The Grammar of Keeping and Breaking, Part One: Naming the Four, and Why the Same Fault Can Weigh Heavy or Light
Every gate that follows this one — every precept-by-precept ruling in the rest of the book — depends on a shared vocabulary laid down right here. This gate opens the "observance and violation" (持犯) portion of the book: the fourfold grammar of upholding-by-restraint, upholding-by-action, violation-by-commission, and violation-by-omission; where these four are actually fulfilled, in the mind rather than merely in outward act; and how the very same broken precept can draw a heavier or lighter offense depending entirely on the state of mind behind it — a psychology of guilt built from the three moral natures, a granular eight-way analysis of intention, and one of this book's most searching passages on why habitual wrongdoing is worth taking seriously at all.
1. Milestone: The Nine Chapters of "Observance and Violation"
Master Hongyi opens this gate the way he opens every gate in this book — with an outline of everything to come, so the reader knows the shape of the whole before working through any one part of it. "Observance and violation" (持犯) divides into nine chapters in all; this first half of the gate works through the first four, ending exactly where the source text itself marks a chapter-boundary. The remaining five chapters — the preparatory stage and the fruit it leads to, deficient conditions, object-perception formulas, special points on the grave precepts, and a refutation of a certain fashionable disparagement of the Vinaya — are the business of Part Two.
第一門
持犯總義
持犯義中分九章┬一持犯名字
├二持犯體狀
├三成就處所
├四辨犯優劣
├五方便趣果
├六闕緣不成
├七境想分別
├八別簡性重
└九廣斥愚教
Gate One: The General Theory of Observance and Violation.
The topic of observance and violation divides into nine chapters: (1) Naming Observance and Violation; (2) The Essence of Observance and Violation; (3) Where Fulfillment Actually Occurs; (4) Weighing How Serious a Violation Is; (5) The Preparatory Stage and the Fruit It Leads To; (6) When a Deficient Condition Prevents Full Consummation; (7) Distinguishing by Object-Perception; (8) Special Points on the Grave Precepts; and (9) A Broad Refutation of a Foolish Teaching.
The guide points to a single sentence, quoted further on in this same gate, that supplies the whole framework's coordinates: "the two terms 'observance' and 'violation' are both named with reference to whether one accords with or goes against the precept-essence received [at ordination]." Everything else in this gate is an elaboration of that one relation. The Procedural Commentary then splits both "observance" and "violation" along a second axis — restraint (not doing something) versus action (actively doing something) — producing a 2×2 grid: according with the precept-essence through restraint is upholding-by-restraint, according with it through action is upholding-by-action; going against it through restraint (failing to do a required positive act) is violation-by-omission, going against it through action (actively doing a forbidden act) is violation-by-commission.
The guide flags one point as especially important for lay readers: a layperson's five or eight precepts are entirely prohibitive in structure — none of them command a positive act the way certain monastic precepts do. In the strict, formal sense worked out later in this gate, this means lay practice really only ever engages two of the four categories, upholding-by-restraint and violation-by-commission. The other two categories remain conceptually necessary — the grammar has to be complete — but a layperson's own precept-keeping practice, examined honestly, is a matter of not doing wrong, and of not being the one who actively does wrong; it is not, in this technical sense, a matter of neglecting some commanded action.
2. Milestone: Chapter One — Naming the Four
The Procedural Commentary works through the four terms one at a time, each definition built from the same three-part pattern: first a verb describing what the practitioner actually does (restrain, or act), then a statement of what happens to the precept-essence as a result, and finally the compound name itself, explained as the fusion of the two.
▲資持云『名即是字、連綿為語、無勞強分。持犯兩名、並望受體違順為名。尋文可見。』
▲事鈔云『先解二持。言止持者。方便正念、護本所受、禁防身口、不造諸惡、目之曰止。止而無違、戒體光潔、順本所受、稱之曰持。持由止成、號止持戒。』資持釋云『初牒名。方下釋義、初釋止義。方便者起對治也、正念者離邪染也。身口者且據七支、必通三業。止而下釋持義。持由下雙結。』
△事鈔續云『二明作持。策勤三業、修習戒行、有善起護、名之為作。持如前解。』資持釋云『初名牒名。策下釋義、初釋作義。持下指略。三節同前。應以前文續之、但改止為作。』
△事鈔續云『次釋二犯。言作犯者。內具三毒、我倒在懷、鼓動身口、違理造境、名之為作。作而有違、汙本所受、名之曰犯。犯由作成、故曰作犯。』資持釋云『初牒名。內下釋義、初釋作義。初二句起業本也。鼓下所造業也。作而下釋犯義。犯由下結合。』
△事鈔續云『言止犯者。良以癡心怠慢、行違本受、於勝業厭不修學、故名為止。止而有違、反彼受願、故名為犯。』資持釋云『初句牒名。良下釋義、初釋止義。止而下釋犯。』已上皆見事鈔記卷二十六 行宗云『作犯造惡則通三毒、止犯慢法偏對癡心。』見戒疏記卷四
The Zichi Commentary says: "A 'name' is simply a 'word' — the two run together as a single expression, and there is no need to force them apart. The two terms 'observance' and 'violation' are both named with reference to whether one accords with or goes against the precept-essence received [at ordination]. This can be seen directly from the text."
The Procedural Commentary says: "First we explain the two kinds of upholding. As for upholding-by-restraint: bringing forth right mindfulness as a countermeasure, guarding what one originally received, holding body and mouth in check, and committing no evil at all — this is called 'restraint.' Where this restraint is unbroken, the precept-essence remains bright and pure, according with what one originally received — this is called 'upholding.' Because the upholding is accomplished through restraint, it is named upholding-by-restraint." The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first line cites the name. From 'bringing forth' onward explains the meaning — first the meaning of restraint: 'bringing forth' means arousing the countermeasure, 'right mindfulness' means being free of deviant defilement; 'body and mouth' refers here to the seven branches [of act], but necessarily extends to all three types of karma. From 'where this restraint' onward explains 'upholding.' From 'because the upholding' onward binds the two together."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "Second, we clarify upholding-by-action. Urging on the three types of karma and cultivating precept-conduct, so that a wholesome intention arises and gives rise to guarding — this is called 'action.' 'Upholding' is explained as before." The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first phrase cites the name. From 'urging on' onward explains 'action.' From 'upholding' onward the text simply points back for brevity — the three clauses run exactly as before; continue with the prior passage, only substituting 'action' for 'restraint.'"
The Procedural Commentary continues: "Next we explain the two kinds of violation. As for violation-by-commission: harboring the three poisons within, cherishing the inverted view of self, one thereby stirs body and mouth into motion, acting against principle and constructing an object of transgression — this is called 'commission.' Where this commission involves a transgression, defiling what one originally received — this is called 'violation.' Because the violation is accomplished through commission, it is named violation-by-commission." The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first line cites the name. From 'harboring' onward explains 'commission': the first two phrases are the root from which karma arises, and from 'stirs' onward is the karma thereby constructed. From 'where this commission' onward explains 'violation.' From 'because the violation' onward binds the two together."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "As for violation-by-omission: precisely because of a deluded, indolent mind, one's conduct goes against what one originally received, wearying of the superior practices and failing to cultivate them — this is called 'restraint' [in the sense of ceasing effort]. Where this restraint involves a transgression, running contrary to the very aspiration made at ordination — this is called 'violation.'" The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first phrase cites the name. From 'precisely because' onward explains 'restraint.' From 'where this restraint' onward explains 'violation.'" [All the above from the Zichi Commentary, fasc. 26.] The Xingzong Commentary says: "Violation-by-commission, the active construction of evil, draws on all three poisons together; violation-by-omission, negligence toward the Dharma, pertains specifically to the poison of delusion." [Jieshu commentary, fasc. 4.]
The guide lays the four definitions out as a simple grid: restraint that accords with the precept-essence is upholding-by-restraint ("not doing evil, guarding what was received"); action that accords with it is upholding-by-action ("urging on the three karmas, cultivating precept-conduct"); action that goes against it is violation-by-commission ("stirring body and mouth, constructing an object against principle"); restraint that goes against it — that is, failing to act when action was required — is violation-by-omission ("wearying of the higher practices, failing to cultivate and study them"). The Xingzong Commentary's closing line matters for how these four actually feel from the inside: active wrongdoing typically involves all three poisons together, while neglecting a duty tends to trace back to delusion and complacency specifically rather than to a sharp burst of greed or anger.
3. Milestone: Single and Double Observance-Violation — Why Lay Precepts Are Different
Having defined the four terms, Master Hongyi pauses to explain a distinction the Commentary makes elsewhere: the difference between how these four categories work psychologically, in the mind of any practitioner, and how they work formally, in the technical classification the Vinaya actually applies to a given precept — and why, on the formal reckoning, a layperson's five or eight precepts turn out to involve only half of the fourfold grammar just explained.
疏中所明單雙持犯義、略分二意。初約心用、後約教行。
初約心用者。此乃持奉用心、非正簡判。故一切諸戒皆有雙持雙犯。俗眾所受五戒八戒悉具此義。以凡持一戒必起護心、望離惡邊即成止持、望起護邊復是作持。兩犯亦爾、違教作惡即作犯、不思對治即止犯。此謂二持二犯各自相通、非謂持中有犯。以善惡行別、違順心乖故也。
後約教行者。簡判諸戒。正用此義。是須有教令行者方具雙持雙犯、自餘殺盜等無教開作者並屬單持單犯耳。故教行雙持雙犯、唯道眾戒中有之比丘本二百五十戒中有二十六戒具雙持犯例如某事教制須行者、依教而作為作持、望無違犯是止持、不依教而作為止犯、望有違是作犯。若俗眾所受五戒八戒、唯是單持單犯、與此教行雙持犯不相涉也。
上來持犯總義中第一章持犯名字竟
What the Commentary explains concerning single and double observance-and-violation divides roughly into two approaches: the first considers how the mind is actually used in practice; the second considers formal teaching-and-conduct.
Under the first approach — considering how the mind is used — this concerns the mind actually brought to bear in upholding a precept, not a formal classification. Hence every single precept, considered this way, involves both kinds of upholding and both kinds of violation at once. The five precepts and eight precepts received by lay people fully possess this sense: whenever one upholds any one precept, a protecting intention necessarily arises — considered from the angle of departing from evil, this is upholding-by-restraint, and considered from the angle of that same intention arising, it is at once upholding-by-action too. The same holds for the two violations: going against the teaching to commit evil is violation-by-commission, and failing even to consider a countermeasure is violation-by-omission. This means the two kinds of upholding and the two kinds of violation each interpenetrate one another — not that violation is somehow present within upholding. It is simply that wholesome and unwholesome conduct are distinct, and the mind that accords or opposes differs accordingly.
Under the second approach — considering formal teaching-and-conduct — when it comes to actually classifying and adjudicating the precepts, it is precisely this second sense that properly applies. Only where a precept's teaching actually mandates some positive action does that precept possess both kinds of upholding and both kinds of violation together; all the remaining precepts — such as the prohibitions against killing or stealing, for which the teaching prescribes no positive action — belong only to a single kind of upholding and a single kind of violation. Hence "double upholding and double violation," in the sense of formal teaching-and-conduct, exists only among the precepts of those who have left home: among the two hundred and fifty root precepts of a bhikṣu, twenty-six precepts possess this double structure. For example, where the teaching mandates that some matter actually be carried out: acting in accordance with the teaching is upholding-by-action, and, considered from the angle of there being no transgression, it is also upholding-by-restraint; failing to act in accordance with the teaching is violation-by-omission, and, considered from the angle of there being a transgression, it is also violation-by-commission. As for the five precepts and eight precepts received by lay people, these involve only a single kind of upholding and a single kind of violation, and have no bearing at all on this "double upholding and violation" of formal teaching-and-conduct.
[The above concludes Chapter One, "Naming Observance and Violation," within the General Theory of Observance and Violation.]
The guide calls this out as a point worth lay readers dwelling on directly: psychologically, holding any single precept always involves the full fourfold structure at once, since a protecting intention that keeps one from wrongdoing is, looked at from a slightly different angle, itself already a kind of active cultivation. But the formal classification the Vinaya actually applies to a given precept is stricter, and depends entirely on whether that precept's own wording commands a positive act. Only twenty-six of a bhikṣu's two hundred and fifty root precepts have that structure; none of the lay five or eight precepts do, since they are worded purely as prohibitions.
The practical upshot, as the guide puts it, is that a layperson's precept practice is centered on two tasks and two only: not committing wrong (upholding-by-restraint) and not being the active agent of wrong (avoiding violation-by-commission). The worry about "neglecting a commanded positive duty" — violation-by-omission in the strict, formal sense — simply does not arise for the five or eight precepts as such, however much it matters for a monastic's fuller code.
4. Milestone: Chapter Two — The Essence of Observance and Violation: Mind as the Governing Essence
Having named the four categories, the Commentary asks a more basic question: what, exactly, is the "stuff" out of which observance and violation are made? The answer comes in two halves — the essence of the upholding subject (what actually does the upholding or violating) and the essence of the upheld object (what it is upheld or violated with respect to) — and the first half turns out to reach straight back to the precept-essence and precept-conduct already established in earlier gates of this book.
▲事鈔云『二明體狀。餘義廢之。直論正解、出體有二。一就能持、二就所持。』資持釋云『初刪古。疏引云、有人立十善為止持體、十惡為作犯體、行檀禮誦頭陀四弘等為作持體、違此名止犯體。不明化行、於理頗疏。委如彼破。直下標今。正解者能所二體並依本宗制教而立。文中能所例略犯字、義須具之』行宗云『非謂施慈等行都不修之、但非持犯體耳。』見戒疏記卷四
△事鈔續云『言能持者。用心為體。身口是具。故論云、是三種業皆但是心。又律云、備具三種業、當審觀其意等。如後更解。』資持釋云『初牒名。用下出體、上句正示。疏云、若不思慮、不成持犯、故以意思為能持犯體。下句簡非。以身口色但是成業之緣、非正業本疏云、身品是具、不名為業。故下引據、初即成論。推業之本。彼又續云、離心無思無身口業。次本律。意業是主、身口由成、故偏審。之以明成否。而言等者如律結犯並問何心、諸不犯中例開忘誤。下指如後即第三章。問、論云三業皆但是心此即心王、那得上定意思為體。答。心王意思、體用分耳。論推三業之本故就體論、此定成業之能故從用說。若爾、何不如論從本明者。答。體通四陰、用局行心。捨通從局、論業彌顯。又復心未必是思、思必是心。體不兼用、用必得體。今云意思、則體用齊收、義無乖異。』已上皆見事鈔記卷二十六 行宗云『成論由是當宗、中為證。皆是心者此指意識猶通四陰、若據成業須至行心。行即意思。以思從心起、身口二業復由思成。今從業本故言心耳。』行宗云『問。受中作戒、色心為體。今此能持、即是隨作、但云思心。受隨應等、那不同者。答。受取緣成必須兼色、隨取成業但約心論。學者深思、方見遠致。』已上皆見戒疏記卷四
▲芝苑云『一切事法為所持犯體。此正義也。言事法者、各具善惡二種。於善惡事法、心起順違、故有二持兩犯生焉。違順之心即能持犯體、善惡事法即所持犯體。持犯既因事法而生、故今以一切事法為所持犯體。豈不然乎。』見芝苑遺編卷一
上來持犯總義中第二章持犯體狀竟
The Procedural Commentary says: "Second, we clarify the essence. We set aside other, secondary explanations, and directly present the correct one: presenting the essence involves two aspects — one in terms of the upholding subject, the other in terms of the upheld object." The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first sentence dismisses the old explanations. The Commentary on the Precept-Text cites an earlier view: some hold that the ten wholesome actions constitute the essence of upholding-by-restraint, the ten unwholesome actions the essence of violation-by-commission, and practices such as giving, worship, chanting, austerities, and the four great vows the essence of upholding-by-action, with their opposites the essence of violation-by-omission. This fails to distinguish precept-essence proper from transformative conduct in general, and is rather sloppy in principle — refuted in detail elsewhere. From 'directly' onward marks out the present, correct explanation: both the upholding and upheld essences are established strictly on the basis of this school's own regulatory teaching. Where the text speaks of 'upholding' and 'upheld,' the term 'violation' is, for brevity, simply omitted, but its sense must be understood as included." The Xingzong Commentary says: "This does not mean that practices such as giving and compassion are simply not to be cultivated at all — only that they do not constitute the essence of observance-and-violation in this strict, technical sense." [Jieshu commentary, fasc. 4.]
The Procedural Commentary continues: "As for the upholding subject: the mind functioning with intention is its essence; body and mouth are merely its instruments. Hence a treatise says, 'these three types of karma are, in every case, simply the mind'; and the Vinaya says, 'being fully equipped with the three types of karma, one must carefully examine one's own intention,' and so forth, as will be further explained below." The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first line cites the name. From 'the mind' onward presents the essence — the first clause directly indicates it: the Precept-Text Commentary says, if there is no deliberation, no observance or violation is constituted, hence intention is taken as the essence of the upholding-and-violating subject. The second clause rules out what is not the essence: bodily and vocal form are merely the condition through which karma is completed, not karma's true root — elsewhere the Commentary says, 'the bodily category is merely the instrument, and is not to be called the karma itself.' From 'hence' onward cites supporting evidence: the first is from the Treatise on Establishing Reality, tracing karma to its root, which further says, 'apart from the mind there is no intention, and no karma of body or mouth.' The next citation is from the root Vinaya itself: mental karma is the sovereign, and the karmas of body and mouth are completed by means of it — hence it alone is singled out for careful examination, to determine whether a violation is constituted or not. 'And so forth' refers to how the Vinaya, in adjudicating a violation, always asks with what mind it was done, and how, among the cases of non-violation, forgetfulness and mistaken-belief are uniformly exempted — 'as will be explained below' points ahead to Chapter Three.
"Question: the treatise says the three karmas are, in every case, simply the mind — this refers to the sovereign mind itself; how, then, can intention specifically be fixed on as the essence, as stated above? Answer: the sovereign mind and intention are simply essence and function, divided. The treatise traces the three karmas to their root, and so speaks in terms of essence; here we are determining the actual capacity that constitutes karma, and so speak in terms of function. If so, why not likewise clarify it from the root, as the treatise does? Answer: essence extends generally across the four aggregates, while function is confined specifically to the cultivating-mind. Setting aside the general in favor of the specific makes the discussion of karma far clearer. Furthermore, mind need not always be intention, but intention is necessarily mind; essence does not necessarily include function, but function necessarily attains essence. Speaking now of 'intention,' therefore, gathers essence and function together at once, with no discrepancy in meaning." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 26.] The Xingzong Commentary says: "The Treatise on Establishing Reality is cited here because it belongs to this very school, and so serves as evidence. 'In every case simply the mind' refers to consciousness in the sense that still extends generally across the four aggregates; but what actually constitutes karma must reach the cultivating-mind — 'cultivating' meaning intention. Because intention arises from mind, and the two karmas of body and mouth are, in turn, completed by means of intention, the present passage speaks in terms of karma's root, and so simply says 'mind.'" The Xingzong Commentary also says: "Question: in the precept received at ordination, both form and mind together constitute its essence; here, in the case of the 'upholding subject' — that is, ongoing observance following ordination — only intention-mind is spoken of. Since receiving the precept and ongoingly observing it ought to correspond, why are they not the same? Answer: what is received depends on conditions coming together, and so must necessarily include form as well; what is ongoingly observed constitutes karma strictly in terms of mind. Students should reflect on this deeply before its far-reaching point becomes clear." [Jieshu commentary, fasc. 4.]
The Zhiyuan Commentary says: "All matters and dharmas [every concrete object of conduct] constitute the upheld essence — this is the correct doctrine. By 'matters and dharmas' is meant that each such object possesses both a wholesome and an unwholesome aspect. With respect to a wholesome or unwholesome matter or dharma, the mind arises in accordance or in opposition, and it is from this that the two kinds of upholding and the two kinds of violation are generated. The mind of accordance or opposition is itself the upholding essence; the wholesome or unwholesome matter or dharma is itself the upheld essence. Since observance and violation both arise dependent on some matter or dharma, we therefore take all matters and dharmas as the upheld essence. How could it be otherwise?" [Zhiyuan's Posthumous Compilation, fasc. 1.]
[The above concludes Chapter Two, "The Essence of Observance and Violation," within the General Theory of Observance and Violation.]
The guide underlines a single governing idea running through this entire chapter: "mind is the essence, body and mouth are merely the instrument." Whether a given act constitutes observance or violation is never settled by outward appearance alone — it is settled by whether an intending mind was actually behind it, which is exactly why the Vinaya, in judging a case, always asks first "with what mind was it done." This "mind-first" premise, the guide notes, is not a new idea introduced here for the first time — it is the same governing logic already established for precept-essence and precept-conduct in earlier gates of this book, simply now applied specifically to the question of upholding and violating.
On the "upheld" side, the Zhiyuan Commentary's formula is deliberately all-encompassing: since every concrete "matter or dharma" a practitioner might encounter carries both a wholesome and an unwholesome possibility within it, the entire field of experience becomes, in principle, the object with respect to which the mind's accordance or opposition generates the four categories already defined.
5. Milestone: Chapter Three, Section One — Where Restraint Is Fulfilled: The Three Prior Minds
Chapter Three asks a still more exacting question: at exactly what point, within the flow of mental activity, does observance or violation actually come to be fulfilled? The answer borrows a four-stage psychological model — cognition, perception, sensation, and cultivation — and argues that the first three of these four are, strictly speaking, not yet karmically active at all, which creates an interesting puzzle specifically for upholding-by-restraint.
▲戒疏云『前將止持對以明。或無染汙以明止持、行前三心得有持義。謂識想受、此之三心非業非記流入行心方成別業。故分四陰以為二分。豈非本有戒體、外無染汙、光潔純淨、名之為持。三心非心、受體是記、故得持也。』
行宗釋云『上句標舉。若下正釋為三、初通示。據此非持、取本受體說名為持、故云有義。古人目為端拱止持、以非造作任運成故。謂下別簡四心分二所以。統論四行、止持有二、餘之三種並局行心故也。豈下結顯三心下釋疑。問三心何分。答了別所緣境名識即通指六識。取所領之相名想謂取所領六塵之相則為六想。領納所緣名受謂六觸因緣生六受、一一各有苦樂不苦不樂三受之異、皆從違順非違非順而生。造作之心能趣於果名為行。謂六受之後、各起善不善不動業等。亦名六思、思即是業。若大乘經則受想行識、列次不同。由受生想、從想起行、由行成識。今依小論則識想受行、以取最初一念了別之心名識、次起想像名想、復次領納名受、後起業思造作名行。問破毀之人有此中。答據事鈔中、犯一重戒、餘戒常淨儼然。是則持毀皆有持義、今文且從持說故云無耳。』見戒疏記卷四 資持云『謂分四心以明二止、三心中止此科所明、得心中止則如後述。三心非業、本不名持、但望受體說有持義。以持是記業、無記非持故。此由古謂但不作惡、即名止持。今約四心分為二別、則無前濫。』見事鈔記卷二十六
The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Previously we set up upholding-by-restraint in contrast [with upholding-by-action, treated at the level of the cultivating-mind alone]. Considered, however, in terms of there simply being no defilement at all, upholding-by-restraint can also be explained this way: even the three minds prior to the cultivating-mind can, in a certain sense, be said to possess the meaning of 'upholding.' That is, cognition, perception, and sensation — these three minds — are neither karma proper nor [morally] recorded; only once they flow into the cultivating-mind is a distinct karma actually constituted. Hence the four aggregates are divided into these two groups. Is it not simply that the precept-essence, originally possessed from ordination, remains outwardly undefiled — bright and purely undisturbed — and that this is what is called 'upholding'? The three prior minds are not, strictly, karmically active mind, yet since the essence received at ordination is itself already [morally] recorded, 'upholding' can still be spoken of."
The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The first line marks out the topic. From 'considered' onward gives the correct explanation, in three parts: first, a general presentation. Given that this is not, strictly, 'upholding,' the text takes the essence received at ordination and speaks of it as 'upholding' — hence it says 'can, in a certain sense, be said.' The ancients termed this 'upholding-by-restraint in folded hands,' since it is accomplished spontaneously, without any active construction. From 'that is' onward specifically distinguishes why the four minds divide into two groups: across the whole scheme of the four practices, upholding-by-restraint alone has this twofold sense, while the remaining three practices are all confined to the cultivating-mind. From 'is it not' onward concludes the point; from 'the three minds' onward resolves a doubt.
"Question: how are the three prior minds distinguished? Answer: discerning the object taken as condition is called 'cognition' — referring generally to the six types of consciousness. Grasping the received image is called 'perception' — grasping the image received of the six sense-objects, giving the six perceptions. Receiving what is taken as condition is called 'sensation' — the six contacts, as conditions, generate the six sensations, each further differentiated into pleasant, painful, and neither, all arising from accordance, opposition, or neither. The constructing mind capable of moving toward a fruit is called 'cultivation' — following the six sensations, one respectively gives rise to wholesome, unwholesome, or unmoving karma, and so forth; also called the 'six intentions,' intention itself being karma. In the Mahāyāna sūtras the order given is instead sensation, perception, cultivation, cognition — sensation gives rise to perception, cultivation arises from perception, and cognition is completed through cultivation. Here, following the Hīnayāna treatise, the order is cognition, perception, sensation, cultivation: the very first, initial moment of discerning mind is called 'cognition'; the arising of an image next is 'perception'; the receiving of it next is 'sensation'; and the arising of karmic intention and active construction that follows is 'cultivation.'
"Question: does this also apply to a person who has broken and destroyed the precepts? Answer: according to the Procedural Commentary, one who violates a single grave precept still keeps all the remaining precepts perfectly pure and undisturbed. This being so, both upholding and breaking a precept involve this sense of 'upholding' [with respect to the precepts not broken] — the present passage simply speaks from the side of upholding, and so does not mention it." [Jieshu commentary, fasc. 4.] The Zichi Commentary says: "This distinguishes the four minds in order to explain two kinds of restraint: the restraint discussed within the three prior minds is what this section addresses; the restraint attained within the cultivating-mind will be discussed below. The three prior minds are not karma proper, and strictly speaking cannot be called 'upholding' — it is only with reference to the essence received at ordination that they can, in a certain sense, be said to involve 'upholding,' since upholding pertains to [morally] recorded karma, and the indeterminate is not upholding. This is because the ancients held that merely not committing evil was already enough to be called upholding-by-restraint; the present analysis, by dividing the four minds into these two groups, avoids that earlier conflation." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 26.]
The guide walks through the borrowed four-mind model plainly: cognition discerns an object, perception takes hold of its image, sensation receives it as pleasant, painful, or neutral, and only cultivation — the "thinking," karma-constituting mind — actually generates karma. Strictly speaking, the first three minds are described as "neither karma nor recorded": they have not yet ripened into a determinate wholesome or unwholesome act at all. This creates a genuine puzzle for upholding-by-restraint specifically, since restraint, almost by definition, can look like simple absence of activity rather than any positive cultivating-mind event.
The Commentary's resolution, as the guide frames it, is a kind of courtesy extension rather than a strict technical claim: because the precept-essence received at ordination is itself already a determinate, "recorded" wholesome entity, one can loosely say that "upholding" is present even during the three prior minds, simply in virtue of that essence remaining undefiled — what the ancients called, memorably, "upholding-by-restraint in folded hands," accomplished spontaneously rather than through any deliberate act. The guide also notes the Commentary's own caveat: even someone who has broken one precept still keeps every other precept in this same loose, folded-hands sense — which is exactly the seed of the reassurance about "one failure is not total ruin" that this gate's companion section develops much further in Chapter Four.
6. Milestone: Chapter Three, Section Two — The Cultivating Mind, and Why Violation Reaches Further Than Upholding
Strictly speaking — once the loose, folded-hands sense from the previous section is set aside — none of the four practices are actually fulfilled until the cultivating-mind itself is reached. But the four practices are not symmetrical even there: upholding, this section argues, can only ever arise from a wholesome state of mind, while violation can arise from an unwholesome or even, in a further sense developed two sections from now, an indeterminate one.
▲戒疏云『二就治行明止持者、必入行心方得成就、前之三心不名為持。善性便有、惡無記無。如欲離過、作意遮約、或對境防、或起心護、豈彼無記而得成持。若據作持、例同後止。既就境論、三心非分。』行宗釋云『初明二持中、初明止持。以非思慮不成就業、故云必入等。前下揀三心。善下揀二性。如下舉事顯相。若下二明作持。同後止者簡前三心止故。』
△戒疏續云『若據二犯、行心成就、前言持者三為行今言犯者三毒為行前三亦無。識想受等通善惡、行局不善性、善無記無。』行宗釋云『二明兩犯中。亦約四心三性以定行體、尋文可了。註中、以行通善惡故須簡。』已上皆見戒疏記卷四 資持云『註分善惡者、以行心語通恐相濫故。三善同時而不相離。三惡相別其性相違、作犯多是貪瞋、止犯率由癡慢、一往大判非不互兼。』見事鈔記卷二十六
The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Second, considering the cultivating-mind that actually governs conduct, we explain upholding-by-restraint strictly: it is only once one enters the cultivating-mind that it is actually constituted; the three prior minds cannot, in this strict sense, be called 'upholding.' It arises only from the wholesome nature; it does not arise from either the unwholesome or the indeterminate nature. Thus, when one wishes to depart from some fault, one deliberately guards against and restrains oneself, or takes precaution when facing the object, or gives rise to a protecting intention — how could this ever be constituted from an indeterminate mind? As for upholding-by-action, the same rule applies as with the restraint just explained; since it is discussed strictly in terms of the object, the three prior minds have no part in it."
The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The first part clarifies the two kinds of upholding, first clarifying upholding-by-restraint. Since without deliberation no karma is actually constituted, the text says 'only once one enters' and so forth. From 'the three prior' onward excludes the three prior minds; from 'the wholesome' onward excludes the other two natures. From 'thus' onward cites concrete cases to display the pattern. From 'as for' onward, second, clarifies upholding-by-action — 'the same as the restraint just explained' meaning it likewise excludes the three prior minds."
The Commentary on the Precept-Text continues: "As for the two kinds of violation, they too are constituted at the level of the cultivating-mind. Whereas above, in the case of upholding, the three wholesome roots constitute the cultivating-mind, here, in the case of violation, the three poisons constitute the cultivating-mind; the three prior minds are likewise indeterminate in either case. The three prior minds of cognition, perception, and sensation are common to wholesome and unwholesome conduct generally, but the cultivating-mind [of violation] is confined to the unwholesome nature alone — it does not arise from either the wholesome or the indeterminate nature."
The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Second, clarifying the two kinds of violation: this too determines the essence of the cultivating-mind in terms of the four minds and the three natures — the pattern can be grasped by following the text. In the annotation, because the term 'cultivating-mind' is used loosely enough to cover both wholesome and unwholesome cases, a distinction had to be drawn." [Jieshu commentary, fasc. 4.] The Zichi Commentary says: "The reason the annotation distinguishes wholesome from unwholesome is that the term 'cultivating-mind' is used loosely enough that confusion might otherwise arise. The three wholesome roots arise together and are never separate from one another; the three poisons, by contrast, are each distinct, their natures mutually opposed — violation-by-commission is mostly driven by greed and hatred, while violation-by-omission generally stems from delusion and conceit. This is a rough, general judgment, however, and does not exclude the two overlapping with each other." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 26.]
The guide's table makes the asymmetry vivid: upholding-by-restraint and upholding-by-action can only arise from a wholesome cultivating-mind — the Commentary's own words are blunt, "the wholesome nature has it, the unwholesome and indeterminate do not." Violation-by-commission and violation-by-omission, by contrast, arise from the three poisons, and the Zichi Commentary adds a memorable behavioral profile: active, commissive wrongdoing tends to run on greed and hatred, while passive, omissive wrongdoing tends to run on delusion and complacency — though the guide is careful to note this is offered only as a rough general tendency, not an exclusive rule.
The manuscript itself shows visible wear at exactly the point distinguishing the three prior minds from the cultivating-mind in the case of violation — a gap in the transmitted text where a character has evidently dropped out. The translation above follows the reading that best preserves the passage's own internal logic, since the alternative reading would have the violating cultivating-mind spanning both wholesome and unwholesome conduct, which contradicts the Xingzong Commentary's own immediately following gloss.
7. Milestone: Chapter Three, Section Three — The Four Practices across Body and Speech
Having placed the four practices squarely in the cultivating-mind, the Commentary now maps them onto the three types of karma — body, speech, and mind — starting with the two that are easiest to observe from outside: what the body does, and what the mouth says.
▲事鈔云『後三業明成就。身二持者、離殺等過名身止持、受食食等名身作持。口二持者、離口四過名止、如淨語等名作。身口各二犯、反上應知。』資持釋云『初明身口業中二、初明二持。次明二犯。言反上者行殺盜等名身作犯、不受食名身止犯、為口四過名口作犯、不作淨語名口止犯。並略舉事配、餘者例說。』
△事鈔續云『單意業中、不成持犯。若動身口思、亦成持犯。』資持釋云『二明單意業中意至身口名身口業、未至身口則名單意。初判不成。若下次明通成。籌度所為事名身口思。雖未動相、即屬身口不妨上文。』資持云『律制身口思者、謂計度身口所作事故。此心粗著、判屬身口』見事鈔記卷二十七
The Procedural Commentary says: "Last, we clarify how the four practices are constituted in terms of the three types of karma. As for the two kinds of bodily upholding: abstaining from the fault of killing and the like is called bodily upholding-by-restraint; properly receiving and eating food and the like is called bodily upholding-by-action. As for the two kinds of vocal upholding: abstaining from the four verbal faults is called restraint; speech such as 'pure speech' [properly formulated requests] is called action. The two kinds of bodily and vocal violation should each be understood as the reverse of the above."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part clarifies bodily and vocal karma, in two: first the two kinds of upholding, then the two kinds of violation. 'The reverse of the above' means: carrying out killing, stealing, and the like is bodily violation-by-commission; failing to properly receive food is bodily violation-by-omission; committing the four verbal faults is vocal violation-by-commission; failing to use pure speech is vocal violation-by-omission. These are all merely cited briefly by way of example; the rest follow by the same pattern."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "In the case of mere mental karma alone, no observance or violation is constituted. But if the 'thought-of-body-and-mouth' is set in motion, this too constitutes observance or violation." The Zichi Commentary explains: "Second, clarifying mere mental karma: when intention reaches all the way to body and mouth, it is called bodily-and-vocal karma; when it has not yet reached body and mouth, it is called 'mere mental' karma alone. The first sentence rules that this does not constitute observance or violation. From 'but if' onward, it clarifies how it can, after all, be constituted: deliberately calculating a matter to be carried out is the 'thought-of-body-and-mouth.' Although the outward form has not yet been set in motion, it already belongs to body and mouth, which does not conflict with what was said above." The Zichi Commentary further says: "The reason the Vinaya regulates the 'thought-of-body-and-mouth' is that it refers to deliberately calculating a matter to be carried out by body or mouth; this state of mind is already coarse and fixed, and so is classed as belonging to body and mouth." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 27.]
The guide's table lines the pattern up cleanly: bodily upholding-by-restraint is abstaining from killing, stealing, and the like; bodily upholding-by-action is properly receiving food and similar monastic conventions; vocal upholding-by-restraint is abstaining from the four verbal faults (lying, divisive speech, harsh speech, idle chatter); vocal upholding-by-action is using proper, formulaic requests. The guide flags the same point already made twice in this gate: the "action" side of this table — receiving food correctly, using proper monastic speech-forms — belongs to monastic convention and has no application to lay practice, which again confirms that laypeople's actual precept-keeping runs entirely on the restraint side of the grid.
On mere mental karma, the guide is precise about the threshold: an isolated intention that never gets past pure thought constitutes nothing at all — but the moment that thought hardens into an actual, deliberate calculation of how body or mouth will carry the act out, it already counts as "belonging to body and mouth" even though nothing has physically moved yet. This distinction between a thought that stays a thought and a thought that becomes a concrete plan is the seed of the far more detailed debate the next section takes up.
8. Milestone: A Fleeting Thought versus Repeated Rumination — How Far Does the Precept Reach into the Mind?
The Commentary on the Precept-Text, composed after the Procedural Commentary, revisits the question of "mere mental karma" and offers a second, more refined explanation — distinguishing a thought that flickers past unrepeated from a thought that is deliberately turned over again and again. Master Hongyi notes that Dao Xuan himself ultimately treats both explanations as usable, but singles out the second as the position that actually matches this school's own standard.
戒疏中釋此科義有兩解、一約身口思釋、二約重緣釋。事鈔撰述先成、止有初解。故事鈔言戒相時、每唯舉身口者、即依此釋也。逮後撰戒疏時、乃列兩釋。蓁經二釋、如下段記文所引。
▲資持云『若準戒疏、上是初解。後復解云。獨頭心念、忽起緣非、不名為犯。重緣向念、可得思覺、而不制約、即入犯科。又云、任情兩取、後為正義。順今宗故』已上皆見事鈔記卷二十六
▲行宗云『問、意已成犯、何以前約身口明成就耶。答。就意辨成皆遠方便。心念果罪少分有之、大論趣果須至身口。』
▲行宗云『問、世云小乘不制意地、今那制耶。答此由不辨假實兩宗制限深淺故也。小乘實宗定不制意、動色成犯。假宗制意、但約重緣、簡非瞥爾。是則三宗歷然、大小無濫。學者至此、宜須精究。』已上皆見戒疏記卷四
簡非瞥爾者、瞥爾單意制限大乘。瞥爾亦名獨頭、即前資持引疏所云獨頭心念也。
上來持犯總義中第三章成就處所竟
In the Commentary on the Precept-Text, this topic is explained in two ways: one in terms of the "thought-of-body-and-mouth," the other in terms of "repeated rumination." Since the Procedural Commentary was composed first, it contains only the first explanation — which is why the Procedural Commentary, whenever it discusses the marks of a precept-violation, invariably cites body and mouth alone, following just this one explanation. By the time the Commentary on the Precept-Text was composed later, however, both explanations came to be listed. Having passed through these two explanations, the final verdict is cited in the commentary passage below.
The Zichi Commentary says: "According to the Commentary on the Precept-Text, the explanation given above is the first of two. It goes on to give a further explanation: an isolated, solitary thought that suddenly arises and just as quickly touches on some wrong matter is not called a violation; but repeated rumination that turns back over such a thought — where it could well have been noticed and reflected upon, yet was not restrained — does fall into the category of violation. It further says: one may take either explanation freely, though the latter is treated as the correct doctrine, since it accords with the position of the present school." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 26.]
The Xingzong Commentary says: "Question: if mental activity alone can already constitute a violation, why did the earlier passage explain its constitution in terms of body and mouth? Answer: constitution judged purely in terms of mind is, in every case, still only a remote preparatory stage. A karmic fruit arising from a mere thought does exist to some small degree, but broadly speaking, reaching the actual fruit requires that the act reach all the way to body and mouth."
The Xingzong Commentary says: "Question: it is commonly said that Hīnayāna teaching does not regulate the ground of mind at all — why, then, is it regulated here? Answer: this confusion arises from failing to distinguish how deeply or shallowly the Realist and Nominalist branches of Hīnayāna doctrine each set their regulatory limits. The Realist branch definitely does not regulate mind alone — a violation is constituted only once physical form is set in motion. The Nominalist branch does regulate mind, but strictly in terms of repeated rumination, specifically excluding a mere fleeting thought. The three doctrinal positions are thus each clearly distinct, and Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are not conflated. Students who reach this point should investigate it with great care." [Jieshu commentary, fasc. 4.]
"Specifically excluding a mere fleeting thought" means that regulating even a mere fleeting, solitary mental act is a limit set only within Mahāyāna. A "fleeting" thought is also called an "isolated, solitary" thought — exactly what the Zichi Commentary, quoting the Precept-Text Commentary above, called an "isolated, solitary mental thought."
[The above concludes Chapter Three, "Where Fulfillment Actually Occurs," within the General Theory of Observance and Violation.]
The guide sets out the three-way comparison plainly: the Sarvāstivādin "Realist" branch of Hīnayāna does not regulate mind alone at all — a violation requires the act to actually reach body or mouth; the Satyasiddhi "Nominalist" branch, which this school follows, regulates "repeated rumination" but excludes a single fleeting thought; and Mahāyāna, by contrast, sets the strictest standard of all, treating even one isolated, unrepeated flicker of intention as already mattering. The guide reads Dao Xuan's own final position — favoring the "repeated rumination" reading as the one that "accords with the position of the present school" — as a deliberately moderate stance: not so lax that private thought never matters at all, but not so strict that every passing, unwanted impulse counts as an actual violation either.
This distinction between a thought that merely flickers and a thought that gets deliberately turned over again is, the guide notes, an early and simplified cousin of the far more elaborate machinery — the focused-versus-diffuse intent and the real-time-confusion-versus-mistaken-belief distinctions — that the companion gate on precept-by-precept casuistry works out in much greater detail; here it appears only in this comparatively modest form, marking where the mind alone can and cannot already constitute an offense.
9. Milestone: Chapter Four — Where Karma Really Begins, and Why the Same Broken Precept Can Weigh Heavy or Light
Chapter Four turns from where observance and violation are fulfilled to how serious a given violation actually is — and opens by distinguishing two entirely different ways of measuring that seriousness. The regulatory teaching (制教) judges mechanically: once the formal conditions for an offense are present, the fixed penalty simply applies. The transformative teaching (化教) judges by the concentration of the underlying state of mind instead — and it is this second, psychological register that occupies the rest of the chapter, tracing every offense back to its ultimate root in self-grasping.
▲資持云『化制兩教、辨業天乖。制則從教重輕。化則論心濃薄。教唯楷定、緣具則傲主刑科。心既不常、動發則須分體性。因果既異、化制斯分。必昧宗途、未窮業本。故先料簡、委示來蒙。』見事鈔記卷十四
第四章中、有四節。初二兼明化制、三局化教、四局制教。若犯性戒、具受化制二罪。若犯遮戒、唯受制罪。
▲事鈔云『起業要託三毒而生。然毒之所起、我心為本。此義廣張、行人須識、如懺法中具明業相。』資持釋云『前示業本。業無自性、必假緣生。緣雖眾多、不出心境、由境發毒構造成業。境是外緣、毒從內發、故明起業惟推三毒。毒從我生、我即妄計、即斯妄計是業之本、故名妄業。經云、一切業障海、皆從妄想生。諦求妄本畢竟無依、但是一心隨緣不覺、以不覺故硜然計我。由我起毒。因毒生業。業成感果、果全是苦、苦即生死、流浪出沒、造受更資、如是億劫莫知所止。從本至末、就果推因、少識妄源、粗知苦本。諸賢覽此、豈不自思。悲夫。此下指廣、請尋後篇、不復煩引。』
△事鈔續云『今略述起罪必約三性而生、受報淺深並由意業為本。故明了論解云。破戒得罪輕重不定。有生心破輕戒得罪重。無慚羞心、作無畏難。或由見起、謂無因果。或由不信生、謂非佛制此戒、或不信破此戒得此報。或由疑生、為定佛制為非佛制、為定得報不定得報。若由如此心破、得罪便重。若不由如此心、偶爾破戒、重翻成輕。』資持釋云『次正敘重輕又二、初示犯報分齊。上二句明犯從心起示因差也、下二句明報約心分示果。三性者性即心體。心雖萬狀、論體唯三、二是有記一號無記。然據善心應受福報、由心愚癡、損境義一、業道制教二俱有犯、但業有少輕制還依教。意業謂能造之主、總上三性、但性據始起業取已成。故下引文顯相、上二句通示。有下別釋、前明制輕業重為三、初標。二無下列相為四。初二句無慚心、無畏難者釋無慚相。次二句邪見心。或下四句不信心又二、一不信聖教二不信果報。或疑下五句疑惑心、同上二種。三若由下結示。次若不下明制重業輕。反上四心可解。』已上皆見事鈔記卷十四
The Zichi Commentary says: "Between the two teachings of transformation and regulation, the way karma is judged differs as widely as heaven from earth. Under the regulatory teaching, an offense's gravity follows the formal teaching itself; under the transformative teaching, it is judged by how thick or thin the underlying mental state is. The regulatory teaching alone sets a fixed standard: once the required conditions are all present, it firmly imposes its stipulated penalty, without regard to anything else. But the mind is never constant — once it stirs into activity, one must distinguish its essence and nature. Since cause and effect differ under the two teachings, transformation and regulation are accordingly distinguished. One must not remain in the dark as to this basic approach, nor fail to reach the very root of karma — hence what follows first sorts the matter out carefully, laid out in detail for later students." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 14.]
Chapter Four contains four sections. The first two address both the transformative and regulatory teachings together; the third pertains to the transformative teaching alone; the fourth to the regulatory teaching alone. If one violates one of the "nature" precepts [acts inherently wrong], one incurs offenses under both the transformative and regulatory teachings at once; if one violates a merely "prohibitory" precept [wrong only because prohibited], one incurs an offense under the regulatory teaching alone.
The Procedural Commentary says: "The arising of karma necessarily depends on the three poisons for its generation; and what gives rise to the poisons in turn is rooted in the mind of self. This principle unfolds broadly, and practitioners must understand it — it is explained in full detail in the texts on repentance-practice."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "This first shows karma's root. Karma has no nature of its own — it necessarily arises by borrowing conditions. Though the conditions are many, they never go beyond mind and object: it is the object that provokes the poison, which then constructs and completes the karma. The object is the external condition, the poison arises internally — hence, in clarifying how karma arises, the text traces it back to nothing but the three poisons alone. The poisons arise from self, and self is itself a false, mistaken reckoning — this very false reckoning is karma's root, and so is called 'false karma.' A sutra says: 'the whole ocean of karmic hindrance arises entirely from false thinking.' Truly seeking this false root, one finds in the end nothing at all to rely on — it is simply the one mind, following conditions, unaware of itself; and it is precisely because of this unawareness that one obstinately reckons a 'self.' From this self, the poisons arise; from the poisons, karma is generated; karma, once complete, draws forth its fruit, and that fruit is entirely suffering — this suffering is precisely birth-and-death, wandering and appearing and disappearing, constructing and receiving, feeding on itself again and again, on and on through kalpa after kalpa, with no knowledge of where it will ever stop. From the root all the way to the branch-tip, reasoning from the fruit back to the cause — anyone who, on reading this, comes to recognize even a little of this false root and roughly grasps this root of suffering, how could they fail to reflect on themselves? How sorrowful indeed! What follows below points to a fuller treatment; the reader is asked to seek it in the later chapters, which need not be troublesomely cited here."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "Now, briefly stated: the arising of an offense necessarily occurs in dependence on one of the three moral natures, and how deep or shallow the resulting retribution is always traces back, in every case, to mental karma as its root. Hence the Mingliao Treatise explains: the gravity of the offense incurred by breaking a precept is not fixed. There are cases where breaking a lighter precept, with a certain aggravated state of mind, incurs a heavier offense: where there is no sense of shame, and the act is done fearlessly and unrestrained; or where it arises from wrong views, holding that there is no cause and effect at all; or where it arises from lack of faith — holding either that this precept was not actually established by the Buddha, or that breaking it does not actually bring about this retribution; or where it arises from doubt — being uncertain whether the Buddha actually established it, or uncertain whether the retribution will actually be incurred. If the breaking of the precept arises from any such state of mind, the offense incurred is thereby made heavier. If it does not arise from any such state of mind, but the precept is broken merely by chance, then what would be a heavier offense is instead made light."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "Next the text properly sets out the matter of graver and lighter offenses, in two parts: first it shows the distinct gradations of offense and retribution. The first two lines clarify that the offense arises from the mind, showing the difference in cause; the last two lines clarify that the retribution is apportioned according to the mind, showing the difference in effect. 'The three natures' — 'nature' here means the essence of mind. Though the mind takes on countless forms, in terms of essence there are only three: two are morally recorded, and one is called indeterminate. Now, going by a wholesome mind, one ought to receive a blessed retribution; but because the mind is here still deluded, the sense of having damaged the object is the same as elsewhere — under both the principle of karmic retribution and the regulatory teaching, a violation exists either way, only under the principle of karma as such it is somewhat lighter, whereas under the regulatory teaching it still follows the formal teaching strictly. 'Mental karma' refers to the governing subject that actually constructs the act; taken together with the three natures above — 'nature' refers to how the karma initially arises, 'constructing' to it once already completed. From 'hence' onward the text cites evidence to display the pattern, the first two lines giving a general presentation. From 'there are' onward a specific explanation follows: first clarifying 'breaking a light precept made heavy,' in three — first a heading, then, from 'no' onward, four items listed. The first two lines are the mind lacking shame, 'fearlessly and unrestrained' glossing the mark of shamelessness; the next two lines are the mind of wrong view; from 'or' onward, four lines are the mind of unbelief, itself of two kinds — not believing the sagely teaching, and not believing in retribution; from 'or doubt' onward, five lines are the mind of doubt, likewise of these two kinds; third, from 'if' onward, the text concludes and summarizes. Next, from 'if it does not' onward clarifies 'breaking a grave precept made light' — the reverse of the four states of mind above, and can be understood accordingly." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 14.]
| Breaking a light precept made heavy | Breaking a grave precept made light |
|---|---|
| A mind without shame | A mind possessing shame |
| A mind of wrong view | A mind free of wrong view |
| A mind of unbelief — in the sagely teaching, or in retribution | A mind of faith — in the sagely teaching, and in retribution |
| A mind of doubt — toward the teaching, or toward retribution | A mind free of doubt — toward the teaching, and toward retribution |
The guide names the tension that structures this entire chapter right at the outset: the regulatory teaching judges "from the formal teaching," mechanically, once the stipulated conditions are met; the transformative teaching judges "from the mind," and requires exactly the kind of careful psychological analysis this chapter goes on to provide. The Zichi Commentary's chain of causation — self-grasping generates the three poisons, the poisons generate karma, karma generates its fruit, and the fruit is suffering — is, the guide notes, this chapter's philosophical foundation: the whole subsequent discussion of "how heavy is this violation" is really an extended meditation on how self-grasping shows up, more or less starkly, in a given act.
The table drawn from the Mingliao Treatise gives that meditation concrete shape: the very same broken precept can be judged more severely if committed shamelessly, from wrong view, from unbelief, or from doubt — and, strikingly, can be judged less severely, "reversed to become light," when a graver precept is broken by someone who nonetheless retains shame, right view, faith, and freedom from doubt. The guide reads this as this book's own version of a broader Buddhist principle: what one did matters, but the state of mind one did it with matters at least as much, and sometimes more.
10. Milestone: The Wholesome Mind — Why Good Intentions Do Not Excuse a Violation
The chapter's psychological analysis proceeds through the three moral natures one at a time, beginning with a genuinely uncomfortable case: violations committed with a wholesome — even a compassionate — state of mind. The verdict is unambiguous, and rests on a single governing principle already familiar from earlier gates on precept-marks: ignorance of what one is doing is never, by itself, a valid excuse, because the precept-marks are something every practitioner is expected to have learned.
▲資持云『初善心者、雖非粗惡、然是無知。結業乃輕、違制無別。』
▲事鈔云『如僧祇中﹒知事闇於戒相、互用三寶物。隨所違者、並結上罪。或見他厭生、與其死具。看俗殺生、教令早與、勿使苦惱。此並慈心造罪、而境違重。不以無知便開不犯、由是可學皆結根本。』資持釋云『初明好心犯盜。或下次明慈心犯殺。不以下示犯所以。』已上皆見事鈔記卷十四
The Zichi Commentary says: "First, as for the wholesome mind: although it is not coarse and evil, it is nevertheless tainted by ignorance. The karma thereby incurred is comparatively light, yet the formal transgression of the regulatory teaching is no different from any other case."
The Procedural Commentary says: "For example, in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, a monastic administrator, ignorant of the precept-marks, cross-used the property of the Three Jewels — whatever category was thereby transgressed, an upper-grade offense was uniformly incurred. Or again: seeing someone weary of life and wishing to die, one supplies them the means of death; or watching a layperson about to kill an animal, one instructs them to finish it off quickly, so as to spare the animal's suffering — in both these cases the offense is committed out of a compassionate mind, and yet the object involved remains a grave transgression regardless. Ignorance is not permitted to serve as grounds for exemption from violation — since the precept-marks are, after all, something that can and should be learned, a root offense is incurred in every such case."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part clarifies committing theft with a well-intentioned mind. From 'or' onward, next clarifies committing killing with a compassionate mind. From 'ignorance is not' onward shows the reason the violation still stands." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 14.]
The guide highlights the two illustrative cases as deliberately uncomfortable: an administrator who genuinely did not know the property rules and mixed up the belongings of the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha; and someone who, moved by real compassion, helps end a suffering being's life or urges a layperson to kill an animal quickly rather than let it suffer longer. In both cases the offense is committed by someone acting in obvious good faith — and in both cases the Commentary still records a full root offense.
The guide is explicit that the governing principle here — "ignorance is not permitted to serve as grounds for exemption; since the precept-marks are learnable, a root offense is incurred" — is not a claim that good intentions count for nothing at all. It carries forward directly from the general theory already established: a wholesome mind does genuinely make the resulting karma lighter than the same act done with hatred or greed. What it does not do is erase the formal violation itself. The precept-marks exist precisely so that a sincere practitioner has no excuse for not knowing them, and the responsibility to actually learn them is treated as inseparable from the responsibility to keep them.
11. Milestone: The Unwholesome Mind — Four Marks of a Genuinely Evil Intention
Where the wholesome mind still leaves a residue of good faith, the unwholesome mind is characterized by its total absence — a mind driven openly by greed, hatred, and delusion, and marked, the Mingliao Treatise specifies, by four distinguishing features that together define what counts as a genuinely "coarse, evil-minded" violation.
▲資持云『次不善心者、謂貪瞋癡三毒所起單複等分、鼓發七支故。』
▲『識知戒相、或復闇學。輕慢教網、毀訾佛語。如明了論述云。有四種粗惡意犯罪。一者濁重貪瞋癡心、二者不信業報、三者不異所受戒、四者輕慢佛語。故心而造、則得重果。以此文證。由無慚愧、初無改悔、是不善心。』資持釋云『初通敘。上二句別舉犯人學不學故、下二句合明心相。如下引示。四中、初是總相、攝一切故。濁重難顯、且約三時無悔名上品心。下三別相、開癡心故。二是邪見心、三即放逸心、四即憍慢心。故下二句總示業報。以下鈔家結示。無慚無愧即是不善始終二心、該前四種一一相兼。初無者古記云初猶都也。』已上皆見事鈔記卷十四
The Zichi Commentary says: "Next, as for the unwholesome mind: this refers to greed, hatred, and delusion — the three poisons — arising singly, doubly, or all three together in equal measure, thereby stirring the seven branches of bodily and verbal action into motion."
"Whether one has learned and knows the precept-marks, or is instead ignorant and unlearned — either way, one may act with contempt for the teaching's net of regulation, reviling the Buddha's own word. As the Mingliao Treatise states: there are four kinds of coarse, evil-minded violation. First, a mind thick with greed, hatred, and delusion. Second, disbelief in karmic retribution. Third, no regard for the precept one has received. Fourth, contempt for the Buddha's word. Where the act is done with such a mind, a heavy fruit is incurred. This passage serves as evidence: because there is no sense of shame, and no repentance from beginning to end, this is the unwholesome mind."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part gives a general account. The first two lines separately raise the case of a learned versus an unlearned violator; the last two lines together clarify the mark of the mind. From 'as' onward, citation and demonstration follow. Of the four: the first is the general mark, encompassing all the rest — 'thick' is hard to display concretely, but taken across all three time-periods of the act without any repentance, it is termed a 'superior-grade' mind. The remaining three are specific marks, each opening out from the delusion-mind: the second is the mind of wrong view, the third the mind of heedlessness, the fourth the mind of arrogant conceit. From 'where' onward, the last two lines give a general indication of karma and retribution. From 'this passage' onward, the compiler concludes and shows the point: 'no shame and no sense of disgrace' is itself the beginning-to-end unwholesome mind, combining, one with another, all four of the states listed above. As for '[no repentance from the] beginning,' an old commentary glosses 'beginning' here as meaning simply 'throughout.'" [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 14.]
The guide reads the four marks of the Mingliao Treatise as forming a deliberate progression: a mind thick with all three poisons at once as the general, encompassing mark, and then three specific marks each traced back to delusion in particular — disbelief in karmic retribution (a specifically deluded view), disregard for one's own received precepts (a heedlessness rooted in delusion), and contempt for the Buddha's own teaching (an arrogance likewise rooted in delusion). The Zichi Commentary's summary line is the one the guide singles out as capturing the whole category in a phrase: "no shame and no sense of disgrace" — a mind with no internal restraint and no capacity for regret, running unbroken from before the act, through it, and after.
12. Milestone: The Indeterminate Mind — Unrestrained Drift, and the Boar Who Killed the Monk Who Never Meant to Kill
The third of the three moral natures is the hardest to pin down, since "indeterminate" ordinarily means neither wholesome nor unwholesome — yet the Commentary insists that even an indeterminate mind can, under the right conditions, still generate a genuine violation. Two kinds are distinguished: an ordinary, unremarkable drift of attention with no real protecting intention behind it, and a benighted state such as sleep, intoxication, or delirium. The section closes by carving out the one narrow case where an indeterminate lapse is genuinely exempted — and it turns out to depend entirely on who the practitioner already was before the lapse occurred.
▲資持云『三無記多別。一、無情局無記、有情通三性。二、就情中、報色是無記、心則通三性。三就心中、三心局無記、行心通三性。下明二種、初縱放者謂汎爾無記、次約睡狂即昏迷無記。』
▲事鈔云『無非攝護、隨流任性。意非善惡、汎爾而造並通攝犯。唯除恆懷護持、誤妄而造。此非心使、不感來果。』
△事鈔續云『非即如上。前為方便、後眠醉狂遂成業果、通前結正並如論中無記感報。』資持釋云『初句指前未盡、即猶止也。前方便者或教他犯如殺盜等、或自業相成犯如自安殺具等。若據果成雖在無記、由假方便故云通。前等如論即下成實。』
自業相成者、自起方便、後趣正果。
△事鈔續云『問、無記無業、云何有報。答。解有二。初言感報者。謂先有方便、後入無記、業成在無記心中、故言感報。而實無記非記果也。二者不感總報、非不別受。如經中頭陀比丘不覺殺生、彼生命過野豬中、山上舉石即因崩下還殺比丘。如成論中、睡眠成業、是無記業。』資持釋云『初問中。徵上指論。答中、先約方便釋。即上睡狂無記也。初明因前故感報、而下明正成則非報。二約總別兩報釋。此義通前兩種無記。總報謂地獄總受、別報謂餘趣別受。如下引證、前證上縱放、後證上睡狂。如經者未詳何經。不覺是無記心。』
△事鈔續云『問、如前無記有不犯者、其相如何。答。謂學知戒相、善達持犯。心常兢厲。偶爾妄迷、由非意緣、故開不犯。如扶持木石、失手殺人。如是等緣、並非結限。反上所懷、並結正犯。』資持釋云『次問中。徵前開妄。答中、初敘學人。反下謂非學人。翻對可解。』已上皆見事鈔記卷十四
依上鈔文之意、唯有學人可開迷妄、若不學人雖於境迷妄亦結正罪。事鈔記卷二十七中廣明不學無知、其敘結本意文與此大同、但後例開句法中則不學亦可開迷。資持記有問答釋疑文、附錄於下、以資參考。問、前云隨戒境想唯開學人、今不學人何以開耶。答。前文敘結且據大判不妨不學準例同開。若以義求則迷事不別、若取文證則戒疏顯然、此不繁引。
The Zichi Commentary says: "Third, the indeterminate mind involves many distinctions. First: insentient things are confined to the indeterminate nature alone, whereas sentient beings extend generally across all three natures. Second: within the sentient, the retributive physical form is indeterminate, while the mind extends across all three natures. Third: within the mind, the three prior minds are confined to the indeterminate nature alone, while the cultivating-mind extends across all three natures. What follows clarifies two kinds of indeterminate cultivating-mind: the first, 'unrestrained abandon,' refers to an ordinary, unremarkable indeterminate state; the second, concerning sleep or delirium, refers to a benighted, unconscious indeterminate state."
The Procedural Commentary says: "Where there is no active intention of guarding and protecting the precepts at all, one simply drifts along, following the flow, indulging one's own nature — the mind is neither wholesome nor unwholesome, and whatever is thereby ordinarily constructed is, in every case, subsumed under violation. The sole exception is one who constantly cherishes a protecting intention, yet acts under a mistaken, deluded lapse — since this is not driven by an actively violating mind, it does not draw forth a resulting fruit."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "This exception is exactly as stated — no more. But where a preparatory stage precedes it, and one afterward, in sleep, intoxication, or delirium, thereby completes a karmic fruit, this joins together with the foregoing to constitute a genuine violation — in every case, just as in the treatise's discussion of the indeterminate mind drawing forth retribution."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first line indicates that the foregoing exemption is not exhaustive — 'exactly' here still means 'only.' 'A preparatory stage precedes it' means either instructing another to commit the violation, such as killing or theft, or oneself constructing the very conditions of the violation, such as setting up an instrument of killing beforehand. Where the fruit is thereby actually completed, although it occurs within an indeterminate state of mind, because it borrows a preceding preparatory stage, it is said to 'join together' with genuine violation."
"Constructing the very conditions of the violation oneself" means: one oneself initiates the preparatory stage, and afterward proceeds to the actual, genuine fruit.
The Procedural Commentary continues: "Question: if the indeterminate mind involves no morally recorded karma, how can it draw forth retribution? Answer: there are two explanations. The first, speaking of 'drawing forth retribution,' means: where a preparatory stage precedes it and one afterward enters an indeterminate state, the karma is completed within that indeterminate mind — hence it is said to 'draw forth retribution.' But in reality the indeterminate mind itself is not what is morally recorded, nor is it itself the fruit. The second explanation: such a case does not draw forth the general, rebirth-determining retribution, though this does not mean it draws forth no particular retribution at all. For example, in a certain sutra, a dhutanga-practicing monk unknowingly killed a living creature; that creature's life, once ended, passed into rebirth as a wild boar, which later, on a mountainside, dislodged a stone that rolled down and, in consequence, killed that very monk in return. As in the Treatise on Establishing Reality: karma completed during sleep is likewise indeterminate karma."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part is the question, calling upon the treatise cited above. In the answer, the first explanation is given in terms of the preparatory stage — this is the 'sleep or delirium' indeterminate state discussed above. The first part clarifies that, because of the preceding preparatory stage, retribution is drawn forth; the following part clarifies that, once actually completed, the act itself is not strictly morally recorded. The second explanation is given in terms of the general and particular retributions — this sense applies to both kinds of indeterminate state discussed above. 'General retribution' refers to undergoing the general lot of rebirth in hell; 'particular retribution' refers to undergoing a particular experience within some other destiny. The citations that follow: the first proves the case of 'unrestrained abandon,' the second proves the case of 'sleep or delirium.' Which sutra is meant by 'a certain sutra' is not specified. 'Unknowingly' here refers to an indeterminate mind."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "Question: as stated earlier, among indeterminate states there are cases of non-violation — what is their pattern? Answer: this refers to one who has learned and knows the precept-marks, who thoroughly understands observance and violation, and whose mind is constantly vigilant and diligent, yet who, by mere chance, falls into a momentary lapse of confusion — since this does not arise from any violating intention as its condition, non-violation is granted as an exemption. For example, one who is moving timber or stone and, losing one's grip, accidentally kills a person — conditions of this kind are, in every such case, not to be judged as incurring the full offense. But where the state of mind is the reverse of what has just been described, a genuine, root violation is incurred in every case."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "In the second question, the text calls upon the exemption for lapse mentioned earlier. In the answer, the first part describes the learned practitioner; from 'but where' onward refers to one who is not a learned practitioner — the contrast can be understood directly." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 14.]
According to the sense of the passage above, only a "learned practitioner" may be exempted for confusion or lapse; an unlearned person, even if confused about the object of the precept, still incurs a full root offense. The Zichi Commentary, fasc. 27, discusses "ignorance through failure to learn" at length, and its concluding sense there largely agrees with the present passage — except that, in a later pattern of exemption-clauses, even an unlearned person may, in fact, be granted the same exemption for a lapse. The Zichi Commentary contains a question-and-answer passage resolving this apparent tension, appended here for reference: "Question: earlier it was said that, with respect to object-perception under a given precept, exemption is granted only to the learned practitioner — why, then, is an unlearned person exempted here? Answer: the earlier passage's summary judgment was given, broadly speaking, on the general rule; it does not preclude the unlearned, by analogy, also being granted the same exemption in a particular case. Sought in terms of principle, confusion about a matter is no different whether one is learned or not; sought in terms of textual evidence, the Commentary on the Precept-Text states this plainly — the point need not be belabored with further citation here."
The guide highlights the two kinds of indeterminate violation as genuinely distinct failures: "unrestrained abandon" is simply never having formed any protecting intention in the first place — an ordinary, unremarkable drift through the day with no real guard up at all — while "sleep or delirium" is a benighted state built on top of a prior, deliberate preparatory stage, such as setting up the means of a killing beforehand and then letting the act complete itself while unconscious. Both still count as violation, because both trace back to a real preparatory choice or a real absence of the protecting intention a practitioner is expected to maintain.
The dhutanga monk and the wild boar is, in the guide's reading, the chapter's most striking illustration of how far-reaching even indeterminate karma can be: an entirely unnoticed killing still ripens into a very concrete, personal consequence later on, even though it never rises to the level of a full rebirth-determining offense. The guide draws out the sentence that actually does the exempting work in this whole section: "the sole exception is one who constantly cherishes a protecting intention, yet acts under a mistaken, deluded lapse" — genuine exemption is reserved for the practitioner who has been vigilant all along and simply slips, not for anyone who happens to be unaware. The appended question-and-answer at the end, the guide notes, is Dao Xuan quietly correcting his own earlier, stricter statement — acknowledging that even an unlearned person can, by analogy, receive the same exemption in the right circumstance, since confusion about a matter does not actually differ depending on how much precept-study someone has done.
13. Milestone: A Lament — The Long Road of Karmic Suffering
Before moving on to a more technical analysis of mind against object, the Procedural Commentary and its Zichi gloss pause for a passage of real literary force — stepping back from the case-by-case analysis to describe, in visceral terms, exactly what habitual, unexamined wrongdoing actually leads to. This is the single most vivid passage in the source text for this half of the gate.
▲事鈔云『然則業苦綿積、生在莫窮。虛縱身口、汙染塵境。既無三善可附、唯加三惡苦輪。以此經生、可為歎息。』資持釋云『初二句示生死長久。業苦通舉因果。綿謂出沒久遠、積謂造受眾多。生報別示苦果窮盡也。虛下嗟毀犯陷墜。隨妄與業故云虛縱。無三善者多惡因也、加三惡者無善果也。附憑也、加增也。以下正歎經生猶度世也。息即是氣。』
資持云『且夫心緣境發、果自因成。造受更資沈流長劫、因緣遇會形影無差。至於火爍湯煎痛非可忍、霜寒冰凍聲不可聞、萬苦衝心如鎔鐵聚、翻思往業雖悔何追。矧乃戴角披毛、飛空潛水、氣命繫於屠獵、血肉委於庖廚。或復炬口鍼咽飢虛切體、臭膿穢屎食啖聊生。信乎禍福無門、昇沈由。嗚呼。含靈蠢蠢、生死悠悠。方便多門、其誰一悟。辭雖繁費、意復何窮。』已上皆見事鈔記卷十四
The Procedural Commentary says: "This being so, the suffering of karma accumulates on and on, with birth after birth having no end in sight. Indulging body and mouth without restraint, one defiles oneself amid the dusty sense-objects; having thereby no wholesome root of the three to rely upon, one only adds to the wheel of suffering of the three evil destinies. To pass through birth and rebirth in this way — how can one not sigh in lament?"
The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first two lines show how long birth-and-death truly extends. 'The suffering of karma' refers generally to both cause and effect together. 'On and on' means appearing and disappearing across a vast span of time; 'accumulates' means constructing and undergoing karma over and over, many times. 'Birth' and 'retribution' separately show the inexhaustible fruit of suffering. From 'indulging' onward laments the downfall of transgression: following one's delusions along with one's karma is called 'indulging without restraint.' 'No wholesome root of the three' means many unwholesome causes; 'adds to the three evil destinies' means no wholesome fruit at all. 'Rely upon' means to depend on; 'add to' means to increase. From 'to pass through' onward properly laments passing through birth after birth as though crossing over the world entire. 'Sigh' here simply means one's own breath."
The Zichi Commentary further says: "Now, the mind stirs on encountering an object, and the fruit is thereby completed from its cause; constructing and undergoing karma, feeding on itself again and again, one sinks and drifts across long kalpas — wherever cause and condition happen to meet, effect follows cause as unfailingly as a shadow follows its form. As for the sufferings of the hells: flames that scorch, boiling that scalds, pain past all enduring; frost that bites, ice that freezes, cries too terrible to bear hearing; ten thousand agonies converging on the heart like a mass of molten iron — and only then, looking back on the karma that brought one there, what use is regret, however deep? How much more so the sufferings of the animal realm: bearing horns, wearing fur, flying through the sky or diving beneath the water, one's very life and breath bound up in the hunter's snare, one's flesh and blood consigned to the butcher's block. Or again the sufferings of the hungry ghosts: mouths like torches, throats like needles, the body wracked with hollow hunger, subsisting on nothing but foul pus and filth. It is truly so: calamity and blessing have no fixed gate of their own — whether one rises or sinks depends entirely on oneself. Alas! Sentient beings, dull and unaware, wander on and on through birth and death without end. The paths of skillful means are many — who among them will ever, even once, truly awaken? Though these words run long and elaborate, how could the meaning they point to ever be exhausted?" [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 14.]
The guide singles this passage out as the most literary in the entire gate — a deliberate change of register, stepping back from the technical apparatus to describe the three evil destinies in genuinely visceral terms: the hells' scorching flame and unbearable cold, the animal realm's horns and fur bound up in the hunter's snare and the butcher's block, the hungry ghosts' torch-mouths and needle-throats subsisting on filth. The guide reads the closing line — "calamity and blessing have no fixed gate of their own; whether one rises or sinks depends entirely on oneself" — as this book's own restatement of a foundational Buddhist claim: no external power assigns a being to one destiny or another; the assignment is made, entirely and only, by the being's own accumulated karma.
The guide also notes the passage's closing gesture of humility — "these words run long and elaborate, [yet] how could the meaning they point to ever be exhausted" — as characteristic of Dao Xuan's own voice throughout the Zichi Commentary: even after such an extended and vivid description, he treats the underlying reality as still exceeding what any amount of prose could actually convey.
14. Milestone: Weighing Mind against Object — And a Caution about What "Business-of-Karma" Reasoning Actually Means
The chapter's second section shifts from the state of mind alone to the relationship between mind and the object a violation is actually directed at — arguing that gravity depends on both together, and working through killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and false speech one at a time to show how the object's own standing can make an otherwise identical act heavier or lighter.
▲事鈔云『如母論云。犯必託境、關心成業。心有增微、境有優劣故也。或心境俱重、人作人想殺。或境重心輕、人作非人想。或境輕心重、非人人想。論通一切、不局一戒。』資持釋云『初引論通示三、初準文通示。以罪假緣成、緣即心境。境是外緣故云託也、心是內緣故云關也。心起不常故有增微、境緣非一故有優劣。或下歷句別簡。初句俱優。下二句互有優劣。義立俱劣一句、如非人作畜杌想之類。論下點上語通。』
△事鈔續云『婬中自有輕重。畜生及人。人中有在家出家。在家中持戒破戒、出家五眾持戒破戒。乃至聖人。重同報異。』資持釋云『二對戒別明四、初婬中、初句通標。畜下別簡有四、初句簡異類。理加非人、次於畜趣。二人中簡道俗。三道俗中各簡持破。在家更簡無戒有戒、持中復有士女五八。出家先簡五眾、大僧最重、五中各有持破。四持中簡凡聖。薄地持戒外凡已去、乃至無學、陵辱極重。末句總示。重同謂制罪、婬不簡境皆犯重故。報異謂業道、業有優劣受報不同。後三制報俱異、可知。』
△事鈔續云『第二盜重者。天及人。乃至聖人。三寶差別、僧物最重。』資持釋云『二盜中三、初簡趣。亦合加畜為首。二人中簡凡聖。三簡三寶。佛輕法、法次、僧重。』
△事鈔續云『第三殺戒。成論云。如六足毗曇中說。殺邪見人、輕殺蟲蟻。此人汙染世間、多損減故。』資持釋云『三殺中。引論唯簡邪正。人輕蟻重、且據業論、不約制教。準義、亦合約趣道俗持毀凡聖簡之。文略不出。』
△事鈔續云『第四妄戒。向在家人說重、向出家人說輕。』資持釋云『四妄中。三趣同盜、人則反之如文所顯。又出家中五眾、乃至聖人、漸輕可解。若如五分僧中妄語、重百羅漢前。故知誑僧極重。』
▲資持云『上四但出境之優劣。心隨境故、重輕可知。若約互論、如前作句、無不通曉。』已上皆見事鈔記卷二十六
The Procedural Commentary says: "As the Mātṛkā Treatise says: a violation necessarily depends on an object, and involves the mind in order to constitute karma; the mind may be more or less intense, and the object may be superior or inferior in gravity. Thus: the mind and object may both be grave together, as when one kills a person while correctly perceiving that person as a person; or the object may be grave while the mind is light, as when one kills a person while mistakenly perceiving them as a non-person; or the object may be light while the mind is grave, as when one kills a non-person while mistakenly perceiving it as a person. The treatise's principle applies universally, and is not confined to any single precept."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part cites the treatise for a general presentation, in three: first, following the text directly. Since an offense is completed only by borrowing conditions, and those conditions are precisely mind and object — the object is the external condition, hence 'depends on'; the mind is the internal condition, hence 'involves.' Since the mind's arising is never constant, it may be more or less intense; since the object is never uniform, it may be superior or inferior. From 'thus' onward, the cases are run through one by one: the first is both superior together; the next two are cases where superiority and inferiority differ between the two. A fourth case can logically also be established — both inferior together — as, for instance, mistakenly perceiving a non-person as an animal or a lifeless stump. From 'the treatise's' onward notes that the principle just stated applies universally."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "Within the precept against sexual misconduct there are, of itself, gradations of gravity. The object may be an animal or a human being. Among human beings, there are householders and those who have left home. Among householders, there are those who keep the precepts and those who break them; among those who have left home, there are the five assemblies, each with those who keep and those who break the precepts — extending all the way up to noble ones. The regulatory gravity is the same throughout, but the karmic retribution differs."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "Second, the text clarifies four precepts separately. First, within sexual misconduct: the first line gives a general heading. From 'animal' onward, four distinctions follow: the first distinguishes different classes of being — logically, non-human beings should also be added, next to the animal realm. Second, among human beings, householder is distinguished from monastic. Third, within both, keeping is distinguished from breaking the precepts — among householders, further into those without and those with precepts, and among the precept-keepers, further into male and female lay-precept holders and eight-precept holders; among monastics, first into the five assemblies, the fully-ordained being gravest, and within each, keeping distinguished from breaking. Fourth, within the precept-keepers, ordinary is distinguished from noble — from an ordinary worldling who keeps the precepts, up through the outer and inner classes of ordinary practitioners, all the way to one beyond further training, the outrage growing ever graver. The final line gives a general indication: 'the gravity is the same' refers to the regulatory offense — sexual misconduct, regardless of object, is in every case a grave violation; 'the retribution differs' refers to karma — karma varies in gravity, and so the retribution received correspondingly differs. For the remaining three precepts, both the regulatory offense and the karmic retribution differ by object, as will be seen."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "Second, as for the gravity of theft: the object may be a heavenly being or a human being, extending up to a noble one; and, among the distinctions of the Three Jewels, property belonging to the Saṅgha is the gravest."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "Second, theft is discussed in three: first distinguishing the destiny of the being robbed — logically the animal realm should also be added, placed first. Second, among human beings, ordinary is distinguished from noble. Third, the Three Jewels are distinguished: theft from the Buddha is lightest, the Dharma next, and the Saṅgha gravest."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "Third, as for the precept against killing: the Treatise on Establishing Reality says: as stated in the Six-Legged Abhidharma, killing a person of wrong view is lighter than killing an insect or ant — because such a person defiles the world and causes much loss and diminishment."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "Third, within the discussion of killing: the citation distinguishes only wrong view from right view — a human being of wrong view thus judged light, an insect grave — this is stated strictly in terms of the principle of karma, not the regulatory teaching. Reasoned by analogy, killing ought likewise to be distinguished by destiny, householder versus monastic, keeping versus breaking, and ordinary versus noble, exactly as with sexual misconduct above; the text simply omits this for brevity."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "Fourth, as for the precept against false speech: speaking falsely to a householder is a graver offense, while speaking falsely to one who has left home is lighter."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "Fourth, within false speech: the three destinies follow the same pattern as theft above, but the ranking by persons is reversed here, as the text plainly shows. Also, among those who have left home, gravity progressively lightens from the five assemblies up to a noble one, which can be understood accordingly. As stated in the Five-Part Vinaya, speaking falsely within the Saṅgha is graver than falsely addressing a hundred arhats standing before one — hence deceiving the Saṅgha is known to be an extremely grave matter."
The Zichi Commentary says: "The four precepts above simply set out the relative gravity of the object involved; since the mind follows the object, the resulting gravity or lightness can be known accordingly. If one wishes to work out cases where mind and object diverge, one need only form the combinations shown earlier, and every case can be fully understood." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 26.]
| Precept | Gradation of the object, roughly lightest to gravest |
|---|---|
| Sexual misconduct | Animal → non-human being → human (householder, then monastic; within each, precept-breaker before precept-keeper; among precept-keepers, ranked further by ordinary-to-noble attainment) — regulatory gravity is identical throughout, karmic retribution varies |
| Theft | Animal → heavenly being → human, ranked ordinary-to-noble; among the Three Jewels, the Buddha's property is lightest, the Dharma's next, the Saṅgha's gravest |
| Killing | A person of wrong view (lighter, in strictly karmic — not regulatory — terms) versus an insect or ant (graver); by analogy, the same destiny / householder-monastic / keeper-breaker / ordinary-noble gradations apply as with sexual misconduct |
| False speech | The ranking by person is reversed from theft: a householder is the graver target, a monastic lighter; among monastics, gravity lightens from the five assemblies up to a noble one; falsehood spoken within the Saṅgha itself is graver than falsehood spoken before a hundred arhats |
The guide summarizes the Mātṛkā Treatise's governing formula compactly: mind and object combine to determine gravity, and where they diverge — object grave but mind light, or object light but mind grave — the resulting offense sits somewhere between the extremes of "both grave" and "both light." The guide then flags one passage for careful reading rather than plain acceptance: the citation ranking a killed insect as karmically graver than a killed person of wrong view is explicitly marked by the Zichi Commentary itself as "stated strictly in terms of the principle of karma, not the regulatory teaching" — a technical point within Abhidharma-style karmic theory about how gravely different objects register, never a statement about the regulatory offense itself, which treats killing a human being as the gravest possible transgression without exception. The guide is emphatic that this passage gives no license whatsoever to harm any living being; it is a purely doctrinal observation about how karmic retribution scales with the object harmed.
15. Milestone: Single-Mind Assessment — The Same Thought across Three Stages of an Act
Having weighed mind against object, the Commentary now isolates the mind entirely on its own, tracking a single act across three distinct stages — the preparatory stage, the root-stage, and the subsequent stage — and showing how the intensity of intention can rise, fall, or hold steady across those three moments, producing eight possible combinations sorted into four ranks of overall gravity.
▲事鈔云『單心三時辨犯輕重。如善生經、且約殺戒、輕重八句、位分四別。』資持釋云『前科對境、此獨論心、故云單也。三時初方便時、二根本時、三成已時。且約殺者餘可準也。心念不常、前後具缺、不出八句括之斯盡。』
△事鈔續云『初一句三時俱重。謂方便舉尤害心、根本起尤快心、成已起隨喜心。』資持釋云『初句歷示三心重相。尤即訓甚、但非極甚即是輕心。然極甚難明、略須示相。但約起心、念念不間、色心躁悶不愧旁人、神思昏迷都妄善事、奔趨前境、暢悅己情。或邪見居懷撥無因果、向親姻作穢、對塔殿行非。凡此用心、皆名定業。能牽來報、縱懺不亡。以此自量、何容輕動。識心之士、豈不畏乎。』
△事鈔續云『第二三句、二重一輕。初方便根本重、成已輕。中云方便輕、根本成已重。後云方便成已重、根本輕。』
△事鈔續云『第三三句、一重二輕。初根本重、初後輕。中云方便重、中後輕。三云成已重、初中輕。』
△事鈔續云『第四一句、三時俱輕。善生、十誦中。啼哭殺父母。畏苦痛故、害父母命等是。』資持釋云『引諸經律、舉事顯相。雖懷憐愍、非無殺意。俱輕可知。』
△事鈔續云『律據人想、八業皆重。業隨心故、牽報不同。』資持釋云『若依律制則無輕重、今取心業故分八句。』
▲資持云『文中句數交絡。欲令新學易曉、為圖示之。
初有一句三時俱重────┬方便─重
├根本─重
└成已─重
第二有三句二重一輕┬初句┬方便─重
│ ├根本─重
│ └成已─輕
├中句┬方便─輕
│ ├根本─重
│ └成已─重
└後句┬方便─重
├根本─輕
└成已─重
第三有三句一重二輕┬初句┬方便─輕
│ ├根本─重
│ └成已─輕
├中句┬方便─重
│ ├根本─輕
│ └成已─輕
└後句┬方便─輕
├根本─輕
└成已─重
第四有一句三時俱輕───┬方便─輕
├根本─輕
└成已─輕
若以四位分之、上句最優、下句至劣、中二通優劣。 若約八句論之、則句句相降。中間二位各有三句、並依重輕次列、比之自見。』已上皆見事鈔記卷二十六
The Procedural Commentary says: "Assessing gravity by the mind alone across the three time-periods: as in the Sutra on the Upāsaka Precepts, taking the precept against killing as the example, there are eight combinations of gravity and lightness, sorted into four ranks."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "The preceding section paired mind against object; here the mind alone is discussed — hence 'single.' The three time-periods are: first, the preparatory stage; second, the root-stage; third, the subsequent stage. Killing is taken as the example here; the rest can be inferred by analogy. Since the state of mind is never constant, and may be present or absent, more or less intense, at each of the three points in varying combinations, no more than eight combinations exist, together exhausting every case."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "The first combination: grave throughout all three time-periods. That is, at the preparatory stage one raises an especially injurious intent; at the root-stage one gives rise to an especially gratified feeling; and at the subsequent stage one gives rise to a feeling of delighted approval."
The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first line runs through the 'grave' mark of each of the three minds. 'Especially' is glossed as 'extremely' — anything short of the truly extreme is instead the light state of mind. Yet the truly extreme is hard to pin down precisely, so a rough indication must be given: it is simply this — the mind arises thought after thought without interruption; body and mind are agitated and restless, feeling no shame before others; one's spirit is befuddled and confused, forgetting entirely what is wholesome, rushing headlong toward the object before one, indulging and delighting in one's own feeling. Or one harbors a wrong view, denying cause and effect outright, defiling even one's own relatives, or committing outrages before a stupa or shrine hall. Any use of the mind of this kind is termed 'fixed karma' — capable of drawing forth a future retribution that cannot be dissolved even by repentance. Weighing this against oneself, how could one dare act rashly? Should not anyone who truly understands the mind be filled with dread at this?"
The Procedural Commentary continues: "The second rank, of three combinations: grave in two of the three, light in one. The first: preparatory stage and root-stage grave, subsequent stage light. The second: preparatory stage light, root-stage and subsequent stage grave. The third: preparatory stage and subsequent stage grave, root-stage light."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "The third rank, of three combinations: grave in one of the three, light in two. The first: root-stage grave, preparatory and subsequent stages light. The second: preparatory stage grave, root-stage and subsequent stage light. The third: subsequent stage grave, preparatory and root-stage light."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "The fourth rank, of one combination: light throughout all three time-periods. As in the Sutra on the Upāsaka Precepts and the Ten Recitations Vinaya: a child weeping as it kills its own parent, fearing the parent's pain and suffering, and so ending the parent's life out of that motive — this is such a case." The Zichi Commentary explains: "Citing various sutras and Vinaya texts, a concrete case is raised to display the pattern. Though one may harbor pity, this is not without some intent to kill — hence it can be understood to be light throughout."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "The Vinaya, judging strictly by the perception of the person as a person, treats all eight of these cases as equally grave; but because karma follows the mind, the retribution drawn forth differs among them." The Zichi Commentary explains: "If one follows the Vinaya's formal regulation, there is no distinction of gravity at all; the present division is instead drawn strictly in terms of the karma of the mind."
The Zichi Commentary says: "The sentence-count in this passage interweaves in a complex way; to make it easy for new students to grasp, it is here presented in diagram form. ... If divided by the four ranks, the first rank is the most grave and the fourth the very lightest, while the middle two ranks each cover both grave and light cases. If considered strictly in terms of the eight individual combinations, each is graded one step below the last; the two middle ranks each contain three combinations, listed according to their relative gravity and lightness — comparing them side by side makes this self-evident." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 26.]
| Rank | Preparatory stage | Root-stage | Subsequent stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (one combination — most grave) | grave | grave | grave |
| 2 (three combinations) | grave | grave | light |
| light | grave | grave | |
| grave | light | grave | |
| 3 (three combinations) | light | grave | light |
| grave | light | light | |
| light | light | grave | |
| 4 (one combination — lightest) | light | light | light |
The guide reads the "three-time-periods-grave" first rank as this section's most sobering claim: an act carried through with an "especially injurious," "especially gratified," and "delightedly approving" mind at every stage is classed as "fixed karma" — a retribution so firmly set that it "cannot be dissolved even by repentance." This is the general Buddhist teaching of fixed, unchangeable karma landing squarely inside the persccrit apparatus of this gate.
The guide also draws attention to the deliberately sympathetic edge case that closes the list: a child who, weeping, ends a suffering parent's life purely to spare them pain is still classed as "light throughout" rather than exempted outright — the Zichi Commentary's own comment is unsentimental: "though one may harbor pity, this is not without some intent to kill." Compassion mitigates; it does not erase. The guide also flags the closing distinction between the Vinaya's own formal ruling — which, going strictly by "person-perceived-as-person," judges all eight combinations equally grave — and this section's separate, finer-grained karmic analysis, which exists specifically to explain why, even under an identical formal verdict, the actual retribution drawn forth still differs from case to case.
16. Milestone: Presence or Absence of Mind — The Four Grave Precepts across the Same Three Stages
The chapter's final section runs the same three-stage framework once more, but now asks a cruder, binary question at each stage — was any violating mind present at all, or not? — and applies the resulting eight combinations specifically to the four grave "nature" precepts: sexual misconduct, theft, killing, and false speech. Unlike the previous section's psychological, transformative-teaching register, this one is explicitly framed in terms of the regulatory teaching, and closes the chapter — and this half of the gate — on a note about why even a combination that incurs no offense at all still counts, in a meaningful sense, as violation.
▲事鈔云『有心無心相對八句、四位如前。』資持釋云『有心通含輕重、無心與前為。歷句並同。』
已下且約性重四戒顯相、餘可準也。
△事鈔續云『初一句。三時有心。』
△事鈔續云『次三句。一、初中有心、後則無心、犯四重。二、初則無心、中後有心、亦犯四重。三、初後有心、中間無心、犯初重、下三戒中罪下罪。』
△事鈔續云『後三句。一、中間有心、初後無心、犯四重。二、初便有心、中後無心、犯初重、餘三戒或中罪下罪。三、後便有心、上二無心、婬戒犯重以出時樂故、若餘三犯下罪。』
△事鈔續云『次一句。三時無心不犯。』
▲資持云『
初有一句三時俱有心───┬方便─有心┐
├根本─有心├四戒俱重
└成已─有心┘
第二有三句二有一無┬初句┬方便─有心┐
│ ├根本─有心├四戒俱重
│ └成已─無心┘
├中句┬方便─無心┐
│ ├根本─有心├四戒俱重
│ └成已─有心┘
└後句┬方便─有心┐┌初戒重
├根本─無心├┤
└成已─有心┘└餘三戒方便中罪成已下罪
第三有三句一有二無┬初句┬方便─無心┐
│ ├根本─有心├四戒俱重
│ └成已─無心┘
├中句┬方便─有心┐┌初戒重
│ ├根本─無心├┤
│ └成已─無心┘└餘三戒方便中罪成下罪
└後句┬方便─無心┐┌初戒重
├根本─無心├┤
└成已─有心┘└餘三戒已成下罪
第四有一句三時俱無心──┬方便─無心┌初戒怨逼禁心無罪
├根本─無心┤
└成已─無心└餘三戒始終迷忘無罪
優劣之義亦如上明。若八句相望者、但以第二位中後句在下、第三位中初句在上、則次第義便。 問、下句無罪、豈名犯劣。答、但望教開故無有罪、非不造事故入犯中。』
▲事鈔云『後之八句由心有無故犯不犯別、不同前八莫不有心。』資持釋云『料簡中、初簡前單心。可解。應知前約化業、此據制教。』
△事鈔續云『後明無心者。或無心受樂。及殺盜等、心或狂亂不覺者。』資持釋云『二重示無心二、初牒前。對上輕重故云後明。或可別點第四俱無。或下示相、初句別簡婬戒。此門明婬、並據怨逼三時有無。若約自造、境合即犯、不約三時、境想不開、無心亦重、故非所論及下合示三戒。通約迷心不了前境。以復婬戒、於三時中、隨有一時無非皆重、俱無方開。餘之三戒、重輕不定。初有餘無、或中罪或下罪、並方便故。中有餘無皆重、並根本故。後有餘無皆下罪、並隨喜故。』已上皆見事鈔記卷二十六
上來持犯總義中第四章辨犯優劣竟
The Procedural Commentary says: "Setting presence-of-mind against absence-of-mind across the three time-periods likewise yields eight combinations, sorted into the same four ranks as before." The Zichi Commentary explains: "Presence-of-mind here generally covers both the grave and the light cases discussed above; absence-of-mind stands opposite to what came before. Running through the individual combinations, the pattern is entirely the same as the single-mind scheme."
What follows displays the pattern strictly in terms of the four grave "nature" precepts; the rest can be inferred by analogy.
The Procedural Commentary continues: "The first combination: mind present throughout all three time-periods."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "The next three combinations. First: mind present at the preparatory and root stages, absent at the subsequent stage — all four grave precepts are violated as grave. Second: mind absent at the preparatory stage, present at the root and subsequent stages — likewise all four grave precepts are violated as grave. Third: mind present at the preparatory and subsequent stages, absent at the root-stage — the first precept is violated as grave, while the remaining three precepts incur a middle-grade or lower-grade offense."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "The last three combinations. First: mind present only at the root-stage, absent at the preparatory and subsequent stages — all four grave precepts are violated as grave. Second: mind present only at the preparatory stage, absent at the root and subsequent stages — the first precept is violated as grave, the remaining three incur either a middle-grade or a lower-grade offense. Third: mind present only at the subsequent stage, absent at the preceding two — the precept against sexual misconduct is still violated as grave, because pleasure was felt at the moment of withdrawal; the remaining three precepts incur a lower-grade offense."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "The final combination: mind absent throughout all three time-periods — no violation is incurred."
The Zichi Commentary says: "... The sense of gravity and lightness here is likewise as explained above. If the eight combinations are compared against each other, one need only place the third combination of the second rank at the bottom, and the first combination of the third rank at the top, for the sequence to run in proper order. Question: if the lowest combination incurs no offense at all, how can it still be called violation, however light? Answer: it is simply that, with reference to the exemption granted by the regulatory teaching, there happens to be no offense in that particular case — it is not that no act was actually committed, and so it is still included within the category of violation."
The Procedural Commentary says: "In this latter set of eight combinations, whether a violation occurs or not is determined by the presence or absence of mind — unlike the earlier set of eight, where mind was, in every case, invariably present." The Zichi Commentary explains: "In this analytical passage, the first point distinguishes this scheme from the earlier single-mind scheme, which can be readily understood. One should recognize that the earlier scheme was framed in terms of transformative karma, while this present scheme is based on the regulatory teaching."
The Procedural Commentary continues: "Next, clarifying the case of absence-of-mind: this refers either to feeling no pleasure at all [in a case of sexual misconduct], or, in the case of killing, theft, and the like, to the mind being deranged or altogether unaware." The Zichi Commentary explains: "A second, more detailed presentation of 'absence of mind' follows, in two parts. The first cites what came before, since it stands opposite the grave-and-light single-mind scheme discussed above — hence 'next, clarifying.' (This may instead specifically mark out the fourth, wholly-absent combination.) From 'or' onward the pattern is shown: the first line specifically singles out the precept against sexual misconduct. This section, in clarifying that precept, is discussed entirely in terms of a case of coercion [by another party], with presence or absence of mind considered across the three time-periods; if the act is instead self-initiated, a violation is incurred as soon as the object is engaged regardless — the three time-periods are not even considered, and no exemption is granted by way of object-perception, so absence of mind is still judged grave in that case, and is therefore not under discussion here. What follows jointly displays the pattern for the remaining three precepts, considered generally in terms of a confused mind failing to recognize the object correctly. Returning to the precept against sexual misconduct: across the three time-periods, if mind is present at even a single one of them, the offense is, in every case, grave without exception — only where it is absent throughout all three is an exemption granted. For the remaining three precepts, gravity and lightness are not fixed: where mind is present at the first stage and absent at the rest, the offense is either middle-grade or lower-grade, since this pertains generally to the preparatory stage; where mind is present at the middle stage and absent at the rest, the offense is grave throughout, since this pertains to the root-stage; where mind is present only at the last stage and absent at the rest, the offense is lower-grade throughout, since this pertains merely to delighted approval after the fact." [Zichi Commentary, fasc. 26.]
[The above concludes Chapter Four, "Weighing How Serious a Violation Is," within the General Theory of Observance and Violation.]
| Combination | Preparatory | Root-stage | Subsequent | Result across the four grave precepts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | mind present | mind present | mind present | all four grave |
| 2 | present | present | absent | all four grave |
| 3 | absent | present | present | all four grave |
| 4 | present | absent | present | sexual misconduct grave; other three, middle- or lower-grade |
| 5 | absent | present | absent | all four grave |
| 6 | present | absent | absent | sexual misconduct grave; other three, middle- or lower-grade |
| 7 | absent | absent | present | sexual misconduct grave (pleasure felt at withdrawal); other three, lower-grade |
| 8 | absent | absent | absent | no violation |
The guide is careful to distinguish this final section's register from the previous one: the single-mind scheme of the previous section belonged to the transformative teaching, grading intensity of intention on a sliding scale; this presence-or-absence scheme belongs instead to the regulatory teaching, asking a cruder yes-or-no question at each of the three stages, and it is explicitly restricted to the four grave "nature" precepts. The sexual-misconduct case gets its own special rule throughout, framed here strictly around coercion: if mind is present at even one of the three stages, the offense is grave without exception, and — strikingly — even a case where mind is absent at the preparatory and root stages still counts as grave "because pleasure was felt at the moment of withdrawal." Only total absence of mind across all three stages earns the exemption, and, the guide notes, that rule holds only for the coercion scenario being discussed; a self-initiated act of sexual misconduct is grave the instant the object is engaged, with no three-stage analysis or object-perception exemption available at all.
The guide singles out the closing question-and-answer as this gate's own quiet clarification of what "violation" actually means as a category: even the eighth combination, which the regulatory teaching formally exempts from any penalty, is still called a "violation" in the broader sense, because an act was genuinely committed — the exemption concerns only whether a penalty is imposed, not whether wrongdoing, in the fullest sense, actually occurred. This closes Chapter Four, and with it, the first half of this gate; Part Two takes up the preparatory stage and its fruit, deficient conditions, the object-perception formulas, and the special points reserved for the four grave precepts.
上來持犯總義中第四章辨犯優劣竟 — "The above concludes Chapter Four, 'Weighing How Serious a Violation Is,' within the General Theory of Observance and Violation." The source text for this half of the gate ends here, at the natural boundary between Chapter Four and Chapter Five; Part Two continues directly with Chapter Five, "The Preparatory Stage and the Fruit It Leads To."