Loading translation...
At what stage in the discourse the householders take ordination varies between different iterations of this sūtra. In the earliest of the extant Chinese translations, namely that made by An Xuan and Yan Fotiao in the second century
In the Tibetan Kangyur version of this sūtra, Ugra first goes forth as a monk along with all the others, but then he alone decides to continue to live as a householder, albeit with renunciation equal to that of monk. In accordance with the Buddha’s prophecy, he will thereby be able to bring even greater benefit to beings. The differences between iterations of the sūtra in this aspect of the narrative likely reflect the processes of oral transmission and layers of textual accretion in this early Mahāyāna scripture.
The theory of the lay origins of the Mahāyāna, which is now largely discredited, was considered plausible by a number of scholars through the course of twentieth century western and Japanese scholarship (for a helpful summary see Drewes 2010). It was associated in particular with the lifetime of work by Akira Hirakawa (in Japanese). Reginald Ray (1994) more recently also argued that “the Mahāyāna from the beginning was primarily a forest [wilderness] tradition, entirely non-monastic in character" (Ray 1994, p. 407). For more recent scholarly perspectives on the issue see for example Harrison (ed.) 2018.
See Nattier 2003, pp. 89–95. She later concludes, “For the Ugra, in other words, the Mahāyāna is not a school, a sect, or a movement, but a particular spiritual vocation, to be pursued within the existing Buddhist community. To be a ‘Mahayanist’—that is, to be a bodhisattva—thus does not mean to adhere to some new kind of ‘Buddhism,’ but simply to practice Buddhism in its most rigorous and demanding form.” (Nattier 2003, p. 195).
Mochizuki 1988, p. 223, as cited by Nattier 2003, p.26. Nattier also cites Schuster (1985) as making a similar argument.
Nattier 2003, p. 45. Based on a variety of features, she suggests that the Ugraparipṛcchā may have emerged within the Dharmaguptaka school.
The other versions are listed in the Kai yilian shih chiao lu, a catalog of Chinese translations of Buddhist texts compiled by Chih sheng in 730
Nattier 2003, p. 17. In an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation on the Ugraparipṛcchā Nancy Schuster (1976) produced preliminary translations of the three extant Chinese versions of the text.
Nattier observes that the four extant versions are not linear descendants of one another and that the complex ways in which they overlap “does not allow the construction of a straightforward stemma” (p. 203). Nevertheless, looking at the changes to the text over the 650-year period over which these various translations appeared, Nattier presents a helpful analysis of the process of accretion through which such scriptures often expanded over time: the multiplication of epithets; the completion of standard lists; recall of passages from elsewhere; “filling in the blanks”; and reiteration with additional examples. The addition of genuinely new material, she observes, is rare. See Nattier 2003, p.58.
The translation by Nattier (2003) is also an attempt, within constraints, to create something like a “critical edition.” Her translation takes the Tibetan as its base text, while providing annotation for the significant variants found in the three Chinese versions and the Śikṣāsamuccaya citations. Since the variations are pervasive, the resultant scholarly translation can be challenging for a general reader. The translation in Duff and Agocs (2013) is also from the Tibetan and appears to have been made without consulting Nattier’s prior work.
This standard list of epithets of the Dharma is found in the Mvy.1280–1289. According to Nattier, its inclusion in the Tibetan version is part of the later layer of accretions in the sūtra. See Nattier 2003, pp. 51–2.
Following D, S and others: ma rgal ba. Y, K read ma sgrol ba “those who have not been liberated.”
Our translation here diverges from that of Nattier (2003, p. 216) who translates “How should the householder bodhisattva and the renunciant bodhisattva live” (emphasis added). Tib. byang chub sems dpa’ khyim pa dang / rab tu byung bas ji ltar gnas par bgyi. Rather than reading the dang as “and,” our translation reads this as “how should lay bodhisattvas live with renunciation,” which makes better sense contextually. At the end of the sūtra Ugra reiterates the question when he asks again how lay bodhisattvas can live with the renunciation of those who have gone forth, illustrating that this is his central inquiry.
Tib. grags pa. Nattier suggests, based on the corresponding Chinese versions, that the underlying Sanskrit here was likely prasiddha, a term with a wide range of possible translations, among which “reputation” is just one. She translates accordingly as “accomplishment.” Nattier 2003, p. 218 n. 59.
Tib. yang dag par dang skyon med pa la zhugs pa rnams. Lit. “those who have…” Here, our translation follows that of Nattier 2003, p. 221, n. 83 who observes that the underlying Sanskrit here is likely to have been niyāma-(~nyāma)-avakrānta (as per Mvy. 6503) “entered into an established state.” She contends that it is unlikely that the original text would have been urging them to lead those already firmly established in the śrāvaka vehicle, and instead follows the readings found in the oldest of the three extant Chinese translations (Taishō 322) and the citation in Daśabhūmikavibhāṣā (Toh 44–31) which suggest the original reading was “those who have not yet definitively entered.”
Following D and others: chos kyis “with the Dharma.” S, Y, K read chos kyi “of the Dharma.” The former reading is supported by the Sanskrit cited by Śāntideva in the Śikṣāsamuccaya (267.12-13), which cites from here up to “wrong livelihood.”
Following Nattier 2003, p.223. The translation here is informed by the Sanskrit of the Śikṣāsamuccaya: samena na viṣameṇa. The Tibetan reads ’thun pas tshol gyi mi ’thun pas ma yin “they seek [it] appropriately and not inappropriately.”
Nattier argues that this reading in the Tibetan may be a corruption of an original reading as “for the sake of all beings.” For permutations found in Chinese iterations of the text, see Nattier 2003, p. 224 n. 102.
Tib. shing bal ’da’ ba (N, H, S: ’dab ma). “Wisps of cotton that are easily blown by the wind” is a common metaphor. This is cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya (180.14).
Tib. nyin dang mtshan du bye brag tu gyur pa ci yod ces yongs su ’jal bar ’du shes pa. Lit. “they perceive day and night with the evaluation ‘what is the difference?’ ” Nattier suggests there may have been some error in transmission here. She observes that all three extant Chinese versions read “day and night he has [or they have] the same thoughts,” and translates accordingly (Nattier 2003, p. 227 n. 119).
Tib. snying po blang/len lit. “take the essence.” Extracting meaning from the body, from the life-force, and from material things, which are ultimately “without an essence,” would become a well-known trope in Buddhist literature.
This section on intoxicating drinks, up to “should remain mindful and attentive” is cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya (120. 3–5).
After the five fundamental precepts, the remaining precepts from the ten virtues (daśakuśala, dge ba bcu) are taught. Since four of the ten virtues overlap with the five precepts, the total number of precepts taught for lay bodhisattvas here is eleven. Here, the order of “divisive speech” and “harsh language” are reversed from the standard order of presentation. For other scriptural iterations of this list of eleven precepts, see Nattier 2003, p. 108.
Tib. khyim, Skt. gṛha. The etymology of the latter lies in the cognate verb grah “to take” or “seize.” The implication is that the very notion of a household is something “seized,” which involves the trampling of land, as well as all the nonvirtue involved in material grasping.
Tib. khyim na gnas pa. This likely translates Skt. gṛhastha (“one who stays in a household”), or related terms such as gṛhasthāna, gṛhasthiti etc (“household life”). Such terms do not exclusively refer to the wealthy status implied by the term khyim bdag (Skt. gṛhapati) but to the laity in general. Based on context, this Tibetan term has been translated variously through this sūtra, as “household life,” “those who live in a household,” and “to live in a household.”
Again, referencing the etymology of gṛha “household” as that which is “taken” or “seized,” carrying the negative connotations of grasping.
Following N, H, S: sred pa’i khri shing. D reads srid pa’i khri shing “the creepers of worldly existence.” The term khri shing or ’khri shing refers to plants that rely on other plants for support.
Tib. slong ba, Skt. yācanaka. Lit. “requester” or anyone requesting alms, which could include mendicants and others. However, the primary meaning here appears to be “beggar,” as in someone unfortunate, worthy of compassion. Nattier (2003, p.241) also renders this as “beggar.”
Tib. thab mo, literally “stove keeper (f).” Another Tibetan term for wife. Nattier reads this as “impurity of fighting.”
This section, up to “contradicting the precepts given by the Buddha” is cited (with some minor divergence) in the extant Sanskrit of the Śikṣāsamuccaya (19.8–14).
The citation in the Śikṣāsamuccaya (19.141–7) resumes here, up to “belong to anyone at all.”
Nattier observes a likely play on words in the underlying Sanskrit here. Skt. sama “even” or “same” or “impartial” can also have the meanings “good” “just” or “fair,” while its opposite, Skt. viṣama “uneven” or “different” or “partial” also has meanings of “difficult” or “bad.” The implication is that those who behave with impartiality go on to favorable rebirths, while those who behave with partiality go on to unfavorable rebirths. Nattier (2003), p. 255 n.311 and p.257 n.319. The play on the word is also connected to a bodhisattva’s philosophical realization of the “sameness of all phenomena” in emptiness.
This and the following three paragraphs up to “three explanations like this” is cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya (19.17-20.9)
The Sanskrit of the Śikṣāsamuccaya here has a negative: “should not reflect.” This appears to be a corruption in the (late) Sanskrit witness. Nattier (2003), p.257-8 n.322.
Tib. de nas gdod bdag. The puzzling phrase gdod bdag has been left untranslated. The phrase is omitted from the Narthang Kangyur recension.
Tib. tshogs de yang yang dag par bsgrubs so. Reading tshogs here, like Nattier (2003, p. 266 n. 368) as rendering the Sanskrit saṃbhāra. Literally “accumulations,” these are the requisites for complete awakening. The two requisite accumulations are merit (Skt. puṇya, Tib. bsod nams) and wisdom (Skt. jñāna, Tib. ye shes).
The term translated as “duty” here is Tib. chos, Skt. dharma. It could be understood in a number of ways in keeping with the multivalence of the term.
The term translated here as “discipline” is Tib. ’dul ba, Skt. vinaya. The pairing with dharma in the sentence above is notable. The life of a layman is without dharma and without vinaya.
Tib. dpon sna byed pa. This appears to be the only use of this term in the Kangyur. It may refer to a role of general leadership, like an ‘abbot’ held by a single person, or to several people with specific leadership roles.
The translation here is tentative as there appears to be some corruption to the text. Tib. des gzhan gyi mdun du spyod pa gzhan bstan [N, H: bsten] par mi [N, H: -mi] bya’o. The implication appears to be that while in a monastery, laymen should not do anything that others are not doing. Nattier also notes the variation in how this sentence is found in the various Chinese translations. Nattier 2003, p. 275 n. 438.
While the Degé (D) and Peking (Y, K) Kangyurs read bsten “serving,” S, N and H read brten “relying on.” As observed by Nattier (2003, p. 275 n. 442), both can translate the Sanskrit avaṣṭambha.
Tib. dben pa. The practice of solitude, when not meant literally, means withdrawing from sensory objects.
In other words, a monk that has not yet committed themselves to a particular vehicle. On this phrase, see n. 22 above.
Despite having apparently now taken ordination, Ugra is still described in the text with his former epithet “Householder.”
These lines, up to “permission to attend a feast” are cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya (131.10–12), although, in the extant Sanskrit witness, there is a negative “I do not give permission.” See Nattier 2003, p. 299 n. 530–1.
This section, up to “perfect the aims of spiritual practice” is cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya (198.1–6).
The citation in the Śikṣāsamuccaya resumes here, with some degree of divergence from the Tibetan as found here, up to “eliminate grasping and a sense of ‘mine’ ” (198.21–199.12).
The citation in the Śikṣāsamuccaya resumes here, up to “for the sake of the Dharma” (199.15–200.4)
The translation of the final line is tentative. Tib. chos ma yin pa’i gus pas lta ci smos. The Tibetan diverges considerably here from the extant Sanskrit of the Śikṣāsamuccaya. For alternative interpretations see Goodman, p. 41 and Nattier, p. 309.
Tib. rten pa’i chos la ’jug pa. The translation here follows that of Nattier (2003, p. 311) in light of how the phrase was translated into Chinese. The Tibetan could also be interpreted as “engaging with the reliable Dharma.”
In the earliest of the extant Chinese translations of this sutra, that made by An Xuan and Yan Fotiao (Taishō 322), it is at this point in the discourse (and not earlier as found in the Tibetan witness), that Ugra and all the gathered householders go forth as renunciants. However, towards the end of this discourse, Ugra pledges to live as a renunciant while remaining a householder, and the buddha prophecies that he will do the same for many lifetimes to come.
One of the five undefiled aggregates (Skt.
One of the five undefiled aggregates (
One of the five undefiled aggregates (Skt.
One of the five undefiled aggregates (Skt.
One of the five undefiled aggregates (Skt.
See “five aggregates.”
An optional set of practices that monastics can adopt in order to cultivate greater detachment. The list of practices varies in different sources. When thirteen practices are listed, they consist of (1) wearing patched robes made from discarded cloth rather than from cloth donated by laypeople; (2) wearing only three robes; (3) going for alms; (4) not omitting any house while on the alms round, rather than begging only at those houses known to provide good food; (5) eating only what can be eaten in one sitting; (6) eating only food received in the alms bowl, rather than more elaborate meals presented to the Saṅgha; (7) refusing more food after indicating one has eaten enough; (8) dwelling in the forest; (9) dwelling at the root of a tree; (10) dwelling in the open air, using only a tent made from one’s robes as shelter; (11) dwelling in a charnel ground; (12) satisfaction with whatever dwelling one has; and (13) sleeping in a sitting position without ever lying down.
Literally, “mind of omniscience.” A term closely related to and often used as a synonym for
One of the main aspects of mindfulness, as broadly construed, is maintaining introspective awareness of one’s own habits of mind, thoughts, and emotions. In the context of meditation, maintaining awareness of one’s level of alertness or dullness, and correcting accordingly.
Here refers to the transformative power of representations of the body of the Buddha.
The collection of Great Vehicle teachings.
The elements or constituents of experience that together constitute saṃsāra. It can refer to the eighteen elements (eye, form, and eye consciousness; ear, sound, and ear consciousness; nose, smell, and nose consciousness; tongue, taste, and tongue consciousness; body, touch, and body consciousness; and mind, mental phenomena, and mind consciousness). It can also refer to the physical elements of the world which are enumerated as four (earth, water, fire, and air) or five (plus space). It can also refer to the various realms of existence.
A fabled sea creature, said to be the largest animal in the world, with the strongest bite. Its head is said to be a combination of the features of an elephant, a crocodile, and a boar. The name is also applied to crocodiles (in particular the Mugger crocodile, whose name is derived from
The aspect of Māra as a deity who assaulted the Buddha prior to his awakening. One of the four aspects of Māra.
An early term used to denote the Buddha’s teaching. “Dharma” refers to the sūtras and “Vinaya” to the rules of discipline.
A teaching formulation of the Dharma.
Often found as one of the “five eyes,” representing the superior faculties of vision attained by buddhas and bodhisattvas. The five eyes are the physical eye (Skt. māṃsacakṣus), the divine eye (Skt. divyacakṣus), the wisdom eye (Skt. prajñācakṣus), the Dharma eye (Skt. dharmacakṣus), and the buddha eye (Skt. buddhacakṣus).
These consist of the five fundamental precepts (abstaining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, intoxication) with the addition of (6) abstaining from eating after noon, (7) abstaining from singing and dancing, and (8) abstaining from lying on an elevated bed.
The eight worldly concerns are typically presented as four pairs: concern for: gain (Tib.
A mind that is emancipated has turned away and departed from the bonds of saṃsāra.
A bodhisattva in this text.
A conceited, false sense of attainment. One of seven types of pride related to the spiritual path.
Thirty-seven practices that lead to the awakened state: the four applications of mindfulness, the four correct exertions, the four bases of supernatural power, the five faculties, the five powers, the eightfold noble path, and the seven branches of awakening. These thirty-seven practices conducive to awakening are central to the path in both the Nikāya Buddhism of the Pali canon and in Mahāyāna or Great Vehicle Buddhism.
The five fundamental precepts are to abstain from killing, from stealing, from sexual misconduct, from lying, and from intoxication.
Five extraordinary abilities that result from meditative concentration: divine sight, divine hearing, knowing others’ minds, recollecting past lives, and the ability to perform miracles. See also “superknowledges.”
The four progressive levels of concentration of the form realm that culminate in pure one-pointedness of mind and are the basis for developing insight.
The four means of attracting disciples are generosity, kind talk, meaningful actions, and practicing what one preaches.
This refers to four rigors that typify noble ones: being satisfied with the most basic clothing, food, bedding, and possessions.
The ceremony of full or higher ordination by which a novice is confirmed as a fully ordained member of the order of monks.
A householder in this text.
A term often used for exemplary practitioners (including lay practitioners) who truly practice the Dharma and are worthy of praise.
An epithet often used for wealthy lay patrons and merchants. “Householder” is a literal translation of both the Sanskrit and the Tibetan. The term can also be used as an indicator of the third (merchant) caste, as distinct from
Phangthangma (
Bronkhorst, Johannes.
Drewes, David. “Early Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism I: Recent Scholarship.” In
Duff, Tony & Tamas Agocs, trans.
Edgerton, Franklin.
Goodman, Charles, trans. The Training Anthology of Śāntideva: A Translation of the Śikṣāsamuccaya. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Harrison, Paul, ed.
Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid.
Hirakawa, Akira.
Mochizuki, Ryōkō. “Daijo bosatsu no shūkyō seikatsu—'Ikuka chōja kyō' no kōsatsu.” In his
Nagai, Makoto, trans. "Ikuka chōjae" in
Nattier, Jan. “The ‘Eleven Precepts’ for Laity in the
Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men:
Sakaki, Ryōzaburō, ed.
Sakurabe Hajime, trans. “Ikuka chōja shomongyo.” In
Schuster, Nancy J. “The Bodhisattva Figure in the
Schuster, Nancy J. “The Ugraparipṛcchā, the Mahāratnakūṭasūtra and Early Mahāyāna Buddhism.” 2 vols. PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1976.
Silk, Jonathan.
Silk, Jonathan A.
Vaidya, P. L., ed. Śikṣāsamuccaya of Śāntideva. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 11. Darbhanga: Mithila Institute of Postgraduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, 1999 (1961).
Yoshimura, Shyuki.
Zürcher, E.
C Choné (co ne) Kangyur
D Degé (sde dge) Kangyur
H Lhasa (zhol) Kangyur
J Lithang (li thang) Kangyur
K Peking (pe cin) or “Kangxi” Kangyur
Mvy. Mahāvyutpatti. Entry numbers according to Sakaki 1916.
N Narthang (snar thang) Kangyur
S Stok Palace (stog pho brang bris ma) Kangyur
Taisho 310 (19) The Heap of Jewels Chinese translation (translator uncertain).
Taishō 322 2nd century Chinese translation by An Xuan and Yan Fotiao.
Taishō 323 3rd–4th century Chinese translation by Dharmarakṣa.
U Urga (ku re) Kangyur
Y Yongle (g.yung lo) Kangyur
Śikṣ. Śikṣāsamuccaya Sanskrit text in Vaidya, P. L. (ed.) 1961.
A group of wealthy householders led by Ugra ask the Buddha for guidance on the proper conduct for married, male, lay practitioners. The Buddha answers by laying out, in great detail, the many challenges presented by remaining in a household as compared to the many advantages of going forth as an ordained monk and renouncing worldly life. Instructions are also given on how laymen should behave when visiting a monastery. Convinced of the superiority of monastic renunciation, Ugra and the other householders request to go forth and receive monastic ordination. The Buddha then lays out the proper conduct for renunciant bodhisattvas while living in retreat in the wilderness.
Translated by the Subhashita Translation Group. The translation and introduction were produced by Benjamin Ewing and edited by Lowell Cook.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. George FitzHerbert edited the translation and the introduction, and Dawn Collins copyedited the text. Martina Cotter was in charge of the digital publication process.
The generosity of the anonymous sponsor who helped make the work on this translation possible is gratefully acknowledged.
In The Questions of Ugra the Householder, a group of wealthy lay practitioners from Śrāvastī visit the Buddha at Jeta Grove. There, the householder Ugra is inspired to ask the Buddha how married lay practitioners such as himself can follow the bodhisattva path. A teaching ensues on taking refuge and the precepts suitable for those who live in a household, with an emphasis on the practice of generosity. This is followed by instructions on how laymen can attempt to counter the attachments of household life. Wives, children, livelihoods, and material possessions are all explained as sources of clinging and unvirtuous behavior, and severe contemplations on the repulsiveness of conjugal life are suggested for cultivating detachment from worldly entanglements. The household life, with all its conflict and strife, is then contrasted with the many advantages of the renunciant path of those who leave their homes and go forth as ordained monks. No bodhisattva, the householders are told, has ever reached complete awakening while still living in a household. Instructions are also given for how lay practitioners should behave when visiting a monastery, and the respect and veneration they should have for the various categories of monks in the monastic community, all of whom have taken the courageous step of going forth. In this way, the teaching both illustrates how difficult it is to maintain the necessary detachment and impartiality required for the bodhisattva path while remaining in a household and simultaneously offers a way out of such difficulty by going forth as a monk. The discourse proves effective as Ugra and the rest of the householders then proceed to ask for and receive monastic ordination.
Following ordination,1 Ugra asks for further guidance on the proper conduct of renunciant bodhisattvas. In response, the Buddha explains the conditions under which monk bodhisattvas may be allowed to live in retreat as “wilderness dwellers” (Skt. aranyaka, Tib. dgon pa po)— how they must cultivate contentment with modest provisions (the “four traditions of the noble ones”), how they must maintain their motivation for the solitary life, and how they must master the cultivation of the six perfections, and nurture other important qualities.
Towards the end of the sūtra, Ugra asks a further question about whether lay bodhisattvas can ever live with the precepts of a renunciant. In response, the Buddha outlines five conditions which make the renunciation of a layman equal to that of a monk. Ugra is delighted and then pledges to live henceforth in that way.2 The Buddha then smiles. Asked by Ānanda to explain the reason for his smile, he says that Ugra, even while remaining a householder, will bring incalculable benefit to beings in this fortunate eon that will outstrip even the benefit that a renunciant can achieve. The sūtra concludes with instructions for preserving and widely propagating the teaching, extolling it as a Dharma discourse in which “all good qualities are brought together.”
The Questions of Ugra the Householder is considered one of the oldest extant Mahāyāna sūtras and it has been the subject of a considerable body of scholarship, mainly concerning the early development of the Mahāyāna in India, for which it is considered an important source. Some early scholars of Buddhism argued that the early Mahāyāna was a movement of lay “wilderness-dwelling” practitioners and was only later incorporated into monastic Buddhism.3 However, as observed by Nattier, the testimony provided by the Ugraparipṛcchā indicates that, at least in theory, wilderness dwellers were members of the ordained monastic community, and that the bodhisattva path was a vocation within monastic Buddhism, rather than a movement separate from it.4
The figure of a householder named Ugra (Pali: Ugga) is also encountered as a disciple of the Buddha in the scriptures of the Pali canon, and some scholars have considered the Ugraparipṛcchā as a “Mahāyānized version”5 of these earlier accounts, though the overlap between them appears to be slight.6 Clearly, the Ugraparipṛcchā was highly influential among Mahāyāna Buddhists in both India and China over several centuries. In her important study of the sūtra, Jan Nattier suggests that the Ugraparipṛcchā may have been put into writing as early as the first century
The Questions of Ugra the Householder was translated into Tibetan under Tibetan imperial sponsorship in the late eighth or early ninth century by the Indian scholar Surendrabodhi and the Tibetan senior translator-editor Yeshé Dé. It is listed in both the Phangthangma and Denkarma imperial catalogs of translated texts.11 Of the four full extant versions of the text (three in Chinese and one in Tibetan), the Tibetan, according to Nattier, is both “the fullest version of the text” and “by far the easiest to interpret.”12 In comparing these different versions and noting their variations, Nattier has suggested that they “represent four quite different Indian recensions,” and that as such the Ugraparipṛcchā provides an interesting case study for looking at the variant textual iterations of early Buddhist scriptures, and the complex process of accretion they underwent over time.13 Along with the rest of the Kangyur, The Questions of Ugra the Householder was later translated from Tibetan into Mongolian in the seventeenth century and is also included in the Mongolian Buddhist scriptural canon.
As noted, The Questions of Ugra the Householder has been the subject of a considerable amount of modern scholarship, particularly in Japanese.14 Two Japanese translations, and two complete English translations15 have previously been published. This new translation is based on the Degé Kangyur text in consultation with the variant readings recorded in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) and the Stok Palace manuscript. The translation and notes provided by Nattier were also consulted.
Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas.
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was residing at Jeta Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s garden near Śrāvastī, along with a great assembly of 1,250 monks and five thousand bodhisattva great beings, such as Maitreya, Mañjuśrī, Apāyajaha, Avalokiteśvara, and Mahāsthāmaprāpta, among others. The Blessed One was seated before a congregation of many hundreds of thousands, teaching them the Dharma that is pure in conduct; good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end; that is excellent in meaning and in words; that is untainted, whole, pure, and refined.16
At that time, Ugra the Householder departed the great city of Śrāvastī and accompanied by five hundred servants went to Jeta Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s garden, where the Blessed One was residing. There, he bowed his head to the feet of the Blessed One, circled him three times, and sat down to one side. A great many other householders, such Nandikāma, Yaśaskāma, Sudatta, Nandaka, Yaśodatta, Maṇibhadra, Joy in Tradition, Anāthapiṇḍada, Glory of Nāgas, Joy in Truth, and many other householders, each with five hundred servants, also departed the great city of Śrāvastī and went to Jeta Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s garden, where the Blessed One was residing. Arriving before the Blessed One, they too bowed their heads to the feet of the Blessed One, circled him three times, and sat down to one side. Each of those householders, as well as their servants, for the most part, had entered the Great Vehicle. Each had generated roots of virtue by resolving to reach unexcelled and perfect awakening.
Aware that this great assembly of householders had convened, Ugra the Householder was inspired by the power of the Blessed One. He rose from his seat, draped his shawl over one shoulder, and placing his right knee on the ground, he bowed toward the Blessed One with joined palms and said, “If the Blessed One grants me the opportunity to make a request, I would like to query the blessed, thus-gone, worthy, completely perfect Buddha on a few matters.”
“Householder,” the Blessed One responded, “the Thus-Gone One will always grant you such an opportunity. Ask the Thus-Gone One anything you wish, and I will answer your questions and put your mind at ease.”
Ugra the Householder addressed the Blessed One, “Blessed One, noble sons and noble daughters who have developed the intention to reach unexcelled and perfect awakening are devoted to the Great Vehicle. They are settled in the Great Vehicle, they seek to practice authentically in the Great Vehicle, they seek to engage with the Great Vehicle, and they have committed themselves to the Great Vehicle. They seek armor in order to care for all beings, to provide relief for all beings, and to protect all beings. They take on a great burden for the benefit of all beings, vowing to liberate those who have not transcended,17 to free those who are not free, to provide relief to those who have none, and to bring those who have not overcome suffering to nirvāṇa. They have pledged themselves to this vast undertaking. Having heard of the limitless wisdom of the Buddha, they seek the armor that will enable them to gain that same wisdom. Despite understanding the many defects and sufferings of saṃsāra, they do not grow weary, and they continue to cycle through saṃsāra for countless eons without becoming disheartened.
“Blessed One, among these followers of the bodhisattva vehicle there are noble sons and noble daughters who have gone forth from their homes and practice the factors of awakening while no longer residing in a household. There are also those who have remained in their households and practice the factors of awakening without going forth from their homes. That being the case, Blessed One, out of compassion for the whole world with its gods, humans, and asuras, so as to safeguard this Great Vehicle, maintain the lineage of the Three Jewels, and ensure that the wisdom of the Omniscient One endures for a long time, I beseech you, Blessed One, please explain the particular qualities of the precepts for lay bodhisattvas.
“How can lay bodhisattvas follow the instructions of the thus-gone ones and maintain the factors of awakening without any decline, while continuing to live in a household? How can they refrain from nonvirtuous deeds in this life and in particular, refrain from them18 in other lives? Blessed One, please explain, with both instructions and teachings, the Dharma activities and virtuous behavior with which bodhisattvas go forth from their homes. How, abandoning [the distinction between] that which is dear and that which is not, they shave their heads and beards, don the saffron robes, and go forth from their homes into homelessness with genuine faith. How can lay bodhisattvas live with19 such renunciation? How must they practice?”
“Excellent, householder!” The Blessed One responded, “Excellent indeed! Your intention in asking me about this is fitting for your way of life. Listen well and pay attention, for I will explain to you how lay bodhisattvas can maintain superior conduct by upholding the qualities of their precepts with renunciation and how they should practice.”
“I will, Blessed One” replied Ugra the Householder, and he listened as the Blessed One had instructed.
“Householder,” the Blessed One continued, “lay bodhisattvas who remain in their households must take refuge in the Buddha, they must take refuge in the Dharma, and they must take refuge in the Saṅgha. And they must dedicate the roots of virtue from taking refuge in these three to reaching unexcelled and perfect awakening.
“Householder, how do lay bodhisattvas take refuge in the Buddha? Householder, lay bodhisattva should develop the conviction that ‘I must accomplish the body of a buddha adorned with the thirty-two marks of a superior being.’ They endeavor with diligence, using their roots of virtue to genuinely achieve the roots of virtue of accomplishing the thirty-two marks of a superior being. Lay bodhisattvas like this, householder, are those who have taken refuge in the Buddha.
“Householder, how do lay bodhisattvas take refuge in the Dharma? Householder, lay bodhisattvas have devotion and respect for the Dharma, strive for the Dharma, and yearn for the Dharma. They delight in the joy of the Dharma, dedicate themselves to the Dharma, and immerse themselves in the Dharma. Immersed in the Dharma, they protect the Dharma, maintain discretion with regard to the Dharma, and maintain the reputation20 and conduct of the Dharma. They master the Dharma, seek out the Dharma, possess the strength of the Dharma, wield the sword of the gift of Dharma, and do what needs to be done for the Dharma. With such qualities, they remain mindful of the thought that, ‘After I have truly awakened to unexcelled and perfect buddhahood, I will continue to share the Dharma with the entire world with its gods, humans, and asuras.’ Lay bodhisattvas like this, householder, are those who have taken refuge in the Dharma.
“Householder, how do lay bodhisattvas take refuge in the Saṅgha? Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a monk—whether he is a stream-enterer, a once-returner, a non-returner, an arhat, an ordinary being, a follower of the vehicle of hearers, a follower of the vehicle of solitary buddhas, or a follower of the Great Vehicle—they treat him with respect and reverence, they make effort to rise for him and speak courteously to him. They are reverential toward those who have properly embarked and correctly entered, and they maintain propriety with them. They keep in mind the thought that, ‘Even after I have truly awakened to unexcelled and perfect buddhahood, I will continue to teach the Dharma so that the qualities of hearers and solitary buddhas may continue to be realized.’ They treat them with respect and reverence, and bear no ill will toward them. Lay bodhisattvas like this, householder, are those who have taken refuge in the Saṅgha.
“Furthermore, householder, lay bodhisattvas have taken refuge in the Buddha when they have four qualities. What four? Not abandoning the aspiration to awaken; not breaking their commitments; not giving up on great compassion; and not concerning themselves with other vehicles. Lay bodhisattvas who have these four qualities, householder, are those who have taken refuge in the Buddha.
“Furthermore, householder, lay bodhisattvas have taken refuge in the Dharma when they have four qualities. What four? Relying on and serving proclaimers of the Dharma and showing them respect and veneration while listening to their teachings; appropriately investigating the teachings they have heard;21 teaching and expounding the Dharma teachings to others just as they have heard them, and according to their understanding of them; and dedicating the roots of virtue that arise from giving the gift of the Dharma to unexcelled and perfect awakening. Lay bodhisattvas who have these four qualities, householder, have taken refuge in the Dharma.
“Furthermore, householder, lay bodhisattvas have taken refuge in the Saṅgha when they have four qualities. What four? Guiding those who have [not yet] definitively entered22 the vehicle of hearers to the aspiration to omniscience; enjoining those who accumulate material things to [instead] accumulate dharmic qualities; relying on the saṅgha of irreversible bodhisattvas and not on the saṅgha of hearers; and seeking the qualities of hearers but not aspiring to their form of liberation. Lay bodhisattvas who have these four qualities, householder, have taken refuge in the Saṅgha.
“Also, householder, lay bodhisattvas who upon beholding a physical form of the Thus-Gone One, are mindful of the Buddha, are those who have taken refuge in the Buddha. Lay bodhisattvas who upon hearing the Dharma, are mindful of the Dharma, are those who have taken refuge in the Dharma. And lay bodhisattvas who upon seeing the Thus-Gone One’s saṅgha of disciples, are mindful of their aspiration to awaken, are those who have taken refuge in the Saṅgha.
“Householder, lay bodhisattvas living in a household who have the aspiration to accompany the Buddha and practice generosity, are those who have taken refuge in the Buddha. Those that practice generosity for the sake of upholding the holy Dharma, are those who have taken refuge in the Dharma. And those that dedicate their generosity to unexcelled and perfect awakening, are those that have taken refuge in the Saṅgha.
“Moreover, householder, lay bodhisattvas living in a household must perform the deeds of good men, and not perform the deeds of inferior men. Householder, what are the deeds of good men that are not the deeds of inferior men? Householder, they are these. Lay bodhisattvas seek wealth with Dharma,23 not by means of that which is not Dharma. They seek it fairly, and not unfairly.24 They live with right livelihood, and not with wrong livelihood. They do not use the wealth they have obtained with the Dharma to harm others. They repeatedly cultivate the perception of impermanence and extract its meaning. So it is. They respectfully serve their parents, and they share their wealth with their children, wives, male servants, female servants, workers, and staff.25 They treat their friends, advisors, family members, and relatives with respect. When they lead those people to the Dharma, their generosity is multiplied.
“Moreover, householder, lay bodhisattvas are as follows. They bear the burden of all beings,26 the five aggregates. To bear this burden, they apply perseverance. So it is. In order to bear this burden without abandoning those who follow the vehicle of hearers and the vehicle of solitary buddhas, they apply perseverance. They do not grow weary of the task of bringing beings to maturity. They are not attached to their own happiness, but rather they help all beings attain happiness. They are not motivated by profit or loss, fame or anonymity, praise or blame, happiness or suffering—they transcend these worldly concerns. They neither take pride in an abundance of profit and wealth, nor are they anxious about the absence of profit, fame, or praise. They perform their duties with great attentiveness, they guard genuine accomplishments, and they take no delight in fake accomplishments. They observe arising with a nonfixating mind, and their minds are not blown about like wisps of tree cotton.27
“They keep their vows just as they have committed to them, they work for others, and they forsake working for themselves.28 They do not hope for any reward when they work for others, and they do not retaliate against those who cause them harm. They are grateful and appreciative. They perform good deeds, make donations29 to the poor, knock down the pride of the powerful, assuage the fears of the fearful, soothe the pain of the miserable, support and readily accept the weak, and, rather than being proud of doing so, they reject pride.
“They have respect for masters, they rely on the learned, and they ask questions of the wise. Their outlook is honest, and their conduct unwavering. They love all beings without deception or contrivance and are insatiable in seeking that which is virtuous. They are never satisfied with their level of learning and are firmly committed to their undertakings. They befriend exalted beings and have great compassion for those who are not exalted. They are dependable friends and are impartial between those who are friends and those who are not. They do not selfishly withhold any of the Buddha’s teachings but, rather, freely teach whatever Dharma they have heard, and they contemplate the meaning of what they have heard.
“They perceive all enjoyments and entertainments based on objects of desire as impermanent. They perceive the body as impure. They perceive the life force as being like a drop of dew. They perceive riches as being like an illusion or a mirage. They perceive their children and wives as denizens of the Avīci hell. They perceive the activities of farming, housework, and maintaining a variety of clothes as the travails of poverty, the pursuit of which they perceive as the destruction of roots of virtue. They perceive household life as being like an executioner. They perceive friends, advisors, family members, and relatives as the guardians of hell. They make no differentiation between day and night.30
“They extract meaning from the body, which is otherwise meaningless; they extract meaning from the life force, which is otherwise meaningless; and they extract meaning from wealth, which is otherwise meaningless.31
“How do they extract meaning from the body, which is otherwise meaningless? They rejoice in all the deeds of others. They speak respectfully, they bow, they rise, they join their palms, and they pay homage to their masters. This is how they extract meaning from the body, which is otherwise meaningless.
“How do they extract meaning from the life force, which is otherwise meaningless? They do not let their roots of virtue from previous deeds degenerate and, instead, they make them flourish. This is how they extract meaning from the life force, which is otherwise meaningless.
“How do they extract meaning from wealth, which is otherwise meaningless? They eliminate any sense of miserliness, they cultivate the flourishing of generosity, and they practice giving generously.32 This is how they extract meaning from wealth, which is otherwise meaningless.
“This, householder, is how lay bodhisattvas perform the deeds of good men, and do not perform the deeds of inferior men. If they behave in this way, the thus-gone ones will not reproach them and, instead, will approve of them as those who speak with reason, and consider them proclaimers of the Dharma. So it is. Lay bodhisattvas do not let their former commitment to reach unexcelled and perfect awakening diminish in any way.
“Moreover, householder, lay bodhisattvas firmly uphold all the fundamental precepts. So it is. They uphold the five fundamental precepts. They must forsake killing. They must renounce clubs and weapons, have a sense of modesty, act with compassion, approach all living beings with an attitude of non-violence, have equanimity toward all beings, and always maintain loving kindness.
“They must forsake taking that which has not been given. They must be content with their own possessions, not covet the possessions of others, not be desirous or greedy, and not yearn for the wealth of others. They should not take so much as a leaf or a blade of grass that has not been given to them.
“They must forsake sexual misconduct.33 They should be satisfied with their own wife34 and not desire the wife of another. They should view the wives of others with indifference. They should strive to keep their minds fixed on indifference by remembering that mindsets of aversion and desire both bring great anguish. When they feel lust for their own wife arise, they have fallen under the power of the afflictions. They should therefore view their wife as unattractive and be afraid of indulging their desire. They should perceive them not as something to be grasped with passion, but as impermanence, as suffering, as devoid of an inherent self, and as impurity, thinking, ‘If my mind does not engage with objects of desire, then it goes without saying that I will not physically engage in intercourse. I will not do it.’
“They must forsake lying. They should speak honestly, truthfully, and act in accordance with their words. They should avoid deceit, and be well intentioned, mindful, and attentive. They should relate what they have actually seen and heard. As guardians of the Dharma, they should not knowingly tell falsehoods even at the cost of their life or limbs.
“They must forsake drinking alcoholic drinks that lead to intoxication.35 They should not get intoxicated, [that is to say] drunk, unclear in their thinking, slurring their speech, excitable, worked up, and distracted. Rather, they should remain mindful and attentive. Then,36 with the mindset of renouncing all possessions, they should think, ‘I will be generous in giving food to the hungry and drink to the thirsty,’ and, with this thought, they should give their liquor to others. Then they should reflect,37 ‘Now is the time for the perfection of generosity. The time has come to give whatever is desired and I will do that. Giving liquor to whomsoever in this way, will engender in them mindfulness and attentiveness concerning clear-headed conduct.’ They should generate such intention. Why? Because to satisfy all wishes is to practice a bodhisattva’s perfection of generosity. Therefore, householder, even if lay bodhisattvas give liquor to others they will not be reproached by the thus-gone ones.
“Householder, lay bodhisattvas should dedicate the roots of virtue from upholding these five fundamental precepts to unexcelled and perfect awakening. They should carefully guard these five fundamental precepts.
“In all situations, they should not use divisive speech38 but, rather, they should reconcile those who are at odds.
“They should not use harsh language but, rather, they should speak gently, softly, and sincerely.
“They should not engage in meaningless chatter but, rather, they should speak truthfully and at the appropriate time. They should speak the truth, be proponents of the Dharma, logic, and discipline. They should give correct answers, and act in accordance with their words.
“They should not entertain covetous thoughts but, rather, should aspire toward the welfare and happiness of all beings.
“They should not entertain malicious thoughts but, rather, should always don the powerful armor of patience.
“They should hold the authentic view and renounce all wrong and distorted views. Following the thought of the Buddha as their god, they should not embrace any other gods.
“Moreover householder, lay bodhisattvas should explain the Dharma to the inhabitants of whatever village, town, city, country, or region in which they live. They should guide those who are without faith toward faithfulness. They should guide the irreverent—those who do not respect their fathers or mothers, do not show respect to mendicants or brahmins, do not honor their leaders, are improper, and violate rules—to have respect for their masters and behave in accordance with the Dharma. They should educate those with little learning. They should guide the miserly to generosity, the morally undisciplined to discipline, the malicious to patience and peacefulness, the lazy to diligence, the absent minded to mindfulness and attentiveness, and those with misguided discernment to insight. They should distribute wealth to the poor, give medicine to the sick, protect those without protection, be a refuge for those who have none, and defend the defenseless. In whatever way is most appropriate for each being in their country and region, they should protect them all with the Dharma, such that not even a single one of them falls into the lower realms.
“Householder, if, after a lay bodhisattva has taught people once, twice, thrice, up to seven times, and rather than being established in good qualities, they have not acquired any suitable qualities at all, then, householder, the lay bodhisattva must generate great compassion for them, and must don the sturdy armor of omniscience with these words: ‘For as long as these beings who are obstinate and difficult to guide have not reached maturity, I will not truly awaken to unexcelled and perfect buddhahood. Why? Because it is for their sake that I have donned this armor! It is not for the sake of the upright, not for the sake of the unwavering, not for the sake of the undeceiving, and not for the sake of disciplined beings. It is not for the sake of beings already endowed with good qualities that I have donned this armor. So, by all and every means, I must seek to be of benefit to them, so that they are filled with joy and faith at the mere sight of me. I will succeed in this, and I will persevere toward these ends.’
“Householder, if a bodhisattva does not encourage those who live in their village, town, city, country, or region to follow the right direction or does not help them to be mindful, and those beings are consequently reborn in any of the lower realms, then that bodhisattva will be reproached by the thus-gone ones. By analogy, householder, it is like this. If a skilled doctor is unable to cure the ailment of someone in their village, town, city, county, or region, and that person subsequently passes away, that doctor will be blamed by many. In the same way, householder, if a bodhisattva overlooks even a single resident of their village, town, city, county, or region, if he fails to encourage them in the right direction or inspire mindfulness in them, and those beings are subsequently reborn in any of the lower realms, then that bodhisattva will be blamed by the thus-gone ones. Therefore householder, a lay bodhisattva who lives in a particular village, town, city, county, or region must think, ‘Come what may, I will make sure that not even a single being falls to the lower realms. I will succeed in this, and I will persevere toward these ends.’ That is how they must don their armor.
“Moreover, householder, lay bodhisattvas should understand the shortcomings of staying in a household. They should train in each of the following contemplations:
“The household destroys roots of virtue, it spoils their sprouts, and it tramples on the stems of virtue. That is why it is called a ‘household.’39
“Household life40 is the site of all afflictions, the site of thoughts that are the roots of nonvirtue, the site of undisciplined and unrestrained ordinary childish beings, the site of those whose conduct is nonvirtuous, where inferior men gather. That is why it is called ‘household life.’41
“Household life is known as ‘the site of all aspects of suffering’ in which roots of virtue that have previously been cultivated will degenerate. That is why it is called ‘household life.’
“The ‘household’ makes those who live in it act improperly. Those who live in it do not show respect to their mother, their father, to mendicants, or brahmins. That is why it is called a ‘household.’
“By taking pleasure in the creepers of attachment,42 the ‘household’ leads to misery, grief, suffering, unhappiness, and turmoil. That is why it is called a ‘household.’
“The ‘household’ combines the paths of killing, binding, striking, threatening, injuring, insulting, criticizing, reviling, and harmful words. That is why it is called a ‘household’.
“The ‘household’ prevents roots of virtue that have not yet been created from being planted, and it destroys the roots of virtue that have already been created. It is rejected by the learned, by the Buddha, and by all his disciples. Those who stay in it will be reborn in the lower realms. Those who stay in it will travel down the wrong path of attachment. Those who stay in it will travel down the wrong path of aversion, fear, and delusion. That is why it is called a ‘household.’
“Those who live in a household do not guard the aggregate of discipline. They cast aside the aggregate of meditative absorption. They do not engage with the aggregate of insight. They fail to attain the aggregate of liberation. They do not generate the aggregate of liberated wisdom vision. That is why it is called a ‘household.’
“Those who live in a household are attached to their fathers, mothers, children, wives, male servants, female servants, workers, staff, friends, advisors, family members, relatives, and attendants.
“To live in a household is as difficult as trying to fill an ocean by sprinkling water. Living in a household is like fire consuming wood—there is never enough. The relentless thinking of those who live in a household is like a relentless wind.43 Household life is like a city made of sand—it will surely be destroyed. Household life is contaminated, like pure food that has been mixed with poison.
“Household life is perpetual suffering, like the discord of being with a disagreeable person. Household life creates obstacles for the accomplishment of noble qualities. Household life is bickering, back and forth. Household life is constant disagreement and mutual animosity. Household life brings great harm because one is engaged in both virtuous and nonvirtuous conduct.
“The activities of household life are endless, so there is constant toil. Material possessions, accumulated over a long time, are perishable by nature, so household life is impermanence. There are always things to be sought, which then need to be protected, so household life is suffering. In household life there is the constant fear of hostility, like the threat of enemies.
“Captivated by wrong views, those who live in a household are heedless. Those who live in a household achieve things through their own activities,44 [but] there is no true nature [to such achievements], which are like the makeup of a dancer. Those who live in a household will soon come asunder and will eventually become decrepit.
“Household life is like looking at an illusion—people temporarily come together, [but] there is never any true nature there. Household life is like a dream—all prosperity ultimately fades. Household life is like a drop of dew—it quickly evaporates. Household life is like a drop of honey—it may be evaluated with just a small taste. Household life is like a tangle of thorns—a torment of visual forms, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and mental phenomena. Those who live in a household are like stinging insects—they never grow weary of nonvirtuous thoughts.
“Living in a household destroys life through mutual deception. Living in a household is constant turmoil—it makes people troubled in mind. Those who live in a household are the common property of all, subject to oppression by kings and thieves, by fire and water, and each will take their share. Household life offers few pleasant experiences and many hardships.
“In this way, householder, lay bodhisattvas who live in a household should fully understand the shortcomings of household life.
“Moreover, householder, lay bodhisattvas who live in a household must have a great deal of generosity, self-control, commitment, and certainty. Therefore, they should also reflect in this way:
“Householder, with such contemplations, lay bodhisattvas should extract meaning [from their wealth].
“Furthermore householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar,46 they should generate three thoughts. What are the three? The thought [of the beggar] as a spiritual friend, the thought of wealth in future lives, and the thought [of the beggar] as showing the path to awakening. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, they should generate these three thoughts.
“Householder, there are three further thoughts that lay bodhisattvas should generate when they see a beggar. What three? The thought of eliminating miserliness, the thought of giving away all one’s possessions, and the thought of beholding omniscient wisdom. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, they should generate these three thoughts.
“Householder, there are three further thoughts that lay bodhisattvas should generate when they see a beggar. What three? The thought of acting in accordance with what the Thus-Gone One has instructed, the thought of eliminating Māra, and the thought of not hoping for any reward. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, they should generate these three thoughts.
“Householder, there are three further thoughts that lay bodhisattvas should generate when they see a beggar. What three? The thought of themselves as the beggar’s attendant, the thought of not abandoning the means of attraction, and the thought that that which is unwholesome arises from clinging. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, they should generate these three thoughts.
“Householder, there are three further thoughts that lay bodhisattvas should generate when they see a beggar. What three? The thought of being free from desire, the thought of cultivating loving-kindness, and the thought of disengaging from delusion. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, they should generate these three thoughts. Why? Because, householder, if lay bodhisattvas think in this way when they see a beggar, their desire, aversion, and delusion will become slender. Householder, how does the desire, aversion, and delusion of lay bodhisattvas become slender when they see a beggar? Those who are impartial and generous with their possessions have slender desire. Those who feel loving-kindness toward beggars have slender aversion. And those who give away their possessions and dedicate it to unexcelled and perfect awakening, have slender delusion. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas think in this way when they see a beggar, their desire, aversion, and delusion will become slender.
“Furthermore, householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, their cultivation of the six perfections will be complete. Householder, the moment lay bodhisattvas obtain any object, they do not cling to that object with their minds. In that way, their cultivation of the perfection of generosity will be complete. When they practice giving while relying on the intent to reach awakening, their cultivation of the perfection of discipline will be complete. When they treat beggars with loving-kindness and without anger or animosity, their cultivation of the perfection of patience will be complete. When they give without being agitated by thoughts like, ‘What is the point?’ their cultivation of the perfection of diligence will be complete. When they give to beggars without anguish or regret but rather with feelings of joy, delight, happiness, and pleasure, grounded in the intent to reach awakening, their cultivation of the perfection of concentration will be complete. When, after they have given, they do not conceptualize any phenomena, do not wish for any reward and, just as the wise ones have done, do not cling to phenomena as real, and while not clinging to any phenomena dedicate the absence of clinging to unexcelled and perfect awakening, then their cultivation of the perfection of insight will be complete. Householder, that is how lay bodhisattvas perfect their cultivation of the six perfections when they see a beggar.
“Moreover, householder,47 lay bodhisattvas who live in a household should, without either attachment or aversion, reach equanimity with regard to the eight worldly concerns. They should not be arrogant or overjoyed at their own acquisition of wealth, wives, children, riches, or grain, and they should not be disappointed or sad if they do not obtain such things.
“They should reflect in the following way, ‘All composite things are illusory; each is characterized by a process of construction. My father, mother, children, wife, male servants, female servants, workers, staff, friends, advisors, family members, and relatives all manifest due to the ripening of karma. They are not “mine” and I am not “theirs.” How so? My parents and so forth are not my protectors, my refuge, my defenders, my abode, my island, myself, nor my possessions. If the aggregates [of personhood], the constituents, and the sense fields that I possess are not me and do not belong to me, then what need is there to mention my father and so forth as being “me” or “mine,” or me being “theirs”?
‘How so? I will experience the karmic share from the nature of my own actions. Whatever actions I perform, whether good or bad, I will experience the karmic share produced by them. I will experience the fruit of each and every one. I will experience their ripening.
‘These people will likewise experience the karmic share from the nature of their actions. Whatever actions they perform, whether good or bad, they will experience the karmic share produced by them. They will experience their ripening and the fruition of each and every one.
‘Therefore, it is not in my interest to accumulate nonvirtuous karma. The nature of my actions affects happiness in this life, not [just] happiness in other lives. I should engage in that which serves my best interest. It is so. Gathering and practicing the virtues of generosity, self-discipline, commitment, patience, gentleness, diligence, heedfulness, and practicing the limbs of awakening is in my best interest. Whatever path I may take, these things will come with me.’ With contemplations such as these, lay bodhisattvas do not engage in wrong deeds, even at the expense of their own life, or for the sake of their wives or children.
“Householder, lay bodhisattvas who live in a household should generate three perceptions with regard to their wives. What are the three? The perception of impermanence, the perception of unreliability, and the perception of change. Householder, lay bodhisattvas should generate these three perceptions regarding their wives.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas who live in a household should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a partner for love and companionship in this life, but not as a companion beyond this world; the thought of her as a companion in food and drink, but not as a companion who can experience the ripening of one’s actions; and the thought of her as a companion in pleasure, but not as a companion in suffering. Householder, lay bodhisattvas should develop these three perceptions regarding their wives.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as unclean, the thought of her as smelling bad, and the thought of her as unsuitable.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as an enemy, as an executioner, and as an adversary.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a piśācī, as a rākṣasī, and as a virūpākṣī.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as difficult to satisfy, as a bottomless pit, and as ungrateful.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as destined for the hell realms, as destined for the animal realms, and as destined for the realm of Yama.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a burden, as belonging to saṃsāra, and as firmly attached to saṃsāra.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as not one’s own possession, as something that cannot be possessed, and as something borrowed.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a site of physical, verbal, and mental wrongdoing.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a site of desirous, malicious, and aggressive thoughts.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a dungeon, as a killer, and as shackles.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three?48 The thought of her as an impediment to discipline, as an impediment to absorption, and as an impediment to insight.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a net, as a trap, and as a cage.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a plague, as an injury, and as an infection.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as conflict, as misfortune, and as [destructive] hail.
A group of wealthy householders led by Ugra ask the Buddha for guidance on the proper conduct for married, male, lay practitioners. The Buddha answers by laying out, in great detail, the many challenges presented by remaining in a household as compared to the many advantages of going forth as an ordained monk and renouncing worldly life. Instructions are also given on how laymen should behave when visiting a monastery. Convinced of the superiority of monastic renunciation, Ugra and the other householders request to go forth and receive monastic ordination. The Buddha then lays out the proper conduct for renunciant bodhisattvas while living in retreat in the wilderness.
Translated by the Subhashita Translation Group. The translation and introduction were produced by Benjamin Ewing and edited by Lowell Cook.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. George FitzHerbert edited the translation and the introduction, and Dawn Collins copyedited the text. Martina Cotter was in charge of the digital publication process.
The generosity of the anonymous sponsor who helped make the work on this translation possible is gratefully acknowledged.
In The Questions of Ugra the Householder, a group of wealthy lay practitioners from Śrāvastī visit the Buddha at Jeta Grove. There, the householder Ugra is inspired to ask the Buddha how married lay practitioners such as himself can follow the bodhisattva path. A teaching ensues on taking refuge and the precepts suitable for those who live in a household, with an emphasis on the practice of generosity. This is followed by instructions on how laymen can attempt to counter the attachments of household life. Wives, children, livelihoods, and material possessions are all explained as sources of clinging and unvirtuous behavior, and severe contemplations on the repulsiveness of conjugal life are suggested for cultivating detachment from worldly entanglements. The household life, with all its conflict and strife, is then contrasted with the many advantages of the renunciant path of those who leave their homes and go forth as ordained monks. No bodhisattva, the householders are told, has ever reached complete awakening while still living in a household. Instructions are also given for how lay practitioners should behave when visiting a monastery, and the respect and veneration they should have for the various categories of monks in the monastic community, all of whom have taken the courageous step of going forth. In this way, the teaching both illustrates how difficult it is to maintain the necessary detachment and impartiality required for the bodhisattva path while remaining in a household and simultaneously offers a way out of such difficulty by going forth as a monk. The discourse proves effective as Ugra and the rest of the householders then proceed to ask for and receive monastic ordination.
Following ordination,1 Ugra asks for further guidance on the proper conduct of renunciant bodhisattvas. In response, the Buddha explains the conditions under which monk bodhisattvas may be allowed to live in retreat as “wilderness dwellers” (Skt. aranyaka, Tib. dgon pa po)— how they must cultivate contentment with modest provisions (the “four traditions of the noble ones”), how they must maintain their motivation for the solitary life, and how they must master the cultivation of the six perfections, and nurture other important qualities.
Towards the end of the sūtra, Ugra asks a further question about whether lay bodhisattvas can ever live with the precepts of a renunciant. In response, the Buddha outlines five conditions which make the renunciation of a layman equal to that of a monk. Ugra is delighted and then pledges to live henceforth in that way.2 The Buddha then smiles. Asked by Ānanda to explain the reason for his smile, he says that Ugra, even while remaining a householder, will bring incalculable benefit to beings in this fortunate eon that will outstrip even the benefit that a renunciant can achieve. The sūtra concludes with instructions for preserving and widely propagating the teaching, extolling it as a Dharma discourse in which “all good qualities are brought together.”
The Questions of Ugra the Householder is considered one of the oldest extant Mahāyāna sūtras and it has been the subject of a considerable body of scholarship, mainly concerning the early development of the Mahāyāna in India, for which it is considered an important source. Some early scholars of Buddhism argued that the early Mahāyāna was a movement of lay “wilderness-dwelling” practitioners and was only later incorporated into monastic Buddhism.3 However, as observed by Nattier, the testimony provided by the Ugraparipṛcchā indicates that, at least in theory, wilderness dwellers were members of the ordained monastic community, and that the bodhisattva path was a vocation within monastic Buddhism, rather than a movement separate from it.4
The figure of a householder named Ugra (Pali: Ugga) is also encountered as a disciple of the Buddha in the scriptures of the Pali canon, and some scholars have considered the Ugraparipṛcchā as a “Mahāyānized version”5 of these earlier accounts, though the overlap between them appears to be slight.6 Clearly, the Ugraparipṛcchā was highly influential among Mahāyāna Buddhists in both India and China over several centuries. In her important study of the sūtra, Jan Nattier suggests that the Ugraparipṛcchā may have been put into writing as early as the first century
The Questions of Ugra the Householder was translated into Tibetan under Tibetan imperial sponsorship in the late eighth or early ninth century by the Indian scholar Surendrabodhi and the Tibetan senior translator-editor Yeshé Dé. It is listed in both the Phangthangma and Denkarma imperial catalogs of translated texts.11 Of the four full extant versions of the text (three in Chinese and one in Tibetan), the Tibetan, according to Nattier, is both “the fullest version of the text” and “by far the easiest to interpret.”12 In comparing these different versions and noting their variations, Nattier has suggested that they “represent four quite different Indian recensions,” and that as such the Ugraparipṛcchā provides an interesting case study for looking at the variant textual iterations of early Buddhist scriptures, and the complex process of accretion they underwent over time.13 Along with the rest of the Kangyur, The Questions of Ugra the Householder was later translated from Tibetan into Mongolian in the seventeenth century and is also included in the Mongolian Buddhist scriptural canon.
As noted, The Questions of Ugra the Householder has been the subject of a considerable amount of modern scholarship, particularly in Japanese.14 Two Japanese translations, and two complete English translations15 have previously been published. This new translation is based on the Degé Kangyur text in consultation with the variant readings recorded in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) and the Stok Palace manuscript. The translation and notes provided by Nattier were also consulted.
Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas.
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was residing at Jeta Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s garden near Śrāvastī, along with a great assembly of 1,250 monks and five thousand bodhisattva great beings, such as Maitreya, Mañjuśrī, Apāyajaha, Avalokiteśvara, and Mahāsthāmaprāpta, among others. The Blessed One was seated before a congregation of many hundreds of thousands, teaching them the Dharma that is pure in conduct; good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end; that is excellent in meaning and in words; that is untainted, whole, pure, and refined.16
At that time, Ugra the Householder departed the great city of Śrāvastī and accompanied by five hundred servants went to Jeta Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s garden, where the Blessed One was residing. There, he bowed his head to the feet of the Blessed One, circled him three times, and sat down to one side. A great many other householders, such Nandikāma, Yaśaskāma, Sudatta, Nandaka, Yaśodatta, Maṇibhadra, Joy in Tradition, Anāthapiṇḍada, Glory of Nāgas, Joy in Truth, and many other householders, each with five hundred servants, also departed the great city of Śrāvastī and went to Jeta Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s garden, where the Blessed One was residing. Arriving before the Blessed One, they too bowed their heads to the feet of the Blessed One, circled him three times, and sat down to one side. Each of those householders, as well as their servants, for the most part, had entered the Great Vehicle. Each had generated roots of virtue by resolving to reach unexcelled and perfect awakening.
Aware that this great assembly of householders had convened, Ugra the Householder was inspired by the power of the Blessed One. He rose from his seat, draped his shawl over one shoulder, and placing his right knee on the ground, he bowed toward the Blessed One with joined palms and said, “If the Blessed One grants me the opportunity to make a request, I would like to query the blessed, thus-gone, worthy, completely perfect Buddha on a few matters.”
“Householder,” the Blessed One responded, “the Thus-Gone One will always grant you such an opportunity. Ask the Thus-Gone One anything you wish, and I will answer your questions and put your mind at ease.”
Ugra the Householder addressed the Blessed One, “Blessed One, noble sons and noble daughters who have developed the intention to reach unexcelled and perfect awakening are devoted to the Great Vehicle. They are settled in the Great Vehicle, they seek to practice authentically in the Great Vehicle, they seek to engage with the Great Vehicle, and they have committed themselves to the Great Vehicle. They seek armor in order to care for all beings, to provide relief for all beings, and to protect all beings. They take on a great burden for the benefit of all beings, vowing to liberate those who have not transcended,17 to free those who are not free, to provide relief to those who have none, and to bring those who have not overcome suffering to nirvāṇa. They have pledged themselves to this vast undertaking. Having heard of the limitless wisdom of the Buddha, they seek the armor that will enable them to gain that same wisdom. Despite understanding the many defects and sufferings of saṃsāra, they do not grow weary, and they continue to cycle through saṃsāra for countless eons without becoming disheartened.
“Blessed One, among these followers of the bodhisattva vehicle there are noble sons and noble daughters who have gone forth from their homes and practice the factors of awakening while no longer residing in a household. There are also those who have remained in their households and practice the factors of awakening without going forth from their homes. That being the case, Blessed One, out of compassion for the whole world with its gods, humans, and asuras, so as to safeguard this Great Vehicle, maintain the lineage of the Three Jewels, and ensure that the wisdom of the Omniscient One endures for a long time, I beseech you, Blessed One, please explain the particular qualities of the precepts for lay bodhisattvas.
“How can lay bodhisattvas follow the instructions of the thus-gone ones and maintain the factors of awakening without any decline, while continuing to live in a household? How can they refrain from nonvirtuous deeds in this life and in particular, refrain from them18 in other lives? Blessed One, please explain, with both instructions and teachings, the Dharma activities and virtuous behavior with which bodhisattvas go forth from their homes. How, abandoning [the distinction between] that which is dear and that which is not, they shave their heads and beards, don the saffron robes, and go forth from their homes into homelessness with genuine faith. How can lay bodhisattvas live with19 such renunciation? How must they practice?”
“Excellent, householder!” The Blessed One responded, “Excellent indeed! Your intention in asking me about this is fitting for your way of life. Listen well and pay attention, for I will explain to you how lay bodhisattvas can maintain superior conduct by upholding the qualities of their precepts with renunciation and how they should practice.”
“I will, Blessed One” replied Ugra the Householder, and he listened as the Blessed One had instructed.
“Householder,” the Blessed One continued, “lay bodhisattvas who remain in their households must take refuge in the Buddha, they must take refuge in the Dharma, and they must take refuge in the Saṅgha. And they must dedicate the roots of virtue from taking refuge in these three to reaching unexcelled and perfect awakening.
“Householder, how do lay bodhisattvas take refuge in the Buddha? Householder, lay bodhisattva should develop the conviction that ‘I must accomplish the body of a buddha adorned with the thirty-two marks of a superior being.’ They endeavor with diligence, using their roots of virtue to genuinely achieve the roots of virtue of accomplishing the thirty-two marks of a superior being. Lay bodhisattvas like this, householder, are those who have taken refuge in the Buddha.
“Householder, how do lay bodhisattvas take refuge in the Dharma? Householder, lay bodhisattvas have devotion and respect for the Dharma, strive for the Dharma, and yearn for the Dharma. They delight in the joy of the Dharma, dedicate themselves to the Dharma, and immerse themselves in the Dharma. Immersed in the Dharma, they protect the Dharma, maintain discretion with regard to the Dharma, and maintain the reputation20 and conduct of the Dharma. They master the Dharma, seek out the Dharma, possess the strength of the Dharma, wield the sword of the gift of Dharma, and do what needs to be done for the Dharma. With such qualities, they remain mindful of the thought that, ‘After I have truly awakened to unexcelled and perfect buddhahood, I will continue to share the Dharma with the entire world with its gods, humans, and asuras.’ Lay bodhisattvas like this, householder, are those who have taken refuge in the Dharma.
“Householder, how do lay bodhisattvas take refuge in the Saṅgha? Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a monk—whether he is a stream-enterer, a once-returner, a non-returner, an arhat, an ordinary being, a follower of the vehicle of hearers, a follower of the vehicle of solitary buddhas, or a follower of the Great Vehicle—they treat him with respect and reverence, they make effort to rise for him and speak courteously to him. They are reverential toward those who have properly embarked and correctly entered, and they maintain propriety with them. They keep in mind the thought that, ‘Even after I have truly awakened to unexcelled and perfect buddhahood, I will continue to teach the Dharma so that the qualities of hearers and solitary buddhas may continue to be realized.’ They treat them with respect and reverence, and bear no ill will toward them. Lay bodhisattvas like this, householder, are those who have taken refuge in the Saṅgha.
“Furthermore, householder, lay bodhisattvas have taken refuge in the Buddha when they have four qualities. What four? Not abandoning the aspiration to awaken; not breaking their commitments; not giving up on great compassion; and not concerning themselves with other vehicles. Lay bodhisattvas who have these four qualities, householder, are those who have taken refuge in the Buddha.
“Furthermore, householder, lay bodhisattvas have taken refuge in the Dharma when they have four qualities. What four? Relying on and serving proclaimers of the Dharma and showing them respect and veneration while listening to their teachings; appropriately investigating the teachings they have heard;21 teaching and expounding the Dharma teachings to others just as they have heard them, and according to their understanding of them; and dedicating the roots of virtue that arise from giving the gift of the Dharma to unexcelled and perfect awakening. Lay bodhisattvas who have these four qualities, householder, have taken refuge in the Dharma.
“Furthermore, householder, lay bodhisattvas have taken refuge in the Saṅgha when they have four qualities. What four? Guiding those who have [not yet] definitively entered22 the vehicle of hearers to the aspiration to omniscience; enjoining those who accumulate material things to [instead] accumulate dharmic qualities; relying on the saṅgha of irreversible bodhisattvas and not on the saṅgha of hearers; and seeking the qualities of hearers but not aspiring to their form of liberation. Lay bodhisattvas who have these four qualities, householder, have taken refuge in the Saṅgha.
“Also, householder, lay bodhisattvas who upon beholding a physical form of the Thus-Gone One, are mindful of the Buddha, are those who have taken refuge in the Buddha. Lay bodhisattvas who upon hearing the Dharma, are mindful of the Dharma, are those who have taken refuge in the Dharma. And lay bodhisattvas who upon seeing the Thus-Gone One’s saṅgha of disciples, are mindful of their aspiration to awaken, are those who have taken refuge in the Saṅgha.
“Householder, lay bodhisattvas living in a household who have the aspiration to accompany the Buddha and practice generosity, are those who have taken refuge in the Buddha. Those that practice generosity for the sake of upholding the holy Dharma, are those who have taken refuge in the Dharma. And those that dedicate their generosity to unexcelled and perfect awakening, are those that have taken refuge in the Saṅgha.
“Moreover, householder, lay bodhisattvas living in a household must perform the deeds of good men, and not perform the deeds of inferior men. Householder, what are the deeds of good men that are not the deeds of inferior men? Householder, they are these. Lay bodhisattvas seek wealth with Dharma,23 not by means of that which is not Dharma. They seek it fairly, and not unfairly.24 They live with right livelihood, and not with wrong livelihood. They do not use the wealth they have obtained with the Dharma to harm others. They repeatedly cultivate the perception of impermanence and extract its meaning. So it is. They respectfully serve their parents, and they share their wealth with their children, wives, male servants, female servants, workers, and staff.25 They treat their friends, advisors, family members, and relatives with respect. When they lead those people to the Dharma, their generosity is multiplied.
“Moreover, householder, lay bodhisattvas are as follows. They bear the burden of all beings,26 the five aggregates. To bear this burden, they apply perseverance. So it is. In order to bear this burden without abandoning those who follow the vehicle of hearers and the vehicle of solitary buddhas, they apply perseverance. They do not grow weary of the task of bringing beings to maturity. They are not attached to their own happiness, but rather they help all beings attain happiness. They are not motivated by profit or loss, fame or anonymity, praise or blame, happiness or suffering—they transcend these worldly concerns. They neither take pride in an abundance of profit and wealth, nor are they anxious about the absence of profit, fame, or praise. They perform their duties with great attentiveness, they guard genuine accomplishments, and they take no delight in fake accomplishments. They observe arising with a nonfixating mind, and their minds are not blown about like wisps of tree cotton.27
“They keep their vows just as they have committed to them, they work for others, and they forsake working for themselves.28 They do not hope for any reward when they work for others, and they do not retaliate against those who cause them harm. They are grateful and appreciative. They perform good deeds, make donations29 to the poor, knock down the pride of the powerful, assuage the fears of the fearful, soothe the pain of the miserable, support and readily accept the weak, and, rather than being proud of doing so, they reject pride.
“They have respect for masters, they rely on the learned, and they ask questions of the wise. Their outlook is honest, and their conduct unwavering. They love all beings without deception or contrivance and are insatiable in seeking that which is virtuous. They are never satisfied with their level of learning and are firmly committed to their undertakings. They befriend exalted beings and have great compassion for those who are not exalted. They are dependable friends and are impartial between those who are friends and those who are not. They do not selfishly withhold any of the Buddha’s teachings but, rather, freely teach whatever Dharma they have heard, and they contemplate the meaning of what they have heard.
“They perceive all enjoyments and entertainments based on objects of desire as impermanent. They perceive the body as impure. They perceive the life force as being like a drop of dew. They perceive riches as being like an illusion or a mirage. They perceive their children and wives as denizens of the Avīci hell. They perceive the activities of farming, housework, and maintaining a variety of clothes as the travails of poverty, the pursuit of which they perceive as the destruction of roots of virtue. They perceive household life as being like an executioner. They perceive friends, advisors, family members, and relatives as the guardians of hell. They make no differentiation between day and night.30
“They extract meaning from the body, which is otherwise meaningless; they extract meaning from the life force, which is otherwise meaningless; and they extract meaning from wealth, which is otherwise meaningless.31
“How do they extract meaning from the body, which is otherwise meaningless? They rejoice in all the deeds of others. They speak respectfully, they bow, they rise, they join their palms, and they pay homage to their masters. This is how they extract meaning from the body, which is otherwise meaningless.
“How do they extract meaning from the life force, which is otherwise meaningless? They do not let their roots of virtue from previous deeds degenerate and, instead, they make them flourish. This is how they extract meaning from the life force, which is otherwise meaningless.
“How do they extract meaning from wealth, which is otherwise meaningless? They eliminate any sense of miserliness, they cultivate the flourishing of generosity, and they practice giving generously.32 This is how they extract meaning from wealth, which is otherwise meaningless.
“This, householder, is how lay bodhisattvas perform the deeds of good men, and do not perform the deeds of inferior men. If they behave in this way, the thus-gone ones will not reproach them and, instead, will approve of them as those who speak with reason, and consider them proclaimers of the Dharma. So it is. Lay bodhisattvas do not let their former commitment to reach unexcelled and perfect awakening diminish in any way.
“Moreover, householder, lay bodhisattvas firmly uphold all the fundamental precepts. So it is. They uphold the five fundamental precepts. They must forsake killing. They must renounce clubs and weapons, have a sense of modesty, act with compassion, approach all living beings with an attitude of non-violence, have equanimity toward all beings, and always maintain loving kindness.
“They must forsake taking that which has not been given. They must be content with their own possessions, not covet the possessions of others, not be desirous or greedy, and not yearn for the wealth of others. They should not take so much as a leaf or a blade of grass that has not been given to them.
“They must forsake sexual misconduct.33 They should be satisfied with their own wife34 and not desire the wife of another. They should view the wives of others with indifference. They should strive to keep their minds fixed on indifference by remembering that mindsets of aversion and desire both bring great anguish. When they feel lust for their own wife arise, they have fallen under the power of the afflictions. They should therefore view their wife as unattractive and be afraid of indulging their desire. They should perceive them not as something to be grasped with passion, but as impermanence, as suffering, as devoid of an inherent self, and as impurity, thinking, ‘If my mind does not engage with objects of desire, then it goes without saying that I will not physically engage in intercourse. I will not do it.’
“They must forsake lying. They should speak honestly, truthfully, and act in accordance with their words. They should avoid deceit, and be well intentioned, mindful, and attentive. They should relate what they have actually seen and heard. As guardians of the Dharma, they should not knowingly tell falsehoods even at the cost of their life or limbs.
“They must forsake drinking alcoholic drinks that lead to intoxication.35 They should not get intoxicated, [that is to say] drunk, unclear in their thinking, slurring their speech, excitable, worked up, and distracted. Rather, they should remain mindful and attentive. Then,36 with the mindset of renouncing all possessions, they should think, ‘I will be generous in giving food to the hungry and drink to the thirsty,’ and, with this thought, they should give their liquor to others. Then they should reflect,37 ‘Now is the time for the perfection of generosity. The time has come to give whatever is desired and I will do that. Giving liquor to whomsoever in this way, will engender in them mindfulness and attentiveness concerning clear-headed conduct.’ They should generate such intention. Why? Because to satisfy all wishes is to practice a bodhisattva’s perfection of generosity. Therefore, householder, even if lay bodhisattvas give liquor to others they will not be reproached by the thus-gone ones.
“Householder, lay bodhisattvas should dedicate the roots of virtue from upholding these five fundamental precepts to unexcelled and perfect awakening. They should carefully guard these five fundamental precepts.
“In all situations, they should not use divisive speech38 but, rather, they should reconcile those who are at odds.
“They should not use harsh language but, rather, they should speak gently, softly, and sincerely.
“They should not engage in meaningless chatter but, rather, they should speak truthfully and at the appropriate time. They should speak the truth, be proponents of the Dharma, logic, and discipline. They should give correct answers, and act in accordance with their words.
“They should not entertain covetous thoughts but, rather, should aspire toward the welfare and happiness of all beings.
“They should not entertain malicious thoughts but, rather, should always don the powerful armor of patience.
“They should hold the authentic view and renounce all wrong and distorted views. Following the thought of the Buddha as their god, they should not embrace any other gods.
“Moreover householder, lay bodhisattvas should explain the Dharma to the inhabitants of whatever village, town, city, country, or region in which they live. They should guide those who are without faith toward faithfulness. They should guide the irreverent—those who do not respect their fathers or mothers, do not show respect to mendicants or brahmins, do not honor their leaders, are improper, and violate rules—to have respect for their masters and behave in accordance with the Dharma. They should educate those with little learning. They should guide the miserly to generosity, the morally undisciplined to discipline, the malicious to patience and peacefulness, the lazy to diligence, the absent minded to mindfulness and attentiveness, and those with misguided discernment to insight. They should distribute wealth to the poor, give medicine to the sick, protect those without protection, be a refuge for those who have none, and defend the defenseless. In whatever way is most appropriate for each being in their country and region, they should protect them all with the Dharma, such that not even a single one of them falls into the lower realms.
“Householder, if, after a lay bodhisattva has taught people once, twice, thrice, up to seven times, and rather than being established in good qualities, they have not acquired any suitable qualities at all, then, householder, the lay bodhisattva must generate great compassion for them, and must don the sturdy armor of omniscience with these words: ‘For as long as these beings who are obstinate and difficult to guide have not reached maturity, I will not truly awaken to unexcelled and perfect buddhahood. Why? Because it is for their sake that I have donned this armor! It is not for the sake of the upright, not for the sake of the unwavering, not for the sake of the undeceiving, and not for the sake of disciplined beings. It is not for the sake of beings already endowed with good qualities that I have donned this armor. So, by all and every means, I must seek to be of benefit to them, so that they are filled with joy and faith at the mere sight of me. I will succeed in this, and I will persevere toward these ends.’
“Householder, if a bodhisattva does not encourage those who live in their village, town, city, country, or region to follow the right direction or does not help them to be mindful, and those beings are consequently reborn in any of the lower realms, then that bodhisattva will be reproached by the thus-gone ones. By analogy, householder, it is like this. If a skilled doctor is unable to cure the ailment of someone in their village, town, city, county, or region, and that person subsequently passes away, that doctor will be blamed by many. In the same way, householder, if a bodhisattva overlooks even a single resident of their village, town, city, county, or region, if he fails to encourage them in the right direction or inspire mindfulness in them, and those beings are subsequently reborn in any of the lower realms, then that bodhisattva will be blamed by the thus-gone ones. Therefore householder, a lay bodhisattva who lives in a particular village, town, city, county, or region must think, ‘Come what may, I will make sure that not even a single being falls to the lower realms. I will succeed in this, and I will persevere toward these ends.’ That is how they must don their armor.
“Moreover, householder, lay bodhisattvas should understand the shortcomings of staying in a household. They should train in each of the following contemplations:
“The household destroys roots of virtue, it spoils their sprouts, and it tramples on the stems of virtue. That is why it is called a ‘household.’39
“Household life40 is the site of all afflictions, the site of thoughts that are the roots of nonvirtue, the site of undisciplined and unrestrained ordinary childish beings, the site of those whose conduct is nonvirtuous, where inferior men gather. That is why it is called ‘household life.’41
“Household life is known as ‘the site of all aspects of suffering’ in which roots of virtue that have previously been cultivated will degenerate. That is why it is called ‘household life.’
“The ‘household’ makes those who live in it act improperly. Those who live in it do not show respect to their mother, their father, to mendicants, or brahmins. That is why it is called a ‘household.’
“By taking pleasure in the creepers of attachment,42 the ‘household’ leads to misery, grief, suffering, unhappiness, and turmoil. That is why it is called a ‘household.’
“The ‘household’ combines the paths of killing, binding, striking, threatening, injuring, insulting, criticizing, reviling, and harmful words. That is why it is called a ‘household’.
“The ‘household’ prevents roots of virtue that have not yet been created from being planted, and it destroys the roots of virtue that have already been created. It is rejected by the learned, by the Buddha, and by all his disciples. Those who stay in it will be reborn in the lower realms. Those who stay in it will travel down the wrong path of attachment. Those who stay in it will travel down the wrong path of aversion, fear, and delusion. That is why it is called a ‘household.’
“Those who live in a household do not guard the aggregate of discipline. They cast aside the aggregate of meditative absorption. They do not engage with the aggregate of insight. They fail to attain the aggregate of liberation. They do not generate the aggregate of liberated wisdom vision. That is why it is called a ‘household.’
“Those who live in a household are attached to their fathers, mothers, children, wives, male servants, female servants, workers, staff, friends, advisors, family members, relatives, and attendants.
“To live in a household is as difficult as trying to fill an ocean by sprinkling water. Living in a household is like fire consuming wood—there is never enough. The relentless thinking of those who live in a household is like a relentless wind.43 Household life is like a city made of sand—it will surely be destroyed. Household life is contaminated, like pure food that has been mixed with poison.
“Household life is perpetual suffering, like the discord of being with a disagreeable person. Household life creates obstacles for the accomplishment of noble qualities. Household life is bickering, back and forth. Household life is constant disagreement and mutual animosity. Household life brings great harm because one is engaged in both virtuous and nonvirtuous conduct.
“The activities of household life are endless, so there is constant toil. Material possessions, accumulated over a long time, are perishable by nature, so household life is impermanence. There are always things to be sought, which then need to be protected, so household life is suffering. In household life there is the constant fear of hostility, like the threat of enemies.
“Captivated by wrong views, those who live in a household are heedless. Those who live in a household achieve things through their own activities,44 [but] there is no true nature [to such achievements], which are like the makeup of a dancer. Those who live in a household will soon come asunder and will eventually become decrepit.
“Household life is like looking at an illusion—people temporarily come together, [but] there is never any true nature there. Household life is like a dream—all prosperity ultimately fades. Household life is like a drop of dew—it quickly evaporates. Household life is like a drop of honey—it may be evaluated with just a small taste. Household life is like a tangle of thorns—a torment of visual forms, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and mental phenomena. Those who live in a household are like stinging insects—they never grow weary of nonvirtuous thoughts.
“Living in a household destroys life through mutual deception. Living in a household is constant turmoil—it makes people troubled in mind. Those who live in a household are the common property of all, subject to oppression by kings and thieves, by fire and water, and each will take their share. Household life offers few pleasant experiences and many hardships.
“In this way, householder, lay bodhisattvas who live in a household should fully understand the shortcomings of household life.
“Moreover, householder, lay bodhisattvas who live in a household must have a great deal of generosity, self-control, commitment, and certainty. Therefore, they should also reflect in this way:
“Householder, with such contemplations, lay bodhisattvas should extract meaning [from their wealth].
“Furthermore householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar,46 they should generate three thoughts. What are the three? The thought [of the beggar] as a spiritual friend, the thought of wealth in future lives, and the thought [of the beggar] as showing the path to awakening. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, they should generate these three thoughts.
“Householder, there are three further thoughts that lay bodhisattvas should generate when they see a beggar. What three? The thought of eliminating miserliness, the thought of giving away all one’s possessions, and the thought of beholding omniscient wisdom. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, they should generate these three thoughts.
“Householder, there are three further thoughts that lay bodhisattvas should generate when they see a beggar. What three? The thought of acting in accordance with what the Thus-Gone One has instructed, the thought of eliminating Māra, and the thought of not hoping for any reward. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, they should generate these three thoughts.
“Householder, there are three further thoughts that lay bodhisattvas should generate when they see a beggar. What three? The thought of themselves as the beggar’s attendant, the thought of not abandoning the means of attraction, and the thought that that which is unwholesome arises from clinging. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, they should generate these three thoughts.
“Householder, there are three further thoughts that lay bodhisattvas should generate when they see a beggar. What three? The thought of being free from desire, the thought of cultivating loving-kindness, and the thought of disengaging from delusion. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, they should generate these three thoughts. Why? Because, householder, if lay bodhisattvas think in this way when they see a beggar, their desire, aversion, and delusion will become slender. Householder, how does the desire, aversion, and delusion of lay bodhisattvas become slender when they see a beggar? Those who are impartial and generous with their possessions have slender desire. Those who feel loving-kindness toward beggars have slender aversion. And those who give away their possessions and dedicate it to unexcelled and perfect awakening, have slender delusion. Householder, when lay bodhisattvas think in this way when they see a beggar, their desire, aversion, and delusion will become slender.
“Furthermore, householder, when lay bodhisattvas see a beggar, their cultivation of the six perfections will be complete. Householder, the moment lay bodhisattvas obtain any object, they do not cling to that object with their minds. In that way, their cultivation of the perfection of generosity will be complete. When they practice giving while relying on the intent to reach awakening, their cultivation of the perfection of discipline will be complete. When they treat beggars with loving-kindness and without anger or animosity, their cultivation of the perfection of patience will be complete. When they give without being agitated by thoughts like, ‘What is the point?’ their cultivation of the perfection of diligence will be complete. When they give to beggars without anguish or regret but rather with feelings of joy, delight, happiness, and pleasure, grounded in the intent to reach awakening, their cultivation of the perfection of concentration will be complete. When, after they have given, they do not conceptualize any phenomena, do not wish for any reward and, just as the wise ones have done, do not cling to phenomena as real, and while not clinging to any phenomena dedicate the absence of clinging to unexcelled and perfect awakening, then their cultivation of the perfection of insight will be complete. Householder, that is how lay bodhisattvas perfect their cultivation of the six perfections when they see a beggar.
“Moreover, householder,47 lay bodhisattvas who live in a household should, without either attachment or aversion, reach equanimity with regard to the eight worldly concerns. They should not be arrogant or overjoyed at their own acquisition of wealth, wives, children, riches, or grain, and they should not be disappointed or sad if they do not obtain such things.
“They should reflect in the following way, ‘All composite things are illusory; each is characterized by a process of construction. My father, mother, children, wife, male servants, female servants, workers, staff, friends, advisors, family members, and relatives all manifest due to the ripening of karma. They are not “mine” and I am not “theirs.” How so? My parents and so forth are not my protectors, my refuge, my defenders, my abode, my island, myself, nor my possessions. If the aggregates [of personhood], the constituents, and the sense fields that I possess are not me and do not belong to me, then what need is there to mention my father and so forth as being “me” or “mine,” or me being “theirs”?
‘How so? I will experience the karmic share from the nature of my own actions. Whatever actions I perform, whether good or bad, I will experience the karmic share produced by them. I will experience the fruit of each and every one. I will experience their ripening.
‘These people will likewise experience the karmic share from the nature of their actions. Whatever actions they perform, whether good or bad, they will experience the karmic share produced by them. They will experience their ripening and the fruition of each and every one.
‘Therefore, it is not in my interest to accumulate nonvirtuous karma. The nature of my actions affects happiness in this life, not [just] happiness in other lives. I should engage in that which serves my best interest. It is so. Gathering and practicing the virtues of generosity, self-discipline, commitment, patience, gentleness, diligence, heedfulness, and practicing the limbs of awakening is in my best interest. Whatever path I may take, these things will come with me.’ With contemplations such as these, lay bodhisattvas do not engage in wrong deeds, even at the expense of their own life, or for the sake of their wives or children.
“Householder, lay bodhisattvas who live in a household should generate three perceptions with regard to their wives. What are the three? The perception of impermanence, the perception of unreliability, and the perception of change. Householder, lay bodhisattvas should generate these three perceptions regarding their wives.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas who live in a household should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a partner for love and companionship in this life, but not as a companion beyond this world; the thought of her as a companion in food and drink, but not as a companion who can experience the ripening of one’s actions; and the thought of her as a companion in pleasure, but not as a companion in suffering. Householder, lay bodhisattvas should develop these three perceptions regarding their wives.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as unclean, the thought of her as smelling bad, and the thought of her as unsuitable.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as an enemy, as an executioner, and as an adversary.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a piśācī, as a rākṣasī, and as a virūpākṣī.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as difficult to satisfy, as a bottomless pit, and as ungrateful.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as destined for the hell realms, as destined for the animal realms, and as destined for the realm of Yama.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a burden, as belonging to saṃsāra, and as firmly attached to saṃsāra.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as not one’s own possession, as something that cannot be possessed, and as something borrowed.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a site of physical, verbal, and mental wrongdoing.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a site of desirous, malicious, and aggressive thoughts.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a dungeon, as a killer, and as shackles.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three?48 The thought of her as an impediment to discipline, as an impediment to absorption, and as an impediment to insight.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a net, as a trap, and as a cage.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as a plague, as an injury, and as an infection.
“Householder, there are three further perceptions that lay bodhisattvas should generate with regard to their wives. What three? The thought of her as conflict, as misfortune, and as [destructive] hail.