Jump to content

Talk:Bhikkhunī

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed Merger

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. Alexander Roumega (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article gelongma, and I feel there is no need to keep it separate. It should clearly be merged with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvonudinium (talk • contribs) 03:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody objected for a long time. I'l merge this. Alexander Roumega (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meltingpot

[edit]

It seems reasonable imho to keep Sangha, Bhikkhu, Bhikkhuni, Mae ji etc. as separate yet interlinked articles.--Gakuro 08:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

Bhikkhuni is spelled in Pali without a retroflex n, which is an unwarranted Sanskritism. E.g.: http://studies.worldtipitaka.org/tipitaka/4V/10/10.1/10.1.2  ; http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/1Vinaya-Pitaka/2Pacittiya-Pali/6Bhikkhuni-Vibhangha/34bhikkhuni-vibhanga-p.html  ; PTS Pali Culavagga pg. 255. I have accordingly changed the spelling where necessary. Sujato (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distinct Articles

[edit]

I'd suggest that these (Sangha, Bhikkhu, Bhikkhuni, Mae ji) remain distinct articles. I imagine that several of these articles will grow significantly, since the situation for women monastics is rapidly changing. Deebki 00:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's reasonable to have an article about the status of bhikkhunis in the Theravada countries and Tibet. But, what sort of information do you suggest should be housed in the other such articles? They seem to me like they are all about the same thing. I don't see any major changes occurring with regard to most of the bhikkhuni sangha.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all the articles about sangha groups could use development. I should bring this to the Buddhism project. Most are missing info on specific ordination process, levels of ordination, inclusion or exclusion of leity, culturally specific practices of vinaya, roles within the culture, relationships to government and other cultures, etc. Just thinking about the massive sections on a single article (level of ordination, vinaya practice, roles, etc. for every Buddhist tradition) gives me a headache... perhaps as much headache as looking at all the scattered, proliferating articles gives you, Nat. Maybe they could all be categorized together, under something like Buddhist monasticism or even Sangha. What do you think? ----Deebki 10:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

taiwan

[edit]

I am of the opinion that bhikkhu and bhikkhuni should remain seperate, just as monk and nun are seperate. Further I think we need more info on the bhikkhuni orders in taiwan en south-korea, and on the history of the mahayana and theravada order.Greetings, Sacca 10:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also a moerge with sangha is not desire-able, the article would become much too long, and people looking for info on bhikkhunis would have to go to too much other info. keep things to the point.Greetings, Sacca 10:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theravadan Bhikkhuni Sangha in North America

[edit]

I do not know if this is appropriate for this WP article (or perhaps it has already been integrated in a way that my scanning of this article did not reveal) but so that others may consider whether or not to incorporate the information into this article, I copy here a FeedBurner post from Bhante G's "Bhavana Society":

News: An Historic Meeting of Theravada Bhikkhunis
(Posted: 20 Oct 2007 05:17 PM CDT)
This November will witness an important milestone for Buddhism in the West. For the first time ever, Theravada Buddhist nuns will gather on American soil for a Patimokkha observance. The “Bhikkhuni Patimokkha” is the monastic discipline for fully ordained women in Buddhism; its recitation one of the main gatherings that affirms the presence and harmonious communion of the Buddhist monastic Sangha. In many eyes this event will officially mark the establishment of the Theravadan Bhikkhuni Sangha in North America. Nine bhikkhunis from across the U.S. and Germany will converge at the Carolina Buddhist Vihara, including Ayya Sudinna and Ayya Sobhana from the Bhavana Society. They will will observe Patimokkha privately on November 9, followed on November 11 by the public celebration of Kathina. (This is the robe-offering ceremony at the end of the monastic three-month Rains Retreat. For more information about Kathina at the Carolina Buddhist Vihara, email: dhammasc@hotmail.com). In the run-up to this event, the Bhavana Society will briefly host four bhikkhunis and an anagarika (female trainee). On November 6-7, our two resident nuns will welcome Ayya Tathaaloka, Ayya Poonsirivara and Anagarika Suvijjana.

This information is also posted at http://www.bhavanasociety.org:80/new/an_historic_meeting_of_theravada_bhikkhunis/.

With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This article needs a lot of help. And there has been significant history made in the recent year. Please see http://www.saranaloka.org/whats_new.html to see description and photos from Oct. 17,2011 ordination of bhikkhunis. I can't even begin to correct the stuff in this article because it is all mashed together. There are many differences in bhikkhunis of different traditions, so putting them all together and then making definitive statements about things like 8 precepts makes it all worthless. There is a lot of history on the Saranloka website and also three good talks that cover the history of Theravada bhikkhunis in the coverage of the last ordination - talks by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Venerable Vinaylo Bhikkhu, and Thanissara. Sorry I can't be of more help, but I don't edit Wikipedia, just got sucked into this seeing if there was a page for the Aloka Vihara. You might also refer to the Alliance for Bhikkhunis website! Santutthijill (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Jill Boone, santutthijill[reply]

Mess

[edit]

This article seems to be one. A lot of it seems to be propaganda. I've deleted or modified a lot of the worst. It's still very unbalanced, giving masses of arguments on 1 side, & little or nothing on the other.

Factual inacuracy: the number 311 for the rules is only Theravada.

I've deleted the Thailand section, as there's no indication in the material that anyone there is actually a bhikkhuni (or even claims to be). I've also deleted the Mahayana section as it's entirely about Japan, whose clergy are not bhikkhus & bhikkhunis, but receive a bodhisattva ordination instead, & nowadays are mostly married. An exception is the Ritsu school, but that has only a few dozen bhikkhus & bhikkunis (probably outnumbered by foreign ones in the country).

If the article is to be called Bhikkhuni, it really ought to be about that, not about other female religious. For that matter, it should be about Theravada nuns only, since the vastly greater numbers of Mahayana ones don't use the Pali word. So it should cover only the old order up to the 13th century & modern attempts at revival. Peter jackson (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to this article, Peter. I'm not sure whether ordained Buddhist persons in Japan agree that they are not bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, although to me it seems like a useful distinction to make that a person who does not claim to follow the vinaya is not a bhikkhu(ni), even if his or her lifestyle and discipline might merit the English term "monk" or "nun".
There is at least one Thai Theravada bhikkhuni in Thailand, Dhammananda, who was ordained by Sri Lankan bhikkhunis. Her associates have mostly been samaṇerīs, although I think that in the last year or two some of them may have attained full bhikkhuni ordination as well. [update: according to thaibhikkhunis.org, there are six Thai Theravada bhikkhunis, one living in Sri Lanka and the other five living in Thailand]
Also, I generally don't like splitting up articles unnecessarily and it seems unnecessary to exclude Mahayana bhikṣuṇīs. It seems like roughly the same phenomenon, since they all follow similar vinaya.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?

[edit]

I removed this sentence: (Please edit this as it was Ananda, the Buddha's attendant, who successfully requested women be allowed to join (after Mahapajapati's requests were rejected)

If this is true, the article needs to be edited. If people have comments on what in the article needs to be edited, they need to keep it on the talk page. 66.42.216.226 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the article:

  • clarification: The Vinaya recounts the story of six monks who lifted up their robes to show their thighs to the nuns. When the Buddha learned about this, he made an exception to that rule and told the nuns not to pay respect to these monks. A nun, then, does not have to bow to every monk, but only to a monk who is worthy of respect. [6]

I still don't know what to say about this.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.90.182 (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already here?

[edit]

this information [1]?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.197.75 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and this one [2]? Article by Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron

Austerlitz -- 88.72.27.48 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this statement Statement of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on Bhikshuni Ordination in the Tibetan Tradition to section External Links. Dalai Lama said besides other "But in terms of the modality of introducing Bhikshuni vows within the tradition, we have to remain within the boundaries set by the Vinaya - otherwise, we would have introduced the Bhikshuni vow in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition long time ago."

Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.112 (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any stories?

[edit]

"7) A Monk must not be abused or reviled in any way by a nun." Are there any stories referring to that rule?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.200.77 (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humour

[edit]
  • Diemberger, Hildegard (2007): When a Woman Becomes a Religious Dynasty - The Samding Dorje Phagmo of Tibet, Columbia University Press, 2007, ISBN 0231143206, EAN 9780231143202, Extract

What do you think? does it go with the seriosity of wikipedia mentioning that popular song within the text?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.149 (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Sutta from Discourses of the Ancient Nuns(Bhikkhuni-samyutta)

Should be inserted somehow, maybe into section history.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.202.78 (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhukkhuni ordination in Australia

[edit]

Controversial point. See Vinaya Expert - Thanissaro Bhikkhu commentary: http://www.dhammalight.com/vinaya/ThanissaroBhikkhu_13-11-09.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.112.107.243 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Vinaya Expert - Ajahn Brahmali's response to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's commentary: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=22,8745,0,0,1,0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.163.172 (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

A Little Misleading

[edit]

From The Article:

Rules for nuns in Buddhism: 

   1) A nun who has been ordained even for a hundred years must greet respectfully, rise up from her seat, salute with joined palms, do proper homage to a monk ordained but that day.

       * clarification: The Vinaya recounts the story of six monks who lifted up their robes to show their thighs to the nuns. When the Buddha learned about this, he made an exception to that rule and told the nuns not
to pay respect to these monks. A nun, then, does not have to bow to every monk, but only to a monk who is worthy of respect.[12]

       * Pajapati's later request: "I would ask one thing of the Blessed One, Ananda. It would be good if the Blessed One would allow making salutations, standing up in the presence of another, paying reverence
and the proper performance of duties, to take place equally between both bhikkhus and bhikkhunis according to seniority." [13]

The two Bullet points after the rule are a bit misleading. The first includes an interpretation that is not suggested by the text. The text says that nuns do not have to salute monks that are actively rude to them, which seems less than what the bullet suggests. The second bullet seems to imply that the request was granted, when it was flatly denied. I suggest they both be removed.

Links to the relevant sections of the Vinaya:

First Bullet: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe20/sbe20094.htm

Second Bullet: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe20/sbe20100.htm

I apologize for the poor format of this. I'm new to Wikipedia. First Post.

HeyPecka (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Links to the Vinaya sections are backwards. Forgive me.

HeyPecka (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concept of equality

[edit]

Quote: Dr. Chatsumarn Kabilsingh writes, "Nuns at the time of the Buddha had equal rights and an equal share in everything. In one case, eight robes were offered to both sanghas at a place where there was only one nun and four monks. The Buddha divided the robes in half, giving four to the nun and four to the monks, because the robes were for both sanghas and had to be divided equally however many were in each group. Because the nuns tended to receive fewer invitations to lay-people's homes, the Buddha had all offerings brought to the monastery and equally divided between the two sanghas. He protected the nuns and was fair to both parties. They are subordinate in the sense of being younger sisters and elder brothers, not in the sense of being masters and slaves.

I am writing this just to give an input that can give a deeper understanding of the issue. The languages of communication is definitely not English among the Buddhists. So, when claiming that there was no sense of master-slave or master-subordinate, but only younger sister-elder brother has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

For, this younger sister-elder brother communication system is itself feudal and hierarchical. It is just master-slave or master-subordinate in another name. The hierarchal words for You, He, She, His, Her, Hers, and even the usage of name and limitations of movement and right to articulation are all encoded in this communication system.

The younger sister status is a subordination, that can over time lead to messy relationship and even to misuse, abuse or over use of domination. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is original research. Tengu800 02:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra section?

[edit]

It appears that content from the garudhammas article has been copied to this article, creating redundancy and in violation of NPOV rules. This needs to be updated, including mention of the extreme controversy surrounding whether the garudhammas are cannonical, as well as citations (which were removed by Lone boatman).76.230.49.88 (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

Is the source for "For a country or nation to be considered as truly Buddhist, the majority of the nation must be Buddhist and include at least a fourfold assembly of bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, upasakas and, upasikas" sufficiently weighty for this statement to be included in the lede? almost-instinct 23:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. For one thing, the source does not mention a "majority" of people in the country being Buddhist. For another, it's unclear what the historical precedent for such a statement would be. Most of the history of Buddhism in India, for example, it is likely that Buddhists did not constitute the majority. And even countries that have very high numbers of Buddhist adherents (like Bhutan) would not be considered "truly Buddhist" because they lack bhikshunis? Some reference beyond a passing mention in an article like this should be given when making such statements. Tengu800 23:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In that case, IMO (but ignoring my own sympathy for it), this statement should be moved from the lede to somewhere else in the text, and introduced as an opinion rather than a fact. In good WP fashion I shall be bold and do the change myself, and let more knowledgeable people mop up after me ;-) almost-instinct 10:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bhikkhuni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. Alexander Roumega (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Ordination of women in Buddhism be merged into Bhikkhuni. These articles have a large overlap and duplicating. As I know, Buddhist ordination is related only to monks (Bhikkhus) and nuns (Bhikkhunis). Men and women don't need any ordination, rite or ceremony to become worldly Buddhists. So Ordination of women in Buddhism means just ordination to Bhikkhuni. Alexander Roumega (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For 30 days, nobody objects. Merging. Alexander Roumega (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bhikkhuni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bhikkhuni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming "Nun" article

[edit]

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Nun#Rename article "Nun and religious sister" ? whether to rename this article "Nun and religious sister", since religious sisters have no article of their own and they may not want to be called nuns. Religious sisters are already a major topic in the article. Jzsj (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

I would like to apologize for my edits of last month, I shouldn’t have been so harsh and insensitive in the way I’ve done my edits. I’m sure there are a lot of people very sensitive around this issue. I was pretty triggered myself when I saw that no one in the last decades has bothered to give an opportunity to the Sangha to voice their concerns over this. This has resulted in a large amount of people making the wildest assumptions on why the monks refuse the reestablishment in the Theravada community. (FYI: that's 130k views within the last 3 years)

My own primary concern was to point out that (beforehand, less now) this article tends to be pretty slanted and give a one-sided account of things.

Anyway I’m won’t be back contributing here, so if people are motivated to do so they can work on it further, I won’t.

Take care. 2607:9000:2000:19:0:0:0:A10D (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Bhikkhunī

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bhikkhunī's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "door":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Article issues and classification

[edit]
This article has several issues that include tags: "spam" and "External links" cleanup (June 2014), "unsourced statements" (January 2018 and April 2021), "needing factual verification" (June 2020), and "needing additional references" (October 2022).
The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4,The article is reasonably well-written.. The article has been reassessed to C-class pending the resolution of issues.
[edit]
There are ninteen entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
  • ELBURDEN: Please note: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

Weingast's book is not a translation

[edit]
  • Sighs*. Matty Weingast's book "the First Free Women" was a book of original poetry that was fraudulently marketed as as a translation of the Therigatha. The publisher Shambala agrees it is not a translation and says they did not market it as such, even though they obviously did. It should not be cited at all, TBH, except as a fraud. But if it is it should be described as what it is, a book of poetry by Weingast. But it's a poor choice for a quote about discrimination against bhikkhunis. I'd really appreciate it if my revision were not reverted and Shambala's lies not repeated as fact. https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/the-first-free-women-as-literary-fraud/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.110.117 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the updated article references published on 29-09-2024

[edit]

On August 24, 2024 at 9:55 PM, IP ‎31.4.230.198 added 2 POV panels on 2 related articles, namely: Eight Garudhammas and Bhikkhuni , because according to him (the IP):

There are no half-serious or academic ciations for the repeated false claim that the Eight Garudhammas cannot be traced to Buddha. Instead the cititations for this claim all go to personal, non-academic webpages. The while article is a "nothing to see here" partisan fluff piece, not remotely seeious minded or nuetral.

On September 27, I checked the 33 references of the article Eight Garudhammas. Ijust did the same operation for the article Bhikkhuni. There were 117 references, 10 of which were obsolete web links. After removing these, there are 107 references left. Among these 107 references, the authors are the same as for the article Eight Garudhammas, that is to say that they are several academics (5), as follows:

-Bhikkhu Analayo, professor at the University of Hamburg and habilitation at the University of Marburg (Germany);
- Susan Murcott, senior lecture rat the M.I.T,(US);
- Dr. Chatsumarn Kabilsingh (Dhammananda Bhikkhuni), professor at the Thammasat University, (Thailand);
- Akira Hirakawa , member of the Japan Academy;
- Karma Lekshe Tsomo, professor at the University of San Diego and University of Hawaii Manoa, (US).

The other four authors are the bhikkhus who have been internationally recognised for decades :

- Bhikkhu Sujato, Ajahn Brahm, Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, Thubten Chodron.

To these must be added the following authors (two of whom is an academic):

- -Alice Collett, professor at the University of St Andrews, (Scotland) ;
- Hiroko Kawanami, professor at the Lancaster University, (England);
- Thích Nhất Hạnh , an internationally recognised master;
- Vicki Mackenzie;
- Hellmuth Hecker [de]
- without forgetting to mention the in chapter 12 of the Lotus Sutra (in which Sariputta himself was initially skeptical before admitting that a woman could become a Buddha).

All authors mentioned have published several hundred books and articles and translated thousands of sutras from Pali. In other words, they know the subject.

Accordingly, the remark made by IP 31.4.230.198: «citations are too personal, non-academic, sectarian, webpage : which no longer exists. This article is very obviously extremely biased » , appears to be unfounded.

But as I stated on September 27 on the talk page of the article Eight Garudhammas, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the IP 31.4.230.198 contributor, because thanks to his action (which at first sight seemed to me to be more a negative criticism than constructive), He gave me the opportunity to contribute by trying to improve two articles. Thank you to him for that.

I won't be taking part in the discussion aimed at reaching a consensus, trusting in the community. (please note : my IP is different from the one which appears for the modification of 27 September on the article Eight Garudhammas because my IP changes at each connection. So it's the same contributor in both cases). 14.165.110.70 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhikkhunī&oldid=1248426472"