Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies ISSN:1598-0642(Print) 불교학연구

The extant Vinaya-vibhaṅga for nuns in the Theravādin canon covers rules exclusive to nuns, not those shared with monks, even though the shared rules can be found in the Pātimokkha for nuns, and are also identified by Buddhaghosa. This has led scholars like Horner to wonder whether the extant Vinaya-vibhaṅga for nuns is an adbridged version of a more complete Vinaya-vibhaṅga for nuns. Regarding this issue, I interpret a particular piece of Buddhaghosa’s writing as evidence indicating that Theravādin monks and nuns preserved different versions of the Vinaya for nuns, i.e., a concise version with the former, which is the extant version, but a complete one with the latter, which has disappeared together with the latter. Then, I construct a hypothesis, using the Fourth and Eighth Revered rules, to explain how these two versions came to exist: I argue that by using monks as a bridge to let nuns know about new rules, or the updates to old rules, the Buddha ensured that monks be well-informed on the rules for nuns; this in turn has led monks and nuns to preserve the Vinaya of the latter in their own respective ways, hence two versions, one concise whereas the other complete. I also argue that the complete Pāli Pātimokkha for nuns is probably a remnant from the complete Vinaya of nuns preserved by them while their Order existed, and that it has survived until now as part of the monks’ legal curriculum. Finally, I look at other schools whether they might have similar issues. argue that the complete Pāli Pātimokkha for nuns is probably a remnant from the complete.