Toh 166 — The Questions of Rāṣṭrapāla (2)

F.171.b 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?”

The Blessed One replied, “Rāṣṭrapāla, there are two conditions. What are they? They are the condition of the monk and the condition of laxity. Now, the condition of the monk is that which pertains to having moral discipline. And the condition of laxity F.172.a is that which pertains to lacking moral discipline.

“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.^[1] 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, F.172.b 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,^[2] 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^[3] 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.^[4] 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.^[5]F.173.a 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, F.173.b 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? F.174.a 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.^[6] 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.

“Rāṣṭrapāla, sentient beings such as these will arise. They are not householders, nor are they ascetics. They will bring about the decline of the Thus-Gone One’s teaching.”

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

When the Blessed One had spoken, the venerable Rāṣṭrapāla and the world with its monks, gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas rejoiced and praised what the Blessed One had said.