Bodhisattva Precepts Sutra (菩薩戒本)

Bodhisattva Precepts Sutra<note>From the "Bodhisattva Bhumi" chapter of the Yogācā

Maitreya Bodhisattva Speaks

Translated by Monk Xuanzang by Imperial Command

If a Bodhisattva has already received the pure precepts of the Bodhisattva path, they should repeatedly and earnestly reflect: "This is what a Bodhisattva should rightly do; this is not what a Bodhisattva should rightly do." After reflecting in this way, they should then diligently cultivate and practice in order to accomplish what is right and proper.

Moreover, they should earnestly and attentively listen to the Bodhisattva Sutra collection and the Bodhisattva commentaries. According to what they have heard, they should diligently cultivate and practice.

If a bodhisattva abides by the precepts and moral discipline, there are four grave offenses that can lead to defeat. What are these four?

If a bodhisattva, driven by desire for gain, honor, or praise, exalts himself and disparages others, this is called the first defeating offense.

If a bodhisattva possesses wealth, yet due to a miserly nature, when someone in hardship, poverty, and without support or refuge—rightly seeking material aid—appears before them, they do not feel compassion and fail to practice generosity. Or if someone rightly seeking the Dharma appears before them, and due to a miserly nature regarding the Dharma, though they possess the teachings, they refuse to give and share—this is called the second defeating offense.

If a Bodhisattva nurtures such a state of anger, because of this condition, they do not merely utter harsh words and then stop. Blinded by anger, they go further—using hands, feet, stones, knives, or staffs to strike, harm, and torment sentient beings. Within, they harbor a fierce and resentful intention, committing offenses against others. When others come to apologize or seek reconciliation, they do not accept it, do not forbear, and do not let go of their grudges. This is called the third defeat.

If bodhisattvas slander the Bodhisattva teachings, delight in proclaiming, explaining, and establishing distorted semblances of the true Dharma, and either become convinced of such distorted semblances through their own understanding or follow others in adopting them—this is called the fourth defeating offense.

A bodhisattva who violates even one of the four major defeat factors—let alone all of them—is no longer capable of developing and acquiring the vast foundations for enlightenment in this present life. Such a person cannot achieve purity of intention in this very life. They are what is called a "bodhisattva in name only," not a true bodhisattva.

If a Bodhisattva repeatedly commits the four defeats with medium or mild intensity, they do not forfeit the Bodhisattva's pure precepts and moral discipline. However, if they commit these acts with gross intensity, this is called abandonment.

Furthermore, if a Bodhisattva repeatedly violates these four defeats, often engaging in such behavior without any sense of shame or regret; if they deeply delight in these actions and see them as virtuous, such conduct should be recognized as a "gross-intensity violation."

It is not the case that a Bodhisattva loses their Bodhisattva precepts immediately after a single violation of a defeat, unlike a monk who immediately loses their individual liberation vows upon committing a defeat.

If bodhisattvas break the rules in this way and abandon the pure precepts and code of conduct for bodhisattvas, in this very life they are still able to receive the precepts again—they are not incapable of doing so. This is unlike a monk who has violated the rules of individual liberation, for instance by committing a major offense that leads to defeat; in that life, such a monk cannot receive the precepts again.

Thus the bodhisattva, abiding by the pure precepts and ethical disciplines of a bodhisattva, should understand clearly what constitutes a transgression and what does not, what is stained and what is unstained, and whether the offense is of a light, moderate, or serious degree.

If Bodhisattvas who have taken and abide by the pure precepts and rules of discipline let a day and night pass without making offerings to the Tathāgata—whether at a site created in his honor, or at a site created for the true Dharma, such as a repository of Bodhisattva sūtras or commentaries—or without making offerings to the Saṅgha, which includes all those Bodhisattvas in the ten directions who have entered the stages of enlightenment; if they fail to offer, whether few or many, any of the proper offerings, not even so much as a single bow of the body in reverence, not even so much as a single four-line verse spoken in praise of the true qualities of the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha, or not even so much as a single pure thought of faith recollecting their true qualities, then this constitutes a violation and a transgression. If this violation occurs due to disrespect, laziness, or negligence, it is a defiled transgression. If it occurs due to forgetfulness or a lapse in mindfulness, it is an undefiled transgression. There is no violation if the mind is deranged, or if one has already attained the stage of pure intention, for such a state is constantly without violation. For a Bodhisattva who has attained this pure intention, like a monk who has realized the truth, it is natural and spontaneous at all times to serve and make offerings to the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha with supreme offerings.

If a Bodhisattva, abiding in the pure precepts and ethical discipline of a Bodhisattva, has great desires and is never content, clinging to material gain and respect without letting go—this constitutes an offense, a transgression, specifically a defiled offense. This is not an offense if one sincerely wishes to abandon such desires, diligently strives to counteract them, and earnestly applies the remedies—yet is still overwhelmed by strong, stubborn inner defilements that cause these tendencies to arise repeatedly.

If bodhisattvas who uphold the pure precepts of the Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa see a respected elder, someone worthy of reverence, or a fellow practitioner approaching, but are controlled by arrogance, harboring resentment and anger, they do not rise to greet them or offer them a seat. If someone else comes to engage in conversation, offer congratulations, or ask questions, and due to arrogance, resentment, and anger, they fail to respond appropriately and in accordance with the Dharma, this constitutes a violation, a transgression. This is a defiled violation.

If there is no arrogance, resentment, or anger, but only laziness, negligence, forgetfulness, or absent-mindedness, this also constitutes a violation, a transgression. This is a non-defiled violation.

There is no violation in the following situations: suffering from a severe illness; being mentally disturbed; when others approach or speak to you while you are asleep or in a state of distraction; when you are expounding the Dharma to others, engaging in discussion, or making decisions; when you are already engaged in conversation or discussion with someone else; when you are attentively listening to someone else expound the Dharma or engage in discussion; when a certain transgression is being spoken about and you remain silent out of respect for the speaker; when, by using skillful means, you intend to discipline and transform someone, leading them away from unwholesome states and establishing them in wholesome ones; when adhering to monastic regulations; or when refraining from responding in order to protect the feelings of a great many beings. In all such cases, there is no violation.

If a Bodhisattva who abides by the pure precepts of bodhisattva conduct is invited by someone—whether to their home or to another monastery—to receive offerings of food, clothing, and other necessities, but, overcome by arrogance, resentment, or anger, refuses to go and rejects the invitation, this is a violation and a defilement—a defiled transgression.

If, however, they fail to go and reject the invitation due to laziness, negligence, forgetfulness, or absent-mindedness, this is still a violation and a transgression, but it is an undefiled transgression.

There is no violation in the following circumstances: if they are ill; if they lack physical strength; if they are mentally disturbed; if the place is dangerously far away; if the path is frightening; if they intend to skillfully guide and transform the other person, steering them away from wrongdoing and toward goodness; if they already have a prior invitation; if they are engaged in uninterrupted practice of wholesome teachings and wish to protect that practice without a moment’s lapse; if they are pursuing insights not yet realized; if they are studying profound teachings and wish not to lose continuity in their understanding. The same reasoning applies to engaging in doctrinal debate or discussion. Furthermore, if they know that the invitation is made deceitfully, with harmful intent; if they wish to protect others from developing aversion; or if they must uphold the monastic code—in all these cases, declining to go and refusing the invitation does not constitute a transgression.

If a bodhisattva who maintains pure ethical discipline is earnestly offered various kinds of valuable items—such as refined gold, colorful objects, precious gems, pearls, lapis lazuli—and various splendid and abundant material gifts, yet out of resentment, anger, or frustration they refuse to accept, this constitutes a violation and a breach of their precepts. This is a defiled violation, because they are abandoning living beings.

If, due to laziness, negligence, forgetfulness, or unconsciousness they refuse to accept, this also constitutes a violation and a breach of their precepts, but it is an undefiled violation.

There is no violation if: the bodhisattva is mentally disturbed; they observe that accepting the gift would give rise to attachment; they know the donor will later regret it; they are aware the donor is confused about the gift; they know the donor himself will become impoverished by giving generously; they recognize the items belong to the monastic community or a stupa; they know the items were stolen; or they foresee the gift will cause many future troubles—including injury, imprisonment, punishment, dismissal, slander, or blame—and therefore refuse. In all these cases, there is no offense.

If bodhisattvas who abide by the pure precepts of bodhisattva conduct are approached by someone seeking the Dharma, yet they withhold the teachings due to resentment, anger, jealousy, or a disturbed mind, then this constitutes an offense and a violation that is tainted by defilement. If they withhold the teachings due to laziness, negligence, forgetfulness, or an unmindful state, then this also constitutes an offense and a violation, but it is not tainted by defilement.

There is no offense in the following cases: when the person seeking the Dharma is a non-Buddhist looking for faults; when the bodhisattva is severely ill or mentally disturbed; when the bodhisattva is using skillful means to guide and transform the other, helping them abandon unwholesome states and establish wholesome ones; when the bodhisattva has not yet fully mastered the teaching in question; when the person approaches with disrespect or without shame, coming to listen in a coarse or improper manner; when the bodhisattva knows the person is of dull faculties and will become deeply fearful upon hearing the profound teachings, leading them to develop wrong views, strengthen false attachments, and bring harm to themselves; or when the bodhisattva knows that if the teaching falls into the person's hands, they will share it with those who are unworthy. In such cases, withholding the teaching is not an offense.

If a Bodhisattva who abides by the pure precepts of the Bodhisattva discipline harbors a grudging or angry mind toward violent and immoral beings, and because of their violent and immoral behavior deliberately abandons them, refusing to offer help or benefit, this constitutes a transgression. It is a violation stained by defilement.

If, however, the Bodhisattva abandons them due to laziness, negligence, or forgetfulness, refusing to offer help or benefit, this also constitutes a transgression. Yet it is a violation not stained by defilement.

Why? Because Bodhisattvas do not reserve their compassion only for those who uphold pure conduct in body, speech, and mind and are calm in their actions. They should also feel compassion and wish to help even those violent and immoral beings who are caught in the very causes of suffering.

There is no transgression if: the Bodhisattva is mentally deranged; or is using skillful means to discipline or transform those beings, as previously explained in detail; or is doing so to protect the faith of many people; or to uphold the monastic code. In such cases, deliberately abandoning them or withholding help is not a violation.

If a Bodhisattva dwelling in the pure discipline of the Bodhisattva precepts sees that the World-Honored One, in the Prātimokṣa Vinaya, established precepts prohibiting certain actions out of concern for others, so that among sentient beings, those without clear faith might generate clear faith, and those with clear faith might deepen it further—in these matters, the Bodhisattva and the Śrāvaka should train equally, with no distinction. Why? Because even Śrāvakas, whose primary focus is their own benefit, do not abandon practices that protect others, training in the precepts to help beings—those without faith gain faith, and those with faith deepen it. How much more so should a Bodhisattva, whose primary focus is benefiting others, do the same.

If bodhisattvas who uphold the pure precepts and ethical standards of a bodhisattva observe that the Blessed One, in the Vinaya of Individual Liberation, established prohibitory rules for the sake of allowing Śrāvakas to live with few tasks, few duties, and few desires, and commanded them not to transgress these rules—then, in such matters, bodhisattvas should not train in the same way as Śrāvakas. Why? Because Śrāvakas primarily focus on their own benefit, without regard for benefiting others. For them, it is indeed admirable to live with few tasks, few duties, and few desires in the course of benefiting others. However, for bodhisattvas—who prioritize benefiting others over their own benefit—it is not considered admirable to live with few tasks, few duties, and few desires in their efforts to benefit others.

For the sake of benefiting others, a bodhisattva may seek hundreds and thousands of various kinds of clothing from elders, householders, Brahmins, and other generous donors who are not his relatives. He should discern whether the donor is capable or not, and accept according to what is given. Likewise, when seeking a begging bowl, it should be done in the same manner. In the same way, a bodhisattva may personally seek various kinds of threads and have non-relatives weave them into clothing for him. For the sake of benefiting others, he may accumulate various kinds of fine silk garments, as well as beds and seats, each up to a hundred in number, and also raw materials for dyeing and gold in quantities as vast as hundreds of thousands of kotis, or even more.

In these matters, the rules that restrain action, livelihood, and desire through minimalism are shared by the bodhisattva and the sravakas? No, the bodhisattva does not share these rules with the sravakas. A bodhisattva who abides by the pure precepts, yet out of resentment, anger, or annoyance neglects the welfare of others by being minimal in action, livelihood, and desire, commits an offense and violates his vows. This is a defiled transgression. If he does so out of laziness, negligence, forgetfulness, or lack of mindfulness, he also commits an offense and violates his vows, though this is an undefiled transgression.

If a Bodhisattva who abides by the pure precepts of the Bodhisattva vows, out of skillful means, for the benefit of others, sometimes acts in ways that technically break a minor precept regarding inherent misdeeds, due to this intention, they do not violate the Bodhisattva precepts and actually generate great merit.

For example, a Bodhisattva sees a violent robber who, driven by greed for wealth, is about to kill many living beings. Or this robber is about to harm a greatly respected disciple of the Buddha, a solitary realizer, or a Bodhisattva. Or the robber is about to commit many heinous acts leading to immediate karmic retribution.

Seeing this, the Bodhisattva reflects: "If I take this evil person's life, I will fall into hell. Yet if I do not stop them, they will commit these heinous acts and suffer immense torment in hell. It is better that I kill them and fall into hell myself, rather than letting them undergo that terrible suffering."

With this intention, the Bodhisattva, understanding the situation, feels deep shame and remorse for the future consequences, but acts with compassion and takes that person's life. Due to this compassionate motivation, the Bodhisattva does not violate the precepts and actually generates great merit.

Furthermore, a Bodhisattva may witness an oppressive ruler or high official who is extremely cruel, lacking compassion for all beings, and devoted solely to harming and harassing them. Seeing this, the Bodhisattva feels compassion, develops a sincere intention to benefit and bring happiness to such beings, and, to the best of their ability, removes or demotes that oppressive figure from their position. For this reason, the Bodhisattva does not violate the Bodhisattva precepts and instead generates great merit.

Again, consider a bodhisattva who sees a robber or thief stealing others' property—such as items belonging to the monastic community (Saṅgha) or a stūpa—and taking large quantities for themselves, enjoying it freely with attachment. Seeing this, the bodhisattva feels compassion and develops the sincere wish to bring benefit and happiness to that person. To the best of their ability, they take the property back, even if by force, to prevent the thief from continuing to enjoy it and thereby creating harmful consequences that will trouble them for a long time. For this reason, the recovered property—if it belongs to the monastic community—is returned to the monastic community; if to a stūpa, it is returned to the stūpa; and if to other beings, it is returned to them.

The bodhisattva also sees beings who are stewards of temple properties or reliquary sites, take monastic or sacred property, claim it as their own, and use it freely without restraint. Having seen this, the bodhisattva reflects on their wrongdoing, feels compassion for them, and does whatever is within their power to prevent these beings from continuing in such mistaken ownership, fearing they will otherwise experience long-lasting harm and suffering. By acting in this way—removing what does not belong to these stewards—the bodhisattva has actually committed no wrongdoing and instead generates great merit.

Again, consider a Bodhisattva living at home. Seeing a woman who appears unattached, he engages in sexual desire with her, a practice contrary to the pure path. Having seen her, the Bodhisattva reflects deeply, ensuring no anger arises that would lead to much misfortune. If he follows his desire, he will have freedom, but he should skillfully guide her, helping her plant roots of goodness and abandon unwholesome deeds. Dwelling in loving-kindness and compassion, he practices non-celibacy. Though he engages in such defiled and impure acts, he commits no offense and generates much merit.

As for a renunciate Bodhisattva, in order to uphold and preserve the sacred precepts taught for the disciples, and ensure they are not broken, he should never engage in non-celibate conduct.

Furthermore, Bodhisattvas, in order to free many sentient beings from the suffering of losing their lives, imprisonment, having their hands or feet cut off, having their nose cut off, their ears cut off, or their eyes gouged out, may knowingly choose to speak untruthfully. Even if a Bodhisattva’s own life is at stake, they would not knowingly tell a lie. However, to rescue those beings from such suffering, they consider the situation carefully and, with full awareness, speak falsely. In essence, a Bodhisattva only acts based on what benefits sentient beings, not for meaningless reasons. Without any selfish intent, solely to help beings, they may deliberately say something untrue. When they do so, they do not violate the Bodhisattva precepts; instead, they generate great merit.

Furthermore, a Bodhisattva may see beings who are drawn to and tightly held by harmful friends, unwilling to let them go. Seeing this, the Bodhisattva feels compassion and develops a sincere wish for their welfare and happiness. To the best of their ability, the Bodhisattva speaks words of separation to draw them away from these harmful companions and break their attachment. The Bodhisattva does this so these beings, by staying close to such friends, do not end up suffering endless and meaningless consequences. In this way, with a heart focused on benefiting others, the Bodhisattva speaks words of separation, breaking attachments—without moral fault and generating much goodness.

Again, consider a bodhisattva who sees living beings straying from the right path, acting irrationally. They may speak harshly, rebuke them sharply, and skillfully guide them away from their harmful ways into goodness. Acting with a compassionate intention, the bodhisattva is not at fault for using harsh speech toward others. Instead, they generate great merit.

Again, when Bodhisattvas see living beings who delight in music, singing, chanting, and recitation, or who take pleasure in talk of kings, thieves, food and drink, or in indulgence and idle gossip in the streets, the Bodhisattvas—skilled in all these matters—arouse compassion for them. With a mind set on their benefit and happiness, they engage with them in all kinds of playful talk, music, song, storytelling, and discussions of kings, thieves, food, drink, and worldly affairs. This draws those beings in, makes them happy, and brings them willingly under the Bodhisattvas' guidance. Through such skillful means, they lead them out of unwholesome ways and establish them in what is good. In thus engaging in seemingly frivolous speech, Bodhisattvas commit no fault; instead, they generate great merit.

If bodhisattvas, while abiding by the pure precepts and ethical discipline of a bodhisattva, give rise to deceitful behavior, false appearances, and crafty means of seeking personal gain through improper livelihood—shamelessly clinging to such wrong methods of living without letting go—this constitutes an offense and a transgression, a defiled violation.

There is no violation, however, if—wishing to eliminate such tendencies and joyful in their efforts—they diligently strive with vigor, yet their minds are overwhelmed and suppressed by intense afflictions, such that these tendencies arise from time to time.

If bodhisattvas who abide by the pure precepts of the bodhisattva vow are agitated by restlessness, their minds not calm, not delighting in tranquility, playing and laughing loudly, making noisy commotion, being frivolous and jumping about, seeking to make others laugh—such behaviors are considered transgressions, violating the precepts, and are defiled transgressions. If it arises from forgetfulness, it is a non-defiled transgression. No transgression occurs when: one acts to dispel such tendencies and cultivate the wish for joy, as previously explained in detail; or when one skillfully uses means to resolve resentment and ill will that others harbor, bringing it to an end; or when one seeks to dispel sorrow and distress that others have; or when others naturally delight in such activities, and one skillfully draws them in, honoring and protecting them, adapting to their ways; or when other beings harbor doubts and hostility toward the bodhisattva, inwardly holding resentment, plotting evil, and turning away, yet one outwardly shows a joyful face to indicate inner purity—in all such cases, there is no transgression.

If Bodhisattvas who abide by the pure precepts of the Bodhisattva vow hold such a view and make such a claim: "Bodhisattvas should not delight in Nirvana, but should instead feel aversion toward it; and they should not fear afflictions and secondary afflictions, nor seek to eradicate them, nor should they always feel weary and wish to escape them—because Bodhisattvas must remain in the cycle of birth and death for three countless eons, striving for supreme enlightenment"—if they say this, it constitutes an offense, a violation of the precepts, and a defiled transgression.

Why? Just as the Hearers (Shravakas) rejoice in and draw close to Nirvana, and deeply turn away from afflictions and secondary afflictions, so too should Bodhisattvas rejoice in and draw close to the great Nirvana, and deeply turn away from afflictions and secondary afflictions—yet their attitude should surpass that of the Hearers by a hundred thousand crore times.

For the Hearers, seeking only their own liberation, diligently practice the path to attain benefit and meaning for themselves alone. Bodhisattvas, however, diligently practice the path to attain benefit and meaning for all sentient beings. Therefore, Bodhisattvas should diligently cultivate a mind free from defilement, and while acting in accordance with worldly conditions, accomplish a state of purity that surpasses all Arhats.

If a bodhisattva who abides in the bodhisattva's pure precepts and ethical discipline brings upon themselves words that undermine faith and respect—that is, harsh words, harsh labels, harsh repute—and does not guard against them or clear them away: if the matter is true and they do not avoid or guard against it, this is called a violation, a transgression, an afflicted violation. If the matter is untrue and they do not clear it away, this is called a violation, a transgression, an unafflicted violation. There is no violation in these cases: if it comes from other non-Buddhists; if from others' hatred and envy; if, because one has left home and lives by begging and by cultivating wholesome practices, disparaging words spread; if one is overcome by anger; if one's mind is disturbed—when disparaging words spread in any of these cases, there is no violation.

If a Bodhisattva who is firmly established in the Bodhisattva's purifying precepts and moral discipline sees sentient beings who could gain benefit and meaning only through various painful and harsh measures, through severe and forceful measures, yet withholds such action out of a wish to protect them from distress, this constitutes a transgression, a violation, though not a defiling transgression.

There is no violation when one observes that through such measures, in this present life, only little benefit and meaning would be gained, while much distress would arise.

If bodhisattvas who are established in the bodhisattva's precepts of pure discipline respond to insults with insults, to anger with anger, to blows with blows, and to provocation with provocation, this is called a transgression, a violation, a defiling offense.

If a bodhisattva who is established in the bodhisattva's pure precepts and moral discipline has in some way wronged another sentient being, or has not actually wronged them but that being suspects they were wronged—and, out of resentment and envy, or out of being gripped by pride and conceit, the bodhisattva does not apologize in accordance with what is reasonable but instead becomes dismissive and indifferent—this is called a violation, a transgression, an afflicted violation. If, however, out of laziness, lethargy, or heedlessness they fail to apologize and become dismissive and indifferent, this is called a violation, a transgression, a non-afflicted violation. There is no violation in the following cases: wishing to use skillful means to discipline and subdue that person, to move them out of an unwholesome state and establish them in a wholesome state; if the other person is a follower of another path; if that person expects that only after they themselves have actually committed an unlawful and blameworthy act will they accept an apology; if that being by nature delights in quarreling, and an apology would only increase their anger; if one knows that the other person's nature is patient and forbearing, and they feel no resentment or hatred within; if one is certain that when that person learns that the wrongdoing was directed at them, they would feel deep shame and would not accept an apology—in all such cases there is no violation.