Three Discourses concerning Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī
(AN 8.51-53)

A Pāli and English line by line (interlinear) version of three discourses and their commentary detailing the founding of the nun’s order (together with extensive annotation).

edited & translated by
Ānandajoti Bhikkhu
(December 2014)



click to show flip-book
takes a few seconds to load



Html Table of Contents


1. The Discourse concerning Gotamī

2. The Discourse about Advising the Nuns

3. The Discourse: ‘In Brief’


Texts and Presentation

BJT (for the Tipiṭaka): Śrī Laṁkan edition, from the Buddha Jayanti Tripitaka series, Vol 22 (Colombo 1977, reprinted 2007).

SHB (for the Aṭṭhakathā): Śrī Laṁkan edition, from the Simon Hewavitarne Bequest series, Vol. XXXIII (Colombo, 1931, reprinted Colombo, 2006).

PTS (for the Tipiṭaka): European edition, The Aṅguttara-Nikāya, Part IV, edited by Prof. E. Hardy (London 1899, reprinted London, 1958); (for the Aṭṭhakathā): Manorathapūraṇī, Vol. IV, (London 1940, reprinted London, 1979).

RTE: Royal Thai edition and commentary, as found on Budsir for Windows CD-ROM (version 2.0, Bangkok, 1996).

ChS: Burmese edition and commentary as found on the Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyana CD-ROM (version 3, Igaturi, no date but = 1999).

Translation of Tipiṭaka Text: Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha (Wisdom Publications, Somerville, 2012).

Article by Ven. Analayo: Mahāpajāpatī’s Going Forth in the Madhyama-āgama, Journal for Buddhist Ethics, Vol 18, 2011.

It what follows the Tipiṭaka text and translation are marked up in blue and red:

Ekaṁ samayaṁ Bhagavā...
At one time the Gracious One....

The Commentarial text and translation are in purple and green:

Chaṭṭhassa paṭhame...
In the first (discourse)...

Repetition (peyyāla) text in either is marked up in black:

Sādhu, Bhante, labheyya mātugāmo...
It is good, reverend Sir, if women could receive..

The latter is not written in the manuscripts or the printed editions of the texts and has to be inferred either from sections that occur earlier in the text, or earlier in the compiliation of texts, and occasionally from an earlier book in the series of texts.

It seems to me, however, that a recitor (bhāṇaka) would have used the written text as simply an aide-de-memoir, and would have filled in the text during recital. But besides this when presenting texts extracted from their original collection, it is clearly better practice to fill in the text, and to then mark it so that its status is indicated.