What Mendicants Hold Most Dear
Introduction

What Mendicants Hold Most Dear contains the Buddha’s response to a question from Upāli. It is set in a monastery called Blooming Lotus in Śrāvastī, where Upāli supplicates the Buddha in front of a large assembly of mendicants (Skt. bhikṣu; Tib. dge slong) and asks him about the nature, types, and obligations of mendicants, as well as the meaning of the term itself. To benefit mendicants generally, the Buddha addresses Upāli’s questions by praising disciplined conduct, emphasizing its importance, and encouraging the listeners to maintain it. When one of the Buddha’s answers given in similes seems obscure, he offers further clarification upon Upāli’s request. The Buddha explains the advantages of maintaining disciplined conduct, thus urging the mendicants to treasure it, and he warns against disregarding it while wearing the mendicant’s robes.

The monk Upāli is remembered as one of the “ten close disciples” (Tib. nyan thos nye ’khor bcu) of the Buddha and foremost in his mastery of the monastic discipline, or Vinaya. Before becoming a monk, Upāli was a low-caste barber attending the Śākya princes, and he received ordination together with them. Many conversations about the Vinaya between the Buddha and Upāli are recorded in the various Vinaya collections,1 and, according to early Buddhist texts, Upāli was often consulted by others about matters of monastic discipline, even during the Buddha’s lifetime. Following the Buddha’s passing, Upāli was chosen to recite the Vinaya at the First Buddhist Council.2

Very little is known about the sūtra’s history. There do not appear to be any translations into Chinese, and no Sanskrit version is extant.3 However, as we discuss below, one verse of the sūtra is cited in a commentary in the Tengyur.4 Just as we know very little about the sūtra’s Indic origins, we know even less about the origins of the Tibetan translation. The text’s colophon is rudimentary and does not offer any information on the translator. Additionally, two Kangyur catalogs list the translator as unknown.5 In terms of the date of its translation, the sūtra is not listed in the Denkarma (ldan/lhan dkar ma) or Phangthangma (’phang thang ma) catalogs, the earliest available lists of Buddhist texts translated into Tibetan, which were prepared in the ninth century. We do, however, find a reference to the sūtra in Butön’s (1290–1364) extensive catalog of scriptures and treatises, but he does not list the translator either.6

The sūtra is included in many of the Kangyurs. For example, Resources for Kanjur & Tanjur Studies at the University of Vienna7 lists twenty-nine different Kangyurs that contain the sūtra, including representatives from all the important groups, such as the Tshalpa, Thempangma, Ladhaki/Mustang, Independent/Mixed groups, and Bhutan Kangyurs. Except for the Namgyal Kangyur‍—which lists it as The Noble Sūtra of Upāli’s Questions (’phags pa nye bar ’khor gyis zhus pa zhes bya ba’i mdo)‍—all the titles and colophons are similar. While the Sanskrit title was originally specified by Tibetans as Bhikṣuprareju­sūtra, modern scholars have reconstructed it as Bhikṣupriya­sūtra, possibly due to the obscure meaning of prareju.8 Our translation is based on the version of the text contained in the Degé Kangyur. When comparing the Tibetan versions in the different Kangyurs (including the Lhasa, Stok Palace, Choné, Narthang, and Lithang Kangyurs), we found only minor differences beyond questions of spelling. The text has previously been translated several times: by W. W. Rockhill in 1883, by Bhikkhu Thubten Kalsang and Bhikkhu Pāsādika in 1970, and in two recent translations into English and Spanish, respectively, which have been published on the internet.9 We are not aware of any modern research dedicated to this text.

Throughout the centuries, Buddhists have turned to this sūtra for its explanation of the value of disciplined conduct. The example from the Tengyur is a citation of a verse from the sūtra in the Śīlakathāvṛtti, a commentary on Vasubandhu’s Śīlaparikathā (Sermons on Disciplined Conduct), to explain the harmful results of a loss of disciplined conduct:10

Several Tibetan masters quote verses from the sūtra to emphasize the importance of keeping monastic discipline. For example, Jé Tsongkhapa (1357–1419) says in his Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path:11

Another example is the Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Losang Gyatso (1617–82), who quotes a verse in his regulations for Drepung monastery:12

The verse cited by the Fifth Dalai Lama embodies one of the sūtra’s key points‍—the importance of disciplined conduct, which the Buddha urges mendicants to treasure, warning them of careless discipline. The Buddha also affirms the value and benefit of monastic vows, urging those who have gone forth to protect their discipline and to hold it dear. For example, he eloquently likens discipline to an unparalleled balm, monastic robes to unparalleled garments, and disciplined conduct to supreme happiness. He says, moreover, that the merit accumulated through it brings forth the result of buddhahood.

Lastly, it should be noted that in the title and throughout the translation, we have rendered the term bhikṣu (Tib. dge slong) as “mendicant.” The Sanskrit term technically refers to a fully ordained monk, but in the plural, it may also implicitly include fully ordained nuns (Skt. bhikṣuṇī) and sometimes even practicing lay people.13 Moreover, we know that the Buddha’s disciples in Śrāvastī included nuns. He addresses them explicitly in the Bhikṣuṇī­vinaya­vibhaṅga,14 and several Pali suttas of the Saṃyutta Nikāya also mention the presence of nuns in Śrāvastī.15 While of course we cannot know whether the sūtra’s original audience included nuns, its subject matter clearly concerns monks and nuns equally, so we felt it was desirable to render the term bhikṣu with the more inclusive “mendicant,” rather than just “monk.” This choice is also supported by the original meaning of the term bhikṣu, which, in its most literal sense, simply means “one who begs (Skt. bhikṣati) for a living.”