The setting for this sūtra is a grove near Kuśinagara, the capital of the Malla kingdom, where Buddha Śākyamuni spent his last hours before passing into parinirvāṇa, the final state of release from the suffering of worldly existence. Kuśinagara, situated in what is now the north-Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, is venerated by Buddhists as one of the four holiest shrines. The other three are Lumbini, his birthplace in what is now southern Nepal; Bodhgaya in modern Bihar, where he attained enlightenment; and Sarnath, near modern Varanasi, where he delivered his first sermon.

In this sūtra, the Buddha discusses the importance of following a qualified spiritual teacher as a support for one’s spiritual development. As it was delivered just prior to his passing away, we can see how highly the Buddha esteemed the role of a teacher on the path. Correcting his disciple Ānanda’s understanding, the Buddha explains that one’s spiritual development depends entirely on reliance upon a qualified guide or virtuous spiritual friend.

Indeed, teachers play an eminent role in all Buddhist traditions, and are respected and venerated accordingly in traditional Buddhist cultures. In different sūtras, the Buddha taught the four reliances,1 as one of which he advised his followers to rely on the teaching, rather than on the person. In Buddhism, no person—no teacher, that is—functions as an ultimate refuge. Even the Buddha’s physical form was subject to decay and thus not an ultimate object of refuge.

However, as the Buddha explains in this sūtra, without the help of a spiritual friend, progress on the path is very difficult, if not impossible. The teacher functions as a qualified and experienced guide, capable of guiding others along the arduous path to liberation. A teacher inspires students by embodying the results of the practice, guides them by pointing out the right direction, and supports their development by removing doubts and confusions. While genuine progress is impossible without a teacher, misguided advice could, even if well intended, be detrimental to one’s whole path. Consequently, the Buddha stresses the importance of a qualified spiritual friend, but counsels caution in choosing the teacher.

This sūtra is quoted at the end of two avadāna stories, which like the jātakas, are accounts of the great deeds of the Buddha and bodhisattvas in previous lives.2 The translators of the Tibetan version are not recorded in the Tibetan colophon, but the Degé Kangyur catalogue states that the text was translated by the (Indian) paṇḍita Dharmākara and the (Tibetan) translator Zangkyong (lo tsA ba bzang skyong). Dharmākara contributed to several Vinaya translations and, as a team, this pair was responsible for several other translations in this part of the Kangyur as well as two commentaries in the Tengyur (Toh 4015 and 4038). There is evidence that both were contemporaries of Kawa Paltsek (ska ba dpal brtsegs), a major translator of the early period and active in at least part of the 8th century. However, unlike two other works by the same translators (Toh 285 and 295), the translation of this text is not listed in the early 9th century Denkarma (ldan dkar ma) or Pangthangma (’phang thang ma) inventories, which means either that it was completed only later in the 9th century, or that it existed already but was listed as a canonical text only in later compilations.

In the Pāli canon, we find a corresponding sutta in the Mahā-vagga section of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, namely the Upaḍḍha Sutta (SN 45.2), where the Buddha further mentions the eightfold path of the Noble Ones, which those who are supported by a spiritual friend should follow.

There are corresponding sūtras extant in the Chinese (T 2.99) and the Korean (K 650) canons.

The version of this sūtra in the Degé Kangyur was compared to those in the Narthang, Peking and Lhasa Kangyurs. However there were no differences that required changing a word in the English translation.

A French translation of this sūtra from Tibetan by Léon Feer was published in the Journal Asiatique in 1866.

The terms virtuous spiritual friend and non-virtuous spiritual friend are used in the translation to render the Tibetan terms dge ba’i bshes gnyen and sdig pa’i bshes gnyen. While the terms dge ba and sdig pa are not literal opposites (as opposed to virtuous and non-virtuous), we chose this rendering because in this sūtra, the Buddha makes the broad distinction between two types of teachers: those worthy of being relied upon, and those who are not. To express this opposition clearly, we therefore opted to translate sdig pa as non-virtuous. Strictly speaking, too, the word “spiritual” is an addition to the basic meaning of both the Tibetan and Sanskrit terms. It seems, however, justified by the connotations in this context—good and bad teachers or spiritual guides are implied, not simply ordinary friends and companions.