第一、殺戒，十重之始。若聲聞，非梵行在初者，人多起過故，地繫煩惱重故制之。殺雖性罪，出家人起此罪希，亦易防斷，婬既易起，制之當初。《大論》云：聲聞戒消息人情，多防起邊。所以輕者多起，是故重制；重者起希，輕罪制之。婬欲非性罪，殺是性罪，大乘制之當初也。今言殺，斷他命故。五陰相續有眾生，而今斷此相續，故云殺也。《大經》云：遮未來相續名之為殺。道俗同制，如五戒八戒之類也。大士以慈悲為本，故須斷也。七眾菩薩同犯，聲聞五眾大同小異，同者同不許殺，異者略三事：一、開遮異；二、色心異；三、輕重異。開遮異者，大士見機得殺，聲聞雖見不許殺。色心異者，大士制心，聲聞制色。三、輕重異者，大士害師犯逆，聲聞非逆。又大士重，重於聲聞重也。

First, the precept against killing is the beginning of the ten major precepts. For the Hearers, the precept against unchaste conduct is placed first because people frequently commit such offenses, and the afflictions tied to it are heavy, so it is regulated accordingly. Although killing is inherently a transgression, it is rare for monastics to commit this offense, and it is also easy to prevent and cease. Unchaste conduct, however, arises easily, so it is regulated from the outset. The *Great Treatise* states: The precepts for Hearers adapt to human circumstances, often preventing offenses at their source. Therefore, offenses that are frequent are heavily regulated, while those that are rare are lightly regulated. Unchaste desire is not inherently a transgression, but killing is an inherent transgression, so in the Mahayana, it is regulated from the outset.

Now, regarding killing: it means to cut off another's life. The five aggregates form a continuum that constitutes a sentient being, and to sever this continuum is called killing. The *Great Sutra* states: To obstruct the future continuum is called killing. This precept applies equally to monastics and laypeople, as seen in the five precepts and the eight precepts. Great beings take compassion as their foundation, so they must refrain from killing.

All seven categories of Bodhisattvas violate this precept equally. For the five categories of Hearers, it is largely the same but with slight differences. The sameness lies in the prohibition of killing; the differences are in three aspects: 1. Exceptions and prohibitions differ. 2. The focus on form and mind differs. 3. The severity of offenses differs.

Regarding exceptions and prohibitions: Great beings may kill when they perceive the appropriate opportunity, while Hearers are not permitted to kill even if they perceive such an opportunity. Regarding form and mind: Great beings regulate the mind, while Hearers regulate physical actions. Regarding severity: For great beings, harming a teacher constitutes a grave offense, while for Hearers, it is not considered such. Moreover, the gravity of offenses for great beings is greater than that for Hearers.

文為三別：先標人，謂「若佛子」；第二、序事，謂中間所列；三、結罪，名波羅夷。就序事有三：一、不應，二、應，三、結。就不應中三別：初六句明殺事，次有四句成業，後一句舉輕況重。初六者：一、自殺，謂自害他命，凡三種法：內色、外色、內外色，並皆犯也。二、教他，他亦是殺。《大論》云：口教是殺罪，非作瘡。律部分別，甚多條緒，教他、遣使等。三、方便殺者，即殺前方便，所謂束縛繫等。四、讚歎殺，亦得罪也。五、隨喜者，獎勸令命斷，亦犯也。六、呪殺，謂毘陀羅等，雖假餘緣，亦皆同犯。律中明殺十五種，謂優多、頭多、𣚦、弦、撥、毘陀羅等，如律部廣明云云。「殺業」已下三重中，第二、成業之相也。三業成殺：自動用者，正身業也；教他及呪，口業造身業；心念欲殺，鬼神自宣遂者，意業造身業也。三階於緣中造作，皆是業義。殺法，謂刀劍坑𣚦等，皆有法體，故稱為法。殺因殺緣者，親疎二塗，正因殺心為因，餘者助成故為緣。親者，造作來果為業。四者，一是眾生，二、眾生想，三、殺害，四、命斷。一是眾生者，眾生雖多，大為三品。一者上品，謂諸佛、聖人、父母、師僧，害則犯逆。三果人兩解，一云同逆，以聲聞害時，已是重中之重故。二云犯重，《大經》明三種殺，殺三果人，但入中殺，不在上殺，故知非逆。菩薩人，以取解行已上，《大經》云「畢定菩薩」，同上科。今取不作二乘，為畢定位，或取七心已上，皆可為斷也。養胎母，一云無逆，二云犯逆，大士之重，重於聲聞也。中品，即人天害心犯重。三、下品，四趣也。兩解，一云同重，大士防殺嚴重，故文云「一切有命不得殺」，即其證也。二云但犯輕垢，在重戒中兼制，以非道器故。文云「有命者」，舉輕況重耳。三、殺心有兩：一、自身殺心，二、教他殺心。自身殺心有二：一、通心，二、隔心。通心者，如漫作坑𣚦，漫燒煮等，通三性皆犯。若緣此為彼，於彼上起害心，皆屬通心。既自對境，又命不復續，雖所為不稱，悉皆正犯。隔心者，作坑止為此，無心在彼，彼死亦犯，彼邊不遂輕垢。若此路本是此道，眾人行往，今作坑止為此，而彼死亦重。以此殺具，體能通害，以具緣心，還屬通心也。若本斫東人，誤中西人，中西人上，都無殺心，此屬隔心。四、命根斷有兩時：一、此生，二、後生。此生有二句：一、有戒時犯重，二、無戒時斷，當戒去時，結不遂輕垢。命斷時，結罪同前。聲聞臨終時未結，聲聞捨具戒，作五戒等結也。後生為戒自復兩種：一、自憶，二、不自憶。自憶者，若任前勢、若更加方便，命斷坐重，以前後皆自憶故。不自憶者，若任勢死犯重，已死時有戒故。若加方便當知前瘡不死，後方便時不憶但犯輕垢也。而言命根者，數論別有非色心為命根，《成論》及大乘無別非色非心為命根也，秖取色心連持相續不斷為命耳。《大論》亦然，六入六識得相續生，假名為命。乃至「一切有命」下，第三、舉輕況重。「是菩薩」下，第二階明應，有三句：一、常住慈悲心。兩解：一云應學常住佛起慈悲，二云心恒應常住慈悲之地。二、孝順心，秉戒不惱他。三、方便救護，非直爾不惱，乃應涉事救解。「而恣心」下，第三、結，不應故成罪。亦三句：一、恣心，謂貪心殺；二、快意，謂瞋心殺；三、殺生，謂舉殺事。有此三故墮不如意罪。

The text is divided into three main sections: first, identifying the person, which is "if a disciple of the Buddha"; second, describing the actions, which are the items listed in the middle; and third, stating the offense, named the pārājika offense.

Within the description of actions, there are three parts: first, what should not be done; second, what should be done; and third, the conclusion.

In the "should not be done" section, there are three subdivisions: the first six items clarify the act of killing; the next four items explain how the offense is constituted; and the last item uses a minor case to illustrate a major one.

The first six items are: 1. Killing by oneself: taking another's life through one's own actions. This includes three methods: internal forms, external forms, and both internal and external forms—all constitute an offense. 2. Instructing others to kill: this also constitutes killing. The *Great Treatise* states: "Instructing by speech is a killing offense, not merely creating a wound." The Vinaya elaborates extensively, covering cases such as instructing others or sending messengers. 3. Facilitating killing: the preparatory actions before killing, such as binding or restraining. 4. Praising killing: this also incurs an offense. 5. Rejoicing in killing: encouraging or urging the termination of life also constitutes an offense. 6. Killing by incantation: such as through *vetāla* or other means. Even if other conditions are involved, it is still an offense. The Vinaya mentions fifteen types of killing, including *utthāna*, *mṛtyu*, traps, bows, snares, *vetāla*, and others, as elaborated in the Vinaya texts.

After "killing as an offense," the second of the three subdivisions explains how the offense is constituted. Killing is constituted through three actions: - Physical action: the direct act of killing, constituting bodily karma. - Instructing others or using incantations: verbal karma leading to bodily karma. - Mental intention to kill, carried out by spirits or others: mental karma leading to bodily karma. All three levels involve creating karma through conditions.

"Methods of killing" refers to tools such as knives, swords, pits, or traps, all of which have tangible forms and are thus called methods. "Causes and conditions of killing" refers to direct and indirect factors. The direct cause is the intent to kill, while other factors assist and are considered conditions. Direct factors are those that directly lead to the result as karma.

The four factors for killing are: 1. The being: beings are numerous but can be broadly categorized into three grades: - Superior: Buddhas, sages, parents, teachers, and monastics. Harming them constitutes a grave offense. For *śrāvakas* (disciples), there are two interpretations: one says it is equally grave, as harming a *śrāvaka* is already a serious offense; the other says it is a major offense but not as grave as harming a superior being, as the *Great Sūtra* classifies killing a *śrāvaka* as a middle-grade offense, not a superior-grade one. For bodhisattvas, those who have attained the stage of understanding and practice or the "irreversible bodhisattva" stage are treated the same as superior beings. Currently, those who do not regress to the *śrāvaka* path or have attained the seventh stage of the bodhisattva path are considered irreversible. Regarding harming a pregnant mother, one interpretation says it is not a grave offense, while another says it is, as the gravity for a bodhisattva is greater than for a *śrāvaka*. - Middle grade: humans and devas. Harming them with intent constitutes a major offense. - Lower grade: beings in the four unfortunate realms. There are two interpretations: one says it is equally a major offense, as bodhisattvas strictly prohibit killing, supported by the text stating "all beings with life must not be killed." The other says it is a minor offense, included in the major precepts as a supplementary rule, as these beings are not suitable vessels for the Dharma. The phrase "beings with life" uses a minor case to illustrate a major one.

2. The intent to kill: this includes two types: - Intent from oneself: further divided into general intent and specific intent. General intent: such as digging a pit or setting a fire indiscriminately, which offends regardless of the target's nature. If the action is intended for one but harms another, it still constitutes general intent. Since one directly faces the situation and the life cannot be restored, even if the intended target is not harmed, it is a direct offense. Specific intent: digging a pit intended for a specific target, with no intent toward others. If someone else dies, it is still an offense, but for the unintended victim, it is a minor offense. If the pit is on a commonly used path and someone else dies, it is a major offense, as the tool of killing can generally cause harm, and the intent aligns with general intent. If one intends to strike person A but mistakenly strikes person B, with no intent to harm person B, this is specific intent.

3. The act of killing: the actual taking of life.

4. The severance of the life faculty: this occurs at two times: - In this life: two scenarios—if one has the precepts at the time, it is a major offense; if one does not have the precepts when the life is taken, but the precepts are relinquished afterward, it is a minor offense. The offense is determined at the time the life is severed. For *śrāvakas*, if the offense is not concluded at the time of death, they relinquish the full precepts and retain the five precepts, and the offense is concluded accordingly. - In a future life: this depends on whether one remembers the previous act. If one remembers: whether allowing the previous action to take effect or adding further means, if life is severed, it is a major offense, as one remembers both the past and present actions. If one does not remember: if life is severed due to the previous action, it is a major offense, as one has the precepts at the time of death. If further means are applied but one does not remember, it is a minor offense, as the previous wound did not cause death and the later means were applied without recollection.

The "life faculty" is explained differently: the *Sāṃkhya* school posits it as neither form nor mind, while the *Satyasiddhi Śāstra* and Mahāyāna teachings state there is no separate entity that is neither form nor mind; it is merely the continuity of form and mind that constitutes life. The *Great Treatise* similarly says that the continuity of the six sense bases and six consciousnesses is conventionally called life.

The phrase "all beings with life" in the third subdivision uses a minor case to illustrate a major one.

In the second part, "what should be done," there are three items: 1. Abiding constantly in a mind of compassion. Two interpretations: one says one should learn to abide in the Buddha's compassion; the other says the mind should always reside in the state of compassion. 2. A mind of filial piety: upholding the precepts and not causing harm to others. 3. Skillful means of rescue and protection: not merely avoiding harm but actively engaging to save and liberate beings.

In the third part, the conclusion, failing to do what should be done constitutes an offense. There are three items: 1. Acting willfully: killing out of greed. 2. Acting with delight: killing out of hatred. 3. The act of killing: the actual taking of life. Having these three leads to falling into the offense of acting contrary to what is proper.

第二、盜戒，謂不與取。灼然不與取名劫，潛盜不與取名盜，盜彼依報得罪。此戒七眾同犯。聲聞五眾有同有異，同者皆不應盜。異者有三：一、開遮異，如見機得不得等。或復謂見機盜，以無盜心，大士為物，種種運為皆得。聲聞自度必依規矩，大士不畏罪，但令前人有益，即便為之。聲聞人佛滅後盜佛物輕，菩薩恒重。又本應與他外命而反取，豈是大士之心耶？序事中有三，三中各有三，不應有三，就十一句判三也。初六，次四，後一。應中亦三如文，文句同前殺戒。不應中三如前。「盜業」下，第二、別明成業之相，有四句同前。運手取他物離本處成盜業，業是造作為義，重物謂五錢也。律云大銅錢準十六小錢，其中錢有貴賤，取盜處為斷。菩薩之重，重聲聞，二錢已上便重。有人作此說者，今不盡用，取五錢為斷是重。離處盜業決在此時。「而菩薩」第二階明應也。與前大同小異，前明應學常住佛行慈悲，今言孝順行慈悲也。菩薩應學此等事，故言應也。不應者，不應為偷盜及殺生等事，此即誡勸二門也。誡勿令殺盜，勸令行善慈悲孝順，及學常住佛行行等，皆是善法而為孝順也。佛性者，一切眾生皆有當果之性，性是不改為義耳。「而反」第三結不應也。解三寶物如律說。

**The Second Precept: The Precept Against Stealing**

This means taking what is not given. Openly taking what is not given is called robbery; secretly taking what is not given is called theft. Both are crimes that steal another's material resources. This precept is violated by all seven types of disciples.

For the five types of Hearers (Śrāvakas), there are both similarities and differences with the Bodhisattva path. The similarity is that none should steal. The differences are threefold:

First, there is a difference in what is permitted and prohibited. For example, the Hearer may see an opportunity to take but decides not to. Or, it is said that if you take without a thieving intent and with a great being's compassionate motive to benefit others, all sorts of actions are permissible. Hearers, who seek only their own liberation, must follow strict rules. Great beings (Bodhisattvas) are not afraid of personal consequences, but act only if it benefits others.

Second, after the Buddha's passing, a Hearer who steals an item belonging to the Buddha commits a lighter offense, whereas a Bodhisattva's offense is always heavy.

Third, the Bodhisattva's role is to give even his own life to others, not to take from them. How can taking be the mind of a great being?

**Structure of the Precept**:

The exposition of the offense has three sections, each containing three parts, with a total of three "shoulds" and three "should nots." These are explained in eleven clauses. The first section has six, the second four, and the third one. The "shoulds" also have three parts, as explained in the text, which is similar to the structure of the precept against killing. The "should nots" are also threefold.

**Concerning the Act of Stealing**:

The second part describes the factors that complete the offense. There are four conditions, as before. The actual act of stealing is moving another's property from its original place. This constitutes the deed of theft. The "weight" of the offense is determined by the value of the item. The Precepts state that one large copper coin equals sixteen small ones. Coin values fluctuate, but the standard is the coinage of the place where the theft occurred. For a Bodhisattva, the offense is heavy for taking items of greater value than for a Hearer. Some say taking two coins or more is heavy for a Bodhisattva. However, the standard used here is that taking five coins is the threshold for a heavy offense. The offense of theft is determined at the moment the item is moved.

**What is "Should"**:

The second clause explains what a Bodhisattva "should" do. It is largely the same as before, with minor differences. The previous text says to learn the ever-abiding Buddha's practice of compassion. Here, it emphasizes practicing compassion with filial respect. A Bodhisattva should study these things, hence the word "should."

**What is "Should Not"**:

"Should not" refers to things like stealing and killing. This reflects the two principles of admonition and encouragement: admonishing against harmful acts and encouraging virtuous conduct, compassion, filial respect, and learning the ever-abiding Buddha's way. All these are wholesome actions rooted in filial respect.

Regarding Buddha-nature: All beings possess the potential for Buddhahood. "Nature" means that this potential is unchanging.

**Conclusion**:

"And on the contrary" concludes the section on what "should not" be done. The rules about the "three jewels" (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) are explained in detail in the Precepts.

第三婬戒，名非梵行。鄙陋之事，故言非淨行也。七眾同犯。大小乘俱制，而制有多少，五眾邪正俱制，二眾但制邪婬，與聲聞同異大略同前。序事三階：一、不應，二、應，三、結。婬事出家人不應為也。應學佛菩薩淨行，如前教門不異。初不應有三別，第一三句舉婬事，中四句明成業，後三句舉輕況重，文小差互不次耳。此戒備三因緣成重：一、是道，二、婬心，三、事遂。或備五：一、是眾生；二、眾生想等；後三句舉劣結過。自妻非道、非處、產後、乳兒、妊娠等，《大論》皆名邪婬。《優婆塞戒經》云：六重以制。邪婬戒中復制非時非處，似如自妻非時不正犯重，教人婬自無迷染但犯輕垢。或言菩薩則重，今釋聲聞菩薩同爾，不與殺盜例也。人畜鬼神男女黃門二根，但令三道皆重，餘稱歎、摩觸、出不淨，皆是此戒方便，悉犯輕垢也。「而菩薩」下，第二階明應也。「而反」下，第三，結。此中所制皆不應為，為即犯罪，故結不應也。

The third precept concerns sexual misconduct, which is called "non-pure conduct." It is described as a base and defiled act, therefore it is called "non-pure conduct" (non-chaste behavior). This precept is shared among all seven groups of disciples (monks, nuns, male novices, female novices, laymen, laywomen, and sramanerikas).

Both the Mahayana and Hinayana traditions prohibit it, though the scope of prohibitions differs. Among the five types of monastic disciples, both proper (within marriage) and improper misconduct are forbidden. For the two types of lay disciples, only improper (adulterous or otherwise illicit) misconduct is forbidden. Differences from the Hearer's (Shravaka) tradition are generally similar to those noted earlier.

The exposition follows three stages: 1) what is not permitted, 2) what is permitted, and 3) concluding advice.

Sexual misconduct is something renunciates should not engage in. They should learn the pure conduct of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, as taught in the preceding teachings. In the first stage, "what is not permitted," there are three subsections: the first three phrases mention sexual acts, the middle four phrases describe the conditions that constitute a transgression, and the final three phrases use a trivial act to illustrate a grave one. The wording here is slightly irregular and not sequential.

This precept requires three conditions to constitute a serious violation: 1) engaging in the act itself, 2) having sexual intention, and 3) completing the act. In some interpretations, five conditions are required: 1) a living being, 2) perception of it as a living being (and so on). The final three phrases use inferior examples to show the severity of the offense. Even with one's lawful spouse, intercourse is considered misconduct if it involves improper locations, post-delivery periods, nursing mothers, or pregnancy; the *Great Treatise (Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra)* calls all such acts "sexual misconduct."

The *Upasaka Precept Sutra* states that among the six heavier precepts, the one on sexual misconduct also forbids untimely and improper circumstances. Even with one's lawful spouse, engaging at improper times or in improper contexts is considered a serious offense. Teaching others to engage in sexual misconduct without personal lust or confusion results only in a lighter defilement. Some say that for Bodhisattvas, even this is serious. The present explanation is that it is the same for both Hearers and Bodhisattvas, unlike the examples for killing and stealing.

With humans, animals, ghosts, spirits, male or female sexes, or those with both sexes (indeterminate gender), committing the act through any of the three pathways (genital, oral, anal) constitutes a serious offense. Praise, physical touching (mattress), or emission of sexual fluids are all antecedent actions to this precept and all constitute lighter defilements.

The passage "[While Bodhisattvas]..." begins the second stage, "what is permitted." The phrase "[On the contrary]..." begins the third stage, the concluding advice. All prohibitions here specify actions that should not be performed; performing them results in an offense—thus the conclusion: "not permitted."

第四，妄語戒。妄是不實之名，欺凡罔聖迴惑人心，所以得罪。此戒七眾同犯，大小乘俱制，與聲聞同異大略同前殺戒。序事三段不應中三別：初三句明妄語等事，次四句明成業，後三句舉輕況重。自妄語者，言得上法。教他者，教說或教他自說。方便妄說，如蜜塗樹眾蜂悉來。此戒備五緣成重：一、是眾生，二、眾生想，三、欺誑心，四、說重具，五、前人頌解。一、是眾生者，謂前三品境，上品境中自父母、師僧妄語犯重。向諸佛聖人兩解：一云入重因；二云此人不惑，又能神力遮餘人令不聞，但犯輕垢。聖人有大小，有他心智者、有不得者，今從多例。羅漢及解行已上向說罪輕，降此或得他心或不得者，例悉同重。向中品境，天、人等同重，正是惑解防道之限。向下品境，四趣等或言同重，今釋輕垢。二、眾生想，有當、有疑、有僻，大略同前。有言妄語心通本向此說，此不聞而彼聞說亦同重，今釋不重，於彼無心故。三、欺誑心是業主，若避難及增上慢皆不犯。《地持》云：菩薩味禪，石染污犯。當知菩薩起增上慢亦輕垢。遣使有兩解：一云教他說我是聖人亦重，以士無珪璧談者為價，傍人讚說勝自道。教他道是聖，名利不入我，非重也。二云聖法冥密證之在我，必須自說方重，他說坐輕。四、說重具，謂身證眼見，若說得四果十地八禪神通，若言見天龍鬼神悉是重具，若說得登性地，一云既是凡法罪輕垢。五、前人領解，結罪時節多少兩解：一云隨人，二云隨語結。此戒既制口業，理應隨語，遠為妨損必應通人，小妄語戒應隨人，人復隨語，若增上煩惱犯，則失戒者復說但犯性罪，若對面不解且結方便，後追思前言忽解者，則壞輕結重。十重皆有因緣，今且釋四重，餘可例知。直出為言，宣述為語。論述有所表明，能詮理事，名為語也。

**The Fourth Precept: The Precept Against False Speech**

"False" means untrue; it deceives ordinary people and misleads sages, disturbing and confusing the mind. This is why it creates wrongdoing.

This precept is violated by all seven types of Buddhist disciples, and it is prohibited by both the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions. Its similarities and differences with the Hearers' (Śrāvaka) precepts are generally the same as those described in the Precept Against Killing.

The explanation is divided into three parts, but the specific details of the second part can be omitted here. The first three lines describe the act of false speech, the next four lines discuss how the offense is committed, and the last three lines use a light example to illustrate a heavy offense.

**Defining False Speech** "False speech" refers to claiming to have attained the Dharma (i.e., spiritual realizations). "Instructing others" means either telling others to say it or having another person say it on one's behalf. "Convenient or false speech" is likened to spreading honey on a tree to attract bees; it is a deceptive means to draw attention.

**Conditions for a Major Offense** This precept creates a major offense when five conditions are met: 1. **There is a living being** (the recipient of the false speech). 2. **One perceives them as a living being** (and intends to deceive them). 3. **One has a deceptive intention** (a mind to cheat or mislead). 4. **One states a "heavy object"** (claims a significant spiritual attainment). 5. **The other person understands the statement.**

**Elaboration on the Conditions**

1. **There is a living being**: This refers to beings in three categories of spiritual capacity. * **High capacity beings (Sages, parents, teachers)**: Lying to one's parents, teachers, or monastics is a heavy offense. Regarding lying to Buddhas or Arhats, there are two views: one says it is a contributing factor to a major offense; the other says they are not deceived by such lies, and can use their powers to prevent others from hearing it, so it is only a minor transgression. Among Sages, some have the power to read minds and some do not. The general rule is this: telling a lie to an Arhat or a practitioner at the stage of "understanding and practice" is a light offense; for those below that stage, regardless of whether they have the power to read minds, the offense is heavy. * **Medium capacity beings (Humans, etc.)**: Lying to humans and similar beings is a heavy offense, as it specifically disrupts their understanding of the Dharma and obstructs their spiritual path. * **Low capacity beings (Animals, hungry ghosts, hell beings)**: Lying to these beings is generally considered a light transgression.

2. **One perceives them as a living being**: This involves correct perception, doubt, or misidentification, largely similar to the precept against killing. Some argue that the intention to lie is universal; if one speaks to someone who doesn't hear it, but another person does, it should still be a heavy offense. This explanation is rejected, as there was no intention to deceive that other person.

3. **One has a deceptive intention**: This is the main driving force of the offense. It is not an offense if done to avoid danger or due to being an arrogant beginner (someone who genuinely believes they have attained enlightenment but have not). The *Bodhisattva Bhūmi* states: "If a Bodhisattva is intoxicated by meditative experiences and proclaims them with pride, it is a defiled transgression." One should know that even a Bodhisattva's arrogant claim is only a light transgression. * **Sending a Messenger**: There are two interpretations. (1) Instructing another to say "I am a Sage" is a heavy offense, because a person's worth is judged by what is said of them, and another's praise has greater impact. However, if you tell someone else to say you are a Sage, and the fame and profit do not come to you, it is not a heavy offense. (2) Since the attainment of the Dharma is a profound, inner realization, the heavy offense only applies when one makes the claim oneself; hearing it from another is a lesser offense.

4. **One states a "heavy object"**: This means one claims direct, personal experience. Claiming to have attained any of the four stages of Arhatship, the ten Bodhisattva stages, any of the eight meditative absorptions (dhyānas), spiritual powers, or to have seen heavenly beings, dragons, spirits, or ghosts, all constitute a "heavy object." Claiming to have reached the "nature-of-enlightenment stage" (a preliminary stage) is considered a worldly attainment and results in a light transgression.

5. **The other person understands the statement**: Regarding the timing of the offense, there are two views: one holds that the offense is weighed by the number of people who hear it; the other says it should be weighed by the number of times the statement is made. Since this precept governs speech, it is logical to follow the number of utterances. However, the long-term damage is caused to the people who hear it, so for minor false speech, the offense should be determined by the number of listeners. If someone commits the offense due to strong afflictions (e.g., uncontrolled anger) and has lost their precepts, their subsequent speech can still generate a "natural" offense (i.e., unwholesome karma). If the listener doesn't immediately understand, a lesser offense is committed; if they later understand after reflection, the offense is elevated to a heavy one.

**Conclusion** All ten major Bodhisattva precepts have their specific causes and conditions. We have now explained the fourth. The rest can be understood by analogy.

**Clarification of Terms** * "Straightforwardly uttered" is called "speech." * "Elaborately expressed" is called "statement." * The term "statement" (語, *yu*) refers to the act of expressing and explaining something, thereby indicating or making clear the principles and phenomena.

第五、酤酒戒。酤即貨貿之名，酒是所貨之物，所貨乃多種。酒是無明之藥，令人惛迷。大士之體，與人智慧，以無明藥飲人，非菩薩行。《大論》明酒有三十五失，所以制此為菩薩十重中攝也。七眾同犯，大小乘俱制。大小同異者，同不應酤。菩薩以利物故重。聲聞止不應作，犯七聚貨賣，但犯第三篇，是販賣戒所制。菩薩若在婬舍或賣肉，犯輕垢，以招呼引召，不能如酒故也。文句同前。酤者，求利。教人者，令人為我賣酒亦同重，教人自酤罪輕。「酤酒因」下，明成業四句。業者，運手。法者，是酤酒方便。法，用也。因緣者，備五也：一、是眾生，二、眾生想，三、希利貨貿，四、真酒，五、授與前人。眾生謂前三境，上品無醉亂者輕，是醉亂者重。中品境謂人天，正是所制故重。下品四趣，亂道義弱，酤與罪輕。眾生想，有當、有疑、有僻同前，若隔心亦重。希利貨賣亦重，以欲得多集故。真酒者，謂依醉亂人者。藥酒，雖希利貨，不亂人貨無罪。二云待飲時隨人數結重，如小兒來沽，彼竟不飲，於誰結重耶？

Fifth Precept: The Precept Against Selling Alcohol. "Selling" means trading, and "alcohol" is the item being traded — though what is traded can be many things. Alcohol is the drug of ignorance, which confuses people and dulls their minds. The nature of a bodhisattva is to give wisdom to others. To give people the drug of ignorance is not the conduct of a bodhisattva.

*The Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom* lists thirty-five faults of alcohol, which is why this precept is included among the ten major precepts for bodhisattvas. All seven groups of disciples are equally prohibited from this act, and both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna traditions forbid it. The difference between the traditions is that while both forbid selling alcohol, bodhisattvas are more heavily penalized because benefiting others is their focus. Śrāvakas simply should not do it; if they violate this, they commit an offense in the third category of the seven types of transgressions — specifically under the precept against selling. If a bodhisattva sells alcohol in a brothel or sells meat, it is a minor offense, because such activities attract people, but not as severely as selling alcohol. The commentary remains the same as before.

"Selling" means seeking profit. "Instructing others" means causing others to sell alcohol on my behalf — this is also a heavy offense. Teaching others to sell alcohol themselves is a lighter offense. Under "the cause of selling alcohol," the text explains the four conditions that constitute the offense. "Action" refers to the physical act. "Method" refers to the means of selling alcohol. "Means" refers to the methods used. "Conditions and causes" require five components: 1. a sentient being, 2. the perception of that being, 3. the seeking of profit through trade, 4. genuine alcohol, and 5. delivering it to the other person.

Regarding "sentient beings," these are the three prior categories. For beings of the highest spiritual capacity who are not easily intoxicated or confused, the offense is lighter; for those who are easily intoxicated and confused, it is heavier. The medium capacity — humans and gods — is what this precept is directly aimed at, so it is heavy. For beings in the four lower realms, the tendency toward confusion is weaker, so selling alcohol to them is a lighter offense. "Perception of that being" includes three states — correct perception, doubt, or mistaken perception — as before. Even if there is no direct communication, the offense remains heavy. "Seeking profit through trade" is heavy because it involves desire for greater accumulation. "Genuine alcohol" refers to what actually intoxicates and confuses people. For medicinal alcohol, even if profit is sought through trade, if it doesn’t intoxicate, there is no offense. Another view holds that the offense is established according to the number of people who actually drink and become intoxicated. For instance, if a child comes to buy alcohol but doesn’t drink it, against whom would the offense be established?

第六、說四眾過戒。說是談道之名，眾謂同法，四眾過者七逆十重也。一以抑沒前人，損正法故得罪也。此戒七眾同犯，大小乘俱制。大士掩惡揚善為心，故罪重也。上者第二篇，中者第三篇，下者第七聚，聲聞法如此，與菩薩有異也。文句同前。此戒備六緣成重：一、是眾生，二、眾生想，三、有說罪心，四、所說罪，五、所向人說，六、前人領解。一是眾生者，上中二境取有菩薩戒者方重，以妨彼上業故。無菩薩戒，止有聲聞戒，及下境有戒無戒，悉犯輕垢。此戒兼制，以妨業緣。文云「在家菩薩」即是清信士女，「出家菩薩」是十戒、具戒。又言「比丘、比丘尼」，一云猶是出家菩薩具戒者耳，亦云是聲聞僧尼。若說此人重適亦犯重。此是行法勝者，亦損深法故。二、眾生想，有當、有疑、有僻，大意同前。三、說過者，有兩：一、陷沒心，欲令前人失名利等；二、謂治罰心，欲令前人被繫縛等。此二心皆是業主，必犯此戒。若獎勸心說及被差說，罪皆不犯。四、所說過，謂七逆十重。稱犯者名字，在此戒正制。若謂治罰心，在第四十八破法戒制。若說出佛身血、破僧，依律部本制，向僧說是謗僧，知出血等事希故輕，此正制向無戒者說，應得重。若重罪作重名說，是事當義；作輕名說，是論則失當義。但今心重事重，悉同犯重，此是名僻。若事僻者，實輕謂重則犯重，實重謂輕則罪輕，以其心謂輕重故。若作書遣使，一云同重，二云罪輕。然犯七逆十重，前人失戒，失戒後說，但犯輕垢。五、向人說，謂上中二境無菩薩戒，向說犯重，損法深故。為下境悉輕，毀損不過深。文云：「菩薩聞外道二乘說佛法過，應慈悲教化，而反自說」，即是向彼人說，損辱為甚。六、前人信解己所說口業事，遂據此時結罪。結罪多少，一云隨人，二云隨口業。

**Sixth Precept: Speaking of the Faults of the Four Assemblies**

"Speaking" refers to the act of discussing or pointing out faults. "Four Assemblies" refers to fellow practitioners. "Faults" means the seven cardinal offenses and the ten grave precepts. One commits an offense because doing so belittles others and damages the true Dharma. This precept applies to all seven groups of disciples, and is prohibited in both the Small and Great Vehicles. A Bodhisattva's mind is to conceal faults and promote virtues, so the offense here is grave. In the monastic code, the gravest is a second-degree offense, middling a third-degree, lightest a seventh-degree. This differs from the Bodhisattva precepts. The wording follows previous explanations.

This precept is established as a grave offense when six conditions are met: 1) it involves living beings, 2) one perceives them as living beings, 3) one has a mind intent on stating faults, 4) one speaks of actual faults, 5) one tells them to another person, and 6) that person understands what is said.

**1. Living beings:** For beings in the upper or middle categories, the offense is grave only if they have taken Bodhisattva precepts, because it hinders their superior spiritual practice. If they only have monastic precepts or none at all, the offense is a minor impurity. This additional restriction is due to the potential to obstruct their spiritual progress.

The text states "lay Bodhisattvas" refers to lay men and women, and "ordained Bodhisattvas" refers to those with the ten precepts or full precepts. Regarding "monks and nuns," some say these are still ordained Bodhisattvas with full precepts; others say they are monastic disciples of the Small Vehicle-speaking of their faults in a grave matter also constitutes a grave offense. This is because harming those of superior conduct damages the profound Dharma.

**2. Perception:** The perception may be correct, doubtful, or mistaken. The general principle is the same as before.

**3. Mind to state faults:** There are two types: a mind to "topple" the person (to make them lose reputation, profit, etc.), and a mind to "punish" (to have them beaten, bound, etc.). Both create the primary karma for the offense. If one speaks out of a wish to encourage or is officially authorized to report faults, there is no offense.

**4. Faults spoken of:** These are the seven cardinal offenses and the ten grave precepts. Bringing up these faults and naming the offender is what this precept directly prohibits. Punishment-minded speech is covered by the 48th precept (on breaking the Dharma). Speaking of bloodshed from the Buddha or causing schism in the Sangha-regarding these matters to monks is slander of the Sangha, but since such events are rare, the offense is lighter. This precept specifically targets telling those without precepts about such faults, which earns a grave offense.

Speaking of grave faults using grave names (as they are) is correct. Speaking of them using mild names is incorrect. However, if the mind is grave and the matter is grave, the offense is grave regardless of the name; this is a mistake in terminology. If the matter itself is mistaken-saying a light matter is grave, the offense is grave; saying a grave matter is light, the offense is light, because the mind perceives it as such. If one writes a letter or sends a messenger, some say the offense is equally grave, others say lighter.

However, if a person has already committed the seven cardinal offenses or ten grave precepts and has thus lost their precepts, speaking of their faults after that point constitutes only a minor impurity.

**5. Speaking to:** This refers to telling those in the upper or middle categories who lack Bodhisattva precepts. In this case, the offense is grave, as it deeply damages the Dharma. For those in the lower category, the offense is light, as the damage is less severe. The text says: "A Bodhisattva who hears outsiders or Hearers speaking of the faults of the Buddha's teaching should compassionately teach and transform them, yet instead speaks thusly." This means telling that person, which deeply harms them.

**6. The other person understands:** The offense is determined at the moment the listener fully comprehends the spoken words. As for how many offenses one commits, some say it is counted per person, others say per statement made.

第七、自讚毀他戒，自讚者自稱己功德，毀他者譏他過惡，備二事故重。菩薩與直於他，引曲向己，何容舉我毀他，故得罪。七眾同犯，大小乘俱制。但菩薩利安為本，故讚毀罪重。聲聞不兼物，毀他犯第三篇，自讚犯第七聚。文句同前。此二戒備五緣成重：一、是眾生，二、眾生想，三、讚毀心，四、說讚毀具，五、前人領解。一、是眾生者，一云毀上中二境犯重，毀下犯輕。二云上中二境有菩薩戒者方重，惱彼妨深故。若無戒及下境有戒悉輕，惱妨淺故。二、眾生想，有當有疑有僻，大意同上。三、讚毀心，謂揚我抑他欲令彼惱，若折伏非犯。自非心正是業主，教他兩解：一云同重，二云罪輕。四、說讚毀具者，此經漫云「他人受毀辱」，依律部有八事云云。五、前人領解者，彼人解讚毀之言，隨語語結重。增上犯已失戒後但性罪。前戒制向他說彼過，止八事中犯事，以向無戒人故重。

**The Seventh Precept: Not Praising Oneself or Denigrating Others**

"Praising oneself" means boasting about one's own virtues and achievements. "Denigrating others" means ridiculing or exposing the faults and misdeeds of others. When both of these actions are committed together, it constitutes a major offense.

A Bodhisattva is supposed to treat others with fairness and honesty, always directing kindness toward others rather than bending things in their own favor. How could such a person resort to praising themselves and putting others down? Therefore, committing this act brings about a transgression.

This precept applies equally to all seven groups of disciples, and it is prohibited in both the Mahayana and Hinayana traditions. However, because a Bodhisattva's fundamental purpose is to benefit and bring peace to all beings, the offense of praising oneself and slandering others is considered particularly grave. For a Hearer (Shravaka), who is not concerned with benefiting others in the same way, speaking ill of others violates the third category of offenses, while praising oneself violates the seventh category. The textual explanations are the same as previously discussed.

These two aspects—self-praise and denigration of others—each require five conditions to constitute a full offense:

1. **There must be another sentient being** (as the object). One interpretation says that committing the act against a superior or equal brings a major offense, while doing so against an inferior brings a lesser offense. Another interpretation holds that only when the superior or equal is a holder of the Bodhisattva precepts does it constitute a major offense, because harming them causes greater obstruction to their practice. If the person does not hold the precepts, or if the target is of lower status but holds the precepts, the offense is minor, as the harm caused is shallower.

2. **One must perceive that it is indeed that person.** This includes knowing it is them, having doubt about it, or having a mistaken understanding. The general meaning is the same as explained previously.

3. **One must have the intent to praise oneself and disparage others.** This means the mind is set on elevating oneself and putting others down, with the wish to cause them distress. If the intent is to correct or subdue someone (rather than to harm), it is not an offense.

The mind itself—when it is not grounded in proper intention—is the root of the offense. As for instructing others to do this on one's behalf, there are two interpretations: one says the offense is equally grave; another says it is lighter.

4. **There must be actual words or actions of praise or defamation.** This sutra says generally that "others are subjected to denigration and humiliation." According to the monastic codes, there are eight specific matters in which this can occur (details omitted).

5. **The other party must understand and take in the meaning.** When the other person comprehends the words of praise or defamation, a full offense is committed with each phrase spoken.

If someone has committed a major offense and thus lost the precepts, subsequent wrongdoing would only be a natural offense (arising from the nature of the act itself), not a precept violation.

In the previous precept, the rule concerns speaking of another's faults to others. This is limited to the eight matters mentioned above. It is considered a major offense when the one being addressed is not a precept holder, because the harm is more severe in that context.

第八、慳惜加毀戒，慳惜是愛悋之名，加毀是身口加辱。前人求財請法，慳悋不與復加毀辱，頓乖化道故得罪。此戒七眾同犯，大小不全共。菩薩不揀親疎，求者皆施，不與、加辱皆犯，以本誓兼物故。聲聞唯弟子不教法，犯第七聚。不與財不制。尼家二歲內不與財法，犯第三篇。二歲外不與，犯第七聚。加毀隨事各結，不合為重。此戒備五緣成重：一、是眾生，二、眾生想，三、慳毀心，四、示慳相，五、前人領解。一、是眾生者，謂上中二境犯重，下境輕。二、眾生想，如前。三、慳毀心，謂惡瞋悋惜財法而加打罵是犯。若彼不宜聞法得財，宜見訶辱，皆不犯。自慳自毀，正是業主，犯輕垢，以前人教不犯我故。四、示慳相者，或隱避不與財法，或言都無，或手杖驅斥，或惡言加罵等，皆名示相。或自身示作，或使人打罵，皆重。若彼遣使求財請法，對使人慳惜，或惡言呵罵，皆應不重。既非對面，損惱彼輕。故《決定毘尼經》云：在家菩薩應行二施：一、財，二、法。出家菩薩行四施：一、紙，二、墨，三、筆，四、法。得忍菩薩行三施：一、王位，二、妻子，三、頭目皮骨。當知凡夫菩薩隨宜惠施，都杜絕故犯也。五、前人領解，知悋惜之相，領納打罵之言，隨事隨語結重。此戒亦一例結重也。

**Eighth Precept: Withholding and Adding Insult**

This precept carries two parts: withholding, which means being miserly or stingy, and adding insult, which refers to harming others through body or speech. When someone comes seeking resources or spiritual guidance, refusing to share while also adding abuse goes completely against the compassionate path—this constitutes an offense.

This precept applies to all seven groups of practitioners, though not equally across the greater and lesser vehicles. Bodhisattvas make no distinction between friend and stranger—they give to all who ask. Failing to give or adding insult constitutes an offense, because their original vow encompasses all beings. Hearers (śrāvakas) commit the seventh category offense only when they refuse to teach disciples; there is no rule against withholding material wealth.

For nuns: refusing to give resources or teachings to a disciple within the two-year training period constitutes a third-category offense. After the two-year period, refusing becomes a seventh-category offense. Adding insult is judged by each specific action and does not combine into a heavier offense.

This precept requires five conditions to constitute a full offense:

**First, there is a living being.** When the target is a higher or middle-level being, it constitutes a full offense; for lower-level beings, the offense is lighter.

**Second, there is the recognition of that being.** This is understood as previously described.

**Third, there is a withholding mindset.** This arises when one, motivated by malice or stinginess toward wealth or teachings, physically strikes or verbally abuses another. However, if the person asking is not suited to receive teachings or wealth at that time, and would actually benefit from reprimand or rebuke, there is no offense. The stinginess and abuse themselves are the core wrongdoing—a light defilement—because the person seeking help is not encouraging one's wrongdoing.

**Fourth, one demonstrates withholding.** This can be done by hiding or refusing to share wealth or teachings, claiming to have nothing, driving the person away with a stick, or cursing them with harsh words. Whether one does this personally or hires others to hit or scold, it is the same offense.

However, if someone sends a messenger to request wealth or teachings, and the offense occurs only against the messenger—through stinginess or harsh words—it does not constitute a full offense. Since it was not face-to-face, the harm inflicted is less severe.

As the *Determining the Vinaya Sutra* states: Lay bodhisattvas should practice two kinds of giving: wealth and teachings. Monastic bodhisattvas practice four kinds of giving: paper, ink, brushes, and teachings. Bodhisattvas who have attained patient endurance practice three kinds of giving: royal thrones, spouses and children, and even their own head, eyes, skin, and bones. Know that ordinary bodhisattvas give according to their circumstances—completely cutting off generosity constitutes an offense.

**Fifth, the recipient understands.** When the person recognizes the stingy attitude and perceives the insults, the offense is full—weighed according to each specific action and each word spoken.

This precept follows the same principle: it is a complete offense under these conditions.

第十、謗三寶戒，亦云謗菩薩法，或云邪見邪說戒。謗是乖背之名，絓是解不稱理，言不審實、異解說者，皆名為謗也。乖己宗故得罪。七眾同犯，大小俱制。大士以化人為任，令邪說斷正故犯重。聲聞異此，三諫不止，犯第三篇。文句同前。此戒備五緣成重：一、是眾生，二、眾生想，三、欲說心，四、正吐說，五、前人領解。一、是眾生，謂上中二境，若菩薩、若聲聞、若外道，向說犯重。二、眾生想，有當、有疑、有僻，如上。三、欲說心者，運意作欲向說之意。四、正說者，發言向他，自對他說，若令他傳說，悉重。五、前人領解，納受邪言，隨語語結重。若作邪說經者，欲令人解，隨彼披覽發解者，隨語語重。邪見推畫，條緒乃多，略有四種：一、上邪見，二、中，三、下，四、雜。上邪見者，撥一切都無因果，如闡提。中邪見者，不言都無因果，但謂三寶不及外道，有兩相：一、法相異，謂三寶不如，此是痤陋之心，計成失戒。二、非法相，知三寶為勝，口說不如，既不見歸，戒善不失，隨所出言犯重，亦此戒所制。下品邪翻，不言三寶不及外道，但於中棄大取小，心中謂二乘勝，大乘不及。若計未成犯輕垢，下自有背大向小，此戒中廣明。雜邪見有四種：一、偏執，二、雜信，三、繫念小乘，四、思義僻謬。偏執有二：一、執大謗小，二、偏謗一部。執大謗小者，計云唯有大乘，都無小乘，非佛所說，此謗聲聞藏犯輕。偏謗一部者，於方等中偏言一部非佛說，若計成犯輕垢，既不頓違經教，犯輕垢，不失戒。二、雜信者，謂心中不背因果及三寶大乘，但言外道鬼神有威力，遂奏章解神，或勸他，悉犯輕垢。三、繫信小乘，知大乘高勝，且欲斷煩惱取小果，後更修大，此名念退，若計成犯輕垢。四、思義僻謬，如即今人義淺三五家釋。此應非罪，是我智力不及，非作意強撥也。復有知義輕輒解，復有知他為是強欲立異，皆邪畫之流，所犯輕垢。

**Tenth Precept: The Precept Against Slandering the Three Treasures**

This precept is also called "slandering the Bodhisattva Dharma" or "holding wrong views and spreading false teachings." "Slandering" means going against or twisting the truth. Any interpretation that is not in line with reason, any speech that is not grounded in reality, or any deviation from correct understanding—all of this counts as slandering. Such actions bring blame because they turn away from one's own true nature.

This precept applies equally to all seven groups of practitioners, and both Mahayana and Hinayana traditions forbid it. For a Great Being (Bodhisattva), whose mission is to guide and transform others, spreading false views and cutting off what is right constitutes a major offense. For listeners (Hinayana practitioners), the rule differs: if they persist after being admonished three times, they commit a third-class offense. The wording is the same as earlier.

This precept becomes a major offense when five conditions are met:

1. **There is a living being** — specifically, beings of the upper or middle realms: Bodhisattvas, listeners, or followers of other paths. Speaking slander to them constitutes a major offense.

2. **Awareness of that being** — knowing it is such a being, or having doubts, or misidentifying them, as described above.

3. **The intent to speak** — forming the deliberate intention to express slanderous views to that being.

4. **Actually speaking** — voicing those words directly to the person, or having them passed on through another person—in either case, the offense is major.

5. **The other person comprehends** — the listener accepts the wrong views. Each sentence spoken and understood counts as a separate major offense.

If one composes false scriptures with the intention of getting others to accept them, then for each person who reads and believes, and for each sentence that is taken in, a major offense is incurred.

Wrong views can be categorized in many ways, but they fall into four main types:

**1. Severe wrong views** — Denying that actions have consequences, that good and evil lead to different results. This is like the *icchantika* (those who utterly reject the Dharma).

**2. Moderate wrong views** — Not necessarily denying cause and effect altogether, but claiming that the Three Treasures are inferior to other paths. This takes two forms: - *Seeing the Dharma as inferior*: Believing the Three Treasures are not as good as other teachings. This comes from a narrow, closed mind, and once this view is firmly held, one's precepts are lost. - *Speaking against what one knows*: Knowing the Three Treasures are superior but verbally claiming they are not. Since the person does not truly abandon their faith, the precepts remain intact. However, for every word spoken against the Dharma, a major offense is incurred under this precept.

**3. Lesser wrong views** — Not saying the Three Treasures are inferior to outside paths, but within Buddhism, rejecting the greater and choosing the lesser. The person believes the Two Vehicles (Hinayana) are superior and that the Great Vehicle (Mahayana) is inferior. If this view takes hold but has not yet fully matured into a firm position, it is a light offense. The details of turning one's back on the Great Vehicle and favoring the Lesser are explained later in this precept.

**4. Mixed wrong views** — This includes four kinds: - **One-sided attachment**: Two types: (a) holding only Mahayana and denying the validity of Hinayana altogether, believing only the Great Vehicle is the Buddha's teaching—this slanders the Hinayana canon and is a light offense; (b) rejecting one particular scripture within the Mahayana, claiming it is not the Buddha's word. If this belief takes hold, it becomes a light offense. Since it does not completely overturn the entire teaching, one's precepts remain intact. - **Mixed faith**: Not turning away from cause and effect, the Three Treasures, or the Mahayana, but believing that outside deities and spirits have real power. One may write prayers to them, seek their help, or encourage others to do so—these are light offenses. - **Clinging to the Lesser Vehicle**: Knowing the Mahayana is superior, but wanting to first cut off afflictions and attain the smaller fruit, thinking to practice the Great Vehicle later. This is called "retreating in one's resolve." If this view takes hold, it is a light offense. - **Distorted thinking**: For example, people today with shallow understanding explaining the teachings inadequately. This in itself may not be a fault—it could simply be a limitation of one's intelligence, not a deliberate false interpretation. But two further cases do constitute wrong thinking: knowing the meaning is subtle yet making superficial explanations, and knowing another's interpretation is correct yet intentionally promoting a different view just to be different. These are all forms of distorted thinking and constitute light offenses.