Loading translation...
See Vienna Buddhist Translation Studies Group, trans., The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (1), Toh 62 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2021).
Vienna Buddhist Studies Translation Group, trans., The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2021).
The Degé and Stok readings are both difficult to make sense of here. Degé: des kha zas yog drod kyis bza’ bar yang mi bya ste; Stok: des kha zas yog drid kyis bza’ bar yang mi bya ste. The Phukdrak reading offers some clarity: des kha zas yog tsam gyi bza’ bar yang mi bya ste. Here, yog suggests something like “to twist together.” Thanks to Rory Lindsay for pointing out this reading.
Degé: chags pa med pa; Stok: chags pa ched pa (sic; chad pa?). As it stands, the Stok reading suggests something like “spreading over,” which does not make sense given the context. Reading ched pa as chad pa, however, provides a sense of “cutting off” or “elimination,” which harmonizes well with the med pa attested in the Degé.
Degé: zhi ba’i gnas mal; Stok: zhi ba’i gnas la. According to the Comparative Edition, the Yongle, Lithang, Kangxi, Narthang, and Choné read zhi ba’i gnas lam. Though there are differences here, the sense is clear.
Degé: rig pa dang mi ldan pa’i dge slong; Stok: rigs pa dang mi ldan pa’i dge slong. The Stok reading suggests something like “unsuitable,” “improper,” or “unreasonable,” any of which would work just as well as “ignorant.”
Degé: shin tu yang dag par bsdam pa can du bya’o; Stok: shin tu yang dag par bsnyen pa can du bya’o. The Stok reading suggests that “service” is at issue here rather than “restraint.”
Degé: de la ’bab de la bab de la bden par ’dzin de’i spyod lam byed; Stok: de la gzhol/ de la ’bab/ de la bab de dben par ’dzin/ der spyod lam byed. Admittedly, the translation of the final clause is loose. We think, however, that such a rendering captures the meaning well.
Degé: dge slong; Stok: dge sbyong. The Stok reading provides “ascetics” rather than “monks.”
Degé: de dag bud med ston mi byed; Stok: de dag bud med sten mi byed. The Stok reading suggests that “being near” or “relying on” women is the problem (rather than “teaching” women).
Degé: stong pa nyid la mos byed pa; Stok: stong pa nyid la chos byed pa. The Degé reading suggests “believing in emptiness,” while the Stok reading suggests “enacting” or “practicing” in emptiness, perhaps construing dharmas as empty. With the language of “affirm” in the translation, we hope to strike something of a balance between the two.
Degé: ’da’ zhing ’jig par mi byed de; Stok: ’da’ zhing ’jigs par mi byed de. Rather than “not destroying,” the Stok reading suggests that they do not “fear” the precepts of the Buddha. Either reading seems appropriate in the context.
Degé: shin tu brtan par gnas pa yin; Stok: shin tu bstan par gnas pa yin. The Stok suggests, perhaps, “they abide well in the teachings.”
Degé: nga rgyal tha ba khro ’gyur gnas; Stok: nga rgyal tha ba khro ’byung gnas. Rather than “quick to anger,” the Stok suggests “a source of anger,” or perhaps “a wellspring of anger,” both of which have the same basic sense as the Degé reading but with different imagery.
The fourth of the four levels of attainment of the vehicle of the śrāvakas, it is the attainment of a nirvāṇa distinct from unexcelled perfect awakening, the type of nirvāṇa proper to buddhas.
A mendicant. Here in reference to a particular norm of monasticism as dedicated to cultivation of moral discipline.
A type of nonhuman being whose precise status is subject to different views, but is included as one of the six classes of beings in the sixfold classification of realms of rebirth. In the Buddhist context, asuras are powerful beings said to be dominated by envy, ambition, and hostility. They are also known in the pre-Buddhist and pre-Vedic mythologies of India and Iran, and feature prominently in Vedic and post-Vedic Brahmanical mythology, as well as in the Buddhist tradition. In these traditions, asuras are often described as being engaged in interminable conflict with the devas (gods).
Here seemingly in connection with ’dod chags, or desire, one of the three root poisons.
Seemingly here in connection with zhe sdang, or hatred, one of the three root poisons.
Yeshé Dé (late eighth to early ninth century) was the most prolific translator of sūtras into Tibetan. Altogether he is credited with the translation of more than one hundred sixty sūtra translations and more than one hundred additional translations, mostly on tantric topics. In spite of Yeshé Dé’s great importance for the propagation of Buddhism in Tibet during the imperial era, only a few biographical details about this figure are known. Later sources describe him as a student of the Indian teacher Padmasambhava, and he is also credited with teaching both sūtra and tantra widely to students of his own. He was also known as Nanam Yeshé Dé, from the Nanam (sna nam) clan.
The bowls used by monastics to collect alms.
In Buddhist literature, this is an epithet applied to buddhas, most often to Śākyamuni. The Sanskrit term generally means “possessing fortune,” but in specifically Buddhist contexts it implies that a buddha is in possession of six auspicious qualities (bhaga) associated with complete awakening. The Tibetan term—where bcom is said to refer to “subduing” the four māras, ldan to “possessing” the great qualities of buddhahood, and ’das to “going beyond” saṃsāra and nirvāṇa—possibly reflects the commentarial tradition where the Sanskrit bhagavat is interpreted, in addition, as “one who destroys the four māras.” This is achieved either by reading bhagavat as bhagnavat (“one who broke”), or by tracing the word bhaga to the root √bhañj (“to break”).
See “blessed one.”
Buying and selling, trade, commerce.
The ultimate soteriological goal of the Buddhist tradition. The transcendence of suffering.
In a general sense, samādhi can describe a number of different meditative states. In the Mahāyāna literature, in particular in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, we find extensive lists of different samādhis, numbering over one hundred.
In a more restricted sense, and when understood as a mental state, samādhi is defined as the one-pointedness of the mind (cittaikāgratā), the ability to remain on the same object over long periods of time. The Drajor Bamponyipa (sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa) commentary on the Mahāvyutpatti explains the term samādhi as referring to the instrument through which mind and mental states “get collected,” i.e., it is by the force of samādhi that the continuum of mind and mental states becomes collected on a single point of reference without getting distracted.
Seemingly here in connection with gti mug, or delusion, one of the three root poisons.
Many sūtras express concern over the decline of the Dharma, among them the sūtra translated here. For a sustained study of this theme, see Jan Nattier’s (1991) Once Upon a Future Time.
See “decline of the teaching.”
This word has several senses. It can refer to the Buddhist teaching as a whole, as in the truth about reality. It can also refer to the ontological simples posited by the Abhidharma. In other cases, it can simply mean something like “quality.”
Likely a translation of udvega or a related word, skyo ba here refers to a kind of valorized world-weariness that stands somewhere between fear and disgust. For a study of this, though without reference to Tibetan, see Andrea Acri’s (2015) “Between Impetus, Fear and Disgust.”
Emptiness denotes the ultimate nature of reality, the total absence of inherent existence and self-identity with respect to all phenomena. According to this view, all things and events are devoid of any independent, intrinsic reality that constitutes their essence. Nothing can be said to exist independent of the complex network of factors that gives rise to its origination, nor are phenomena independent of the cognitive processes and mental constructs that make up the conventional framework within which their identity and existence are posited. When all levels of conceptualization dissolve and when all forms of dichotomizing tendencies are quelled through deliberate meditative deconstruction of conceptual elaborations, the ultimate nature of reality will finally become manifest. It is the first of the three gateways to liberation.
In this sūtra, monks on the vehicle of the śrāvakas and the Great Vehicle both are to apprehend dharmas as empty. The Abhidharma position that dharmas exist as ontological simples appears by and large to be rejected here.
See “emptiness.”
A class of generally benevolent nonhuman beings who inhabit the skies, sometimes said to inhabit fantastic cities in the clouds, and more specifically to dwell on the eastern slopes of Mount Meru, where they are ruled by the Great King Dhṛtarāṣṭra. They are most renowned as celestial musicians who serve the gods. In the Abhidharma, the term is also used to refer to the mental body assumed by sentient beings during the intermediate state between death and rebirth. Gandharvas are said to live on fragrances (gandha) in the desire realm, hence the Tibetan translation dri za, meaning “scent eater.”
In the most general sense the devas—the term is cognate with the English divine—are a class of celestial beings who frequently appear in Buddhist texts, often at the head of the assemblies of nonhuman beings who attend and celebrate the teachings of the Buddha Śākyamuni and other buddhas and bodhisattvas. In Buddhist cosmology the devas occupy the highest of the five or six “destinies” (gati) of saṃsāra among which beings take rebirth. The devas reside in the devalokas, “heavens” that traditionally number between twenty-six and twenty-eight and are divided between the desire realm (kāmadhātu), form realm (rūpadhātu), and formless realm (ārūpyadhātu). A being attains rebirth among the devas either through meritorious deeds (in the desire realm) or the attainment of subtle meditative states (in the form and formless realms). While rebirth among the devas is considered favorable, it is ultimately a transitory state from which beings will fall when the conditions that lead to rebirth there are exhausted. Thus, rebirth in the god realms is regarded as a diversion from the spiritual path.
The means by which aspirants to nirvāṇa attain the state of buddhahood and thus seek to liberate others. Though the Great Vehicle and the vehicle of the śrāvakas have distinct ends, in this sūtra the distinction between the means to the two ends is less than clear. Both paths involve the analysis and apprehension of dharmas as empty.
Typically, this word refers to followers of those teachings of the Buddha that focus on the monastic lifestyle and liberating oneself from suffering, in contrast to followers of the Bodhisattva Vehicle, who seek buddhahood for the sake of all beings. While this distinction appears to be maintained in this sūtra, the śrāvakas are here said to both cultivate moral discipline and apprehend phenomena and dharmas as empty.
A fully ordained male practitioner who is more concerned with worldly things than with cultivating moral discipline.
This term can mean both physical seclusion and a meditative state of withdrawal.
See “solitude.”
This term seems here to refer to physical isolation, but it can have a mental sense as well.
Jinamitra was invited to Tibet during the reign of King Tri Songdetsen (khri srong lde btsan, r. 742–98 ᴄᴇ) and was involved with the translation of nearly two hundred texts, continuing into the reign of King Ralpachen (ral pa can, r. 815–38 ᴄᴇ). He was one of the small group of paṇḍitas responsible for the Mahāvyutpatti Sanskrit–Tibetan dictionary.
In Buddhist literature, this is an epithet applied to buddhas, most often to Śākyamuni. The Sanskrit term generally means “possessing fortune,” but in specifically Buddhist contexts it implies that a buddha is in possession of six auspicious qualities (bhaga) associated with complete awakening. The Tibetan term—where bcom is said to refer to “subduing” the four māras, ldan to “possessing” the great qualities of buddhahood, and ’das to “going beyond” saṃsāra and nirvāṇa—possibly reflects the commentarial tradition where the Sanskrit bhagavat is interpreted, in addition, as “one who destroys the four māras.” This is achieved either by reading bhagavat as bhagnavat (“one who broke”), or by tracing the word bhaga to the root √bhañj (“to break”).
See “blessed one.”
The principal deity in Paranirmitavaśavartin, the highest heaven in the desire realm. He is best known for his role in trying to prevent the Buddha’s awakening. Māra is also used as a generic name for the deities in his abode and is an impersonal term for the destructive forces that keep beings imprisoned in saṃsāra.
The term bhikṣu, often translated as “monk,” refers to the highest among the eight types of prātimokṣa vows that make one part of the Buddhist assembly. The Sanskrit term literally means “beggar” or “mendicant,” referring to the fact that Buddhist monks and nuns—like other ascetics of the time—subsisted on alms (bhikṣā) begged from the laity.
In the Tibetan tradition, which follows the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, a monk follows 253 rules as part of his moral discipline. A nun (bhikṣuṇī; dge slong ma) follows 364 rules. A novice monk (śrāmaṇera; dge tshul) or nun (śrāmaṇerikā; dge tshul ma) follows thirty-six rules of moral discipline (although in other vinaya traditions novices typically follow only ten).
Morally virtuous or disciplined conduct and the abandonment of morally undisciplined conduct of body, speech, and mind. The term is often used in reference to following precepts or rules according to one’s ordination or vows.
In this sūtra, this term refers to the lack of a particular mode of existence. Insofar as all dharmas are empty, they lack inherent or independent existence. It is in this sense that such things as the eye are said to be nonexistent in this sūtra.
The term bhikṣuṇī, often translated as “nun,” refers to the highest among the eight types of prātimokṣa vows that make one part of the Buddhist assembly. The Sanskrit term bhikṣu (to which the female grammatical ending ṇī is added) literally means “beggar” or “mendicant,” referring to the fact that Buddhist nuns and monks—like other ascetics of the time—subsisted on alms (bhikṣā) begged from the laity. In the Tibetan tradition, which follows the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, a bhikṣuṇī follows 364 rules and a bhikṣu follows 253 rules as part of their moral discipline.
For the first few years of the Buddha’s teachings in India, there was no ordination for women. It started at the persistent request and display of determination of Mahāprajāpatī, the Buddha’s stepmother and aunt, together with five hundred former wives of men of Kapilavastu, who had themselves become monks. Mahāprajāpatī is thus considered to be the founder of the nun’s order.
A term meaning acceptance, forbearance, or patience. As the third of the six perfections, patience is classified into three kinds: the capacity to tolerate abuse from sentient beings, to tolerate the hardships of the path to buddhahood, and to tolerate the profound nature of reality. As a term referring to a bodhisattva’s realization, dharmakṣānti (chos la bzod pa) can refer to the ways one becomes “receptive” to the nature of Dharma, and it can be an abbreviation of anutpattikadharmakṣānti, “forbearance for the unborn nature, or nonproduction, of dharmas.”
This term refers to anything with sentience. In this text, the concern is with human persons and, more specifically, male monastics.
The regulations and rules that constitute Buddhist discipline. The number and scope of the vows differs depending on one’s status (whether lay, novice monastic, or full monastic) and whether one is a monk or a nun.
Refers to the five fundamental precepts of abstaining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and consuming intoxicants.
The dharmas conceived as empty, insubstantial, and the like. Possibly also a reference to the Dharma teachings in which dharmas are understood in this way. In this sūtra, analysis of the dharmas as empty is said to give rise to the goals of the vehicle of the śrāvakas.
The ancient capital of Magadha prior to its relocation to Pāṭaliputra during the Mauryan dynasty, Rājagṛha is one of the most important locations in Buddhist history. The literature tells us that the Buddha and his saṅgha spent a considerable amount of time in residence in and around Rājagṛha—in nearby places, such as the Vulture Peak Mountain (Gṛdhrakūṭaparvata), a major site of the Mahāyāna sūtras, and the Bamboo Grove (Veṇuvana)—enjoying the patronage of King Bimbisāra and then of his son King Ajātaśatru. Rājagṛha is also remembered as the location where the first Buddhist monastic council was held after the Buddha Śākyamuni passed into parinirvāṇa. Now known as Rajgir and located in the modern Indian state of Bihar.
A disciple of the Buddha.
The first of the four levels of attainment of the vehicle of the śrāvakas, it is considered to be when one enters “the stream” of the noble ones that flows inexorably toward awakening.
The third of the four levels of attainment of the vehicle of the śrāvakas, it is when one will no longer be reborn in the desire realm.
The second of the four levels of attainment of the vehicle of the śrāvakas, it is when one will only be reborn in saṃsāra once more.
The religious robes of monastics.
Though often specifically reserved for the monastic community, this term can be applied to any of the four Buddhist communities—monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen—as well as to identify the different groups of practitioners, like the community of bodhisattvas or the community of śrāvakas. It is also the third of the Three Jewels (triratna) of Buddhism: the Buddha, the Teaching, and the Community.
yul ’khor skyong gis zhus pa (Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā). Toh 166, Degé Kangyur vol. 59 (mdo sde, ba), folios 171.b–175.a.
yul ’khor skyong gis zhus pa. bka’ ’gyur (dpe bsdur ma) [Comparative Edition of the Kangyur], krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). 108 volumes. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2006–9, vol. 59, pp. 468–79.
yul ’khor skyong gis zhus pa. F 308, Phukdrak Kangyur vol. 88 (mdo sde, khi), folios 173.b–178.b.
yul ’khor skyong gis zhus pa. S 187, Stok Kangyur vol. 72 (mdo sde, zha), folios 233.b–239.a.
yul ’khor skyong gis zhus pa (Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā). Toh 62, Degé Kangyur vol. 42 (dkon brtsegs, nga), folios 227.a–257.a. English translation in Vienna Buddhist Translation Studies Group, trans. 2021.
dkar chag ’phang thang ma/sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa. Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2003.
Acri, Andrea. “Between Impetus, Fear and Disgust.” In Emotions in Indian Thought-Systems, edited by Purushottama Bilimoria and Aleksandra Wenta, 199–227. London: Routledge, 2015.
Boucher, Daniel. Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahāyāna: A Study and Translation of the “Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā-Sūtra.” Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2008.
Ensink, Jacob, ed. and trans. The Question of Rāṣṭrapāla. Zwolle: J. J. Tijl, 1952.
Nattier, Jan. Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1991.
Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli, and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans. “Raṭṭhapālasutta: On Raṭṭhapāla” [Majjhima Nikāya 82]. In The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya, 677–91. 4th ed. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2015.
Ray, Reginald. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Vienna Buddhist Translation Studies Group, trans. The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā, Toh 62). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2021.
Yoshimura Shūki. The Denkar-ma: An Oldest Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons. Kyoto: Ryukoku University, 1950.
The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2), so called to distinguish it from a longer work with the same title (Toh 62), is a short Great Vehicle sūtra in which the Buddha describes the monks who will bring about the decline of the Dharma.
This translation was produced by Adam T. Miller under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2), so called to distinguish it from a longer work with the same title, is a short Great Vehicle sūtra in which the Buddha describes the monks who will bring about the decline of the Dharma. The sūtra opens with the Buddha at Vulture Peak in Rājagṛha, surrounded by a group of monks. Among them is Rāṣṭrapāla, who asks the Buddha to describe the people who will bring about the decline of the Buddha’s teaching. In his response, the Buddha first draws a sharp contrast between the condition of the monk (Tib. dge slong gi gnas), which entails monastic rigor, and the condition of laxity (Tib. lhod pa’i gnas), which denotes a lack of monastic discipline. He then describes both as embodied by monks. Rigorous monks—that is, real monks worthy of the name—are those who are concerned with possessing and perfecting moral discipline through solitary practice and self-cultivation. Lax monks—that is, imposter monks unworthy of the name—are those who do not live a life of strict discipline but are instead concerned with worldly affairs. These monks, the Buddha tells Rāṣṭrapāla, will bring about the decline of the teaching. This message is expressed first in prose and then again in verse.
Initially composed in Sanskrit, The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2) survives in Tibetan and Mongolian. The Sanskrit title, following the transliterations available in the Tibetan editions, can be reconstructed as *Āryarāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchānāmamahāyānasūtra. Further details about the Sanskrit—when, where, and by whom it was compiled—are unknown. The Tibetan translation was produced and/or updated in the late eighth or early ninth century by Jinamitra, Yeshé Dé, and other unnamed assistants. The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2) is listed in both the Denkarma Catalog and the Phangthangma Catalog (under the title ’phags pa yul ’khor skyong gis zhus pa chung ngu), and is witnessed in the Tshalpa (tshal pa) and Thempangma (them spangs ma) recension lineages. To our knowledge, it has not been identified among the manuscripts found at Dunhuang.
The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2) shares thematic content with two works titled similarly (or identically, as the case may be)—one from the Pali canon, the Raṭṭhapāla Sutta, and another from the Great Vehicle tradition, The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (Toh 62). The Pali text is largely concerned with illustrating to audiences both lay and monastic the qualities of proper monasticism and its virtues. The concern of The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2), by contrast, appears to be more insular in nature. There are two possible conditions, the Buddha tells Rāṣṭrapāla: rigor and laxity. Those who have moral discipline are real monks. Those who lack moral discipline, on the other hand, are imposter monks. Though people of the latter sort consider themselves to be monks, they are no monks at all, and such individuals will bring about the decline of the Dharma. In the longer Great Vehicle work, The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (1), the concern is again largely insular. Here, however, it is the rigorous bodhisattva who is valorized, not the rigorous monk. In fact, monks are criticized and denigrated in The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (1), while rigorous, forest-dwelling bodhisattvas are valorized as the ideal, authentic practitioners. What exactly to make of these differences—with regard, for example, to the social and institutional locations of the Great Vehicle practitioners and authors behind these two works—is beyond the scope of this introduction. Instead, we refer readers to Reginald Ray and Daniel Boucher, whose work on these two Great Vehicle sūtras has informed the brief comments here.
The present translation is based on the Degé version in consultation with the Stok Palace version. These two Tibetan texts are not identical, but they do not often differ in a way that affects the meaning. Therefore, we mostly followed the Degé. We followed the Stok readings when they helped to clarify the sense of the Degé, and we provide both readings in cases where the variance impacts the meaning.
In 1952, Jacob Ensink translated The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2) from the Tibetan. Our translation has benefitted from comparison with his work.
Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas.
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was residing at Vulture Peak in Rājagṛha, together with a great saṅgha of 1,250 monks. Then, the venerable Rāṣṭrapāla arose from his seat, draped his upper robe over one shoulder, knelt down on his right knee, bowed before the Blessed One, and with folded hands asked, “Blessed One, what are the qualities of the beings who will bring about the decline of the Thus-Gone One’s teaching?”
The Blessed One replied, “Rāṣṭrapāla, there are two conditions. What are they? They are the condition of the monk and the condition of laxity. Now, the condition of the monk is that which pertains to having moral discipline. And the condition of laxity is that which pertains to lacking moral discipline.
“Rāṣṭrapāla, monks who seek complete nirvāṇa should train in these two conditions. What are the two? Through the component of moral discipline, they should fully guard themselves and they should contemplate themselves and nothing else. Now, what is it to contemplate oneself and nothing else? It is to analyze by thinking, ‘Do I want to want to eliminate my own suffering, or do I want to awaken to unexcelled perfect awakening?’
“Those who seek complete nirvāṇa through the vehicle of the śrāvakas should train only in the precepts of the śrāvakas. They are to be bound by the prātimokṣa vows. Their conduct and personal associations should be perfect. They should train having genuinely accepted that even the slightest fault is to be viewed with apprehension. They should purify their actions of body, speech, and mind in accordance with the precepts. They should have pure livelihoods and be irreproachable. Without greed and without longing for flavorful foods, they should have suitable robes and suitable begging bowls.
“Also, they should not eat just any mixture of food. They should train by eating a little bit of food until just sated. In this way, they should always and continuously consider food as filth. In other words, they should perceive food as excrement and urine, as pus, as vomit, as rubbish, as like a crusted wound, as base, as unpleasant, as like the flesh of children, as trash, as refuse, as fetid. In this manner they should think about what and how much they eat.
“Without attachment, aversion, and confusion, they should always delight in solitude. They should never delight in idle chatter. They should readily accept solitude like a dying deer. They should be isolated. They should delight in solitude. Delighting in solitude, they should be resolute and patient. If associating with noble people, they should be pleasant. They should not be given to worldly talk. They should abandon commercial activity. Delight in medicinal cures, delight in gossip, and association with household activities should be avoided. They should be discerning while sitting, standing, walking, and sleeping. They should rely on total solitude, delightful retreats, and peaceful places that are quiet and silent, not frightening, without any slithering snakes, without many people, devoid of people, and suitable for inner absorption.
“They should refrain from self-exaltation. They should refrain from belittling others. They should refrain from pretension and flattery. They should always and continuously cultivate an attitude of dissatisfaction. They should not associate with and get to know householders and monastics. They should rely on all empty dharmas, meditate on them, and expand on them. They should avoid congregating with ignorant monks. They should not associate with nuns. They should have few desires. They should always examine themselves for personal faults. And they should not look for the faults of others. They should not rely on their parents, let alone other families. They should be properly and thoroughly restrained. They should be givers of the appeasing Dharma. They should be discriminating in their focus. They should dwell in isolated places. They should not speak to others even in an agreeable manner, let alone in an unagreeable manner.
“They should establish their minds firmly in the teachings and analyze the profound dharmas. What is it to analyze the profound dharmas? It is to analyze by thinking, for example, that ‘the eye is impermanent.’ It is to analyze its arising and dissolution. And that with respect to which arising and dissolution should be analyzed is itself analyzed as nonexistent. Why? That which is called ‘eye’ does not exist. Though the eye, form, and eye consciousness are not objects of perception, they are perceived as nonexistent. Why? There are no dharmas that are objects of perception. Therefore, the support of the ear should not be imagined. The supports of the nose, tongue, body, and mind should not be imagined. No support whatsoever should be imagined. What would be imagined when doing so? All dharmas should be apprehended as empty in this way. Apprehending the dharmas in this way purifies the component of moral discipline. It purifies the components of concentration and of wisdom. It gives rise to the result of stream-entry. And it gives rise to the result of the once-returner, the result of the non-returner, and arhathood. Detached in this way, the initial śrāvakas eliminated their defilements.
“Now, what are imposter monks? Rāṣṭrapāla, such monks cling to the conception that they are themselves monks. Their component of moral discipline is incomplete. They cherish their robes and begging bowls. They cherish material things. Abandoning silence, they claim for themselves bedding, seats, and great invitations that lead to unfortunate rebirths. They associate with women. They associate with nuns. They associate with those favored by the king. And through associating with them, their eyes are always intent on forms. By cultivating such a mind, they are thoroughly afflicted. If their mind is afflicted, so will be their condition. They will consistently make serious mistakes or small ones. These, Rāṣṭrapāla, are imposter monks.
“Why are they imposter monks? Imposter monks are those fools who reject the plain bedding and seats approved by the Thus-Gone One, which are the bedding and seats proper to ascetics, who yearn for robes, who yearn for material things, and who associate with women and householders. How could ascetic conduct be found in fools with such associations? Moreover, they criticize and revile the profound dharmas. Although they have heard of karma, they speak ill of others. They speak ill of the wilderness. They praise those who are solely focused on desire for pleasure. They praise those who are solely absorbed in pleasurable idle chatter. They speak ill of those possessing any of the conditions of monks.
“The Thus-Gone One said in a sūtra, ‘There is no occasion to associate with householders and monastics.’ Those who reject this have no desire for ascetic conduct. They have no desire to be a monk. Sitting apart, they teach the Dharma to women and instruct others still in the foundations of such behavior. Why? The Thus-Gone One describes them as the robbers of the Dharma. Abandoning the prātimokṣa vows, they sit apart and teach the Dharma to women. These fools are imposter monks. With their shaven heads, they are imposters. With their saffron robes, they are imposters.
“How can an imposter be known? Those fools approve of that which the blessed buddhas condemn. They ordain people before they reach twenty years of age. They take with their own hands. They enjoy things without thinking. They prepare and cook food for themselves. They handle gold and silver. They accumulate millet, barley, and other grains. They engage in commercial activity related to houses, fields, and parks. They employ servants. They appropriate objects related to houses, fields, and parks. Not believing in the fruition of karma, not having confidence in the prātimokṣa, toward that lifestyle are they inclined, toward that lifestyle do they fall, toward that lifestyle do they sink—they act as if that is all there is. Regarding themselves as ascetics, where there are many people, they teach in a way that resembles the naked ascetics. They champion the view of personal identity. By teaching personal identity, and like the naked ascetics, they draw many people in and transfix them. Apprehending the domain of buddhas, the condition of thus-gone ones, as empty, they disparage it. They are known to revile it.
“Rāṣṭrapāla, sentient beings such as these will arise. They are not householders, nor are they ascetics. They will bring about the decline of the Thus-Gone One’s teaching.”
Then, the Lord at that time spoke the following verses:
When the Blessed One had spoken, the venerable Rāṣṭrapāla and the world with its monks, gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas rejoiced and praised what the Blessed One had said.
The Great Vehicle sūtra “The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2)” is complete.
The Indian scholar Jinamitra and others, along with the chief editor-translator Bandé Yeshé Dé, translated, edited, and finalized the text.
The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2), so called to distinguish it from a longer work with the same title (Toh 62), is a short Great Vehicle sūtra in which the Buddha describes the monks who will bring about the decline of the Dharma.
This translation was produced by Adam T. Miller under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2), so called to distinguish it from a longer work with the same title, is a short Great Vehicle sūtra in which the Buddha describes the monks who will bring about the decline of the Dharma. The sūtra opens with the Buddha at Vulture Peak in Rājagṛha, surrounded by a group of monks. Among them is Rāṣṭrapāla, who asks the Buddha to describe the people who will bring about the decline of the Buddha’s teaching. In his response, the Buddha first draws a sharp contrast between the condition of the monk (Tib. dge slong gi gnas), which entails monastic rigor, and the condition of laxity (Tib. lhod pa’i gnas), which denotes a lack of monastic discipline. He then describes both as embodied by monks. Rigorous monks—that is, real monks worthy of the name—are those who are concerned with possessing and perfecting moral discipline through solitary practice and self-cultivation. Lax monks—that is, imposter monks unworthy of the name—are those who do not live a life of strict discipline but are instead concerned with worldly affairs. These monks, the Buddha tells Rāṣṭrapāla, will bring about the decline of the teaching. This message is expressed first in prose and then again in verse.
Initially composed in Sanskrit, The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2) survives in Tibetan and Mongolian. The Sanskrit title, following the transliterations available in the Tibetan editions, can be reconstructed as *Āryarāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchānāmamahāyānasūtra. Further details about the Sanskrit—when, where, and by whom it was compiled—are unknown. The Tibetan translation was produced and/or updated in the late eighth or early ninth century by Jinamitra, Yeshé Dé, and other unnamed assistants. The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2) is listed in both the Denkarma Catalog and the Phangthangma Catalog (under the title ’phags pa yul ’khor skyong gis zhus pa chung ngu), and is witnessed in the Tshalpa (tshal pa) and Thempangma (them spangs ma) recension lineages. To our knowledge, it has not been identified among the manuscripts found at Dunhuang.
The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2) shares thematic content with two works titled similarly (or identically, as the case may be)—one from the Pali canon, the Raṭṭhapāla Sutta, and another from the Great Vehicle tradition, The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (Toh 62). The Pali text is largely concerned with illustrating to audiences both lay and monastic the qualities of proper monasticism and its virtues. The concern of The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2), by contrast, appears to be more insular in nature. There are two possible conditions, the Buddha tells Rāṣṭrapāla: rigor and laxity. Those who have moral discipline are real monks. Those who lack moral discipline, on the other hand, are imposter monks. Though people of the latter sort consider themselves to be monks, they are no monks at all, and such individuals will bring about the decline of the Dharma. In the longer Great Vehicle work, The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (1), the concern is again largely insular. Here, however, it is the rigorous bodhisattva who is valorized, not the rigorous monk. In fact, monks are criticized and denigrated in The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (1), while rigorous, forest-dwelling bodhisattvas are valorized as the ideal, authentic practitioners. What exactly to make of these differences—with regard, for example, to the social and institutional locations of the Great Vehicle practitioners and authors behind these two works—is beyond the scope of this introduction. Instead, we refer readers to Reginald Ray and Daniel Boucher, whose work on these two Great Vehicle sūtras has informed the brief comments here.
The present translation is based on the Degé version in consultation with the Stok Palace version. These two Tibetan texts are not identical, but they do not often differ in a way that affects the meaning. Therefore, we mostly followed the Degé. We followed the Stok readings when they helped to clarify the sense of the Degé, and we provide both readings in cases where the variance impacts the meaning.
In 1952, Jacob Ensink translated The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2) from the Tibetan. Our translation has benefitted from comparison with his work.
Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas.
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was residing at Vulture Peak in Rājagṛha, together with a great saṅgha of 1,250 monks. Then, the venerable Rāṣṭrapāla arose from his seat, draped his upper robe over one shoulder, knelt down on his right knee, bowed before the Blessed One, and with folded hands asked, “Blessed One, what are the qualities of the beings who will bring about the decline of the Thus-Gone One’s teaching?”
The Blessed One replied, “Rāṣṭrapāla, there are two conditions. What are they? They are the condition of the monk and the condition of laxity. Now, the condition of the monk is that which pertains to having moral discipline. And the condition of laxity is that which pertains to lacking moral discipline.
“Rāṣṭrapāla, monks who seek complete nirvāṇa should train in these two conditions. What are the two? Through the component of moral discipline, they should fully guard themselves and they should contemplate themselves and nothing else. Now, what is it to contemplate oneself and nothing else? It is to analyze by thinking, ‘Do I want to want to eliminate my own suffering, or do I want to awaken to unexcelled perfect awakening?’
“Those who seek complete nirvāṇa through the vehicle of the śrāvakas should train only in the precepts of the śrāvakas. They are to be bound by the prātimokṣa vows. Their conduct and personal associations should be perfect. They should train having genuinely accepted that even the slightest fault is to be viewed with apprehension. They should purify their actions of body, speech, and mind in accordance with the precepts. They should have pure livelihoods and be irreproachable. Without greed and without longing for flavorful foods, they should have suitable robes and suitable begging bowls.
“Also, they should not eat just any mixture of food. They should train by eating a little bit of food until just sated. In this way, they should always and continuously consider food as filth. In other words, they should perceive food as excrement and urine, as pus, as vomit, as rubbish, as like a crusted wound, as base, as unpleasant, as like the flesh of children, as trash, as refuse, as fetid. In this manner they should think about what and how much they eat.
“Without attachment, aversion, and confusion, they should always delight in solitude. They should never delight in idle chatter. They should readily accept solitude like a dying deer. They should be isolated. They should delight in solitude. Delighting in solitude, they should be resolute and patient. If associating with noble people, they should be pleasant. They should not be given to worldly talk. They should abandon commercial activity. Delight in medicinal cures, delight in gossip, and association with household activities should be avoided. They should be discerning while sitting, standing, walking, and sleeping. They should rely on total solitude, delightful retreats, and peaceful places that are quiet and silent, not frightening, without any slithering snakes, without many people, devoid of people, and suitable for inner absorption.
“They should refrain from self-exaltation. They should refrain from belittling others. They should refrain from pretension and flattery. They should always and continuously cultivate an attitude of dissatisfaction. They should not associate with and get to know householders and monastics. They should rely on all empty dharmas, meditate on them, and expand on them. They should avoid congregating with ignorant monks. They should not associate with nuns. They should have few desires. They should always examine themselves for personal faults. And they should not look for the faults of others. They should not rely on their parents, let alone other families. They should be properly and thoroughly restrained. They should be givers of the appeasing Dharma. They should be discriminating in their focus. They should dwell in isolated places. They should not speak to others even in an agreeable manner, let alone in an unagreeable manner.
“They should establish their minds firmly in the teachings and analyze the profound dharmas. What is it to analyze the profound dharmas? It is to analyze by thinking, for example, that ‘the eye is impermanent.’ It is to analyze its arising and dissolution. And that with respect to which arising and dissolution should be analyzed is itself analyzed as nonexistent. Why? That which is called ‘eye’ does not exist. Though the eye, form, and eye consciousness are not objects of perception, they are perceived as nonexistent. Why? There are no dharmas that are objects of perception. Therefore, the support of the ear should not be imagined. The supports of the nose, tongue, body, and mind should not be imagined. No support whatsoever should be imagined. What would be imagined when doing so? All dharmas should be apprehended as empty in this way. Apprehending the dharmas in this way purifies the component of moral discipline. It purifies the components of concentration and of wisdom. It gives rise to the result of stream-entry. And it gives rise to the result of the once-returner, the result of the non-returner, and arhathood. Detached in this way, the initial śrāvakas eliminated their defilements.
“Now, what are imposter monks? Rāṣṭrapāla, such monks cling to the conception that they are themselves monks. Their component of moral discipline is incomplete. They cherish their robes and begging bowls. They cherish material things. Abandoning silence, they claim for themselves bedding, seats, and great invitations that lead to unfortunate rebirths. They associate with women. They associate with nuns. They associate with those favored by the king. And through associating with them, their eyes are always intent on forms. By cultivating such a mind, they are thoroughly afflicted. If their mind is afflicted, so will be their condition. They will consistently make serious mistakes or small ones. These, Rāṣṭrapāla, are imposter monks.
“Why are they imposter monks? Imposter monks are those fools who reject the plain bedding and seats approved by the Thus-Gone One, which are the bedding and seats proper to ascetics, who yearn for robes, who yearn for material things, and who associate with women and householders. How could ascetic conduct be found in fools with such associations? Moreover, they criticize and revile the profound dharmas. Although they have heard of karma, they speak ill of others. They speak ill of the wilderness. They praise those who are solely focused on desire for pleasure. They praise those who are solely absorbed in pleasurable idle chatter. They speak ill of those possessing any of the conditions of monks.
“The Thus-Gone One said in a sūtra, ‘There is no occasion to associate with householders and monastics.’ Those who reject this have no desire for ascetic conduct. They have no desire to be a monk. Sitting apart, they teach the Dharma to women and instruct others still in the foundations of such behavior. Why? The Thus-Gone One describes them as the robbers of the Dharma. Abandoning the prātimokṣa vows, they sit apart and teach the Dharma to women. These fools are imposter monks. With their shaven heads, they are imposters. With their saffron robes, they are imposters.
“How can an imposter be known? Those fools approve of that which the blessed buddhas condemn. They ordain people before they reach twenty years of age. They take with their own hands. They enjoy things without thinking. They prepare and cook food for themselves. They handle gold and silver. They accumulate millet, barley, and other grains. They engage in commercial activity related to houses, fields, and parks. They employ servants. They appropriate objects related to houses, fields, and parks. Not believing in the fruition of karma, not having confidence in the prātimokṣa, toward that lifestyle are they inclined, toward that lifestyle do they fall, toward that lifestyle do they sink—they act as if that is all there is. Regarding themselves as ascetics, where there are many people, they teach in a way that resembles the naked ascetics. They champion the view of personal identity. By teaching personal identity, and like the naked ascetics, they draw many people in and transfix them. Apprehending the domain of buddhas, the condition of thus-gone ones, as empty, they disparage it. They are known to revile it.
“Rāṣṭrapāla, sentient beings such as these will arise. They are not householders, nor are they ascetics. They will bring about the decline of the Thus-Gone One’s teaching.”
Then, the Lord at that time spoke the following verses:
When the Blessed One had spoken, the venerable Rāṣṭrapāla and the world with its monks, gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas rejoiced and praised what the Blessed One had said.
The Great Vehicle sūtra “The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2)” is complete.
The Indian scholar Jinamitra and others, along with the chief editor-translator Bandé Yeshé Dé, translated, edited, and finalized the text.