front of women, saying, “Sister, the foremost of honors that a woman can give one like
me, virtuous, of good conduct, living the holy life, in this way would be service connected with
sexual intercourse.” This is an o ense involving a formal meeting of the saṅgha.’ ”

In the narrative on the origin of this rule, we can see that, although the laywoman agrees to the monk’s
request, they do not then engage in the sexual intercourse. Udāyin has a sudden change of heart when the
moment comes, instead turning on the woman and verbally abusing her. This event appears somewhat
 incongruent, given the foregoing intent of the monk, and is not speci ed in the rule, which is simply that
monks should not manipulate women into having sex with them by telling them that it is the highest gift
they can give. However, although not speci ed in the rule, it is necessary for the making of it. Each of the
addenda that follow are about a monk attempting to persuade a woman to have sex with him by making this
same claim, that o ering sex is an exalted “gift.” But in no case does sex ensue. If it did, of course, the issue
at hand would not be the attempted persuasion, but rather the question—dealt with already in the
Suttavibhaṅga—of sexual activity, which comes under pārājika o ences rather than saṅghādisesa. Thus,
p. 73 Udāyin’s sudden disgust for the woman he had just attempted to seduce, a woman, it would appear, he had
his eye on for some time, helps the narrative polemic reach its goal: to conclude with a rule about
manipulation of women by monks swept up by carnal urges.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/3902/chapter/145449326 by Concordia University user on 07 October 2024

There is no opposite of this rule in the nuns’ saṅghādisesa, a fact which, while an argument ex silencio,
suggests that nuns were not in the habit of trying to persuade men to have sex with them. However,
accounts of laywomen—but not nuns—who appear to be sexual aggressors do occur in some of the
supplemental stories to the rst pārājika rule on abstention from sexual intercourse. These stories recount
women accosting monks who were sleeping or napping and sexually assaulting them. In two of these
instances, it is stated that the woman in question acted in this way because she was of the view that o ering
sex to monks is the highest gift to o er them. In the rst of these two instances, the text reads:

Now, at that time, in Rājagaha, there was a female lay disciple called Supabbā, who had faith in the
Buddha. She held this view: whoever o ers sexual intercourse [to a monk], she gives the highest
18
gift. (Vin. III, 39)

It would seem, then, from the story of Udāyin above, that the reason certain women were of this view is
because the monks were encouraging it. In one other instance, when a group of women sexually assault a
sleeping monk, they are said to do so out of desire for sexual grati cation. On one other occasion, after
sexually assaulting a monk, the woman in question laughs at him. On this occasion, it would appear that the
sexual assault was an attempt to humiliate the monk. None of the other recounted episodes specify why it is
that women sexually assault or accost the monks. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain whether the
women acted in this way maliciously, to humiliate monks, whether they did so out of sexual desire, or
whether they sat on top of the sleeping monks in order to perform sex acts because they believed that to do
so was a way to o er monks what they desired. As motive is only mentioned in four of the nine instances
recounted, and the latter motive is mentioned more than the others—on two occasions rather than one—a
p. 74 conclusion that the outlined behavior of the women in question was a result of female sexual appetite
would be spurious.

Saṅghādisesa 2: Not to engage in bodily contact with a woman

This rule is as follows:

Whatever monk, a ected by desire, with a perverted heart, should come into bodily contact with a
woman, holding her hand or holding a braid of her hair, or rubbing against any one or other of her
limbs, this is an o ense involving a formal meeting of the saṅgha. (Suttavibhaṅga saṅghādisesa 2 at
Vin. III, 120).

This rule for monks is similar to a pārājika rule for nuns, as follows:

Whatever nun, lled with desire, should consent to rubbing, or rubbing against, or taking hold or
touching or pressing against a man lled with desire below the collar-bone, above the circle of the
 knees, she also becomes one who is defeated, she is no longer in communion, being one who
touches above the circle of the knee. (Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga pārājika 1 at Vin. IV, 213)

It also bears some resemblance to another pārājika rule for nuns, although this one is closer to a pācittiya
rule for monks:

Whatever nun, lled with desire, for the sake of indulging in that which is not dhamma, should
consent to holding the hand of a man lled with desire or should consent to holding the edge of his
outer cloak or should stand with or talk to or should go for a rendezvous with or should consent to
a man’s approaching (her) or should enter a concealed place or should dispose of the body for such

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/3902/chapter/145449326 by Concordia University user on 07 October 2024

a purpose, she also becomes one who is defeated, she is no longer in communion, being a doer of
eight things (Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga pārājika 4 at Vin. IV, 220).

As pārājika rules are most severe for women who commit the transgression of intentionally coming into
bodily contact with a man for the sake of sexual arousal, that woman is to be, according to the text,
p. 75 permanently expelled from the saṅgha. However, if a monk acts in the same way the consequences for
him are less. A monk is not expelled from the community for such behaviour. Commenting on this situation,
scholars such as In Young Chung (1999, 34–7) and Juo-Hsüeh Shih (2000, 172–3) highlight this as
testimony to the harsher treatment of women as opposed to men in Buddhist vinayas. In both of the pārājika
rules, the causative of the verb sad is used in the optative (sādiyeyye) meaning “to permit, yield, consent.” In
the rst of the two pārājikās it is used once at the end of the rule, implying that the rule is to be enforced if
the nun consents to being touched, caressed, et cetera. In the second of the pārājikās it is used three times: in
relation to consenting to hand-holding, to consenting to touching the clothes of another, and consenting to
the man approaching her. Conversely, there is no language denoting yielding or consent on the part of the
monks, suggesting instead that the monk is the active one in the interaction—not simply one who is
permitting or consenting to contact, but rather one who is initiating.

Shih notes that this di erence, the use of the word meaning “consent” in the nuns’ versions of the rule, is
particular to the Pāli. In the vinayas of other schools the word for “consent” does not occur in either monks’
or nuns’ rules; therefore Shih concludes that it is “of no signi cance” (2000, 214). I have, nevertheless,
included mention of it for two reasons: rst, because the origin story in relation to this rst pārājika rule in
the Pāli is concerned with the issue of consent. Although the two protagonists in the story—the nun
Sundarīnandā and the builder Sāḷha—fall in love, it is the layman who conspires to get Sundarīnandā alone
with him. Her o ense is simply that she consents. The second story, however, which is exceptionally brief,
is concerned with nuns who act out of their own sexual desire. But the story is little more than a statement
that a group of nuns were behaving inappropriately, followed by the ruling. Further, in considering the
relevance of the use of the word for “consent,” recent comparative study of vinaya and other literature is
suggestive of some di erences in relation to views about or portrayals of women between the early schools
19
of Buddhism.
p. 76 Saṅghādisesa 5: Not to act as a go-between
This saṅghādisesa rule applies to both monks and nuns. E ectively, the rule prohibits monks and nuns from
any sort of involvement with sexual and/or romantic unions. Although the rule speci cally states that a
monk must not act as a go-between “for a woman with a man in mind or a man with a woman in mind”
(itthiyā vā purisamatiṃ purissassa vā itthimatiṃ, Vin. III, 138), all the examples given, with the exception of the
rst, are about men having monks persuade a girl, young woman, or the girl or woman’s family to give the
girl or woman to the man or men. That all stories told in relation to this rule are concerned with monks is,
again, because this rule is related in the monks Suttavibhaṅga. However, this does not account for why it is
almost always women being persuaded into sexual or romantic encounters. In the initial sections, the go-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/3902/chapter/145449326 by Concordia University user on 07 October 2024

between activities appear as simple misdirected desires to match-make that go wrong. However, following
that is a section on men asking a prostitute (vesiyā) to join them in a pleasure grove. She refuses, as she does
not know them, until persuaded by the monk to do so. Then follow several sections on monks procuring
certain types of women for men, and the whole section ends with some examples of monks going to
“examine” women, presumably to see if they will make suitable wives or suitable sexual partners.

Saṅghādisesa rules for nuns in the Pāli Vinaya

Saṅghādisesa 3: Not to go to the village alone, cross the river alone, stay away
at night alone, stay behind in a group
In this nuns’ rule, four speci c instances are recounted that lead to a fourfold rule being made. First, an
unnamed nun quarrels with other nuns so goes alone to see her relatives in a neighboring village. The issue
is with her having gone alone. When the other nuns who have been dispatched to nd her come across her
they ask if she was violated. She replies that she was not but, nevertheless, a rule is made forbidding nuns to
do this due to an apparently strong possibility they will be sexually assaulted if they travel alone. The next
section concerns two nuns traveling together and their experience of coercion by a boatman who tells them
he cannot take them both across the river at the same time; they must go one at a time. Once separated, each
nun is violated. A rule is made that not only must nuns not travel to villages alone, but they must not cross
p. 77 rivers alone. Third, a man conspires to get alone a certain nun, who is part of a group staying overnight in
his village. A rule is made that nuns must not be away from the group overnight. Last, a nun stays behind
from a group to defecate. This very temporary separation was enough for her to be accosted and violated, so
a rule was made that nuns must not stay behind a group.

The form of this rule is di erent from those discussed so far. With the other rules, in each case the story is
concerned with a monk or nun behaving in a way considered inappropriate. In this instance, the obvious
culprits are not the nuns who su ered abuse and mistreatment, but rather the men who attempted to
seduce, coerce, and manipulate in order to either bring about situations of consensual sex or who sexually
assaulted the nuns. A super cial reading of this rule might suggest that, as the nuns are the ones who are
admonished for their actions, they are being held responsible for the actions done to them—essentially,
being blamed for being sexually assaulted. However, this goes against the grain of the majority of vinaya
rules, which deem an action an o ense if it is intentionally done. In this rule, nuns are not being
admonished for engaging in sex acts, but rather for putting themselves in dangerous or potentially
dangerous situations. Other rules in the vinayas are preventative and protective, and a similar rule for
monks is found in pācittiya 10. In the story, the monk Anuruddha agrees to sleep on a couch in a woman’s
house alone with her, which results in him having to rebu her advances. The rule is made that monks
should not, at night, lie down near a woman. The punishment for transgression of this o ense is lighter
than for the nuns in the saṅghādisesa rule, but this could be because the consequences of not adhering to the
 monks’ rule—having to ght o amorous advances—is much less severe than in two of the cases for nuns,
which resulted in sexual assault. Although in the pācittiya rule laywomen making sexual advances to monks
is attested to again, the nuns’ rule exposes an aggressive, and in two instances violent, male sexuality.

This is the rst rule speci cally concerned with nuns rather than monks, but here we do not see a reversal of
the trend identi ed thus far. So far, monks have acted and women responded, and here the change is not in
that sexual dynamic, but only in who is the ordained and who the layperson. Here laymen act, and nuns
attempt to respond or are subjected to unwanted events, in two instances being subjected to sexual assault
and in the other having to fend o male advances.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/3902/chapter/145449326 by Concordia University user on 07 October 2024

p. 78 Saṅghādisesa 5: Not to accept and eat food o ered by men who desire her
when she is herself filled with desire

Saṅghādisesa 6: Not to persuade another nun to accept food from one filled
with desire
20
It would appear from these two rules that physically attractive nuns were presented with better food
o erings on some occasions, simply because men were sexually interested in them. In these two very short
sections, nuns are told not to accept food or water for brushing their teeth by anyone who is—obviously,
one would assume—sexually attracted to them. Next, they are told not to try to persuade other nuns to
accept better food o erings in these situations. Again, with these two rules there are no equivalents for
monks. This is perhaps the closest we come to a rule for women equivalent to the monks’ rule prohibiting
them from attempting to persuade women to engage in sex with them. But if this rule is seen as the closest
equivalent, then a conclusion must be drawn that women do not need to persuade, because men are sexually
ready and available, and all the nuns are being regulated against is not encouraging men in instances when
they are making their availability known.

The nature of these two rules are indicative of a general pattern that can be observed through this analysis
of the saṅghādisesa rules of the Pāli Vinaya on sex. Indications within the rules of male and female sexuality
are that men are the initiators and sexual aggressors, and women the ones who are, on the whole,
propositioned, courted, coerced, manipulated, or assaulted. The two above rules demonstrate again male
desire as the initiator of potential sexual situations between men and women. The men are giving some
indication to the nuns of their sexual interest, and the rules are concerned with whether the nuns respond or
not. In general, within discussion of this set of rules, the parameters are circumscribed around female
response to male advances. In none of the instances in the saṅghādisesa are females the sexual initiators or
sexual aggressors and men the ones courted, coerced, or manipulated. While this is the case with the rules
under discussion, such an indication of the nature of female sexuality is potentially challenged by the
above-mentioned addenda to the rst pārājika, which describes women sexually assaulting men. However,
p. 79 this potential challenge is tempered by the indications that, in some instances at least, such behavior is
again responsive; the women are responding to their perceived idea that o ering sex to monks is the
highest gift they can give as laywomen.

Setting the above rules alongside each other, we can conclude the following: for monks, the basic
admonitions are that they should not speak inappropriately to women about sex, try to pursue women to
have sex with them, come into bodily contact with a woman, or act as go-betweens in sexual encounters.
For nuns, they should not come into bodily contact with a man, put themselves in dangerous situations in
which they might be sexually assaulted, respond inappropriately to men who display sexual intent, or act as
go-betweens. Thus, in this set of rules the indicators are clear—men actively seek sex and women need to
be aware of the potential danger of male sexuality, not encourage it, and ensure they keep themselves out of
harm’s way. As mentioned above, in other parts of the Pāli Vinaya there are examples of active and healthy
male and female desire, and other examples of mutual consent, but here the case is unequivocal—men are
the ones with the more potent and potentially dangerous sexual appetites.

Notes
1. In the Aṅguttara-nikāya (4.80 at II 82–83), Ananda asks the Buddha why women do not sit on courts of justice, embark on
business, or reach the essence of any deed. The Buddha replies by listing certain negative characteristics of women such
as that they are, by nature, weak in wisdom, uncontrollable, greedy, and envious. In the Saṃyutta-nikāya (3.16 at I.86), the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/3902/chapter/145449326 by Concordia University user on 07 October 2024

Buddha is talking to King Pasenadi when the king hears his wife has given birth to a daughter. The king is disappointed by
the news, but the Buddha tells him that women too can be wise and virtuous. The well-known verse attributed to Somā in
the Therı̄gāthā (verses 60–62 at 129–30) raises the question as to whether male and female nature is of any relevance to
one treading the path.
2. Many of the Therı̄gāthā verses contain expressions that suggest the nuns—to whom the verses are attributed—had
attained Awakening. Also see the Mahāvacchagotta-sutta (MN 73 at I 491), which reports the Buddha stating that he had
far more than 500 arahant nuns and far more than 500 laywomen followers who had become non-returners. The most
quoted verse on the topic of womenʼs inability is the verse connected with Somā (see chapter six of this volume. The verse
also appears in the Thı̄ v.60). This assertion that women lack the ability to advance because of their dull intellect is put
into the mouth of Māra, who, Anālayo argues in chapter six, may represent “challenges posed by outsiders to members of
the Buddhist community.”
3. Aṅguttara-nikāya (7.59b at IV.92–93) and Saṃyutta-nikāya (4.37.3 at IV, 239).
4. In the Pāli the passage is repeated four times, once for sound, then scent, taste, and finally touch.
5. This passage is not found in parallel texts to the Aṅguttara-nikāya, so is only extant in the Pāli. Also, the context of this
story, leading up to the declaration, is the narrative of a mother and son, both of whom ordain and engage in sexual
intercourse with one another. As such, although it is found in a sutta collection, this is a vinaya-type story as it concerns
the misbehavior of a monk and nun.
6. See the introduction to this volume, pages 5–6, for references to the history of the debate in modern scholarship.
7. Saṃyutta Nikāya (5.1 at I, 128) sattisūlūpamā kāmā khandhāsaṃ adhikuṭṭanā yaṃ tvaṃ kāmaratiṃ brūsi arati mayha.
8. The “man” is Māra, in the guise of a human male.
9. See Clarke (2009a) on a pārājika story missing from the Pāli but in all other extant vinayas. Clarke highlights that inclusion
of this story can lead to a di erent, and lesser, form of punishment for transgression of the first pārājika. According to this
story, permanent expulsion from the saṅgha is not the only result of committing the first o ense.
10. The opening statement is missing in the pārājika section.
11. The Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravāda Bhikṣuṇı̄ Vinaya has 19 rather than 17 saṅghādisesa rules. It includes one rule not
known in other vinayas, but also misses out one in other lists. It has more than 17 because it has saṅghādisesa 3 (see
below) as three separate rules. The saṅghādisesa rules under discussion in this chapter, both those for monks and nuns,
appear in either all or almost all other extant vinayas.
12. vaṇṇaṃ pi bhaṇati avaṇṇam pi bhaṇati yācati pi āyācati pi pucchati pi paṭipucchati pi ācikkhati pi anusāsati pi akkosati pi.
(Suttavibhaṅga saṅghādisesa 3 at Vin. III, 127).
13. nimittamattāsi . . . itthipaṇḍakāsi (Suttavibhaṅgha saṅghādisesa 3 at Vin. III, 128).
14. kakkasalomaṃ kho te (Suttavibhaṅga saṅghādisesa 4 at Vin. III, 130).
15. ākiṇṇalomaṃ kho te (Suttavibhaṅga saṅghādisesa 4 at Vin. III, 130).
16. vāpitaṃ kho te (Suttavibhaṅga saṅghādisesa 4 at Vin. III, 131).
17. āmʼ . . . khārakambalako ʻti (Suttavibhaṅga saṅghādisesa 4 at Vin. III, 130).
18. Tena kho samayena rājagahe supabbā nāma upāsikā buddhappasannā hoti, sā evaṃ diṭṭhikā hoti yā methunaṃ
dhammaṃ deti sā aggadānaṃ detı̄ti.
19. See for example Anālayo (2008) and also his study of a Tibetan version of the story of Dhammadinnā, in which
Dhammadinnā herself approaches the Buddha, as opposed to the Pāli version, in which her interlocutor, Visākha, reports
their conversation to the Buddha (2011a:17).
20. Saṅghadisesa 5 and 6 have recently been translated by Shih (2000, 99–109).