四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 1.1

Whenever one wishes to expound the title of a scripture, one first makes a threefold categorical division, and only afterward explains the text as it proceeds. Regarding the three divisions: the first presents the overarching tenets to subsume the purpose of the teachings; the second explains the purpose of the teachings; and the third correctly explains the title of the Prātimokṣa Sūtra. Regarding presenting the overarching tenets to subsume the teachings: although the sacred teachings are manifold, in brief there are three kinds: first, the Sūtramiṭaka; second, the Vinayapiṭaka; and third, the Abhidharmapiṭaka. As for the Sūtramiṭaka, it refers to the various sūtras. As for the Vinaya, it refers to the various precepts and rules. As for the Abhidharma, it refers to the various treatises. Now, among the Three Baskets, this Prātimokṣa belongs to the second, being subsumed under the Vinayapiṭaka. Regarding explaining the purpose of the teachings: with respect to what these precepts state, if broadly discussed according to their meaning, they concurrently explain meditation and wisdom as well. Thus the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: "What is meant by the training in higher morality? It refers to higher morality, higher mind, and higher wisdom. This is called the training in higher morality." This is truly because both observance through cessation and performance are morality. Now, seeking according to our school's tenets, we distinguish exclusively the training in morality. Within this training in morality, there are two distinctions: first, the doctrine of the reception of the precepts; second, the active aspects of the subsequent practice of the precepts. Regarding the reception of the precepts: one initially gives rise to a solemn vow to eradicate evil and cultivate good, establishing one's resolve and bringing it to fulfillment; taking the Dharma into one's mind is designated as "reception." Regarding the subsequent practice of the precepts: reception arises prior, and the mind of keeping [them] arises afterward, its meaning according with the essence of the received precept; hence it is called "subsequent practice." Within the two categories of reception and subsequent practice, each is divided into two. As for the two of reception: because the conditioned dharmas of the precepts cannot arise in isolation, they rely on causes and depend on conditions, and only then do they manifest; therefore, one first clarifies the conditions that can generate [them]. Since there are these conditions, there must be something attained; hence, second, one explains the essence of the received precept that is generated. Regarding the conditions for receiving the precepts: because positions differ between saintly and ordinary, and retribution differs between male and female, the conditions relied upon are not the same. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya distinguishes five kinds of reception of the precepts: the first is called ehibhikṣuka; the second is termed superior dharma; the third is called the threefold refuge; the fourth is called the eight instructions; and the fifth is called karmavācanā. These five designations are fully explained as usual. Second, regarding the essence of the received precept: summarily speaking, it does not exceed two kinds: the first is the manifest precept, and the second is the non-manifest precept. Regarding the manifest precept: through the skillful means of body and speech, initiating actions and making endeavors is called "manifest." As for the second, the non-manifest: once generated, it continuously manifests throughout the four mental states and three moral natures from beginning to end, constantly existing without relying on further conditions; it is explicitly designated as "non-manifest." Both of these two kinds have the function of preventing faults from afar, and are equally called "precepts." If so, the manifest precept takes form (rūpa) as its essence, while the non-manifest precept is neither form nor mind. Second, regarding the two categories of the subsequent practice of the precepts: the first is dedicated mastery without violation; the second is the ability to repent after violation. Regarding dedicated mastery: practitioners of superior conduct directly accord with the teachings, abandoning evil and practicing good; this is termed dedicated mastery. But observance has two [aspects]: first, clarifying observance through cessation; second, clarifying observance through performance. Regarding observance through cessation: through mindfulness, wisdom, equanimity, and so forth, one vigilantly guards body [and speech, avoiding] committing various evils; this is termed cessation. Ceasing without violation, one accords with the purity of the reception; hence it is called observance through cessation. Regarding observance through performance: reverently according with the sacred teachings, performing the rituals and matters, and performing the rituals relative to the matters; this is termed performance. Performing in accordance with what was received, it is therefore named observance through performance. Second, regarding the ability to repent after violation: an incautious person indulges body and speech, violating prohibitions and committing offenses, not cultivating good deeds and defiling what was originally received; this is termed a violation. Having shame and remorse, repenting and confessing, one causes it to return to its original [state]; this is also termed observance. Although it is not a direct accomplishment of good, nevertheless, having been broken, it is restored; this second pure dharma is therefore called the observance of being able to repent after violation. However, violations are twofold: first, the offense of commission: openly violating the sacred teachings and extensively committing various offenses; this is termed the offense of commission. Second, the offense of omission: failing to reverently practice in accordance with the teachings, in failing to act there is violation; hence it is called the offense of omission. Repenting and restoring in the face of these two offenses is equally termed observance. Above, the main purport of the teaching has been explained. It consists solely of reception and subsequent practice: if there is no reception, then practice has nothing from which to arise; because there is reception, all practices can be generated. If there is no subsequent practice, there will be faults such as the weakening of the precepts; because there is subsequent practice, it causes the reception to be bright and pure. Therefore the Bodhisattvabhūmi states: "These two kinds of precepts subsume immeasurable other pure precepts." For this reason, the two dharmas of reception and subsequent practice are indispensable. Within the category of reception, we extensively explain the conditions and the essence. First we clarify the conditions of reception, and afterward we discuss the essence of the received precept. Regarding the conditions of reception: the meaning is explained through eight sections: first, explaining the names; second, explaining the general and specific meanings; third, the differences in status between masters and disciples who can hold the teachings; fourth, those to whom the teaching is directed, differing between saintly and ordinary; fifth, the number of conditions relied upon; sixth, distinguishing the timing when these various conditions generate the precepts; seventh, sudden or gradual reception and upholding; eighth, comparing superiority and inferiority. Regarding the first, explaining the names: the designations established by the various schools are variable in number. Some establish four receptions, saying there is no superior dharma. Others establish six receptions, taking the "self-proclaimed bhikṣu" among the eight bhikṣus in the Vinaya as a self-vow reception of the precepts, which is an incorrect interpretation. Now, based on the Dharmaguptaka, we definitely establish five receptions. Regarding the five receptions: they are ehibhikṣuka, superior dharma, threefold refuge, the eight gurudharmas, and karmavācanā. Regarding ehibhikṣuka: this person has planted marvelous causes in the past, and their roots in the path are deep; later, hearing the Buddha preach the Dharma, their mind tallies [with it], meaning that as a srotāpanna they deeply revile saṃsāra and aspire to go forth; the Buddha says, "Come, monk (ehi bhikṣu)," and the grades of precepts are immediately generated; hence it is called ehibhikṣuka. Or alternatively: these people deeply revile saṃsāra and aspire to go forth; the Buddha summons them with "Come (ehi)," and the upasampadā is immediately generated; hence it is called ehibhikṣuka. Regarding superior dharma: the principle of fixed nature transcends characteristics; existence cannot surpass it, and therefore it is called superior dharma. The desireless Kāśyapa cultivated the path and advanced in virtue; with delusions exhausted and understanding fulfilled, he converged with the higher dharma and generated the upasampadā; hence it is called superior dharma. Or alternatively: with the arising of the knowledge of destruction (kṣayajñāna) and the knowledge of non-arising (anutpādajñāna), surpassing the stage of training, through this convergence he obtained the precepts; hence it is called superior dharma. Therefore the Vinayamātṛkā establishes that on the basis of [such] roots of goodness, one receives the upasampadā. Regarding the threefold refuge: these people were not yet moved by the Tathāgata's profound awakening to enter the darśanamārga, but merely relied on minor saints such as the various arhats as beneficial conditions; they deeply reviled the three realms of existence and aspled to go forth. The Vinayamātṛkā states: The various arhats instructed them to shave their heads and dye their robes; relying upon the Three Jewels, when the mind of refuge was completed, the upasampadā was immediately generated; hence it is called the threefold refuge. [Another] name for it is the three pronouncements. Regarding the eight gurudharmas: the Buddha restricted women and did not permit them in the path. When Prajāpatī heard this, she gave rise to revulsion [for worldly life], and subsequently shaved her own head and stood leaning against the Jetavana gate. Seeing her, Ānanda made three requests on her behalf. The Tathāgata from afar proclaimed the dharmas of respect (gurudharmas), and Ānanda transmitted them. Mahāprajāpatī heard them.

Revering these eight dharmas and intending to practice them faithfully, [Mahāprajāpatī] immediately generated upasampadā; hence it is called the eight gurudharmas. As for the karmavācanā: such people as these necessarily rely on strong conditions to bolster their weak causes, only then being able to generate the precept. Conditioned by the words of the karmavācanā of the saṅgha, the category of precepts is generated; concealing that which can perform [the act] and taking its name from that which is performed, it is therefore called the reception of the precepts by karmavācanā. The names of these five methods of reception are derived in four ways. 'Ehibhikṣuka' derives from the essence and the object: 'ehi' (wholesome) refers to the practitioner's aspiration to seek the precepts, and 'bhikṣu' (come) refers to the noble instruction; thus, worthy of praise, the reception is named having an intentional reception of the precepts, because the Buddha said 'Come, bhikṣu.' 'Superior dharma' derives from the object, and also can be named as reception from its own essence: the name of reception is established because upasampadā is received upon the superior wholesome roots—that is, the kṣayajñāna and anutpādajñāna. The two receptions of refuge and gurudharmas are based on the object and proceed from the mind. Karmavācanā derives from the teaching; it can also derive from merit, meaning that it determines the matter through designation. Second, the general and the particular: the four receptions are particular, while karmavācanā is general. Because their names are made manifest from distant conditions, being either four or six, and karmavācanā comprehensively includes them, it is therefore called general. Question: Since the reception of the precepts by karmavācanā has four conditions, why does it uniquely bear the name of karmavācanā, while the others do not bear its name? One explanation says: Deriving names from the other conditions would yield many varieties; now, provisionally concealing the particular to adhere to the common in order to make manifest the name 'karmavācanā', what objection could there be? Third, the officiant: the *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā* determines that through the vision of the truth one attains it oneself, while the remaining six are received from others, because it explains this in contrast with the seven receptions. Now, analogizing with that treatise to determine these five: speaking from afar, all are received from the Buddha, because these dharmas exist due to the Buddha's appearance in the world. If inferred through principle, gaining the precepts through the superior dharma is termed receiving it oneself, while the other four are obtained from others. Why is the superior dharma termed receiving it oneself? The treatise says: Speaking from the root, attaining realization of the outflow-free and generating upasampadā through the Buddha's preaching of the Dharma is called receiving it from the Buddha. If inferred through principle, obtaining upasampadā by oneself when the kṣayajñāna clearly manifests before one is also called obtaining it oneself and not receiving it from another. Therefore the *Hṛdaya* says: 'If it is the dharma, the Buddha, the five bhikṣus, and the preceptor, etc.' If so, why does the treatise say it is obtained from the instruction of another? Answer: This is spoken based on the distant cause. Ehibhikṣuka and the eight gurudharmas were officiated by the Buddha and are called received from the Buddha; the threefold refuge and karmavācanā were officiated by disciples and were obtained under the disciples' words of instruction. Fourth, differentiation of those who are addressed: The *Dharmaguptaka Vinaya* distinguishes that the reception of the precepts as ehibhikṣuka is restricted to the noble stages. Therefore the Vinaya states: Having seen the Dharma, attained the Dharma, and realized the fruits, having thereupon attained outflow-free liberation, leaving the household life with an attitude of revulsion, being at the utmost of supreme compliance—only then does one correspond to 'come, bhikṣu' and generate the upasampadā precepts. Those below the internal ordinary person are within conceptual thought and hearing, not at the utmost of supreme compliance; therefore they are excluded and not ordained. Furthermore, for those receiving through the superior dharma, the fourth fruit is required, precisely because their afflictions are ended and their understanding is complete. The threefold refuge and eight gurudharmas apply to the internal ordinary person and above; hence the *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā* states that these two methods of reception are neither weakened nor abandoned, so we know they apply to the internal ordinary person and above. As for reception by karmavācanā: it began initially for ordinary people; once established, it applies generally to the three types of persons. For example, as told in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*, the pure-practicing brahmacārin attained the first fruit and was then ordained by karmavācanā; in the *Dharmaguptaka Vinaya*, the nun Utpalavarṇā was also of this case. Fifth, the number of conditions relied upon: Receiving the precepts as an ehibhikṣuka requires four conditions to attain: first, realizing the first fruit—the text says 'having seen the Dharma and attained the Dharma'; second, previously having a wholesome aspiration to leave the household life—the text says 'wishing to cultivate the pure conduct in the Tathāgata's Dharma'; third, relying on the presence of the Buddha's physical form—the text states 'approached and addressed the Buddha'; fourth, relying on the Buddha's instruction—meaning the noble command 'Come, bhikṣu.' Receiving the precepts through the superior dharma requires three conditions to be generated: first, relying on the Buddha's instruction, as stated in the *Samantapāsādikā*; second, having an aspiration to pray for the precepts—which is why other texts state that the arhat-śrāmaṇera lacked the intent to leave the household life and thus only attained the fruit, making it clear that the mental intention is required; third, attaining outflow-free, empty liberation—meaning that when the kṣayajñāna manifests before one, one immediately attains upasampadā. Receiving the precepts by the three utterances also requires three conditions: first, relying on the form of a disciple facing an arhat of the Dharma; second, relying on the disciple's instruction—meaning the words of receiving the threefold refuge are without deficiency; third, the mind of taking refuge is completed, accepting the preceding taking of refuge, whereby one is able to attain the precepts. Receiving the precepts by the eight gurudharmas requires four conditions to be generated: first, relying on the Buddha's instruction of the eight gurudharmas; second, relying on the form of a disciple; third, the disciple's instruction—meaning the verbal declaration of the eight gurudharmas; fourth, the intention of faithful practice—hence Mahāprajāpatī personally declared, 'We shall receive them on the crowns of our heads.' Receiving the precepts by karmavācanā requires four conditions, as stated in the Vinaya: first, the condition that the number of the saṅgha is complete; second, the condition that the instructional method is accomplished; third, the condition that the boundary determination is accomplished; fourth, the condition that the body is free from impediments and disqualifications. If endowed with these four, one is a great bhikṣu and can accomplish the basis of the precepts; if one who violates the precepts lacks any among the four, he is not a great bhikṣu. Only by complying with these four does one become a bhikṣu. Question: The receptions such as ehibhikṣuka take the mind as a condition; why is the single reception by karmavācanā not like this? Answer: Karmavācanā is not without the mind; because it relies on external conditions to perform the legal act, it is determined from what is stronger, and thus the causal factor is omitted in name. Alternatively, karmavācanā can be attained with all four types of mind, and for fear of confusion, mental conditions are not specified. Furthermore, based on the *Vinayamātṛkā*, the other four take the mind as a condition; though not listed in the text for the single reception of karmavācanā, the mind is indeed necessarily required, which is why the Vinaya text states that those asleep, mad, and so forth do not attain the precepts. Sixth, the timing of attaining the precepts: For one receiving as an ehibhikṣuka, upon completing the proclamation 'Come, bhikṣu,' upasampadā is immediately generated; hence the Vinaya says: '[their hair and beards fell off,] through to having attained completeness.' If one traces receiving the precepts through the superior dharma, it is attained when the kṣayajñāna manifests before one; because according to the standards of the Hīnayāna, the arhat's pure conduct is already established and their precepts are naturally pure, they do not receive the precepts again from another. Question: Does one who attains it through this superior dharma attain the manifest and the non-manifest [precepts], or not? Answer: Because it is not an enacted method, one only attains the non-manifest. Question: Since there is no manifest precept, by what cause is the non-manifest precept generated? Answer: Because it is not practiced through deliberate action, there is no manifest [precept]; through the power of the path, one attains the non-manifest precept. For receiving the precepts through the threefold refuge, upasampadā is immediately generated upon the conclusion of the third utterance. For receiving the precepts through the eight gurudharmas, upon the completion of explaining the eighth, the rank of the precepts is immediately attained. For the single reception through karmavācanā, upasampadā is generated as soon as the karmavācanā is concluded. The various treatises are in general agreement. Seventh, the gradual and sudden in reception and relinquishment: First, clarifying the gradual and sudden in reception. The single reception through karmavācanā is both gradual and sudden; the remaining four receptions are sudden and not gradual. How are they gradual and sudden? As for the gradual and sudden of karmavācanā: first receiving the five precepts, next receiving the ten precepts, and later receiving the upasampadā precepts—this is termed gradual. If without receiving the five or the ten, one directly receives the upasampadā precepts and attains the three kinds of precepts, it is termed sudden. Question: If receiving at one time attains the three kinds of precepts, why is there any need to receive them gradually? Answer: Practicing and habituating in the Buddha's Dharma must proceed in sequence: one first receives the five precepts in order to discipline oneself.

Faith and joy gradually increase; next, one receives the ten precepts, and the wholesome mind becomes still deeper; next, one receives the upasampadā. In this sequential manner, one attains the flavor of the Buddha's Dharma, and one's fondness and delight become firm, [so that one can] avoid retreat or ruin, not lose the sequence, and not breach deportment. It is like entering the great ocean, plunging gradually deeper. If one receives them all at once, one would both lose the sequence and [breach] deportment; therefore, they must be received gradually. Question: If one receives them suddenly all at once and obtains the three [sets of] precepts, is their non-manifest essence one or three? Answer: Only one non-manifest essence of the upasampadā is generated; there are no other two non-manifest essences. If that is so, then it is just one precept; how can one speak of three? Answer: When a bhikṣu receives [the upasampadā] and obtains the non-manifest [precept] guarding against killing, which is the same precept as that of a śrāmaṇera and a layperson, its actual essence is one. Therefore, the master of the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā, based on its essence, in view of the distinct stages of the three persons from beginning to end, says that one obtains three precepts; in real principle, there are not three. Question: How do we know there is only one and not three? Answer: Right in the text of that treatise, when explaining gradual reception: A layperson has the lower-grade five precepts. Next, with a middling-grade mind, one receives the śrāmaṇera precepts; the previous five precepts still remain of the original lower grade, and only what is generated beyond the five precepts becomes middling-grade. When receiving the upasampadā with an upper-grade mind, the previous two grades still remain lower and middling, and only what is generated beyond the ten and the five begins to be upper-grade. Relying on these two proofs, in sequential and gradual reception, where the minds at the three times differ, for the same precept the non-manifest does not generate three [essences]; how much less could there be three for a single person receiving them [all] at once! Thus we know that in gradual sequence, in view of the distinct stages, they are treated as three, but the essence does not have three. Alternatively, the Abhidharmahṛdaya states: 'One who, through all causes and all branches, obtains the three precepts' refers to gradual reception at three times; since the receptions differ in time, there are three essences through the repeated generation of the non-manifest. If one speaks of sudden reception, since the reception is at one time, it can only be called three in view of the stages, not that the essence has three. Next, explaining gradual and sudden forfeiture: In view of the four receptions, both reception and forfeiture are sudden. As for karmavācanā, both forfeiture and reception embrace gradual and sudden, because only in the single reception of karmavācanā is the ordinance of reception restricted to the gradual, while forfeiture encompasses both gradual and sudden. Question: Since sudden reception by karmavācanā obtains the three precepts, how is it at the time of forfeiture? Answer: The meaning encompasses both gradual and sudden. If one's decisive intention is to forfeit all three precepts together, then one forfeits the three suddenly; this is called sudden forfeiture. If one says, 'I am a śrāmaṇera,' one forfeits only the upasampadā; if one says, 'I am an upāsaka,' one further forfeits the ten precepts; and if one says, 'I am a person of the threefold refuge,' only then does one forfeit the five precepts; this is called gradual [forfeiture]. Question: Reception and forfeiture both being sudden, or both being gradual, or gradual reception with sudden forfeiture—these three are acceptable. But if one originally received them suddenly and obtained only the upasampadā, which is a single non-manifest essence, how could there be gradual forfeiture? If there can be gradual forfeiture, then it would become three essences; how can you say it is one? Answer: When a bhikṣu receives [the precept] guarding against killing at one time, the non-manifest [essence] is shared in common with the śrāmaṇera and the layperson in guarding against wrongdoing. Therefore, at the time of forfeiture, if one's decisive intention is to forfeit the upasampadā, one does not forfeit the ten precepts. If [the part] identical to the śrāmaṇera precepts remains according to one's mind, it persists. Therefore, the Vinaya text says: 'I am a śrāmaṇera.' Applying the ten to the five, the meaning is also the same; thus it says: 'I am an upāsaka.' Therefore, the treatise's explanation is based on the meaning that the essence is shared in common by the three persons; hence, speaking of three is in view of the stages, not that the essence has three. When explained in this way, there is also no obstruction to the meaning of sudden reception and gradual forfeiture. Hence, the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā provides a simile: like tree leaves, which are green in summer, yellow [in autumn], and white in winter—how could their essence be different? Because they differ according to the season, the color of the tree leaves differs, yet from beginning to end it is one leaf. The precepts are also like this: it is always one precept that differs according to the stage. For this reason, in the single reception by karmavācanā, both reception and forfeiture are both sudden and gradual. The four [receptions] such as ehibhikṣuka are exclusively sudden and not gradual, because there is no procedure for forfeiture. Eighth, superiority and inferiority: As explained in the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā, if considered in terms of the presence or absence of calamities and troubles, the four receptions are superior and karmavācanā is inferior; if taken in terms of sustaining the Buddha's Dharma with broad and lasting benefit, karmavācanā alone is superior and the other four receptions are inferior. As for the four being superior and the one inferior: One who receives by karmavācanā is inwardly in truth an ordinary person, whose blessings and virtue are shallow and meager; when bringing about this precept, there are many calamities and troubles, with the potential of wearying of the superior and rejoicing in the inferior, so that the mind of holding [the precepts] is weak, making the precepts frail. In the other four methods of reception, from the inner ordinary stage onward, one receives this precept within a mind of comprehending the principle; the mind of holding [the precepts] is firm, robust and not frail. Second, for an ordinary person of karmavācanā, there is the possibility of not taking pleasure in the Dharma of the path and forfeiting what was originally received; in the other four methods of reception, the affection of taking pleasure in the path is earnest, and in principle there is no retreat or forfeiture. Third, for karmavācanā, there is the possibility of transforming into both sexes; the other four methods of reception do not have this transformation. Fourth, a person who receives by karmavācanā might give rise to wrong views and sever or forfeit their wholesome roots; the other four comprehend the principle and do not sever their wholesome roots. Because the single reception of karmavācanā may have the above four, it is called inferior; the other four methods of reception lack the aforementioned faults, and are therefore called superior. This is in contrast to beginners; if a noble person receives it, it is also superior. As for the one being superior and the four inferior: The single reception of karmavācanā possesses six meanings. First, its duration is long, meaning it spans the present and the future. Second, it is established throughout three continents, excluding only Uttarakuru. Third, its retribution embraces both men and women. Fourth, its stage encompasses both ordinary and noble beings. Fifth, those it admits are countless. Sixth, it is performed with many seated together. Because of these various meanings, from beginning to end the Buddha's Dharma takes the karmavācanā with one motion and three announcements as its central root, being able to continue the Three Jewels and produce boundless benefits. Among those with the merit of sustaining [the Dharma], none is greater than karmavācanā; therefore, it is said to be superior. Among the other four receptions, the single reception of ehibhikṣuka ended at the Twin Trees; outside of this, the other three receptions ceased in between. Moreover, they were restricted to Jambudvīpa and did not extend to the other two [continents]; the stages of ordinary and noble persons varied, and the retribution was restricted to men or women. In contrast to the preceding six meanings, each lacked some; their merit of succession being deficient, they are called the four inferior ones. The conditions for generating the precepts are concluded. Second, the explanation of the essence of the received precept. Within this, there are four sections of analysis: First, explaining the name, identifying the essence, and the sequence of the two precepts; second, the similarities and differences between the received and the subsequent [precepts]; third, discerning the conditions for generating the precepts; fourth, the quantity of what is generated. First, as for explaining the name: Although the aspects of the precepts are manifold, in essential meaning there are two kinds: first, the manifest precept; second, the non-manifest precept. First, explaining the specific names 'manifest' and 'non-manifest'; next, explaining the general name 'precept' which they designate. As for 'manifest,' it refers to setting in motion and carrying out activities through the expedients of body and speech; this is called 'manifest.' Hence, the Abhidharmahṛdaya states: 'The manifest is the expedient bodily movement.' As for 'non-manifest,' when the bodily movement has ceased, it arises along with other consciousnesses, accompanying that phenomenon; this is called 'non-manifest.' For instance, when one wholesomely receives the precepts, even if defiled or indeterminate minds manifest before one, the wholesome precepts accompany their arising; the bad precepts are also like this. Next, explaining the general name 'precept': Both this manifest and non-manifest possess a preventative safeguard; both are called 'precepts.' According to the Sujātasūtra, there are generally five names: First, it is called 'restraint,' because it restrains and severs all unwholesome things; hence, it is called 'precept.' It is also called 'narrow and constricted.'

Although various evil natures exist, it does not tolerate or receive them, hence it is called "precept." It is also called "coolness," because it blocks the burning defilements, preventing them from entering. It is also called "superior," because it is able to ascend to heavenly realms and reach the unsurpassable Path. It is also called "training," because it tames and subdues the mind and wisdom, hence it is called "precept." These five are all explanations of the name based on its meaning and function. Therefore, the name is established from its function, and it is called "precept." However, among the five, narrowness and coolness are names based on meaning, while the remaining three are names based on function. Question: How is it known that there are manifest and non-manifest [precepts]? Answer: The treatises extensively clarify two kinds of precept-essence. First, as the Hṛdaya says: In the instant of the third karmavācanā, the manifest and non-manifest fundamental paths of action [arise]. It also says: Manifest physical and vocal actions are the former two and are impinging; non-manifest physical and vocal actions are both invisible and non-impinging. Second, the Vibhāṣā says: In the first thought-moment of the precept, there are physical and vocal informing and non-informing [actions]; in the second thought-moment, there is only non-informing and no informing. The Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā says: The wholesome roots in the sense of the Vinaya are of two kinds: first, manifest; second, non-manifest. The manifest is form, while the non-manifest is neither form nor mind. Based on these texts, it is clearly known that precepts are of two kinds. Question: Why are both manifest and non-manifest required? Answer: If there were no manifest, the non-manifest would have nothing from which to arise; if there were no non-manifest, one could not guard against wrongdoing throughout one's lifetime. Therefore, both precepts are needed. This is spoken from this perspective. As in attaining the precepts through the superior dharma, by the power of the Path one attains the non-manifest precept. Next, to distinguish the precept-essence: if relying on the Vibhāṣā, the manifest and non-manifest precepts both take physical form (rūpa) as their essence. This meaning may be said to involve six kinds of distinctions. First, the distinction between conditioned and unconditioned: both precepts are aggregations of conditioned dharmas, not the three unconditioned dharmas. Second, among conditioned dharmas, the distinction among the three aggregates: both the manifest and non-manifest precepts take physical form as their essence. Mind and the non-associated dharmas of the four characteristics are the causes of the precept; hence the treatise says that manifest and non-manifest are nominal form, which is distinguished within the form aggregate. Third, within the aggregation of form, the distinction among the three kinds of form: first, visible and impinging form, namely the five sense faculties and the four [elements]; third, invisible and non-impinging form, namely the non-manifest in the sphere of mental objects (dharmāyatana). If speaking of the manifest precept, it is subsumed under the first two kinds of form; the non-manifest precept is subsumed under the third kind of form. Hence the Mātṛkā and Hṛdaya treatises say: Physical manifest action is visible and impinging; vocal manifest action is invisible and impinging; physical and vocal non-manifest actions are both invisible and non-impinging. Discussing physical manifest action, among the former two kinds of form, it is subsumed exclusively under the form sphere (rūpāyatana); the vocal manifest precept is subsumed under the sound sphere (śabdāyatana), not the other eight forms; both non-manifest [precepts] are subsumed under the mental objects sphere. Both this manifest and non-manifest are of the form aggregate. Fourth, distinguishing between fruition and preparatory effort within form and sound: although form extends through both fruition and preparatory effort, physical manifest action is preparatory effort, not fruition. Thus the Hṛdaya says: Manifest action is physical movement and physical preparatory effort; vocal manifest action is solely preparatory effort, because sound is not a fruition dharma. Both physical and vocal non-manifest actions are neither fruition nor preparatory effort. Fifth, distinction among the three moral natures: physical and vocal form and sound are wholesome, not the other two. Thus the Hṛdaya says: Moving body and speech with a pure mind is called wholesome manifest action, and so forth. In the aforementioned initial form, there are twenty varieties: the first twelve are exclusively indeterminate; the latter eight—high, low, long, short, square, round, upright, and non-upright—extend through the three moral natures, but one restricts and takes only the wholesome side as the essence of the physical manifest precept. Among the three kinds of sound, excluding the second, sound caused by unappropriated four great elements, such as wind or bells, which is exclusively indeterminate, within the first, sound caused by appropriated four great elements, and the third, sound caused by both, these two extend through the three moral natures, and one likewise takes the wholesome sound side as the essence of vocal manifest action. Speaking generally, physical and vocal non-manifest actions extend through two moral natures; now, discussing the precepts, they are subsumed under the wholesome nature. Sixth, distinction between the beginning and the end: within this wholesome manifest action, it extends to both the end and the beginning, but one does not take the beginning. That is, from the beginning of requesting the masters up to the karmavācanā, before it is completed, the decisive resolve is not yet matured; it is wholesome, yet it is not the precept. In the single instant of the third karmavācanā, the resolve must be fulfilled, and volitional intent is accomplished; it is wholesome and it is the precept, so one restricts and takes only the end. However, relying on this tradition's non-manifest precept, it determinately uses neither form nor mind as its essence. Regarding the manifest precept, citations of texts are not uniform. Some cite texts taking form and mind as the essence; thus a treatise text says: Karma is not simply sound; it must be assisted and accomplished by the power of the mind. Hence we know that physical karma is also said to be assisted and accomplished by the power of the mind; this clearly shows that both karmas take the form sphere as their essence. Furthermore, citing a treatise text taking mind as the essence, the treatise therefore says: Apart from the mind, there is no volition, and no physical or vocal karma; hence we know that both karmas take the mind as their essence. Moreover, provisional form is the essence of physical and vocal karma; hence the treatise says: Physical and vocal karma rely upon the four great elements, while mental karma relies upon the mind. If physical and vocal karma did not take the four great elements as their essence, then because mental karma relies upon the mind, it also ought not to take mind as its essence. However, because mental karma relies upon the mind, it is therefore said that mental karma takes mind as its essence. Hence we know that physical karma takes the movement of the four great elements as karma; karma has no separate essence, and directly uses the four great elements as its essence. As for vocal karma, the four great elements are interconnected, and within them sound is emitted; sound forms melody and expresses meaning, serving as words and phrases to constitute vocal manifest karma. Karma has no separate essence, and uses sound as its essence. Therefore the treatise says: This dharma is named the nature of sound, subsumed under the sphere of mental objects. Hence, indirectly proceeding from the four great elements, sound is completed; therefore it uses sound as its essence. Because physical karma directly relies upon the four great elements, it directly takes that which is relied upon as its essence. Next, to clarify the sequence of the two precepts: relying on the exposition of the Hṛdaya, it seems they are attained simultaneously. Thus the text says: In the third single thought-moment, manifest and non-manifest fundamental paths of action [arise]. Moreover, the Vibhāṣā says: In the first thought-moment of the precept, informing and non-informing arise sequentially thereafter; in the second thought-moment of the precept, there is only non-informing and no informing. Hence we know they are simultaneous. However, among the non-manifest of the three periods, there are those that are not precepts: first, the non-manifest at the causal time, which merely accompanies manifest action and is not the complete precept-essence; second, the non-manifest at the time of the fruition, where the non-manifest is of two kinds: one accompanies manifest action, and the other accompanies the physical lifespan. Only the one that accompanies the physical lifespan is the precept-essence. Third, after the fruition, it is restricted solely to accompanying the physical lifespan, and this is the precept-essence. Because at the time of the fruition there is that which accompanies the physical lifespan, it is clear that they are attained simultaneously. If relying on this tradition, they are generated sequentially. Thus the Shi says: Question: Up to what point is it called non-manifest? Answer: It must be called non-manifest in the second thought-moment. Because the manifest precept is the first thought-moment, the non-manifest is called the second thought-moment. Only the non-manifest present when the karmavācanā is completed is this precept-essence; in the previous two periods, its status is subsumed under that which can accompany [the manifest]. Furthermore, the Sujāta Sūtra says: The preparatory mind is distinct, the mind at the time of action is distinct, and the combination of various conditions is called manifest.

Because manifest [action] serves as cause and condition, the non-manifest arises. Once the manifest has passed, there is solely the non-manifest. Even though one's mind may be in an evil or indeterminate state, the karma originally performed is not considered lost. Next is elucidated the order of their arising.

Second, the similarities and differences between the reception [of the precepts] and subsequent practice. Past interpretations held that the meanings of reception and subsequent practice are identical, like a single shield able to fend off multiple enemies. To refute this doctrine, these two dharmas—reception and subsequent practice—are both established as having manifest and non-manifest [aspects].

First, non-manifest [karma] is explained as being of seven kinds: 1. path-concomitant non-manifest; 2. concentration-concomitant non-manifest; 3. life-long; 4. defined-period, such as day-and-night [precepts] or intermediate defined periods; 5. practice-concomitant non-manifest, such as the non-manifest of subsequent practice and that arising in intermediate states concomitant with practice; 6. non-manifest tied to material objects, such as stūpas, monasteries, bridges, and boats, which, as long as the object exists, generates non-manifest [merit] moment by moment; 7. non-manifest tied to use, which arises again from the aforesaid existing object when someone uses it. Among these seven, life-long is definitely reception; defined-period applies to both; the remaining five are definitely subsequent practice.

Next is elucidated their similarities and differences. The non-manifest of reception and subsequent practice share three similarities: name, essence, and meaning. Their differences are sixfold:

First, the non-manifest in reception is of an equivalent single grade, whereas the non-manifest in subsequent practice has superiority and inferiority. What is meant by the non-manifest in reception being of a single grade: if it is originally received with a superior mind, the non-manifest generated, owing to the predominance of the mind, is also of superior grade; whether offenses are committed, or whether one ultimately attains arhatship, it neither increases nor decreases, because it corresponds to the original single-grade mind. Reception with an intermediate or inferior mind is likewise; because each of the three grades is fixed, it is said that its meaning is of an equivalent single grade. The non-manifest in subsequent practice has multiple grades and is not fixed; hence there is superiority and inferiority. Distinguishing this superiority and inferiority with respect to the five categories [of offenses]: regarding the root and branches, the first is superior down to the fifth being inferior; regarding one's own sphere and progress, the fifth is superior while the first is inferior, corresponding to the sequential meaning of the five categories. Furthermore, within each category and each precept, the mind may increase or diminish; because the situations differ and are unequal, there are nine grades of observance. Therefore, the non-manifest of subsequent practice has such gradations.

Second, general versus specific: the non-manifest of reception arises from an initial intention that universally severs all evil intentions, suddenly obtaining the restraint over sentient and non-sentient objects; hence it is called general. The non-manifest of subsequent practice is gradually accomplished in sequence and cannot arise suddenly; hence it is named specific.

Third, prospective versus confrontation: the non-manifest of reception prospectively prevents wrongdoings before action has immediately occurred; the non-manifest of subsequent practice prevents wrongdoings when confronting situations, bringing conduct to pure perfection. Question: If prospectively there is no wrongdoing yet, and confronting [situations] immediately belongs to subsequent practice, what is the use of reception? Answer: Without reception, subsequent practice is not accomplished, for subsequent practice works together with it to form a single antidote.

Fourth, long versus short: reception lasts for one's whole life and is spoken of as long; the non-manifest of subsequent practice arises from actual cultivation and does not last for a whole life, hence it is designated as short.

Fifth, presence versus absence: the non-manifest of reception runs through all three [mental] natures, yet its essence is exclusively wholesome; the non-manifest of subsequent practice does not have the essence of the other two natures, nor does it run through both. This is an analysis based on intrinsic nature: both reception and subsequent practice are wholesome, while the other two are narrow. Now, in terms of presence and absence, whether it runs through or not: reception is life-long and continues while in the other two natures, hence it is described as broad; subsequent practice is concomitant with manifest action and is strictly confined to the wholesome nature, which is why it is called narrow. This is said regarding a single mind performing an action oneself. If one speaks of earlier and later minds or commanding others, subsequent practice also runs through the other two natures, as explained in the scriptural teachings. In terms of offending and non-offending, it is also narrow in this same way, so that within offensive conduct there is no non-offensive conduct; but if taking into account earlier and later minds and commanding others, offensive conduct also contains non-offensive conduct. In this case, both reception and subsequent practice are broad. Those who analyze this must restrict it to three cases: if confined to the wholesome nature, both are narrow, because reception and subsequent practice share the wholesome nature; if according to [commanding] others, etc., both are broad, because they partly run through the three natures; only when contrasting one's own subsequent practice with reception is there a distinction between broad and narrow. According to the *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā*, there are four or five differences here. If strictly based on that treatise, it does not distinguish broad, narrow, long, and short; however, the non-manifest of reception is definitely long and broad, while the non-manifest of subsequent practice possesses both kinds, because the non-manifest of the path is broad and long.

Sixth, reception is the root, while subsequent practice is the branches. Next is explained the similarities and differences between the two manifest [actions]. They share five similarities: name, essence, meaning, breadth/narrowness, and length/shortness. There are four differences: 1. single grade versus multiple grades; 2. general versus specific; 3. prospective versus confrontation; 4. root versus branches. This can be understood by analogy with the above discussion. Since there are these distinctions, how could it be identical to past interpretations of the meaning of reception and subsequent practice?

Third, identifying the conditions for generating the precepts. According to the Sarvāstivāda, the prātimokṣa precepts concern only the present, because the past and future are not [currently] sentient beings. If based on the established doctrine: at the time of generating the precepts, it is not within past or future minds that one attains the precepts, because these are not [present] sentient beings; rather, one generates the precepts within the continuum of the present mind, because it is a sentient being. However, when receiving the precepts, one must form the intention to sever all evils across the objects of the three periods of time before one can generate the precepts, which in turn prevent wrongdoings with respect to objects of the three periods of time. Why is this so? Because past objects can give rise to an evil mind. As the treatise says, "Just as a person makes offerings to a venerated one of the past and thereby obtains merit, the same is true of restraint." Future objects also give rise to an evil mind; therefore, one must universally orient toward them and form the intention to sever them completely before one can generate the precepts. Furthermore, if the precepts were not generated regarding the past and future, the precepts of the Buddhas of the three periods of time would not be equal; because the precept-grades of the Buddhas are equal, the precepts are generated with respect to the three periods of time. Question: Precepts prevent future wrongdoings, while Vinaya extinguishes those that have already arisen; why then can one say that they are generated in relation to objects of the three periods of time and in turn prevent wrongdoings of the three periods of time? Answer: Although the object is past, the wrongdoing is not past, and so forth; by this meaning, they still prevent wrongdoings that have not yet arisen. Therefore, it must be so.

Fourth, the quantity of generated precepts. Although the various precepts are numerous, they do not exceed two kinds: manifest and non-manifest. Once the manifest has ceased, there is solely the non-manifest, continuing throughout one's life. This non-manifest precept has many grades. Since the evils to be prevented are limitless, how could the precepts be single? Hence the *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā* says: "Restraint is generated toward all that are counted as sentient beings and not counted as sentient beings." Regarding those counted as sentient beings: from the Peak of Existence above down to Avīci below; those that can be killed, can be deceived, cannot be deceived, and so forth—each and every sentient being up to the Tathāgatas. In terms of root [transgressions], they do not exceed the seven evils of body and speech, which arise from three conditions: 1. arising of the seven through greed; 2. arising of the seven through anger; 3. arising of the seven through delusion. Three times seven makes twenty-one evils. To counter and prevent these evils, at the time of receiving the precepts, from minds rooted in the three wholesome roots such as non-greed, one obtains the seven limbs of body and speech for each, totaling twenty-one kinds of precept-wholesomeness. This is likewise for each and every sentient being throughout the trichiliocosm.