Four-Part Vinaya Simplified Practice Manual (四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔)

Rules of Practice for the Fourfold Vinaya, Condensed and Supplemented, Fascicle 2

Composed by the monk Daoxuan of Chongyi Monastery in Jingzhao.

Chapter 13: The Section on Names and Retributions

Chapter 14: Explanation of Precepts

Chapter 15: Guidelines for Observance and Transgression

Repentance of the Six Categories of Offenses, Chapter 16

Chapter 13: The Section on Names and Retributions

Those who leave lay life and join the five-fold assembly become a worthy field for the world precisely because of the essence of the precepts. Thus the *Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom* says: "Taking up and observing the precepts is the essence; shaving the head and wearing dyed robes is the mark." If one keeps the mind pure as ice and virtue polished as jade, one can produce seeds of goodness and is called a field of merit. Otherwise, by resisting and rejecting them, one brings sorrow upon oneself and incurs the offenses of the six categories, with retribution leading into the two-and-eight hells. Therefore, the five divisions clarify transgression, and by violating them, the practice of observance establishes itself; the seven divisions reveal observance, and by conforming to them, all transgressions quietly disappear. But newcomers to study are mostly dull and slow; they do not yet know the rules and regulations — how could they discern the governing principles? Wandering blindly with the precepts like one lost in fog, their karmic retribution is like gazing at the sea. Thus they drift with the current and pass on endlessly, clinging to a drop of honey and forgetting to return; accumulating heavy karma, how could they awaken and turn back? Therefore the *Mātṛkā of the Vinaya* says: "Monks and nuns who break the precepts yet receive offerings — if they do not receive them in the present, it is because they are headed for hell." And so karma is bound up with the mind, and retribution follows the mind to completion. One must first set forth cause and effect and broadly clarify their marks, so that sons of the Buddha who observe the precepts may look at the fruit and understand the cause. Among these, first the protection of the precepts is explained as the root of transgression and loss; afterward the divisions and categories are explained as the marks of their names and retribution.

For beginners, the karmic consequence of breaking the precepts is extremely heavy. Because the protection of the precepts is the foremost among all wholesome states, it builds powerful merit; therefore, violating and damaging it brings heavy retribution. The *Vimalakīrti Sutra* Commentary describes many kinds of precept-protection; let us briefly cite them. That which is in the mind is called protection; that which is in body and speech is called precepts. One may have protection without having precepts, but one who has precepts certainly has protection, and so on. In the sutras, the Buddha praises those who attain precept-protection in many passages. Let us briefly describe eight kinds:

First, like a king's son who is respected by the people; one who attains precept-protection is born into the noble lineage, will certainly attain sainthood, like one who inherits the throne.

Second, like the moonlight that gradually becomes full; precept-protection is likewise — all virtues and merits grow with time, up to the attainment of liberation and knowledge-and-vision.

Third, like one who obtains a wish-fulfilling jewel, all wishes are fulfilled; one who attains precept-protection, whether wishing to be born in a good realm or even to reach Enlightenment, will certainly achieve it.

Fourth, like a king's only son, cherished as heir to the throne; one who attains precept-protection, through precept-protection, will certainly become a saint — one should cherish it and not damage it.

Fifth, like a person with only one eye, who treasures it greatly; this person is likewise — through precept-protection, they escape birth and death and reach Nirvana.

Sixth, like a poor person in the world who treasures even a little sustenance; cherishing the precepts in this way, one attains the life of wisdom.

Seventh, like a king who possesses three things and thereby loves his country — first, wealth; second, sensual pleasures; third, the true Dharma. One who attains precept-protection is likewise: dwelling in precept-protection with immeasurable merit, the mind is at peace without worry or regret, and the true Dharma grows.

Eighth, like a sick person who finds good medicine; precept-protection is likewise — one should not abandon it, for through it one escapes all evil.

For these reasons, the merit and power are profound and weighty; one must not lightly violate them, for violation brings great transgression.

The two [sections] are named and their positions explained. This divides into two parts: first, clarifying the categories of precepts; second, clarifying the karmic results.

The five sections and seven categories are divisions made according to meaning; to properly determine the classification of offenses, six categories are established. Now, based on the six categories, I will briefly explain their names: first, Parajika; second, Samghavasesa; third, Sthulatyaya; fourth, Prayascittika; fifth, Pratidesaniya; sixth, Duskrta. None of these six names have a definitive translation; they are rendered according to meaning, so that one may gain a rough understanding of the path.

First, regarding "Pārājika." In the *Saṅghikavinaya*, its meaning corresponds to "extremely evil." It is explained in three senses: first, "falling away," because by violating this precept one has no share in the fruit of the Path. Second, "not living in common," because one does not merely lose the Path, but further is no longer counted among the two kinds of Saṅgha. Third, "falling into ruin," because after casting off this body, one falls into the Avīci Hell. The *Daśabhāṇavāra* says: "falling into an undesirable place." The *Sarvāstivāda* explanation says: because one has fought with Māra and, by violating this precept, falls into the position of defeat. The *Dharmaguptaka Vinaya* says: Pārājika is like cutting off a person's head, which cannot grow back; if one violates this Dharma, one can no longer be a monk. This is named from the standpoint of the practice, not by its function. It also says: Pārājika means "without remainder"; this is named from the standpoint of being utterly cut off from the saṅgha's collective rites. Hence the verse says: "Those who do evil deeds are like a corpse; they are not tolerated by the assembly; with this in mind, one should observe the precepts." It is also called "not living in common," because one may not live together in the two kinds of Saṅgha recitation of the precepts and karmic proceedings.

Question: It was said above that if one violates this rule, it is called "beheading." If we follow this reasoning, there can surely be no repeat offense, and thus the precepts would not exist either. Answer: Whether the precepts exist or not is a matter of dispute. The *Saṃyuktābhidharma Hṛdaya* explains: the precepts do exist, they are not nonexistent. As for repeat offenses, the Vinaya itself clearly determines the matter: however many times one offends, each instance is a Pārājika. In this section, the first four precepts are each distinct. In the case of sexual misconduct, there are many repeat offenses; the same applies to the remaining precepts on stealing, killing, and lying. This refers to the Prātimokṣa precepts: because the objects and conditions differ, the precepts received are not the same; therefore, when one later offends, one offends according to each distinct precept. As the *Sarvāstivāda* tradition says: one may receive all precepts at once, but one cannot violate all precepts at once. Take the precept against sexual misconduct, for example: from a woman's body one receives twenty-one precepts, from a man's body fourteen precepts; the same applies throughout the realm of phenomena to men and women. Now if with a mind of greed one violates one woman by one path, it is only called defiling one precept against sexual misconduct; the essence of the remaining precepts against sexual misconduct for the monk remains bright and pure, with no conduct that violates them, and they accord with the originally received precept-essence. Thus when one confesses the first section, one is restored to purity; it is not said that one must receive the precepts anew, because the original precepts are still present. Again, as the Vinaya says: striking or slandering a monk who has committed a grave offense both entail the offense of *saṃghāvaśeṣa*; if there were no precepts, it would only amount to a *duṣkṛta*. Question: Should one still be counted in the full assembly and not be called "beheaded"? Answer: If one has confessed and is fundamentally pure, by principle one should be counted in the full assembly—one may perform the recitation of the precepts, the *pravāraṇā* karma, and so forth. But because the defilement of one's character is deep and heavy, one is unfit for the use of the Saṃgha, and so it is said that one who comes does not come according to wish. The analogy of "beheading" is spoken with reference to not ascending to the fruits of sainthood. Question: Although the precept against sexual misconduct has been defiled, it is only called a violation of precepts—where is this stated? Answer: It has already been clearly shown above. To expand further on the characteristics, this is explained below in the section on confession methods; the precept-essence is definitively present, eternally pure. Some people in the world commit one offense against the precept of sexual misconduct; at first they are terrified, but later, upon reflection, they think they have lost the precepts, and so they recklessly commit offenses to match, violating everything indiscriminately. Is this not because they are ignorant of the net of the teachings, and so trap themselves in vulgar ways? How do they not know that by offending only one precept of sexual misconduct, all other precepts of sexual misconduct remain unviolated; the precepts against killing and stealing in this same section remain always pure and intact; and the five aggregates below are the same as at the time of first receiving them. Therefore, fellow practitioners of the same Dharma should clearly discern this. If one first strictly purifies one's consciousness, and when confronted with the five sense objects, does not give rise to desire and defilement, this is due to prior preparatory practices. If one has never gathered one's attention, then when facing objects one cannot avoid offending. Once an offense has been committed and the karma is established, one must not conceal it. By confessing early and thoroughly, one restores one's fundamental purity and enters the ranks of the Saṃgha. If one is deluded about what has been set forth above, harbors one's illness in secret, does not participate in communal affairs, and lets both material and Dharma resources go to waste, yet presumptuously enjoys them, then both oneself and others are burdened—is this not pitiful! Is this not a mistake! Question: Sexual misconduct has already been defiled, yet the other precepts remain intact—why does one not ascend to the stage of sainthood? Answer: The *Vyākhyāna* explains: regarding these four grave precepts, if one destroys any one of them, the remaining precepts are powerless when put to use; it is like the human body having four vital places—if any one is damaged, life and body die. Because the power of the precepts is weak, concentration and wisdom do not arise. The *Daśacakra* says: if one violates the four grave precepts, destroys the Dharma, and slanders the saints, one enters the Avīci hell at death; such a person, in that one body, cannot exhaust the fetters and must fall into evil destinies. But if one has gone forth in my Dharma, upholds the root precepts, and is always diligent and vigorous, then all offerings will never be received in vain. Why is this? Because one resolves to seek liberation, and even to the point of giving up one's life, never violates or destroys them. Why is this? Because the four root precepts are the reliance and dwelling place of the Three Vehicles.

In the Four-Part Vinaya: nuns have eight Parajikas. The first four are the same as those for fully ordained monks, and the latter four are as explained in the separate section.

The *Ten Recitations* Vinaya treats repeat offenses differently from this Vinaya. For offenses of the same name, repeat offenses do exist; for offenses of the same category, there are no repeat offenses. This is stated with reference to the first section. Thus the text says: when a novice monk who has undertaken the training and repentance commits a Sangha-offense requiring rehabilitation, he is made to undergo probation within the Sangha in due order, followed by six nights of rehabilitation, and so forth for clearing the offense. The rest is explained in the other schools' texts.

The *Liaoming Lun* says: The Vinaya speaks of offenses in five divisions. The commentary explains: What we here call "sections" (pian), following the original meaning, are named "divisions" (bu). There are two meanings: first, they accomplish the root; second, they accord with the root.

The first is the Pārājika division, which has sixteen offenses. The commentary explains: Each one has four parts, making sixteen offenses. First, the distant preparatory step—as when engaging in sexual conduct, one first arouses the intention but has not yet moved the body or speech; reproaching the mind alone purifies it. Second, the next preparatory step—when one moves the body toward the other, or speaks of the desire to do it; this is confessed before another person and purified; it is commonly called a duṣkṛta. Third, the near preparatory step—when one reaches the other person's side, or intends to touch, but before the bodies have joined; this is a sthūlātyaya. Since the touching is done with the intent to engage in sexual conduct and not for playful pleasure, it constitutes a sthūlātyaya and does not constitute a saṃghāvaśeṣa; this offense is confessed before another person. Fourth, the joining of bodies—this is the root offense.

The first three preparatory steps all serve to accomplish it, and so are called divisions. If the root offense has not yet been accomplished, the first three can be confessed; if it has already been accomplished, the first three follow the root offense and can no longer be confessed—this is the meaning of "according with."

The remaining three divisions follow this same pattern. In the *Sifen Lü*, it is only said that the one who accomplishes it incurs a Pārājika, and the one who does not accomplish it incurs a sthūlātyaya. According to the *Shisong Lü*, however, the sthūlātyaya is divided into lighter and heavier. In the *Liaoming Lun*, only a single category is assigned. As for sthūlātyaya and duṣkṛta, their essence is shared across these, and one should understand them by analogy. This is further explained in the section on confession methods.

The second is the Saṅghāvaśeṣa category. The *Shanjian* says: "Saṅgha" means the Saṅgha; "va" means first/beginning, referring to the confession and covering procedure given before the Saṅgha; "śeṣa" means remainder, referring to the confession-of-offense procedure given afterward. If one commits this offense, the Saṅgha performs the ritual to remove it; hence the name is derived from the context. The *Vibhāṣā* says: "Saṅgha" means the Saṅgha; "vaśeṣa" means remainder. If one commits this offense, defilements cling to the practitioner, and one is not fully pure in function. It is an offense with remainder, and it is removed by the Saṅgha. The *Dharmaguptaka Vinaya* directly explains Saṅghāvaśeṣa, which accords with the above interpretation; it also calls it "with remainder," because the practice of the Dharma is not cut off — hence the name. The *Vinaya Mātṛkā* says: "Saṅghāvaśeṣa" is like a person who has been wounded by another — the throat still remains; therefore it is called 'remainder.' One must seek remedy quickly. Thus the precepts say: if one commits this offense, one should be strongly given the Parivāsa and so on, because it is adjacent to a grave offense. As for the types: there are thirteen for monks, as in the section on individual characteristics; and seventeen for nuns — six different and seven the same — as explained in detail elsewhere. The **Vijñaptimātratā* treatise* explains: the second category, the Saṅghātiśeṣa division, has fifty-two offenses. Different schools explain this offense differently. This is the Sammitīya school's three meanings; the Sarvāstivāda school calls it Saṅghāvaśeṣa, with one meaning the same as the Sammitīya school. The explanation: because precepts, views, and the harmony of the assembly together constitute the meaning of "Saṅgha." Since these two are not different, and it is not due to concentration and wisdom that the Buddha established the precepts, it is called "same in precepts"; because they share the same Right View, it is called "same in view." "Vaśeṣa" means remainder. If one commits this offense, when receiving dwellings and offerings within the Saṅgha — whether superior, middling, or inferior — one is placed on the outermost edge; therefore it is called "remainder." "Mānatva" is translated as "pleasing the assembly"; following the Saṅgha's instruction, all are filled with joy. "Āhvāna" is translated as "calling into the assembly." The Sammitīya school's three meanings of "śeṣa": the first is as explained above. The second is the meaning of rescue — that through the Saṅgha's pulling one out and saving one, one escapes this offense. The third is the meaning of excellence — when one was committing the offense, one became an inferior person; through the Saṅgha's rescue, one regains purity, rising from inferior to excellent.

Third, the aggregate of Saṃghāvaśeṣa-related offenses (thullaccaya).

The *Shanjian Lü* says: “Thu” means “great,” “lan” means “obstructing the good path”; afterward one falls into the evil realms. Its essence is vile and defiled. It is named from the unwholesome essence because it can bring about the offenses of the first two categories. It is also translated as “grave offense,” and likewise called “coarse and evil.”

The *Shenglun* says: Its correct pronunciation is “Sathura.”

The *Mingliao Lun* explains: “Thu” means “coarse,” and “lan” means “transgression.” Coarseness is of two kinds: first, it is the preparatory stage for a heavy offense; second, it can sever the roots of goodness. As for “transgression,” it means not acting in accordance with the precepts established by the Buddha, and therefore it is called a transgression—like an ox that breaks through a fence and pushes beyond the boundary of the monastic domain. However, the name “transgression” is also used broadly.

This offense, when first committed, is a transgression; later offenses take their name from the first—just as later oxen follow the first and likewise pass beyond the boundary.

Thus the single aggregate of thullaccaya offenses encompasses both formal and preparatory offenses, and its essence includes both light and heavy. The Vinaya lists seven categories and six categories, both of which include thullaccaya. Whether it is placed above or below has its own reasons.

In the Vinaya, it is sometimes placed after Saṃghāvaśeṣa because it is included within the category of precepts and its offense name is heavy—such as the distant and near preparatory stages of the first two categories, and standalone principal offenses, such as those concerning schism in the Saṃgha and stealing four [items].

Sometimes it is placed below Prāyaścitta because it falls under the heading of decorum, and its offense name is light—such as the distant preparatory stage of the second category, and light standalone offenses, such as going naked, using hair, and similar cases.

However, precepts and decorum are sometimes grouped together and sometimes distinguished. When grouped together, all are precepts; none are non-decorum, and all are called breaches of precepts. If we speak in terms of distinction, the upper three categories have coarse and evident transgressions, and what governs them is called precepts; the lower four have light transgressions, and the conduct that governs them is called decorum.

If we divide them by whether they are uniform or mixed: the first four are uniform, none being anything but principal offenses; the last three are mixed, including both light offenses and preparatory offenses. However, thullaccaya is the heaviest among the mixed, and therefore it stands fifth.

The fourth category, the Pāyattika group. Its meaning is translated as "falling." The *Ten Recitations Vinaya* says: one falls into the hell of burning and boiling, of being covered and obstructed. The *Four-Part Vinaya* says: within the Saṅgha there are one hundred and twenty kinds; thirty are singled out. Offenses arise through matters of wealth, with greed and arrogance of mind at their strongest; they are legislated to be relinquished to the Saṅgha, and so are called Naiḥsargika. The remaining ninety are confessed individually. As for the essence of the offenses, they share a single category of confession. The two hundred and eight precepts for nuns fall into the third section; thirty are Relinquishment-and-Falling, and the rest fall under separate confession. Whether their types are the same or different is shown in the Separate Section. The *Yogācārabhūmi* text on the Essentials of Discipline says: Naiḥsargika was formerly translated as "relinquishment and falling." The *Śabdavidyā* says: "Nai" is translated as "entirely"; "sargika" as "relinquish." Pāyattika originally is *pāya*(pronounced yí-gē), meaning "to bring about." The *Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī* explains: the Pārāyantika section has three hundred and sixty offenses. The Sammitīya school translates it as "deserving effort," and interprets it under three meanings: first, the offenses are many, light, and subtle, hard to recognize and easy to disparage. Second, they include both intrinsically evil offenses and offenses against prescribed rules. Third, for those who easily disparage and transgress, effort should be applied as an antidote, lest they spread and multiply. The *Sarvāstivāda* says: Pārayacchattika is translated as "deserving counteraction"; one must constantly reflect, so that if one offends, one immediately becomes aware. The Sthavira school says: Pacchattika is translated as "able to burn and heat"; this offense brings rebirth in the Mahāraurava hell. At the time of committing it, it scorches and heats the mind; at the time of ripening, it burns living beings. There are only three sections, with two expedient means. Thirty and ninety make one hundred and twenty. There is no Sthūlātyaya; there are two Duṣkṛtas.

The fifth category is the Pṛthā-pradeśanīya assembly. The meaning is translated as "Confession to Others," named after the situation it remedies. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: this offense should be openly confessed. This is precisely where the Prātimokṣa precepts text sets out in full the words for confessing one's transgression. For monks there are four kinds, as will be explained in full below; for nuns there are eight kinds, entirely different from those for monks. The *Vyākhyāna* explains: in the fourth Pṛthā-pradeśanīya division there are twelve offenses; translated as "each to be spoken in accordance with," meaning one speaks to another person about the action one has done.

The Sixth Category: Transgressions of Impropriety (Dukkaṭa)

The *Good See* says: "duk" means bad, and "kaṭa" means doing. The *Sound Treatise* gives the correct pronunciation as dukkaṭa. The *Four-Part Vinaya*'s precept recitation calls it śikṣākaraṇīya, which is translated as "that which should be learned"; Indian monks call it "keeping the precepts." Since this offense is extremely subtle and exceptionally difficult to observe, it is named for learning and observing as one goes. The *Ten Recitations* says: with the divine eye, one sees monks who have committed offenses falling like swift rain. Is this not because they devote their attention wholeheartedly to it that it is called keeping the precepts? This Vinaya has one hundred trainings for the assembly, and the nuns' rules are identical to those of the great monks. Among the seven categories, this one is divided into two categories: offenses of the body are called "wrong doing"; offenses of speech are called "wrong speech." Some say dukkaṭa is "wrong speech." There must be interpretation and judgment, as set forth in the *Commentary*. The *Treatise on Clarity* explains: all offenses not encompassed by the four categories, together with the shared training and the offenses stated in the *Vasubandhu Vinaya*, are all included in the fifth category, the Dukkaṭa division. This is the name used by the Sammitīya school. Because there is no separate bodily or verbal action, its meaning is translated as "wrong doing." The *Sarvāstivāda* calls it duṣkṛta, which employs both bodily and verbal action and is translated as "wrong doing." Though the same name is translated, the meanings are two different things. In distinguishing heavy from light: the heavy is called dukkaṭa, the light is called shared training. In Sanskrit it is śikṣākaraṇīya; in the current pronunciation of the central lands it is śikṣākaraṇīya; both are translated as "shared training." If one does not move the body or speech, and the offense is light, then reproving the mind alone eliminates it. If one moves the body or speech, then it is heavy and only confession before another person eliminates it. People here do not understand how to distinguish heavy from light and simply call it all "the many trainings"—this is a mistake. If it arises only in the mind, without expedient means; if the body and speech are moved, there are two kinds of expedient means, near and far. If the root is confessed, the expedient means are eliminated accordingly. For heavy offenses, one reproves the mind heavily; for light offenses, one simply says, "I should not have given rise to such a thought"—this is called the repentance of reproving the mind. This also applies universally below. The *Four-Part Vinaya*'s precepts and rules are comprehensively bound together as two hundred and fifty, to serve as the essential summary.

The above has already set out in full the categories of offenses in order, briefly explaining their names and definitions. As for what remains untreated: the second category, the two undetermined offenses, is described in terms of the situations involved, and it applies across all six categories of offenses. If we consider the essence of the offense, it consists in giving rise to doubt and lack of faith, which is a duṣkṛta (wrongdoing). The text sets forth three offenses and two offenses by briefly citing instances of giving rise to doubt; the full account is presented in the Commentary. Within the seven methods of settling disputes, offenses are likewise present throughout. However, because disputes arise over the four kinds of purification and the parties remain unreconciled, the seven remedies were established to eliminate and put an end to them. Since the text and meaning are extensive and the principle and its aspects are profound, to expound them would be labor in vain and would never reach the end; therefore they are briefly left untreated. And since monks and nuns share the same numbering, together they form the common precepts.

Question: The five categories and the seven groups—what is the meaning of their being separate or combined? What has been explained above speaks only of the six groups. Answer: As for the five categories, the *Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya*, which is what our tradition takes as its authority, speaks only of five kinds of offenses, five kinds of prohibitions, and the five groups of offenses. The six groups and seven groups belong to the later section of the *Dharmaguptaka Vinaya*. For now, let us distinguish the seven from the five: when all three meanings are present, the offense falls within the five; first, equality of name; second, equality of substance; third, ultimate equality. When these three are not complete, the offense is included in the groups generally. As for the difference between the six and the seven, this too has a rationale: in the six, *duṣkṛta* is combined because it shares the same substance; in the seven, evil speech is separated out because its faults are numerous.

Question: Above, the names and substances of the six groups were fully set out; please explain what the names and characteristics of the five categories and seven groups are. Answer: The names of the five categories are: first, *pārājika*; second, *saṃghāvaśeṣa*; third, *pāyattika*; fourth, *pratideśanīya*; fifth, *duṣkṛta*. The seven groups are: first, *pārājika*; second, *saṃghāvaśeṣa*; third, *sthūlātyaya*; fourth, *pāyattika*; fifth, *pratideśanīya*; sixth, *duṣkṛta*; seventh, evil speech. Here only the two sets of names are listed; for a full account, see the *Commentary on the Prātimokṣa*.

Question: In the Vinaya, monks are said to have two hundred and fifty precepts, and the Prātimokṣa text contains them in full; nuns are said to have five hundred. Is this statement true or not? Answer: These two listings are fixed numbers given as approximate indications; thus all the schools speak generally, and one need not adhere to the number. As to the essence of the precepts, it is solely non-action; when characterized in terms of objects, it extends to the number of dust motes. The figure of two hundred and fifty is given merely as a path for observing and violating them. In the Vinaya, nuns have three hundred and forty-eight precepts, and one may take this as the number of what is to be guarded against. Now, according to the *Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom*: for nuns receiving the precepts, in brief there are five hundred, and in full exposition, eighty thousand; for monks, in brief there are two hundred and fifty, and in full it is likewise the same as the nuns' code of discipline.

Next, I will explain the karmic consequences of the offenses committed. This has two parts: first, examining the relative lightness and heaviness of the karma generated; second, citing scriptural passages to demonstrate the results that will follow.

In junior [levels of understanding], karma is initiated and arises in dependence on the three poisons; yet the origin of these poisons is rooted in the mind of self-attachment. This principle is extensively expounded, and practitioners must recognize it; as in the repentance teachings, the characteristics of karma are fully explained. Now, briefly describing the arising of transgression, it necessarily arises in dependence on the three natures; the depth or lightness of the retribution received is all rooted in mental karma. Therefore, the *Vyākhyāyukti* explains: breaking the precepts and incurring offense—the weight is not fixed. With a heavy mind, breaking a light precept, the offense is heavy. With a mind lacking shame and modesty, one acts without fear of difficulty. Or it arises from views, claiming there is no cause and effect. Or it arises from lack of faith, claiming this precept was not established by the Buddha; or not believing that breaking this precept brings this retribution. Or it arises from doubt: Is it definitely established by the Buddha? Or not established by the Buddha? Is retribution definitely obtained? Or not definitely obtained? If one breaks [precepts] from such a mind, the offense is heavy. If not from such a mind, but breaking precepts incidentally, what is heavy instead becomes light. Now, according to the three natures, the characteristics of offenses are fully listed.

First, offending the Precepts with a good heart. This refers to cases like those in the *Sengqi Lü*: a managing monk who is ignorant of the defining characteristics of the Precepts misappropriates the property of the Three Jewels among one another; whatever rule he violates in doing so constitutes a Pārājika offense. Or one sees another person weary of life and provides them with the means of death; or one watches a layperson kill a living being and tells them to do it quickly, so as not to let it suffer. These are all cases of creating wrongdoing with a compassionate mind, yet the object of the act is grave. One does not escape offense merely because of ignorance; since such matters can be learned, all are held to the root offense. Thus the Vinaya text says: the foolish one commits a Pārājika, and so on down to a duṣkṛta as well. Again, as the *Sarvāstivāda* tradition says: a young monk who does not know the defining characteristics of the Precepts pulls up grass on a stūpa, and incurs both offense and merit. As for the resulting retribution, the suffering he receives is light; because of his originally good intention, his suffering does not increase; yet he does not escape hell, because he has violated the precept-receiving essence. If one offends against a natural precept, one bears two offenses—that is, the karmic path and the violation of the prohibition. If one offends against a prohibitive precept, such as destroying grass and trees, one incurs only one offense, because in the teaching of transformation such an act was not originally prohibited. No sentient being is there to be harmed. If one later repents and cleanses it away, one returns to original purity—unlike offending against a natural precept. This is explained at length in the *Da Zhidu Lun* below.

The second kind is the unwholesome mind. This refers to knowing the characteristics of the precepts, or again being ignorant of them; being disrespectful toward the network of the teachings and reviling the Buddha's words. As the *Vimuktimārga* states: there are four kinds of coarse and evil speech that constitute an offense: first, a heavily defiled mind of greed, hatred, and delusion; second, not believing in the retribution of karma; third, not cherishing the precepts one has undertaken; fourth, being disrespectful toward the Buddha's words. When such acts are done deliberately, they bring heavy results. By this passage it is proven that, through lack of shame and conscience and absence of any initial remorse, this is an unwholesome mind. Therefore the *Satyasiddhiśāstra* says that killing an ant with a mind of harm is heavier than killing a person with a mind of compassion. Because the root karma is heavy, one is certain to receive its retribution; even if one repents and falls away from the offense, the path of karma is not thereby removed. As the *Daśabhāṇavāra* says: when Devadatta split the saṅgha and committed the offense of sthūlātyaya, the Buddha had him repent before the saṅgha, yet with regard to the path of karma he still fell into the Avīci hell. Therefore the *Hell Sūtra* says: first, the act is fixed; second, the result is fixed—the majestic power of all the Buddhas cannot overturn this. This is set forth extensively at the end of the fascicle.

Those who commit offenses with a neutral, non-recorded mind are those who from the start have no intention of restraint or protection, drifting along with the current and giving free rein to their inclinations. Their minds are neither good nor bad—they act casually and carelessly. For example, a monk sits around engaging in idle, empty talk, wasting time and neglecting his duties, letting body and speech run loose. Or he may injure grass, trees, or the earth with his hands and feet, arrange marriages in collusion with the monastic community, misuse monastic property, keep extra robes beyond the permitted limit, enter lay households at improper times, touch monastic utensils with his hands, and damage his bodily and verbal decorum. All such cases of this kind fall under the category of offenses incurred. The only exception is one who constantly maintains mindful restraint and acts through forgetfulness by mistake—this is not driven by the mind and does not generate future karma. It is not the same as the above cases, which involve prior deliberate preparation; if afterward one falls asleep, becomes drunk, or goes insane, and the karmic result then comes to be, this is classified as a completed offense together with the preceding preparation, and it is just as the treatise describes: neutral actions producing karmic results.

Question: If neutral actions have no karma, how can they have results? Answer: There are two ways to understand this. First, when we say they produce results, it means there was prior deliberate preparation, and afterward one entered a neutral state; the karma is completed within the neutral mind, and so we say it produces results—but in reality the neutral mind itself is not the result. Second, such actions do not produce a general karmic result, but they do not fail to bring about individual retribution. For example, in the scriptures there is the case of a dhutanga monk who, unaware, killed a living being; when that being died, it was reborn as a wild boar, and on a mountain it pushed a stone loose, which fell and killed the monk in turn. Again, as in the *Five Hundred Questions*, a monastic administrator accidentally touched pure utensils and became a feces-eating ghost. And as in the *Treatise on Establishment*, sleep completes karma—this is neutral karma.

Question: As for the neutral actions mentioned above, there are cases where no offense is incurred. What are the characteristics of these? Answer: This was briefly explained earlier; now I will set it forth more fully. It means one has studied and knows the characteristics of the precepts, understands well what constitutes keeping and violating them, and one's mind is constantly vigilant and sharp. If occasionally one forgets and is confused, because this is not driven by deliberate intention, it is permitted and no offense is incurred. For example, when extra robes exceed the time limit and one forgets to purify them; when one guards the sense faculties well but falls asleep and has an emission; when supporting wood or stone and one's hand slips and kills someone—such circumstances as these do not constitute a binding offense. The opposite of the above mental state, however, does constitute a full offense. And so, karmic suffering accumulates layer upon layer, and the results of future births are without end. One recklessly lets body and speech run loose, polluting the dust-like sense objects; since there are no three wholesome factors to attach to, one only adds to the wheel of the three evil destinies' suffering. Passing from life to life in this way—this is truly a cause for lamentation.

Second, citing evidence to confirm the karmic retribution. As the Maudgalyayana Sutra on the Retribution of Offenses says: If a monk or nun, lacking a sense of shame, treats the Buddha's words with disrespect and commits the offense of a transgression within the training precepts, they will fall into the hells for a lifespan like that of the Four Heavenly Kings—five hundred years—which by human reckoning is nine hundred thousand years.

The second, the offense of Confession of Transgression: they will fall into the hells for a lifespan like that of the Trayastrimsha Heaven—one thousand years—which by human reckoning is three billion sixty thousand years.

The third, the offense of Expiation: they will fall into the hells for a lifespan like that of the Yama Heaven—two thousand years—which by human reckoning is twenty-one billion forty thousand years.

The fourth, the offense of Suspension: they will fall into the hells for a lifespan like that of the Tushita Heaven—four thousand years—which by human reckoning is fifty billion sixty thousand years.

The fifth, the offense of Sanghavashesha: they will fall into the hells for a lifespan like that of the Heaven of Joyful Transformation—eight thousand years—which by human reckoning is two hundred thirty billion forty thousand years.

The sixth, the offense of Parajika: they will fall into the hells for a lifespan like that of the Heaven of Enjoying Others' Creations—sixteen thousand years—which by human reckoning is nine hundred twenty-one billion sixty thousand years.

In the Nirvana Sutra: for committing the offense of a transgression, one falls into the hells for a lifespan measured in the days and months of the Trayastrimsha Heaven—eight million years. The reason this differs from the preceding sutra passage is that it refers to a difference in the scale of reckoning: here, ten thousand times ten thousand is taken as one hundred million.

The scriptures quoted above are all authentic translations spoken by the Buddha himself—they are not texts of unknown translators or of doubtful or spurious origin. Do not let your mind run wild into the realm of wrongdoing, never once reflecting or coming to your senses. A single transgression already brings punishment; how much more must repeated transgressions lead to long kalpas of suffering.

Today, many who do not understand the teachings harm themselves, saying: "This prohibition of the precepts is the teaching of the Śrāvakas; for us of the Great Vehicle, it is to be discarded like dung. It is like a yellow leaf, a wooden ox or wooden horse, used to trick little children into stopping; these precepts are likewise a trick to deceive you Śrāvaka disciples."

In truth, the two vehicles, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, are not separated in principle; medicine is prescribed according to the capacity of the patient, with curing the illness as the priority. Therefore, at the Deer Park, the Buddha first taught for the Śrāvakas, yet eighty thousand devas there awakened the mind of the Great Way; and when he announced his parinirvāṇa in the Twin Sāla Grove, he finally revealed the Buddha-nature, yet some in the audience attained the fruit of Arhatship. From this we can infer that understanding depends on the mind, not solely on the intent of the teaching. Therefore, the World-Honored One, living in the world, deeply understood the capacities of beings, and in all that he did, always made deportment and discipline the foundation.

However, what is expressed through body and speech must be guarded by the precepts; the three poisons surge up, and they must be controlled by the mind. Now, first seize with precepts, next bind with concentration, and finally kill with wisdom—this is the natural order of things. Today there are unworthy people who do not know their own station or level, and recklessly claim for themselves, saying they are of the Great Vehicle; they trifle with the true scriptures and exalt their own teachings. The Śrīmālā Sutra says: "Vinaya is the study of the Mahāyāna." The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says: "The eighty divisions are the perfection of morality." Such scriptures and treatises never enter their ears—is this not pitiable?

Therefore, the Māyā Sutra says: "If a young monk, in the midst of the assembly, slanders the Vinaya, know that this is a sign of the Dharma's destruction." The Nirvana Sutra also says: "If someone claims that the Tathāgata's statement that a duṣkṛta offense leads to hell for as many years as there are atoms is merely an expedient to frighten people, know that such a teaching is definitely a scripture and Vinaya of Māra, not spoken by the Buddha." By this passage it is proven that the Tathāgata foresaw that this would happen in the future, and so spoke beforehand to establish what is false and what is true, so that there would be no confusion. Yet there are those who join such factions as before—they may truly be called Māra's people.

Also, the Sutra of the Buddha's Bequeathed Teaching and other sutras point to the Vinaya as the great master, saying: "If I were still in the world, it would be no different from this." To willfully defy this is to bring deep disaster upon oneself. Therefore, the Sutra of a Hundred Parables says: "Once there was a teacher who kept two disciples; each was responsible for one of his feet and massaged it as needed. The elder disciple, resentful of the younger, broke the foot the younger was responsible for; the other then resented this and broke the foot the elder was responsible for." This illustrates how today students of the Vaipulya (Mahāyāna) criticize the Hīnayāna, and students of the Hīnayāna criticize the Vaipulya; thus the great and holy Dharma is lost in both directions. By this we know it is so, and today we see it with our own eyes.

Furthermore, the Bodhisattva's teachings are meant to open the way and benefit the world; they are done when conditions arise, without becoming tainted by their influence. Bodhisattvas of the initial resolve follow the same disciplinary rules as Śrāvakas; in guarding against reproach and suspicion, their observance of the precepts is no different. Thus in the Nirvana Sutra, when the rākṣasa begged for a speck of the float's bladder, the Bodhisattva refused to give it—this illustrates guarding the duṣkṛta precepts. The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom also says: "A monastic Bodhisattva, in order to guard the precepts, does not accumulate wealth; for the merit of the precepts surpasses that of generosity; if I do not [keep the precepts], then it is like giving away the lives of all beings." This is proven by these passages.

These days, people who rashly study the Mahayana do not conduct themselves in a way worth emulating, and their words exceed the reality. Ashamed of their own violations, they wrongly praise themselves. I once said to them: "The Precepts are a minor teaching; you may as well set them aside." They would not agree. "You may as well uphold them." Again they would not agree. Are they not thereby joining with the afflictions, so that in the end they are hard to counsel or instruct? How pitiful!

Now monks and nuns who follow the sacred teaching and receive the Precepts according to the Dharma must, by principle, protect and uphold them; only then is their reception complete. If from the very beginning there is no protection, then even though they have received, it is not complete. Therefore the *Sarvāstivāda* says: without a grave and weighty mind, no non-arising form is produced. Even if the reception is completed and the outward demeanor is admirable, for the Dharma to remain in the world, by principle all must equally protect it.

Nowadays, when heads are shaved, robes are dyed, the four-part monastic karma is performed, monasteries are established, and both clergy and laity are instructed and guided, none of what is done is outside the Precepts. But when it comes to producing what is wholesome, receiving benefit, and the places where one must personally take hold and apply oneself, they say with their mouths, "I ought to do this." Yet when it comes to defiling the Precepts, giving rise to wrongdoing, and places where one violates the net of the teachings, they then say, "I am of the Mahayana; this does not concern the lesser teaching." That is why the *Buddha Treasury* sets forth the simile of the bird-rat monk and the donkey draped in a lion's skin. There is ample condemnation and reproach; what need is there to set it forth further?

I fear that later, ignorant beginners will be covered in dust by such people, and so I have cited and drawn this out indirectly. Still I fear they may be equally defiled. How pitiful!