Bad Nun: Thullananda in Pali Canonical and Commentarial Sources

In Pali canonical and commentarial literature, the woman Thullananda (whose name might be literally translated as "Fat Joy") is well known for being a "bad nun"--a nun whose persistent bad behavior is directly responsible for the promulgation of a large number of rules in the Bhikkhuni Patimokkha, the list of disciplinary rules incumbent upon all Buddhist nuns. In a pattern found over and over again throughout the Bhikkhuni Vibhanga--that portion of the Vinaya Pitaka that provides the origin-stories for each rule of the Bhikkhuni Patimokkha--Thullananda engages in some type of inappropriate behavior, somebody is offended by the behavior (often the other nuns, but sometimes a monk or a householder), and this eventually leads the Buddha to set forth a rule forbidding that behavior to nuns and specifying the appropriate penalty. Thullananda features more frequently in the origin-stories of the Bhikkhuni Vibhanga than any other individually named nun; altogether, by my count, it is her misbehavior that is directly responsible for the promulgation of two Parajika rules, four Sarighadisesa rules, seven Nissaggiya-Pacittiya rules, and twenty-four Pacittiya rules. (2) This constitutes a fairly impressive 12% of all the rules incumbent upon nuns, and an even more impressive 28% of those rules unique to nuns (i.e., not shared in common with monks)--which are the only rules provided with origin-stories in the Bhikkhuni Vibhanga. As Wijayaratna has wryly noted, it is not so much the Buddha who establishes the precepts of the Bhikkhu- and Bhikkhuni-Patimokkhas, as it is Thullananda and other misbehaving monastics of her ilk (41). We might think of Thullananda, then, as a prototypical "bad nun"--a simple embodiment of all the qualities that a Buddhist nun should not have. Conversely, we might also note that while Thullananda's bad behavior receives plenty of attention in Pali sources, there is no attention paid at all to her spiritual progress on the Buddhist path. No Pali text gives us any indication that Thullananda ever attained arhatship--she is not, for example, included among the esteemed nuns of the Therigatha--or any level of spiritual progress at all. In fact, a sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya tells us that she eventually "fell away from the religious life" (SN ii, 222), while the (non-Pali) Mahavastu claims that she fell down dead after an unpleasant encounter with Mahakasyapa and was immediately reborn in one of the hells (Jones 3, 56). This, too, would suggest that she is a prototypical "bad nun"--one for whom the religious life had no positive effect whatsoever. Before we dismiss Thullananda as simply a "bad nun," however, we should also note that these very same sources repeatedly describe her in a significantly more positive manner. Several times throughout the Bhikkhuni Vibhanga, for example, we are told that "the nun Thullananda was very learned, she was an experienced preacher, and she was skilled at speaking of Dhamma" (3)--all highly valued qualities in the Buddhist tradition and qualities not often attributed to nuns. According to the origin-story for Nissaggiya 10, it was due to these very qualities that "many people attended to the nun Thullananda" (Vin iv, 254). So skilled is she at speaking of Dhamma, in fact, that on two separate occasions, Thullananda is even depicted preaching the Dhamma to King Pasenadi of Kosala himself, whereupon the king--"instructed, roused, excited, and gladdened with talk on Dhamma by the nun Thullananda"--rewards her with expensive gifts (Vin iv, 255, 256). Moreover, Thullananda's success seems to extend well beyond her mastery of Dhamma to encompass the area of Vinaya or monastic discipline, as well: The origin-stories for various rules suggest that she has the seniority and requisite knowledge to act as a preceptor, ordain her own disciples, and settle legal questions within the Order--granted, in every such case, she does something wrong that leads to the promulgation of a rule, but her seniority and qualifications themselves do not seem to be questioned. …