Ven. Bhikkhu Mihita, PhD (writing from Canada) 

The issue of the ordination of Mahapajapati Gotami, step-mother nursing mom of Prince Siddhartha,

later Buddha, continues to be controversial. The general understanding, as encouraged in the Pali version,  is that she was denied  ordination, not only once but twice, and was finally given    at Encounter 5, Buddha’s hands pushed by Ananda. The Chinese Madhyama agama  and Sanskrit, however,  include  a specific line  that speaks to her ordination at the first request.    

So to introduce the context first, the Buddha visits father King Suddhodana in 1PE (year 1, Post-Enlightenment). At this Encounter 1, listening to the Dhamma, she becomes a stream-entrant (sotapanna) while the King becomes a nonreturner (anagami). In 5PE,  he makes a second visit, father on death-bed.   After the King passes away,  the  Buddha stays behind at hometown Kapilavatthu, spending the rains season (vassana). With both   son Nanda, and grandson Rahula, already in robes, Mahapajapati understandably has her mind on it, too.

At the end of Vassana,    she approaches the Buddha, and in this Encounter 3,   makes her first  Entreaty – a polite request,  regarding women leaving home to homelessness, to train in the Path.   But to be noted is that she is not specifically  requesting   personal ordination for herself.

A year or two later, Buddha successfully averts  a  fight  over the waters of river Rohini.    Inspired by a Dhamma talk, 250 soldiers from each side – Koliyans on mother’s side, Sakyans on father’s,  seek  and are given ordination.  Pajapati, on behalf of the wives,  making  the same request again, it  comes to be   turned down.                       

But a careful look at the wordings of the very first Entreaty  (Encounter 3)   seems to tell a different story.  Here then is the text, as per the Madhyama agama:

MAHAPAJAPATI	BUDDHA
Can women attain the fourth fruit of recluseship?”	[Noble silence]
For that reason [can] women … leave   home to  homelessness	Now, Gotami, do not have this   thought… [to] leave home  to homelessness ….
… to train in the path?”	Gotami, you [a] shave off your hair like this, [b] put on ochre robes and [c] for your whole life [d] practice the pure holy life.

The response  she  gets  for the first part of  the question  is a ‘noble silence’.   It may be noted that when invited for alms, Buddha’s acceptance was through silence. So  his silence to the question then means that he indeed gives the hint that,  yes, women can attain the fourth fruit”,  meaning Arahanthood,  meaning Nibbana while alive.                                                       His  answer to the second part of the question, Now, Gotami, do not have this thought..”,   true enough, may have a negative ring to it. But, it  can be seen as a mere cautioning about   leaving home  into  homelessness.  But, as if in relation to her last words,  … to train in the path?”,      the Buddha seems to take  her  to the  personal level  –  [a] shave off your hair like this, [b] put on ochre  robes” and [c] for your whole life [d] practice the pure holy life” (as in the Madhyama-Agama wording).

Now doesn’t   putting on robes, and shaving off  hair    mean   giving up lay life, as was also done by Siddhartha upon leaving the Palace? Having no hair and being in a robe are what mark a Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni from the laity, then as it is today.   So, what would  the Buddha have meant with his  words  other than ordination?  Isn’t it further confirmed when the shaving and donning is to be  for your whole life”?

But Pajapati seems to have taken the words to mean that she was denied ordination,  seemingly again for a very good reason. Today, ‘ordination’ entails leaving home into homelessness,  hair     shaven , and   wearing  the robes.  Required also is a begging bowl. Ordination directed by two Sangha Elders, Higher Ordination Upasampada call for 10 monks, to be held in  an authorized seema ‘boundary’.

               So today, ordination basically  EQUALS formalities and rituals. No ritual, no ordination! Period. And by the time when Mahapajapatī makes the first entreaty, such formalities had certainly come to be in place, too,   in relation to male ordination.  

However, and this is the critical point, in the earliest stages of  male ordination there were no  such formalities. Visiting the Group of Five, with whom Samana Gotama future Buddha had spent time in the bush exploring liberation, he  was to   teach them  the Dhamma,     addressing  them simply as ‘O Bhikkhus’,  when  they reply Lord”.  Ordained!   And many a wanderer of the time being Brahmins, they most likely had long hair, and beards,  too, and were bare-bodied waist-up.  But no call to shave off the hair or wear robes. 

 But to take the case of the first lay male Yasa, there was no call to leave the household either to be given ordination,  even though he  came from luxury. As  for his  higher  ordination, the Buddha’s  words were, Come, oh Bhikkhu. Well taught is the Dhamma. Lead the holy life to make a complete end of suffering”.                                                                             

Re  other male seekers, too,  ordination comes to be when the Buddha addresses them: Oh,  Bhikkhu”,  or  ‘Come Bhikkhu’ (ehi bhikkhu),  or if more than one, etha bhikkhave. There is no mention of shaving off hair,  getting into robes, getting a begging bowl  or leaving the household.                      For all the absence of formality and ritual,  when it comes to male ordination, the tradition has  clearly  had  no hesitancy in recognizing the first five and the others as being  ordained.    And nobody even today would deny  that the one-  or  two-word call from the Buddha did not constitute an ordination.                                                                                             

To continue with  the caution as in all three versions – Pali, Chinese and Sanskrit,  about leaving home into homelessness, in real pragmatic terms, could  a royal lady, by this time of about  the  age of 55  (or possiblyolder by another tradition), have   lived in the bush? Never mind the animals, but what about the human predators? Could  she have survived  the onslaughts of weather – sun, rain and wind?   What about begging for food?  Could she make the rounds for hours? Would  there be no harassments by the males in a society where women were mere chattels?  If  food collected, would  there be animals going after it? So would  allowing Pajapati to leavethe household not be an invitation to suffering? To be remembered is that Buddha himself was to abandon    extreme self-suffering, arriving at the Middle Path.  Additionally, would  such materialistic impediments in the bush not stand in the way  of qualities supportive of liberation such as meditation (sati; samaadhi),   happiness (peeti) and relaxation (passaddhi)?                                 On the other hand, would  remaining in the Palace, by herself,  not be supportive of a   lifetime commitment and practice?   Would  it be  an impediment to her spiritual  life?  Husband passed away, and   son   and grandson in robes,   who would be in her way, physically or   psychologically?  The only ones interacting with her    would be  her women attending on her . Would  they be in her way?  Would their  attending on her be an attraction back to lay life to one with hair cut off   and in  robes, specially for one    already a sotapanna?            

So, in essence, then,   the palace by herself would  have been the perfect fit – a peaceful environment, guaranteeing  food,  safety and security. Indeed this may well have been the context that prompts  the Buddha allowing an ‘empty house’ (sunnagara) as the third option for Sangha living,   in addition to the bush and under a tree.                                                                            If this be the case then, that would show  that Mahapajapati was by no means denied ordination.  What she was denied was ‘leaving home to homelessness’ (agarasma anagariyan).     What we see is the Buddha, in his pragmatic creativity, finding  a way ofordaining her.   So while the physical going forth had been cautioned against,   she  is clearly being guided along into  a   psychological going forth, this    for a  full lifetime.  

While Buddha instructing  that she shave off her hair and put on robes for her whole life, as in the last line, is only  in the Chinese and Sanskrit versions,  a definitive piece of evidence    that  she   was given ordination  comes from the Pali version itself. In relation to the final  encounter, Mahapajapati making her way to  the Buddha in Vesali, with a number of other ladies, and  asks the same question  – as to whether women could  come by the fourth recluseship, leaving home into homelessness. But at this Encounter, laying down a  set of Vinaya Rules, called Garudhamma ‘Principles of Respect’, the Buddha specifically says that accepting them would constitute  the higher ordination (upasampada) for Mahapajapati.   Now, does one not have to   have   an initial ordination, pabbajja,  to  qualify for the higher ordination?  

So when  was it    given?  As seen above, it was certainly not when the request was made the second time on behalf of the soldier wives. The obvious context when she receives the initial ordination would be none other than the initial Entreaty.

The Buddha spending Vassana  at Kapilavatthu  when the King passes away is another piece of evidence,   this being the only time. It may have been   for grief counseling to Pajapati.  But it may indeed have been to provide an opportunity for her to come to him.  

To be noted is that both levels of Pajapati ordination were given by the Buddha by way of an instruction.   If we need a  precedent in relation to male ordination,   we  have the case of Mahakassapa. It was    a distinct   form of ordination by accepting an instruction”. While this method is not shown in the Vinaya,    has the Elder  responsible for the First Council  ever been considered to be not ordained?  So it is then the same method that is used by the Buddha in relation to Mahapajapati Gotami.

But still, if the case has still not been made,     there is the case   of the Buddha  making   exceptions”,   Subhadda, the last to get ordained under him, being  an example.   The  rule by now was that   a disciple of   another teacher looking for discipleship under  the Buddha was to mark time  for four months before being admitted. And, of course,    upasampadā was to be given after several years following   pabbajja. But says the Buddha, I make individual exceptions”,  and then he asks Ananda to ordain him in his very presence, at both levels.   So asking Pajapati to shave off and put on robes may  be seen  as an exception made by the Buddha.      

To be noted is that Mahapajapati comes to be ordainedat the first Entreatyeven when  she had not specifically asked for it!   In doing so, the Buddha can be said to achieve two goals. One is to create  conditions for the personal  liberation of his nursing mom, in an expression of gratitude, katannuta, a rare value as pointed out by him. And the second is that by     admitting   this single female to the monastic life,    the Buddha was also  opening the door for women’s ordination in general, though in time.    

What the  Buddhian  pragmatism  shows then  is his  clear interest to build a Bhikkhuni sangha, and no  reluctance, as is  in the general thinking. Buddha charactering himself   ‘forward looking’ in this context should also dispel the myth that his hands were pushed by Ananda.        If male ordination  was now a grown up plant, it began with  a single seed, namely,  Kondañña, the first to gain insight to the Buddha’s teachings. Likewise can the Buddha’s proactive offer to Mahpajapati Gotami  be seen    as the  first single seed towards    female ordination.         Disallowing   a collective  ordination up until the right time would, of course,      have no bearing  on Mahapajapati Gotami  herself, already  on the Path.  There could have been no better conditions than asking her to wear  ochre  robes with hair shaven, but implicitly suggesting that  a room in the palace be her  Empty House, in a self-isolation.                                                                     

A parallel  apple to  apple comparison then would be   early female initiation to early  male initiation, while apples to oranges would be early female initiation to   late male initiation.  In conclusion, we can say that just as in relation to male ordination in the earliest stages, entailing no ritual,  Mahapajapati was indeed ordained at the very first Entreaty. The Buddha can also be said to be confirming in   his noble silence that  women in general can attain to the fourth recluseship, keeping the door ajar for a wider Bhikkuni ordination.

While the last line as in the dialogue does not occur in the Pali version, nor is there mention of the Buddha spending the vassana,  showing it to occur the very first time the Buddha visits father Suddhodana following his Enlightenment. So while the Pali version is clearly the earliest written version, on this issue, there seems to be some confusion. But our analysis should show that there  is no question as to the authenticity of the Chinese and Sanskrit versions, later as they are.

Ven. Bhikkhu Mihita  is the former Prof. Suwanda H. J. Sugunasiri, who introduced Theravada Buddhism  to Cuba, also getting ordained in Havana by way of inspiring Cubans.  Pioneer activist and spokesperson in Canadian Buddhism  beginning in the 1980’s, he is Founder of Nalanda College of Buddhist Studies, Toronto,  and Founder, Canadian Journal of Buddhist Studies, Toronto,  his latest initiative being  the Buddhist Literary Festival Canada.