Toh 166The Noble Great Vehicle Sūtra “The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2)”

Summary

Acknowledgements

This translation was produced by Adam T. Miller under the
patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of
the Buddha.

Introduction

The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla
(2), so called to distinguish it from a
longer work with the same title,
is a short Great Vehicle sūtra in
which the Buddha describes the monks who will bring
about the decline of the Dharma. The sūtra opens
with the Buddha at Vulture Peak in Rājagṛha,
surrounded by a group of monks. Among them is
Rāṣṭrapāla, who asks the Buddha to describe the
people who will bring about the decline of the
Buddha’s teaching. In his response, the Buddha first
draws a sharp contrast between the condition of the
monk (Tib. dge slong gi gnas), which entails
monastic rigor, and the condition of laxity (Tib.
lhod pa’i
gnas), which denotes a lack of monastic
discipline. He then describes both as embodied by
monks. Rigorous monks—that is, real
monks worthy of the name—are those who are concerned
with possessing and perfecting moral discipline
through solitary practice and self-cultivation. Lax
monks—that is, imposter monks unworthy of the
name—are those who do not live a life of strict
discipline but are instead concerned with worldly
affairs. These monks, the Buddha tells Rāṣṭrapāla,
will bring about the decline of the teaching. This
message is expressed first in prose and then again
in verse.

The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla
(2) shares thematic content with two works
titled similarly (or identically, as the case may
be)—one from the Pali canon, the Raṭṭhapāla
Sutta, and
another from the Great Vehicle tradition, The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla
(Toh 62).
The Pali text is largely concerned with illustrating
to audiences both lay and monastic the qualities of
proper monasticism and its virtues. The concern of
The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla
(2), by contrast, appears to be more
insular in nature. There are two possible
conditions, the Buddha tells Rāṣṭrapāla: rigor and
laxity. Those who have moral discipline are
real monks. Those who lack
moral discipline, on the other hand, are imposter
monks. Though people of the latter sort consider
themselves to be monks, they are no monks at all,
and such individuals will bring about the decline of
the Dharma. In the longer
Great Vehicle work, The
Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (1), the concern is
again largely insular. Here, however, it is the
rigorous bodhisattva who is valorized, not the
rigorous monk. In fact, monks are criticized and
denigrated in The Questions of
Rāṣṭrapāla (1), while rigorous,
forest-dwelling bodhisattvas are valorized as the
ideal, authentic practitioners. What exactly to make
of these differences—with regard, for example, to
the social and institutional locations of the Great
Vehicle practitioners and authors behind these two
works—is beyond the scope of this introduction.
Instead, we refer readers to Reginald Ray and Daniel
Boucher, whose work on these two Great Vehicle
sūtras has informed the brief comments here.

The present translation is based on the Degé
version in consultation with the Stok Palace
version. These two Tibetan texts are not identical,
but they do not often differ in a way that affects
the meaning. Therefore, we mostly followed the Degé.
We followed the Stok readings when they helped to
clarify the sense of the Degé, and we provide both
readings in cases where the variance impacts the
meaning.

The Translation

The Noble Great Vehicle Sūtra

The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla

Homage to all buddhas and
bodhisattvas.

Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was
residing at Vulture Peak in Rājagṛha, together with
a great saṅgha of 1,250 monks. Then, the venerable
Rāṣṭrapāla arose from his seat, draped his upper
robe over one shoulder, knelt down on his right
knee, bowed before the Blessed One, and with folded
hands asked, “Blessed One, what are the qualities of
the beings who will bring about the decline of the
Thus-Gone One’s teaching?”

“Rāṣṭrapāla, monks who seek complete nirvāṇa
should train in these two conditions. What are the
two? Through the component of moral discipline, they
should fully guard themselves and they should
contemplate themselves and nothing else. Now, what
is it to contemplate oneself and nothing else? It is
to analyze by thinking, ‘Do I want to want to
eliminate my own suffering, or do I want to awaken
to unexcelled perfect awakening?’

“Those who seek complete nirvāṇa through the
vehicle of the śrāvakas should train only in the
precepts of the śrāvakas. They are to be bound by
the prātimokṣa vows. Their conduct and personal
associations should be perfect. They should train
having genuinely accepted that even the slightest
fault is to be viewed with apprehension. They should
purify their actions of body, speech, and mind in
accordance with the precepts. They should have pure
livelihoods and be irreproachable. Without greed and
without longing for flavorful foods, they should
have suitable robes and suitable begging bowls.

“Also, they should not eat just any mixture of
food. They should train by eating
a little bit of food until just sated. In this way,
they should always and continuously consider food as
filth. In other words, they should perceive food as
excrement and urine, as pus, as vomit, as rubbish,
as like a crusted wound, as base, as
unpleasant, as like the flesh of children, as trash,
as refuse, as fetid. In this manner they should
think about what and how much they eat.

“Without attachment, aversion, and
confusion, they should always delight in solitude.
They should never delight in idle chatter. They
should readily accept solitude like a dying deer.
They should be isolated. They should delight in
solitude. Delighting in solitude, they should be
resolute and patient. If associating with noble
people, they should be pleasant. They should not be
given to worldly talk. They should abandon
commercial activity. Delight in medicinal cures,
delight in gossip, and association with household
activities should be avoided. They should be
discerning while sitting, standing, walking, and
sleeping. They should rely on total solitude,
delightful retreats, and peaceful places that are quiet and silent, not frightening,
without any slithering snakes, without many people,
devoid of people, and suitable for inner absorption.

“They should refrain from self-exaltation. They
should refrain from belittling others. They should
refrain from pretension and flattery. They should
always and continuously cultivate an attitude of
dissatisfaction. They should not associate with and
get to know householders and monastics. They should
rely on all empty dharmas, meditate on them, and
expand on them. They should avoid congregating with
ignorant monks. They should not
associate with nuns. They should have few desires.
They should always examine themselves for personal
faults. And they should not look for the faults of
others. They should not rely on their parents, let
alone other families. They should be properly and
thoroughly restrained.
They should be givers of the appeasing Dharma. They
should be discriminating in their focus. They should
dwell in isolated places. They should not speak to
others even in an agreeable manner, let alone in an
unagreeable manner.

“They should establish their minds firmly in the
teachings and analyze the profound dharmas. What is
it to analyze the profound dharmas? It is to analyze
by thinking, for example, that ‘the eye is
impermanent.’ It is to analyze its arising and
dissolution. And that with respect to which arising
and dissolution should be analyzed is itself
analyzed as nonexistent. Why? That which is called
‘eye’ does not exist. Though the eye, form, and eye
consciousness are not objects of perception, they
are perceived as nonexistent. Why? There are no
dharmas that are objects of perception. Therefore,
the support of the ear should not be imagined. The
supports of the nose, tongue, body, and mind should
not be imagined. No support whatsoever should be
imagined. What would be imagined when doing so? All
dharmas should be apprehended as empty in this way.
Apprehending the dharmas in this way purifies the
component of moral discipline. It purifies the
components of concentration and of wisdom. It gives
rise to the result of stream-entry. And it gives
rise to the result of the once-returner, the result
of the non-returner, and arhathood. Detached in this
way, the initial śrāvakas eliminated their
defilements.

“Now, what are imposter monks? Rāṣṭrapāla, such
monks cling to the conception that they are
themselves monks. Their component of moral
discipline is incomplete. They cherish their robes
and begging bowls. They cherish material things.
Abandoning silence, they claim for
themselves bedding, seats, and great invitations
that lead to unfortunate rebirths. They associate
with women. They associate with nuns. They associate
with those favored by the king. And through
associating with them, their eyes are always intent
on forms. By cultivating such a mind, they are
thoroughly afflicted. If their mind is afflicted, so
will be their condition. They will consistently make
serious mistakes or small ones. These, Rāṣṭrapāla,
are imposter monks.

“Why are they imposter monks? Imposter monks are
those fools who reject the plain bedding and seats
approved by the Thus-Gone One, which are the bedding
and seats proper to ascetics, who yearn for robes,
who yearn for material things, and who associate
with women and householders. How could ascetic
conduct be found in fools with such associations?
Moreover, they criticize and revile the profound
dharmas. Although they have heard of karma, they
speak ill of others. They speak ill of the
wilderness. They praise those who are solely focused
on desire for pleasure. They praise those who are
solely absorbed in pleasurable idle chatter. They
speak ill of those possessing any of the conditions
of monks.

“The Thus-Gone One said in a sūtra, ‘There is no
occasion to associate with householders and
monastics.’ Those who reject this have no desire for
ascetic conduct. They have no desire to be a monk.
Sitting apart, they teach the Dharma to women and
instruct others still in the foundations of such
behavior. Why? The Thus-Gone One describes
them as the robbers of the Dharma. Abandoning the
prātimokṣa vows, they sit apart and teach the Dharma
to women. These fools are imposter monks. With their
shaven heads, they are imposters. With their saffron
robes, they are imposters.

“How can an imposter be known? Those fools
approve of that which the blessed buddhas condemn.
They ordain people before they reach twenty years of
age. They take with their own hands. They enjoy
things without thinking. They prepare and cook food
for themselves. They handle gold and silver. They
accumulate millet, barley, and other grains. They
engage in commercial activity related to houses,
fields, and parks. They employ servants. They
appropriate objects related to houses, fields, and
parks. Not believing in the fruition of karma, not
having confidence in the prātimokṣa, toward that
lifestyle are they inclined, toward that lifestyle
do they fall, toward that lifestyle do they
sink—they act as if that is all there is. Regarding
themselves as ascetics, where there are many people,
they teach in a way that resembles the naked
ascetics. They champion the view of personal
identity. By teaching personal identity, and like
the naked ascetics, they draw many people in and
transfix them. Apprehending the domain of buddhas,
the condition of thus-gone ones, as empty, they
disparage it. They are known to revile it.

Then, the Lord at that time spoke the following
verses:

“Monks who are
restrained in moral discipline,

Who, at peace, delight in calm places,

Who train in the prātimokṣa—

They are brahmin monks.

“Taking up the most important dharmas,

Monks who have nothing,

Who delight in the remote wilderness—

They are brahmin monks.

“Those who do not delight in idle chatter,

Who train well in the prātimokṣa,

Pay great veneration, day and night,

To the superior person.

“Those who neither till the fields nor buy and
sell,

Who do not pine for begging bowls and robes,

And who make effort without appropriation

Are the Buddha’s śrāvakas.

“Those who do not teach women,

Who do not associate with women,

Who praise those who sit under trees—

They are the Buddha’s śrāvakas.

“Do not offer flattery,

For the sake of food and drink;

Monks who become like that

Do not spend time around women.

“Women are known to be

Like sharp swords polished.

From the prātimokṣa it follows

That the idea of women is abandoned.

“Those gentle ones, for the sake of food,

For drink, and for robes,

Go from house to house

But do not teach the dharmas.

“ ‘Monks should not look at women,’

The Perfectly Awakened One has said.

Rely on those who know that.

Looking at women is the sphere of Māra.

“They teach that women are nonexistent,

That to lie down with a woman is like lying with
a corpse.

For that reason, the all-knowing buddhas

Do not commend distractions.

“The dharmas are without life force, without
personality,

Hollow, insignificant, and insubstantial.

Those who affirm emptiness —

They are true monks.

“Those who always abound in strong effort,

Who dwell in the wilderness alone,

Whose minds do not rely on the world—

They are true monks.

“Fearless like lions,

They dedicate themselves to pure conduct.

For the sake of liberation from all
suffering,

Those endowed with wisdom cultivate the path.

“When examining the eye and form,

They find consciousness.

They do not find what they are looking for

When examining objects—

Those did not arise before, and they will not
arise later.

In the middle, too, there is nothing.

“This being the case,

On account of the sameness of all dharmas,

Those gentle ones, for the sake of food,

For drink, and for robes

Go from house to house,

But they do not teach the dharmas.

“Without cause, the gentle are virtuous.

They do not violate or destroy

The precepts of the Buddha.

Disciplined and virtuous, they do not fear
emptiness.

They enter into fearlessness.

They do not eliminate the frightening view.

“They do not eliminate actual sentient persons.

In all wholesome dharmas,

They remain well established.

Steadfast, those who in the world

Reach nirvāṇa

Will become worthy of veneration.

“Those who are lacking in wisdom,

Who are lazy, who make little effort,

Who have learned little, who desire
wickedness,

Who are arrogant, harsh, and quick to anger,

Who take a razor to their heads,

Who wear wood-dyed Dharma robes,

Who do not understand the meaning of
emptiness—

They do not cultivate discernment.

“They disparage the Dharma

And speak ill of the Great Vehicle.

Those who have taught this Dharma

In accordance with what they have been taught

Are attached to the dark faction.

They are bound for unfortunate rebirth.

The Great Vehicle sūtra “The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla
(2)” is complete.

Colophon

Notes

Bibliography

Many sūtras express
concern over the decline of the Dharma, among them
the sūtra translated here. For a sustained study
of this theme, see Jan Nattier’s (1991) Once Upon a Future Time.

See “

See “solitude.”

The bowls used by
monastics to collect alms.

In this sūtra, this term
refers to the lack of a particular mode of
existence. Insofar as all dharmas are empty, they
lack inherent or independent existence. It is in
this sense that such things as the eye are said to
be nonexistent in this sūtra.

Buying and selling, trade,
commerce.

emptiness
stong pa nyid
སྟོང་པ་ཉིད།
śūnyatā
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 independently from
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. In this
sūtra, monks on the vehicle of the śrāvakas and
the Great Vehicle both are to apprehend dharmas as
empty. The Abhidharma position that dharmas exist
as ontological simples appears by and large to be
rejected here.