大乘法苑義林章 3.22

3.22

第四具支多少者，支有二義：一支分義、二支類義。支分義者，即廢立門。支類義者，即體類義。支分義者，五十三云「苾芻律儀四支所攝：一受具足支，謂作表白第四羯磨，及略攝受隨麁學處。由具此故，名初苾芻具苾芻戒。」此意即顯初受具戒，作白及為第四羯磨，說四波羅夷等，表受戒者意樂普廣，身語所得皆有止作，名為初支，創成苾芻。故十戒、六法，歸依說相皆即初支。二受隨法學處支。自初受後，於毘奈耶、別解脫中所有隨順苾芻尸羅，若彼所引眾多學處，於彼一切守護奉行，由此得名守護別解脫律儀者。此意即顯受戒已後，廣律、毘奈耶、戒本、別解脫中，隨順所受戒法，謂止持等諸性遮戒，及彼所引諸作持等性、遮戒相守護奉行。其正學、勤策、勤策女戒，及三千威儀等，皆此所攝。三隨護他心支，由成前二，軌則具足、所行具足。此意即顯行、住、坐、臥等如法威儀，名軌則具足。不跳行入白衣舍，及如牛王行、象王步等是。其估酒家、王家、旃荼羅、羯恥那等家，皆不應往，名所行具足。即獨與女人，屏處覆處可作婬處，坐說非法語等是。四隨護如所學處支，於微細罪中深見怖畏，於所學處諸學處中能不毀犯，設犯速出，謂由深見怖畏及聰叡故。此中意說：由怖畏故及聰叡故，深怖諸罪而不敢犯，設犯能出。今此分別律中性遮一切戒相，以類而論說之為支。故由此四，諸出家者於性遮戒皆等護持不減不增。此說大戒，故略為四。《瑜伽．本地分．聲聞地》第二十二卷，及《顯揚》第七，說有七支。如律中說「若諸苾芻尸羅成熟，為第一住。守別解脫律儀，為第二。軌則所行悉皆具足，為第三、第四。於微細罪深見怖畏，為第五。受學學處，為第六。名具戒者。」彼第六，即此初二。彼第三四，即此第三。彼第一、第二、第五，即此第四。增減名數，體性無異。此六支相，廣如《顯揚》第七等解。近事律儀，三支所攝：一受遠離最勝損他事支，即離殺生、損壞他財、損他妻妾，此三損他故。二違越所受重修行支，即離妄語。若有妄語，於已所犯不肯重修故。三不越所受支，即離諸酒眾放逸處。若開飲酒，於前所受便多違越而犯戒故。近住律儀，五支所攝：一受遠離損害他支，即離殺生、損壞他財。二受遠離損害自他支，即離非梵行。由離此者，不染自妻、不染他妻，非如近事開自妻故。三違越所受重修行支，即離妄語。四不越所受正念住支，即是三種：一歌舞伎樂、塗冠香鬘；二昇高大床；三非時飲食。此三種常所串習，若遠離彼，數數自憶我今安住決定齋戒，於一切時堅守正念，如孝子等，離諸樂具，不受大床，遠離諸傲，不數飲食，潔己憶持便能住戒，故於所受不越正念。五不壞正念支，即離諸酒眾放逸處。彼雖安住正憶念支，謂我今住決定齋戒。若為諸酒所醉，便發狂亂不自在轉，故應遮止。此中出家五眾諸戒合一處明。五十三中釋上支已云「今於此中，若苾芻尼、若正學、勤策、勤策女律儀，皆在出家品所攝故，當知攝屬苾芻律儀。復正學等戒體雖狹，皆等護持與苾芻同，故廢立中五眾合說。若近事女律儀，墮在家品攝故、相似學所顯故，當知攝屬近事律儀，不說靜慮及聖所愛戒，并不律儀、處中戒、十善戒等具支多少。」此中意說：七眾戒中，論其別類不同所由，非餘戒中有此增減。釋此所由，故明支分。若說支類，竝須別說。其苾芻尼中，正學、勤策女分三，苾芻分二，及近住、勤策等戒之開合，下問答中自當廣辨。上說支分。支類者何？其苾芻、苾芻尼戒，唯有身三、語四七支律儀。苾芻等心意樂，普遮色性罪故。身語業相雖復無窮，據重根本皆七所攝，不過七故。所餘但為護此而受，非有別類。故《涅槃》云「戒有七種，從於身語生於無作。」然通防彼加行、根本、後起三種，義亦可言皆防三世。於現在法立於過未，既防現法，故義遮三。不同小乘，彼唯防現，故此不爾。定道二心生即順理而能益物，法爾破惡，故亦具七。既無支遮，亦可說言通防三時加行、根本、後起之非。若起彼時，三皆滅故。亦可說言破三世惡。此上二類，實唯防現在，去、來二世無自體故，義可通之。定戒唯根本，性定對敵故。其懃策、懃策女，及正學、近事、近住，皆唯四支，身三、語一謂不妄語，令其漸學。意樂未普，更不受多。此四性戒，餘為防此，非別有體。以上一切出家之戒，既為道器必須具受具持方成。近事、近住則不如是，方便誘故。五十三云「百行所攝律儀，謂於十種不善業道，小分遠離、多分遠離、全分遠離，小時遠離、多時遠離、盡壽遠離，自遠離、勸他離、稱讚離、慶悅離，是名十十。」既說律儀，許有小多分時而離，故知近住、近事二戒有缺有全，受及持一分亦成近事等。《雜集》第八云「問：若唯修學鄔波索迦一分學處，為說成就鄔波索迦律儀？為說不成就耶？答：應說成就，而名犯戒。」此說具受後便少持，故成犯戒。非初少受而後少持可名有犯。先既不受，後何可犯？故知缺受具受，為後具持及少持亦成彼二。有義：近事初雖全受，可一分持，成近事性。既言成就而名犯戒，故知可一分持，非不全受。近住不然，以時促故，受持俱全。《俱舍》第十四說「七因緣故受近住律儀。頌曰『近住於晨旦，下座從師受，隨教說具支，離嚴飾晝夜。』一要晨旦一晝夜持故。若先有邀期，月八日等受。晨旦有緣礙，齋竟亦得受。二在卑劣座，唯除病等。三必從師。四應隨師教受者後說，不同五戒，此不問答，逐師連環而受戒故。五具受八支方成近住。六必離嚴飾，憍逸處故。常嚴身具不必須捨，不生憍逸如新受故。七必須晝夜，猶至明旦日初出時。若不依法，但得妙行不得律儀。」今則不然，但有六緣，無必從師。義如下說。論說近事有一分等，不須具支。《智度論》說「受一戒者名一分優婆塞，若受二三四戒者名多分優婆塞，具受五者名滿分優婆塞。」又《涅槃》三十五說「我往一時住迦毘羅衛尼拘律陀林時，釋摩男來至我所作如是言：『云何名為優婆塞也。』我即為說：『若善男子善女人，諸根完具，受三歸依，是則名為優婆塞也。』釋摩男言：『云何名為一分優婆塞也。』我言：『若受三歸及受一戒，是名一分優婆塞也。』我諸弟子聞是說已，不解我意，唱言如來說優婆塞戒不具受持。我於一時住恒河邊，時迦旃延來至我所作如是言：『世尊！我教眾生令受齋法，或一日或一夜、或一時或一念，如是之人成齋不耶？』我言：『比丘！是人得善，不名持齋。』我諸弟子聞是說已，不解我意，唱言如來說八戒齋具受乃得。」准彼經文，世尊先說若受三歸及受一戒是名一分優婆塞者，近事戒也。若近住戒有一分者，名不解意。後說若但一日無夜、若但一夜無日，或一時、或一念，皆不成齋，要盡一晝一夜、不非時食，持成齋故。我只但言齋必盡日夜，弟子不解，必具八支方成於齋。故知近住戒不具受不得，近事戒者不具受得。前師即以此文為正，近事、近住皆通具受及不具受，一切皆得。說不具得名不解我意者，引攝初根許一分受，非引久根亦受一分，漸漸化令必具受故，故唯受一分。無全受者，名不解意。若必全受無一分者，亦不解意。《對法》且據具受少持，非遮亦有少受少持。由此准知，不律儀亦有具七支及缺支者。世間現見，邀期盡壽唯行殺生而自存活，未必皆具前七業道，豈彼非是不律儀耶？律儀既爾，對之定然。受持願盡壽名不律儀，但雖盡壽不邀期者處中所攝。有義：不律儀要七支具，惡法易成，意樂廣故，隨順亦行彼七事故。若不具七，雖期盡壽，處中所攝，不同律儀。律儀難成，意樂難廣，故有缺支。不律儀不爾，故必具七支。此二解中，隨情取捨。處中業道多少不定，隨其願樂而作事故。由此亦准，近事得少時，近住得多時。多分、少分，多時、少時，誰障其戒？但至明旦，要至命終，方得方捨，准義得成，十善律儀故。出家戒不爾，非初攝受，簡擇方取為道器故。有義：不爾。別受近事無少時，近住無多時。少分多分等，不同百行律儀。此分限局，近事但有盡形捨，近住但有日出捨，不許餘時故。若菩薩戒中，雜既可爾。今釋不然。論據三乘通行，令諸受者不解，多分為論。不說受者意樂短長，捨戒時故。何故許有少分持、不許少時受？其十善律儀通攝初眾，即許少多分等，近事等何故不爾？前說為善。十善即善業道，既許意有無表，即具十支。菩薩律儀制十支故、性罪治故，色支唯七，後三非色。其菩薩戒期心廣故，必須具受，亦非初位引攝之故。

Fourth, regarding the number of components possessed: 'Component' (aṅga) has two meanings: first, the meaning of functional division; second, the meaning of category of essence. The meaning of functional division refers to the approach of setting up and classifying [the components]. The meaning of category of essence refers to the essence and its classes.

Regarding the meaning of functional division, fascicle 53 [of the Yogācārabhūmi] states: 'The bhikṣu prātimokṣa is subsumed under four components: First, the component of receiving full ordination, which refers to performing the motion and fourth karmavācanā (jñapticatutthakamma), as well as briefly undertaking the training rules according to the grosser [offences]. Because one possesses this, one is called an initial bhikṣu who possesses the bhikṣu precepts.' This intention shows that when initially receiving the full precepts, performing the motion and the fourth karmavācanā, and preaching the four pārājikas and so forth, indicates that the recipient's intention is vast and universal, and that all physical and verbal actions obtained possess abstentions and practices; hence it is called the first component, newly becoming a bhikṣu. Therefore, the ten precepts, the six dharmas, the refuges, and the explanation of the marks of the precepts are all this first component.

Second is the component of undertaking training rules conforming to the Dharma. After the initial reception, with regard to all the bhikṣu śīla conforming [to the Dharma] in the vinaya and prātimokṣa, and the numerous training rules entailed by them, guarding and practicing all of them—by this one is termed a 'guardian of the prātimokṣa discipline'. This intention shows that after receiving the precepts, one guards and practices the precepts conforming to what was received in the extensive vinaya, Vinaya [Piṭaka], the prātimokṣa-sūtra, and prātimokṣa—namely, the primary and formulated precepts regarding abstention, as well as the marks of the primary and formulated precepts regarding positive practice and so forth entailed by them. The precepts for probations (śikṣamāṇā), novice monks (śrāmaṇera), and novice nuns (śrāmaṇerikā), as well as the three thousand forms of deportment, are all subsumed under this.

Third is the component of guarding the minds of others accordingly. Due to fulfilling the previous two, deportment is complete and domain of activity is complete. This intention shows that walking, standing, sitting, lying down, and other bodily deportments according to the Dharma are termed 'completeness of deportment'—such as not skipping into the houses of laypersons, and moving like a king of bulls or striding like an elephant king. Not going to places such as tavern-keepers, royal palaces, caṇḍālas, and low-caste homes is termed 'completeness of domain of activity'—namely, being alone with a woman in a secluded or covered place where sexual intercourse could occur, sitting and speaking improper speech, and the like.

Fourth is the component of guarding training rules as trained. Deeply seeing fear in minute faults, being able not to violate the training rules among all the training rules, and if violated, quickly emerging from them, which is through deeply seeing fear and through sagacity. The intention here means: because of fear and sagacity, one deeply dreads all faults and dares not violate them, and if violated, can emerge. Now here, analyzing all marks of primary and formulated precepts in the vinaya and speaking of them as components by grouping them into categories: therefore, due to these four, all renunciants equally protect primary and formulated precepts without decrease or increase. This speaks of the great precepts; hence they are summarized into four.

Fascicle 22 of the Śrāvakabhūmi in the Basic Section of the Yogācārabhūmi, and fascicle 7 of the Xianyang [shengjiao lun], state that there are seven components. As the Vinaya states: 'When a bhikṣu's śīla is mature, this is the first dwelling. Guarding the prātimokṣa discipline is the second. Completeness of deportment and domain of activity are the third and fourth. Deeply seeing fear in minute faults is the fifth. Undertaking the training rules is the sixth. This is called one possessing the precepts.' That sixth is the initial two here. That third and fourth are the third here. That first, second, and fifth are the fourth here. The names and numbers increase or decrease, but their essential nature is without difference. The characteristics of these six components are explained extensively in fascicle 7 of the Xianyang, etc.

The upāsaka discipline is subsumed under three components: First is the component of undertaking the abandonment of the foremost harmful actions toward others, namely abstaining from taking life, damaging another's property, and violating another's wife or concubine, because these three harm others. Second is the component of re-engaging in practice when transgressing what was undertaken, namely abstaining from false speech, for if one engages in false speech, one will not re-engage in practice regarding what has already been violated. Third is the component of not transgressing what was undertaken, namely abstaining from intoxicating liquors, which are bases of negligence; for if drinking liquor is permitted, one will transgress much of what was previously undertaken and violate the precepts.

The upavāsa discipline is subsumed under five components: First is the component of undertaking the abandonment of harming others, namely abstaining from taking life and damaging another's property. Second is the component of undertaking the abandonment of harming oneself and others, namely abstaining from non-celibacy; through abstaining from this, one is neither attached to one's own wife nor to another's wife, unlike the upāsaka who is permitted his own wife. Third is the component of re-engaging in practice when transgressing what was undertaken, namely abstaining from false speech. Fourth is the component of not transgressing what was undertaken through the dwelling of right mindfulness, which comprises three types: 1. singing, dancing, musical entertainments, and applying perfumes, garlands, and ointments; 2. ascending high and broad beds; 3. taking food at improper times. These three kinds are habitually practiced; if one abandons them, repeatedly recollecting oneself: 'I now dwell in the determined fast, firmly maintaining right mindfulness at all times,' like a filial son who renounces instruments of pleasure, does not accept large beds, stays away from arrogance, does not repeatedly eat, and purifies himself in mindful retention, he can dwell in the precepts, and thus regarding what was undertaken, he does not transgress right mindfulness. Fifth is the component of not destroying right mindfulness, namely abstaining from intoxicating liquors, which are bases of negligence. Though one dwells in the component of right mindfulness, saying, 'I now dwell in the determined fast,' if one is intoxicated by liquor, madness and uncontrolled behavior will arise; hence it should be prohibited.

Here, the precepts of the five renunciant assemblies are explained together in one place. In fascicle 53, after explaining the above components, it says: 'Now here, whether the discipline of bhikṣuṇīs, or of śikṣamāṇās, śrāmaṇeras, or śrāmaṇerikās, because all are subsumed under the renunciant category, you should know they are subsumed under the bhikṣu discipline. Furthermore, although the essence of the precepts of the śikṣamāṇā and so on is narrower, their equal protection is identical to that of the bhikṣu; therefore, in setting up and classifying them, the five assemblies are explained together. The discipline of the upāsikā, because it falls into the lay category and is revealed by similar training, should be known to be subsumed under the upāsaka discipline. It does not speak of the number of components possessed by the dhyāna precepts, the noble-cherished precepts, the non-discipline, the intermediate precepts, the ten wholesome precepts, and so on.' The intention here is to say: among the precepts of the seven assemblies, in discussing the reasons why their specific categories differ, it is not that other precepts have this increase or decrease. Explaining this reason is why the functional divisions were clarified. If one speaks of categories of essence, they must all be spoken of separately. As for the division of śikṣamāṇās and śrāmaṇerikās into three and bhikṣus into two among bhikṣuṇīs, and the opening or combination of the upavāsa and śrāmaṇera precepts, these will be differentiated in detail below in the questions and answers.

The above discusses the functional divisions. What are the categories of essence? The precepts of bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs possess only the seven components of discipline: the three physical and the four verbal. This is because the intention in the minds of bhikṣus and so forth universally prohibits bodily and natural faults. Although the aspects of physical and verbal karma are limitless, based on the grave fundamentals, they are all subsumed under the seven and do not exceed the seven. The remainder are undertaken merely to guard these, and do not constitute distinct categories. Thus the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'Precepts are of seven kinds; from body and speech arises unmanifest [matter].' However, they universally prevent the three types—preliminary, fundamental, and subsequent—and in meaning, it may also be said that they prevent all three periods of time. Past and future are established based on present dharmas; since they prevent present dharmas, in meaning they prohibit the three. Unlike the Hīnayāna, where they prevent only the present, here it is not so. When the minds of dhyāna and the path arise, they accord with principle and can benefit beings; naturally destroying evil, they also possess all seven. Since there is no prohibition based on specific components, it may also be said that they universally prevent the faults of the three times—preliminary, fundamental, and subsequent. When those arise, all three are extinguished; hence it may also be said that they destroy evil of the three periods of time. These two categories in reality prevent only the present, because past and future periods lack self-essence, yet in meaning it is admissible. Dhyāna precepts pertain only to the fundamental, because the nature of absorption directly counters [defilements].

Śrāmaṇeras, śrāmaṇerikās, śikṣamāṇās, upāsakas, and upavāsas all possess only four components: three physical and one verbal (namely, not lying), in order to cause them to train gradually. Their intention is not yet universal, so they do not undertake more. These four are primary precepts; the rest are for guarding these and have no separate essence. Because all the above renunciant precepts are vessels for the path, one must completely receive and completely maintain them for them to be established. Upāsakas and upavāsas are not like this, because of expedient inducement. Fascicle 53 states: 'The discipline subsumed under the hundred practices refers, with respect to the ten unwholesome courses of karma, to minimal abandonment, partial abandonment, and complete abandonment; brief-period abandonment, long-period abandonment, and lifelong abandonment; self-abandonment, encouraging others to abandon, praising abandonment, and rejoicing in abandonment—these are called the ten-by-ten.' Since it speaks of discipline and permits abandoning for minimal or partial extents and times, we know that the two precepts of upavāsa and upāsaka can be deficient or complete, and that receiving and maintaining one portion also establishes an upāsaka and so on.

Fascicle 8 of the Samuccayavyākhyā says: 'Question: If one only practices and trains in a single portion of an upāsaka's training rules, is he said to accomplish the upāsaka discipline, or is he said not to accomplish it? Answer: He should be said to accomplish it, yet is termed a violator of precepts.' This speaks of completely receiving and then maintaining only a few, hence becoming a violator. It does not mean that receiving a few at first and then maintaining a few can be termed a violator. Since he did not receive them before, how could he violate them later? Thus we know that whether by deficient reception or complete reception, subsequently maintaining them completely or maintaining them partially also accomplishes both.

There is an opinion: Although an upāsaka initially receives them fully, he can maintain one portion and accomplish the status of an upāsaka. Since it says 'he accomplishes it, yet is termed a violator of precepts,' we know he can maintain one portion, not that he does not receive them fully. Upavāsa is not like this; because the time is short, reception and maintenance must both be complete.

Fascicle 14 of the Kośa says: 'The upavāsa discipline is received due to seven causal conditions. The verse says: "Upavāsa is received in the early morning, / on a lower seat from a teacher, / recited after instruction in all components, / free from adornment, for day and night." 1. It must be in the early morning, because it is maintained for one day and night. If there was a prior agreement to receive it on the eighth day of the month and so on, but in the early morning there were hindering conditions, it may also be received after the midday meal. 2. Being on a low seat, except in cases of illness and so forth. 3. It must be from a teacher. 4. The recipient should repeat after the teacher's instruction; unlike the five precepts, there is no question-and-answer here, but one receives the precepts continuously following the teacher. 5. Completely receiving the eight components only then establishes upavāsa. 6. One must abandon adornments, because they are bases of pride and negligence. Habitual adornments need not be discarded, as they do not generate pride like newly received ones. 7. It must be for a day and night, until sunrise the next morning. If not done according to the Dharma, one only obtains good conduct, not the discipline.'

Now, [our school holds that it is] not so: there are only six conditions; there is no requirement that it must be from a teacher. The meaning is as explained below. The treatises state that upāsakas have single portions and so on, and do not need complete components. The Dazhidulun says: 'One who receives one precept is called a one-portion upāsaka; if one receives two, three, or four precepts, he is called a majority-portion upāsaka; one who completely receives all five is called a full-portion upāsaka.' Furthermore, fascicle 35 of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'Once, when I was dwelling in the Nyagrodha grove in Kapilavastu, Mahānāma came to my place and spoke thus: "What is called an upāsaka?" I then explained to him: "If a good man or good woman with all faculties intact receives the three refuges, this is called an upāsaka." Mahānāma said: "What is called a one-portion upāsaka?" I said: "If one receives the three refuges and receives one precept, this is called a one-portion upāsaka." After hearing this, my disciples did not understand my meaning and proclaimed: "The Tathāgata says that the upāsaka precepts are not completely received and maintained." Once, when I was dwelling on the banks of the Ganges, Kātyāyana came to my place and spoke thus: "World-Honoured One! I instruct sentient beings to receive the fast (upavāsa) practice, for either one day or one night, or one hour, or one thought-moment. Does such a person accomplish the fast or not?" I said: "Bhikṣu! This person attains good, but is not called one who maintains the fast." When my disciples heard this explanation, they did not understand my meaning and proclaimed: "The Tathāgata says that only by completely receiving the eight-precept fast is it attained."'

Inferring from that sūtra text: the World-Honoured One previously stated that if one receives the three refuges and receives one precept, this is called a one-portion upāsaka—this refers to the upāsaka precepts. If the upavāsa precepts had a one-portion reception, that would be called not understanding the meaning. Later he stated that if it is only one day without night, or only one night without day, or one hour, or one thought-moment, none of these accomplish the fast; one must complete a full day and night and not eat at improper times to maintain and accomplish the fast. I merely said that the fast must complete a day and night, but disciples did not understand, thinking one must possess the eight components to accomplish the fast. Therefore we know that if the upavāsa precepts are not completely received, they are not obtained; but the upāsaka precepts can be obtained without being completely received.

The former master took this text as definitive: both upāsaka and upavāsa permit complete reception and incomplete reception, and all are obtained. The statement that obtaining incompletely was called 'not understanding my meaning' means: to guide and attract initial capacities, one-portion reception is permitted, not that guiding mature capacities also receives one portion; because one gradually transforms them to necessarily receive completely, receiving only one portion without receiving fully is called 'not understanding the meaning'. If one insists on full reception without a single portion, that too is 'not understanding the meaning'. The Abhidharmasamuccaya just spoke based on complete reception with partial maintenance, not precluding that there is also partial reception with partial maintenance.

From this we can also infer that non-discipline also has instances of possessing all seven components or lacking components. It is seen in the world that someone who resolves for the rest of his life only to take life to sustain himself does not necessarily possess all the previous seven courses of karma; how could he not have non-discipline? Since discipline is like this, its opposite is definitely so. Undertaking a vow for the rest of one's life is called non-discipline; however, even if lifelong, if one does not make a vow, it is subsumed under intermediate karma.

There is an opinion: Non-discipline requires all seven components to be complete; unwholesome dharmas are easily accomplished, the intention is broad, and one also acts in accordance with those seven matters. If it does not possess the seven, even if one resolves for the rest of life, it is subsumed under intermediate karma, unlike discipline. Discipline is difficult to accomplish and the intention is difficult to broaden; hence there are deficient components. Non-discipline is not like that, so it must possess all seven components. Between these two explanations, one may accept or reject as one prefers. The courses of karma in the intermediate category are indefinite in number, acting according to one's vows and preferences.

From this we can also infer: upāsakas can have a brief duration, and upavāsas can have an extended duration. Majority-portion, minority-portion, extended time, brief time—who is to hinder their precepts? But reaching the morning, or reaching the end of life, only then obtaining or relinquishing them—by inference this is accomplished, because of the ten wholesome disciplines. Renunciant precepts are not like this, because they do not initially encompass everyone, but select and take those who are vessels for the path.

There is an opinion: It is not so. Specific reception of upāsaka has no brief time, and upavāsa has no extended time. Minority-portion and majority-portion are not like the discipline of the hundred practices. This limitation is fixed: upāsakas only have relinquishing at the end of life, and upavāsa only has relinquishing at sunrise; no other times are permitted. If within the bodhisattva precepts, mixed forms are indeed permissible.

Now this is explained otherwise: The treatises speak based on common practice of the three vehicles, causing recipients not to understand, and take the majority as the argument. They do not speak of the recipient's intention being short or long at the time of relinquishing the precepts. Why permit partial maintenance but not permit short-duration reception? The ten wholesome disciplines universally encompass beginners and permit minority-portions and majority-portions; why should upāsakas and so forth not be so? The former explanation is superior. The ten wholesome actions are just wholesome courses of karma; since unmanifest karma is admitted for mental karma, they possess ten components. Because the bodhisattva discipline institutes ten components and remedies primary faults, the physical components are only seven, and the latter three are not material. Because the resolve of the bodhisattva precepts is vast, they must be completely received, nor are they merely for guiding and attracting those in initial stages.