大乘法苑義林章 3.24

Next, regarding the conditions for obtaining the prātimokṣa through karmavācanā: according to traditional transmission, the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya possesses four conditions, explained in [the section on] the eight bhikṣus. First, the condition of a karmavācanā: when a bhikṣu is to receive the full ordination, the condition of the required number of saṃgha members being complete. Second, the condition of the teaching and Dharma being accomplished: the formal motion and three announcements (jñapti-caturtha-karman) are accomplished in accordance with the Dharma. Third, the condition of obtaining the place: establishing the boundary is accomplished, and within the boundary there is no factional division of the saṃgha. Fourth, the condition of abiding in the Dharma of a bhikṣu: the required age is reached, and the person is free from obstacles. Only when these four are complete does this great bhikṣu succeed in achieving the full precepts. These also correspond to the five things present in settling disputes, excluding settling disputes itself. As for what is specifically undertaken, it possesses four things present: first, the saṃgha that is able to administer; second, the Dharma that is administered; third, the place where the Dharma is administered, namely the presence of the boundary; fourth, the matter undertaken, namely the presence of the candidate. Now this ordination is precisely what is specifically undertaken; therefore, when these four are complete, one is able to produce the precepts. The six conditions of the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya are just an explanation of the text of the eight bhikṣus. The Vinayamātṛkā-śāstra has five conditions: 1. the upādhyāya is in accordance with the Dharma; 2. the ācārya is in accordance with the Dharma; 3. the seven saṃgha members are pure; 4. the karmavācanā conforms to the text; 5. harmony within the boundary without division. These five conditions are subsumed under the first three of the four [conditions]. The first three [of the Vinayamātṛkā] constitute the first condition [of the Dharmaguptaka]; the next one is the condition of the teaching and Dharma; the next one is the condition of no division of the saṃgha. Now, relying on the fulfillment of the four conditions of the Dharmaguptaka: regarding the fourth among the preceding four conditions, 'the person is free from obstacles,' the Yogācārabhūmi says in fascicle fifty-three: 'Due to six causes, one should not bestow the bhikṣu prātimokṣa.' This is an explanation of the reasons for those obstacles. Fearing that the text would be excessively elaborate, this will be explained later. In the first condition, that the required number of saṃgha members is complete, the Yogācārabhūmi also says: 'Furthermore, excluding any deficiency in the saṃgha members who are able to perform the karmavācanā, the ācārya, the upādhyāya, and those abiding in pure precepts who are complete.' The meaning of this is: the Sthavira and Sarvāstivādin masters hold that if one commits a grave offense, one does not lose the precepts. Therefore, when receiving the precepts, the ācārya and the saṃgha assembly must be pure and united in conferring the precepts; they are the supreme conditions for generating the precepts, whereas the upādhyāya is not determinative. When receiving the precepts, apart from the upādhyāya, if the candidate's name, the names of the obstacles, the names of the three robes, and so forth are not read and specified, and there is a deficiency, then the precepts are not obtained, because the assembly's examination was deficient and was not in harmony. As for the upādhyāya's name, whether it is read or not read, whether he is present within the assembly or not present within the assembly, and whether he is pure or impure, in all cases one still obtains the precepts. The assembly merely knows that a certain person is the upādhyāya, having him take charge of the candidate; he is not an indispensable supreme condition for generating the precepts. However, if one fully reads the upādhyāya's name, his person is present within the assembly, and his precepts are pure, then there is no offense. If the name is not read, or if he is not present in the assembly, or if one knows that the upādhyāya lacks precepts or has broken precepts, and confers ordination on another: although that person obtains the precepts, the present assembly incurs a duṣkṛta. This is because the karmavācanā only says, 'Now I beg from the saṃgha of monks to receive the full precepts,' and does not say that one begs to receive the precepts from the upādhyāya. Even if the upādhyāya's precept-virtue is pure, if the assembly and the ācārya have deficiencies, or their precept-virtue has been violated, the candidate does not obtain the precepts, because the supreme condition is lacking. The Caitika school and others all share this view. Furthermore, some schools say: as long as the upādhyāya is pure, even if the assembly is not pure, one also obtains the full precepts, because the upādhyāya is the supreme condition that arouses their aspiration. The assembly merely inquires into and verifies that the candidate is free from offenses of obstacle, and in harmony confers [the precepts] to cause him to belong to the number of the saṃgha. Therefore, the karmavācanā says: 'Now I beg from the saṃgha of monks to receive the full precepts'; it is not the condition that arouses their supreme aspiration, so why must they be pure? In the Vinaya of the Mahāsāṃghika, both the upādhyāya and the assembly must be pure; only then are the precepts obtained. The upādhyāya is the primary instructor, being the most supreme condition; arousing that supreme aspiration is also due to the upādhyāya. Furthermore, if one maintains the precepts, one is indeed a saṃgha member; if one violates the precepts, one is not a saṃgha member—how could he instruct and form the master-disciple relationship? Moreover, the precepts are begged from the saṃgha, and are obtained only when the saṃgha is in harmony. Since the assembly's practice of the precepts is not pure, they previously did not fall within the number of the saṃgha; how could they conduct the legal ritual and presumptuously utter words of Vinaya? Furthermore, the saṃgha is also a supreme condition for the candidate; since the saṃgha has violated the precepts and does not arouse his aspiration, how could they be a supreme condition for the candidate? Therefore, the upādhyāya and the assembly must both be pure for the candidate to obtain the full precepts. Now in the Mahāyāna, there are generally two views: first, that committing a grave offense with any of the three grades of mind causes the loss of the precepts; second, that committing a grave offense with a middling or inferior grade of mind does not cause the loss of the precepts, but committing a grave offense with a superior grade of mind causes the loss of the precepts. If one relies on the latter meaning, when the upādhyāya is impure but the assembly is pure, one obtains the precepts, because one begs from them and the legal ritual is completed. The upādhyāya is merely a condition of instruction; even if known to be impure, since one does not beg the precepts from him, why should one not obtain them? If one relies on the former meaning, both the upādhyāya and the saṃgha must be pure before the precepts can be obtained. The upādhyāya is a supreme condition of instruction, because before approaching the saṃgha one has already begged the full precepts from the upādhyāya. Moreover, take for instance a border region where the saṃgha numbers four persons: because of the legal ritual and because of the condition of conferring the precepts, lacking one or having one commit a grave offense are both unacceptable, because there is no non-saṃgha that confers the precepts. The Yogācārabhūmi says: 'The phrase that the upādhyāya abides in pure precepts and the complete saṃgha abides in pure precepts applies above to the upādhyāya and below to the saṃgha, because both are required.' What has been explained above applies to all disciples during the Buddha's presence and after his demise, excluding the fruit of pratyekabuddhas, who receive the full precepts; it does not refer to all cases. What has been discussed above concerns the specific conditions. Regarding the general conditions, there are conditions common to all precepts; a verse should be spoken: 'A bhikṣu does not receive [precepts] by himself, / Because of selection by others. / For upavāsa and other precepts, / One receives them oneself or from others. / Expressive action is termed from others; / Non-expressive action is received only by oneself. / Self-reception is only mental expression; / Because non-expression indicates to another, / These are the prātimokṣa.' Fascicle fifty-three of the Yogācārabhūmi says: 'Here, some receive the discipline through others or by themselves. Or there are some who receive it solely spontaneously, with the exception of the bhikṣu discipline. Why? Because the bhikṣu discipline is not capable of being received by everyone. If the bhikṣu discipline did not have to be received from others, then whether one is capable of going forth or not capable of going forth, anyone who merely wished to go forth would all spontaneously go forth according to their wishes. In that case, the holy teaching would lack standards, and there would be no well-spoken Dharma and Vinaya that could be understood. Therefore, the bhikṣu discipline does not admit of being received spontaneously. Because of the need for selection, it must be received from others.' This excludes the two [modes of] spontaneous [reception] and [reception through] seeing the truths. Or it may exclude [reception through] having faith in the Buddha as the Great Master; all other [modes] obtain the prātimokṣa precepts, because they lack selection. However, those [cases] also require being free from obstacles and other matters before they can be obtained through spontaneous [awakening], seeing the truths, and so forth.

Therefore, the *Abhidharmakośa-śāstra*, having explained the ten ways of obtaining the precepts, says: "The prātimokṣa vows obtained in this way do not necessarily arise depending on manifest karma, let alone from another person." That is, it allows that, with the exception of the bhikṣu precepts, all other precepts can be received by oneself as well as from another. Therefore, the *Yogācārabhūmi* asks: "Question: If, excluding the bhikṣu prātimokṣa vows, the remaining prātimokṣa vows may be received spontaneously, for what reason are they also received from another? Answer: Because there are two limbs for receiving and guarding [the vows], which keep one away from bad morality: namely, conscience (hrī) and shame (apatrāpya). If one deeply feels shame when committing a sin in the presence of others and in the presence of oneself, one can thereby fully receive the limbs for receiving and guarding [the vows] to keep away from bad morality; hence they are received from another." The meaning expressed here is: because there is conscience, one deeply feels shame when committing a sin in the presence of oneself; because there is shame, one deeply feels shame when committing a sin in the presence of others. Or, because of conscience, when committing a sin in the presence of others or oneself, one feels shame out of regard for oneself, thereby venerating the virtuous; or, because of shame, when committing a sin in the presence of others or oneself, one feels shame out of regard for the world, thereby despising and rejecting violence and evil. Therefore, when shame is manifest, conscience is not necessarily present; but when conscience is present, shame is definitely present. Hence, the dharma of conscience is the most powerful. If one deeply protects and observes [the precepts] just as one has received them oneself, one should know that the merit generated thereby is equal without difference. Because conscience regards oneself, it necessarily entails shame regarding others; while having shame regarding others does not necessarily entail the arising of conscience regarding oneself, for although one protects one's worldly reputation, one may not regard oneself. This speaks of the precepts of the five assemblies of renunciants. The upasaka, upavāsa, and bodhisattva precepts all admit of both forms of reception. This is unlike other schools, where the upavāsa precepts must be received from a teacher. Therefore, the fortieth fascicle of the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* says: "If there is someone who wishes to diligently train in the three collections of precepts, whether householder or renunciant, after having first made the great vow toward unexcelled bodhi, they should carefully seek a fellow bodhisattva who has already made the great vow, possesses wisdom and ability, and is able to confer and explain through the express meaning of speech. In the presence of such an eminent bodhisattva endowed with virtues, they should first bow at their feet, up to the detailed explanation of the five aspects of receiving the precepts." The forty-first fascicle says: "If one does not encounter an individual endowed with such virtues, one should then receive the pure bodhisattva prātimokṣa vows oneself before an image of the Tathāgata." The fortieth fascicle also says: "Even if one is intelligent, if one lacks faith and understanding regarding the precepts, lacks proper reflection, possesses greed and stinginess, has great desires and is discontented, is lax in breaking the precepts, is resentful and intolerant, cannot endure others' offenses, is lazy, indolent, and addicted to reclining, enjoys gathering companions and engaging in idle chatter, and has a mind that is mostly distracted—down to being unable to abide and cultivate a wholesome mind focused on a single object for even the time it takes to milk a cow—or is dim, foolish, and slanders the bodhisattva collection with a base mind, one should not receive [the precepts] from them. These are called the conditions for a bodhisattva precept-master." The *Yingluo jing* says: "One is permitted to receive them oneself only when there is no precept-master within a thousand li." This is to make people revere the precepts and seek a master within a thousand li; it is not strictly required to be so. For example, if a woman lacks bodily independence, or is poor or sick and wishes to receive the bodhisattva precepts, how could she be required to travel a thousand li? Thus we know that this is merely a qualified statement. Because the *Yogācārabhūmi* does not consider whether the place is near or far, it simply permits receiving them oneself. Regarding all these precepts mentioned above, if they are received from another, there are necessarily manifest and unmanifest [actions], because one indicates to another. If they are received by oneself, there is only mental manifest action and no bodily or vocal manifest action, which can establish unmanifest [action]. Therefore, the *Yogācārabhūmi* says: "If they are received spontaneously, there is only mental manifest karma." Even if a bystander sees one receiving them oneself, since they are not a teacher or senior and are not the condition for conscience and shame, there is definitely no manifest karma. Or it may also have manifest karma: the treatise says that for one who receives them spontaneously when not even a single person is alongside, there is only unmanifest karma. As when today one confesses and receives the precepts before an assembly, making vows and setting periods, there is definitely manifest karma. The unmanifest karma of dhyāna and the path should be understood according to the *Abhidharmasamuccaya*. Among the five kinds of form belonging to the dharmāyatana, it is called "derived from reception"; regarding the distant preparatory expedient, it is also received from another, directly giving rise to the unmanifest. There is also the sense of receiving from another, as when the Buddha expounds the Dharma for someone, who enters the path of seeing, becomes free from dust and defilement, enters samādhi, and immediately obtains the precepts. If so, one should also say there is manifest karma. This is also not the case: because this volition does not issue in external bodily or vocal action and is anāsrava, there is no manifest karma; hence one can only say that there is unmanifest karma. However, at the very moment of directly obtaining the unmanifest karma of the path and dhyāna, when the mind has no external object, how can it be said to be received? The designation of "reception" is derived from the distant preparatory expedient. The fifty-third fascicle says: "If, relying on this very prātimokṣa vow that has been received without breach or offense, one cultivates remorse-free states and so forth, up to fully entering the first dhyāna, then by the power of śamatha to suppress, one suppresses all seeds of breaking the precepts—this is called the dhyāna vow. This means that when a bhikṣu or similar has received the prātimokṣa vow and is able to be without breach or offense, using this as a basis, because there is no offense there is no remorse; because there is no remorse the mind is joyful; because the mind is joyful the mind is blissful; because the mind is blissful the mind is tranquil; because the mind is tranquil one attains samādhi. If there is an offense, one will ultimately not attain samādhi." In the *Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra*, the Buddha said: "Countless kalpas ago, when I was an ordinary person, my name was Jātata. In the country of Kālura, I was a merchant engaging in trade, deceitful and untrue, committing all kinds of evil deeds beyond full description. At that time, in my folly, I killed my father and committed incest with my mother; the whole country knew of it, and I was no different from domestic animals. The king wished to execute me; in terror, I fled to another land and became a śramaṇa for thirty-seven years. Due to the obstacle of the five deadly sins, my mind could not attain samādhi. Later, when begging for food, I found an almsbowl, inside of which was this dhāraṇī named the 'Mantra of the Assembly of Dharmas for Abandoning Suffering and Calamity.' After chanting and upholding it continuously for over a year, I finally attained dhyāna. When bhikṣus and others have broken the grave prohibitions, their minds regret and therefore become sorrowful; because they are sorrowful they are not joyful; because they are not joyful they are not tranquil; because they are not tranquil they do not attain dhyāna. Hence, upholding the precepts and the like is the condition for obtaining the dhyāna vows. If, regarding the precepts one upholds, one has broken the grave prohibitions in this life, one will definitely not attain samādhi, because bad reflection is extensive and the damage and hindrance are profound. By the awe-inspiring power of the mantra, having previously committed the five deadly sins as a layperson, it could be attained in this life." The above discusses attaining dhyāna based on precepts. There are also instances where the initial dhyāna does not depend on precepts, such as the dhyāna attained by the very first person at the time of the destruction of the kalpa, because it is inherently the first. Therefore, the vows of dhyāna may have other conditions, and may also not depend on them. Regarding the vows concordant with the path, the *Yogācārabhūmi* also says: "If, without breach or offense in this very śīla vow, one furthermore relies on the dhyāna vow, enters into the direct realization of the truths, and attains the fruit of anāgāmin, at that time all seeds of bad morality are completely and permanently eliminated."

"If one realizes the first fruit relying on the anāgamya-dhyāna, at that time all afflictions that could lead to an unfortunate destiny are all eradicated forever." This refers to one who leaps over to attain the third fruit, as well as a sequential person, who rely on the fundamental dhyānas and the anāgamya; it explains that all attainments of path-vows must first have pure meditation as their condition, because the four roots of goodness are bound to the form realm. As for non-discipline and intermediate vows, whether one is born into such a family or not, if one generates the resolve oneself, or if fathers, sons, and so forth instruct and practice among themselves, they are thus attained through external conditions or attained without relying on another; both are without error. Unlike the Hinayana schools, non-discipline is not attained from another. Above, the conditions of attainment were explained. As for the timing of attainment, first the time of attaining manifest [action] is explained, and afterwards the time of attaining unmanifest [action] is explained. For now, regarding the time when bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs attain manifest [action], it means they attain it when requesting the precepts from the Saṅgha. Fascicle fifty-three states: "Furthermore, if one arouses the mind to go to the master's presence, earnestly makes requests, applies expedients to initiate acts of reverence and the like, abides before the master with correct deportment, and expresses what one desires with speech, producing superior action—this is called bodily manifest and vocal manifest action." The Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa is the same, so it cannot be cited in extenso. Only the manifest volition functioning as the proximate motivating cause, directly initiating body and speech as the transforming cause, constitutes the essence of manifest action; therefore, it must be at this time. If one were to say that at the prior stage when requesting from the Saṅgha, the action is judged according to whether the mind is high, middling, or low, and that the prayer being fulfilled, one only attains manifest [action] at the third karmavācanā—this is a Hinayana doctrine, not what is upheld here. This is because manifest action is not subsumed under physical shape, but is subsumed solely under the manifest volition that initiates body and speech; at that [later] time, one may be mindless, or defiled, or indeterminate, or have a different perceptual condition. Following this [reasoning], the remaining three assemblies of renunciants, as well as upavāsas and upāsakas, all attain the manifest vows from bowing, etc., before the master. Although at a subsequent time they follow the master's words, they do not necessarily have their mind present, and it is not necessarily virtuous nor determinate; it is a subsequent continuation, not the initiating mind. If one accepts receiving vows spontaneously before an image, having bodily, vocal, and mental manifest [actions], they are attained right at the time of seeking and bowing before the Buddha. As for the bodhisattva vows, at the time of requesting and receiving them, they are attained upon the completion of the third round when the words of compassion are uttered, because it is then determinate. The vows of meditation and path are solely unmanifest; their time of attaining manifest [action] is not spoken of. As for non-discipline, only when performing the deed or when giving the instruction does one attain manifest action. Fascicle fifty-three states: "If one is born into a family of non-discipline, possesses discernment, and arouses a resolve oneself, saying, 'I shall sustain myself by this means of livelihood,' and again arouses a mind of desire, delight, and approval toward this means of livelihood, at that time one is called a person of non-discipline. Because of being subsumed under non-discipline, and subsumed under an intensely improper attention and harmful mind, one merely achieves extensive unwholesome roots; yet one has not accomplished the unwholesome actions generated by taking life and generated by the other unwholesome courses of action, so long as the intended deed has not been carried out." What this means is: whether born into such a family or not, if one generates the mind and approves, then because of accomplishing those unwholesome roots, one is designated by what will subsequently arise, namely called a person of non-discipline. That treatise further states: "Afterwards, whether performing it a little or much, according to what is appropriate, one further accomplishes various unwholesome actions." What this means is: afterwards, whether doing it oneself or instructing another to do a little or much, even though life has not yet been severed and so forth, it already constitutes the unwholesome manifest action of taking life, whether bodily or vocal; if afterwards that deed is completed by oneself or another, and the prior life is severed, a little or much, because one's wish is fulfilled and one's original vow satisfied, only then is unmanifest [action] accomplished. Unlike other schools, where upon completion of the prior deed, manifest and unmanifest [actions] are both initiated and attained simultaneously: the superior volition that first initiates the action of body and speech is precisely manifest action; the completion of the deed is a subsequent continuation, not the initiation, and because unmanifest [action] is attained, it is called non-discipline. Manifest action is as explained now. The manifest action of the intermediate state is attained either upon making a resolution, or at the time of instruction, or upon performing the deed. Above, the time of attaining the two manifest [actions] of body and speech was explained. As for mental manifest action, it is attained as soon as the thought is raised. Above, the attainment of manifest [action] was explained. Regarding the attainment of unmanifest [action], the unmanifest [action] of prātimokṣa has three types of attainment: first, the great vows of renunciation are attained when the third karmavācanā is completed, at the time of saying 'it shall be kept thus.' Bodhisattva vows are also attained at the third karmavācanā when answering that one is able to keep them. This is because the superior state that was previously resolved and sought after is now fulfilled, and the ritual action of the Saṅgha is complete at this time. Although seeds were perfumed by the volitional manifest [actions] of the prior stages, now that the ritual action is finished, even if one is mindless or has a mind with a different condition, because of that prior resolve the present vow is now fulfilled. From the moment after the initial thought, the efficacy of the volition-seeds preventing evil multiplies and increases, which is called attaining the vows. Some say that the substantial entity of the volition-seeds multiplies and increases, which is called attaining the vows. This too is incorrect. When the ritual action is finished, that person may be mindless or have a condition of a different moral nature; since there is no present volition or present manifest [action] to perfume them, how could the substantial entity of seeds suddenly be newly produced? From this we know that, depending on the conditions encountered, the new and old seeds—whether specific or general—perfumed by the manifest cause-volition, now that the conditions are fully met, their efficacy multiplies and increases, which is called attaining unmanifest [action]; this is because vows concordant with mind, though moment by moment, are previously unattained. If it were not an increase in efficacy but an increase in substantial entity, how could every moment freshly perfume seeds? Since the unmanifest [action] of meditation and path is the present volition, there cannot be multiple volitions in a single mind. Following this, the unmanifest [action] of prātimokṣa also does not increase in substantial entity. In the initial moment, one [set of] seven [branches] increases in efficacy; in the second moment, there are two [sets of] seven branches; and so on, continuously increasing until abandoned. The 'Viniścaya' section, fascicle sixty, states: "If an unwholesome course of action reaches completion, this is also called becoming a grave evil and becoming a great unwholesome [act] through the fault of contamination, capable of leading to an intensely undesirable fruit. Why is that? If one, with a defiled mind, can induce undesirable, unhappy, and displeasing suffering in another, then by the power and momentum of that suffering mind capable of inducing suffering, the volition of that person incurs a vast sin; therefore it is called the fault of contamination." What this means is: whether performing it bodily oneself or causing another to perform an unwholesome course of action, causing the termination of another's life and so forth, when the deed is completed, by the natural force of things, the volition of the one who acts oneself and of the instructor incurs a vast sin. The prior mind is now fulfilled and the other's suffering is also fulfilled; therefore, incurring sin oneself is called contamination. That treatise further states: "Although that person does not generate such a thought: 'May all those who can induce my suffering incur a great sin,' yet by the nature of things they incur a great sin. For example, just as a lodestone, though without intention, causes all iron to come and attach to itself; yet by the nature of things, all nearby iron comes and attaches to the lodestone without effort. The principle here should be understood to be just the same."

The analogies of the sunstone and so forth should also be understood in this way. Furthermore, there is no separate dharma above intention; the arising of that power coming to attach itself to it is termed 'smearing and staining'. One should know that this is solely the transformation of this intention, initiated by the power of that [prior cause].' The meaning here is: the very seeds of intention, because the prior resolve is now fulfilled and the suffering of the other is completed, increase in functional efficacy; this is termed 'transformation of intention', and there is no separate entity whatsoever. It is just as Māra the Evil One bewitched the minds of countless brāhmaṇas and householders in Śāleyyaka, causing them to turn perverse and violent toward the World-Honoured One, yet there was no additional distinct dharma added to their minds that was termed 'bewitching'; it was solely by the preparatory power of Māra generating those minds and causing them to transform and become extremely violent. This is likewise: reversing the unwholesome course of karma, there is this good; therefore smearing and staining is constituted, its function multiplying and redoubling, and only then is avijñapti constituted. Among the ten kinds of obtaining the precepts, as for the Buddha obtaining them spontaneously: there are bodhisattvas who, at the first bhūmi, immediately obtain inconceivable transformation of saṃsāra, or at the eighth bhūmi obtain it without undergoing further births. Their prātimokṣa, having its seeds, once obtained is never abandoned, and transforms into a complete and perfect anāsrava dharma. Hearer aśaikṣas of indeterminate lineage who turn their minds toward the Great [Vehicle] and undergo transformation-birth are also like this. This refers to distinctively receiving the prātimokṣa vows, not the vows of moral discipline within the bodhisattva precepts. Why is it termed obtaining the precepts spontaneously? If considered from the stage of attaining buddhahood, it is not received in the present; this is also called obtaining spontaneously. For one who obtains spontaneously, one obtains avijñapti at the very time of the path of liberation. Even if there is vijñapti karma, it does not initiate avijñapti, because after becoming a Buddha there is no further perfuming. In the mind of a pratyekabuddha, at the stage of the path of liberation, he still does not initiate [actions of] body and speech; whence could there be vijñapti? Obtaining the precepts in the path of vision is also like this. For the five persons seeing the truths, there is also no vijñapti karma; as soon as they first enter seeing the truths, they immediately obtain avijñapti. This occurs at the initial moment, not at subsequent times, because there was a Saṅgha later, while initially there was none. For Yaśas coming by the call 'Come, [monk]!', beneath the words he immediately obtained avijñapti karma; those like this were numerous. Merely being called 'Come, [monk]!', their hair and beards fell out on their own and their robes turned into those of a śramaṇa—all belong to this category. For those who had faith in the Buddha as master: not yet having seen the Buddha, hearing of him from afar they immediately had faith, and at the time of faith they immediately obtained it, also without vijñapti karma. Some say: having seen the Buddha and having faith and acceptance of him as master, only then does one obtain avijñapti, not before seeing him. As for obtaining by question and answer: it was only Sudāyi alone who obtained it beneath the words, also without vijñapti karma. It is also said: his age had not yet reached twenty, and because of his question and answer, the Buddha had [the precepts] conferred on him. As for revering the eight weightier dharmas: at that time there were no nuns. Upon hearing the teaching and reverently receiving it, one immediately obtained avijñapti. Because there were no nuns yet, it can be said that avijñapti and vijñapti were simultaneous. It is also said they were at different times, vijñapti first and avijñapti later, only initially and not subsequently. As for receiving through sending a messenger: vijñapti is at the time of sending; obtaining avijñapti is at the time when the nun who was sent finishes receiving them over there. As for the five assemblies and ten assemblies: they receive from a teacher, as already explained above. The initiation of vijñapti for the three refuges is at the time of first taking refuge and initially seeking and bowing; obtaining avijñapti is at the time when the three refuges are completed. These ten all existed while the Buddha was in the world. After the Buddha's passing, only three exist: first, the spontaneous pratyekabuddha; second, the assembly of ten; and third, the vinaya-holder as the fifth person. The rest cannot be had in the absence of a Buddha. The above was the first category. As for the second category: for the three ordained assemblies and upāsakas, obtaining avijñapti occurs right when the three refuges are completed. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says: 'Arousing an earnest and pure mind and uttering words of truth, declaring, "I am an upāsaka; may the Venerable One remember and sustain me with compassion and protection." At that time, the upāsaka vows are immediately initiated. For the three ordained assemblies, the subsequent explanation of the characteristics of the precepts does not initiate avijñapti; avijñapti is also obtained when the three refuges are completed.' As for the third category: the upavāsa vows have two meanings. One says: they are obtained when the three refuges are completed, no different from the upāsaka. The second says: If so, why does the Kośa not say that upavāsa vows are obtained right when the three refuges are completed? Why is the explanation of their characteristics different from the upāsaka? For the upāsaka, the characteristics of the five precepts are explained separately; for the upavāsa, the characteristics are spoken continuously in three cycles. Moreover, its verse says 'following the instruction, declaring the complete branches', and does not say that the upāsaka also declares following the instruction; therefore, we know upavāsa is not obtained through the three refuges. Because its mind extensively wards off [evil] for a day and night, it is not obtained beforehand. Therefore, we know that only after repeating after the teacher through the completion of the third cycle is avijñapti initiated. For dhyāna avijñapti, when the first grade of mind of the initial threshold stage of the higher sphere is first aroused, it is called initial attainment. Thereafter, whatever root or threshold stage mind of that sphere is aroused, it is in all cases called accomplishment. The eighth fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'Karma subsumed under dhyāna vows refers to that which can impair the seeds of kleśas that initiate transgressions of precepts, the renunciation possessed by one free from the desire of the desire realm, and the renunciation possessed by one free from the desire of the first, second, and third dhyānas.' It explains itself: 'One free from the desire of the desire realm refers to, by the power of suppressive antidote, either partial freedom from desire or complete freedom from desire; only the initial threshold stage toward faults of precept transgression is not a severing antidote.' All the above are remote antidotes. Now, among the seven mental applications, the first six belong to the threshold stage. The two mental applications of examining characteristics and resolute determination serve as suppressive antidotes and have not yet severed kleśas; only with the mental application of detachment does one begin to sever kleśas. There are two explanations of this. One says: examining characteristics is still mixed with hearing and reflection, newly contemplating the desire realm as gross and the higher spheres as tranquil, unable to sever hindrances. Resolute determination repeatedly reflects on this, and from this point onward is exclusively the characteristic of cultivation. Because of this, these two mental applications are called disgust. When reaching the third mental application of detachment, only then are the upper three grades severed; this is still a suppressive antidote, but is already the wisdom of cultivation, so examining characteristics and resolute determination both already obtain dhyāna vows. Severing the kleśas of the upper three grades requires reaching the third mental application; therefore, it is said that only detachment can sever kleśas. The second says: examining characteristics severs the upper-upper grade; resolute determination severs the upper-middle grade; detachment severs the upper-lower grade of kleśas. When the upper grades are completely exhausted, it obtains the name of severing; it is not that kleśas are not suppressed in examining characteristics. Therefore, the precept concomitant with concentration is obtained at the very initial mind, and there is no contradiction. A verse should be stated: 'Precepts of concentration are solely avijñapti; / The initial access stage is called severing, / The remainder holding the nature of remote [antidote]— / This is called the vows of concentration.' As for anāsrava avijñapti, when it first accompanies the uninterrupted path of the path of vision, it is called attained. Entering the path of vision on the basis of the five stages of the form realm are all severing antidotes; the remaining form and formless realms all become remote [antidotes]—this is the general teaching. If, relying on the six stages of the form realm and the lower three of the formless realm, a stream-enterer leaps over to realize the fourth fruit, it is like cutting bamboo, severing kleśas horizontally. Toward the kleśas of the path of cultivation in the desire realm, there is a severing antidote; the rest are termed remote [antidotes].

Although there are sūtras stating that by relying on the threshold stage one attains this first fruit and does not further cultivate the higher anāsrava meaning, it is not definitively only thus, and may be as explained earlier. Otherwise, the formless realm would have no severing antidote. These precepts of concentration and path should turn in accordance with the mind; merely attaining that mind is termed attainment, without awaiting the initiation of vijñapti. By nature, concentration and the path oppose evil; therefore, both of these necessarily possess avijñapti. Regarding the attainment of the avijñapti of non-restraint: according to the ninth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi, non-restraint is of twelve kinds: first, slaughtering sheep; second, selling chickens; third, selling pigs; fourth, catching birds; fifth, netting hares; sixth, robbers and thieves; seventh, executioners; eighth, prison guards; ninth, slanderous informants; tenth, judges passing verdicts; eleventh, binding elephants; twelfth, charming dragons. The eighth fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya lists fifteen kinds: first, slaughtering sheep; second, raising chickens; third, raising pigs; fourth, catching birds; fifth, catching fish; sixth, hunting deer; seventh, netting hares; eighth, robbery and theft; ninth, executioners; tenth, slaughtering cattle; eleventh, binding elephants; twelfth, erecting altars and charming dragons; thirteenth, prison guards; fourteenth, slander and calumny; fifteenth, delighting in harm and so forth. In the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, sixteen kinds are spoken of: buying cattle, sheep, pigs, and chickens for profit, and fattening them to resell makes four; buying for profit and slaughtering after buying makes [another four, totaling] eight kinds; catching birds, catching fish, hunters, robbers, executioners, divisive speech, jailers, and charming dragons make another eight. The Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya explains twelve, which is not what is followed here. All of these refer to the scope being extensive as soon as there is the intent to harm, and the name is given accordingly; it is not definitively restricted only to these. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya speaks of 'delighting in harm and so forth'. As for the time when these avijñaptis are obtained: induced by prior vijñapti, when subsequent fulfillment of one's past intention is reached, avijñapti is formed. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'The determination to manifest that intended karma means that, preceded by the expedient actions of body and speech, there is a definitive resolve to manifest that karma.' Therefore, vijñapti comes before, and subsequently that karma is performed: killing so as to end life, stealing so as to displace from the original location, altering and concealing, raising so that it belongs to oneself, or capturing into nets—all are called manifesting [the karma], and avijñapti is definitively formed. For intermediate avijñapti, only when doing it oneself, or at the initial arousal of the vow, or when dispatching instructions, when the matter fulfills the original intention, is avijñapti obtained. For instance, when dispatching someone to take life, only after the living being's life ends is avijñapti formed; this is called the fault of smearing and staining, and its meaning is as explained before. Above was the analysis of attainment.