The Four Grave Wrongs, Part Two — and the Five Lesser Rules

Section Three: Sexual Misconduct

The Five Precepts prohibit only sexual misconduct in its restricted sense [i.e., adultery]. The Eight Precepts prohibit both the restricted and the unrestricted sense at once, becoming on this point entirely identical to the monastic community's own rule. In the present text, only within the clarification of violation-marks does it briefly indicate what "sexual misconduct" means in the restricted sense; everywhere else it speaks broadly of the marks of sexual conduct as such, without distinguishing the restricted sense from the unrestricted. Students should take care to distinguish the two as they read.

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "First, clarifying the object of the offense: the Saṃghika Vinaya says, 'Among all things to be feared, none surpasses woman. The ruin of rectitude and the destruction of virtue both trace back to her. To look on her with a defiled mind is a lower-grade offense; to be defiled merely by hearing her voice is the same.'"

The Zichi Commentary explains: "First it shows the marks of this fault. The first two lines show the retribution to come; the next two make plain the harm already present. As for 'fearsome' — the Sūtra on Reproving Desire says: 'Woman's beauty is the world's fetters and shackles; the ordinary person, once infatuated, cannot free himself. Woman's charm is the world's grave affliction; the ordinary person, on her account, cannot escape it even unto death. Woman's beauty is the world's calamity and misfortune; the ordinary person, once caught by it, meets with every disaster.' Once a practitioner has actually managed to leave her behind, to turn back and dwell on her again is exactly like climbing out of hell only to think of climbing back in. It also says: 'A woman's manner — her speech is like honey, but her heart is like poison. She is like a clear, mirror-still pool in which a flood-dragon dwells, or a mountain of gold and a jeweled cave in which a lion makes its den.' One should know that this danger cannot be approached.

"'The ruin of rectitude' means that establishing affairs with public rectitude accomplishes nothing once a person has been laid waste by women. That same sūtra says: 'Discord within the household is caused by women; the ruin of clan and lineage is women's fault.' 'The destruction of virtue' means that cultivating oneself and establishing right conduct is entirely lost the moment one becomes attached to women. That sūtra says: 'The ordinary person prizes beauty and is glad to be its servant, driven and worn out by it for his entire life.' The Contemplation for Purifying the Mind says: 'One who craves beauty grows arrogant; one who craves wealth grows stingy. Being both arrogant and stingy, even one who still has other virtues to his name has, by that very fact, something to be watched closely.'

"The word 'defiled' below makes plain how urgent the prohibition is. The workings of the mind are subtle and fine, and coarse feeling does not notice them. Even one who knows the precept is being broken still finds it hard to master himself — how much less could a person drifting carelessly through life ever attain purity at all? Examine your own reckless mind closely when you actually stand before such an object. Whether it is a lingering, turned-back glance, an eager raising of the eyes, listening to her voice and speaking with her, or drawing in her scent through the breath — even though the bodies have not yet joined, a defiled deed has already been done. The great sage's prohibition goes this deep for good reason, and it is certainly not without cause. Truly this is the wellspring of every suffering, the root that obstructs the path. It takes what reeks of flesh as its very substance, and takes desire and defilement entire as its mind. One drifts upon the sea of birth-and-death [the source text appears to be missing a negating character here — the sense clearly requires something like "unable to find the way back"], bound up within the net of the senses and their objects, and truly it is hard to escape. One ought to grieve over this and make every effort to master it. Either contemplate the body as impure — it is nothing but a sack of filth — or examine that organ of desire closely: it is, in truth, nothing but an excretory channel. Or fix the mind on a sacred image, or recite the Buddha's name, or chant a true sūtra, or hold a spirit-mantra. Or focus the mind wholly on the precept-body one has received, or gather one's thoughts and hold them fast. Or observe how all things arise and perish, impermanent; or know that all is merely a transformation of consciousness. Wherever the mind is inclined, apply effort there to treat it — for if one simply follows one's nature and drifts with the current, there is no saving it." [The preceding passages are all found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 17.]

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary continues: "In the Four-Part Vinaya: as for the object of the offense — it means a human, a non-human [such as a deity, a spirit, or a ghost], or any being of the animal destiny. In terms of physical form, this covers both the male and the female body. In terms of location, a woman has three orifices — the anus, the urethra, and the mouth — and a man has two. As for these sites of sexual union, it makes no difference whether the partner is conscious or asleep, or whether, in the case of a corpse, it is not yet decomposed or only slightly decomposed — so long as penetration of the site reaches as little as the width of a hair, it is in every case the upper-grade offense. The Vinaya says: with cattle, horses, pigs, dogs, geese, chickens, and the like, it makes no difference what thought or intention is held — so long as it is the lower orifice, it is in every case a grave offense."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The second part, listing the various objects, has three points. First, listing the marks of the object, itself in three parts: first, subsuming by destiny — the note's 'and the like' refers to the asuras and to hell-beings, the four being combined as one. Second, in terms of physical form there are three cases, covering all six destinies above. Third, in terms of location there are likewise three cases, which must be understood across all three kinds of retribution-body. What follows fixes the exact boundary of what completes the offense: the text lists four cases — two while living, two after death — and each is clearly distinguishable. 'As little as the width of a hair' marks the precise cutoff for completing the offense.

"The third point, beginning with 'the Vinaya,' makes clear that no allowance is made for a mistaken or doubtful perception. The Vinaya says: whether it is truly the [wrong] orifice, or one perceives it as the [wrong] orifice, or one is merely in doubt, or one perceives it as not the [wrong] orifice — in every case it is the upper-grade offense. The text cites the case of animals, but the other destinies are exactly the same."

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary continues: "Now, the fault of sexual misconduct is coarse and plainly evident, and everyone already knows it is wrong. Yet when it comes to examining an actual case of violation, the violation must still be established as such in every particular. Setting out the marks of the offense in order to show its fault, the ear may be reluctant to hear it, and this can provoke a scornful laugh, or give rise to doubt, or give rise to bewilderment."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The third point, warning against taking this lightly, has two parts. First, it lays out the ordinary reaction: the first two lines concede what the reader already knows. What follows shows why the prohibition must nonetheless be so exacting. 'Examining a violation' means investigating according to the teaching's own method. What follows that describes the reader's own dim-wittedness — there are four faults here. First, a feeling of disgust arises, because one does not wish to hear it. Second, a lack of due respect arises, because it provokes a scornful laugh. Third, a lack of deep faith arises, because one doubts this was really spoken by the Buddha. Fourth, an incorrect view arises, because one finds it strange that such things would even be said."

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary continues: "Hence the Sudarśana Commentary says: the Dharma Master [Upāli] said, 'As for this language describing an impure matter — let none of you who hear it spoken be startled or find it strange. Instead, give rise to a mind of shame, and fix your intention wholly on the Buddha. Why is this? Because the Tathāgata, out of compassion for us, [spoke it]. The Buddha is the king of the world; he has left desire and defilement behind and attained a place of purity — and it was out of compassion for us that he spoke this coarse language, in order to establish the precept. Reflect further on the Tathāgata's own merit, and no resentment will remain. If the Buddha had not spoken of this matter, how could we ourselves ever come to know an upper-grade offense?' Anyone who laughed was driven out."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "Second, citing this admonition. 'The Dharma Master' is the author of that treatise, who, being about to compile this precept, first lays down this constraint. The passage has three parts: first, it forestalls the assembly's ordinary reaction. What follows, beginning with 'give rise to,' teaches self-examination. 'Giving rise to a mind of shame' means holding oneself to account. Among the foolish people of this world, who is actually capable of turning the light of attention back on himself? One's own body commits filthy, unclean acts without the least recognition of the wrong in it — yet on hearing the teaching state this plainly, one instead grows startled and finds it strange. If you truly hate to hear of it, why not simply not do it? And since you yourself in fact do it, how can you then hate to hear it spoken of? This is because one does not understand that, out of the gate of great compassion, expounding the Vinaya-piṭaka is entirely a matter of pointing out sentient beings' own unwholesome karma. If one could already fully know one's own karma, what further need would there be for any teaching at all? Alas — how far the ordinary fool's confusion and inversion can go. What follows 'fix your intention,' beginning there, directs contemplation toward the superior object: first contemplating the Buddha's compassion, then, beginning with 'reflect further,' contemplating the Buddha's merit, then, beginning with 'if,' contemplating the Buddha's own teaching. What follows 'anyone who laughed' makes clear how the rule was established." [The preceding passages are all found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 17.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "Next, the conditions that complete the mark of the offense fall into two sets. The first: one who, of his own accord, holds a lustful mind toward the object before him — even if some barrier or covering intervenes, so long as penetration reaches as little as the width of a hair, the grave upper-grade offense is completed. This is constituted by four conditions: (1) a valid object — for a male, either of the two orifices; for a female, any of the three; (2) defiled intent arises — meaning something other than, say, being asleep; (3) the means is undertaken; (4) union with the object occurs, at which point the offense is committed."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "Because a self-initiated offense and a coerced one have different marks, two separate sets of conditions are given. The first set discusses the conditions in terms of approaching the object, since intent is already present from the start, and so the offense is defined in terms of the body. The second set discusses the conditions in terms of union with the object, since bodily contact has already been allowed for, and so the offense is defined in terms of the mind. This first set is the self-initiated case. As for the note's 'and the like' in the second condition — this refers to what falls under 'not an offense' below: cases with no lustful intent whatsoever, such as insanity or a deranged mind."

The Xingzong Commentary says: "The four conditions for a self-initiated offense come down to nothing but mind and object. The first two are treated separately; the last two are treated together. The third is where the mind is aroused by the object; the fourth is where the object and the mind actually meet." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary continues: "Second: if one is coerced by an assailant — whether dragged to the object or the object brought to one's own body — the Buddha permits the bodily union itself, but requires that the mind not become defiled by it. This too is constituted by four conditions: (1) a valid object, regardless of whether the aggressor is oneself or the other party; (2) coercion by an assailant; (3) union with the object occurs; (4) experiencing pleasure constitutes the offense. The Sudarśana Commentary says: 'Not experiencing pleasure in the sexual act is like inserting one's own member into the mouth of a venomous snake, or into fire — that is the mark of remaining undefiled.'"

The Zichi Commentary explains: "Second, on the case of coercion. First, it shows that this mark has two forms: one, being forced to violate another; two, being made the object of another's violation. Permitting the body to avoid harm while still requiring the mind to guard its own integrity — enduring the act itself is comparatively easy, but holding the mind steady throughout is far harder. Unless one has long cultivated a pure mind, one may well fail to escape the net of this offense. What follows, beginning with 'the Sudarśana Commentary,' shows a method for guarding the mind: what ordinarily gives rise to attachment is precisely the woman's organ — yet by treating it instead as a snake or as fire, aversion and dread arise instead. That the mind turns according to its object is simply how things necessarily are." [The preceding passages are all found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 17.]

[Continuation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text continues: "First, when the first condition is missing: whether one takes the wrong orifice, perceives it as the right one, or is merely in doubt about it, one incurs a middle-grade offense in either case. When the second condition is missing: one who has no defiled mind at all incurs no offense whatsoever — this covers cases where contact occurs without conscious awareness, or where clear discernment [that this is not the coerced object] is present. When the third condition is missing: if the means has not yet been undertaken and the deportment not yet broken, only a lower-grade offense is incurred; but if the body has already begun to move, there follow, in sequence, two further stages of preparatory offense. When the fourth condition is missing: if union with the object has not yet occurred, a middle-grade offense is incurred in either of two ways. From the point where deportment is broken up to actually confronting the object, a lighter middle-grade offense is incurred; from the point of actual contact, if the penetration has not yet reached even the width of a hair before the mind restrains itself, a heavier middle-grade offense is incurred."

The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The first is a discrepancy in the object itself; the latter two lines cover perception of the object. 'The wrong orifice' works the same as any other misidentified part of the body. In the second condition, the case of no conscious recollection exempts the earlier, self-initiated case, as with being asleep; clear discernment exempts the later, coerced case, as with treating the organ as a snake's mouth or fire. The third and fourth, both being missing conditions, correspond to the three stages of preparatory offense — depending on the point at which the act is halted, the missing condition means the full offense is not completed. In the third, the first part shows the more distant preparatory offense: 'the means not yet undertaken' means the body has not yet moved, which does not preclude a purely mental offense. What follows shows the nearer preparatory offense, in order to make clear what is missing. In the fourth, only the nearer preparatory offense is incurred, since what is missing prevents the act from reaching consummation. 'Deportment broken' refers to the body having already begun to move. 'The mind restrains itself' applies broadly wherever the object exerts a strong pull, yet a doubting mind or a wholesome mind brings the act to a halt — all exactly as explained above." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "Question: does this precept against sexual misconduct extend to cases of mere playfulness — for instance, taking a young boy's member and inserting it, in play, into one's own mouth, with no lustful intent at all? Answer: lustful intent is hard to discern with certainty. According to the Vinaya's own wording, 'a mind defiled by attachment' constitutes lustful intent, and both parties in every such case incur the grave offense. The Five-Part Vinaya says: if the penetration is playful, it is a middle-grade offense; if not playful, it is the grave offense — and the one who receives the penetration is judged the same way."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "In the question, the first part poses the doubt; what follows, beginning with 'for instance,' shows the mark of mere playfulness. In the answer, the first part addresses lustful intent; what follows settles the judgment of violation. What follows, citing the Five-Part Vinaya, brings in supporting evidence, thereby covering both rulings at once. 'Penetration' here means contact reaching as little as the width of a hair, the same standard held by our own tradition. 'Not playful' means lustful intent was actually present, matching the judgment given above. 'The one who receives the penetration is judged the same way' is stated with reference to a monastic."

This last phrase, "stated with reference to a monastic," means: for a layperson who has already received the Five or Eight Precepts, this very same reasoning applies in determining the violation.

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary continues: "The Four-Part Vinaya says: if one is forced by an assailant, one's own member seized and made to enter one of the three sites of violation, then so long as no pleasure whatsoever is experienced across all three phases, no offense at all is completed. But should lustful pleasure be present in any one of the three phases — at the moment of first entry, once entry has occurred, or at withdrawal — the grave offense is incurred in every such case. If one is forcibly seized by an assailant and the impure act is performed at either of the two orifices, and pleasure is felt at the very moment of first entry, the grave offense is incurred. Should such a thing occur, one may bite one's own finger hard enough that only the pain of the finger is felt — this then avoids the grave offense, exactly as the treatise cited earlier concerning the snake's mouth and the fire."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "First it shows the mark of the offense, in two parts. The first explains being coerced into violating another; the Vinaya itself speaks only of pleasure felt at the moment of first entry, whereas the present text takes account of the full course of all three phases. What follows, beginning with 'if,' covers the second case, being made the object of another's violation; this passage follows the Vinaya's own wording and does not speak of three phases, and should be understood by the same reasoning as before. What follows, beginning with 'should,' then teaches a method of remedy."

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary also says: "If one instructs another person to commit this act, and that person actually does it, the one who instructed incurs a middle-grade offense; if the other person does not do it, the one who instructed incurs a lower-grade offense."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "Both the middle-grade and the lower-grade offense here are assigned to the one who gave the instruction; what the instructed party incurs may be inferred accordingly. Speaking generally of all Four Grave Wrongs, the case of instructing another differs from one to the next. With sexual misconduct, the pleasure accrues to the person actually carrying out the act; with false speech, the fame and profit accrue to that same person — in both of these, the instructor's own offense is comparatively light. With killing and stealing, by contrast, the harm extends to both self and other at once, so the instructor and the one instructed incur the grave offense equally." [The preceding passages are all found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 17.]

[Fresh citation] The Commentary on Karman Procedures says: "As for 'sexual misconduct' — this describes the mark of the Five Precepts, since under them relations with another's spouse are prohibited while relations with one's own are permitted. Under the Eight Precepts, to call it 'misconduct' in this narrow sense would actually be a mistake [since both are prohibited alike]."

The Jiyuan Commentary explains: "Under the Five Precepts, only relations with another's spouse are cut off; under the Eight Precepts, both — another's spouse and one's own — are cut off." [Jiyuan Commentary, fascicle 10]

[Fresh citation] The Zichi Commentary says: "As for sexual misconduct: the Abhidharmakośa lists four types. (1) Another's spouse. (2) One's own spouse via the wrong orifice — that is, the anus or the mouth rather than the vagina. (3) The wrong location — that is, anywhere other than the bedchamber. (4) The wrong time — that is, while she is pregnant, while she is nursing a child, or while one has received the Eight Precepts for that day." [Zichi Commentary, fascicle 39]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "Third, clarifying what does not constitute an offense: if one is asleep and entirely unaware, this is exempted. If an assailant comes and forces union upon one's own body but no pleasure whatsoever is experienced, this too is exempted. And if an assailant drags one to violate another's body, but there is no lustful intent at all throughout, with no mind defiled by attachment present, this too is not an offense."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first exemption covers the case of no conscious recollection. The second exempts the case of active resistance while coerced; being aware yet still forced, and being made to violate another, are both included here. The third exempts the case where lustful intent itself is absent, such as the playful cases discussed above that do not rise to the grave offense. The text's word 'whatsoever' is meant to gather in every relevant condition at once." [Zichi Commentary, fascicle 17]

Section Four: False Speech

Among the faults gathered under the precept against false speech, under the Five and Eight Precepts alike, this one precept in fact comprises the grave falsehood together with the lesser falsehood, harsh speech, slander, and idle chatter. This will become clear once each is set out individually below.

As for why the precept is named solely for "false speech" and yet also encompasses harsh speech, slander, and idle chatter — this was already explained in full earlier, in the Essentials of the Tenets and Embodiment fascicle, under Precept-Dharma, the Procedure for Taking Refuge and the Precepts, the Five Precepts, in the clarification of miscellaneous marks.

[Fresh citation] The Zichi Commentary says: "'False speech' is a name covering the whole; adding the word 'grave' narrows it down from the lesser cases, restricting it solely to a false claim of sagehood." [Zichi Commentary, fascicle 18]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "This is constituted by nine conditions: (1) the object confronted is a human being; (2) the perception that it is a human being; (3) the matter claimed is actually false; (4) one knows for oneself that the matter is false; (5) a mind bent on deceiving another is present; (6) what is claimed is a dharma surpassing the ordinary person; (7) one claims to have personally attained it; (8) the statement is articulated clearly; (9) the hearer actually understands it."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "Among these conditions, the first and the last belong to the party confronted; the seven in between belong to the one committing the offense. Of these seven, the first four are matters of mind, and the last three belong to speech. 'The matter claimed is actually false' means one in truth has no such knowledge or attainment at all. 'A dharma surpassing the ordinary person' means the undefiled noble path, since it surpasses and goes beyond the dharmas of the ordinary person." [Zichi Commentary, fascicle 18]

The Xingzong Commentary says: "The first and the last are the object; the second and the fifth are both matters of mind; all the rest belong to the false claim itself." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 7]

[Fresh citation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "If the first condition is lacking: the narrow-diffuse case has three lines, the targeted case has four lines. Where a different object comes to substitute for the one intended, the same reasoning applies as with the preceding precept [on killing]."

The Xingzong Commentary explains: "As for the first condition — the root text does not spell out the broad-diffuse case explicitly. Reasoned out against a stump as the substitute object, there ought to be three lines: a stump perceived as a person, a stump perceived as a non-human, and a stump perceived as an animal." [Note: the direct citation from the Commentary on the Precept-Text above names only the narrow-diffuse and targeted cases; the broad-diffuse case it presupposes is supplied here by the Xingzong Commentary and by Master Hongyi's own table below — the source text appears to have dropped a "broad-diffuse, three lines" clause from the root citation itself.]

[Continuation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text continues: "Where the second condition is lacking: under diffuse intent, the cases of mistaken perception number three; under targeted intent, the cases of mistaken perception number four, since the case of a king substituting for the specifically named victim is added. Under diffuse intent, the cases of doubt number six; under targeted intent, the cases of doubt number ten; and the cases where both conditions are lacking at once number forty. All of these may be worked out exactly as above."

The Xingzong Commentary explains: "In the second missing condition, the first part clarifies mistaken perception. The three diffuse lines pertain specifically to narrow-diffuse intent: (1) a person perceived as a non-human, (2) perceived as an animal, (3) perceived as a stump. The four targeted lines add the case of Zhang, the intended victim, perceived as a king. What follows next clarifies doubt. The six diffuse lines likewise pertain to narrow-diffuse intent: direct doubt has three forms — doubting whether it is a non-human, an animal, or a stump — and mutual doubt likewise has three forms: whether it is a non-human or an animal, a non-human or a stump, or an animal or a stump. The ten targeted lines, and the forty lines of double defect below, all run exactly parallel to the preceding precept [on killing]."

[Continuation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text continues: "Where the third condition is lacking — that the matter claimed is actually false — if one genuinely believes it to be true, there is no offense whatsoever."

[Continuation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text continues: "Where the fourth condition is lacking — that one knows for oneself the matter is false — this is precisely the case of one afflicted with overweening pride, and no offense is incurred." [Overweening pride is explained in full below, in the section on exemptions.]

[Continuation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text continues: "Where the fifth condition is lacking — the mind bent on deceiving another — if one does not intend to carry the claim through to completion, but makes it merely in jest, a lower-grade offense results."

[Continuation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text continues: "Where the sixth condition is lacking — the claim to a dharma surpassing the ordinary person — one instead claims an ordinary human accomplishment. As the Vibhāṣā says: to claim for oneself that one keeps the precepts purely and that desire no longer arises at all; or, without having recited the four Āgamas or practiced meditation, to say 'I have recited them' or 'I am accomplished in this' — in every such case, a middle-grade offense results."

The Xingzong Commentary explains: "'Claiming an ordinary human accomplishment' means that, judged on its own, this belongs to the lesser falsehood; but because it falsely claims a genuine accomplishment while lacking the sixth condition proper to the grave falsehood, a middle-grade offense is imputed instead."

[Continuation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text continues: "Where the seventh condition is lacking — the personal claim to have already attained it — one does not, in fact, claim it for oneself. In one case, no offense at all follows, as when an actual virtue is genuinely present and is spoken of in praise of the Three Jewels. In another, a lower-grade offense results, as when one says, 'It is my own teacher who has attained this.' In another, a middle-grade offense results, as when one falsely claims that someone else has attained it, in order to scheme after fame and profit through an improper livelihood."

The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The first part shows the sense in which this condition is lacking. What follows, beginning with 'in one case,' makes clear the actual marks of this lack. 'In praise of the Three Jewels' means speaking of the Saṃgha Jewel, since it extends to both sages and worthies alike. 'Praising one's teacher, incurring a lower-grade offense' refers to mere empty praise, not undertaken for personal profit; where it is truly done to scheme after fame and profit, it falls instead under the middle-grade offense described just above."

[Continuation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text continues: "Where the eighth condition is lacking — the statement is not articulated clearly — a lighter middle-grade offense results."

[Continuation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text continues: "Where the ninth condition is lacking — the party confronted does not hear it, or does not understand it — only a middle-grade offense results." [The preceding passages are all found in the Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 7.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "The Four-Part Vinaya, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, and the Vibhāṣā all say: from the attainment of the contemplation of impurity upward, through to the four fruits of the noble path — if one says 'I have attained this,' the grave offense is incurred in every case. If one instead displays it merely through a bodily gesture, and the party confronted has no doubt about it, this is graded the same as the grave offense; where doubt is present, it is a middle-grade offense." [The source text appears to have dropped a character after "the party confronted" — most plausibly "no doubt" (不疑), which is the reading followed here, since the passage goes on to contrast this case with the case of genuine doubt.]

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The foregoing cites the marks of the offense. Now, the Vinaya and its treatises describe many kinds of noble dharma, and the text here selects the essentials and gathers them under one head. From the stage of the 'outer ordinary person' onward, clear through to the ultimate fruit, every contemplative practice cultivated along the way is called a 'noble dharma.' Thus the five methods for stilling the mind, the general and specific applications of mindfulness, the four dhyānas, the four formless attainments, and the like are, strictly speaking, dharmas of the ordinary person — yet because they run through and connect to the gate of the noble path, they are graded as the same offense. The thirty-seven factors of enlightenment, and the four fruits along the four paths, are themselves the noble dharma proper. What follows, beginning with 'if one displays,' distinguishes the case where the claim is made through action rather than speech. The foregoing describes the primary case: the claim leaves the mouth and the offense is thereby completed, without reference to whether the other party has any doubt about it. This latter case, by contrast, is enacted through the body, where the karmic mark is not made explicit in words — and so the ruling is instead divided according to whether the party confronted doubts it or believes it."

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary continues: "The Four-Part Vinaya further says: to claim that gods, dragons, or spirits have come to make offerings to oneself is likewise graded the same as the grave offense."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The Commentary on the Precept-Text raises a question: 'Even an ordinary person may still, by their own genuine merit, move gods and dragons to come and make offerings — what fault could there possibly be in this, that it should be classed among claims to noble attainment?' It answers: 'The mark itself runs through and connects to the noble path, and so it is graded as equally grave; moreover, it far surpasses what an ordinary person could ever actually have.'"

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary continues: "It further says: where one intends to make the claim to this person but instead makes it to that one by mistake, the grave offense is incurred in every such case."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "This precept makes no allowance for the mistake of confusing one hearer for another. Where the error instead concerns the actual dharma being claimed, an allowance is made — as in the case discussed below, where one intends to claim this attainment but mistakenly claims that one instead."

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary continues: "The Mātṛkā of the Piṭaka says: to claim for oneself that one is a Buddha, a teacher of gods and humans, and the like, is a middle-grade offense."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "As that treatise itself explains it, claiming to be a Buddha incurs only a middle-grade offense for two reasons. First, because there is but a single Buddha in any one world, with no second Buddha alongside him. Second, because a Buddha is perfectly endowed with the major and minor marks, utterly unlike an ordinary person — so that no one would actually believe such a claim. Yet in our own age, there are those who declare that they are 'already Buddha' just as they are, and who therefore cease to press further in their own practice — these are graded under this same offense by analogy. The sūtras say that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature; but this refers to a sameness in underlying principle, and one must still recognize that the actual facts remain different. It is like saying that ice is water — yet how could ice, as such, actually flow? Or like saying that ore is gold — yet raw ore has none of gold's actual use. How, then, could one dare to set oneself falsely alongside the sages above, deluding the foolish below, indulging one's own laziness and pride under the pretense that no cultivation is needed, and calling one's own coarse and unclean conduct some kind of 'wondrous function'? If this alone were enough to be a Buddha, why stop at your own small following? The sūtras say that Vairocana pervades every place without exception, so that the mountains, rivers, and the great earth are, in their entirety, the body of the Dharma King, and every softly stirring, fluttering thing is the Tathāgata's own womb — yet this teaching is entirely lost on those who confuse the gradual stages of the path, conflating sage and ordinary person into one. Nothing does more to destroy the Dharma and ruin people than this. Who but one who has genuinely penetrated the truth could ever see through it?" [The preceding passages are all found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 18.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "Among what does not constitute an offense: the Vinaya says, if it is spoken in jest, spoken hastily without real consideration, spoken alone where no one else is present, or if one means to claim this attainment but mistakenly claims that one instead — in none of these cases is the grave offense incurred. A lower-grade offense is incurred instead, because the statement fails to meet the proper form required for an actual declaration." [Procedural Commentary, fascicle 18.]

[Fresh citation] The Root Text of the Precepts says: "Excepting the case of overweening pride." [Root Text of the Precepts with Commentary, fascicle 1.]

The Commentary on the Precept-Text explains: "'Excepting the case of overweening pride' — the undefiled correct path surpasses and stands above the ordinary state of things, and is therefore called 'increase' [i.e., a superior attainment]. Yet with respect to this superior dharma, believing one has attained what one has not yet actually attained is called 'pride.' The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: a monk who dwelt long in mountain forests, never once encountering any alluring form, temporarily subdued his afflictions and believed them forever extinguished, and so gave rise to this prideful declaration. Later, drawing near a city, he encountered an alluring form, defiled desire arose in him, and he then recognized that he was still an ordinary person after all. Redoubling his effort, he in time actually attained the fruit of Arhatship. The Buddha declared that his earlier mistaken declaration had incurred only a lower-grade offense."

The Xingzong Commentary, explaining the Commentary on the Precept-Text, says: "The first part is the direct explanation: it first explains 'increase,' referring directly to the noble path; what follows, beginning with 'yet,' explains 'pride,' meaning a failure to press further in genuine practice. The second part cites the supporting case. 'Alluring' simply means attractive. Here the claimed matter is false, since he had not actually attained it, and yet his own conviction was genuine — the fault lies solely in the discrepancy between what was said and the actual truth, and so only a lower-grade offense results. Judged strictly by the root Vinaya text alone, in fact, no offense at all would be imputed." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 7.]

[Fresh citation] The Zichi Commentary says: "'Lesser' is spoken of in relation to 'grave.' Simply put, anything falling outside a claim to noble attainment is gathered under this category instead. The grave falsehood is narrowly restricted; the lesser falsehood is broad and general — this should be clear on reflection."

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "This precept is one that people readily and repeatedly violate. This is truly because the karma of false speech has been perfumed into the mind and accumulated over a long time, so that its seeds in the storehouse-consciousness are especially numerous. Hence, whenever conditions arise, the mind moves and immediately fabricates something untrue. One never considers making a start at turning the current back, but wishes only to see out one's allotted span to its natural end. Content merely to get by in this life, one never actually prepares to face death — truly, this is something to grieve over. What is more, this offense has no fixed object, since it necessarily arises from the mind itself: so long as one's speech contradicts what one actually holds in mind, the offense is incurred in every case, regardless of whether the external matter spoken of happens to be objectively true or false."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The opening describes habitual, repeated violation and voices a lament over it, in two parts: the first line simply states the matter. What follows, beginning with 'truly,' explains why this is so, its first two lines making clear how deep-seated this delusion is: the six consciousnesses, in their constant activity, are what perfumes the seeds; the storehouse-consciousness, receiving and holding them, is what is perfumed. Because these are seeds held within consciousness, they are called 'seeds of consciousness.' What follows, beginning with 'hence,' in its next two lines, makes clear how the karma actually arises: sense-objects are what is seen and heard and so forth, and fabricating an ungrounded matter with no basis in fact is precisely false speech. What follows, in the next two lines, makes clear the suffering born of this confusion: the first line means failing to keep death and rebirth in mind at all; the second means simply drifting carelessly through one's allotted span. The three lines that follow are a lament: the first picks up the theme of a life wasted in vain; the second points to the suffering retribution that follows after. 'Content merely to get by' is much the same as saying 'merely dwelling in the world.' Indulging in delusion, clinging to one's own foolishness, and taking this to be sufficient — then, at the moment of death, the spirit grows dim and is simply dragged along by whatever karma has accumulated; hence the text speaks of 'the moment of death' and so on. 'Prepares' here means 'sets in order,' or 'clears away.' Only through superior contemplative practice, as an antidote, can karma actually be cleared away — and this antidote has two aspects: through actual conduct and self-restraint, one can suppress the karma; through insight-contemplation and clear illumination, one can actually extinguish it. For at the moment a person truly draws near death, the marks of their own good and evil deeds appear before them, and if the evil is strong and the good is weak, the spirit simply follows the karma wherever it leads — how much more so, then, if there is not even the slightest good to draw upon, could it possibly be cleared away at all? The second part clarifies mind and object together in order to urge cultivation: its first two lines set out the general principle, its last two lines match it to a specific explanation. 'So long as' explains the line just before it; 'regardless of' explains the line before that. The Vinaya says: if one has not seen, heard, touched, or known something, and yet, holding within oneself the perception of having seen it, heard it, touched it, or known it, one nevertheless says, 'I did not see it, hear it, touch it, or know it' — knowing this to be false and speaking it anyway is a violation. Where false speech concerns a matter that is objectively false, the offense being completed is easy enough to understand on its own account. But here, even where the external matter is objectively true, violating one's own actual perception of it is still an offense — the teaching is concerned solely with the mind, and one can see how strict this prohibition truly is. Because the offense is incurred whether the underlying matter is objectively true or false, the text says 'in every case.'"

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "Among what does not constitute an offense in the Four-Part Vinaya: so long as one speaks strictly according to one's own actual perception, no offense is incurred. The full text is found in the Root Text of the Precepts with Commentary."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "This refers to the Root Text of the Precepts with Commentary, which says: to say 'I did not see it' when one truly did not see it, and so on up through saying 'I know it' when one truly does know it. Here, the phrase 'speaking strictly according to one's own actual perception,' though brief, in fact gathers in every such case without exception." [The preceding passages are all found in the Procedural Commentary, fascicle 22.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says: when a person is born within a given land, they and that land together form a single causal nexus — meaning that inward karma and outward circumstance act as cause and condition for one another. Thus, on account of the karma of harsh speech, the very earth itself brings forth thorns and brambles. Where none of the evils described above are committed, the earth instead lies smooth and level — as in the age of Maitreya Buddha, when people practice the ten wholesome deeds and the earth abounds with treasures."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "'Inward karma' is the deed itself, wholesome or unwholesome; 'outward circumstance' is the retribution, namely the material world one comes to depend on, since retribution is called forth by karma — hence the text says the two act 'for one another.' This passage is cited in order to make plain how grave a fault harsh speech truly is, calling forth an impure retribution, so that the reader is moved to guard against it."

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary continues: "The Vinaya says: the Buddha said, 'Whenever you have occasion to speak, you should speak kindly; you ought not to speak harshly and thereby scorch yourself with your own vexation.' It goes on to say that even an animal, hearing itself disparaged, feels shame — how much more, then, does a human being."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The phrase 'it goes on to say' condenses a much longer passage in the original, which in full runs: in the land of Takṣaśilā, a brahmin owned an ox, and he pitted it against an elder's ox in a contest of strength, each pulling a hundred carts, with a wager of a thousand taels of gold. Before the assembled crowd, the brahmin disparaged his own ox, saying, 'This one could be dragged along by a single horn.' The ox, feeling ashamed at this, refused to exert itself, and the brahmin thereupon lost the wager. The ox later said to the brahmin, 'It was because you disparaged me before the crowd that this happened.' The brahmin then doubled the wager to two thousand taels, and this time, standing before the crowd, praised the ox as handsome, with fine, upright horns. Following the ox's own advice, the owner won the contest this time. The Vibhāṣā says: at the very beginning of this world-age, before there were yet any beings in the three lower destinies, all such beings fell there from among the ranks of humans and gods — and it is precisely because of habits carried over from their former closeness to human life that animals are still capable of speech."

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "Among what does not constitute an offense: speaking for the sake of mutual benefit, speaking for the sake of the Dharma, speaking for the sake of the Vinaya, speaking for the sake of instruction, and speaking for the sake of a close friend. In all of these, there is no actual resentment within, and the harsh-sounding words are displayed purely out of compassionate concern. Likewise, misspeaking in the course of ordinary conversation, or an honest slip of the tongue, and the like — none of these constitute an offense."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first five all concern a teacher or friend shaping and forming a student, and though the words themselves may sound coarse, there is no actual anger within, and so these fall under the exempted category, exactly as the Vinaya's own annotation makes clear. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says that even the slightest trace of mockery or resentment is enough to make this the actual offense proper — yet an angry mind is genuinely hard to pin down, and only real wisdom can discern it; one must therefore examine oneself with especial care, and can never simply take one's own innocence for granted. The first case, 'for mutual benefit,' concerns ordinary fellow students in general, as distinct from the close friend mentioned further below. The fourth case, 'for instruction,' means directly pointing out some matter at hand, as distinct from expounding the Dharma or the Vinaya mentioned above it. What remains concerns cases of simple carelessness or lapse. 'A slip of the tongue' means one is aware in the moment that the words came out wrong, as distinct from genuine forgetfulness or error mentioned further below." [The preceding passages are all found in the Procedural Commentary, fascicle 22.]

[Fresh citation] The Zichi Commentary says: "'Two' refers to the two parties spoken of; 'tongue' is the actual instrument by which the words are formed. The Commentary on the Precept-Text observes that this is, admittedly, a rather crude and overly literal rendering of the original term, and that translating it instead as 'divisive speech' would capture the sense far better."

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "The Vinaya says: slander means stirring up strife between this party and that, so as to break the two of them apart."

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "Among what the Vinaya holds not to be an offense: breaking apart a bad companion, or an evil faction, and the like."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "In this world there are corrupt and unprincipled people who nonetheless become the leaders of a group, and worldly, unwitting people who mistakenly grow attached to them out of a false sense of closeness. Breaking such a bond, out of a genuine wish to protect the Dharma and benefit others, incurs no offense — and the same applies to breaking apart a bad companion generally." [The preceding passages are all found in the Procedural Commentary, fascicle 22.]

[Fresh citation] The Zichi Commentary says: "As for 'idle chatter' — an ancient master explained the term by comparing it to worldly brocade, its threads crossing and interweaving to form a pattern. Others say it means 'slanted, ornamental speech,' called 'slanted' because it strays from what is actually right and true. It is also called 'speech without real meaning.'"

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra says: speech may be objectively true, yet if it is spoken at the wrong time, this alone makes it idle chatter. Or it may be spoken at the right time, and yet, since it brings only vexation and decline and offers no real benefit, it is likewise idle chatter. Or it may in fact bring some benefit, and yet, since the speaker has no genuine basis for it and the reasoning does not actually hold together in proper order — all such cases are called idle chatter."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra thus names three marks in turn, even for speech that is objectively true, because all three still carry a fault. 'Wrong time' means the speech does not suit the occasion, and is thereby called 'without proper meaning.' 'Vexation and decline' means it leaves the other party unhappy. 'No genuine basis' means it follows nothing but the speaker's own private opinion."

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "As for what does not constitute an offense: minor lapses of speech, honest mistakes, and the like are none of them an offense."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "A slip of the tongue, being unintentional, is exempted just as in the ordinary cases already discussed above." [The preceding passages are all found in the Procedural Commentary, fascicle 22.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "The Vinaya says: 'Whoever takes me as their teacher' — down to 'must not so much as dip a blade of grass or a twig in wine and touch it to the mouth.' The text then goes on to explain the ten faults of alcohol."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The opening shows how solemn this injunction is: whoever relies on the Buddha as their teacher must receive and follow the teacher's own instruction, and cannot go against it. What follows, beginning with 'must not,' makes clear how strict and urgent the prohibition is. People studying the Dharma nowadays are, for the most part, all too fond of drink — confronted with this compassionate instruction, how could they not feel some shame? What follows, beginning with 'the text then,' sets out the faults themselves: (1) an unsightly complexion; (2) diminished strength; (3) dimmed eyesight — these three, together with the sixth, harm one's physical appearance; (4) a display of anger and ill temper — this one, together with the ninth, disturbs the spirit; (5) ruin of one's livelihood and undertakings, and the destruction of one's household; (6) an increase in illness; (7) a growing tendency toward quarrels and litigation, which further compounds one's karma; (8) loss of reputation and destruction of one's virtue; (9) diminished wisdom; (10) after death, rebirth in one of the three lower destinies. The first nine of these are evils manifest already in this present life; the tenth is the suffering retribution yet to come. Contemplating these ten faults, the plain facts are self-evident — how mistaken, then, are the foolish people of this world who instead claim that drink builds strength and cures illness!" [Procedural Commentary, fascicle 24.]

[Fresh citation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Three conditions: (1) it is actually wine or liquor; (2) no exempting circumstance of serious illness is present; (3) swallowing it down the throat completes the offense."

The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The exemption in the second condition, for serious illness, is explained in its own right further below. As for the third condition, the offense must be reckoned separately for each individual swallow." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 15.] [That is: each swallow taken down the throat constitutes its own separate offense, so that repeated swallowing incurs repeated offenses, not a single offense for the whole occasion.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "In the Four-Part Vinaya: so long as it is actually wine — even down to something made from grass or wood — [the offense applies]; if a substance lacks wine's own color, aroma, and taste, [it does not count as wine]. But if something is not actually wine and yet possesses wine's color, aroma, and taste, it likewise may not be drunk. If wine has been cooked into or blended with any food or drink, it is a violation in every case. Sweet-and-sour wine, malted grain used for making wine, and the lees of wine are likewise violations."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "This first shows the actual substance in question. 'Sweet-and-sour wine' — the Vinaya itself gives this as two separate items, 'sweet-tasting wine' and 'sour-tasting wine,' which the present text has simply combined into one."

The Zichi Commentary further says: "In this land there are many foods preserved in wine-lees, and their flavor and effect remain fully intact, still capable of intoxicating a person. Ordinary people are much given to indulging in them, and this is one of the hardest habits to restrain. Such preserved foods were presumably unknown in ancient India, which is why the root teaching does not explicitly prohibit them by name. But reasoned from the case of wine-lees and malted grain already given above, this is more than sufficient as a clear precedent. Those of genuine spiritual attainment would do well to hold themselves to the stricter standard."

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary also says: "The Four-Part Vinaya says: where it is actually wine, and one perceives it as wine, or is merely in doubt about it, or even perceives it as not being wine at all — in every case, it is a violation. This is simply because the offense is defined by the object itself, so long as some prior intention to drink was already present."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "This second part clarifies doubt and mistaken perception. The object-perception formula cited here from the Vinaya works exactly like the one used for the precept against sexual misconduct. In the annotation, the first line states the Vinaya's own wording, and the next line gives the present commentary's own reading: namely, that where a prior intention to drink was already present, and only later, at the actual moment of drinking, a doubt or a mistaken perception that it is not wine happens to arise — that later state of mind, taken by itself, would incur no offense, yet because it completes the intention already formed beforehand, an offense must still be imputed. Only where there was genuinely no such prior intention at all, and one is simply confused or mistaken, should an exemption be allowed. The Commentary on the Precept-Text notes that other masters hold the ruling should follow the mind's own state relative to the object at the actual moment; my own view differs — the sages' own prohibition surely has good reason behind it, though the text itself is too brief to spell it out in full. For how could any person of real sense have never once smelled what they were drinking, and then claim to have mistakenly swallowed a fermented drink by pure accident — and should such a person really be let off with only the minor offense?" [The preceding passages are all found in the Procedural Commentary, fascicle 24.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "Among what the Vinaya holds not to be an offense: where one is ill, and every other medicine has already failed to cure it, so that wine itself is used as the medicine; or where it is used externally, applied to a wound on the body — in neither case is there any offense at all." [Procedural Commentary, fascicle 24.]

[Fresh citation] The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "'Where every other medicine has failed to cure it, so that wine is used as the medicine' does not mean that simply being ill is enough to permit drinking. One must first have exhausted every other medicine without success, and only then may wine actually be taken."

The Xingzong Commentary explains: "This guards against the misunderstanding that illness alone opens the door to careless drinking. The text's actual intent is made explicit here precisely so that no one can lean on this exemption as an excuse for indulgence." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 15.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom raises a question: 'If ultimate reality itself admits of no fixed time, then why does the Buddha permit eating at the proper time and prohibit eating at an improper time, and establish this as a precept?' It answers: 'I have already explained that worldly, conventional designations have no ultimate reality of their own, and so you ought not to press this objection. This too belongs to the class of precepts established within the Vinaya: the distinction between proper and improper time genuinely exists within the conventional world, and this rule was established on account of the criticism it draws from ordinary people. It is also meant to protect the Buddha's own teaching, so that it may endure long in the world, and to fix a settled etiquette proper to the Buddha's own disciples. When the World-Honored One established the various precepts, one ought not to go searching for whether this or that name and its designated referent do or do not, in the abstract, actually correspond.'"

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary continues: "'If that is so, then why do other texts speak only of nominal time?' It answers: 'Real time is spoken of specifically within the Vinaya itself, since laypeople and non-Buddhist ascetics are not permitted to hear the Vinaya, and hearing of it might otherwise give rise to wrong views in them. Nominal time is spoken of in more general teachings, because it can be understood by the greater part of any audience, monastic and lay alike.'"

The Zichi Commentary explains: "This passage belongs to the Treatise's exposition of the six factors of accomplishment, specifically the factor of time. There it explains that India recognizes two kinds of time: the first is called kāla, rendered here as 'real time' — meaning years, months, days, hours, the four seasons, and the solar terms, all of which the ordinary world reckons to be objectively real. The second is called samaya, rendered here as 'nominal time' — meaning whatever varies in duration according to the particular matter and circumstance at hand, having no fixed reality of its own. The Buddha, following conventional truth, speaks of samaya rather than kāla, precisely in order to remove the wrong views of non-Buddhist ascetics and ordinary laypeople alike: laypeople cling to real existence, while non-Buddhist ascetics posit permanence, and were the Buddha to speak of 'real time' as such, it would only reinforce these very views. This, too, is spoken broadly in general terms, not meant to exclude every mention of real time whatsoever. The treatise first refutes the notion that 'real time,' as ordinarily conceived, has any ultimate reality at all. And yet the Vinaya's own rules of conduct mostly rely on real time in just this ordinary sense — which shows that the Tathāgata does, after all, also speak in terms of real time. How, then, could it be said there is no time at all? Hence the question is raised, exactly as the Procedural Commentary cites it here. The answer comes in two parts: the first explains the underlying principle, resolving the apparent tension; the second, beginning with 'the Buddha,' forestalls the further objection. The first part itself has three lines of reasoning. The first explains the matter in terms of nominal designation: having refuted 'real time' in the ordinary sense, the treatise then says that the arising and perishing of the aggregates, sense-fields, and sense-bases is itself what is nominally designated 'time,' with nothing further beyond this — meaning that even where certain sūtras speak of 'real time,' this too is simply a designation adopted in accordance with worldly convention, and hence called 'nominal,' though this technical sense of 'nominal' differs from the word's ordinary worldly meaning. Further, according to what the Buddha himself actually teaches, both kāla and samaya are, at bottom, nominal designations; it is simply called 'real' insofar as it follows conventional usage. Where the text says 'I have already explained,' it points back to the passage above: because worldly, conventional things genuinely exist as such, there is no harm in speaking of 'proper time' and 'improper time'; and because they lack ultimate reality, there is equally no harm in saying that, in the final analysis, there is no time at all. Since the argument has already been made plain, and the objector presses the same question again without having examined it closely, the treatise turns the objection back on the questioner, saying, 'you ought not to press this.' What follows, beginning with 'this too,' explains the matter a second way, in terms of conventional worldly usage: 'genuinely exists within the conventional world' refers to what ordinary attachment takes to be real; 'the criticism it draws from ordinary people' refers directly to the actual circumstance that gave rise to the rule, since it was precisely people's attachment to this as something real that provoked criticism and mockery, and the Vinaya accordingly attaches itself to worldly convention in order to forestall exactly this kind of criticism. What follows, beginning with 'it is also meant,' explains the matter a third way, in terms of protecting the Dharma: meaning that fixing the time for taking the precepts into upper, middle, and lower periods allows practitioners to show mutual respect for one another and causes the teaching to endure without being lost — hence the text speaks of making it 'endure long' and so on. The first line of reasoning explains the matter from the standpoint of nominal designation, tracing it back to the ultimate path; the latter two explain it from the standpoint of the real, tracing it forward into worldly convention. As for forestalling the objection that follows: because the Vinaya's own rules of conduct are established provisionally, in accordance with conventional truth, one cannot simply take ultimate truth and use it to challenge a matter of worldly convention — the teaching's own transformative purpose is precisely to establish rules suited to dissolving worldly attachment, and hence the text says one 'ought not to go searching' for this kind of literal correspondence."

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary continues: "Nowadays there are those who falsely claim to study the Great Vehicle, and many of them indulge freely in eating after the proper time. This is precisely why the full passage above has been cited here, as a warning against it."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "Because those who merely mouth the words of the teaching, ashamed of their own greedy appetite, wrongly claim that the Great Vehicle recognizes no distinction between proper and improper time at all — the text here turns back and cites this very treatise of the Great Vehicle itself, in order to correct this false claim." [The preceding passages are all found in the Procedural Commentary, fascicle 23.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "Four conditions: (1) it is actually an improper time; (2) the perception that it is an improper time; (3) it is food proper to mealtime; (4) each individual swallow completes its own offense." [Procedural Commentary, fascicle 23.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "The Vinaya says: 'the proper time' runs from the appearance of the dawn light up to true noon; 'improper time' runs from true noon until the dawn light has not yet appeared again. The Saṃghika Vinaya says: the exact instant of true noon itself is called 'time-verging-on-improper-time,' and eating even at that exact instant is likewise a violation. Once the time has passed by so much as the blink of an eye or the breadth of a single hair, eating constitutes the offense outright."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "Saying it runs 'up to' noon marks the absolute outer limit — a meal must, in every case, be taken before noon actually arrives. Since even the exact instant of noon itself is still a violation, one knows that a meal must genuinely be received before noon arrives, without exception. The mealtime spoken of in the sūtras corresponds roughly to the hours between seven and eleven in the morning. This is precisely why practitioners of genuine virtue observe the morning fast with such particular urgency. Some, hearing that various Buddhas are said to 'eat at midday,' mistakenly conclude that eating any time before noon must therefore be freely permissible without limit — this is simply a failure to understand the actual teaching."

[Continuation] The Procedural Commentary says: "The Book of Five Hundred Questions says: after eating, one should use a willow-twig, or ash, to rinse out the mouth." [The preceding passages are all found in the Procedural Commentary, fascicle 23.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "Among what the Vinaya holds not to be an offense: black rock-sugar candy blended with rice; for one who is ill, barley boiled without letting the husk split open, and the strained liquid then drunk; or, if something rises up from the throat and is then swallowed back down without ever actually leaving the mouth, this is not an offense — though the Sudarśana Commentary notes that if it has actually passed all the way out through the throat before being swallowed back down, this is a violation."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "As for black rock-sugar candy, an old commentary explains that it is made by boiling cane sugar blended with glutinous rice until it hardens like stone. Although it partly resembles proper mealtime food, it is permitted even after noon. As for permitting barley-water for the ill, this is because the strained liquid is clear and thin; since the text's own exemption here is not made fully explicit, the treatise is cited in order to settle the matter." [Procedural Commentary, fascicle 23.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "The Saṃghika Vinaya says: the strained liquid of any beans, grains, or barley, boiled without letting the husk split open at either end, is likewise permitted."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "As for beans and the like being boiled without the husk splitting open — should the husk actually split open, the resulting liquid may no longer be drunk after the proper time." [Procedural Commentary, fascicle 33.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "The Vinaya says: the height limit is eight of the Tathāgata's own finger-widths. The Vibhāṣā says: both excessive height and excessive breadth are violations alike, and this applies equally to laypeople under the Eight Precepts. As for the eight finger-widths: each finger-width equals two inches. By the old Zhou-dynasty foot, this comes to one foot six inches; by the Tang-dynasty foot, a little over one foot three inches."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part cites the Vinaya to establish the actual measure. The Vibhāṣā makes clear that both height and breadth alike are regulated, 'excessive' here meaning excessive breadth. The height limit is as given below; as for breadth, the Commentary on Karman Procedures gives a limit of a bed three cubits square, equivalent to five feet four inches — one may not sit upon anything larger. The Commentary on the Precept-Text further cites the Āgamas, which name eight kinds of especially fine bed, none of which one may ever climb onto — fine because adorned with gold, silver, and ivory, or fine because they belong to the Buddha, to one's own teacher, or to one's parents, or because they are meant for the use of an attendant. What follows, beginning with 'eight finger-widths,' fixes the actual measurement in feet and inches: one Zhou-dynasty foot two inches equals one Tang-dynasty foot; of the remaining four inches, three inches and six-tenths of an inch counts as three whole inches, leaving four-tenths of an inch over — hence the text says 'a little over.'"

[Fresh citation] The Xingzong Commentary says: "The Vinaya says: excepting the portion that fits down into the leg-socket — meaning that the tenon fitted into the socket is not counted as part of the measured height." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 15.]

[Fresh citation] The Procedural Commentary says: "The Saṃghika Vinaya says: where the ground below is damp, it is permitted to use a block of wood, eight finger-widths high, to prop up the bed's legs. This exemption for a propping block is measured by an ordinary person's own finger-width, not the Buddha's. Reasoned from this, propping the bed up any higher than this, even on damp ground, is not permitted."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "'Prop' refers to a supporting object placed underneath. The annotation makes clear that the bed customarily kept for prostrations before the Buddha may be granted this exemption where the ground is damp, but nowhere else; and even then, it is capped at eight inches, and may not be raised any higher than that." [Procedural Commentary, fascicle 25.] [The bed customarily kept for prostrations before the Buddha is what is nowadays called a kneeling bench.]

[Fresh citation] The Zichi Commentary says: "In the Western lands, people wove flowers into garlands worn threaded over the head, and used scented oils to anoint the body, taking these as their beautifying adornments. In this land, the corresponding prohibition must be understood to cover wearing flowers or jeweled necklaces, and applying rouge or powder to the face, and the like." [Procedural Commentary, fascicle 39.]

[Fresh citation] The Commentary on Karman Procedures says: "As for 'performing, or attending, entertainment and music' — 'entertainment' refers to actors and jesters, who make a spectacle of themselves for others' amusement. 'Music' refers to whatever is played on metal, stone, and the eight categories of instrument generally. 'Performer' covers both men and women alike, meaning simply whoever is actually playing the music."

The Jiyuan Commentary explains: "Metal, stone, silk, bamboo, gourd, clay, hide, and wood are together called the eight categories of instrument. 'Play' here means to perform, or bring forth sound." [Jiyuan Commentary, fascicle 10.]