Introduction

i.1The Sūtra of Nandika consists of a teaching on the negative consequences of breaking the five basic precepts, as taught by the Buddha to the layman Nandika and five hundred other lay practitioners at the Vulture Peak Mountain in Rājagṛha. Ten negative consequences are described as the result of violating each of the first four basic precepts, which relate to killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying. For the last precept, concerning intoxicating drinks, the text lists thirty-five negative consequences. This scripture is often mentioned and quoted in traditional Buddhist works, mostly concerning the consequences of inebriation by alcohol, on which it is a noted authority.

i.2For a long time, the Sanskrit text of the Nandikasūtra was thought to be lost. However, two complete Sanskrit manuscripts of the sūtra in the dhārikā script were found in the Potala Palace archives in Lhasa. An edition of these, along with parallel Tibetan text and English translation, was published in 2010 by Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā. As surmised by Jonathan Silk, these Potala manuscripts may date to the thirteenth century. One of the manuscripts is part of a collection of twenty sūtras which have moral discipline and karmic cause and effect as their recurrent themes. This manuscript, called “Ms” by Vinītā (our Skt1), is often closer to the Tibetan translation than the independent manuscript called “S2” by Vinītā (our Skt2), which is somewhat longer. Another extant manuscript is a Sanskrit birch bark fragment of The Sūtra of Nandika found among the Gilgit Manuscripts, which comprises only the last part of the sūtra. The script used is the Proto-Śāradā (seventh century onwards), which was normally used for non-Mahāyāna texts. It is believed that the Gilgit manuscripts were written during the Palola Ṣāhi Dynasty (sixth to eighth centuries).

i.3The Chinese Dazhidu lun, a translation of the Treatise on the Long Perfection of Wisdom attributed to Nāgārjuna and translated into Chinese between 402–406 ᴄᴇ, is the earliest datable textual reference to The Sūtra of Nandika, from which it quotes extensively. Many other Indian works refer to the Nandikasūtra concerning the negative effects of alcohol abuse. Noriyuki Kudo presents three Sanskrit references to The Sūtra of Nandika in the Mahākarma­vibhaṅga and one in the Abhi­dharma­kośavyākhyā by Yaśomitra (around the late sixth century ᴄᴇ). In Tibetan translation, it is also mentioned by Ajitamitra (ninth–tenth century ᴄᴇ) in his Ratnāvalīṭīkā (Toh 4159), and in Sajjana’s Putralekha (Toh 4187), dated to the second half of the eleventh century. Related lists of the consequences of breaking the five precepts are also included in two sūtras found in Tibetan translation in the Kangyur, namely The Exposition of Karma (Karmavibhaṅga, Toh 338), and Transformation of Karma (Karmavibhaṅga, Toh 339). However, the lists presented in those texts do not always precisely match those found in The Sūtra of Nandika.

i.4The Tibetan translation of The Sūtra of Nandika is included in most Kangyur collections and one folio containing the first two pages of The Sūtra of Nandika is among the Tibetan manuscripts found in the cave library at Dunhuang. All Tibetan versions have the title ’phags pa dga’ ba can gyi mdo, except for the Dunhuang fragment, which reads dga’ bo’i mdo. The Tibetan translations present the standard Sanskrit title Āryanandika­sūtra, while the two extant Sanskrit manuscripts have Āryanandika­pari­pṛcchā­sūtra (Skt1) and Nandika­pari­pṛcchā­sūtra (Skt2). The colophons from the Degé, Lhasa, and the independent Kangyurs such as Phukdrak, among others, mention the Indian paṇḍita Śākyasiṃha and the Tibetan translator Jingyi Nyingpo as its translators, and Devacandra as the editor.

i.5The Sūtra of Nandika is listed in both of the extant imperial catalogs of translated texts: the Phangthangma and the Denkarma, the latter of which lists it under “Hīnayāna” (Tib. theg pa chung ngu) texts. The period in which these translators worked and the inclusion of the text in these catalogs indicates clearly that the translation was made sometime during the late eighth to early ninth century, most likely from Sanskrit, since an Indian paṇḍita was involved. Although no Tibetan masters appear to have written commentaries on The Sūtra of Nandika, they have often quoted it when teaching on the negative consequences of consuming alcohol or sexual misconduct.

i.6The Chinese translation of the Nandikasūtra, The Sūtra on the Conditions for Renouncing Secular Life (Taishō no. 791), was identified by Yukihiro Okada in 1986. This translation was attributed to An Shigao (fl. 148–80 ᴄᴇ), but Okada argues that the actual translator is unknown. This opinion is shared by Kudo (2002). Okada states that one cannot determine the date of the translation for certain, but that it seems to date from the old period of translation from Indic languages into Chinese‍—in other words, the period of translations starting with Kumārajīva (344–413 ᴄᴇ) and ending before Xuanzang (c. 602–64 ᴄᴇ). In Taishō 791, the lists of the negative consequences of breaking the five precepts are very close to those found in The Sūtra of Nandika. However, the Tibetan version appears to have been made from a different and somewhat longer Sanskrit recension, since part of the introductory section and the verses at the end are absent from the Chinese. Notably, the same sections are also missing from the Sanskrit manuscripts and the Dunhuang fragment.

i.7The first complete modern, Western translation of The Sūtra of Nandika was published by Léon Feer, in French, in his Extraits du Kandjour, together with a short introduction on the five basic precepts. A more recent English translation was published by Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā in 2010, based on the Sanskrit manuscripts from the Potala. This translation has proved very useful in preparing our own translation.

i.8This translation is based on the Degé edition of Toh 334, while also consulting the variants listed in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) of the Kangyur, as well as the Stok Palace, Phukdrak, and Hemis I manuscripts. The Dunhuang fragment and the available Sanskrit materials have also been closely consulted. Any substantial variant readings are recorded in the notes. We also occasionally refer to the Chinese parallel and some parallel passages in other related texts. Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā’s translation and Jonathan Silk’s review of her edition were a particularly valuable resource. For example, in the numerical parsing of the lists of negative consequences, which is not always clear in the Tibetan, we have opted to follow the numbering suggested by Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā, which is based on the Sanskrit texts.