Reading Equality into Asymmetry: Dual Ordination in the Eyes of Modern Chinese Bhikṣuṇīs

Abstract

The “Dual Ordination” (erbuseng jie 二部僧戒) is a Vinaya-based ordination procedure introduced to China from Śrī Laṅkā in the fifth century; in the late imperial period it came to be included in the main ordination system. It stipulates that full ordination for nuns is to be carried out first in front of an assembly of bhikṣuṇīs and then another assembly of bhikṣus. However, contrary to this stipulation, ordinations have mainly been conferred to women by bhikṣus alone in China since the tenth century. The Dual Ordination procedures became a topic of discussion during the Republic of China (1911–1949) with the result that it was eventually reintroduced on the Mainland at the beginning of the 1980s, mainly due to the efforts of bhikṣuṇīs Longlian 隆蓮 (1909–2006) and Tongyuan 通願 (1913–1991). The article traces the roots of the restoration of Dual Ordinations during the Republican era and provides an account of their history since the 1980s. Finally, Longlian’s views about bhikṣuṇī ordination are discussed. The objective is to probe the historical and ideological context for the reestablishment of this ordination system in modern and contemporary China, which ultimately strengthened the role and position of Chinese bhikṣuṇīs.

A boat of compassion from the heavenly sea of the Land of the Lion comes from far away to set up the Dual Ordination platform. Strictly purifying the Vinaya, the jade flute of the Discipline blows away the dust of defilement.

天海慈航 獅子國萬里遠來 建二部戒壇嚴凈毗尼 玉律共調離垢地

(Longlian)

1. Introduction

In this couplet, hung in the Tiexiang nunnery 鐵像寺 (Chengdu, Sichuan), Chinese bhikṣuṇī Longlian 隆蓮 (1909–2006) describes the event celebrated as the beginning of a proper female monastic lineage in China,1 i.e., the introduction of the procedures for full ordination from Śrī Laṅkā in the fifth century.2 The procedure is known as “Dual Ordination” (erbuseng jie 二部僧戒), and its origins are traditionally traced back to the very beginnings of the female monastic order (bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha) at the time of the Buddha. According to the traditional narrative, Buddha Śākyamuni agreed to the requests of his aunt and foster mother Mahāprajāpatī (Ch. Daaidao 大愛道, which, significantly, is reflected in the name of Longlian’s other nunnery, Aidao hall 愛道堂) and admitted women into the monastic order, provided that bhikṣuṇīs respected the gurudharmas (ba jingfa 八敬法), eight rules never to be transgressed. These rules, which have been met with a new surge of interest in modern China,3 were meant to prevent the disappearance of Buddhism from the world after the creation of the bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha and clearly subjugated bhikṣuṇīs to the bhikṣusaṃgha.4 In the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptaka (Sifenlü 四分律: T no. 1428), the standard Vinaya reference in China since the seventh century, the fourth rule of the gurudharmas reads: “After having been trained in the six rules for two years as a probationer (śikṣamāṇā), the ordination ceremony of a bhikṣuṇī has to be carried out in both saṃghas” (T no. 1428: 923b8–10, tr. Heirman 1997, p. 36). The Dual Ordination procedure thus stipulates that nuns’ ordination be divided into two sequential steps, and that it be carried out in succession first in front of an assembly of bhikṣuṇīs (fully ordained women) and then of bhikṣus (fully ordained men).5

In contemporary China, Dual Ordinations are conferred as part of the “Triple Platform Ordination” (santan dajie 三壇大戒), a system which includes the bestowal, in succession and during a unique ordination period, of the ten precepts of the śrāmaṇera/śrāmaṇerikā (male and female “novices”),6 of the hundreds of precepts for bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs,7 and finally of the Bodhisattva precepts.8 This system was delineated within the Nanshan Vinaya tradition (Nanshan lü 南山律), which is notably based on the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptaka, as late as the seventeenth century.9

As for the dual procedures for bhikṣuṇīs, they were introduced from Śrī Laṅkā in the fifth century but mostly discarded after the Song dynasty (960–1279).10 At the beginning of the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), Shuyu 書玉, a Vinaya master belonging to the same lineage as the masters who conceived the Triple Platform Ordination system, authored the “Dual Ordination Procedures” (Erbuseng shoujie yishi 二部僧受戒儀式, X no. 1134), inscribing this early procedure for bhikṣuṇī full ordination within the major ordination system of late imperial China.11 In recent years, Shuyu’s text has become the principal reference for Dual Ordinations in China again. However, throughout the Qing dynasty and during the Republic of China (1911–1949), ordinations continued to be conferred to the bhikṣuṇīs by only ten bhikṣu masters, and thus in disregard of the dual procedures. It should be noted that, in contrast to other Vinaya traditions, the Chinese tradition considers ordinations carried out by bhikṣus alone to be valid, as both Guṇavarman (Qiunabamo 求那跋摩) (367–431), a Vinaya master involved in the first Dual Ordination, and Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667), the supposed initiator of the Nanshan Vinaya tradition, believed that such ordinations produced a minor offense on the part of the bhikṣus conferring the precepts without invalidating the ordination of the bhikṣuṇīs undergoing the procedure.12

The eight gurudharmas also include a reference to the figure of the śikṣamāṇā, the two-year female probationer of whom there exists no male counterpart.13 Śikṣamāṇā ordination is a step eventually leading to full ordination and should be conferred at the minimum age of eighteen. However, as Ann Heirman (2008) has shown, this figure was never common in imperial China. On the other hand, it was discussed and referenced by Vinaya masters during the Republican Era, and it has partially been revived since the 1980s both in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and in Taiwan (Heirman and Chiu 2012; Chiu and Heirman 2014).

These rules for bhikṣuṇī ordination became a topic of discussion among Buddhist circles during the Republican era, but they were implemented in Taiwan in the 1970s (Li forthcoming) and in Mainland China only in the 1980s. The latter was mainly due to the efforts of two prominent bhikṣuṇīs: the aforementioned Longlian (1909–2006), who was based in Sichuan, and her life-long friend Tongyuan 通願 (1913–1991), from Wutaishan.14 The first bhikṣuṇī ordination after the Cultural Revolution, organized by Longlian and Tongyuan, was conferred according to the Dual Ordination system and was held successively in Chengdu’s Tiexiang nunnery and Wenshu temple 文殊院 in 1982. Significantly, the candidates involved were all śikṣamāṇās, as it was also Longlian and Tongyuan’s intention to (re-)establish this Vinaya figure within contemporary Chinese Buddhism.

After this, Dual Ordinations progressively became the most common procedure for bhikṣuṇī ordination in Mainland China. Since the year 2000, state regulations have clearly stipulated that bhikṣuṇī ordinations must follow Dual Ordination procedures. Ordinations conferred by bhikṣus alone have thus become illegal in the PRC (Bianchi 2019). As for the śikṣamāṇā, even if it has not become a rule, this figure is nowadays less exceptional than before. Since śrāmaṇerikā ordination is to be conferred before the śikṣamāṇā one, and since the latter involves a probationary period of two years before full ordination, śikṣamāṇās participating in Triple Platform Ordinations retake the śrāmaṇerikā precepts as a renewal. In all cases (a woman living in a nunnery without any formal ordination, a śrāmaṇerikā or a śikṣamāṇā), the time a woman spends in a nunnery between tonsure and full ordination is meant to serve as a training period.15 Finally, today, śrāmaṇerikā ordination is mostly bestowed by an upādhyāyinī (female master of the discipline),16 rather than by a bhikṣu, as it was a common habit in the past (although there are still cases of male tonsure masters for women).17

Nowadays, the theoretical career for a woman wishing to become a bhikṣuṇī in Mainland China thus consists of the following steps:18

First, going forth (chujia 出家, pravrajyā): a female candidate must find a nunnery and have her head tonsured by a tonsure master, most often an upādhyāyinī; in many cases, she also receives the ten precepts, even if it is not unusual for śrāmaṇerikā ordination to take place at the time of full ordination, in which case the ten precepts are only studied beforehand, in preparation for their formal bestowal.19

Second, two-year probationary period (optional): upon reaching age eighteen, the female candidate may receive the six śikṣamāṇā precepts, which she must observe for two years; transgressions oblige her to start the probationary period over again;20 this step is preceded by the śrāmaṇerikā ordination.

Third, full ordination (juzujie 具足戒, upasaṃpadā): from age twenty, the candidate can apply for bhikṣuṇī ordination, which involves the dual procedures and, as part of the Triple Platform Ordination, is preceded by śrāmaṇerikā ordination (or its renewal, in the event that the candidate has already received it) and followed by the bestowal of the Bodhisattva precepts (which turns the newly ordained into a ‘Mahāyāna bhikṣuṇī’).

In the present article, I will trace the roots of the restoration of Dual Ordinations during the Republican era and provide an account of the early history of these procedures in the PRC. Due to her key role in the process, I will also present Longlian’s view about bhikṣuṇī ordination. Fur the purpose of this study, I refer only to Mainland China (for Taiwan, see Li forthcoming), from the 1930s to the beginning of the twenty-first century. The contemporary legacy of these ideas and events in the PRC is discussed in Amandine Péronnet’s contribution in this Special Issue. My objective is to probe the historical and ideological context in which the Dual Ordination system was revived, in an attempt to explain how its promotion ended up in strengthening the role of Chinese bhikṣuṇīs. As we will see, certain prominent modern Chinese bhikṣuṇīs (as well as their male masters) affirmed soteriological gender equality, but also embraced forms of gender asymmetry between female and male Buddhist monastics by reviving the eight gurudharmas and the Dual Ordination system, which entails an additional probationary step for female monastics and mandates the presence of both orders at the moment of full ordination for nuns. They endorsed this in the name of orthodoxy (rufa 如法, lit. “according to the Dharma”) and legitimacy (hefa 合法, which more closely refers to a legalistic interpretation of the Vinaya) so as to comply with the regulations of the monastic protocol as established by the Buddha. Notwithstanding the implied inequality of an asymmetric treatment of male and female monastics, this ultimately served to raise the status and prestige of bhikṣuṇīs in the saṃgha and in society.

2. The Emergence of the Issue of Bhikṣuṇī Ordination in Republican China

Bhikṣuṇī ordination and lineages were a debated topic in China during the 1930s and 1940s (Wen 1991, p. 32). Not only did some of the most prominent male Vinaya masters of the era interest themselves in ordination procedures, including Dual Ordinations, but the topic was also addressed by scholar bhikṣuṇīs trained in the new female Buddhist Academies which offered modern Buddhist education to lay and monastic women in Republican China.21 The background against which these discussions took place was provided by some modern trends within Chinese Buddhism, i.e., the development of concerns for gender equality (Kang 2016) and the emergence of a Vinaya movement, which claimed disciplinary strictness and often took on a text-oriented approach in the name of orthodoxy (Bianchi 2020). In the following section, I will examine both trends, in an attempt to illuminate how these two separate approaches contributed to the emergence of the Dual Ordination issue.

2.1. Gender Equality and the Foundation of the Bhikṣuṇīsaṃghas

The issue of gender equality was raised by well-educated bhikṣuṇīs and laywomen.22 It was part of a larger movement that was questioning the role and place of women in Chinese society at large, and, as Yuan Yuan has demonstrated in her case study on the female Buddhist Academies of Wuhan, it “fitted into the broader women’s liberation discourse and the national modernization project” (Yuan 2009, p. 376). These prominent Buddhist women distanced themselves from traditional Buddhist views on females and claimed a leading role for women in the monastic community as well as in society as a whole. To quote Elise DeVido, “they argued that not only do both women and men possess Buddha nature and can become enlightened, but that females should enjoy equality with males whether in the monastic community or in society at large, and women should be liberated from their constraints” (DeVido 2015, p. 78).

Gender equality in Buddhism was also, and indeed first, backed by certain modern male Buddhists. Yang Wenhui 楊文會 (1837–1911), for instance, the well-known layman who initiated some of the most prominent reforms in the field of Buddhist education and publishing, supported bhikṣuṇī education, republished many Buddhist scriptures related to women,23 and advocated a change in the position and role of women within the Buddhist hierarchy (He 1997, pp. 204–5; Valussi 2019, pp. 160–61). Among the scriptures he rediscovered and distributed was the “Biographies of the bhikṣuṇīs” (Biqiuni zhuan 比丘尼傳, T no. 2063), a collection bound to attract much interest within female Buddhist circles as it provided modern bhikṣuṇīs with exemplary portraits from the past. Since it also offered details on the history of the foundation and early development of the Chinese bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha, this collection became an important reference for the bhikṣuṇīs wishing to attest to the legitimacy of their monastic status.24

Significantly, the reformist bhikṣu Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947), who like Yang promoted the first female Buddhist Academies, was not an advocate of the monastic choice for women, though he maintained that Buddhism did not discriminate against them—as testified by the many enlightened women mentioned in Buddhist scriptures—and encouraged them to serve the Buddhist cause as lay followers.25 Taixu addressed the topic in a short article published in 1935 in the Buddhist journal Haichao yin 海潮音, which deserves to be quoted here as it offers his view about the establishment of the bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha in India and about the Buddha’s request that bhikṣuṇīs respect the eight gurudharmas.

Taixu reports some of the complaints he received about the gender inequality embedded among the seven groups of Buddhist disciples (i.e., bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇī, śrāmaṇera, śrāmaṇerikā, śikṣamāṇā, and male and female lay practitioners, respectively upāsaka and upāsikā). The argument of Taixu’s interlocutor is that ancient Christianity was also unequal towards women, but that in modern times, Christians have developed gender equality, while Chinese Buddhism has not yet adjusted to the equity policies of a modern society. As a result, the interlocutor concludes, in the future there will be no more bhikṣuṇīs in China. Taixu replies:

In Buddhism, there is no inequality between laymen and laywomen, upāsakas and upāsikās … But within the monastic community, the gap dividing śrāmaṇerikās, śikṣamāṇās and bhikṣuṇīs from śrāmaṇeras and bhikṣus is no less than the distance between heaven and the abyss. Why so? The original intention of Śākyamuni Buddha while leading the Buddhist saṃgha was that no woman should go forth and join the community, so that the saṃgha treasure could be upheld with purity and discipline. But the Buddha’s aunt, who had great kindness for the Buddha, strongly insisted on going forth. The Buddha resisted steadily but could not stop her requests and finally imposed strict limitations through the eight gurudharmas, also adding some ‘secret’ precepts. Fundamentally, he wanted to make sure that women knew of the difficulties [of going forth] and encourage [their] withdrawal, so that his aunt may be the only case capable of becoming a female monastic. This is the reason why, as of today, in Tibet and many other places there are no Buddhist female monastics. … As for the bhikṣuṇī institution, it is absolutely necessary to be strict, first because what was established by the Buddha cannot be changed, and second because if no woman ever became a bhikṣuṇī again, this would be fully in compliance with the Buddha’s intention.

佛教中在家男女之優蒲塞夷，絕無何不平等處……然在出家僧團中之沙彌尼、式叉摩那尼、比丘尼，以視沙彌、比丘，誠不啻天淵之隔。若云何以致此？則釋迦佛原意，住持佛教僧團中，誠不欲有女子出家來加入，以成其純凈律儀之住持僧寶。無如與佛有大恩之姨母強求出家，力拒不絕，乃嚴限制以八敬法且加密戒條，本在令知難而退；或使能出家為尼者，絕無僅有……至比丘尼制則斷斷乎須嚴格，一因佛制不可改，二因若能沒有女人作比丘尼，尤合佛心也。

(Taixu 1935)

Taixu’s understanding of the story of Mahāprajāpatī is in line with a received tradition, which “tells us that soteriologically women are not inferior to men. Socially and institutionally however they are” (Heirman 2001, p. 284). Taixu seems to blame the Buddha’s foster mother for having forced the Buddha into creating a female monastic order, which he would rather have avoided. Finally, Taixu proves to be aware of the absence of a bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha in other Buddhist traditions, including the Tibetan, and seems to wish the same for China.26 In this light, the strict respect of the eight gurudharmas, including the rules regarding śikṣamāṇās and Dual Ordinations, is given as unavoidable.

A different reading of the gurudharmas was provided by Hengbao 恒寶, a prominent scholar bhikṣuṇī from Wuhan. Hengbao, the founder and abbess of the Wuhan Pure Bodhi Vihāra (Puti jingshe 菩提精舍), published an article in 1937 on “The Buddhist view on women” (Fojiao nüxing guan 佛教女性觀) in the “Dedicated Journal for Female Buddhists” (Fojiao nüzhong zhuankan 佛教女眾專刊), the first journal for female Buddhists in China (Hengbao 1937, p. 19), in which she explains that the gurudharmas were conceived by the Buddha not because of an alleged discrimination against women, but as a response to the social conditions of the time, “for the sake of [dispelling] oppositions and criticism” (Yuan 2009, p. 389).

This single issue of the “Dedicated Journal for Female Buddhists” (the publication was discontinued because of the Japanese occupation) collected a number of essays by Wuhan bhikṣuṇīs, some of which address, more or less directly, female ordination. In her article, Hengbao herself recalls the history of the foundation of the female monastic order by the Buddha, revealing her acquaintance with many canonical versions of the event. Instead of only mentioning Mahāprajāpatī’s insistence and the Buddha’s final surrender, Hengbao enriches her narrative with many details, casting a nuanced, if not positive light on it. In the received narrative, the role of the Buddha’s disciple Ānanda is prominent; Hengbao reports Ānanda’s mention of the kindness professed by Mahāprajāpatī towards Śākyamuni Buddha, the statement by the Buddha that women can achieve the four fruits of the path (i.e., stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, and arhat), and the fact that Buddhas in the past had also four assemblies of disciples, i.e., bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇī, upāsaka and upāsikā, etc.27 Hengbao also explains that, according to the Vinaya commentary Shanjian lun 善見論 (T no. 1642),28 Buddhism will still last one thousand years upon acceptance of the eight gurudharmas, instead of only half of its due duration after the creation of the bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha (Hengbao 1937, pp. 19–20).29

As for the Chinese bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha, the principal source of inspiration for modern bhikṣuṇīs was the “Biographies of the bhikṣuṇīs”. Changzhen 常真 (1937), for instance, in response to someone asking her information about the “beginning of the Chinese bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha”, cites Jingjian 淨檢 (ca. 292–361), whose biography is the first in the collection. This article, which is relevant for our topic because it treats both śrāmaṇerikā and bhikṣuṇī ordinations,30 reports, nearly entirely and verbatim, the words by the Central Asian master Zhishan 智山, who was consulted on ordination matters by Jingjian’s own master Fashi 法始. The master explains that he could not bestow her ordination as he did not have the full texts of the bhikṣuṇī rules; however, he continues:

To become a monastic, a female has the ten precepts, which she may receive from the bhikṣus. At the same time, however, she should rely on a [female] monastic instructor to be trained in the precepts.

尼有十戒，必從比丘授，同時就要以和尚傳戒為依止。

(Changzhen 1937, p. 68)31

Jingjian went forth and received the śrāmaṇerikā ten precepts together with twenty-four other candidates from Zhishan. Later, a text of rules and procedures for bhikṣuṇīs (from the Vinaya of the Mahāsānghika) reached China and was translated into Chinese. Thus, in the year 357, Jingjian and four of her fellow sisters received full ordination by the foreign śramaṇa Tanmojieduo 曇摩羯多 in Luoyang.

In reporting the case of Jingjian, described as the “first Chinese bhikṣuṇī”, Changzhen shows acceptance of the validity of śrāmaṇerikā and bhikṣuṇī ordinations that are only bestowed by bhikṣus, but she also points to the need of an upādhyāyinī for training a candidate in the precepts. At the same time, she also mentions that only ordinations conferred by the two assemblies should be considered fully legitimate (Changzhen 1937, p. 68).

Hengbao (1937, p. 20), on the other hand, records the first Dual Ordination, celebrated in the mid fifth century by bhikṣuṇīs from Śrī Laṅkā, as the “beginning of the Chinese bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha”.32 She compares this first “formal” (zhengshi 正式) event with cases that occurred during earlier centuries, when Chinese women—such as Apan 阿潘, according to later sources the first female Buddhist monastic in Chinese history33—could only engage in monastic life through the practice of taking the three refuges, and could hence not be called bhikṣuṇīs. Implicitly, Hengbao also points to the irregularity of the one-saṃgha ordinations, such as Jingjian’s, that were taking place before the first Dual Ordination.

The two articles by Hengbao and Changzhen show an interest in the origins and history of the bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha in India and China, as seen through a gender-equality concern and in search of exemplary figures from the past to look up to. The above quoted passages also convey a growing awareness of the legitimate procedures for female ordinations, a topic that was being debated by the most prominent Vinaya masters of the era.

2.2. The Vinaya Movement and Bhikṣuṇī Ordination

The Republican era was also a time of Vinaya resurgence (Bianchi and Campo forthcoming), and many insisted on the establishment of legitimate ordination procedures, i.e., procedures that were believed to have been stipulated and regulated by the Buddha himself in the Vinaya literature (Bianchi 2017b, p. 116). The irregularity of the ordination system for female monastics when compared with the requirements set up by the Vinayas appeared evident to the Vinaya masters of the era, leading to a rediscovery of Dual Ordinations and, even if only to a minor degree, of the figure of the śikṣamāṇā.

For instance, in a lecture focused on monastic precepts, Vinaya master Hongyi 弘一 (1880–1942) addressed both questions of the legitimacy of the female full ordination processes and of the lack of śikṣamāṇās in Chinese Buddhism. Hongyi notes that the figure of the śikṣamāṇā was not known in China during his time, so much so that in the regions north of the Yangtze river, people mistakenly called unmarried Buddhist laywomen by that term. According to Vinaya rules, he clarifies, after receiving the ten precepts and at the age of eighteen, a śrāmaṇerikā should receive the dharma of a śikṣamāṇā, which lasts for two years and involves the study of the four pārājikas (grave offenses, ultimately corresponding to the first four of the six rules), of the six rules specific to this figure (liufa 六法), and of the other Vinaya rules and rituals.34 At the end of the (unbroken) two-year training period, when she turns twenty and reaches the age for full ordination, a śikṣamāṇā can receive bhikṣuṇī ordination. As for the latter question, Hongyi recognizes that:

According to the Buddhist system, bhikṣuṇī ordination should be taken twice: first, “basic dharma” is bestowed by the bhikṣuṇī saṃgha; then, the bhikṣu saṃgha is invited to bestow formal ordination. The precepts are properly received only at the time of the formal ordination by the bhikṣus. However, this procedure has no longer been applied since the Southern Song dynasty [1127–1279].

依據佛制，比丘尼戒要重覆受兩次；先依尼僧授本法，後請大僧正授，但正得戒時，是在大僧正授時；此法南宋以後已不能實行了。

(Hongyi 1935)

Remarkably, as Raoul Birnbaum (forthcoming) has pointed out, on the same occasion Hongyi also came to question the legitimacy of the ordination lineage of the Chinese bhikṣusaṃgha.35

It is clear from the above that Hongyi was well aware that in the case of bhikṣuṇī ordination, the procedures prescribed by the Vinaya texts had not been implemented for at least one millennium. To my knowledge, however, he did not try to revive them.36 The two Vinaya masters who played a decisive role in the actual implementation of the Dual Ordination system were Cizhou 慈舟 (1877–1957) and Nenghai 能海 (1886–1967).37 Both masters planned to revive it, but “failed as conditions were not yet ripe at their time” (Zongxing 2019, p. 74). Their legacy was nevertheless taken over after the Maoist era by their two major female disciples, i.e., Tongyuan and Longlian, respectively.

Among the female disciples of Vinaya master Cizhou, bhikṣuṇīs Kaihui 開慧 and Shengyu 勝雨, together with Yinhe 印和, spearheaded the restoration of Beijing Tongjiao nunnery 通教寺 in 1941. Tongjiao nunnery, once a Ming dynasty temple, soon became a renowned and active Vinaya nunnery under the influence of Cizhou (DeVido 2015, p. 81). There they founded the Bajing Xueyuan 八敬學苑, a Buddhist school for bhikṣuṇīs significantly named after the eight gurudharmas. Tongyuan, who had received tonsure from master Cizhou in 1941 and had taken up residence in Tongjiao nunnery, was trained in this environment and was greatly influenced by both Cizhou and Kaihui, her principal female master, who was particularly engaged in establishing the Dual Ordination system (Wen 1991, p. 32).

According to his disciple Daoyuan 道源 (1900–1988),38 Cizhou did confer Dual Ordination twice, in 1947 and 1955, at the Anyang Vihāra 安養精舍 in Beijing.39 Tongyuan was reportedly involved in one of these events (Zongxing 2019, p. 74). To my knowledge, no other source confirms this information. However, considering the above, it is highly probable that Cizhou trained his female disciples from Tongjiao nunnery, including Tongyuan, for Dual Ordinations, irrespective of whether the ordination had taken place or not. Apparently, Tongyuan’s knowledge of the procedures was so profound that Longlian decided to involve her as principal master of the discipline in the ordination she organized at the beginning of the 1980s.

Longlian, on the other hand, was introduced to Dual Ordination procedures by Nenghai. In terms of Vinaya, this Sino-Tibetan master referred to the Dharmaguptaka tradition (Bianchi 2021a). He insisted that all his disciples follow the rules equally regardless of their gender. However, at the same time he recognized gender asymmetry and stressed gender separation in his communities.40 In his words:

Male and female saṃghas differ in nature and appearance, they differ in mind and action, thus the precepts must also be different. In reality, should there be no difference, then there is actual inequality, preventing us from seeing the great wisdom of the Buddha.

二部性相不同，心行不同，故戒亦應有別。若無分別，即真不平等，亦不足以見佛之大智慧也。

(Zongxing 2019, pp. 74–75)

In his rigorous approach to the Vinaya, Nenghai believed that “women should study as śikṣamāṇās and respect the six rules for two years” (有女須正學六法二年持)41 and, like Cizhou, urged the re-establishment of Dual Ordinations. In 1937, Nenghai was organizing a bhikṣuṇī ordination in the Wutai mountains, but he decided to postpone it because, as stated in his “Notes on ordinations” (Chuanjie tonggao 傳戒通告), he realized that “conditions for a proper bhikṣuṇī ordination were not yet ripe” (Ma 2015, p. 58). As his disciple Renjie 任傑 reported, a few years later, Nenghai expressed his concern about the fact that bhikṣus were unable to instruct bhikṣuṇīs after ordination with these words:

For a bhikṣu to bestow ordination to the bhikṣuṇīs and fail to instruct his (female) disciples after doing so is contrary to the Buddha’s system and does not protect the Dharma.

比丘……傳比丘尼戒，傳戒後又不能教誡弟子，有違佛制，護法不容！

(Renjie 1987, p. 70)

We can thus infer that at the basis of Nenghai’s interest in the Dual Ordination procedures there was both a concern about orthodoxy (compliance with the Vinaya scriptures) and a concern for the proper training and education of the bhikṣuṇīs once admitted into the saṃgha, which could only be carried out by a female master, or upādhyāyinī.42 This process of reinstating the role of the upādhyāyinī, who should guide a female monastic for a period from her tonsure to the two years after ordination, was carried on by Longlian and has become a common practice in the present day PRC.

For the purpose of organizing a Dual Ordination, Nenghai invited the Vinaya master Guanyi 貫一 (1875–1954), abbot of the Baoguang monastery 寶光寺, to instruct śrāmaṇerikās on the ordination procedures at Tiexiang nunnery in October 1948. Significantly, Nenghai asked Longlian, who at that time was residing at Tiexiang nunnery and had attended Guanyi’s lectures, to impart the śikṣamāṇā ordination to the resident monastics; since she was monastically too young (she had only been ordained for eight years, instead of the required twelve), however, in the end Guanyi acted as master of the discipline (Qiu 1997, p. 239).43 For Nenghai, this had to be the first step on the two-year path to full ordination. Longlian was chosen as the principal master for bestowing the precepts at the upcoming ordination ceremony (Dingzhi 1995, p. 37). It was the eve of the foundation of the PRC, and Nenghai’s plan failed as the ordination was ultimately not carried out.44 But he did not give up and tasked Longlian to take care of “resurrecting” (huifu 恢复) Dual Ordinations in the new-era China (Qiu 1997, p. 183). Due to historical circumstances, she was not able to do so before the early 1980s.

To sum up, Tongyuan and Longlian were instructed in Dual Ordination procedures by their own masters, both of whom were Vinaya experts, well before the two bhikṣuṇīs first met in Beijing’s Tongjiao nunnery in 1955. That encounter signaled the beginning of their thirty-six-year-long friendship and created suitable conditions for their cooperation in establishing Dual Ordinations after the Maoist era. Through the establishment of legitimate ordination criteria, as well as the foundation of Institutes of Buddhist Studies, Tongyuan and Longlian significantly contributed to the evolution of the role and status of Buddhist bhikṣuṇīs in contemporary Mainland China.45

3. Assessing the Significance of Dual Ordinations in Post-Mao China

As we have seen, the first Dual Ordination of the modern era in Mainland China was organized by Longlian in Chengdu in the year 1982. This ordination involved only nine śikṣamāṇās; in March 1987, twenty more śikṣamāṇās, graduates from the Institute of Studies directed by Longlian at Tiexiang nunnery, took their turn.46 As for Tongyuan, she organized the second Dual Ordination in 1984 at the Upper Huayan monastery 上華嚴寺, in Datong (Wen 1991, p. 33). Dual Ordination procedures gradually spread and eventually became the only legal system for bhikṣuṇī ordination in the PRC in the year 2000, serving as an integral part of the Triple Platform Ordination system.47 In this concluding section, I will introduce some of the major aspects of the establishment of Dual Ordinations in the PRC since the 1980s, referring only to the Taiwanese case when it is relevant for the Mainland developments.48 On the Mainland, the two bhikṣuṇīs who succeeded in advocating legitimate female ordination during the Republican era and in implementing them in post-Mao PRC were Tongyuan and Longlian. However, Tongyuan chose to keep a ‘low-profile’, and we do not have much information about her views. As she refrained from writing about her interpretation of Buddhist doctrines and practices, her opinions about bhikṣuṇī ordination must be inferred from her actions and others’ accounts.49 Longlian, by contrast, was a very influential scholar bhikṣuṇī who authored numerous essays and books and frequently gave public talks and interviews; she also played a prominent political role as the first woman to hold a leadership position in the Buddhist Association of China (BAC). For this reason, I will focus mainly on Longlian in the following section.

3.1. “Resurrecting” Dual Ordinations in Mainland China

Longlian was officially assigned the task of organizing the first bhikṣuṇī ordination of the new era in 1981, after a ban on ordinations that had lasted twenty-five years.50 The task included the use of Dual Ordination procedures. This assignment came after she had formally requested to “resurrect” Dual Ordinations at the fourth meeting of the newly restored BAC (December 1980). Along with her renown as a scholar bhikṣuṇī and her political influence, Longlian’s knowledge of the English language may have influenced the decision to involve her in this task, since, as will be explained below, PRC political authorities also perceived this ceremony as an attempt to re-establish the Sinhalese bhikkhuni-saṅgha, an example of the so-called ‘Dharma diplomacy’, i.e., the use of Buddhism for the development of international relations.

At the BAC meeting, Longlian met Tongyuan for the first time after the Cultural Revolution. She told her friend about her intention to resurrect Dual Ordinations, and the latter fully agreed with the plan (Qiu 1997, p. 174). In 1981, Longlian exchanged letters with Tongyuan, seeking her opinion and discussing the contents of and strategies for the ceremony (Zongxing 2019, p. 74). As a consequence, Tongyuan was appointed main bhikṣuṇī master of the discipline (heshang ni 和尚尼) at the upcoming ordination. The Dual Ordination ceremony took place in January 1982 in Tiexiang nunnery, where the precepts were conferred by ten bhikṣuṇī masters, and in Wenshu temple, where they were conferred by the bhikṣu masters.

The ordination announcement, published by the official journal of the BAC in February 1982, deserves to be quoted in full:

Recently, the Wenshu temple in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, held a Dual Ordination ceremony for female candidates. The Buddhist Association of China has expressed its admiration. According to the Buddhist ordination rules, a female candidate must be ordained by the two assemblies before she can become an orthodox (rufa) bhikṣuṇī. In China, Dual Ordinations were first celebrated in the mid-fifth century in Nanjing by nineteen bhikṣuṇīs from the Kingdom of Ceylon (present-day Śrī Laṅkā) [headed by] Tiposalo (the “Biographies of the bhikṣuṇīs” name her Tiesaluo). The Wenshu temple Dual Ordination began on 9 December 1981, when the candidates entered the hall to study the rules and rituals. A total of twenty-one monastics participated in the ordination (including nine candidates and twelve advanced bhikṣuṇīs). The bhikṣu masters included Kuanlin 寬霖 as “master of the discipline”, Xinji 心極 as “master of the formal act”, Puchao 普超 as “instructor” and Chuanhua 傳華 and others as “witnesses”. The bhikṣuṇīs had Tongyuan as “master of the discipline”, Longlian as “master of the formal act”, Dingjing 定静 as “instructor” and Guojie 果戒 and others as “witnesses”. The ceremony lasted for forty days and was successfully completed on 18 January 1982.

最近，四川成都文殊院為出家的女眾舉行了一次“二部僧授戒”法會。中國佛協曾致電表示贊嘆。按照佛教授戒法的規定，出家的女眾必須從二部僧授戒後，才能成為如法的比丘尼。我國自公元五世紀中葉師子國 (今斯里蘭卡) 提婆薩羅 (《比丘尼傳》作鐵薩羅) 等十九位比丘尼法師在南京首次實行二部僧授戒。文殊院這次舉行的二部僧授戒法會，從1981年12月9日開始進堂學習律儀。參加受戒的尼眾共21人 (其中新戒9人，增戒12人)。比丘僧由寬霖任得戒師，心極任揭磨師，普超任教授師，傳華等七人任尊證師; 比丘尼僧由通願任得戒師，隆蓮任揭磨師，定靜任教授師，果戒等七人任尊證師。法會歷時40天，至1982年1月18日圓滿結束。

(Fayin 1982, p. 21)

The approval by the BAC and the implication that only Dual Ordinations should be considered fully orthodox and legitimate are both remarkable and suggest decades of germination of these ideas.

The textual reference employed was the aforementioned “Dual Ordination Procedures” written at the beginning of the Qing dynasty by the Vinaya master Shuyu (X no. 1134). As we have seen, they prescribe Dual Ordinations within the Triple Platform Ordination system. For the occasion, Longlian and Tongyuan adapted the text to a modern context. Longlian even had these procedures translated into English for the Sinhalese nuns that were supposed to participate in the ordination.51 Significantly, the text employed by Longlian and Tongyuan addressed candidates as śikṣamāṇās (shichamona 式叉摩那) throughout the rite, which differs from the canonical version, where the term śrāmaṇerikās is used instead (X n. 1134: 731c17).

As a matter of fact, the female candidates involved in this first Dual Ordination (and in the other eight ordination ceremonies organized under the supervision of Longlian) were all śikṣamāṇās.52 To Longlian, the two-year probationary period as a śikṣamāṇā was to be understood as an unrenounceable part of the Dual Ordination process. As noted above, this was the view of her master Nenghai, who instructed her to revive Dual Ordinations by a strict observance of all the rules, including the need for the two-year training period. Longlian had also witnessed the bestowal of the śikṣamāṇā ordination to the Tiexiang nunnery śrāmaṇerikās back in 1949, under the supervision of Guanyi and Nenghai himself. As Chiu and Heirman (2014) have already observed, Longlian had a decisive influence on the emergence of the śikṣamāṇā stage in Mainland China. Even if this stage has not become compulsory, bhikṣuṇī ordination can take place no earlier than after a two-year period of time from one’s entrance into the Buddhist order according to contemporary official regulations (while for śrāmaṇeras only one year is requested, as there are no male śikṣamāṇās), which implicitly allows for the two-year śikṣamāṇā training; accordingly, some bhikṣuṇī ordination announcements are explicitly geared to both śrāmaṇerikās and śikṣamāṇās.

As for the ‘global’ context,53 it should be clarified that the first Dual Ordination of the modern era was held in Taipei in the year 1970. As Yu-chen Li has shown, this system became a widespread ordination criterion for female monastics in Taiwan after 1976 and soon resulted in the Taiwanese bhikṣuṇīs’ involvement in the international restoration of the bhikṣuṇī lineages (Li forthcoming). At the onset, this seemed to be the case as well in Mainland China, considering that the decision to hold a Dual Ordination ceremony in 1982 was also meant to involve a group of female monastics from Śrī Laṅkā. In an interview, Longlian traced the roots of this plan back to Zhou Enlai 周恩来 (1898–1976), who during an official visit to the South Asian country—he visited Śrī Laṅkā twice, in 1957 and 1964—discovered that female full ordination had disappeared from Śrī Laṅkā and reportedly decided, along with the local authorities, to re-establish the Sinhalese bhikkhunī lineage through the intervention of Chinese bhikṣuṇīs (Chang 2019, p. 159).54 Longlian first heard of this possibility in 1980, when she received a visit from a China-based professor of Sinhala (Qiu 1997, p. 239). Professor Lawei 拉維 later published an article in Śrī Laṅkā explaining the history of the introduction of Dual Ordination to China through the intervention of Sinhalese monastics and based on the account provided by Longlian of the relevant passages in the “Biographies of the bhikṣuṇīs”.55 Apparently, this article awakened the interest of certain Sinhalese Buddhists. In April 1981, Longlian reportedly met the head of the Ministry of Culture from Śrī Laṅkā in Beijing; on that occasion, it was agreed that candidates from the two countries would be ordained together in Sichuan (Qiu 1997, p. 240). Ultimately, however, the Sinhalese nuns did not attend the Dual Ordination organized at Tiexiang nunnery and Wenshu temple, most likely for political reasons.56 Nevertheless, the renown of Longlian had already reached far and wide. As a consequence, she was later visited by Karma Tsomo Lekshe, of the Sakyadhita Association of Buddhist Women, who wanted to cooperate with Longlian on an international Dual Ordination ceremony (which also eventually did not happen).57 As is well known, Sinhalese female monastics, as well as those in other Theravāda countries or in the Tibetan tradition, including Western Buddhist women, subsequently turned to Korean and Taiwanese bhikṣuṇīs, or to different procedures disconnected from the Chinese lineage.58 However, considering some recent moves by the Karmapa and by masters from the Larung gar in Sertar, the ‘global’ factor may become relevant again in Mainland China, if allowed (or even favored) at a political level.59

3.2. Improving the Bhikṣuṇīs’ Status: Dual Ordinations from Longlian’s Perspective

The establishment of “orthodox” (rufa) and “legitimate” (hefa) bhikṣuṇī ordination procedures in China was an aspiration that Longlian cherished throughout her life. Despite this, to my knowledge, Longlian did not publish any writing on the ordination procedures or their meaning in any of her numerous volumes and essays. However, not only did she often talk about Dual Ordinations with her students and in public, she also gave various interviews touching on this topic, which were recorded by journalists or authors60 or videorecorded to be included in documentary films.61 On these occasions, Longlian explained her ideas in terms that strike us as both modern and conservative at the same time. On the one hand, she affirmed gender equality on soteriological grounds (women, she claimed, can become Buddha). On the other, she accepted forms of asymmetry in ordination practices. Nevertheless, in her view this was meant to enforce the legitimacy of Chinese bhikṣuṇī ordination from the point of view of orthodoxy, thus indicating that she viewed the introduction of Dual Ordination procedures as another way to improve the status of bhikṣuṇīs within the saṃgha (Qiu 1997, p. 235).

In a series of interviews she gave to Shanshan Qiu 裘山山, the author of her bestselling biography, Longlian expresses her aspiration to re-establish a legitimate bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha and her views on gender equality and asymmetry (Qiu 1997, pp. 284–86).62 Qiu records an excerpt of an interview, in which she openly asked Longlian about gender equality, stating that in her view there is still an idea of male superiority (nanzun nübei 男尊女卑) in Buddhism. Longlian agrees that there is asymmetry in the Vinaya, noting as examples ordinations (which must involve both saṃghas for female candidates) and the number of precepts (of which there are ninety-one more precepts in the Prātimokṣa for the bhikṣuṇīs than in that for the bhikṣus). She then explains that Buddhism teaches the equality of all beings. However, Longlian states, it is not possible to be absolutely equal in this world, where for every person who walks in front or sits in a more elevated seat, there has to be someone else walking behind or sitting lower. In this way, Longlian affirms gender equality in soteriological terms, but allows for the existence and necessity of gender asymmetry in the world we live:

There is indeed a division between men and women in Buddhism, so that there can be stability within the monastic community. … Male supremacy in the secular world is bound to be reflected in the religion.

佛教中的男女確有一個高下之分，這樣僧團內部才能穩定……俗世間的男尊女卑，必然會反映到宗教中來。

In the same interview Longlian also explains the position of bhikṣuṇīs in the saṃgha by recalling the narrative of the foundation of the bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha, an argument which is reminiscent of the ideas expressed by the Wuhan nuns of the Republican era, including the belief that observance of the gurudharmas will prevent Buddhism from disappearing from the world:

In the beginning, Śākyamuni Buddha was reluctant to allow women to go forth. … The founder of our bhikṣuṇī order, the Buddha’s aunt, Mahāprajāpatī, was very determined to go forth. The Buddha said, if you insist on going forth, you must observe the eight gurudharmas, namely, to have respect for bhikṣus and to observe eight special precepts. In this way, the Dharma will not be destroyed in the future. In order to go forth, Mahāprajāpatī agreed without hesitation. The Buddha built a temple specifically for Mahāprajāpatī (Daaidao), and this is the origin of the name of our Aidao hall. Since bhikṣus came first and bhikṣuṇīs later, some phenomena can be easily explained.

當初釋迦牟尼佛是不願意讓女人出家的……我們比丘尼的始祖，也就是佛的姨媽大愛道，當初堅決要求出家。佛就說，如果你一定要出家，就必須遵守“八敬法”，即對比丘懷有敬意，遵守八項特殊的戒律。這樣將來才不致毀滅佛法。大愛道為了出家，毫不猶豫地答應了。佛陀就專門為大愛道修建了一座廟，這也就是我們愛道堂名稱的來歷。既然是先有比丘後有比丘尼，有些現象也就好解釋了。

(Qiu 1997, p. 285)

Longlian also addressed the issue of Dual Ordinations during an interview recorded on the occasion of an ordination ceremony in 1994 in Aidao nunnery and included in two documentary films on her life (Aidaotang 2002, 2009). The documentary films also include videos showing images that reference the 1982 ordination held in Wenshu temple and Tiexiang nunnery. The interview is translated in the Appendix A. To sum up, in the interview Longlian clarifies the following points:

-

The presence of a bhikṣuṇīsaṃgha is important to meet the standards of an ideal Buddhist country.

-

A female Buddhist wishing to go forth needs to be instructed by an upādhyāyinī, who should follow her from tonsure to the period after full ordination.

-

Acceptance by an upādhyāyinī and by a certain bhikṣuṇī community is a fundamental requirement for full ordination to take place, as stated in Vinaya texts.63

-

Dual Ordination procedures are the result of a gradual process. In the beginning, bhikṣuṇīs were ordained following the same procedures as male candidates. Later it was decided that female candidates and newly ordained bhikṣuṇīs needed to be instructed by other bhikṣuṇīs; but since bhikṣuṇīs were not acquainted with the outside world, it was deemed necessary to also involve the bhikṣu community.

-

Formally a female candidate is ordained only after “ascending the ordination platform” (dengtan 登壇) of the bhikṣus (a point which was also made by Hongyi), but the preparatory step at the bhikṣuṇī platform is equally necessary.

-

Ordinations conferred by only one of the two assemblies, though they were historically considered valid, are not fully legitimate.

In line with the views of Nenghai, Longlian believed that the involvement of the upādhyāyinī and the other bhikṣuṇīs in the various steps of the ordination process was meant to allow female Buddhists to be duly instructed before and after ordination within a system which emphasizes gender separation. As for the going forth rituals, the first documentary film (Aidaotang 2002) features Longlian performing the pravrajyā ceremony (from tonsure and wearing of the kaṣāya or monastic robe to the bestowal of the śrāmaṇerikā precepts), where she acts as upādhyāyinī, thus re-establishing the habit that this step should involve a female master (a difference from her own pravrajyā). In Dual Ordinations, the reinstatement of the step involving the bhikṣuṇīs is deemed necessary in terms of post-ordination training for the newly ordained, while the role of the bhikṣu masters in the process, rather than implying an agenda to exert control over the female order, is instead presented as both a consequence of historical circumstances and the result of the Buddha’s concern for the bhikṣuṇīs’ safety, as explained in some passages of the Vinaya texts.64

Significantly, the later documentary film removes the emphasis placed by Longlian on the non-legitimacy of bhikṣuṇī ordinations conducted by bhikṣus (or bhikṣuṇīs) alone. In Chinese Buddhism, be it in Mainland China or Taiwan, this was and still is a very sensitive topic. Taken literally, Longlian’s statement that “ordinations conferred at only one place should not be considered legitimate” would imply the fundamental illegitimacy of the Chinese bhikṣuṇī lineage as a whole. In reality, following the Chinese Vinaya tradition, Longlian believed that ordinations conducted by bhikṣus alone could be accepted. As we have seen, this involved only a minor offense by the bhikṣus bestowing ordination, without invalidating the ordination of the bhikṣuṇīs. Accordingly, Longlian admits that an ordination held by only the ten bhikṣus “generally counts as ordination”.

Comparisons with modern political concepts (“democracy”) and to party administration (“preparatory party member”) included in the interview (see full translation in the Appendix A) reveal the influence of the PRC’s ideological atmosphere on Longlian. Her concerns for gender issues as well as for procedures to be traced back to Śākyamuni Buddha, on the other hand, allow us to connect her with the spread of modernist ideas during the Republic of China, ideas which include an emphasis on gender equality and an attempt to retrace ‘original’ teachings of the Buddha.65

4. Conclusions

Both the Dual Ordination system and the related figure of the śikṣamāṇā are included in the eight gurudharmas, which among other rules also state that a bhikṣuṇī must pay obeisance to a bhikṣu regardless of his age, or that a bhikṣuṇī may not admonish a bhikṣu, whereas a bhikṣu may always do so.66 Does the (re-)establishment of these procedures in modern China imply a reiteration of the very idea of bhikṣuṇīs’ subordination to the bhikṣusaṃgha?

In my opinion Longlian, the main character in this story—an exceptional bhikṣuṇī who managed to cope with modernity while complying with tradition, and who has become a true symbol of gender empowerment within the saṃgha67—was not attempting to promote gender inequality through the establishment of the (asymmetric) Dual Ordination system and the figure of the śikṣamāṇā. Longlian’s main concern was to reinstate the dual procedures in order to make the whole ordination system more legitimate and orthodox, which ultimately also resulted in the improvement of the status of bhikṣuṇīs within the Buddhist saṃgha and society as a whole. Interestingly Longlian, while consistently rejecting views of gender inequality from a soteriological perspective, took from Vinaya master Nenghai the idea of the need for gender asymmetry, which is explained as a consequence of historical and social factors. In this light, male masters are involved in the ordination process in order to protect (rather than to control) the bhikṣuṇīs, an argument that was made also in the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptaka.68

In a nutshell, I believe that the establishment (or “resurrection”, as it is usually termed) of Dual Ordinations in modern China should be seen as the result of a few seemingly unrelated phenomena. First of all, from its onset during the Republican period, the idea of establishing Dual Ordinations was connected with a modern notion of orthodoxy, which was notably searched for in the scriptures, and involved the adoption of a text-oriented approach to Buddhist practices. In the eyes of many modern Chinese bhikṣuṇīs, this idea was also related to the search for legitimacy of their monastic status, in the wake of modern perspectives on gender equality within the Buddhist community. In later years, a third aspect emerged, as the Dual Ordination system assumed a ‘global’ dimension and was connected with the re-establishment of the bhikṣuṇī order within other Buddhist traditions: phenomena that are integral to a modern interpretation of Buddhism.

To conclude, the asymmetry embedded in the ordination system was endorsed in modern times in the name of legitimacy/orthodoxy, seemingly without advocating ideas of inequality within the saṃgha. On the contrary, considering that both śrāmaṇerikā and bhikṣuṇī ordinations were bestowed by male masters for centuries within Chinese Buddhist monasticism, the involvement of female masters resulted in a form of female empowerment, if not in full-fledged equality.