Introduction

i.1Buddhism is replete with symbolic objects, ranging from the well-known eight-spoked wheel representing the eightfold path of noble beings to esoteric maṇḍalas that represent entire pure universes. The subject matter of this sūtra is one such article known as “the ringing staff” (Skt. khakkhara, Tib. ’khar gsil, Ch. xizhang), which is one of the requisites of a fully ordained monastic. Though textual sources report the existence of the renunciant’s staff in India prior to the time of the Buddha, the staff used by Buddhist monastics is unique. Buddhist texts associate the ringing staff and teachings on its symbolic significance with the Buddha himself. In South Asian Buddhism, Vinaya texts as well as pilgrims’ accounts furnish references to the ringing staff, and its representations can be found in visual art. In Central, East, and Southeast Asia as well as in Tibet, an even wider range of evidence attests to its presence in Buddhist cultures.

i.2When a monastic shakes the staff during alms rounds, the ringing sounds produced by its rings alert householders to the presence of a monastic collecting alms. Beyond its practical usage, the staff reminds a monastic of salient points that pertain to the spiritual path leading to awakening. In addition, the components, combined in intricate ways, are themselves laden with symbolic significance.

i.3Underscoring its great importance as an emblem of Buddhist renunciation, Atiśa Dīpaṃkara Śrījñāna spoke the following lines in a teaching entitled “The Riches of the Noble Ones and the Khakkhara Staff,” which was delivered to the saṇgha at Nyethang Or, his retreat near Lhasa:

i.5Vinaya texts preserve scattered accounts of traditions related to the ringing staff’s origin, structure, material, and uses. Two sūtras in the General Sūtra section of the Kangyur are focused on the subject of the ringing staff. The first (Toh 335), which is translated in the following pages, is the longer of the two. It discusses the religious significance and symbolism of the ringing staff. The Rite for the Protocols Associated with Carrying the Ringing Staff (Toh 336), on the other hand, presents a simple ritual for a monk to receive a ringing staff as well as an elaborate set of twenty-five rules stipulating how a ringing staff is to be properly used.

i.6A single text in the Taishō edition of the Chinese Tripiṭaka includes material found in both Toh 335 and Toh 336. The De daoti cheng xizhang jing (得道梯橙錫杖經, Taishō 785), the translation of which is dated to the Jin Dynasty (317–420 ᴄᴇ), contains a version of The Sūtra on the Ringing Staff, which enumerates two sets of twenty-five rules for how to use the staff. A short intervening section, which has no Tibetan parallel that we are aware of, provides further instructions on handling the staff. Writing in 1643 or 1644, the Chinese Buddhist monk Hongzan, following an earlier Chinese tradition, declared Taishō 785 to be an apocryphal text.

i.7Regardless of whether the De daoti cheng xizhang jing was wholly or partially composed in China, there are several factors that support the case that The Sūtra on the Ringing Staff (Toh 335) is a Tibetan translation of the corresponding section within it. First of all, the Tibetan sūtra is close to the relevant section of the Chinese, with differences being found generally in specific short phrases. The Tibetan sūtra lacks the customary Sanskrit title, and most versions lack a translator’s colophon. Moreover, the Dunhuang manuscript of The Sūtra on the Ringing Staff and The Rite for the Protocols Associated with Carrying the Ringing Staff contains a colophon that states that both the sūtra and the rite were translated from the Chinese by the well-known translator Chödrup.

i.8On the other hand, the thirteenth century Tibetan scholar Chomden Rikpai Raltri (bcom ldan rig pa’i ral gri, 1227–1305), lists this text and Toh 336, which he calls “the longer and shorter ringing staff sūtras” (’khar sil gyi mdo che chung gnyis) among twenty-one canonical texts translated from Khotanese. This seems to contradict the evidence from the Dunhuang colophon, and may possibly be a reference to alternative translations that have not been preserved. Whatever the case, the general notion that these texts evolved in Khotan from earlier material brought from India, before being transmitted to both China and Tibet, seems by no means unlikely.

i.9The present translation is based on the Degé Kangyur, with reference to variants in other versions noted in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) and to the Dunhuang manuscript, as well as a comparison with the relevant sections of the Chinese in the Taishō edition of De daoti cheng xizhang jing. Only significant differences between the Chinese and the Tibetan versions of the sūtra have been noted.