Chapter on the Nature of Precepts

Now, the essence of precepts is the pivotal point of the Vinaya, the foundation for upholding and violating them, the source for reversing the flow of defilements, and the precursor for initiating practice. However, because the teachings in various texts are profound and hidden, and their principles are deep and subtle, throughout nine generations of transmitting the teachings, outstanding sages occasionally emerged. Although each displayed different approaches, none decisively clarified the essential meaning. It was not until the Tang Dynasty that our Patriarch alone exhaustively investigated the profound nature, re-examined the ancient teachings, refuted and discarded the superficial and false, analyzed and determined the essential tenets, carefully considered the principles, and clearly revealed the three schools. This can truly be called gathering the source of the entire teaching and issuing the sun of wisdom for the multitude of the deluded.

However, since the sage Patriarch has passed away, the texts remain but the principles are obscured. Consequently, about six or seven private interpretations have arisen arbitrarily, each claiming to be the guide. How could one know which direction to take? Since none are correct, they do not benefit later generations. I generally do not cite them. At this time, Zilong also produced a commentary, claiming to base the essence of the precepts on the three schools from the *Yishu*. Having examined it from beginning to end, its merit lies in refuting others, but it fails in its own explanation. Now, what must be refuted is due to the confusion of terms, which misled the scholars of various schools at that time. I will briefly point out four faults to distinguish right from wrong.

First, the confusion of Mahayana and Hinayana. He states that the "provisional school" of the Four-Part Vinaya takes seeds as the essence of the precepts. (The *Zenghui* commentary also holds this view, but it specifically takes the function on the seed as distinct.) Now, the theory of seeds is not even discussed in the provisional, shallow teachings of sutras and treatises, let alone in the Hinayana Vinaya! Furthermore, if one says the provisional school's essence is seeds, then what is this "neither-form-nor-mind"? Also, if the provisional school already speaks of seeds, then what is the purpose of establishing the "perfect school" for the essence of precepts? Such reckless statements disrupt the teachings and cannot be lightly forgiven.

Second, the deviation from the meaning of "perfect." "Perfect" means interpenetrating, all-encompassing, non-dual, and non-partial. His explanation of the perfect school's essence of precepts says: "Due to creating karmic actions, seeds are perfumed into the fundamental storehouse consciousness, eternally becoming seeds. This is the essence of the precepts. It is different from the provisional school which externally posits seeds." (When did the provisional school ever say seeds are the essence? Also, seeds are one; how can one speak of difference?) Since he says "different," how can it be called the "perfect" meaning? He also says: "From shallow to deep, the three schools successively negate each other." If they can negate each other, can this be called "perfect"? My explanation of the perfect meaning is vastly different from his, as will be seen below.

Third, the erroneous division into two essences. He forcibly divides the text of the perfect school, according to his own idea, into the essence of the "acting" and "non-acting" precepts. This error is even more severe. The reason the perfect school does not divide them is because it harmonizes the provisional and the real, pointing out and refuting the previous two schools. The essence of the previous schools *is* the essence of the perfect school; therefore, they cannot be separately divided. Not understanding this intention, he produces many erroneous statements. Furthermore, aware of his own lack of understanding, he says: "However, there is much discussion about this essence of precepts. One can grasp the meaning intuitively; there is no need for detailed explanation." Judging his words to discern his mind, his mind can also be seen.

Fourth, the concealment of the sage's text. The Patriarch's commentary in establishing the schools and elucidating the essence, its textual meaning and logical structure, is completely comprehensive. Yet he appropriates the titles and terms from the commentary, mixes in a little of his own words, presents it as his own establishment. The fault of hiding the sage's work is too great to describe. Among his writings, there are even more mistaken theories; I have only briefly mentioned a few here.

Alas! The times change, people become superficial, diligent in reputation but lazy in study. To hope for one who will illuminate the teachings and set a standard for future generations—a figure unmatched for a hundred generations—I fear I will not see it. Thus, the Patriarch's remaining instructions and the ultimate discourse on the essence of precepts are nearly extinguished. We still rely on the transmitted texts not being lost, clear as stars and sun, steadfast as gold and jade. Therefore, we are fortunate to hear of them.

Thus, I have specifically extracted and compiled a separate text based on the commentary, yet still grieve that it is not detailed enough. Therefore, I will briefly state its main points.

First, the *Multiple-Aspects School*: The essence of both the "acting" and "non-acting" precepts is "name," which is understandable.

Second, the *Establishment School*: The essence of the "acting" precept is "form and mind," which is also understandable. As for the "non-acting" precept having "neither-form-nor-mind" as its essence: However, "neither-form-nor-mind" is merely a collective name encompassing dharmas; it is not actually a description of the essence. This has consequently led to numerous erroneous explanations throughout the ages.

Now, based on the commentary's text, we investigate the essence by examining the name. It is directly a veiled discussion of wholesome seeds. However, because the Hinayana schools did not reveal it directly, they externally established the name "neither-form-nor-mind." Therefore, the commentary states: "Investigating this karmic essence, it fundamentally arises from the mind. It perfumes the fundamental mind back, possessing capability and function." It further states, "...not knowing what to call it, forcibly named 'non-dual'." Examining this text carefully, it does not directly say "wholesome seeds," but says "perfumes the mind, possesses function." The intention of the veiled discussion is clearly evident. One should understand that this is precisely the investigation revealing the essence of "neither-form-nor-mind."

Zilong, not understanding this, simply stated that the Four-Part Vinaya takes seeds as the essence, confusing the lineage of the schools. This is deeply unacceptable.

Question: If this is a secret teaching, where is the open teaching found?

Now, this perfect teaching—how could it not be clear?

Question: Some say the four-part precept essence penetrates into the Mahayana. What does this mean?

Answer. Since the Patriarch taught that the two teachings are distinct yet interconnected, and each discusses its own essence, how could this be called a partial or probing entry? Therefore, it is clear this is not the case.

Third is the Perfect Teaching. This can be broadly divided into four sections.

First, clarifying the meaning of 'Perfect'. It means to harmoniously integrate the previous schools and directly point to the true meaning. The two essences discussed in the previous schools are the seeds of goodness. (This is viewing the fundamental through the phenomenal.) These very seeds of goodness are the two essences of the previous schools. (This is returning the phenomenal to the fundamental.) Therefore, from the perspective of this Perfect Teaching, any name can be applied without fixation. As the Commentary states, "Regarding this one Dharma, the three schools make distinctions." Thus, we know the distinctions are threefold, but the essence is truly not dual. The rest will be explained below.

Question: If you say that the essence is one, yet it is distinguished into three, then does that mean the first two schools only have empty names and ultimately lack any real essence?

Although each school holds its own view, the essence itself is not fundamentally different. It is because people perceive differences that they forcibly construct other names. It should be understood that the Sarvāstivāda school considers the seeds to be material, while the Sautrāntika school considers them to be non-material and non-mental. It is only the later Perfect Teaching that points out and clarifies the previous two. Therefore, the commentary says, "Foolish people perceive differences and become attached to them," and so on. Let me illustrate with an analogy: like a beautiful piece of jade in the world, some ignorant people call the jade a stone; others call it "not-a-stone," yet still fail to reveal its true substance. Later, someone who truly understands points out the errors of the previous two. If there were no actual jade, how could there be those who fail to recognize it? This analogy is similar to the three schools' teachings on conditioned dharmas.

Second, the correct naming: past masters have sometimes called it "the seed of volition" or "the seed of perfuming." However, volition and perfuming belong to conditioned action, while the seed itself is unconditioned. How can we refer to the unconditioned with terms that cause confusion? Some call it simply "seeds," but seeds can be good or evil—this is also not accurate. Now, the correct name for this is "the seed of goodness" as its essence. Therefore, the commentary states, "It is the seed of goodness that constitutes the essence of the precepts"(By saying 'good,' it excludes evil; by not mentioning volition or perfuming, it avoids confusion.).

Question: What is the reason it is called the seed of goodness?

Excellent. Goodness is the essence of the Dharma. 'Seed' is an analogy. It means that the precepts, as numerous as grains of sand, are absorbed into the foundational storehouse consciousness, giving rise to continuous practice. This practice has the power to bring about future results. It is like taking a grain of rice and planting it in a field. A sprout grows, then a seedling, which eventually bears fruit and forms a head of grain. The result corresponds perfectly to the cause. That is why it is called a 'seed'.

Third, regarding the similarities and differences between the great and the small...

Question: Is this the same as the Bodhisattva precept essence, or is it different?