Restraint, Non-Restraint, and the Vows Between

The digression having now concluded, we should further explain the characteristics of manifested and unmanifested karma discussed earlier. Verse: unmanifested karma is restraint, non-restraint, or neither. Prose: unmanifested karma, briefly stated, is of three kinds: first, restraint; second, non-restraint; third, neither of the two, meaning neither restraint nor non-restraint. It is called restraint because it is able to block and extinguish the continuity of bad conduct. How many distinctions does this restraint itself have? Verse: restraint is the vow of individual liberation, and that born of meditative absorption and of the [noble] path. Prose: restraint, briefly stated, is of three kinds: first, the restraint of individual liberation, meaning precepts bound to the desire realm; second, restraint born of meditative absorption, meaning precepts bound to the form realm; third, restraint born of the [noble] path, meaning uncontaminated precepts.

What are the distinctions among the characteristics of the first kind of restraint [the vow of individual liberation]? Verse: the first restraint has eight characteristics, but its real substance is only four; because the bodily form changes, the names differ, and there is no contradiction in each being distinct. Prose: the vow of individual liberation, in terms of its distinguishing characteristics, is of eight kinds: first, the bhikṣu vow; second, the bhikṣuṇī vow; third, the śikṣamāṇā vow; fourth, the śrāmaṇera vow; fifth, the śrāmaṇerī vow; sixth, the upāsaka vow; seventh, the upāsikā vow; eighth, the upavāsa vow. These eight kinds of restraint, distinguished by their characteristics, are collectively named the first kind, the vow of individual liberation. Although there are eight names, the real substance is only four: first, the bhikṣu vow; second, the śrāmaṇera vow; third, the upāsaka vow; fourth, the upavāsa vow. Only these four vows of individual liberation each have a real substance, since their characteristics are each genuinely distinct. Why is this so? Apart from the bhikṣu vow, there is no separate bhikṣuṇī vow; apart from the śrāmaṇera vow, there is no separate śikṣamāṇā or śrāmaṇerī vow; apart from the upāsaka vow, there is no separate upāsikā vow. How is this known? Because, when the bodily form changes, although the substance [of the vow] is neither relinquished nor newly acquired, its name nevertheless differs. "Form" here means bodily form, namely the male or female organ. Because of these two organs, male and female bodily forms differ, and it is solely by virtue of a change in bodily form that these restraints come to be named bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇī, and so on — that is, at the moment the faculty changes, what was originally the bhikṣu vow comes to be named the bhikṣuṇī vow, or the bhikṣuṇī vow comes to be named the bhikṣu vow; what was originally the śrāmaṇera vow comes to be named the śrāmaṇerī vow, or the śrāmaṇerī vow and the śikṣamāṇā vow come to be named the śrāmaṇera vow; what was originally the upāsaka vow comes to be named the upāsikā vow, or the upāsikā vow comes to be named the upāsaka vow. Apart from the occasion of the faculty changing, there is no cause or condition for relinquishing what was previously obtained or obtaining what was not previously obtained — hence the four restraints are not different from these three pairs' substance.

If one takes the śrāmaṇera vow from the upāsaka vow, and then takes the bhikṣu vow from the śrāmaṇera vow, are these three restraints given separate names merely by way of an expanded means of renunciation [i.e., the same substance simply enlarged], or [are they genuinely distinct substances, comparable] to a single gold coin and a double gold coin, and to pieces of fifty and of twenty, each having its own distinct substance and each arising in full completeness [rather than one being merely an expansion of the other]? [Reply:] The substances of the three kinds of restraint are not mixed together; each has its own distinct characteristic and arises in full completeness. Among the three restraints, each is complete with the abstention from killing, and so on up through complete abstention from drinking alcohol; the remaining number [of precepts each includes] varies as is appropriate to each. [Objection:] Given this, how, then, do these restraints differ from one another when compared as belonging to the same general category? [Reply:] They differ from one another because of a difference in their causes and conditions. [Objection:] How is this so? [Reply:] Just as, the more numerous kinds of training one seeks to undertake, the more numerous the occasions of heedlessness one is thereby able to renounce, one thereby cuts off correspondingly more numerous occasions giving rise to killing and the like. Since each renunciation arises depending on its own causes and conditions, and these causes and conditions differ, the renunciations themselves differ. If this were not the case, then, at the moment one relinquished the bhikṣu vow, all three restraints would have to be relinquished together, since the first two would be subsumed within the last. But since this is not accepted to be so, the three are each distinct. Yet these three kinds are mutually non-conflicting, operating together simultaneously within a single person — it is not the case that taking a later vow causes an earlier restraint to be relinquished, or else relinquishing the bhikṣu precepts would mean one was no longer even an upāsaka and so on.

How are the four kinds of restraint — upāsaka, upavāsa, śrāmaṇera, and bhikṣu — established? Verse: undertaking the abstention from five, eight, ten, or all that should be abstained from establishes the upāsaka, upavāsa, śrāmaṇera, and bhikṣu [restraints, respectively]. Prose: one should understand that, in this matter, the four restraints are established, in numerical order, based on four kinds of renunciation. That is, undertaking the abstention from the five things that should be abstained from establishes the first, the upāsaka restraint. What are the five things that should be abstained from? First, killing living beings; second, taking what is not given; third, sexual misconduct; fourth, false speech; fifth, drinking alcohol. If one undertakes the abstention from the eight things that should be abstained from, this establishes the second, the upavāsa restraint. What are the eight things that should be abstained from? First, killing living beings; second, taking what is not given; third, unchaste conduct; fourth, false speech; fifth, drinking alcohol; sixth, adorning oneself with scent and garlands, and dancing, singing, and watching or listening [to such performances]; seventh, sleeping or sitting upon a high, broad, or ornately adorned bed or seat; eighth, eating food at an improper time. If one undertakes the abstention from the ten things that should be abstained from, this establishes the third, the śrāmaṇera restraint. What are the ten things that should be abstained from? It is [the same eight as above, except that] the sixth item — adorning oneself with scent and garlands, and dancing, singing, and watching or listening — is divided into two separate items, and, further, accepting and keeping gold, silver, and other such valuables is added as the tenth. If one undertakes the abstention from every bodily and verbal act that ought to be abstained from, this establishes the fourth, the bhikṣu restraint.

As for the distinctions among the names for the restraint of individual liberation, verse: all of these are called śīla, wholesome conduct, karma, and restraint; only the first manifested and unmanifested karma is called individual liberation and karma-path. Prose: it is called śīla because it is able to level out dangerous karma. As for its etymological gloss, it means "cool" — as a verse states: "One who upholds precept-happiness has a body free of feverish distress; hence it is called śīla." It is called wholesome conduct because the wise praise it. It is called karma because it is a self-standing, completed act. [Objection:] But is unmanifested karma not also called "non-doing"? How, then, can it now be said to be a self-standing, completed act? [Reply:] One possessing a sense of shame relies on the power of unmanifested karma to refrain from committing many evils; hence it is called "non-doing" [in that specific sense]. What manifested [karma], produced by volition, [directly does] is what earns the name "doing." Other explanations say: it is because it serves as the cause of an act, and as the result of an act, that the name "act" involves no error [when applied to it]. It is called restraint because it is able to guard against bodily and verbal [wrongdoing]. One should understand it in this way: the precept of individual liberation, spanning both its initial and later stages, carries no distinguishing name [between these stages] in most respects — it is only the very first instant's manifested and unmanifested karma that earns the names "individual liberation" and "karma-path." That is, at the time of receiving the precept, the initial manifested and unmanifested karma individually and distinctly renounces various evils; based on this meaning of an initial, distinct renunciation, the name "individual liberation" (prātimokṣa) is established. And it is at that very moment that the karmic act reaches its completion; based on this meaning of the act's fulfillment, the name "karma-path" is established. Hence the first instant is named "individual liberation," and may also be named "restraint of individual liberation," and may also be named "root karma-path." From the second moment onward, until the vow is relinquished, it is not called "individual liberation," but is called "restraint of individual liberation"; it is not called "karma-path," but is called "what arises afterward."

Who possesses which restraint? Verse: the eight [assemblies] possess the restraint of individual liberation; those who have attained meditative absorption and noble ones possess meditation-born and path-born restraint respectively; the latter two follow the mind. Prose: all eight assemblies possess the restraint of individual liberation — that is, from the bhikṣu down through the upavāsa precept-holder. [Objection:] Do non-Buddhist ascetics not also receive precepts? [Reply:] Although they do, these are not called the precept of individual liberation, since what they receive lacks the capacity to permanently free them from evils to which they remain attached. "Meditation-born" means that this restraint is either born from meditative absorption, or depends on meditative absorption. If one has attained meditative absorption, one certainly possesses this restraint. The neighboring, preliminary stages of the meditative absorptions are also called "meditative absorption," just as a place near a village comes to be called by the village's own name. Some say that this is so in the same way that one speaks of "this village's rice paddies" [extending the village's name to what surrounds it]; this should be understood the same way here. Path-born restraint is possessed by noble ones — this, again, divides into two: those still in training, and those beyond training. In the earlier discussion of co-existent causes, it was stated that two kinds of restraint "follow the mind" — which two, among these three, are meant? Meditation-born and path-born restraint, not the restraint of individual liberation. Why is this so? Because these two continue on even through a different state of mind, or through the absence of mind altogether, whereas [the restraint of individual liberation does not continue in quite the same automatic way].

Meditative and uncontaminated restraint are also called "severing restraint." At what stage is this name established? Verse: at the nine uninterrupted paths of the preliminary access-concentration stage, the two [kinds of restraint] arising together [with them] are called "severing." Prose: at the nine uninterrupted paths within the preliminary access-concentration stage, the meditative and uncontaminated restraint arising together with them is called "severing restraint," since it is able to permanently sever the desire realm's bad conduct and the afflictions capable of giving rise to it. Because of this, there may be instances of meditative restraint that are not severing restraint, which should be set out in four cases. The first case is contaminated meditative restraint apart from that of the nine uninterrupted paths within the preliminary access-concentration stage. The second case is uncontaminated restraint occurring at the nine uninterrupted paths within the preliminary access-concentration stage. The third case is contaminated restraint occurring at the nine uninterrupted paths within the preliminary access-concentration stage. The fourth case is all remaining uncontaminated restraint, apart from that of the nine uninterrupted paths within the preliminary access-concentration stage. In the same way, there may be instances of uncontaminated restraint that are not severing restraint, which should likewise be set out in four cases, to be understood by analogy with the four cases just given.

If this is so, then, as the Blessed One has stated in a summary of the precepts: "Excellent is bodily restraint; excellent, too, is verbal restraint; excellent is mental restraint; excellent, too, is pervasive restraint." Moreover, a sūtra states: one should well guard, and should well establish, restraint of the eye faculty [and the other sense faculties]. What is the essential nature of this restraint of the mental faculty [as it applies to the senses]? The essential nature of these two [i.e., what is called "mental restraint" in the summary verse, and this "sense-faculty restraint"] is not unmanifested matter. If this is so, what is it? Verse: clear awareness and mindfulness, combined, are called restraint of the sense faculties. Prose: in order to show that these two kinds of restraint [mental restraint and sense-faculty restraint] both have clear awareness and mindfulness as their essential nature, the verse, having listed the names, further adds the word "combined" — meaning that mental restraint has wisdom [clear awareness] and mindfulness as its essential nature, and it is by combining these two that "restraint of the [sense] faculties" is formed. The word "combined" is stated separately precisely to make clear that one should not assume these correspond one-to-one, in strict order [to the two named factors].

We should now carefully consider: who possesses which manifested and unmanifested karma, and up to what point in time? Let us first discuss the possession of unmanifested restraint and non-restraint. Verse: one abiding in the restraint of individual liberation constantly possesses it as present, for as long as it is unrelinquished; from the [second] instant onward, it is also possessed as past; non-restraint is the same. One who has attained meditative restraint constantly possesses it as past and future; a noble one, at the first instant, possesses it as future only, excluding the past; abiding in absorption or in the path, one possesses it as present as well. Prose: a person abiding in the vow of individual liberation constantly possesses this unmanifested restraint of individual liberation as present, for as long as it remains unrelinquished. From the instant after its first arising, it is also possessed as past — the phrase "for as long as it remains unrelinquished" carries through to apply here as well. It is never possessed as future, since it is not a "non-scattered" [meditation-linked] kind of unmanifested karma, and its force is comparatively weak. Just as has been said for one abiding in the restraint of individual liberation, one abiding in non-restraint should be understood the same way — that is, for as long as the bad precept-vow remains unrelinquished, it is constantly possessed as present, and from the instant after its first arising, this unmanifested bad-precept karma is also possessed as past. All those who have attained meditative restraint constantly possess it as past and future, for as long as it is unrelinquished, since, even if it was lost in another lifetime, the present first instant of [regaining meditative absorption] necessarily reconnects to that same prior attainment. All noble ones constantly possess uncontaminated restraint as both past and future; the difference is that, at the very first instant, it is necessarily possessed only as future, not as past, since this particular kind of noble path has not previously arisen. If one is presently and actually abiding in that meditative absorption or that path, one possesses, in due order, the corresponding meditative or path restraint as present as well — but this is not the case once one has emerged from that absorption.

Having discussed abiding in wholesome or unwholesome restraint, what of abiding in "neither"? Verse: for one abiding in "neither," if there is unmanifested karma, its first instant is possessed as present, and thereafter as both. Prose: "abiding in neither" refers to being neither restraint nor non-restraint; the karma that arises from this state does not necessarily always have unmanifested karma. If there is unmanifested karma, it is subsumed under the wholesome or unwholesome precept-type; its first instant is possessed only as present — and, since the present occupies the middle position between the past and future, this is expressed by saying its "middle" instant is possessed as present. From the instant after its first arising, for as long as it remains unrelinquished, it is constantly possessed as both past and present. [Question:] If one abiding in restraint or non-restraint also comes to possess unwholesome or wholesome unmanifested karma [of the opposite quality], for how long is this possessed, granting that it is possessed at all? Verse: for one abiding in restraint or non-restraint, unmanifested karma arising from a defiled or pure mind has its first instant possessed as present, and thereafter as both, until the force of that defiled or pure state comes to an end. Prose: if one abiding in restraint, overcome by a powerful affliction, commits unwholesome deeds such as killing or binding another, this gives rise to unwholesome unmanifested karma [despite one's restraint]. If one abiding in non-restraint, moved by pure and sincere faith, performs superior wholesome deeds such as venerating the Buddha, this likewise gives rise to wholesome unmanifested karma. For as long as these two [respectively defiled or pure] states of mind remain uninterrupted, the unmanifested karma thus generated continues without interruption; yet its very first moment is possessed only as present, and from that point onward, it is possessed as both past and present.

Having discussed unmanifested karma, what of the possession of manifested karma? Verse: manifested karma, while actually being carried out, is possessed as present; afterward, it is possessed as past, not as future; defiled-neutral and undefiled-neutral [manifested karma] are possessed only as present. Prose: for all those abiding in restraint, non-restraint, or neither, manifested karma is constantly possessed as present for as long as the manifested act is actually being carried out. From the instant after this, for as long as it remains unrelinquished, it is constantly possessed as past; it is never possessed as future, for the same reason already explained for unmanifested karma. The two kinds of neutral manifested karma — defiled-neutral and undefiled-neutral — definitely cannot be possessed as either past or future, since the dharma's force is weak, and the capacity to obtain [something] retroactively is likewise feeble; hence there is nothing capable of reaching backward or forward to be possessed. [Objection:] To whom does this weakness of the dharma's force belong? [Reply:] It belongs to the mind that produces it. [Objection:] If this is so, then a defiled-neutral mind and the like should likewise fail to be possessed as past or future. [Reply:] This objection is not sound, since manifested karma is dull and inert, and arises dependent on something else, whereas mind and the like are not so; unwholesome-neutral manifested karma arises from an [already] inferior mind, and its force is doubly inferior to that of the mind capable of giving rise to it — hence manifested karma and mind differ in this respect regarding what can be possessed.

As for the distinctions among the names for non-restraint, discussed above as "abiding in non-restraint," verse: bad conduct, bad precept-vow, karma, karma-path, and non-restraint. Prose: these five different names — bad conduct and so on — are the distinguishing names of non-restraint. It is named "bad conduct" because the wise despise and reject it, and because its result is not desirable. It is named "bad precept-vow" because it obstructs pure śīla. It is named "karma" because it is produced through body and speech. It is named "karma-path" because it is subsumed under the root [of the karmic act]. It is named "non-restraint" because it fails to guard body and speech [from wrongdoing]. However, the name "karma-path" applies only to the very first moment, whereas the remaining four names extend across both the initial and later stages.

There may be cases of possessing manifested karma but not unmanifested karma, and so forth — this should be set out in four cases. How does this work? Verse: possessing manifested karma but not unmanifested karma occurs for one abiding in "neither," acting from a feeble intention; possessing unmanifested karma but not manifested karma occurs for a noble one who has relinquished, or not yet generated, manifested karma. Prose: possessing only manifested karma, and not unmanifested karma, refers to one abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who, through a feeble intention, does something wholesome or unwholesome — this only barely gives rise to manifested karma, without yet having any unmanifested karma at all, and this applies all the more to manifested karma arising from a morally neutral intention — except in the case of merit tied to a [material] support, and in the case of completing a karma-path. Possessing only unmanifested karma, and not manifested karma, refers to a noble one of the type disposed toward easy [favorable] rebirth, whose manifested karma has either not yet arisen, or has arisen and then been relinquished; the remaining two cases — possessing both, or possessing neither — should be understood accordingly.

Having discussed abiding in restraint, non-restraint, and so forth, and possessing manifested and unmanifested karma, by what means are these various restraints obtained? Verse: meditation-born restraint is obtained upon attaining the meditative level; that of noble ones, path-born restraint; the restraint of individual liberation is obtained through another's instruction, and so on. Prose: meditative restraint is obtained the very moment one attains the mind of either the root or the neighboring preliminary stage of contaminated meditative absorption, since it arises together with that very mind. Uncontaminated restraint is obtained the very moment one attains the mind of either the root or the neighboring preliminary stage of uncontaminated meditative absorption, likewise because it arises together with that mind. The word "that" [in the verse] serves to indicate the meditative mind just discussed. The further mention of "noble" specifies that only the uncontaminated case is meant. There are six meditative levels possessing an uncontaminated mind: the preliminary access-concentration stage, the intermediate stage, and the four root absorptions — not the [other] three preliminary stages, as will be explained later. The restraint of individual liberation is obtained through another's instruction; one capable of instructing another is called "another," and, since the precept is generated through the power of such another's instruction, this precept is said to be obtained through another's instruction. This, again, divides into two kinds, distinguished by whether it comes from the saṅgha or from an individual. What is obtained from the saṅgha refers to the bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇī, and śikṣamāṇā precepts. What is obtained from an individual refers to the remaining five kinds of precepts.

The Vinaya masters state that there are ten ways of obtaining full ordination; the verse's word "and so on" is meant to encompass these. What are the ten? First, by nature itself — namely, the Buddha and the pratyekabuddhas. Second, by attaining entry into correct assurance — namely, the five monks [the first five disciples]. Third, by the Buddha's command, "Come, monk" — namely, Yaśas and others. Fourth, by faithfully accepting the Buddha as the great teacher — namely, Mahākāśyapa. Fifth, by skillfully answering questions posed to oneself — namely, Sudāyin. Sixth, by respectfully accepting the eight special rules of reverence — namely, Mahāprajāpatī. Seventh, by way of a sent messenger — namely, the nun Dharmadatta (法授尼). Eighth, by a quorum with a Vinaya-holder as the fifth member — namely, for those in border regions. Ninth, by a quorum of ten — namely, for those in the Middle Country. Tenth, by the threefold recitation of taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha — namely, the assembly of sixty worthy ones who together received full ordination.

The restraint of individual liberation thus obtained does not necessarily depend on manifested karma to arise. Moreover, over what span of time should this restraint of individual liberation, as described, be undertaken? Verse: the restraint of individual liberation is undertaken for one's whole life, or for a single day and night. Prose: the precept of individual liberation held by the seven assemblies [other than the upavāsa precept-holder] must be undertaken with a commitment for one's whole remaining life. The precept of individual liberation held by the upavāsa precept-holder must be undertaken with a commitment for a single day and night only. This span of time is fixed in exactly this way. Why is this so? A precept's temporal boundary has only two possibilities: the boundary of one's lifespan, and the boundary of a day and night; to speak again of a boundary such as half a month would be [an unnecessary further division of the day-night boundary, not a genuine third category]. What sort of thing is "time"? It is a conventional expression for conditioned phenomena themselves. Across the four continents, periods of light and periods of darkness are, in due order, given the names "day" and "night"; among the two [possible] boundaries, the whole-life boundary may be so [straightforwardly fixed]. After death has occurred, even if one had made such a commitment beforehand, the restraint of individual liberation cannot then arise, since it depends on a different body [in the next existence] — a different bodily basis lacking the necessary preparatory effort and lacking the capacity for continued intention. [Objection:] After one day and night, could one not undertake the upavāsa precept again, for another five or ten days and nights [in succession]? What factor would obstruct this, preventing such multiple upavāsa restraints from also being able to arise [as one continuous whole]? There must be some factor capable of obstructing this, since the Blessed One states in a sūtra that the upavāsa restraint lasts only a single day and night. [Further inquiry:] On this point, we should jointly consider: did the Buddha, seeing correctly that it is in principle impossible for an upavāsa restraint to arise beyond a single day and night, therefore state "one day and night" in the sūtra? Or, seeing that those to be guided have faculties difficult to tame, did he simply grant, for the time being, only a one-day-and-night precept? By what reasoning or teaching should this statement be understood? Arising beyond this span would not contradict reason. [Reply:] The Vaibhāṣika state: there has never been any sūtra stating that a separate reception could obtain the upavāsa restraint beyond a single day and night — hence our own school does not accept this notion.

Over what boundary is non-restraint obtained? Verse: bad precept-vow has no [one] day-and-night [version], since it is not received the way a wholesome one is. Prose: committing to a lifetime of unwholesome deeds obtains non-restraint; there is no one-day-and-night version, unlike the upavāsa precept. Why is this so? Because this is not received the way a wholesome precept is received. That is, there is certainly no case of formally committing before a teacher, with a fixed limit, to receive non-restraint the way one receives the upavāsa precept — declaring, "I shall definitely undertake non-restraint for one day and night" — since this would itself be an action despised and rejected by the wise. [Objection:] If this is so, then there should also be no case of formally committing before a teacher, with a fixed limit, "I shall definitely undertake bad conduct until the end of my life" — so how could one obtain non-restraint for one's whole life either? [Reply:] Although there is no formal commitment before a teacher to commit unwholesome deeds for one's whole life, one obtains non-restraint by generating an intention that thoroughly and irreversibly ruins what is wholesome — it is not the case that generating a merely temporary intention that ruins what is wholesome, without a teacher, causes one to obtain non-restraint; hence non-restraint has no one-day-and-night version. The upavāsa precept, however, by the power of a formal commitment made in the actual presence of a teacher, produces restraint even without any thoroughly ruinous intention toward evil; and if someone were to formally commit, in the presence of a teacher, to a brief reception of non-restraint, this, too, would necessarily have to be obtainable — yet this has never actually been observed, and so it is not held to exist. The Sautrāntika school says: just as there is no separate real entity called unmanifested matter behind wholesome restraint, this non-restraint, too, should likewise not be real. Rather, the continuous, unabandoned intention to commit evil is what is called non-restraint; hence, even if a wholesome mind later arises, one is still said to possess non-restraint, since this underlying disposition has not been abandoned.

Having discussed the one-day-and-night upavāsa restraint, how should it be properly received? Verse: upavāsa is received at dawn, from a lower seat, from a teacher, following the instruction, reciting the complete precept-branches, and setting aside adornment, for a full day and night. Prose: the upavāsa restraint is received at dawn, meaning that receiving this precept requires the time of sunrise, since this precept must last a full day and night. Those who have already made an advance commitment — such as, "I shall always receive this upavāsa restraint on the eighth day of the month" — may still receive it after the meal-time is complete, if some obstacle prevents receiving it in the morning. "Lower seat" means occupying a humble seat before the teacher — crouching, kneeling, bowing at the waist, with palms joined — except in the case of illness; without such reverence, the restraint does not arise. This must be received from a teacher; there is no possibility of receiving it on one's own. This is because, afterward, should one encounter circumstances tempting one to break the precept, a sense of shame before one's precept-teacher enables one not to transgress. One receiving this precept should recite after the teacher's instruction, never before it or simultaneously with it; only in this way does it properly constitute receiving from a teacher's instruction — otherwise, neither the giving nor the receiving is accomplished. Only by receiving all eight branches in full is the upavāsa restraint accomplished; if any is lacking, the upavāsa restraint is not accomplished. Receiving this restraint necessarily requires setting aside adornment, since it is an occasion for heedless indulgence. One's ordinarily worn adornments need not be discarded, since, being familiar rather than novel, they are not capable of giving rise to great heedless indulgence. Receiving this restraint necessarily spans a full day and night, meaning until the following dawn, at the moment of sunrise. If one does not receive it in accordance with this method, one merely generates good conduct without obtaining the restraint itself. Moreover, only when received in this way, spanning the full day and night, does the upavāsa restraint, together with its comprehensive prohibition against those who live as butchers, hunters, adulterers, or thieves, become genuinely effective in practice. As for the name "upavāsa" (近住): this restraint dwells near the conduct of an arhat, since one trains in accordance with that model. Some say: this dwells near the lifetime precept [of the other seven assemblies]. This restraint is also called "long-nourishing," since it nourishes the meager wholesome roots of beings who have little of them, causing their wholesome roots to gradually increase. As a verse states: because this is able to nourish one's own and others' wholesome, pure mind, the Blessed One therefore calls this restraint "long-nourishing."

For what reason must this precept be received with exactly eight branches? Verse: śīla, heedfulness, and restraint are the branches, in the order of four, one, and three, in order to guard against root offenses, lapses of mindfulness, and heedless indulgence. Prose: among the eight, the first four are the śīla branches — namely, from abstaining from killing living beings through abstaining from false speech — since these four kinds counter root offenses. The next single branch is the heedfulness branch — namely, abstaining from drinking alcohol, the basis that gives rise to heedlessness. Although one has received śīla, if one drinks alcohol, the mind becomes heedless, and one transgresses śīla because of this. The final three are the restraining branches — namely, from abstaining from self-adornment and fragrant garlands through abstaining from eating at improper times — since these are able to accord with a mind inclined toward renunciation. For what reason must one receive all three of these branches together? If the branches are not received in full, one cannot avoid the faults of root offenses, lapses of mindfulness, and heedless indulgence. That is, the first group — from abstaining from killing through abstaining from false speech — guards against root offenses, since it removes the unwholesome acts, such as killing, that arise from greed, hatred, and delusion. The next — abstaining from alcohol — guards against lapses of mindfulness, since drinking alcohol causes one to forget what ought and ought not to be done. The final three guard against heedless indulgence, since indulging in various fragrances, garlands, high and broad beds and seats, and becoming accustomed to song and dance causes the mind to become conceited and heedless, quickly leading to breaking the precept; by keeping distant from these, the mind is thereby kept free of such conceit. One who is able to keep to eating only at the proper time, since this restrains the habit of constant eating, is thereby reminded of having undertaken the upavāsa restraint, and is able to give rise to a deep sense of renunciation with respect to the world. If both improper-time eating and this restraint were absent, frequent eating would cause the mind to become indulgent and unrestrained.

Can only an upāsaka receive the upavāsa restraint, or can others receive it too? Verse: others may also receive upavāsa, provided they take the threefold refuge; without this, they cannot. Prose: anyone who has not yet received the upāsaka restraint may, within that same day and night, take refuge in the Three Jewels, and, having recited the threefold refuge, receive the upavāsa precept — such a person, too, thereby obtains the upavāsa restraint. Apart from this, it cannot be obtained, except in the case of someone unaware [of the requirement, who is not held culpable for the omission]. As a sūtra states: the Buddha told Mahānāman: "Any layperson, clothed in white, whose male faculties are complete, who takes refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha with a sincere and pure mind, and, with truthful speech, declares, 'I am an upāsaka; may the Honored One bear this in mind, and, with compassion, watch over and protect me' — to this extent is one called an upāsaka." [Question:] Does merely receiving the threefold refuge alone thereby make one an upāsaka? Teachers from outside [India] say: this alone suffices. The treatise-masters of Kashmir say: apart from the restraint of the upāsaka, one is not an upāsaka. [Objection:] If this is so, this should contradict the sūtra just cited. [Reply:] This is not a contradiction, since the precept has already been generated [by that very declaration].

At what moment is the precept generated? Verse: the precept is generated upon declaring oneself an upāsaka, as is stated for the bhikṣu and the others. Prose: at the moment one gives rise to a sincere, pure mind, utters truthful speech, and declares, "I am an upāsaka; may the Honored One bear this in mind, and, with compassion, watch over and protect me" — at that very moment, the upāsaka restraint is generated, since it is the declaration of "upāsaka" and the accompanying words that generate the restraint. [Objection:] But the sūtra further states, "from this time until the end of my life, I renounce the taking of life," and so on. [Reply:] The intent of this sūtra passage is to state the renunciation of killing and the other [four root offenses]; it abbreviates "killing" and the rest, stating only "renounce life," and hence the five precepts had already been obtained at the earlier point [of the initial declaration]. Although this person had already obtained the upāsaka restraint, in order to let them clearly understand the training points they should observe, the five precept-characteristics — abstaining from killing and so on — are further explained to them, so that they may recognize and firmly uphold them. This is just as, once a bhikṣu has already obtained the full precept, the detailed training points are then explained, so that they may recognize and firmly uphold them; the same holds for the śrāmaṇera as well. This case should be understood the same way — hence the upāsaka necessarily possesses restraint [from the moment of the initial declaration, not only once the detailed precepts are later recited].

Verse: if all [upāsakas] possess full restraint, why does [the Buddha] speak of a partial [kind] and so forth? [Reply:] This is stated with reference to their capacity to uphold [what they received]. Prose: if all upāsakas possess complete restraint, for what reason does the Blessed One speak of four kinds — first, able to train in a portion; second, able to train in a small portion; third, able to train in most; fourth, able to train in the complete set? This is stated with reference to their capacity to uphold what they previously received; hence it speaks of "able to train." If it were otherwise, it should instead say "receiving a portion," and so on. In reality, it is with reference to receiving that one has complete restraint, since it is by virtue of complete restraint that one is called an upāsaka. [Objection:] This position contradicts a sūtra. [Reply:] How does it contradict the sūtra? [Objection:] There is no sūtra stating that the mere declaration "I am an upāsaka" and so forth generates all five precepts, since that sūtra does not [immediately] say "from this time until the end of my life, I renounce the taking of life," and so on. [Reply:] What does the sūtra actually say? It is as in the Mahānāman Sūtra. Only this sūtra describes the character of an upāsaka; other sūtras do not, and hence [your citation] contradicts that sūtra. [Response to a further objection:] But another sūtra states: "From this time until the end of my life, I renounce the taking of life and take refuge in purity" — this is the utterance of sincere faith in taking refuge in the Three Jewels. What this passage shows is that one who has seen the truths, having attained confirmed purity, stakes their very life on this commitment, expressing profound love and reverence for the true Dharma, to the point that, even for the sake of saving their own life, they would never abandon the Tathāgata's true Dharma. This is not stated in order to describe the character of an upāsaka as such; and even if it were, it is not a clear or decisive scriptural basis. Who could, on the strength of such an unclear passage, come to believe that the five precepts had already been generated at some earlier point [merely partially]? Moreover, speaking of "training in a portion" and so forth, with reference to upholding or transgressing precepts already received, should not even need to be asked about, let alone answered. Who, having already understood that the upāsaka restraint necessarily comprises five branches in full, would fail to understand that upholding one but not the others, up through upholding all of them, is what is meant by "a portion" and so forth? It is precisely because such a person has not understood how much restraint the upāsaka receives that the question would need to be asked: "Exactly how many kinds of upāsaka are capable of training in the training-points?" The answer: "There are four kinds of upāsaka — namely, those able to train in a portion," and so on. [Objection, still unsatisfied:] But this still leaves it unclear. One might then further ask, "What is meant by 'able to train in a portion'?" and so on at length — [and this is answered by explaining upholding one, several, most, or all of the precepts, not by explaining a partial reception]. [Further objection:] If restraint were lacking, could one still be called an upāsaka? [Reply:] The bhikṣu and the śrāmaṇera, too, would then have to be so named even lacking restraint — but since this is not accepted for them, the same must hold here as well.

For what reason are the precise number and scope of the restraint received, from the upāsaka up through the bhikṣu, fixed in exactly this way? It is so simply because it has been established by the power of the Buddha's own teaching. [Objection:] If this is so, then for what reason is it not likewise permitted, by that same power of the Buddha's teaching, that one lacking restraint entirely could still be called an upāsaka, rather than requiring this only for the bhikṣu and the others? [Reply:] The Vaibhāṣika of Kashmir do not accept that one lacking restraint could become an upāsaka. By what means does this restraint of the upāsaka and the others come to be of a lower, middling, or superior grade? Verse: lower, middling, and superior grade follow the mind. Prose: the restraint of individual liberation received by the eight assemblies is, in every case, of a lower, middling, or superior grade depending on the mind present at the time of its reception. By this same principle, some arhats may come to possess only a lower-grade restraint, while some ordinary, unenlightened beings may come to possess a superior-grade restraint. [Question:] Can one who receives only the upāsaka restraint without taking the threefold refuge still become an upāsaka? [Reply:] One does not become an upāsaka this way, except in the case of someone unaware [of the requirement].

For those who take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha, what exactly do they take refuge in? Verse: refuge is in the two kinds of dharmas — those of training and beyond training — that constitute a buddha and the saṅgha, and in nirvāṇa, the cessation attained through discernment; this is called the complete threefold refuge. Prose: refuge in the Buddha means refuge specifically in the dharmas of one beyond training that constitute a buddha, since it is by virtue of the superiority of these that a body earns the name "buddha," or because it is by attaining these dharmas that a buddha awakens to all things. What are these dharmas of one beyond training that constitute a buddha? They are the knowledge of the exhaustion [of outflows] and so forth, together with what accompanies it — not the physical body and the like, since these [dharmas, unlike the body] are not subject to earlier and later change. Does one take refuge in a single buddha, or in all buddhas? In truth, one should say that one takes refuge in all buddhas, since all buddhas' paths have identical characteristics without exception. Refuge in the Saṅgha means refuge broadly in the dharmas, of training and beyond training, that constitute the saṅgha, since it is by attaining these that the saṅgha comes to consist of the eight kinds of persons, an indestructible [community]. Does one take refuge in a single buddha's saṅgha, or in all buddhas' saṅgha? In truth, one takes refuge broadly in all buddhas' saṅgha, since all saṅghas' paths have identical characteristics without exception. As for the sūtra passage stating, "there will be a saṅgha in the future; you should take refuge in it" — that sūtra merely intends to point toward the Jewel of the Saṅgha as it will come to be directly seen in the future. Refuge in the Dharma means refuge in nirvāṇa. This word "nirvāṇa" refers specifically to the cessation attained through discernment, which extinguishes the afflictions and suffering of both one's own and others' continuum in one and the same undifferentiated mode of stillness — hence refuge in it is taken universally [by all beings alike].

[Objection:] If it is only the beyond-training dharmas that constitute the Buddha, how could a malicious mind that draws blood at the Buddha, merely damaging his physical body, constitute the offense of immediate retribution? The Vaibhāṣika explain it this way: this damages the support of those [beyond-training dharmas], and they are damaged along with it. Yet, upon examining the root treatise itself, one finds no statement that only the beyond-training dharmas are called "the Buddha" — it states only that the beyond-training dharmas are what constitute a buddha. Since this does not exclude the physical body from also being encompassed within what constitutes the Buddha's essential nature, the earlier objection does not actually arise here. If it were otherwise, then the Buddha and the Saṅgha, while abiding in an ordinary worldly state of mind, would have to be neither Saṅgha nor Buddha at all. It would likewise follow that only the precept constituting a bhikṣu is "the bhikṣu" — yet, just as one who wishes to make an offering to a bhikṣu is understood to be offering specifically to the precept that constitutes his status as a bhikṣu [without this excluding his person], so too should one wishing to take refuge in the Buddha be understood as taking refuge specifically in the beyond-training dharmas that constitute buddhahood [without this excluding his person]. Other teachers say: refuge in the Buddha means refuge, altogether, in the Tathāgata's eighteen dharmas exclusive to him alone. What is the essential nature of the capacity that takes refuge? Its essential nature is manifested verbal karma. What is the meaning of such refuge? Its meaning is rescue, since, by relying on this, one is able to permanently free oneself from all suffering. As the Blessed One has stated: "Many people, driven by terror, take refuge in mountains, in parks and groves, in solitary trees and shrines — but this refuge is not excellent, this refuge is not noble; not by means of this refuge is one able to be freed from manifold suffering. But those who take refuge in the Buddha, and take refuge in the Dharma and the Saṅgha, who constantly examine, with wisdom, the Four Noble Truths — knowing suffering, knowing suffering's origin, knowing the final transcending of manifold suffering, knowing the Noble Eightfold Path that leads to the peace of nirvāṇa — this refuge is truly excellent, this refuge is truly noble; necessarily by means of this refuge is one able to be freed from manifold suffering." Hence taking refuge serves, universally, as the gateway of skillful means for every place where restraint is received.

For what reason does the Blessed One establish abstention from all sexual activity as the training in every other restraint, while, only in the single restraint of the upāsaka, he restricts this to abstention from sexual misconduct alone? Verse: sexual misconduct is most reprehensible, and easily abstained from, and non-performance of it is attainable. Prose: it is sexual misconduct alone that the world most severely condemns, since it violates another's spouse and the like, and brings about rebirth in an unfortunate destiny — unlike [full] non-chastity — and, moreover, sexual misconduct is easily abstained from. Householders, being deeply attached to desire, find abstention from all sexual activity difficult to undertake and maintain; observing that they would be unable to sustain such training over a long period, the Blessed One did not require abstention from all sexual activity of them. Moreover, every noble one, without exception, has attained the restraint of never performing sexual misconduct, since this holds even for a noble one across successive lifetimes; abstention from all sexual activity, however, is not so [reliably maintained by every noble one]. Hence, in the restraint received by the upāsaka, only abstention from sexual misconduct is established — lest a noble one reborn again [as a layperson] should be said to violate the upāsaka restraint. "Restraint of non-performance" means definite non-performance. [Question:] For one who first receives the upāsaka restraint and afterward marries a wife or takes a concubine, does one, with respect to that spouse, already possess this restraint from the time of the original reception? In reality, one should indeed possess it — lest the restraint of individual liberation be obtained only with respect to a portion [of beings, rather than universally]. [Objection:] If this is so, how does the later act not then constitute breaking the precept? Verse: restraint is obtained exactly as vowed, not as a blanket commitment covering the [entire] continuum [of all beings without distinction of relation]. Prose: restraint is obtained exactly according to the original vow taken. What was the original vow? Abstention from sexual misconduct. It was not a statement that, with respect to the continuum of every sentient being, "I shall abstain from all sexual activity with each of them" — rather, by this vow, one universally obtains, with respect to the continuum of every sentient being, only the precept of abstaining from sexual misconduct. Since this is not the restraint of abstaining from all sexual activity, later taking a wife or concubine does not violate the earlier precept.

For what reason is only abstention from false speech established, and not abstention from divisive speech and the others, as part of the upāsaka's restraint? This is likewise due to the three reasons stated before: false speech is most reprehensible, householders find it easy to abstain from, and every noble one has attained non-performance of it. There is, moreover, a further, distinct reason. Verse: because permitting false speech would let one transgress every training-point. Prose: when questioned after having transgressed a training-point, if false speech were permitted, one could simply say "I did not do it," and thereby go on to violate the precepts extensively. Hence, in order to make precept-holders hold firm, the Buddha established abstention from false speech across every kind of restraint. [Objection:] Moreover, for what reason is the upāsaka's restraint not established with respect to abstaining from proscribed offenses [in general]? [Reply:] Who says it does not include abstention from a proscribed offense here? Which proscribed offense is abstained from? Abstention from drinking alcohol. [Further objection:] Why, among the various proscribed offenses, is abstention not established with respect to the others, prohibiting only alcohol? Verse: among proscribed offenses, only alcohol is abstained from, in order to protect the other restraints. Prose: those who drink alcohol have, for the most part, an indulgent and unrestrained mind, and are unable to safeguard their other restraints; hence, in order to protect the others, abstention from alcohol is required.

How is it known that drinking alcohol is subsumed under proscribed offenses? Because it lacks the mark of a root offense, since all root offenses are performed only with a defiled mind. When drinking alcohol for the sake of curing illness, one is capable of having no defiled mind at all, so long as it is not to the point of intoxication. [Objection:] Is it not the case that, knowing in advance that alcohol can cause intoxication, deliberately wishing to drink it is itself already a defiled mind? [Reply:] This is not a defiled mind, since one knows the proper measure oneself, and drinks a limited amount for the sake of curing illness, without allowing intoxication — hence it is not a defiled mind. The Vinaya masters say: drinking alcohol is a root offense. As the Venerable Upāli asked: "How should I provide for the sick?" The Blessed One replied: "Excepting only root offenses, provide whatever else is appropriate." Yet there was a Śākya clansman afflicted with illness who required alcohol, and the Blessed One did not permit him to drink it. Moreover, a sūtra states: "Any monastic who calls me teacher should not drink alcohol, down to as little as the amount that clings to a single blade of grass." Hence it is known that drinking alcohol is subsumed under root offenses. Moreover, noble ones, even across many lifetimes, never transgress this, just as with killing and the like. Moreover, a sūtra states that it is a bodily misdeed. The Ābhidharmika masters say: it is not a root offense, but was universally established as a proscribed precept for the sake of the sick. That it is prohibited on other occasions is in order to guard against thereby committing a root offense, since the quantity that would cause intoxication has no fixed measure, and so it is prohibited down to the amount clinging to a blade of grass. Moreover, that all noble ones abstain from it entirely is because noble ones are possessed of a sense of shame, and drinking alcohol is able to cause the loss of correct mindfulness. That even the smallest amount is abstained from is because, like a poison, its proper measure has no fixed limit. As for the sūtra's statement that it is a bodily misdeed, this is because alcohol is the universal basis of heedlessness; it is on this account alone that it is given the distinct name "basis of heedlessness," a name not given to any of the other [proscribed offenses], since all the others are, in fact, root offenses. As for the statement that habitual practice of it leads to rebirth in an unfortunate destiny, this shows only that habitual drinking causes unwholesome dharmas within the body to continue on, and that it is capable of giving rise to karma leading to an unfortunate destiny, or of causing such karma to become increasingly potent.

As a sūtra states: surā, maireya, and madya are bases of heedlessness. What is the meaning behind these terms? Alcohol fermented from cooked grain is called surā; alcohol fermented from other substances is called maireya. If either of these first two kinds of alcohol has not yet properly fermented, or has already spoiled, such that it cannot cause intoxication, it is not called madya; only once it is capable of causing intoxication is it called madya — this further name is established specifically to exclude the useless, non-intoxicating state. Since areca nut, millet, and the like are also capable of causing intoxication, in order to distinguish alcohol from these, it is necessary to specifically name surā and maireya alcohol. Although this is a proscribed offense, it gives rise to heedlessness and the extensive commission of manifold evils, and so, in order to bring about its especially firm prohibition, it is called "a basis of heedlessness" — since alcohol is the very basis upon which heedlessness depends. [Thus ends] Fascicle Fourteen of the Abhidharmakośa of the Sarvāstivāda School.