Notes

n.1For example, in the Pali Canon there is the Upālipañcaka, and in the Chinese canon there is a translation of the Upāliparipṛcchā from the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya. See Norman (1983), pp. 28–29. In the Kangyur, the Upāli­paripṛcchā of the Mūla­sarvāstivāda Vinaya is found in the Vinayottaragrantha (Toh 7 and Toh 7a).

n.2See Thera 1997, p. 131.

n.3The meaning of the word prareju in the transliterated Sanskrit of the title remains uncertain. There are different renderings of the title in other Kangyur versions as plareju (bla re dzu in Y and K) and prariju (pra ri dzu in S, L, and Z). The origin of the term prareju/prariju in the Tibetan transliteration is uncertain. We can speculate that it may capture prarju, i.e., pra + ṛju. If so, the sūtra’s Sanskrit title would mean “Sūtra on Upright Mendicants.” However, although the Sanskrit term ṛju and its Pali equivalent uju/ujju, meaning “upright,” appear in the Vinaya as a quality of monks, the compound term prarju is not attested in Indic literature.

n.4tshul khrims kyi gtam gyi ’grel pa (Śīlakathāvṛtti), Toh 4165. See Hahn and Saito 2009, p. 179, who mention that the author of this commentary, the ācārya (Tib. slob dpon) *Prakāśakīrti (Tib. gsal grags), quotes mainly from older Mahāyāna works, the earliest being from the fifth century ᴄᴇ. This might also be an indication of the age of that commentary and, by extension, an indication of the age of the sūtra’s first appearance. Nothing is known for certain about *Prakāśakīrti himself. There was, however, a Tibetan translator named Pungsho Selwadrak (spung zho gsal ba grags) who studied at Nālandā under Abhayākaragupta (d. ca. 1125 ᴄᴇ). Thus, there is another possibility that this work is an original Tibetan composition by the Tibetan Selwadrak and not a text written by an Indian paṇḍit named Prakāśakīrti. As noted in the following paragraph of the introduction, the text’s colophon provides no information about the translator.

n.5See Situ Panchen Chökyi Jungné, p. 460, and Eimer 1998, p. 75: dge slong la rab tu gces pa’i mdo ’gyur byang med pa (“The Sūtra on What Mendicants Hold Most Dear has no translator’s colophon”).

n.6See Nishioka 1983, p. 67.

n.7Resources for Kanjur and Tanjur Studies. Universität Wien. Accessed April 23, 2019.

n.8See Tsong-kha-pa 2000, p. 405; Tohoku 1934, p. 58; and Steinkellner 1998, p. 65. Steinkellner, who gives Bhikṣupriya­sūtra, identifies Baron Schilling de Canstadt’s Index de Gandjour, published in 1831, as the source of the Sanskrit sūtra titles (ibid.). The Tohoku catalog, which also uses priya in the sūtra’s name, was published in 1934 and states that some Sanskrit titles were corrected by the compiler. Note that priya was never used by any Tibetan sources in the title of this sūtra. The Sanskrit term priya means “dear” or “beloved.” If we search the Kangyur and Tengyur for other instances of rab tu gces pas (“most dear”) where there is a surviving Sanskrit original, we find the Avadānakalpalatā by Kṣemendra (eleventh century, translation completed 1267–75), where it corresponds to priyataraṃ (“the most beloved”; -tara is the superlative suffix in Sanskrit). In his entry on gces pa (but not rab tu gces pa), Negi cites it as a translation of priya in another passage in the same text (Negi 1993, s.v.). On the other hand, the Mahāvyutpatti dictionary gives several translations for priya, as well as compounds including priya, and none of them are gces pa. Another point to note about priya is that it has a different number of syllables than prareju. If, for example, prareju were the result of a scribe miscopying the text at some point, we must ask why we do not find any versions with an incorrect title that has the same number of syllables or letters as the hypothetical “original” priya. That said, a final possibility (perhaps an explanation of last resort) is precisely that what we have is a scribal mistake that crept in early in the text’s transmission in Tibet, though a faulty back-translation into Sanskrit is probably more likely.

n.9See Rockhill 1885, pp. clxxii–clxxiii; Kalsang 1970, pp. 5–7; Gyatso 2015; Lekden 2013.

n.10tshul khrims kyi gtam gyi ’grel pa (Toh 4165), folio 171.a. See also Hahn and Saito 2009, p. 195. The quote in the commentary uses the spellings ’khrungs pa instead of ’khrung ba (“trunk”), yun rings instead of yun ring (“for a long time”), and kha na ma tho rtag instead of kha na ma tho’i gtam (“reprehensible talk”).

n.11See Tsong-kha-pa 2000, p. 343. The translation given here is by the Lamrim Chenmo Translation Committee.

n.12Quoted from Jansen 2013, pp. 121–22, except for the sūtra quote, where we use our own translation, since Jansen offers a different interpretation. The Great Fifth also uses two lines of the sūtra in his biography of Tsarchen Losal Gyatso (1502–66). See Mohr 2010, p. 304.

n.13See Alice Collett and Bhikkhu Anālayo 2014.

n.14See dge slong ma’i ’dul ba rnam par ’byed pa (Toh 5), which shows instances of the Buddha addressing nuns in Śrāvastī’s Jeta Grove (see, for example, folio 118.b).

n.15See Bodhi 2000, pp. 221–30, who shows that the discourses with bhikkhunis all take place in Śrāvastī, although the exact location mentioned there is Jeta’s Grove and not the Blooming Lotus Monastery.

n.16Note that these two lines are in verse even though they are spoken neither by the Buddha nor by Upāli, but by the narrator.

n.17This refers to the central inner pillar or tree trunk that is said to give life to a stūpa or sacred statue.

n.18This is likely playing on the word for “vows” (Skt. samvara, Tib. sdom pa), which in both Sanskrit and Tibetan shares a root with “restraint” (Skt. samvṛta, Tib. bsdams pa).

n.19This is the approximate number of precepts for fully ordained monks. Nuns have roughly one hundred additional precepts, the exact count depending on the lineage.

n.20Though the Tibetan does not actually make this explicit, we have read “exhausted” here as referring to the afflictions, which are the basis of saṃsāra, becoming depleted. It may reflect a common Pali definition of bhikkhu as being so called due to bhinnakilesattā, “the state of having broken (bhinna) the afflictions (kilesa, Skt. kleśa).” See the respective aṭṭhakathās to the Abhidamma Vibhaṅga (PTS 328) and to the Vimānavatthu (PTS 29, 114, 310) and Petavatthu (PTS 51, 146) in the Khuddakanikāya. This definition is based on a traditional etymological analysis of the word bhikkhu.

n.21“Arouse wholesomeness” (Tib. dge slong) is a literal translation of the Tibetan term for bhikṣu, rendered throughout as “mendicant.” Note that the Tibetan uses the same verb for “arouse” wholesomeness and “beg for” food, creating a wordplay that is lost in the English translation.

n.22This passage presents a list of traditional definitions of the term bhikṣu. The first three definitions are traditional etymologies of the word bhikṣu. These are not actual linguistic etymologies but more akin to folk etymologies. They work by using homophones to elucidate a word’s meaning, and they are tied to ancient Indian beliefs about the power of language to both shape and embody reality. Rather than being etymologies, the last five definitions cited in this verse are synonyms that encapsulate the defining characteristics of a bhikṣu. Like the folk etymologies, these lists of synonyms have ancient roots in Buddhist literature.

n.23This may be a play on the Sanskrit words bhikṣu and vibhūṣaṇa (“adornment”), which sound similar. The Buddha seems to be defining bhikṣu by pointing to an etymology based in wordplay, suggesting that bhikṣu and “adornment” come from the same root (Skt. dhātu) and therefore bhikṣu means “adornment.” Without the original Sanskrit text, we cannot confirm that the word for “adornment” is a semi-homophone to bhikṣu. Thus, while our interpretation remains speculative, it is in accord with the frequent wordplay in the rest of the sūtra. If this interpretation is correct, the Buddha here is adding a new etymology of the word “mendicant” (not found in other discourses) to the list of classic etymological definitions of the term just rehearsed in the preceding paragraph.

n.24“Color” here probably refers to colored powders applied to the body, such as those used by Hindus for the “bindi” on the forehead.

n.25While the preceding verse contains wordplay on the meaning of the term bhikṣu, in this list of a mendicant’s adornments, the Buddha instead employs a symbolic mode, playing further on the meaning of “adornment.” Taken literally, the list appears counterintuitive and surprising, since it contains luxurious items that are restricted by a mendicant’s vows. However, the meaning of these items is symbolically inverted from examples of unwholesome indulgence to supremely wholesome characteristics, as the Buddha continues to explain later.

n.26Note that, as in the case above, these two lines are kept in verse even though they are spoken neither by the Buddha nor by Upāli, but by the narrator.

n.27The Tibetan skad kyi byings, which we translate as “derivation,” is a grammatical term for the “root” (Skt. dhātu) of a word. If our interpretation is correct, “derivation” (Tib. skad byings, lit. “verbal root”) refers to the Buddha’s deriving the term for “mendicant” (Skt. bhikṣu) from the word for “ornament” (perhaps Skt. vibhūṣaṇa), which is not found among the standard etymologies given for the term in Buddhist literature (see note 24). Since this derivation is both unique and counterintuitive, Upāli here asks the Buddha for further explanation. Another possible interpretation of skad byings in this context would be “concealed speech,” by which Upāli might refer to the preceding coded series of surprising adornments listed by the Buddha (see note 25).

n.28“Ascetic discipline” (Skt. vrata, Tib. brtul zhugs) refers to the twelve ascetic practices (dvādaśadhūta­guṇāḥ, sbyang pa’i yon tan bcu gnyis) regarding food, clothing, and residence. These include practices like begging for alms, wearing castoff clothing, and living in seclusion.

n.29Degé reads gnyis (“two”) for the number of other types, but our translation follows that of several other Kangyurs (H, Y, J, K, N, C) that read gcig (“one”).

n.30“Bearing the Well-Gone One’s victory banner” refers to wearing monastic robes, which are the outer signs of being a follower of the Buddha.

n.31Here the reading in Degé is sda, which we emend to sna based on the other Kangyur versions.

n.32While the Tibetan in most Kangyur versions uses the term for “body” (Tib. gzugs po, lit. “one with form”) here, it carries the same meaning as the term for “form” (Tib. gzugs) or “outer appearance” used in the verses above. We should therefore understand this as referring to the outer appearance of wearing the monastic robes. Even though the Comparative Edition does not list this, some Kangyur versions (S, F, and possibly also D) use gzugs bor (lit. “casting off the form”), changing the Tibetan letter pa into ba, since the letters look very similar. Since this explains the additional por/bor syllable, we are following this alternate reading.

n.33A possible understanding of these two lines is that if we lose our life, we will regain it in rebirth, but if we lose our discipline, we may not get a chance to regain it, particularly if we are not reborn in a precious human body with the opportunity to be liberated. “Once lost” has been read by implication in the second line of this verse. Literally the Tibetan here might be rendered, “You are reborn after you lose your life, but not so after disciplined conduct.”