Loading translation...
“Upāli’s Questions” (Upāliparipṛcchā) as part of the title of this text should not be confused with the “Upāli’s Questions” that form part of the purely Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya compendium, the Vinayottaragrantha (Toh 7 and 7A) in the Discipline (Vinaya) section of the Kangyur.
The Ugraparipṛcchā, another sūtra from the Heap of Jewels (Ratnakūṭa) section of the Kangyur, has been extensively studied and translated from Chinese and Tibetan in Nattier 2003.
Bodhyāpattideśanāvṛtti (“A Running Commentary on the Confession of Transgressions of Bodhisattvas”), Toh 4005 in the Degé Tengyur. Both the confession liturgy and Nāgārjuna’s commentary have been translated in Beresford 1980.
Bodhyāpattideśanāvṛttibodhisattvaśikṣākrama (“A Running Commentary on the Confession of Transgressions of Bodhisattvas According to Bodhisattva Precepts”), Toh 4006 in the Degé Tengyur.
Dutt 1931, 278–85. Not to be confused with the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣacatuṣkanirhāra Sūtra, Toh 248.
For the Sanskrit text of the Śīkṣāsamuccaya see Bendall 1902, and for the Prasannapadā see La Vallée Poussin 1903. The verses from Determining the Vinaya recorded in the Śīkṣāsamuccaya have been studied, edited, and translated in Lang 2001.
Taishō 310: in the 大寶積經 (Mahāratnakūṭasūtra), sūtra 24, 優波離會 (Youboli hui), translated by Bodhiruci (eighth century). Taishō 325: 決定毘尼經 (Jueding pini jing), translated by an unknown translator in Dunhuang in the Western Jin (third to fifth century). Taishō 326: 三十五佛名禮懺文 (Sanshi wu fo ming li chan wen), translated by Amoghavajra in the Tang (eighth century).
In the list of “Ten Royal Sūtras,” this text is designated as having the function of purification of karmic obscurations (byang chub ltung bshags las sgrib dag pa’i mdo). For the “Five Royal Sūtras,” there are several different explanations. One holds that each concisely summarize one of the five great sūtra collections (’bum sde lnga). Among these, this text is said to represent the Laṅkāvatārasūtra (Toh 107), corresponding to activity (out of body, speech, mind, qualities, and activity). According to another explanation, each is simply “royal” or sovereign in its category, which in this case is that of confessions (bshags pa). See “bsdu sgrigs gsal bshad,” in Khomthar Jamlö 2014, vol. 1, pp. 2–4.
Tib. ming ’bras bu mchis pa. This translation is conjectural and is informed by the act of bestowing names upon newly awakened beings.
Tib. tshan po che chen po; Skt. mahānagna. This enigmatic term seems to refer to someone with athletic strength and prowess or a seasoned fighter.
The Lhasa, Narthang, and Stok Palace versions of the translation read sbyin pa chen po bzhi, “the four types of great giving.”
The following passage, with some variants and omissions, is cited by Śāntideva in the Śikṣāsamuccaya. See Bendall’s edition (1902), 168–71.
Given the sequence that follows, the “weightiest fault” or “primary fault” (Skt. prathamāpatti; Tib. nyes pa dang po’i lci ba) perhaps refers to sexual intercourse on the part of a renunciant bodhisattva.
The Skt. passage cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya reads, “The heavy fault of the hand should be confessed to an assembly of five. Holding a woman’s hand or looking at her—the weighty fault of ill intent (duṣṭacittāpatti)—should, Śāriputra, be confessed before one or two people.”
Tib. rdo rje’i snying pos rab tu ’joms pa. In the Śikṣāsamuccaya this name is given as Vajrapramardin.
In the Śikṣāsamuccaya this name is replaced with Vicitrasaṃkrama. The names are orthographically similar, so the difference is likely the result of a variant or scribal error in the Skt. manuscript.
John Strong notes that stūpas containing relics were venerated as if they were the Buddha himself. If built near or in a monastery, the stūpa was treated as a legal resident of that monastery and was considered to have personal ownership of the land it was built on; thus, destroying a stūpa was tantamount to murder. See Strong 2004, 3–4.
For more on the complex conceptions of hells in Buddhist cosmography, see the entry for nāraka in the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, 575.
Here the passage in the Śikṣāsamuccaya includes the additional line “I will go to the realm of Yama.”
“Border region” refers to a place where the Dharma of the Buddha is unknown. The English translation here follows the Skt. syntax pratyantajanapadeṣu mleccheṣu.
This is a version of the “eight freedoms” (Skt. aṣṭakṣaṇa; Tib. dal ba brgyad), the requirements for proper practice of the Dharma.
The passage cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya reads, “and just as the bhagavān buddhas of the present from throughout the ten directions.”
At this point the passage cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya skips ahead to a later section of the sūtra.
The Śikṣāsamuccaya cites this passage, with some variation from what appears in the Tib. translation.
This rite of the Three Sections is further explained in the introduction to this translation.
The passage from the Śikṣāsamuccaya reads, “A bodhisattva escapes pernicious faults—a condition that anyone belonging to the Śrāvakayāna or Pratyekabuddhayāna is unable to purify—by recalling and reciting the names and epithets of those bhagavān buddhas day and night and by employing the Dharma discourse of Three Sections. [They then] attain samādhi.”
The abridged citation of this sūtra found in the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣasūtra begins here. The Sanskrit of the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣasūtra was edited and published in Dutt 1931.
This translation follows the reading consistent across Tibetan versions of the text. The attested Skt., however, reads, “But the Bhagavān has taught followers of the Bodhisattvayāna that the training is also [forsaken] when [the current] life is forsaken.”
The Skt. witness preserves a slightly different reading: “Grant me understanding of this, Bhagavān. Demonstrate expertise in the Vinaya. Bhagavān, listening closely in the Bhagavān’s presence, learning what [I was taught] directly, I will have attained fearlessness and will illuminate [the topic] in detail among the assemblies.” Here we disagree with Dutt’s conjecture of upāyakauśalya, and instead read vinayakauśalya, “expertise in the Vinaya,” as supported by the Tibetan.
In the section of this sūtra found in the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣasūtra, this line reads “take up the benefit (hita) of other beings and other people.” It would thus seem that the Sanskrit witness translated by the Tibetans reads cittam anuvartitavyam, where the extant Sanskrit witness reads hitam anuvartitavyam.
In addition to being cited in the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣasūtra, the Skt. of the following paragraph is also cited in the Śikṣāsamuccaya. See Bendall’s edition, 178. The translation that follows here is deeply informed by the attested Skt. terminology and syntax from both these sources, which are in general agreement.
As incorporated into the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣasūtra, this line reads, “Upāli, bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna revel in, relish, and enjoy the five sense pleasures for as many eons as there are grains of sand in the river Ganges but do not give up the mind of awakening. This, Upāli, is to be understood as the training of a bodhisattva who follows in the Mahāyāna” (Dutt 1931, 282).
The Narthang and Lhasa versions of the Tib. translation, as well as the Skt. of the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣasūtra, read “followers of the Śrāvakayāna whose roots of virtue have matured.”
At this point the passage in the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣasūtra includes the line, “teach on experiencing dependent origination.”
This line, as cited in the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣasūtra, reads, “Having heard these teachings, [bodhisattvas] are overjoyed, fulfilled, and do not feel discontent. They perfect the requisites for awakening” (Dutt 1931, 283).
Śāntideva cites an abridged version of the following passage in the Śikṣāsamuccaya. See Bendall (1902), 164–65.
This verse is cited by Candrakīrti in chapter 21 of the Prasannapadā. See La Vallée Poussin (1903), 429 and Lang (2001), 237, 239.
Here we understand the Tib. term rnam par shig to be a translation of the Skt. vibhāvayi and have translated it into English accordingly.
This verse is cited by Candrakīrti in chapter 21 of the Prasannapadā. See La Vallée Poussin (1903), 429 and Lang (2001), 237, 239.
This verse is cited by Candrakīrti in chapter 21 of the Prasannapadā. See La Vallée Poussin (1903), 429 and Lang (2001), 237, 239.
This verse is cited by Candrakīrti in chapter 21 of the Prasannapadā. See La Vallée Poussin (1903), 430 and Lang (2001), 237, 239. In this version, the fourth line reads, “Know that phenomena are subtle and inconceivable.”
This verse is cited by Candrakīrti in chapter 3 of the Prasannapadā. See La Vallée Poussin (1903), 121 and Lang (2001), 237, 239.
This verse is cited by Candrakīrti in chapter 3 of the Prasannapadā. See La Vallée Poussin (1903), 121 and Lang (2001), 237, 239.
This verse is cited by Candrakīrti in chapter 3 of the Prasannapadā. See La Vallée Poussin (1903), 122 and Lang (2001), 237, 239.
The Stok Palace and Phukdrak versions of the translation read chos shes (“knowledge of the Dharma”) for chog shes (“contentment”). This is a compelling variant, as many versions of the translation, including the Degé, Stok Palace, and Phukdrak versions, read chos shes in line three of this verse.
In this case, we follow the Kangxi reading of chog shes for chos shes. The Narthang and Lhasa read mchog shes. Also in this line the Stok Palace and Phukdrak versions read mi mthong (“not see”) in place of mi ’thob (“not attain).”
This Tibetan translation of this verse varies substantially across the versions found in the diverse Kangyur collections. For this reason, this translation can only be a conjecture. We have elected to consistently read the variant chog shes (“contentment”), but this verse could just as viably read chos shes (“knowledge of the Dharma”) in place of one or both instances of “contentment.”
This and the next three verses are cited by Candrakīrti in chapter 1 of the Prasannapadā. See La Vallée Poussin (1903), 53–54 and Lang (2001), 237–39.
Reading the variant, imperative form skyed attested in the Yongle and Kangxi versions of the translation.
This verse is cited by Candrakīrti in chapter 23 of the Prasannapadā. See La Vallée Poussin (1903), 474 and Lang (2001), 238–39.
Where the Tib. reads mi’i dbang po (“lords of men”) the extant Sanskrit reads jinendra (“lords of conquerors”).
This verse is cited by Candrakīrti in chapter 14 of the Prasannapadā. The Sanskrit manuscript edited by La Vallée Poussin (1903, 257) was illegible in places but has been restored by Lang (2001, 238–39).
This and the next two verses are cited by Candrakīrti in chapter 20 of the Prasannapadā. See La Vallée Poussin (1903), 408–9 and Lang (2001), 238–39.
Here the Tib. reads mi mchog (“best of men”) where the extant Skt. reads narasiṃha (“lion among men”).
The bodhisattvas’ realization that all phenomena are unproduced and empty. It sustains them on the difficult path of benefiting all beings so that they do not succumb to the goal of personal liberation. Different sources link this realization to the first or eighth bodhisattva level (bhūmi).
The essentially pure nature of mind is obscured and afflicted by various psychological defilements, which destroy the mind’s peace and composure and lead to unwholesome deeds of body, speech, and mind, acting as causes for continued existence in saṃsāra. Included among them are the primary afflictions of desire (rāga), anger (dveṣa), and ignorance (moha). It is said that there are eighty-four thousand of these negative mental qualities, for which the eighty-four thousand categories of the Buddha’s teachings serve as the antidote.
Kleśa is also commonly translated as “negative emotions,” “disturbing emotions,” and so on. The Pāli kilesa, Middle Indic kileśa, and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit kleśa all primarily mean “stain” or “defilement.” The translation “affliction” is a secondary development that derives from the more general (non-Buddhist) classical understanding of √kliś (“to harm,“ “to afflict”). Both meanings are noted by Buddhist commentators.
A bodhisattva.
A tathāgata mentioned here as one of the thirty-five buddhas of confession.
A tathāgata mentioned here as one of the thirty-five buddhas of confession.
A “worthy one,” who has destroyed the afflictions (Skt. kleśa) and all causes for future rebirth, and who thus will reach awakening at death.
A tathāgata mentioned here as one of the thirty-five buddhas of confession.
A type of nonhuman being whose precise status is subject to different views, but is included as one of the six classes of beings in the sixfold classification of realms of rebirth. In the Buddhist context, asuras are powerful beings said to be dominated by envy, ambition, and hostility. They are also known in the pre-Buddhist and pre-Vedic mythologies of India and Iran, and feature prominently in Vedic and post-Vedic Brahmanical mythology, as well as in the Buddhist tradition. In these traditions, asuras are often described as being engaged in interminable conflict with the devas (gods).
One of the “eight close sons of the Buddha,” he is also known as the bodhisattva who embodies compassion. In certain tantras, he is also the lord of the three families, where he embodies the compassion of the buddhas. In Tibet, he attained great significance as a special protector of Tibet, and in China, in female form, as Guanyin, the most important bodhisattva in all of East Asia.
Head of the “sixteen excellent men” (ṣoḍaśasatpuruṣa), a group of householder bodhisattvas present in the audience of many sūtras. He appears prominently in certain sūtras, such as The Samādhi of the Presence of the Buddhas (Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhisūtra, Toh 133) and is perhaps also the merchant of the same name who is the principal interlocutor in The Questions of Bhadrapāla the Merchant (Toh 83).
A bodhisattva.
A tathāgata mentioned here as one of the thirty-five buddhas of confession.
A common epithet for a buddha, often rendered in English as “Blessed One.”
Literally, “awakening being”; a being on the path to awakening who has generated bodhicitta for the benefit of all beings.
Generally refers to bodhisattvas who have reached at least the seventh of the ten bodhisattva levels (bhūmis).
The path of the bodhisattvas.
A bodhisattva.
A tathāgata mentioned here as one of the thirty-five buddhas of confession.
A high-ranking deity presiding over a divine world; he is also considered to be the lord of the Sahā world (our universe). Though not considered a creator god in Buddhism, Brahmā occupies an important place as one of two gods (the other being Indra/Śakra) said to have first exhorted the Buddha Śākyamuni to teach the Dharma. The particular heavens found in the form realm over which Brahmā rules are often some of the most sought-after realms of higher rebirth in Buddhist literature. Since there are many universes or world systems, there are also multiple Brahmās presiding over them. His most frequent epithets are “Lord of the Sahā World” (sahāṃpati) and Great Brahmā (mahābrahman).
A tathāgata mentioned here as one of the thirty-five buddhas of confession.
A tathāgata mentioned here as one of the thirty-five buddhas of confession.
A term for an idealized, utopic vision of kingship in South Asian cultures. A cakravartin reigns over vast regions of the universe in accordance with principles of righteous law (dharma). Such a king is called a cakravartin because he possesses a wheel or discus (cakra) that rolls across different realms and brings them all under his power.
A tathāgata mentioned here as one of the thirty-five buddhas of confession.
A bodhisattva.
A bodhisattva.
An epithet of the Buddha.
One of the six root afflictions (Skt. mūlakleśa), often listed as one of the three poisons (Skt. triviṣa) along with anger (Skt. dveṣa) and delusion (Skt. moha).
In the most general sense the devas—the term is cognate with the English divine—are a class of celestial beings who frequently appear in Buddhist texts, often at the head of the assemblies of nonhuman beings who attend and celebrate the teachings of the Buddha Śākyamuni and other buddhas and bodhisattvas. In Buddhist cosmology the devas occupy the highest of the five or six “destinies” (gati) of saṃsāra among which beings take rebirth. The devas reside in the devalokas, “heavens” that traditionally number between twenty-six and twenty-eight and are divided between the desire realm (kāmadhātu), form realm (rūpadhātu), and formless realm (ārūpyadhātu). A being attains rebirth among the devas either through meritorious deeds (in the desire realm) or the attainment of subtle meditative states (in the form and formless realms). While rebirth among the devas is considered favorable, it is ultimately a transitory state from which beings will fall when the conditions that lead to rebirth there are exhausted. Thus, rebirth in the god realms is regarded as a diversion from the spiritual path.
A tathāgata mentioned here as one of the thirty-five buddhas of confession.
The term dharma conveys ten different meanings, according to Vasubandhu’s Vyākhyāyukti. The primary meanings are as follows: the doctrine taught by the Buddha (Dharma); the ultimate reality underlying and expressed through the Buddha’s teaching (Dharma); the trainings that the Buddha’s teaching stipulates (dharmas); the various awakened qualities or attainments acquired through practicing and realizing the Buddha’s teaching (dharmas); qualities or aspects more generally, i.e., phenomena or phenomenal attributes (dharmas); and mental objects (dharmas).
The nature of phenomena; the dimension or space (dhātu) in which phenomena (dharma) appear.
A bodhisattva.
A bodhisattva.
A set of three points associated with the nature of reality that when contemplated and integrated lead to liberation. The three are emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness.
Emptiness denotes the ultimate nature of reality, the total absence of inherent existence and self-identity with respect to all phenomena. According to this view, all things and events are devoid of any independent, intrinsic reality that constitutes their essence. Nothing can be said to exist independent of the complex network of factors that gives rise to its origination, nor are phenomena independent of the cognitive processes and mental constructs that make up the conventional framework within which their identity and existence are posited. When all levels of conceptualization dissolve and when all forms of dichotomizing tendencies are quelled through deliberate meditative deconstruction of conceptual elaborations, the ultimate nature of reality will finally become manifest. It is the first of the three gateways to liberation.
A bodhisattva.
A cosmic period of time, sometimes equivalent to the time when a world system appears, exists, and disappears. According to the traditional Abhidharma understanding of cyclical time, a great eon (mahākalpa) is divided into eighty lesser eons. In the course of one great eon, the universe takes form and later disappears. During the first twenty of the lesser eons, the universe is in the process of creation and expansion; during the next twenty it remains; during the third twenty, it is in the process of destruction; and during the last quarter of the cycle, it remains in a state of empty stasis. A fortunate, or good, eon (bhadrakalpa) refers to any eon in which more than one buddha appears.
The second of the six perfections (Skt. pāramitā).
A bodhisattva.
A bodhisattva.
The capacity of awakened beings to comprehend the inherent truth of impermanence.
A bodhisattva.
Pleasures corresponding to each of the five senses: vision, hearing, smell, taste, and touch.
A class of generally benevolent nonhuman beings who inhabit the skies, sometimes said to inhabit fantastic cities in the clouds, and more specifically to dwell on the eastern slopes of Mount Meru, where they are ruled by the Great King Dhṛtarāṣṭra. They are most renowned as celestial musicians who serve the gods. In the Abhidharma, the term is also used to refer to the mental body assumed by sentient beings during the intermediate state between death and rebirth. Gandharvas are said to live on fragrances (gandha) in the desire realm, hence the Tibetan translation dri za, meaning “scent eater.”
In Indian mythology, the garuḍa is an eagle-like bird that is regarded as the king of all birds, normally depicted with a sharp, owl-like beak, often holding a snake, and with large and powerful wings. They are traditionally enemies of the nāgas. In the Vedas, they are said to have brought nectar from the heavens to earth. Garuḍa can also be used as a proper name for a king of such creatures.
The first of the six perfections (Skt. pāramitā).
A bodhisattva.
Pure knowledge free of conceptual impediments.
The five heinous deeds or acts that bring immediate retribution: (1) killing one’s father, (2) killing one’s mother, (3) killing an arhat, (4) drawing blood from the body of a tathāgata with malicious intent, and (5) causing schism in the saṅgha.
Indra is the Vedic king of the gods of the atmosphere or sky. Indra is included in the Buddhist pantheon as a guardian of the Dharma and the king of the deva realm.
’dul ba rnam par gtan la dbab pa nye bar ’khor gyis zhus pa (Vinayaviniścayopāliparipṛcchā). Toh 68, Degé Kangyur vol. 43 (dkon brtsegs, ca), folios 115.a–131.a.
’dul ba rnam par gtan la dbab pa nye bar ’khor gyis zhus pa. bka’ ’gyur (dpe bsdur ma) [Comparative Edition of the Kangyur], krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). 108 volumes. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2006–9, vol. 43, pp. 324–69.
’dul ba rnam par gtan la dbab pa nye bar ’khor gyis zhus pa. Stok Palace Kangyur vol. 39 (dkon brtsegs, ca), folios 218.b–242.b.
drag shul can gyis zhus pa’i mdo (Ugraparipṛcchāsūtra). Toh 63, Degé Kangyur vol. 42 (dkon brtsegs, nga), folios 257.b–288.a.
byang chub kyi ltung ba bshags pa’i ’grel pa (Bodhyāpattideśanāvṛtti). Toh 4005, Degé Tengyur vol. 116 (mdo ’grel, ji), folios 178.a–187.b
Candrakīrti. dbu ma rtsa ba’i ’grel pa tshig gsal ba (Mūlamadhyamakavṛttiprasannapadā). Toh 3860, Degé Tengyur vol. 102 (dbu ma, ’a), folios 1.b–200.a.
Kṛṣṇa. phung po gsum pa’i sgrub thabs (Skandhatrisādhana). Toh 4008, Degé Tengyur vol. 116 (mdo ’grel, ji), folios 198.b–199.b.
Nāgārjuna. byang chub kyi ltung ba bshags pa’i ’grel pa byang chub sems dpa’i bslab pa’i rim pa (Bodhyāpattideśanāvṛttibodhisattvaśikṣākrama). Toh 4006, Degé Tengyur vol. 116 (mdo tshogs, ’grel pa), folios 187.b–194.a. English translation in Beresford (1980).
Śāntideva. bslab pa kun las btus pa (Śikṣāsamuccaya). Toh 3940, Degé Tengyur vol. 111 (dbu ma, khi), folios 3.a–194.b.
pho brang stod thang ldan dkar gyi chos kyi ’gyur ro cog gi dkar chag [Denkarma]. Toh 4364, Degé Tengyur vol. 206 (sna tshogs, jo), folios 294.b–310.a.
Mahāvyutpatti (bye brag tu rtogs par byed pa chen po). Toh 4346, Degé Tengyur vol. 204 (sna tshogs, co), folios 1.b–131.a.
Barnes, Nancy J. “Rituals, Religious Communities, and Buddhist Sutras in India and China.” Sino-Platonic Papers 222 (2012): 212–25.
Bendall, Cecil M. A., ed. Çikshasamuccaya: A Compendium of Buddhist Teachings Compiled by Çāntideva Chiefly from Earlier Mahāyāna-Sūtras. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1902.
Beresford, Brian C., trans. The Confession of Downfalls. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, 1980.
Buswell, Robert E., Jr., and Donald S. Lopez Jr. The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014.
Chandra, Lokesh, ed. “Qutuγ-tu nomuγadqaqu-yi teyin böged maγadqui Ubali-yin öčigsen neretü yeke kölgen sudur.” In Mongolian Kanjur, vol. 52 (Erdeni dabqurliγ), 282–324, folios 141.b–162.b. Śata-piṭaka Series: Indo-Asian Literature, vol. 152. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1978.
Chang, Garma C. C., ed. A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras: Selections from the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra. Translated by The Buddhist Association of the United States. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1983.
Dutt, Nalinaksha, ed. “Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa Sūtra.” The Indian Historical Quarterly 7, no. 2 (1931): 259–86.
Edgerton, Franklin. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid. Die lHan kar ma: ein früher Katalog der ins Tibetische übersetzten buddhistischen Texte. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.
Kawagoe, Eishin, ed. 川越 英真. dKar chag ’Phang thang ma. Sendai: Tōhoku indo chibetto kenkyūkai 東北インド・チベット研究会 (Tohoku Society for Indo-Tibetan Studies), 2005.
Khomthar Jamlö (khoM thar ’jam los), editor for si khron pod yig dpe rnying bsdu sgrig khang. rgyal po mdo bcu’i rtsa ’grel phyogs bsgrigs [The Ten Sūtras of the King, collected texts and commentaries]. 10 vols. Sichuan: si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang [Sichuan Minorities Publishing House], 2014.
Lang, Karen C. “Poetic License in the Buddhist Sanskrit Verses of the Upāliparipṛcchā.” Indo-Iranian Journal 44, no. 3 (2001): 231–40.
La Vallée Poussin, Louis de, ed. Mūlamadhyamakakārikās de Nāgārjuna. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1903.
Matsumura, Hisashi. “Miscellaneous Notes on the Upāliparipṛcchā and Related Texts.” Acta Orientalia 51 (1990): 61–109.
Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003.
Nanjio, Bunyiu. A Catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhist Tripiṭaka, the Sacred Canon of the Buddhists in China and Japan. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1883.
Negi, J. S. Tibetan–Sanskrit Dictionary (bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo). Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1993–2005.
Python, Pierre. Vinaya-viniścaya-upāli-paripṛcchā: Enquête d’Upāli pour une Exégèse de la Discipline. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1973.
Sakaki, Ryōzaburō. Mahāvyutpatti. 2 vols. Kyōto: Shingonshū Kyōto Daigaku, 1926.
Stache-Rosen, Valentina. Upāliparipṛcchāsūtra: ein Text zur buddhistischen Ordensdisziplin. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1984.
Strong, John. Relics of the Buddha. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Determining the Vinaya: Upāli’s Questions is a sūtra focused on the relationship between and integration of the prātimokṣa vows of monastic discipline and the conduct of a bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna tradition. The sūtra’s two main interlocutors, Śāriputra and Upāli, query the Buddha about the relationship between these two levels of commitments, eliciting a teaching on the different orientations held by the followers of different Buddhist vehicles and how their different views affect the application of their vows. Determining the Vinaya is a particularly valuable sūtra for its inclusion of a unique form of the confessional “Three Sections” rite, making it one of the few extant canonical sources to describe it at length.
Translated, edited, and introduced by ErdeneBaatar Erdene-Ochir, Jake Nagasawa, and Jaakko Takkinen, members of the UCSB Buddhist Studies Translation Group. The group wishes to thank José I. Cabezón for his support and guidance.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
Determining the Vinaya: Upāli’s Questions (hereafter Determining the Vinaya) is a sūtra from the Heap of Jewels (Skt. Ratnakūṭa; Tib. dkon brtsegs) section of the Kangyur that explores the relationship between the prātimokṣa vows and the conduct of a bodhisattva. The sūtra can be loosely divided into two parts: a first section for which the monk Śāriputra is the main interlocutor, and which contains the pledge by numerous bodhisattvas to work for the benefit of beings, followed by a general discourse by the Buddha on the conduct of a bodhisattva. In the second section, the titular Upāli poses a series of questions that prompt a more in-depth discourse from the Buddha on the relationship between monastic codes of conduct and the commitments of a bodhisattva, with a focus on the views that guide the followers of the śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and bodhisattva vehicles.
The sūtra opens in the north Indian city of Śrāvastī, where the Buddha resides among a vast assembly of monks and bodhisattvas in Prince Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park. Addressing the bodhisattvas in the assembly, the Buddha asks who will uphold the Dharma and bring beings to maturity in future times. A number of the bodhisattvas present in the assembly voice their desire to uphold various aspects of the Dharma or to help beings through specific powers. At Śāriputra’s prompting, the Buddha next describes the special means that bodhisattvas utilize to bring beings to spiritual maturity, and how the three poisons—desire, anger, and delusion—are to be understood in the context of bodhisattva conduct. It is at this point that the Buddha teaches a special method for confessing misdeeds: the “Three Sections” rite, which will be discussed below. He offers this rite of confession as a potent means for bodhisattvas to purify their faults and attain samādhi.
Following this, the eponymous Upāli emerges from meditative seclusion and joins the assembly to address questions to the Buddha about the relationship between the prātimokṣa vows as they are observed by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and the conduct of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna. Upāli is a famous figure in Buddhist literature and is regarded as foremost among the Buddha’s disciples in upholding the monastic discipline detailed in the Vinaya. Such was Upāli’s mastery of the Vinaya that he was selected to recite the Vinaya at the first full assembly of the saṅgha after the Buddha’s passing. As a recurring figure in Pāli literature, Upāli is more generally linked to the rules of monastic conduct of non-Mahāyāna Buddhism; here, however, Upāli’s questions primarily concern the observation of monastic discipline in the context of a bodhisattva’s conduct according to the Mahāyāna tradition. Upāli’s close connection to the Vinaya and the code of monastic conduct thus make him a particularly potent interlocutor in exploring the relationship between these two overlapping but seemingly contradictory modes of Buddhist conduct.
At Upāli’s prompting, the Buddha clarifies the relationship between these two modes of conduct. He explains that the training of a śrāvaka and that of a bodhisattva are both aimed at the highest goal, but their respective practices are essentially different. For bodhisattvas, the training of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas is limiting because they do not engage with other beings, and they seek a quick exit from saṃsāra instead of returning life after life to continue helping beings. Moreover, the core of the bodhisattva’s training is the mind of awakening (Skt. bodhicitta), an aspiration that guides a bodhisattva’s conduct and that, if violated, can easily be mended by again turning the mind toward awakening. A follower of the Śrāvakayāna, on the other hand, is bound by vows, especially serious ones, that once broken cannot be easily repaired. The relationship between these two modes of conduct is further clarified by a question posed by the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī: If phenomena themselves are already “inherently tamed,” i.e., if there is nothing inherent in phenomena that causes affliction within beings, then what is the purpose of the rules of monastic discipline? The Buddha responds by saying that if beings already knew this, then the Tathāgata would not have to continually explain the rules of monastic discipline; the rules, therefore, are provisional, and meant to help beings gradually understand that all phenomena are innately disciplined.
As part of its focus on the conduct of a bodhisattva, Determining the Vinaya includes a version of the “Three Sections” rite, a confessional practice for mending breaches of a bodhisattva’s discipline. This sūtra, along with the Ugraparipṛcchā Sūtra (Toh 63), serves as one of the principal canonical sources for the rite, but the rite presented here (1.43–1.52) is distinctive for the set of thirty-five buddhas before which bodhisattvas are directed to make their confession. That the “Three Sections” became an important practice in Indian Buddhism is attested by the fact that it is referenced in Śāntideva’s Śikṣāsamuccaya and was commented on by Nāgārjuna in his Bodhyāpattideśanāvṛtti. Nāgārjuna mentions details of the occasions and setting (nidāna) for the Buddha’s teaching the “Three Sections” that, he says, are not found in the Ratnakūṭa version of the text, suggesting that a separate version may have circulated in India. The Indian Buddhist master Kṛṣṇa composed a liturgical text (Skt. sādhana), the Skandhatrisādhana, that explains a full procedure for the confession ritual. Kṛṣṇa’s text and the rite it describes were deemed important by the Bengali master Atiśa Dīpaṅkaraśrījñāna (982–c. 1055
There are several extant Sanskrit witnesses for portions of this sūtra: a lengthy citation drawn from the sūtra’s second section is preserved in the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣa Sūtra, which was studied and reproduced by Nalinaksha Dutt in 1931, and verses from Determining the Vinaya are cited by Śāntideva in his Śikṣāsamuccaya and by Candrakīrti in the Prasannapadā. The Pāli Canon contains a text called Upāliparipucchāsutta, which has been studied by Valentina Stache-Rosen in comparison to a Chinese version, but it does not appear to be the same text translated here. Chinese translations of the whole or part of the text can be found in the Chinese Buddhist Canon (Taishō 310, 325, and 326).
Determining the Vinaya was translated into Tibetan during Tibet’s imperial period by the Tibetan translator and monk Yeshé Dé, with the assistance of the Indian masters Jinamitra, Prajñāvarman, and Surendrabodhi. This is evidenced not only by the colophon of the text, but also by its mention in the two extant imperial-period catalogs, the Denkarma and Phangthangma catalogs. According to the fourteenth-century Tibetan Chronicles of Padma (padma bka’ thang), the “Three Sections” part of the text (see i.5 above) was included among the “Ten Royal Sūtras” (Tib. rgyal po mdo bcu), the recitation of which was prescribed by Padmasambhava to the Tibetan king Trisong Detsen (Tib. khri srong lde bstan, 755–97
A French translation of Determining the Vinaya was made by Pierre Python (1973) based on the available Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese versions. Garma C. C. Chang translated the Chinese version into English in A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras: Selections from the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra (1983).
This English translation was prepared based on the Tibetan translation in the Degé Kangyur in consultation with the Pedurma comparative edition (Tib. dpe bsdur ma) and the version of the translation recorded in the Stok Palace Kangyur. We also consulted the Sanskrit fragments listed above, along with Python’s French translation and the Mongolian canonical translation.
[B1] Homage to all the buddhas and bodhisattvas!
Thus did I hear at one time: The Bhagavān was dwelling in Śrāvastī, in Prince Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a great monastic assembly of about five hundred monks as well as a thousand bodhisattvas. The Bhagavān looked upon those bodhisattva mahāsattvas with a gaze like an elephant’s and said to them, “Sons of noble birth, for the sake of upholding the holy Dharma in the future, in later times, who among you wishes to take up the unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening that took the Tathāgata countless myriads of eons to accomplish? Who among you, for the sake of bringing beings to maturity, wishes to nurture them by means of various methods, ways, and ideas?”
Then the bodhisattva mahāsattva Maitreya arose from his seat, adjusted his upper robe on one shoulder, knelt on his right knee, bowed to the Bhagavān with his palms joined in devotion, and said, “Bhagavān, for the sake of upholding the holy Dharma in the future, in later times, I wish to take up the unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening that took the Tathāgata countless myriads of eons to accomplish.”
The bodhisattva Siṃha said, “Bhagavān, I wish to nurture beings using various methods, ways, and ideas.”
The bodhisattva Vajrapāṇi said, “Bhagavān, I wish to release beings from going to the lower realms.”
The bodhisattva Youthful Mañjuśrī said, “Bhagavān, I wish to fulfill the individual aspirations of beings.”
The bodhisattva Jñānaketu said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring untold numbers of beings to maturity.”
The bodhisattva Dharmaketu said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity through the gift of Dharma.”
The bodhisattva Candraketu said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by means of good qualities.”
The bodhisattva Sūryaketu said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by means of the easy vehicle.”
The bodhisattva Niḥśaṅka said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring the limitless realms of beings to maturity and to support them.”
The bodhisattva Bhadrapāla said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by proclaiming the names they are to attain as result.”
The bodhisattva Akṣayamati said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate inexhaustible realms of beings through extensive aspirations.”
The bodhisattva Youthful Candraprabha said, “Bhagavān, I wish to supply beings with all the requisites of happiness.”
The bodhisattva Sunetra said, “Bhagavān, I wish to establish the foundation for the happiness and contentment of beings.”
The bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara said, “Bhagavān, I wish to protect beings from lower realms and bad rebirths.”
The bodhisattva Mahāsthāmaprāpta said, “Bhagavān, I wish to save beings who have not escaped from the lower realms.”
The bodhisattva Rāśika said, “Bhagavān, I wish to teach undisciplined beings the way of discipline.”
The bodhisattva Sumanas said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings with inferior inclinations to maturity.”
The bodhisattva Sūrata said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings with inferior wisdom to maturity.”
The bodhisattva Tejorāśi said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings who have been born from the wombs of animals to maturity.”
The bodhisattva Recognizer of Unafflicted Realization said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by correctly teaching them the way.”
The bodhisattva Priyadarśana said, “Bhagavān, I wish to equip beings with the immeasurable requisites of happiness.”
The bodhisattva Excellent Faculties said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by causing them to reflect on suffering.”
The bodhisattva Engaged in Inconceivable Liberation said, “Bhagavān, with merely a thought I wish to liberate beings born in the world of pretas.”
The bodhisattva Sūryaprabha said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring to maturity those beings who are not yet mature.”
The bodhisattva Vimalakīrti said, “Bhagavān, I wish to fulfill every intention beings have.”
The bodhisattva Tejobala said, “Bhagavān, I wish to destroy the way beings take unfortunate rebirths.”
The bodhisattva Vimatiprahāṇa said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate inferior beings.”
The bodhisattva Niḥśaṅkasthāna said, “Bhagavān, for the sake of gathering beings I wish to express encouragement by saying ‘Wonderful!’ ”
The bodhisattva Jñānaśrī said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity according to their varying predispositions.”
The bodhisattva Boundless Stillness said, “Bhagavān, I wish to teach beings the way of the unconditioned.”
The bodhisattva Fearless toward All Phenomena said, “Bhagavān, I wish to teach beings according to their own predisposition.”
The bodhisattva Ratnaśrī said, “Bhagavān, I wish to display a heap of jewels to beings.”
The bodhisattva Sumati said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by showing them a beautiful form.”
The bodhisattva Vimalatejas said, “Bhagavān, I wish to support and bring beings to maturity through affection.”
The bodhisattva Maṇibhadra said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by causing them to remember their past births.”
The bodhisattva Puṇyaraśmi said, “Bhagavān, I wish to guide beings by means of perfect aspiration prayers.”
The bodhisattva Bhadraśrī said, “Bhagavān, I wish to permanently liberate beings from suffering.”
The bodhisattva Ratnapāṇi said, “Bhagavān, I wish to make beings happy with jewels.”
The bodhisattva Mati said, “Bhagavān, I wish to end the poverty of poor beings.”
The bodhisattva Sarvanīvaraṇaviṣkambhin said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate beings from all the afflictions.”
The bodhisattva Vajra Light said, “Bhagavān, I wish to teach beings the exalted way.”
The bodhisattva Manifesting the Appearance of Good Qualities said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate beings by causing all their thoughts to be joyful.”
The bodhisattva Exalted Dharma said, “Bhagavān, I wish to show the pure eye of Dharma to beings.”
The bodhisattva Vajragarbha said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate beings from the obscurations.
The bodhisattva Dharmākara said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate beings through the Dharma.”
The bodhisattva Nothing said, “Bhagavān, I wish to eliminate all the poisonous afflictions of beings.”
The bodhisattva Candrottara said, “Bhagavān, I wish to teach the perspective of the Dharma to beings.”
The bodhisattva Siṃhamati said, “Bhagavān, I wish to give the gift of Dharma to beings.”
The bodhisattva Luminous Youth said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate beings from inferior states.”
The bodhisattva Glorious Awakening said, “Bhagavān, I wish to block beings’ way to lower rebirths by teaching them the exalted way.”
The bodhisattva Suvarṇaprabha said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by displaying a physical body.”
The bodhisattva Puṇyaketu said, “Bhagavān, I wish to help those beings who help others.”
The bodhisattva Jagatīndhara said, “Bhagavān, I wish to destroy beings’ gateway into hell.”
The bodhisattva Nectar Holder said, “Bhagavān, I wish to save beings from saṃsāra.”
The youthful bodhisattva Jālinīprabha said, “Bhagavān, in the future, in later times, I wish to pacify beings’ afflictions through displays of light.”
After hearing such revelations from the bodhisattvas about donning the armor that will mature beings, the venerable Śāriputra was seized with wonder and amazement. He said to the Bhagavān, “Ah! Bhagavān, the great compassion possessed by these bodhisattva mahāsattvas is amazing, as is their inconceivable skill in means and their donning of the great armor of stable diligence. It is amazing how these bodhisattvas cannot be overcome by any being, how difficult they are to fathom, to meet with, or to subjugate, and how their brilliance cannot be overcome. Furthermore, Bhagavān, when supplicants come before these bodhisattva mahāsattvas, whose brilliance cannot be overcome, and beg for their heads, hands, feet, and eyes—even when they beg for everything—these bodhisattva mahāsattvas do not recoil or become discouraged but rather are overjoyed. This is amazing to me. Bhagavān, I also think that any beings who harm bodhisattva mahāsattvas and then ask for their various inner and outer constituents will surely become bodhisattva mahāsattvas who rest in inconceivable liberation.”
The Bhagavān replied to the venerable Śāriputra, “So it is, Śāriputra, so it is! Such is the scope of these bodhisattvas’ samādhi, methods, wisdom, and gnosis. Śāriputra, the scope of these bodhisattvas is not that of śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas. Śāriputra, bodhisattva mahāsattvas, in order to meet the inclinations of beings, manifest all the emanations of the buddhas, but while doing so they do not waver from their bodhisattva nature.
“Śāriputra, bodhisattva mahāsattvas will manifest the bodies of householders in order to dispel the delusions of grandeur held by householders who are intoxicated with arrogance. In order to remove the manic arrogance of beings who are inflated and intoxicated by mania, they display the power of a champion, or the exuberant power of Nārāyaṇa. They reveal the various paths to nirvāṇa for those beings who seek nirvāṇa. They display the form of śrāvakas to those beings oriented to the Śrāvakayāna and use the Śrāvakayāna to bring them to complete nirvāṇa. They display the form of pratyekabuddhas to beings oriented to the Pratyekabuddhayāna so that they can direct them toward dependent arising. They display the forms of buddhas to those beings who seek awakening so that they may attain all the qualities of a buddha.
“Śāriputra, in this way, once bodhisattva mahāsattvas have matured the realm of beings using a variety of methods, they set beings firmly in the qualities of buddhahood. Why? Śāriputra, beings will find no liberation apart from the liberation of final nirvāṇa, the gnosis of the tathāgatas. This is why they are called tathāgatas. Why? They are called tathāgatas because tathāgatas know the nature of reality just as it is. They are called tathāgatas because they use various concepts to induce understanding in beings. They are called tathāgatas because they possess all virtuous qualities and have abandoned all nonvirtuous qualities. They are called tathāgatas because they demonstrate liberation to beings who are in bondage. They are called tathāgatas because they reveal the exalted path to beings who have embarked on an evil path. They are called tathāgatas because they teach emptiness and arise from emptiness.
“Śāriputra, bodhisattva mahāsattvas demonstrate liberation to ordinary, deluded, childish beings by using various forms of knowledge that align with their inclinations and thus bring them to an understanding of the true Dharma. And yet, they never waver from their bodhisattva nature. They display various types of illusion in order cause beings to progressively reach the seat of awakening.
“Furthermore, Śāriputra, lay householder bodhisattva mahāsattvas should practice two types of giving: giving the Dharma and giving material goods. Śāriputra, lay householder bodhisattva mahāsattvas should practice these two types of giving without attachment or anger.
“Śāriputra, renunciant bodhisattva mahāsattvas should engage in four types of giving: giving pens, giving ink, giving books, and giving the Dharma. Śāriputra, renunciant bodhisattva mahāsattvas should practice these four types of giving.
“Śāriputra, bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have accepted that phenomena are unproduced should practice three types of relinquishment: relinquishment, great relinquishment, and the highest relinquishment. With respect to these, “relinquishment” means to give away the kingdom; “great relinquishment” is to give away one’s wives, sons, and daughters; and the “greatest relinquishment” is to give away one’s own head, hands, feet, eyes, skin, bones, and marrow. Śāriputra, a bodhisattva mahāsattva who has accepted that phenomena are unproduced should practice these three types of relinquishment.”
Śāriputra asked, “Bhagavān, are bodhisattvas not afraid of desire? Are they not afraid of anger and delusion?”
The Bhagavān replied, “Śāriputra, the faults associated with the great misdeeds of bodhisattvas are twofold: those related to anger and those related to delusion. Śāriputra, these are the two faults associated with the great misdeeds of bodhisattvas.
“Śāriputra, among these, desire is a minor misdeed and is given up slowly. Anger is a major misdeed and is given up quickly. Delusion is a major misdeed and is given up slowly. Why is this? Śāriputra, desire is the ensnaring vine of saṃsāra and thus the seed of rebirth. Anger is eliminated quickly and is the cause of unfortunate rebirths. Delusion is difficult to relinquish and is the cause of falling into the eight great hells.
“Regarding these, Śāriputra, a bodhisattva should openly confess the weightiest of faults to an assembly of ten. A weighty fault of the hand—that is, grasping a woman’s hand—should be confessed to an assembly of five. The fault of looking at a woman with ill intent should be confessed before one or two people. A bodhisattva should confess the faults associated with the five grave acts of immediate retribution, faults related to women, faults related to boys, faults related to the hand, faults related to stūpas, faults related to the saṅgha, or any other weighty fault before the thirty-five bhagavān buddhas, doing so on their own throughout the day and night. The confession is as follows:
“ ‘To them, and to all the other tathāgata, arhat, and completely perfect buddhas who dwell, live, and endure in all realms throughout the ten directions—to those blessed buddhas, I pray, please pay heed to me!
“ ‘In this and in all the other births that I have taken in saṃsāra without beginning or end, I have committed evil actions, I have asked others to commit them, or have rejoiced when they were committed.
“ ‘I have stolen the property of stūpas, the property of the saṅgha, or the property of the saṅghas of the four directions, have made others steal them, or have rejoiced when they were stolen.
“ ‘I have committed the five grave acts of immediate retribution, have made others commit them, or have rejoiced when they were committed.
“ ‘I have taken the path of the ten nonvirtuous actions, have made others take it, or have rejoiced in their taking it.
“ ‘Having been affected by karmic obscurations, I will go to the hells, I will go to the animal realm, I will go to the preta realm, I will be born among barbarians in a border region, I will be born among the long-lived devas, I will have incomplete faculties, I will hold false views, or I will not be able to delight in the appearance of a buddha in the world.
“ ‘All these karmic obscurations I confess in the presence of the bhagavān buddhas, who are wise, who have vision, who witness, who are authoritative, and who know and see. I reveal these actions; I do not conceal them, and I will henceforth show restraint.
“ ‘May those bhagavān buddhas pay heed to me!
“ ‘In this and in all the other births that I have taken in saṃsāra without beginning or end, whatever gifts I have given, even if just a small bit of food to an animal, whatever roots of virtue I may possess from maintaining discipline, whatever roots of virtue I may possess from chaste conduct, whatever roots of virtue I may possess by bringing beings to maturity, whatever roots of virtue I may possess through the mind of awakening, and whatever roots of virtue I may possess through unsurpassed gnosis, I collect, combine, and coalesce all of it and dedicate it to unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening by making unsurpassable, unexcelled, and supreme dedications.
“ ‘Just as the bhagavān buddhas of the past have dedicated, just as the bhagavān buddhas of the future will dedicate, and just as the bhagavān buddhas of the present now dedicate, in the same way, I also dedicate the virtue. I confess all evil actions. I rejoice in all merit. I supplicate all buddhas. May my gnosis be unsurpassed.
“Śāriputra, in the same way, a bodhisattva should follow all tathāgatas in contemplating the thirty-five bhagavān buddhas and the rest, and thereby purify all their evil actions.
“Similarly, for the sole purpose of liberating beings, those very bhagavān buddhas reveal themselves directly to those who purify all evil actions. They likewise teach confused, foolish beings using a variety of words in order to bring them to maturity, all without wavering from the dharmadhātu. They make perfect aspirations for the sake of liberating beings, liberating each according to their own predispositions.
“Śāriputra, bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi of great compassion appear in the form of hell beings, animals, beings in the world of Yama, and asuras for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi of great array appear in the form of householders for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the supreme samādhi appear in the form of cakravartins for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi of intense brilliance appear in the forms of Indra and Brahmā for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the single-pointed samādhi appear in the form of śrāvakas for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi of nondual purity appear in the form of pratyekabuddhas for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi of peace appear in the form of completely perfect buddhas for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi mastery of all phenomena appear in forms aligned with various predispositions for the sake of bringing beings to maturity.
“Śāriputra, in that way, for the sake of bringing beings to maturity, holy beings sometimes appear in the form of Indra, sometimes in the form of Brahmā, and sometimes in the form of a cakravartin, all without wavering from the dharmadhātu. How so? Bodhisattvas, for the sake of bringing beings to maturity, appear to beings of different predispositions in a variety of recognizable forms, but the bodhisattvas objectify neither themselves nor beings as they appear in various forms to those beings.
“Śāriputra, what do you think? Can a cat withstand the roar of a lion, the king of beasts?”
Śāriputra replied, “Bhagavān, it cannot withstand it.”
The Bhagavān said, “Śāriputra, what do you think? Can a donkey bear the load of a great rutting elephant?”
Śāriputra replied, “Bhagavān, it cannot bear it.”
The Bhagavān said, “Śāriputra, what do you think? Can poor people endure the lordly magnificence of Indra and Brahmā?”
Śāriputra replied, “Bhagavān, they cannot endure it.”
The Bhagavān said, “Śāriputra, what do you think? Can a fledgling vulture withstand the attack of a garuḍa, the king of birds?”
Śāriputra replied, “Bhagavān, it cannot withstand it.”
“Similarly Śāriputra, no ordinary being or follower of the Śrāvakayāna or Pratyekabuddhayāna is able to purify the faults of bodhisattvas that have arisen from the power of their courageous mind and roots of virtue or from their knowledge, nor can they purify pernicious faults, which are purified by entering the samādhi of seeing the buddhas. Bodhisattvas memorize and recite the names of these bhagavān buddhas, and by reciting the Dharma discourse of the Three Sections three times during the day and three times at night, they renounce their pernicious faults and obtain samādhi.” [B2]
On the same occasion, the venerable Upāli emerged from meditative seclusion and came to where the Bhagavān was staying. Upon arriving, he bowed his head at the feet of the Bhagavān, circumambulated him three times, and sat to one side. The venerable Upāli then said to the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, when I was in solitary meditative seclusion, this thought arose in my mind: the Bhagavān has taught the followers of the Śrāvakayāna and the Pratyekabuddhayāna that the prātimokṣa vows are the pure training and superior ethical discipline. The Bhagavān has also taught that followers of the Bodhisattvayāna do not abandon their training even for the sake of their lives. How then would a bhagavān, one who has either passed into parinirvāṇa or still remains, explain the prātimokṣa vows of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna? How would the prātimokṣa vows of the followers of the Pratyekabuddhayāna be explained? How would the prātimokṣa vows of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna be explained? The Bhagavān has said that I am supreme among those who uphold the Vinaya. I will certainly listen closely to the Bhagavān’s expertise in the Vinaya and, having mastered it precisely, will gain fearlessness and teach it perfectly and in detail to the assemblies. Therefore, I thought to ask the Bhagavān to teach me perfectly and in detail.
“Bhagavān, while I was alone in private meditative seclusion, I thought, ‘I should go before the Tathāgata and request a detailed explanation of the Vinaya.’ Since this thought came to mind, Bhagavān, I ask the Tathāgata to offer a clear, thorough, and detailed explanation of the Vinaya to this great assembly of monks and bodhisattvas.”
The Bhagavān responded to the venerable Upāli, “Upāli, you should say that the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna is pure in terms of its distinctive application and distinctive orientation. You should also say that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is pure in terms of its distinctive application and distinctive orientation. Why? Upāli, it is because the followers of the Śrāvakayāna have a distinctive application and orientation, while bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna have another distinctive application and orientation.
“Upāli, the pure ethical discipline of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna is impure ethical discipline for bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna; for the latter it is highly corrupt ethical discipline. The pure ethical discipline of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is impure ethical discipline for the followers of the Śrāvakayāna; for the latter it is highly corrupt ethical discipline. Why? Upāli, it is because the followers of the Śrāvakayāna do not even have the fleeting desire to take rebirth in the world. This is pure ethical discipline for the followers of the Śrāvakayāna but is impure, highly corrupt ethical discipline for bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna. Upāli, why is it that pure ethical discipline of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is impure, highly corrupt ethical discipline for the followers of the Śrāvakayāna? Upāli, it is because bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna take rebirth in saṃsāra for countless eons without aversion or weariness. This is pure ethical discipline for bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna but is impure, highly corrupt ethical discipline for the followers of the Śrāvakayāna.
“Upāli, you should therefore say that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna guards and that the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna does not guard. You should say that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna serves as a remedy and that the training of those who follow the Śrāvakayāna does not serve as a remedy. You should say that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is pursued over a long duration and that the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna proceeds in stages.
“Upāli, why is it that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna guards, while the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna does not guard? Upāli, bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna should work with the minds of other beings and other people, while the followers of the Śrāvakayāna do not need to. Upāli, that is why the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna guards, while the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna does not guard.
“Upāli, why is it that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna serves as a remedy, while the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna does not serve as a remedy? Upāli, if a bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna commits a fault in the morning and does not part from the omniscient mind at midday, then the complement of ethical discipline of the bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna is not at all inhibited. If the bodhisattva commits a fault at midday and has not parted from, but rather maintains, the omniscient mind in the afternoon, then the complement of ethical discipline of the bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna is not at all inhibited. If the bodhisattva commits a fault in the afternoon and has not parted from, but rather maintains, the omniscient mind in the first watch of the night, then the complement of ethical discipline of the bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna is not at all inhibited. If the bodhisattva commits a fault in the first watch of the night and has not parted from, but rather maintains, the omniscient mind in the middle watch of the night, then the complement of ethical discipline of the bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna is not at all inhibited. If the bodhisattva commits a fault in the middle watch of the night and has not parted from, but rather maintains, the omniscient mind in the last watch of the night, then the complement of ethical discipline of the bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is not at all inhibited. Therefore, Upāli, the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna serves as a remedy. Bodhisattvas should neither give rise to excess remorse for nor feel overly dejected about their faults.
“Upāli, you should understand that when the followers of the Śrāvakayāna commit a fault repeatedly, the complement of ethical discipline of those followers of the Śrāvakayāna deteriorates, degenerates, and is exhausted. Why? Because followers of the Śrāvakayāna, for the sake of eliminating all afflictions, act as if their head and clothes were on fire. In this way, the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna—who fervently desire parinirvāṇa—does not serve as a remedy.
“Upāli, how is it that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is pursued over a long duration, while the training of the Śrāvakayāna proceeds in stages? Upāli, you should understand that even if bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna revel in, relish, and enjoy the five sense pleasures for as many eons as there are grains of sand in the river Ganges but do not give up the mind of awakening, then the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna will not be inhibited at all. Why? Because, Upāli, there are times and instances in which bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna have so fully assimilated bodhicitta that they are not even affected by the afflictions in their dreams. Upāli, bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna do not eliminate the afflictions in a single lifetime; the afflictions of bodhisattvas whose roots of virtue have matured are exhausted gradually. Followers of the Śrāvakayāna, whose roots of virtue have not matured and who act as if their head and clothes were on fire, will not take rebirth in saṃsāra for even an instant. Therefore, Upāli, the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is to be pursued over a long duration, and the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna proceeds in stages.
“Therefore, Upāli, you should say that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna guards, serves as a remedy, and is pursued over a long duration. You should say that the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna does not guard, does not serve as a remedy, and proceeds in stages. Why? Upāli, unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening requires significant requisites; it is not easy for bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna to take rebirth and transmigrate for limitless eons if they are singularly discontented with saṃsāra.
“Upāli, the tathāgata, arhat, completely perfect buddhas recognize that there is a purpose in not teaching bodhisattvas engaged in the Mahāyāna about discontentment alone, or in teaching them about dispassion alone or only about revulsion. They also teach on being joyful and delighted, on what is profound and what is not defiled, about subtleties, analysis, and about being without regret and obsession. They teach about what is unobstructed, about what is unobscured, and about emptiness. Hearing these teachings, bodhisattvas are overjoyed, do not feel discontent for saṃsāra, and perfect nonattachment, the unsurpassed, completely perfect state of awakening.”
Then the venerable Upāli asked the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, among the things considered to be errors, some are associated with desire, some are associated with anger, and some are associated with delusion. That being so, Bhagavān, which of those are the weightiest errors for bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna—those associated with desire, those associated with anger, or those associated with delusion?”
The Bhagavān replied to the venerable Upāli, “Upāli, suppose that, on the one hand, a bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna commits faults associated with desire for as many eons as there are grains of sand in the river Ganges; and suppose that, on the other hand, the same bodhisattva commits a single fault related to anger. If we consider each of these cases in the context of the Bodhisattvayāna, then the fault related to anger is much weightier than the faults related to desire. Why? Upāli, anger forsakes beings, whereas desire brings beings together. Upāli, bodhisattvas are not deceived by and do not fear afflictions that gather beings together; but bodhisattvas are deceived by and fear the afflictions that forsake beings.
“Moreover, Upāli, the Tathāgata has taught that desire is a minor misdeed that is given up slowly, anger is a major misdeed that is given up quickly, and delusion is a major misdeed that is given up slowly. Among those, Upāli, minor misdeeds that are given up slowly are not considered afflictions for bodhisattvas. Major misdeeds that are given up quickly should be viewed as afflictions for bodhisattvas; indeed, they should not desire them, even in their dreams. Therefore, Upāli, you should say that the faults of bodhisattvas that are associated with desire are not faults, because for bodhisattvas there is no deception or fault in them. You should say that faults associated with anger are faults, because for bodhisattvas there is deception and fault in them. Upāli, those bodhisattvas who are not skilled in means are frightened by the faults associated with desire but are not frightened by the faults associated with anger. Bodhisattvas who are skilled in means are frightened by the faults associated with anger but are not frightened by the faults associated with desire.”
Then Youthful Mañjuśrī, who was in the assembly, said to the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, what is discipline when all phenomena are thoroughly tamed?”
The Bhagavān replied to Youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, if foolish beings knew that all phenomena are thoroughly tamed, then the Tathāgata would not have to formulate the Vinaya over and over. Because beings do not know this, the Tathāgata gradually formulated the Vinaya so that they may understand that all phenomena are thoroughly tamed.”
Then the venerable Upāli said to the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, Youthful Mañjuśrī has not offered any kind of explanation on the instructions for determining the Vinaya. Bhagavān, for that reason, please have Youthful Mañjuśrī teach some of the important points.”
The Bhagavān said to Youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, because the monk Upāli wishes to hear about mastering the Vinaya, give a teaching beginning with the topic of the thoroughly tamed.”
Then Youthful Mañjuśrī said to the venerable Upāli, “Honorable Upāli, all phenomena are thoroughly tamed—it is for the sake of disciplining one’s own mind that the topic of the thoroughly tamed is taught. No phenomenon is defiled; it is because the self cannot be apprehended that the discipline of remorse is taught. No phenomenon is mistaken; it is because they are inherently pure that the topic of the thoroughly tamed is taught. All phenomena are an ultimate gateway to suchness; it is because training should be free of deceit that pure training is taught. All phenomena are nonconceptual, cannot be accepted, and cannot be rejected; it is because they are inconceivable that the state of nonattachment is taught. All phenomena are free of attachment and do not persist; it is because they do not persist for long that the purity of all beings is taught. All phenomena are found within the limits of space; it is because they lack materiality that the lack of inherent existence has been taught. No phenomenon can be differentiated; it is because the limits of past, future, and present are not apprehended that the sameness of the three times is taught. All phenomena lack designations; it is because the mind is oriented to equanimity that the elimination of doubt is taught.
“Honorable Upāli, that is the thoroughly tamed dharmadhātu realized by bhagavān buddhas. Noble sons and daughters who do not have faith in the true nature of phenomena are far removed from the training of the Tathāgata.”
Then the venerable Upāli said to the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, the teaching that Youthful Mañjuśrī has given emerges from the inconceivable itself.”
The Bhagavān replied to the venerable Upāli, “Upāli, the Dharma teaching of Youthful Mañjuśrī is aligned with liberation; there is no liberation that is not rooted in inconceivability. For that reason Youthful Mañjuśrī teaches the Dharma for the sake of removing the arrogance of those arrogant ones who believe that they are free of all concepts but are caught up in thought.”
Then the venerable Upāli asked the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, what thoughts do monks have that illustrate this arrogance?”
The Bhagavān then replied to the venerable Upāli, “Upāli, if a monk thinks he has eliminated desire, then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks he has eliminated anger and delusion, then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘The qualities of desire are one thing, and the qualities of a buddha are another,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘The qualities of anger are one thing and the qualities of a buddha are another,’ or ‘the qualities of delusion are one thing and the qualities of the Buddha are another,’ he acts with arrogance. If he thinks he is happy, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of his deeds, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks he is liberated, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of emptiness, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of signlessness, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of wishlessness, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of preconceived notions, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of nonorigination, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of immateriality, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks that phenomena exist, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks that all phenomena are impermanent, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘What is there to do if all phenomena are empty?’ then he acts with arrogance. This is the arrogance of a follower of the Śrāvakayāna.
“What is the arrogance of a follower of the Bodhisattvayāna? If he thinks, ‘I have generated the attitude that aspires to the gnosis of the buddhas, which is superior to everything else,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘I should practice the six perfections,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks that the perfection of wisdom refers to renunciation, then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘This is profound, and that is not profound,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘This leads to purity, and that does not lead to purity,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘These are the qualities of buddhas, these are the qualities of pratyekabuddhas, and these are the qualities of śrāvakas,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘This is logical, and that is not logical,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘This is defiled, and that is not defiled,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘This is the path, and that is not the path,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘I will quickly and fully attain unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘Since all phenomena are inconceivable, I will not contemplate them,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘Since unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening is inconceivable, there is nothing to be contemplated,’ then he is engaged in significant objectification. This is the arrogance of a follower of the Bodhisattvayāna.”
Then the venerable Upāli asked the Bhagavān, “How does a monk avoid arrogance?”
The Bhagavān replied to the venerable Upāli, “Upāli, a monk avoids arrogance if he is not attached to the causal conditions for omniscient gnosis, to the inconceivable.”
Then, to explain the inconceivable in detail, the Bhagavān spoke in verse:
Determining the Vinaya: Upāli’s Questions is a sūtra focused on the relationship between and integration of the prātimokṣa vows of monastic discipline and the conduct of a bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna tradition. The sūtra’s two main interlocutors, Śāriputra and Upāli, query the Buddha about the relationship between these two levels of commitments, eliciting a teaching on the different orientations held by the followers of different Buddhist vehicles and how their different views affect the application of their vows. Determining the Vinaya is a particularly valuable sūtra for its inclusion of a unique form of the confessional “Three Sections” rite, making it one of the few extant canonical sources to describe it at length.
Translated, edited, and introduced by ErdeneBaatar Erdene-Ochir, Jake Nagasawa, and Jaakko Takkinen, members of the UCSB Buddhist Studies Translation Group. The group wishes to thank José I. Cabezón for his support and guidance.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
Determining the Vinaya: Upāli’s Questions (hereafter Determining the Vinaya) is a sūtra from the Heap of Jewels (Skt. Ratnakūṭa; Tib. dkon brtsegs) section of the Kangyur that explores the relationship between the prātimokṣa vows and the conduct of a bodhisattva. The sūtra can be loosely divided into two parts: a first section for which the monk Śāriputra is the main interlocutor, and which contains the pledge by numerous bodhisattvas to work for the benefit of beings, followed by a general discourse by the Buddha on the conduct of a bodhisattva. In the second section, the titular Upāli poses a series of questions that prompt a more in-depth discourse from the Buddha on the relationship between monastic codes of conduct and the commitments of a bodhisattva, with a focus on the views that guide the followers of the śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and bodhisattva vehicles.
The sūtra opens in the north Indian city of Śrāvastī, where the Buddha resides among a vast assembly of monks and bodhisattvas in Prince Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park. Addressing the bodhisattvas in the assembly, the Buddha asks who will uphold the Dharma and bring beings to maturity in future times. A number of the bodhisattvas present in the assembly voice their desire to uphold various aspects of the Dharma or to help beings through specific powers. At Śāriputra’s prompting, the Buddha next describes the special means that bodhisattvas utilize to bring beings to spiritual maturity, and how the three poisons—desire, anger, and delusion—are to be understood in the context of bodhisattva conduct. It is at this point that the Buddha teaches a special method for confessing misdeeds: the “Three Sections” rite, which will be discussed below. He offers this rite of confession as a potent means for bodhisattvas to purify their faults and attain samādhi.
Following this, the eponymous Upāli emerges from meditative seclusion and joins the assembly to address questions to the Buddha about the relationship between the prātimokṣa vows as they are observed by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and the conduct of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna. Upāli is a famous figure in Buddhist literature and is regarded as foremost among the Buddha’s disciples in upholding the monastic discipline detailed in the Vinaya. Such was Upāli’s mastery of the Vinaya that he was selected to recite the Vinaya at the first full assembly of the saṅgha after the Buddha’s passing. As a recurring figure in Pāli literature, Upāli is more generally linked to the rules of monastic conduct of non-Mahāyāna Buddhism; here, however, Upāli’s questions primarily concern the observation of monastic discipline in the context of a bodhisattva’s conduct according to the Mahāyāna tradition. Upāli’s close connection to the Vinaya and the code of monastic conduct thus make him a particularly potent interlocutor in exploring the relationship between these two overlapping but seemingly contradictory modes of Buddhist conduct.
At Upāli’s prompting, the Buddha clarifies the relationship between these two modes of conduct. He explains that the training of a śrāvaka and that of a bodhisattva are both aimed at the highest goal, but their respective practices are essentially different. For bodhisattvas, the training of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas is limiting because they do not engage with other beings, and they seek a quick exit from saṃsāra instead of returning life after life to continue helping beings. Moreover, the core of the bodhisattva’s training is the mind of awakening (Skt. bodhicitta), an aspiration that guides a bodhisattva’s conduct and that, if violated, can easily be mended by again turning the mind toward awakening. A follower of the Śrāvakayāna, on the other hand, is bound by vows, especially serious ones, that once broken cannot be easily repaired. The relationship between these two modes of conduct is further clarified by a question posed by the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī: If phenomena themselves are already “inherently tamed,” i.e., if there is nothing inherent in phenomena that causes affliction within beings, then what is the purpose of the rules of monastic discipline? The Buddha responds by saying that if beings already knew this, then the Tathāgata would not have to continually explain the rules of monastic discipline; the rules, therefore, are provisional, and meant to help beings gradually understand that all phenomena are innately disciplined.
As part of its focus on the conduct of a bodhisattva, Determining the Vinaya includes a version of the “Three Sections” rite, a confessional practice for mending breaches of a bodhisattva’s discipline. This sūtra, along with the Ugraparipṛcchā Sūtra (Toh 63), serves as one of the principal canonical sources for the rite, but the rite presented here (1.43–1.52) is distinctive for the set of thirty-five buddhas before which bodhisattvas are directed to make their confession. That the “Three Sections” became an important practice in Indian Buddhism is attested by the fact that it is referenced in Śāntideva’s Śikṣāsamuccaya and was commented on by Nāgārjuna in his Bodhyāpattideśanāvṛtti. Nāgārjuna mentions details of the occasions and setting (nidāna) for the Buddha’s teaching the “Three Sections” that, he says, are not found in the Ratnakūṭa version of the text, suggesting that a separate version may have circulated in India. The Indian Buddhist master Kṛṣṇa composed a liturgical text (Skt. sādhana), the Skandhatrisādhana, that explains a full procedure for the confession ritual. Kṛṣṇa’s text and the rite it describes were deemed important by the Bengali master Atiśa Dīpaṅkaraśrījñāna (982–c. 1055
There are several extant Sanskrit witnesses for portions of this sūtra: a lengthy citation drawn from the sūtra’s second section is preserved in the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣa Sūtra, which was studied and reproduced by Nalinaksha Dutt in 1931, and verses from Determining the Vinaya are cited by Śāntideva in his Śikṣāsamuccaya and by Candrakīrti in the Prasannapadā. The Pāli Canon contains a text called Upāliparipucchāsutta, which has been studied by Valentina Stache-Rosen in comparison to a Chinese version, but it does not appear to be the same text translated here. Chinese translations of the whole or part of the text can be found in the Chinese Buddhist Canon (Taishō 310, 325, and 326).
Determining the Vinaya was translated into Tibetan during Tibet’s imperial period by the Tibetan translator and monk Yeshé Dé, with the assistance of the Indian masters Jinamitra, Prajñāvarman, and Surendrabodhi. This is evidenced not only by the colophon of the text, but also by its mention in the two extant imperial-period catalogs, the Denkarma and Phangthangma catalogs. According to the fourteenth-century Tibetan Chronicles of Padma (padma bka’ thang), the “Three Sections” part of the text (see i.5 above) was included among the “Ten Royal Sūtras” (Tib. rgyal po mdo bcu), the recitation of which was prescribed by Padmasambhava to the Tibetan king Trisong Detsen (Tib. khri srong lde bstan, 755–97
A French translation of Determining the Vinaya was made by Pierre Python (1973) based on the available Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese versions. Garma C. C. Chang translated the Chinese version into English in A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras: Selections from the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra (1983).
This English translation was prepared based on the Tibetan translation in the Degé Kangyur in consultation with the Pedurma comparative edition (Tib. dpe bsdur ma) and the version of the translation recorded in the Stok Palace Kangyur. We also consulted the Sanskrit fragments listed above, along with Python’s French translation and the Mongolian canonical translation.
[B1] Homage to all the buddhas and bodhisattvas!
Thus did I hear at one time: The Bhagavān was dwelling in Śrāvastī, in Prince Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a great monastic assembly of about five hundred monks as well as a thousand bodhisattvas. The Bhagavān looked upon those bodhisattva mahāsattvas with a gaze like an elephant’s and said to them, “Sons of noble birth, for the sake of upholding the holy Dharma in the future, in later times, who among you wishes to take up the unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening that took the Tathāgata countless myriads of eons to accomplish? Who among you, for the sake of bringing beings to maturity, wishes to nurture them by means of various methods, ways, and ideas?”
Then the bodhisattva mahāsattva Maitreya arose from his seat, adjusted his upper robe on one shoulder, knelt on his right knee, bowed to the Bhagavān with his palms joined in devotion, and said, “Bhagavān, for the sake of upholding the holy Dharma in the future, in later times, I wish to take up the unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening that took the Tathāgata countless myriads of eons to accomplish.”
The bodhisattva Siṃha said, “Bhagavān, I wish to nurture beings using various methods, ways, and ideas.”
The bodhisattva Vajrapāṇi said, “Bhagavān, I wish to release beings from going to the lower realms.”
The bodhisattva Youthful Mañjuśrī said, “Bhagavān, I wish to fulfill the individual aspirations of beings.”
The bodhisattva Jñānaketu said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring untold numbers of beings to maturity.”
The bodhisattva Dharmaketu said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity through the gift of Dharma.”
The bodhisattva Candraketu said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by means of good qualities.”
The bodhisattva Sūryaketu said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by means of the easy vehicle.”
The bodhisattva Niḥśaṅka said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring the limitless realms of beings to maturity and to support them.”
The bodhisattva Bhadrapāla said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by proclaiming the names they are to attain as result.”
The bodhisattva Akṣayamati said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate inexhaustible realms of beings through extensive aspirations.”
The bodhisattva Youthful Candraprabha said, “Bhagavān, I wish to supply beings with all the requisites of happiness.”
The bodhisattva Sunetra said, “Bhagavān, I wish to establish the foundation for the happiness and contentment of beings.”
The bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara said, “Bhagavān, I wish to protect beings from lower realms and bad rebirths.”
The bodhisattva Mahāsthāmaprāpta said, “Bhagavān, I wish to save beings who have not escaped from the lower realms.”
The bodhisattva Rāśika said, “Bhagavān, I wish to teach undisciplined beings the way of discipline.”
The bodhisattva Sumanas said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings with inferior inclinations to maturity.”
The bodhisattva Sūrata said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings with inferior wisdom to maturity.”
The bodhisattva Tejorāśi said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings who have been born from the wombs of animals to maturity.”
The bodhisattva Recognizer of Unafflicted Realization said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by correctly teaching them the way.”
The bodhisattva Priyadarśana said, “Bhagavān, I wish to equip beings with the immeasurable requisites of happiness.”
The bodhisattva Excellent Faculties said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by causing them to reflect on suffering.”
The bodhisattva Engaged in Inconceivable Liberation said, “Bhagavān, with merely a thought I wish to liberate beings born in the world of pretas.”
The bodhisattva Sūryaprabha said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring to maturity those beings who are not yet mature.”
The bodhisattva Vimalakīrti said, “Bhagavān, I wish to fulfill every intention beings have.”
The bodhisattva Tejobala said, “Bhagavān, I wish to destroy the way beings take unfortunate rebirths.”
The bodhisattva Vimatiprahāṇa said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate inferior beings.”
The bodhisattva Niḥśaṅkasthāna said, “Bhagavān, for the sake of gathering beings I wish to express encouragement by saying ‘Wonderful!’ ”
The bodhisattva Jñānaśrī said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity according to their varying predispositions.”
The bodhisattva Boundless Stillness said, “Bhagavān, I wish to teach beings the way of the unconditioned.”
The bodhisattva Fearless toward All Phenomena said, “Bhagavān, I wish to teach beings according to their own predisposition.”
The bodhisattva Ratnaśrī said, “Bhagavān, I wish to display a heap of jewels to beings.”
The bodhisattva Sumati said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by showing them a beautiful form.”
The bodhisattva Vimalatejas said, “Bhagavān, I wish to support and bring beings to maturity through affection.”
The bodhisattva Maṇibhadra said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by causing them to remember their past births.”
The bodhisattva Puṇyaraśmi said, “Bhagavān, I wish to guide beings by means of perfect aspiration prayers.”
The bodhisattva Bhadraśrī said, “Bhagavān, I wish to permanently liberate beings from suffering.”
The bodhisattva Ratnapāṇi said, “Bhagavān, I wish to make beings happy with jewels.”
The bodhisattva Mati said, “Bhagavān, I wish to end the poverty of poor beings.”
The bodhisattva Sarvanīvaraṇaviṣkambhin said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate beings from all the afflictions.”
The bodhisattva Vajra Light said, “Bhagavān, I wish to teach beings the exalted way.”
The bodhisattva Manifesting the Appearance of Good Qualities said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate beings by causing all their thoughts to be joyful.”
The bodhisattva Exalted Dharma said, “Bhagavān, I wish to show the pure eye of Dharma to beings.”
The bodhisattva Vajragarbha said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate beings from the obscurations.
The bodhisattva Dharmākara said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate beings through the Dharma.”
The bodhisattva Nothing said, “Bhagavān, I wish to eliminate all the poisonous afflictions of beings.”
The bodhisattva Candrottara said, “Bhagavān, I wish to teach the perspective of the Dharma to beings.”
The bodhisattva Siṃhamati said, “Bhagavān, I wish to give the gift of Dharma to beings.”
The bodhisattva Luminous Youth said, “Bhagavān, I wish to liberate beings from inferior states.”
The bodhisattva Glorious Awakening said, “Bhagavān, I wish to block beings’ way to lower rebirths by teaching them the exalted way.”
The bodhisattva Suvarṇaprabha said, “Bhagavān, I wish to bring beings to maturity by displaying a physical body.”
The bodhisattva Puṇyaketu said, “Bhagavān, I wish to help those beings who help others.”
The bodhisattva Jagatīndhara said, “Bhagavān, I wish to destroy beings’ gateway into hell.”
The bodhisattva Nectar Holder said, “Bhagavān, I wish to save beings from saṃsāra.”
The youthful bodhisattva Jālinīprabha said, “Bhagavān, in the future, in later times, I wish to pacify beings’ afflictions through displays of light.”
After hearing such revelations from the bodhisattvas about donning the armor that will mature beings, the venerable Śāriputra was seized with wonder and amazement. He said to the Bhagavān, “Ah! Bhagavān, the great compassion possessed by these bodhisattva mahāsattvas is amazing, as is their inconceivable skill in means and their donning of the great armor of stable diligence. It is amazing how these bodhisattvas cannot be overcome by any being, how difficult they are to fathom, to meet with, or to subjugate, and how their brilliance cannot be overcome. Furthermore, Bhagavān, when supplicants come before these bodhisattva mahāsattvas, whose brilliance cannot be overcome, and beg for their heads, hands, feet, and eyes—even when they beg for everything—these bodhisattva mahāsattvas do not recoil or become discouraged but rather are overjoyed. This is amazing to me. Bhagavān, I also think that any beings who harm bodhisattva mahāsattvas and then ask for their various inner and outer constituents will surely become bodhisattva mahāsattvas who rest in inconceivable liberation.”
The Bhagavān replied to the venerable Śāriputra, “So it is, Śāriputra, so it is! Such is the scope of these bodhisattvas’ samādhi, methods, wisdom, and gnosis. Śāriputra, the scope of these bodhisattvas is not that of śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas. Śāriputra, bodhisattva mahāsattvas, in order to meet the inclinations of beings, manifest all the emanations of the buddhas, but while doing so they do not waver from their bodhisattva nature.
“Śāriputra, bodhisattva mahāsattvas will manifest the bodies of householders in order to dispel the delusions of grandeur held by householders who are intoxicated with arrogance. In order to remove the manic arrogance of beings who are inflated and intoxicated by mania, they display the power of a champion, or the exuberant power of Nārāyaṇa. They reveal the various paths to nirvāṇa for those beings who seek nirvāṇa. They display the form of śrāvakas to those beings oriented to the Śrāvakayāna and use the Śrāvakayāna to bring them to complete nirvāṇa. They display the form of pratyekabuddhas to beings oriented to the Pratyekabuddhayāna so that they can direct them toward dependent arising. They display the forms of buddhas to those beings who seek awakening so that they may attain all the qualities of a buddha.
“Śāriputra, in this way, once bodhisattva mahāsattvas have matured the realm of beings using a variety of methods, they set beings firmly in the qualities of buddhahood. Why? Śāriputra, beings will find no liberation apart from the liberation of final nirvāṇa, the gnosis of the tathāgatas. This is why they are called tathāgatas. Why? They are called tathāgatas because tathāgatas know the nature of reality just as it is. They are called tathāgatas because they use various concepts to induce understanding in beings. They are called tathāgatas because they possess all virtuous qualities and have abandoned all nonvirtuous qualities. They are called tathāgatas because they demonstrate liberation to beings who are in bondage. They are called tathāgatas because they reveal the exalted path to beings who have embarked on an evil path. They are called tathāgatas because they teach emptiness and arise from emptiness.
“Śāriputra, bodhisattva mahāsattvas demonstrate liberation to ordinary, deluded, childish beings by using various forms of knowledge that align with their inclinations and thus bring them to an understanding of the true Dharma. And yet, they never waver from their bodhisattva nature. They display various types of illusion in order cause beings to progressively reach the seat of awakening.
“Furthermore, Śāriputra, lay householder bodhisattva mahāsattvas should practice two types of giving: giving the Dharma and giving material goods. Śāriputra, lay householder bodhisattva mahāsattvas should practice these two types of giving without attachment or anger.
“Śāriputra, renunciant bodhisattva mahāsattvas should engage in four types of giving: giving pens, giving ink, giving books, and giving the Dharma. Śāriputra, renunciant bodhisattva mahāsattvas should practice these four types of giving.
“Śāriputra, bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have accepted that phenomena are unproduced should practice three types of relinquishment: relinquishment, great relinquishment, and the highest relinquishment. With respect to these, “relinquishment” means to give away the kingdom; “great relinquishment” is to give away one’s wives, sons, and daughters; and the “greatest relinquishment” is to give away one’s own head, hands, feet, eyes, skin, bones, and marrow. Śāriputra, a bodhisattva mahāsattva who has accepted that phenomena are unproduced should practice these three types of relinquishment.”
Śāriputra asked, “Bhagavān, are bodhisattvas not afraid of desire? Are they not afraid of anger and delusion?”
The Bhagavān replied, “Śāriputra, the faults associated with the great misdeeds of bodhisattvas are twofold: those related to anger and those related to delusion. Śāriputra, these are the two faults associated with the great misdeeds of bodhisattvas.
“Śāriputra, among these, desire is a minor misdeed and is given up slowly. Anger is a major misdeed and is given up quickly. Delusion is a major misdeed and is given up slowly. Why is this? Śāriputra, desire is the ensnaring vine of saṃsāra and thus the seed of rebirth. Anger is eliminated quickly and is the cause of unfortunate rebirths. Delusion is difficult to relinquish and is the cause of falling into the eight great hells.
“Regarding these, Śāriputra, a bodhisattva should openly confess the weightiest of faults to an assembly of ten. A weighty fault of the hand—that is, grasping a woman’s hand—should be confessed to an assembly of five. The fault of looking at a woman with ill intent should be confessed before one or two people. A bodhisattva should confess the faults associated with the five grave acts of immediate retribution, faults related to women, faults related to boys, faults related to the hand, faults related to stūpas, faults related to the saṅgha, or any other weighty fault before the thirty-five bhagavān buddhas, doing so on their own throughout the day and night. The confession is as follows:
“ ‘To them, and to all the other tathāgata, arhat, and completely perfect buddhas who dwell, live, and endure in all realms throughout the ten directions—to those blessed buddhas, I pray, please pay heed to me!
“ ‘In this and in all the other births that I have taken in saṃsāra without beginning or end, I have committed evil actions, I have asked others to commit them, or have rejoiced when they were committed.
“ ‘I have stolen the property of stūpas, the property of the saṅgha, or the property of the saṅghas of the four directions, have made others steal them, or have rejoiced when they were stolen.
“ ‘I have committed the five grave acts of immediate retribution, have made others commit them, or have rejoiced when they were committed.
“ ‘I have taken the path of the ten nonvirtuous actions, have made others take it, or have rejoiced in their taking it.
“ ‘Having been affected by karmic obscurations, I will go to the hells, I will go to the animal realm, I will go to the preta realm, I will be born among barbarians in a border region, I will be born among the long-lived devas, I will have incomplete faculties, I will hold false views, or I will not be able to delight in the appearance of a buddha in the world.
“ ‘All these karmic obscurations I confess in the presence of the bhagavān buddhas, who are wise, who have vision, who witness, who are authoritative, and who know and see. I reveal these actions; I do not conceal them, and I will henceforth show restraint.
“ ‘May those bhagavān buddhas pay heed to me!
“ ‘In this and in all the other births that I have taken in saṃsāra without beginning or end, whatever gifts I have given, even if just a small bit of food to an animal, whatever roots of virtue I may possess from maintaining discipline, whatever roots of virtue I may possess from chaste conduct, whatever roots of virtue I may possess by bringing beings to maturity, whatever roots of virtue I may possess through the mind of awakening, and whatever roots of virtue I may possess through unsurpassed gnosis, I collect, combine, and coalesce all of it and dedicate it to unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening by making unsurpassable, unexcelled, and supreme dedications.
“ ‘Just as the bhagavān buddhas of the past have dedicated, just as the bhagavān buddhas of the future will dedicate, and just as the bhagavān buddhas of the present now dedicate, in the same way, I also dedicate the virtue. I confess all evil actions. I rejoice in all merit. I supplicate all buddhas. May my gnosis be unsurpassed.
“Śāriputra, in the same way, a bodhisattva should follow all tathāgatas in contemplating the thirty-five bhagavān buddhas and the rest, and thereby purify all their evil actions.
“Similarly, for the sole purpose of liberating beings, those very bhagavān buddhas reveal themselves directly to those who purify all evil actions. They likewise teach confused, foolish beings using a variety of words in order to bring them to maturity, all without wavering from the dharmadhātu. They make perfect aspirations for the sake of liberating beings, liberating each according to their own predispositions.
“Śāriputra, bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi of great compassion appear in the form of hell beings, animals, beings in the world of Yama, and asuras for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi of great array appear in the form of householders for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the supreme samādhi appear in the form of cakravartins for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi of intense brilliance appear in the forms of Indra and Brahmā for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the single-pointed samādhi appear in the form of śrāvakas for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi of nondual purity appear in the form of pratyekabuddhas for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi of peace appear in the form of completely perfect buddhas for the sake of bringing beings to maturity. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered into the samādhi mastery of all phenomena appear in forms aligned with various predispositions for the sake of bringing beings to maturity.
“Śāriputra, in that way, for the sake of bringing beings to maturity, holy beings sometimes appear in the form of Indra, sometimes in the form of Brahmā, and sometimes in the form of a cakravartin, all without wavering from the dharmadhātu. How so? Bodhisattvas, for the sake of bringing beings to maturity, appear to beings of different predispositions in a variety of recognizable forms, but the bodhisattvas objectify neither themselves nor beings as they appear in various forms to those beings.
“Śāriputra, what do you think? Can a cat withstand the roar of a lion, the king of beasts?”
Śāriputra replied, “Bhagavān, it cannot withstand it.”
The Bhagavān said, “Śāriputra, what do you think? Can a donkey bear the load of a great rutting elephant?”
Śāriputra replied, “Bhagavān, it cannot bear it.”
The Bhagavān said, “Śāriputra, what do you think? Can poor people endure the lordly magnificence of Indra and Brahmā?”
Śāriputra replied, “Bhagavān, they cannot endure it.”
The Bhagavān said, “Śāriputra, what do you think? Can a fledgling vulture withstand the attack of a garuḍa, the king of birds?”
Śāriputra replied, “Bhagavān, it cannot withstand it.”
“Similarly Śāriputra, no ordinary being or follower of the Śrāvakayāna or Pratyekabuddhayāna is able to purify the faults of bodhisattvas that have arisen from the power of their courageous mind and roots of virtue or from their knowledge, nor can they purify pernicious faults, which are purified by entering the samādhi of seeing the buddhas. Bodhisattvas memorize and recite the names of these bhagavān buddhas, and by reciting the Dharma discourse of the Three Sections three times during the day and three times at night, they renounce their pernicious faults and obtain samādhi.” [B2]
On the same occasion, the venerable Upāli emerged from meditative seclusion and came to where the Bhagavān was staying. Upon arriving, he bowed his head at the feet of the Bhagavān, circumambulated him three times, and sat to one side. The venerable Upāli then said to the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, when I was in solitary meditative seclusion, this thought arose in my mind: the Bhagavān has taught the followers of the Śrāvakayāna and the Pratyekabuddhayāna that the prātimokṣa vows are the pure training and superior ethical discipline. The Bhagavān has also taught that followers of the Bodhisattvayāna do not abandon their training even for the sake of their lives. How then would a bhagavān, one who has either passed into parinirvāṇa or still remains, explain the prātimokṣa vows of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna? How would the prātimokṣa vows of the followers of the Pratyekabuddhayāna be explained? How would the prātimokṣa vows of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna be explained? The Bhagavān has said that I am supreme among those who uphold the Vinaya. I will certainly listen closely to the Bhagavān’s expertise in the Vinaya and, having mastered it precisely, will gain fearlessness and teach it perfectly and in detail to the assemblies. Therefore, I thought to ask the Bhagavān to teach me perfectly and in detail.
“Bhagavān, while I was alone in private meditative seclusion, I thought, ‘I should go before the Tathāgata and request a detailed explanation of the Vinaya.’ Since this thought came to mind, Bhagavān, I ask the Tathāgata to offer a clear, thorough, and detailed explanation of the Vinaya to this great assembly of monks and bodhisattvas.”
The Bhagavān responded to the venerable Upāli, “Upāli, you should say that the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna is pure in terms of its distinctive application and distinctive orientation. You should also say that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is pure in terms of its distinctive application and distinctive orientation. Why? Upāli, it is because the followers of the Śrāvakayāna have a distinctive application and orientation, while bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna have another distinctive application and orientation.
“Upāli, the pure ethical discipline of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna is impure ethical discipline for bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna; for the latter it is highly corrupt ethical discipline. The pure ethical discipline of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is impure ethical discipline for the followers of the Śrāvakayāna; for the latter it is highly corrupt ethical discipline. Why? Upāli, it is because the followers of the Śrāvakayāna do not even have the fleeting desire to take rebirth in the world. This is pure ethical discipline for the followers of the Śrāvakayāna but is impure, highly corrupt ethical discipline for bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna. Upāli, why is it that pure ethical discipline of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is impure, highly corrupt ethical discipline for the followers of the Śrāvakayāna? Upāli, it is because bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna take rebirth in saṃsāra for countless eons without aversion or weariness. This is pure ethical discipline for bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna but is impure, highly corrupt ethical discipline for the followers of the Śrāvakayāna.
“Upāli, you should therefore say that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna guards and that the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna does not guard. You should say that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna serves as a remedy and that the training of those who follow the Śrāvakayāna does not serve as a remedy. You should say that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is pursued over a long duration and that the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna proceeds in stages.
“Upāli, why is it that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna guards, while the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna does not guard? Upāli, bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna should work with the minds of other beings and other people, while the followers of the Śrāvakayāna do not need to. Upāli, that is why the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna guards, while the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna does not guard.
“Upāli, why is it that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna serves as a remedy, while the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna does not serve as a remedy? Upāli, if a bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna commits a fault in the morning and does not part from the omniscient mind at midday, then the complement of ethical discipline of the bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna is not at all inhibited. If the bodhisattva commits a fault at midday and has not parted from, but rather maintains, the omniscient mind in the afternoon, then the complement of ethical discipline of the bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna is not at all inhibited. If the bodhisattva commits a fault in the afternoon and has not parted from, but rather maintains, the omniscient mind in the first watch of the night, then the complement of ethical discipline of the bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna is not at all inhibited. If the bodhisattva commits a fault in the first watch of the night and has not parted from, but rather maintains, the omniscient mind in the middle watch of the night, then the complement of ethical discipline of the bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna is not at all inhibited. If the bodhisattva commits a fault in the middle watch of the night and has not parted from, but rather maintains, the omniscient mind in the last watch of the night, then the complement of ethical discipline of the bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is not at all inhibited. Therefore, Upāli, the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna serves as a remedy. Bodhisattvas should neither give rise to excess remorse for nor feel overly dejected about their faults.
“Upāli, you should understand that when the followers of the Śrāvakayāna commit a fault repeatedly, the complement of ethical discipline of those followers of the Śrāvakayāna deteriorates, degenerates, and is exhausted. Why? Because followers of the Śrāvakayāna, for the sake of eliminating all afflictions, act as if their head and clothes were on fire. In this way, the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna—who fervently desire parinirvāṇa—does not serve as a remedy.
“Upāli, how is it that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is pursued over a long duration, while the training of the Śrāvakayāna proceeds in stages? Upāli, you should understand that even if bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna revel in, relish, and enjoy the five sense pleasures for as many eons as there are grains of sand in the river Ganges but do not give up the mind of awakening, then the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna will not be inhibited at all. Why? Because, Upāli, there are times and instances in which bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna have so fully assimilated bodhicitta that they are not even affected by the afflictions in their dreams. Upāli, bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna do not eliminate the afflictions in a single lifetime; the afflictions of bodhisattvas whose roots of virtue have matured are exhausted gradually. Followers of the Śrāvakayāna, whose roots of virtue have not matured and who act as if their head and clothes were on fire, will not take rebirth in saṃsāra for even an instant. Therefore, Upāli, the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna is to be pursued over a long duration, and the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna proceeds in stages.
“Therefore, Upāli, you should say that the training of bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna guards, serves as a remedy, and is pursued over a long duration. You should say that the training of the followers of the Śrāvakayāna does not guard, does not serve as a remedy, and proceeds in stages. Why? Upāli, unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening requires significant requisites; it is not easy for bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna to take rebirth and transmigrate for limitless eons if they are singularly discontented with saṃsāra.
“Upāli, the tathāgata, arhat, completely perfect buddhas recognize that there is a purpose in not teaching bodhisattvas engaged in the Mahāyāna about discontentment alone, or in teaching them about dispassion alone or only about revulsion. They also teach on being joyful and delighted, on what is profound and what is not defiled, about subtleties, analysis, and about being without regret and obsession. They teach about what is unobstructed, about what is unobscured, and about emptiness. Hearing these teachings, bodhisattvas are overjoyed, do not feel discontent for saṃsāra, and perfect nonattachment, the unsurpassed, completely perfect state of awakening.”
Then the venerable Upāli asked the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, among the things considered to be errors, some are associated with desire, some are associated with anger, and some are associated with delusion. That being so, Bhagavān, which of those are the weightiest errors for bodhisattvas who follow the Mahāyāna—those associated with desire, those associated with anger, or those associated with delusion?”
The Bhagavān replied to the venerable Upāli, “Upāli, suppose that, on the one hand, a bodhisattva who follows the Mahāyāna commits faults associated with desire for as many eons as there are grains of sand in the river Ganges; and suppose that, on the other hand, the same bodhisattva commits a single fault related to anger. If we consider each of these cases in the context of the Bodhisattvayāna, then the fault related to anger is much weightier than the faults related to desire. Why? Upāli, anger forsakes beings, whereas desire brings beings together. Upāli, bodhisattvas are not deceived by and do not fear afflictions that gather beings together; but bodhisattvas are deceived by and fear the afflictions that forsake beings.
“Moreover, Upāli, the Tathāgata has taught that desire is a minor misdeed that is given up slowly, anger is a major misdeed that is given up quickly, and delusion is a major misdeed that is given up slowly. Among those, Upāli, minor misdeeds that are given up slowly are not considered afflictions for bodhisattvas. Major misdeeds that are given up quickly should be viewed as afflictions for bodhisattvas; indeed, they should not desire them, even in their dreams. Therefore, Upāli, you should say that the faults of bodhisattvas that are associated with desire are not faults, because for bodhisattvas there is no deception or fault in them. You should say that faults associated with anger are faults, because for bodhisattvas there is deception and fault in them. Upāli, those bodhisattvas who are not skilled in means are frightened by the faults associated with desire but are not frightened by the faults associated with anger. Bodhisattvas who are skilled in means are frightened by the faults associated with anger but are not frightened by the faults associated with desire.”
Then Youthful Mañjuśrī, who was in the assembly, said to the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, what is discipline when all phenomena are thoroughly tamed?”
The Bhagavān replied to Youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, if foolish beings knew that all phenomena are thoroughly tamed, then the Tathāgata would not have to formulate the Vinaya over and over. Because beings do not know this, the Tathāgata gradually formulated the Vinaya so that they may understand that all phenomena are thoroughly tamed.”
Then the venerable Upāli said to the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, Youthful Mañjuśrī has not offered any kind of explanation on the instructions for determining the Vinaya. Bhagavān, for that reason, please have Youthful Mañjuśrī teach some of the important points.”
The Bhagavān said to Youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, because the monk Upāli wishes to hear about mastering the Vinaya, give a teaching beginning with the topic of the thoroughly tamed.”
Then Youthful Mañjuśrī said to the venerable Upāli, “Honorable Upāli, all phenomena are thoroughly tamed—it is for the sake of disciplining one’s own mind that the topic of the thoroughly tamed is taught. No phenomenon is defiled; it is because the self cannot be apprehended that the discipline of remorse is taught. No phenomenon is mistaken; it is because they are inherently pure that the topic of the thoroughly tamed is taught. All phenomena are an ultimate gateway to suchness; it is because training should be free of deceit that pure training is taught. All phenomena are nonconceptual, cannot be accepted, and cannot be rejected; it is because they are inconceivable that the state of nonattachment is taught. All phenomena are free of attachment and do not persist; it is because they do not persist for long that the purity of all beings is taught. All phenomena are found within the limits of space; it is because they lack materiality that the lack of inherent existence has been taught. No phenomenon can be differentiated; it is because the limits of past, future, and present are not apprehended that the sameness of the three times is taught. All phenomena lack designations; it is because the mind is oriented to equanimity that the elimination of doubt is taught.
“Honorable Upāli, that is the thoroughly tamed dharmadhātu realized by bhagavān buddhas. Noble sons and daughters who do not have faith in the true nature of phenomena are far removed from the training of the Tathāgata.”
Then the venerable Upāli said to the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, the teaching that Youthful Mañjuśrī has given emerges from the inconceivable itself.”
The Bhagavān replied to the venerable Upāli, “Upāli, the Dharma teaching of Youthful Mañjuśrī is aligned with liberation; there is no liberation that is not rooted in inconceivability. For that reason Youthful Mañjuśrī teaches the Dharma for the sake of removing the arrogance of those arrogant ones who believe that they are free of all concepts but are caught up in thought.”
Then the venerable Upāli asked the Bhagavān, “Bhagavān, what thoughts do monks have that illustrate this arrogance?”
The Bhagavān then replied to the venerable Upāli, “Upāli, if a monk thinks he has eliminated desire, then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks he has eliminated anger and delusion, then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘The qualities of desire are one thing, and the qualities of a buddha are another,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘The qualities of anger are one thing and the qualities of a buddha are another,’ or ‘the qualities of delusion are one thing and the qualities of the Buddha are another,’ he acts with arrogance. If he thinks he is happy, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of his deeds, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks he is liberated, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of emptiness, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of signlessness, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of wishlessness, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of preconceived notions, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of nonorigination, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks of immateriality, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks that phenomena exist, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks that all phenomena are impermanent, he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘What is there to do if all phenomena are empty?’ then he acts with arrogance. This is the arrogance of a follower of the Śrāvakayāna.
“What is the arrogance of a follower of the Bodhisattvayāna? If he thinks, ‘I have generated the attitude that aspires to the gnosis of the buddhas, which is superior to everything else,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘I should practice the six perfections,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks that the perfection of wisdom refers to renunciation, then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘This is profound, and that is not profound,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘This leads to purity, and that does not lead to purity,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘These are the qualities of buddhas, these are the qualities of pratyekabuddhas, and these are the qualities of śrāvakas,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘This is logical, and that is not logical,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘This is defiled, and that is not defiled,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘This is the path, and that is not the path,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘I will quickly and fully attain unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘Since all phenomena are inconceivable, I will not contemplate them,’ then he acts with arrogance. If he thinks, ‘Since unsurpassed, completely perfect awakening is inconceivable, there is nothing to be contemplated,’ then he is engaged in significant objectification. This is the arrogance of a follower of the Bodhisattvayāna.”
Then the venerable Upāli asked the Bhagavān, “How does a monk avoid arrogance?”
The Bhagavān replied to the venerable Upāli, “Upāli, a monk avoids arrogance if he is not attached to the causal conditions for omniscient gnosis, to the inconceivable.”
Then, to explain the inconceivable in detail, the Bhagavān spoke in verse: