The Grammar of Keeping and Breaking, Part Two: From the Anatomy of an Offense to the Rebuke of Its Despisers

The Procedural Commentary says: "Now, whenever one carries out an act with respect to the object confronted, there are necessarily three periods involved. It is for precisely this reason that the Great Sage legislated according to these periods, his intent being to make the wise resolve firmly and simply not act at all." The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part shows the three periods — namely, the preparatory stage, the root-stage, and the stage of completion. What follows reveals the intent behind the regulation: here 'resolve' (剋) is used in the sense of 'restrain.'" [Zichi Commentary, fascicle 27]

Preparatory Stage and the Consummated Fruit divides into three sections: (1) prior preparation, (2) the root-stage, (3) subsequent preparation.

Section One: Prior Preparation. The Zichi Commentary says: "Taken together, the three preparatory stages, considered in relation to the root-stage that follows them, are all alike called 'prior.'"

The Procedural Commentary says: "Let us explain this now by reference to the precept against unchastity. When lustful intent has arisen within the mind but body and speech have not yet manifested it, this is called the distant preparatory stage; this incurs a lower-grade offense. When body and speech have already moved but the object has not yet been reached, this is called the next preparatory stage; this incurs a middle-grade offense. When one has actually arrived at the site of the object and bodily contact has begun, but the point of consummation has not yet been reached, this is called the near preparatory stage; this is a middle-grade offense of the graver sort."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "Below this point, although the relative weights differ somewhat from case to case, the general pattern can be inferred from this model." [Both passages from Zichi Commentary, fascicle 27]

All three preparatory stages apply to the upper-grade offenses; the pattern may be inferred from the case just given. For offenses that stand alone at the middle or lower grade, following the various commentaries, only a distant and a near preparatory stage are distinguished — the distant stage being the same as above, while the next and near stages are merged together under the single name "near preparatory stage," both uniformly resulting in a lower-grade offense, with no further distinction drawn between them.

The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "As for the term 'preparatory stage' (方便): this is the general name for whatever is en route to the fruit. Before the karmic act is completed, if the various conditions it depends on fall short or drop away, then this offense remains blocked and lodged at the preparatory stage." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The first part shows the name; what follows explains its meaning." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Section Two: The Root-Stage. The Procedural Commentary says: "What is the mark of the root-stage itself? Penetration to the depth of a single hair's breadth is called consummated unchastity; lifting the object clear of its original place is called consummated theft; severing the life-faculty is called consummated killing; and speech fully understood by the hearer is called consummated false speech. At the moment the offense is settled, our school gathers up the prior cause together into the single resulting fruit; it is not like other schools, in which, once the cause has already become the fruit, there remains some further, separate preparatory stage belonging to the original moment." The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part clarifies the mark of the root-stage under two heads: the first sentence poses the question generally; what follows answers it point by point. What follows that clarifies how the prior cause is gathered up to form the fruit, distinguishing this from other schools so that no confusion arises." [Zichi Commentary, fascicle 27]

Section Three: Subsequent Preparation. The Procedural Commentary says: "What is meant by 'subsequent preparatory stage'? It means that once the deed accomplished has fully satisfied one's intent, and one's earlier mind gives rise to gladness over it without any thought of repentance — this itself constitutes a further offense, and, uniformly, only a lower-grade offense results." The Zichi Commentary explains: "Regardless of whether the original offense was heavy or light, this subsequent stage is uniformly assigned only a lower-grade offense — hence the word 'uniformly.' This is the reverse of the prior preparatory stage, where two or three grades of severity differ, since there middle-grade and lower-grade offenses are distinguished." [Zichi Commentary, fascicle 27]

Chapter Six: Deficient Conditions and What Fails to Complete an Offense. This chapter divides into two sections: (1) showing the mark [of each condition], (2) weighing them together.

Section One: Showing the Mark. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "The preparatory-stage offenses arising from deficient conditions take many forms depending on the particular circumstance. Taking the matter in outline, they may be divided into seven kinds, namely from 'deficient conditions' through to 'the cessation of the [violating] mind through a good thought.'" [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Showing the mark divides into seven items: (1) deficient conditions, (2) an object too strong, (3) circumstantial divergence, (4) object divergence, (5) perception divergence, (6) doubting mind, (7) cessation through a good mind.

Item One: Deficient Conditions. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "First, concerning 'deficient conditions' in general, there are, broadly speaking, three explanations. First, as a general name: since all seven of the preparatory-stage categories share the feature of falling short and failing to reach the fruit, and all come about through some condition being deficient — how could this not count as the general sense?"

The Commentary continues: "Second, as a specific name: each individual precept has its own particular deficient condition beneath it; one cannot, for instance, use theft to exempt the precept against killing, since these do not carry over from one to another — hence this sense is called 'specific.'" The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The first two senses above discuss the matter broadly, gathering in everything at once; the third sense, below, is what properly identifies the first of the seven conditions." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

The Commentary continues: "Third, 'both general and specific at once' — what does this mean? Whoever commits any violation must, at that moment, still possess the essential status of an upāsaka. Suppose the offense has been undertaken but not yet completed as a fruit: perhaps the person's own life comes to an end, or the precepts are relinquished, or a wrong view arises, or the person's sex physically changes, and so on; or perhaps illness, madness, or derangement intervenes. Whenever either kind of condition is present, the act cannot be called a completed violation — both nonetheless still count as contributing to the cause, since it has not yet reached the fruit; hence this is called 'deficiency in the condition of being an upāsaka.' Considered in relation to the six other, specific conditions, this condition is, toward every precept alike, general — and that is why it carries both names at once." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "What follows, beginning 'whoever,' shows the mark of this condition under three headings: the first names the condition itself; the second clarifies the mark of its deficiency — 'the offense not yet completed as a fruit' is precisely the sense of 'preparatory stage.' The marks listed are of two kinds: first, the four ways the very essence of upāsaka-hood is relinquished or destroyed so that no precept-body remains; second, illness, madness and the like, where the person is simply incapable of understanding what is happening. What follows draws the threefold conclusion. One might ask: can the six other conditions discussed below be understood along the same lines? Answer: yes, since, considered in relation to one another, they are each specific, while, considered in relation to the precept as a whole, they are general — only the case of 'an object too strong' need not always carry over this way." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Item Two: An Object Too Strong to Overcome. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Second is 'an object too strong to overcome': as when, wishing to carry out a killing, the intended object instead proves too strong, and turns to attack and harm the assailant instead. This divergence blocks the intended course of action, so that it remains lodged, still at the stage of cause — hence it is called a preparatory-stage offense. The object's being too strong is not itself the middle-grade offense; rather, the middle-grade offense arises on account of that strength. The remaining upper- and lower-grade cases may be explained by the same pattern." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Question: object divergence, discussed below, also involves an object too strong to overcome — how does this differ from the present case? Answer: the present case concerns the strength of the original object itself, while the case below concerns the strength of a substituted object — hence the two are not the same." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Item Three: Circumstantial Divergence. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Third is the preparatory-stage offense of circumstantial divergence: as when, intending to kill or to steal, one goes to the place and encounters some other, unexpected person; or fears that the matter will be discovered; or one's knife or weapon is damaged or lost; or the appointed occasion simply fails to come about. All of these together are called 'circumstantial divergence.' In its general sense, this name could apply to all seven conditions alike; but taken according to its own specific mark, it belongs properly only to this third category." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The first part lists four marks: encountering someone other than expected; fearing discovery; the killing implement being deficient; and failing to actually see the intended object. As a name it applies broadly to all seven conditions, but its specific mark is confined to these four situations." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Item Four: Object Divergence. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Fourth is object divergence, which occurs, in principle, with every precept. Taking the grave precept against killing as the primary example, there are four kinds of object that may substitute for the intended one: a human being, a non-human being, an animal, and an inanimate stump or piece of wood." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "A human is of the same kind as the intended victim; a non-human or animal is of a different destiny; a stump or piece of wood is simply without sentience." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Object divergence divides into two branches: (1) clarifying a divergent human object, (2) clarifying every other kind of divergent object. Clarifying a divergent human object divides into three groups: (1) direct explanation, (2) question and answer, (3) a fuller reference.

Group One: Direct Explanation.

The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "For instance, wishing to kill a person, one fixes focused intent on 'Zhang'; but 'Wang,' a different human object, comes to take Zhang's place. Since one takes Wang for Zhang, and, considered simply as 'a human being,' there is no difference — this consummates as the graver offense. But because a divergent object intervened, Zhang the intended person does not die, and the intention to kill him has itself now ceased — this remains lodged at the preparatory stage; hence it is called 'object divergence.'" The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The two conclusions: with respect to the divergent object [Wang] — a completed grave offense; with respect to the original object [Zhang] — a middle-grade offense, termed the preparatory-stage offense of deficient conditions." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Group Two: Question and Answer. This divides into two threads: (1) does divergence toward the object mean no intent at all?, (2) a difficulty about the relation between cause and effect.

Thread One. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Question: at the moment one actually kills Wang, one is only construing him as Zhang, with no intent at all toward Wang — how can this consummate as the graver offense? Answer: 'Zhang' and 'Wang' as such are not what the offense actually turns on; it is 'human being' that is the object of the killing. Although there is no intent specifically toward Wang, there is nonetheless the perception 'a human being' — and since the conditions constituting the offense of killing are thereby all present, how could this fail to be the graver offense? This is exactly why the Vinaya states: perceiving a male, one kills a female — the Buddha declared this too an upper-grade offense. The present case may be understood on the same pattern." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "'Zhang' and 'Wang' are particular individuals, but 'human being' is the shared category; here the offense is settled according to the shared category, and so it consummates as the graver offense." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Following the Commentary's text above, it would appear that, for the precept against killing, focused intent is never exempted where a divergent human object is involved. But according to the later chapter distinguishing nature-offenses in detail, in the section on misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief, misapprehension-in-the-moment is exempted while mistaken-belief still constitutes a violation.

Thread Two. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Question: if the graver offense against Wang is consummated by taking over the cause originally directed at Zhang, does this mean there remains, considered from Zhang's side, some separate preparatory-stage offense at all?" The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The implication being that once the cause has become the fruit, the original cause should simply vanish, leaving no preparatory-stage offense behind. The older masters held differing interpretations on this point, hence the question is raised to settle it."

The Commentary continues: "The explanation is this: Zhang and Wang are distinct as names, but as objects belonging to 'human being' they are not different; the graver fruit occupies the same status, and the lesser cause is equivalent. Hence the cause originally directed at Zhang is taken over to consummate the graver offense against Wang — just as in the root Vinaya text, where a cause aimed at exceeding five coins is listed as consummating the graver, five-coin offense." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "In the Vinaya's precept against theft there are four formulas: (1) seeking more than five through preparatory action and obtaining more than five — upper-grade; (2) seeking more than five but obtaining exactly five — upper-grade; (3) seeking more than five but obtaining less than five — middle-grade; (4) seeking more than five but obtaining nothing — middle-grade. The present citation invokes the second, where preparatory action aimed at 'more than five' nonetheless consummates the five-coin fruit — cause and fruit two distinct things, yet one taken over to consummate the other, a parallel for the present case."

The Commentary continues: "Question: if the cause originally directed at Zhang is indeed taken over to consummate the fruit against Wang, then the 'object divergence' preparatory offense originally posited for Zhang simply disappears — since now the cause has become the fruit, there is, after all, no object divergence at all." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "A refutation: since the cause is taken over to consummate the fruit, and once the fruit is consummated the cause is extinguished, 'object divergence' cannot be established — hence the older interpretation is mistaken."

The Commentary continues: "The correct explanation is this: although Zhang and Wang belong to the same destiny, 'human being,' their physical forms are distinct, and the cause is not simply taken over to consummate the fruit. Up until the moment of actual contact with Wang, what has occurred still belongs to the cause originally directed at Zhang; but once one turns toward Wang, a separate preparatory act arises anew, and it is this cause specifically directed at Wang that is taken over to consummate the actual graver fruit. The cause originally directed at Zhang remains lodged at the preparatory stage; and it is this preparatory offense that is properly called 'object divergence with respect to Wang.'"

The Commentary continues: "Question: if the cause directed at Zhang is not taken over to consummate the fruit against Wang, then why does the Vinaya take a cause aimed at 'more than five' as consummating the graver, five-coin fruit? Answer: in that case, both amounts alike diminish the same single owner, and the intent was present from the outset — hence the one may be taken over to consummate the other. But Zhang and Wang are altogether distinct individuals; how could the two cases be treated as parallel?" The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The answer shows that the object there is genuinely one and the same — from which the present point may be understood." [All of the above from Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Group Three: A Fuller Reference. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "The masters of former generations, with respect to a divergent human object, established further distinctions still. Taken together they list six conditions, adding doubt and settled perception in the middle to divide out multiple formulas. As to the matters of fact, the underlying principle, the object, and the mind involved — this approach is not without its own real value." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The six conditions are: (1) the victim is human, (2) perceived as human, (3) intent to kill arises, (4) the means is undertaken, (5) life is cut off — with doubt-or-perception added as a sixth, since killing itself needs only five conditions, hence 'added in the middle.' Following Zhishou's commentary, each of the three destinies [human, non-human, animal] has five formulas; a stump, being without sentience, has no 'too strong' case and so only three — eighteen formulas in all. The text speaks only of a divergent human object, but once actual formulas are constructed, all four kinds of object are involved; they are set out here in full."

Zhishou's commentary is the twenty-fascicle vinaya commentary composed by the Sui-dynasty vinaya master Zhishou, whom Nanshan himself studied under.

The Commentary concludes: "'Matters of fact' refers to the formal offense; 'underlying principle' refers to the path of karma — both the preparatory and the consummated stage involve these two kinds of karmic act together. 'Object' refers to the four kinds just listed; 'mind' refers to settled perception or doubt." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

The Commentary's fourth position above, speaking of "killing or deceiving Zhang," is explained in full detail in the later chapter on nature-offenses in detail, in the section on misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief.

Branch Two: Every Other Kind of Divergent Object. This divides into two groups: (1) a general statement, (2) resolving difficulties.

Group One: General Statement. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "As for the remaining cases where a non-human, an animal, or a stump comes to serve as the divergent object: considered generally, since the original human object does not die, this is a middle-grade offense; but considered with respect to the divergent object itself, since there is no intent toward it at all, there is no offense." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Group Two: Resolving Difficulties. This divides into two threads: (1) resolving a difficulty about the human-substitute case, (2) resolving a difficulty from the Vinaya's own object-perception formula.

Thread One. The Commentary says: "Question: in the case of Wang substituting as a human divergent object, there is likewise no intent toward Wang specifically — why does this consummate as the graver offense? Answer: one kills while perceiving 'a human being,' so that object and mind correspond — this is exactly why it consummates as the graver offense. In the non-human, animal, and stump cases, no perception of 'non-human' ever arose at all — hence no offense results there." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Since the remaining three kinds of object belong to an entirely different category from human, they cannot be treated as parallel." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Thread Two. The Commentary says: "Question: if there is no offense, then why does the Vinaya rule that 'a non-human perceived as a human' is a middle-grade offense?" The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The Vinaya passage cited is the fourth of the object-perception formulas for the precept against killing."

This passage continues directly from the preceding thread; hence it first restates the earlier text before raising the further difficulty. The six passages of commentary that follow contain three distinct interpretations in all: the first two are older interpretations, the third is Nanshan's own final position. Of the six passages, the first presents one earlier master's view; the second, third, and fourth present a second master's view before Nanshan refutes it; the fifth and sixth first refute the earlier masters and then set out Nanshan's own correct explanation in full. Because the argument is dense and closely reasoned, its overall shape is sketched here first, so the reader may follow it more easily.

The Commentary continues: "Answer: this is a case of the preparatory-stage offense of object divergence. Because a non-human came in place of the intended object, and the perception 'a human being' was never relinquished, the intent to kill Zhang was fully formed even though the object diverged. Considered from the standpoint of the preparatory act toward Zhang, it is middle-grade; considered from the standpoint of the non-human itself, there is fundamentally no offense at all. As for the objection that killing a non-human under the complete five conditions is only a middle-grade offense — how, then, could a mere cause already amount to a middle-grade preparatory offense? — this reasoning does not hold." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "This cites another master's interpretation, based on the original object: that master held the Vinaya's middle-grade ruling refers back to the original object, not to the non-human. [His five conditions for killing a non-human: (1) the victim is non-human, (2) perceived as non-human, (3) intent to kill arises, (4) the means is undertaken, (5) life is cut off — since the resultant fruit-offense there is itself only middle-grade, a mere cause could not already carry that same weight.] This shows that the Vinaya's middle-grade ruling does not, after all, refer to the non-human — refuting the other interpretation." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

The Commentary continues: "Someone says: among the perception and doubt cases established above, where perception is fully settled, a human divergent object consummates as the graver offense, while in the remaining cases there is no intent toward the substitute at all, and the offense belongs only to the original object. Doubt, however, is not like this: since it draws on both objects at once, an offense is settled with respect to both objects together, doubled." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "In speaking of 'two offenses,' he means a middle-grade preparatory offense with respect to the original object, together with either an upper-grade offense in the human-divergent case, or a middle-grade doubting-mind offense in the remaining three."

The Commentary continues: "The correct explanation is not so. The Vinaya's object-perception formula lists only the original object; even though any of the four kinds of divergent object may come to substitute for it, whether through the object's strength or through doubt, all are entered under the original object alone. How can this be shown? An animal is a lesser fault, and a stump generates no offense at all — how could their substitution both result in a middle-grade offense if credited to the substitute rather than the original? Is this not proof that it must be settled with respect to the human, taken as the original object?" The Xingzong Commentary explains: "This is still the older interpretation, restated here only to be refuted by what follows — the truly final position comes only in the next passage."

The Commentary continues: "Question: when the divergent object itself proves too strong, to which case does the resulting preparatory offense belong? Answer: even where the divergent object is too strong, the perception still holds to the original object — hence we know this 'too strong' case is not settled with respect to the divergent object. On this basis, whether doubt or settled perception is involved, there is never an offense with respect to the divergent object itself. The earlier discussion of 'an object too strong' concerned the strength of the original object; the present discussion concerns the strength of a divergent object — one must recognize these as two distinct cases."

The Commentary continues: "Question: if the divergent object proves too strong and this thwarts me from killing it, while 'strong' pertains to the original object and the divergent object incurs no offense — suppose instead the divergent object proves suddenly weak, and I do kill it. Before the killing occurs, to whom does the preparatory offense belong? If, upon perceiving the divergent object, a separate preparatory act arises, then the preparatory offense toward the original object stands as an independent thing. But if no separate preparatory act arises at all, then the divergent object's fruit-offense absorbs everything and the cause simply reverts to the original object — and on this view there would be no 'object divergence' at all!"

The Commentary continues: "Now the correct explanation is made clear. The original object, in every case, is uniformly a middle-grade offense. As for a divergent human object — whether too strong or doubted — since the intent to kill is present throughout, a middle-grade offense is settled with respect to the original object. For a non-human or animal, the same pattern applies: since the perception 'a human being' is still held throughout, the 'too strong' case is credited entirely to the original object, and the substitute itself incurs no offense at all; but where doubt is also involved, an offense arises with respect to both — a middle-grade offense as to the original object's doubt, and a lower-grade offense as to the non-human or animal's doubt. For a stump, the offense is likewise settled entirely with respect to the original object, since a stump does not constitute a condition capable of generating any offense at all." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The earlier master confined the matter strictly to the original object; a second master held that wherever doubt is present, the divergent object is always middle-grade, without distinguishing degrees. Compared against these, the judgment given here is textually and logically the most thorough and precise." [All of the above from Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Item Five: Perception Divergence. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Fifth, the preparatory offense of perception divergence: its sense lays out in eight positions. (1) Mind diverges from object, a preparatory offense — as in 'a human perceived as non-human.' (2) Object diverges from mind, a preparatory offense — as in 'a non-human perceived as human.' (3) Mind diverges from object, yet consummates fully — as with unchastity or drinking wine, where, so long as it is the actual forbidden object, doubt or misperception makes no difference. (4) Object diverges from mind, yet consummates fully — as when Zhang departs and Wang comes in his place, and one takes Wang for Zhang; whether the act is deception or killing, both are fully consummated. (5) Mind and object diverge together, resulting only in a preparatory offense. (6) This same mutual divergence instead results in full consummation — worked out by reflecting on the case. (7) Mind and object do not diverge, yet only a preparatory offense results — as in drawing a Buddha's blood, or 'an object too strong, a circumstance diverging.' (8) Mind and object do not diverge, and full consummation results — this is the case with every ordinary precept." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Positions one and three are, in full, perception divergence; five and six combine mind- and object-divergence together — this section properly gathers in only these four. Positions two and four belong to object divergence; seven and eight are simply the first formula of the object-perception system — included here only because the pattern naturally follows on, making eight in all. As for 'reflecting on the case' in five and six: in five, wishing to kill Zhang, Wang comes to take his place — object divergence; if the mind then also shifts to 'non-human,' this is perception divergence too, resulting in a mere preparatory offense. In six, the same substitution occurs, but the mind instead forms the perception 'Li' [a third identity] — this still results in full consummation."

The Commentary's fourth position, "killing or deceiving Zhang," is explained in full detail in the section on misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief within the chapter distinguishing nature-offenses in detail.

The Commentary continues: "Within this matter of perception, some cases shift from lighter to heavier — as when one begins to kill or steal from an animal, and perception then shifts to 'a human being' partway through. Some shift from heavier to lighter — simply the reverse. And some involve mutual shifting — as with unchastity or drinking wine, where, the object being the genuine forbidden one throughout, whether perception or doubt happens to arise makes no difference; full consummation results regardless." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Killing or stealing from an animal is only a preparatory offense; shifting to 'human' makes both middle-grade. Killing or stealing a human, shifting to 'non-human,' results only in a lower-grade offense afterward — hence 'the reverse.' Mutual shifting is, in every instance, the graver offense: as in unchastity, perceiving 'not the path' and then 'the path,' or the reverse — there is no case that fails to reach the full offense." [All of the above from Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Item Six: The Doubting Mind. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Sixth, the preparatory offense of a doubting mind: laid out relationally, its sense fills eight positions. Doubt in oneself, resulting in a preparatory offense — doubt over 'human or non-human.' Another's doubt about oneself, resulting in a preparatory offense — as when one's body displays the outward appearance of false speech, but the other's doubt is never resolved. Another's doubt about oneself, resulting in full consummation. One's own doubt about another, resulting in full consummation — as in the karmic act of speech, where, so long as the utterance is fully understood, it makes no difference whether doubt was present in oneself or the other." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The first is simply the second formula within the object-perception system. One might ask how this differs from the doubting-mind case already discussed under object divergence — the earlier case concerned a divergent object, the present case concerns the original object itself. The remaining three positions are matched against the precept of false speech."

The Commentary continues: "The four positions above involve doubt in a single party alone. Now consider doubt in both parties at once. Where both oneself and the other are in doubt, a preparatory offense results — as when body and speech act jointly. Full consummation results instead when the false statement is actually understood. Where neither party is in any doubt at all, a preparatory offense still results — as in drawing blood from a Buddha. Full consummation results, in this case, with every ordinary precept." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The last four are paired-doubt formulas; the first two are likewise matched against false speech, differing from the earlier set only in that both parties' doubt is present at once." [All of the above from Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Item Seven: Cessation Through a Good Mind. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Seventh, the preparatory offense of a mind that of itself changes course at the critical juncture: as when, intending to carry out an offense, body and speech have already set out but have not yet drawn near to consummation, and a good thought suddenly arises and halts the deed already underway — the act remains blocked and unable to proceed, and so remains lodged only at the preparatory stage." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "'Suddenly arises' may come about through another's exhortation, through encountering some superior condition, through recollecting the Buddha's precepts, or through fear of karmic cause and effect. Were it not for causes of this kind, how could a good mind ever arise at all? — what occupies the earlier stage remains the middle-grade offense of the prior mind."

The Commentary continues: "Question: this is simply a good mind arising — why is it spoken of here as a 'cessation'? Answer: your question is indeed apt. Had this good mind not arisen, the evil deed would certainly have proceeded to its fruit. It is precisely because this good mind is able to bring the evil intention to a halt that the point at which it is halted is called a preparatory-stage offense. Consider also the Vinaya text: one who relinquishes the precepts partway through an offense incurs a middle-grade offense, but at the very moment of relinquishing, there is no offense at all — precisely because relinquishing is possible, the earlier evil never reaches its later fruit, hence the earlier cause itself is called a preparatory-stage offense." [All of the above from Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Section Two: Weighing Together. The Xingzong Commentary says: "'Weighing together' means gathering up and sorting through all seven of the preceding positions as a whole."

The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "First, comparing acting on the object oneself in person against merely setting up a device, to clarify how many preparatory offenses apply: acting on the object oneself in person, all seven are possible. Merely setting a device in place at a distance — since one is not present in person, perception divergence and doubting mind are necessarily absent, and only five of the seven are possible." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Perception divergence and doubting mind necessarily depend on actually reaching the object in person, and cannot possibly apply to something merely set up and left to work at a distance."

The Commentary continues: "Distinguishing divergence under targeted intent, the range of possible divergent objects is broad, since the original object was fixed on Zhang, and Wang, a non-human, an animal, or a stump may each come to diverge from it. Distinguishing divergence under diffuse intent, the range is narrow, since diffuse intent already extends across all three destinies and treats any object equally — only a stump marks out any distinction at all." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Wang, a non-human, an animal, and a stump make four possible divergent objects under targeted intent — the broader case. A stump under diffuse intent is the lighter case, since, being without sentience, it generates no fault beyond a mere preparatory offense — the narrower case."

The Commentary continues: "Second, distinguishing by mind versus by object: object divergence, an object too strong, and circumstantial divergence are all discussed with reference to the object confronted; deficiency in the upāsaka condition, perception divergence, doubting mind, and cessation through a good mind are all distinguished with reference to one's own mind." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Three of the seven belong to the category of object, and four belong to the category of mind." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 4]

Chapter Seven: Distinguishing the Object-Perception Formulas. This chapter divides into five sections: (1) clarifying the intent of the regulation, (2) clarifying presence or absence, (3) fixing four or five formulas, (4) four and five interchanging, (5) gravity.

Section One: Clarifying the Intent of the Regulation. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "First, clarifying the intent behind this regulation: without the object-perception formulas, there would be no way to fix the relative gravity of an offense." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "This is because the mind may be correct or mistaken, and the object may be misapprehended or wrongly believed. For unchastity and drinking wine, the first three formulas are graver and the last two lighter. For the remaining precepts, the first formula, where mind and object correspond exactly, is graver, while the last four, where they diverge, are lighter." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 6]

Section Two: Clarifying Presence or Absence. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Second, clarifying presence or absence: measured against the Vinaya's treatment of the various precepts, an object-perception formula is not necessarily present in every case. My own explanation is this: where it is absent, this is simply an abbreviated omission — there is no further special reason behind it." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 6]

Among the five and eight precepts, the Vinaya supplies object-perception formulas for six: killing, theft, unchastity, false speech, drinking wine, and eating past the appointed hour. Following the Zichi Commentary's citation of the Vinaya's formulas for the four grave precepts, they are recorded in full below; the rest may be inferred by the same pattern.

Section Three: Fixing Four or Five Formulas. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Third, on fixing whether there are four or five formulas." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Because the Vinaya's listed formulas are not fixed: unchastity, killing, and false speech each have five, while theft has four. This is simply because the presence or absence of the third formula determines whether an offense results at all. Take killing: 'a human perceived as non-human' — since the perception has shifted, this is a middle-grade offense; since one intended and acted to kill 'a non-human' who turned out human, this is a lower-grade offense. As for why theft lacks a third formula: the corresponding case, 'belonging to an owner, perceived as belonging to no owner,' is likewise middle-grade by the shift in perception — but the original mistaken intent, aimed at something believed ownerless, generates no offense at all, since there is no condition constituting an offense with respect to an ownerless item."

The Commentary continues: "Where gravity is weighed against gravity, and the object belongs to a category one is obligated to learn to distinguish, while the mistaken belief runs toward a category not so obligated, the formula is fixed alike at five." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Mistaking the graver for the lighter — as in killing a human under the belief it is an animal — remains a condition constituting an offense, and hence the formula-count is fixed at five."

The Commentary continues: "Where committing an offense is weighed against not committing one, the formula-count is sometimes four and sometimes five. Where the perception, earlier or later, fails to correspond to any offense-constituting object at all, the count is fixed at four, omitting the third position — as with 'belonging to no owner.' But where the mistaken belief, though fixed, still corresponds to some offense-constituting object, the count is fixed at five — as with 'not the path,' 'non-human,' or 'less than five coins.'" The Xingzong Commentary explains: "The point being made is that the formula-count follows the actual meaning of each case and is not fixed; one need not mechanically follow the bare wording." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 6]

Section Four: Four and Five Interchanging. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Fourth, on four and five interchanging: because a mistaken belief may run from an obligatory category toward a non-obligatory one, or the reverse, gravity itself shifts back and forth accordingly. Sometimes a case moves from four to five: an item genuinely ownerless has only four formulas, but if perception shifts to 'belonging to an owner,' it becomes five. Or, if the original object was a human being but perception shifts to 'a stump,' then, from the standpoint of this later mind alone, only four formulas remain." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "'Perceived as a stump' means taking a human being for a stump." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 6]

Section Five: Gravity. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Fifth, concerning gravity: as the formulas run in sequence, the earlier instance of doubt is graver and the later instance lighter, because the earlier object is the actual forbidden object. The earlier instance of settled perception is graver, since it settles the original object as a preparatory offense, mind and object corresponding to each other; the later instance is lighter, since, at the moment of the offense, mind is present but the actual object is not." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "As for why the earlier doubt is graver: since the original object confronted was a human being, and the perception 'human' was never relinquished, at the moment of killing there remained at least a partial, lingering mind directed toward the human object. In the later instance, this residual perception is doubly absent — hence it is lighter." The Zichi Commentary adds: "Among the two instances of doubt, the doubting mind itself does not differ, but the object differs — hence gravity and lightness are distinguished accordingly. The same holds for the two instances of settled perception." [Zichi Commentary, fascicle 27]

This passage concerns the five formulas of the precept against killing. The earlier part, on the two instances of doubt, refers to the second and fifth formulas; the latter part, on the two instances of settled perception, refers to the third and fourth.

The Commentary continues: "Furthermore, within the original object itself, doubt is graver and settled perception lighter, because doubt still holds half its mind to the original object without relinquishing it, whereas settled perception has already relinquished the original entirely — hence lighter. But with respect to the later, divergent object, settled perception is graver and doubt is lighter, because settled perception, though directed at the divergent object, still traces back entirely to the original — this is simply object divergence, and therefore graver — whereas doubt, already reduced by half, and directed toward the divergent object on top of that, is therefore lighter." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "'Doubt reduced by half' means that doubt, being inherently hesitant, is already only half committed to either side; directed now toward a divergent object as well, the mind is reduced by half again — hence lighter than settled perception."

The Commentary continues: "This discussion has been framed in terms of the original object being graver and the divergent object lighter; where instead the original is lighter and the divergent object graver, the same pattern applies by analogy — as when one intends to kill a non-human or an animal, and a human being instead comes to serve as the divergent object." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 6]

Chapter Eight: Distinguishing the Nature-Grave Precepts Individually. This chapter divides into five sections: (1) focused versus diffuse intent, (2) misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief, (3) body and speech as joint agents, (4) instructing or ordering another, (5) repeated violation.

Section One: Focused Versus Diffuse Intent. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "As for what is meant by 'focused': the original intent is fixed exclusively on a single object. As for what is meant by 'diffuse': it extends broadly across multiple objects without any fixed standard." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "'Focused' admits of only one object; 'diffuse' may be broad or narrow." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5] The Zichi Commentary adds: "'Diffuse' further divides into two: broad-diffuse, where the mind from the outset is set broadly across all three destinies, each equally intended, so that whichever is actually acted upon results in a violation; and narrow-diffuse, which covers the human path alone, not extending to non-humans or animals." [Zichi Commentary, fascicle 27]

Focused versus diffuse intent divides into three items: unchastity; theft and killing; false speech.

Item One: Unchastity. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Speaking with reference to unchastity: violation here involves no need for targeted intent at all — every case alike consummates as the gravest offense. How can this be shown? The moment a defiled mind is present and one is about to consummate the violation, one's original intent may be fixed on this object and yet meet with a different one instead — whether the male or female object becomes confused, so that Zhang and Wang change places, or a human and an animal exchange destinies, with object and mind shifting together — so long as bodily union actually takes place, it is, in every instance, the gravest offense." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

Item Two: Theft and Killing. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "For theft and killing, only where targeted intent actually corresponds to the object does the graver offense result; where mind and object diverge entirely, only a minor preparatory offense results." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5] The Zichi Commentary adds: "Under broad-diffuse intent, a violation results whichever object is actually acted upon; under narrow-diffuse intent, acting on a different destiny is not a violation; and where the intent is fixed on one particular individual, acting on someone from the other destinies is not a violation." [Zichi Commentary, fascicle 27]

"Fixed on one particular individual, [acting on] the three destinies [otherwise] is not a violation" holds true for theft. For killing, however, where Zhang departs and Wang comes in his place, and one takes Wang for Zhang, this is mistaken-belief, and the graver offense still results — as discussed in the following section.

Item Three: False Speech. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Where all three destinies are simultaneously present before the speaker, and this is inwardly known with full clarity, violation requires no targeted intent — a violation results regardless of which object the statement addresses. Where the three destinies are not simultaneously present, violation follows the targeted intent in each instance." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Wherever multiple objects are actually present at once, targeted intent simply cannot be formed; only a single object confronted alone allows the sense of 'targeted' to apply — as when one originally intends a human being, but an animal instead appears, this is not a violation." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

Section Two: Misapprehension-in-the-Moment and Mistaken-Belief. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Now, in establishing these two categories, both alike refer to something not corresponding to one's original intent. Misapprehension-in-the-moment is defined by an object diverging while the relevant circumstance is actually, presently confronted; mistaken-belief is defined by an object diverging where the circumstance is not presently confronted at all, but the mind itself has simply gone astray and forgotten. When a circumstance is presently confronted, the two objects stand distinctly apart and are plainly visible, yet, at the moment of actually carrying out the act, error may still creep in — this crossing and confusion of objects, both actually present, is misapprehension-in-the-moment. As for mistaken-belief: the mind runs across an earlier moment and a later one and cannot hold both at once — as when the earlier mind takes the object to be this one, and the later mind takes it to be that one instead; it is the mind's own perception going astray and lapsing into forgetfulness that is called mistaken-belief." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

Misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief divide into four items: unchastity, theft, killing, false speech.

Item One: Unchastity. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "For this first precept alone, misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief are not even at issue: the affliction arises from within the mind itself, and obstructs the path in every case regardless. So long as it is in fact the forbidden path, it makes no difference whether confusion or forgetfulness was involved. Whether this or that object — male or female, human or non-human or animal — is confused with another, taking one for another still results in the graver offense, even under mistaken-belief. And where the objects are actually, presently confronted and become confused, the graver offense results even under misapprehension-in-the-moment." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

Item Two: Theft. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Speaking of theft: where the mind is diffuse and fixed on no particular object, and property belonging to any of the three destinies is intended for theft, then, once one actually carries out the act, even if the object diverges through confusion, or the mind simply lapses through forgetfulness, both are alike counted as fulfilling the intent to steal, and misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief are equally graded as the graver offense." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Under broad-diffuse intent, misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief are not even distinguished; a violation results regardless of which of the three destinies the property belongs to."

The Commentary continues: "But if one has beforehand fixed one's intent specifically on a human's property, not intending to steal from the other destinies — then, when one actually goes to steal, if the object becomes confused or the perception shifts, then even though the item has already been lifted from its place, this is not counted as the full offense. It does not correspond to one's original intent; the item still belongs to its original owner, since there was never any intent to steal this particular item. Since mind and object simply fail to correspond, both misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief here are not counted as violations. But once the confusion is later recognized, the item should immediately be returned; if it is not returned, and the intent to steal is instead taken up afresh, then only from that later point does the graver offense result." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "If the item obtained genuinely belongs to a human, the graver offense results without question; only if it is a non-human's or an animal's property is this case exempted from violation."

The Commentary continues: "Second, distinguishing misapprehension-in-the-moment from mistaken-belief with respect to the human destiny specifically: in both cases, again, no violation results. As when, intending to steal from Zhang, one instead unexpectedly comes upon Wang's property — this was never what was intended, and is thus object divergence; the item is not the intended item, and is thus, further, perception divergence. On this basis the object fails to correspond to the mind, and the item taken carries no intent behind it at all — hence both misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief here are alike exempted from violation."

The Commentary continues: "Third, distinguishing misapprehension-in-the-moment from mistaken-belief with respect to items belonging to the same owner: in this case too, both alike are not violations. Hence the Sutra on the Layman's Precepts says: taking gold and obtaining silver instead, from the same owner's holdings, if put back in its original place, no offense of theft results. As in the Vinaya: perceiving a male, one steals a female's property — this is a violation; but that ruling refers to the case of diffuse intent." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

The Xingzong Commentary says: "Of the three sections just given: the first concerns diffuse intent, encompassing both broad and narrow; the last two concern targeted intent, distinguished separately as toward another destiny and toward another item. Or again: the first treats a different destiny, the second a different person, and the third a different item." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

Item Three: Killing. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Discussing the precept against killing: where the intent is diffuse and fixed on nothing in particular, harm to any of the three destinies alike results in a violation. Once one actually carries out the act, even if it does not correspond exactly to the original intent, this does not undermine the underlying intent to do harm in the first place — hence misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief are alike graded as the same graver offense. But where the intent is targeted, confined to a single object: carrying out the act as intended, mind and object correspond and the graver offense results. But where the actual victim was not the original intended object at all, and one goes to inflict harm, the objects become confused, or the mind lapses in forgetfulness — even though a non-human or an animal dies, since this does not correspond to the original intent, and there was in fact no intent to kill it, neither misapprehension-in-the-moment nor mistaken-belief here constitutes a violation."

The Commentary continues: "Second, discussing this with respect to the human destiny specifically. As when, with targeted intent to harm Zhang and no intent at all toward Wang, both objects are actually confronted with full clarity, and the intent is likewise clearly distinguished; yet, at the very moment one's implement strikes at Zhang, Wang unexpectedly crosses into the path instead — even though Wang's life is thereby cut off, since this was not the perpetrator's actual intent, this is misapprehension-in-the-moment, and no violation results. But considering mistaken-belief instead: Zhang departs and Wang comes in his place, and one takes Wang for Zhang and inflicts the harm — this is a violation. Considered with respect to Wang, though this was not the original intended object, since the mind never grasped the situation clearly, the perception 'a human being' has never diverged, and the conditions constituting the offense of killing are thereby fully present — hence, even under mistaken-belief, the graver offense results. This has already been distinguished above, in the discussion of the preparatory-stage offense." [All of the above from Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

"Discussed above, in the discussion of the preparatory-stage offense" refers to the earlier material in this gate, in the chapter on deficient conditions, within the discussion of the marks of the seven conditions, under the fourth heading, object divergence.

Item Four: False Speech. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "Discussing the karmic act of false speech, considered broadly across the different destinies: misapprehension-in-the-moment results in a violation, while mistaken-belief does not. Under diffuse intent, no such distinction is made — both result in a violation regardless." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Under narrow-diffuse intent: originally intending to deceive a human being, if the object becomes confused with a non-human or animal, a violation still results even under misapprehension-in-the-moment; but where an earlier and later moment diverge, mistaken-belief here is not a violation."

The Commentary continues: "Second, with respect to the human destiny specifically: both misapprehension-in-the-moment and mistaken-belief are, alike, violations. This is because falsely displaying virtue is schemed specifically to deceive a human being, and claiming sagehood in order to obtain gain works the same harm on the object in either case — so long as the statement is actually completed, both are alike graded as the graver offense." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "From this one may infer that the great false-speech offense admits no exemption at all under targeted intent."

The Commentary continues: "Third, with respect to the two categories of claim that may actually be uttered, ordinary and sagely: if one's mind intends to claim a sagely attainment, but one's mouth mistakenly names an ordinary one instead — since this is not a claim to the Dharma of a sage, no harm has been done to the hearer, and this misapprehension does not constitute the graver offense. But where the misapprehension or mistaken-belief occurs entirely within claims to the sagely Dharma itself: as the Samantapāsādikā says, mistakenly naming the third dhyāna for the fourth, or the reverse, is in every case alike graded as the same graver offense." [All of the above from Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

Section Three: Body and Speech as Joint Agents. This section divides into three items: unchastity; killing and theft; false speech.

Item One: Unchastity. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "The precept against unchastity is violated through physical union itself, and so the offense lies with the body alone; speech does not carry the intent to violate here, since no utterance is involved." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "In the Vinaya: if one instructs another to commit unchastity, and the other actually does so, this is a middle-grade offense; if the other does not do so, it is only a lower-grade offense." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

Item Two: Killing and Theft. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "For these two precepts, body and speech may jointly bring about the offense, each capable of assisting the other; yet the body is the root, and speech merely a branch. Harming property or taking life can each be accomplished by the body alone, without any need for speech — hence the body is the root. Speech that instructs another to kill is not, by the mere completion of the utterance, itself yet a consummated offense; it must wait until the victim's life is actually cut off, and this requires the other's body to assist speech in completing the karmic act — hence speech is merely a branch."

The Commentary further says: "Now, clarifying the case where body and speech do consummate the offense interchangeably: [the school just described, e.g.] the *Mahāvibhāṣā* and similar treatises represent the position of the Sarvāstivāda school [holding that they do not]. Their reasoning rests on two considerations: first, the karmic acts are distinct in kind — the body is visible and has resistance, while speech is invisible yet still has resistance; the body produces unchastity, theft, and killing, while speech produces deception and false speech; the natures generated do not mix, and the resulting future retribution differs as well. Second, [in the case of speech alone,] the deed is simply not yet complete on its own."

The Commentary continues: "But according to our own root Vinaya and the position shared by the *Satyasiddhi Śāstra*: all three kinds of karmic action — body, speech, and mind — may each independently consummate the offense on its own. Hence that treatise states: the karma of killing may be accomplished by the body itself; it may also be accomplished by speech, whether by instructing another or by killing through an incantation; and it may also be accomplished by mind alone — there being persons who, simply by giving rise to a thought, are able to cause another's death. Hence that treatise further states: as the *Helitraya Sūtra* relates, a non-Buddhist sage-ascetic, giving rise to a single moment of anger, destroyed the kingdom of Nārāyaṇa; and the perilous places such as Daṇḍaloka were, in every case, brought about by the anger of such sage-ascetics." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "This shows our own school judges body and speech according to the deed actually done, not according to any fixed hierarchy between them, unlike the Sarvāstivāda position — proving that a mere thought arising is sufficient to cause actual harm."

Item Three: False Speech. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "The single precept of false speech is, at root, motivated by seeking fame or gain, and cannot be consummated without speech. Yet there are also cases where it is accomplished through bodily display alone, and, where no doubt remains in the hearer's mind, the graver offense still results. This may be understood on the same pattern as the interchangeable consummation discussed above." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

Section Four: Instructing and Ordering. This section divides into two items: instructing another, and ordering another on one's own behalf.

Item One: Instructing Another. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "First, clarifying the case of instructing another. As for the precept against unchastity: acting on it oneself consummates the graver offense; but instructing another to commit it is not so, since the defiled pleasure belongs entirely to the other person and has nothing at all to do with oneself — one cannot be held to have committed the same offense." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "'Has nothing at all to do with oneself' means that the one who instructs does not share in the other's pleasure."

The Commentary continues: "For killing and theft, the fault involves both harm and benefit at once. Whether one acts oneself or instructs another, the harm inflicted and the satisfaction of one's own intent correspond to one another — hence both parties are alike guilty of the same offense. But if the instructor had fixed a targeted intent specifying exact circumstances, and these turn out otherwise — the timing earlier or later, the victim sitting rather than standing, or either party becomes deranged or relinquishes the precepts — then, so long as even a slight discrepancy is present, the one who instructs is exempted in that particular case. But where the mind was diffuse and fixed on nothing specific, whatever is actually carried out corresponds to the intent regardless, and both parties alike are guilty." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Question: if one instructs another to kill a seated person, and the victim happens to be standing when killed, why is this not the graver offense? Answer: since this was specified as targeted intent, the discrepancy indeed exempts the offense. But if no such specification was made, this falls under diffuse intent instead."

The Commentary continues: "As for the great false-speech offense: claiming it oneself consummates the graver offense; but instructing another to claim sagehood brings the instructor no personal benefit at all, and so does not count as the same offense." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "One might ask: suppose one instructs another to praise oneself, and thereby personally obtains fame and gain — would this not be the graver offense? Answer: this falls instead under 'ordering on one's own behalf,' discussed next, and is not what is being addressed here." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

Item Two: Ordering on One's Own Behalf. The Commentary on the Precept-Text says: "In the case of instructing another, the benefit to oneself is only indirect; in the case of ordering another on one's own behalf, it bears directly on oneself. Consider: ordering another to come and commit unchastity with oneself, or ordering another to proclaim on one's own behalf that one has attained sagehood — in either case the benefit and pleasure both belong to oneself, and the offense is, in every instance, fully consummated. The two precepts of killing and theft admit of no such 'ordering' case at all, and are therefore not discussed here." The Xingzong Commentary explains: "Question: why do killing and theft admit of no 'ordering' case? Answer: if one orders another to kill oneself, the offense does not reach its fruit; and how could one possibly order another to steal one's own property? Hence: for unchastity and false speech, 'ordering' is the graver case and 'instructing' the lighter; for killing and theft, there is 'instructing' but no 'ordering' at all." [Xingzong Commentary, fascicle 5]

Section Five: Repeated Violation. In this section's text, the character 重 carries two distinct readings that should be carefully distinguished: read in the level tone, it means "repeated," as in "repeated violation"; read in the departing tone, it means "grave," as in "the four grave precepts."

The Procedural Commentary says: "As for repeated violation: the Vinaya itself rules on this plainly — however many times the violation is committed, each single instance is, in every case, an upper-grade offense. Unchastity committed repeatedly across many instances is judged this way; repeated violation of theft, killing, and false speech is judged the same way." The Zichi Commentary explains: "'Repeated violation' admits of two senses: offenses that share the same name — meaning the four grave precepts weighed against one another — and offenses of the same kind — meaning each precept considered on its own, repeated. The first sense, taken broadly, extends as far as the *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya*; the present text concerns specifically the second, our own school's position on offenses of the same kind."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "This principle concerns the prātimokṣa precepts specifically: because they are obtained separately with respect to each distinct object and condition, the precept-essence obtained for each is likewise distinct. Hence, when a later violation occurs, it too follows and violates only that particular, separate instance. As the *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya* says: it is acceptable to give rise to every precept at a single moment, but never acceptable to violate every precept at a single moment. Take the precept against unchastity: with respect to a woman's body, twenty-one distinct precepts are obtained at ordination; with respect to a man's body, fourteen are obtained. Now, suppose a greedy mind arises and one violates the precept with respect to one woman, through one orifice — this is called defiling only that one instance. All the other instances remain untouched, their precept-essence still bright and pure, with no conduct at all committed against them, remaining exactly as originally received." The Zichi Commentary explains: "The śīla precepts follow the object, and are hence called 'separately liberating'; reception is a matter of anticipatory intent and may give rise to all the precepts at once, while violation, being a matter of actually confronting a particular object, can only ever violate a single, separate instance."

The Procedural Commentary further says: "In this world there are people who, having violated one instance of the precept against unchastity, are at first thrown into fear and alarm. But then, upon further reflection, they conclude that they must have simply lost the precepts altogether, and thereupon indiscriminately go on to violate every subsequent instance in just the same way. Is this not simply falling, through sheer ignorance of the precept's true structure, into the worst of worldly habit? Little do they know that violating only one instance of unchastity leaves every other instance of that same precept entirely untouched — and that the remaining precepts, against killing, theft, and the rest, remain, throughout, perfectly and solemnly pure." The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part describes the error; what follows directly rebukes it; what follows that drives the point home once more."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "Hence, fellow practitioners under this same teaching must, in principle, understand this clearly. If one's awareness has beforehand been kept rigorously pure, then, when confronted by the five sense-objects, no defiled desire will even arise, through the strength of one's prior discipline. But if one's mindfulness has beforehand not been well guarded, then, when confronted by such an object, one will be unable to avoid violation. And once the violation has occurred and the karmic act is complete, one must, without concealment, repent early — so as to be restored once more to one's original purity." The Zichi Commentary explains: "Alas — in this degenerate age, ordinary people have long sunk deep into worldly attachment, and one scarcely ever meets anyone who actually guards the mind and stays free of defilement... In this way one is able to remain utterly untroubled when confronted with any object, gathering oneself only after carefully surveying the situation — like waving a hand through empty space, meeting no obstruction whatsoever; like a soldier armored and entering battle, with nothing left to fear. And yet, so long as afflictions and karma are not yet extinguished, birth-and-death remains genuinely fearful — this is by no means a matter of mere words... The Buddha's great compassion embraces all beings broadly, leaving not a single one out; even those of base conduct and inferior wit are still painstakingly drawn forward and guided. The reach of this ancestral kindness is beyond what words can fully convey." [All of the above from Zichi Commentary, fascicle 14]

Chapter Nine: Broadly Rebuking a Foolish Teaching. The Procedural Commentary says: "In these times, those who do not understand the teaching are, in large part, guilty of self-inflicted harm. They say: these restrictions of the Vinaya belong to the Dharma of the śrāvakas alone; as for our own Great Vehicle, we cast such things aside like so much dung and dirt. It is just like the yellow leaf, the wooden ox, or the wooden horse — used only to quiet a crying child; and this precept-teaching, they say, is exactly the same, a mere device to fool you śrāvaka disciples." The Zichi Commentary explains: "It is 'self-inflicted' because, being oneself a disciple of the Buddha, one turns instead to slander the Buddha's own teaching. As for 'the yellow leaf': the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says — when an infant is crying, its parents take a willow tree's yellow leaf and say, 'Do not cry; here, I give you gold,' and the infant, believing it real gold, stops crying at once — even though this leaf is not, in truth, gold at all. A wooden ox, a wooden horse — an infant, upon seeing these, likewise forms the notion 'boy' or 'girl.' This shows the Tathāgata retrospectively explaining his own earlier intent in teaching the lesser vehicle provisionally. By the time of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra itself, the provisional teaching's remaining doubts are all fully resolved, and everything alike returns to the single, ever-abiding reality — how, then, could there remain any genuinely separate 'lesser vehicle' at all? This is exactly what is meant by 'not understanding the teaching.'"

The Procedural Commentary continues: "Consider the matter at its root: between the Great and Lesser Vehicles there is, in principle, no real division at all. The Buddha prescribes the medicine according to the patient's own capacity, always putting the cure of the actual illness first. Hence, at the very first turning of the Dharma-wheel in the Deer Park — a teaching originally given for the śrāvakas — eighty thousand gods nonetheless gave rise, right there, to the mind set on the great path. And at the twin śāla trees, where the Buddha's passing into final nirvana was announced — a teaching ultimately revealing the Buddha-nature itself — there were listeners in that very assembly who attained only the fruit of arhatship. From this we may infer: awakened understanding lies in the mind itself, not solely in the outward intent of whichever teaching happens to be given." The Zichi Commentary explains: "This shows one should never judge 'greater' or 'lesser' merely by which teaching happens to have been studied. One who has genuinely penetrated to the great teaching finds everything alike returning to the great; what objection could there be to also studying the Vinaya? One whose aspiration remains merely small will find everything he does remaining small regardless, exhausting the sutras to no real purpose."

On the Order of the Three Trainings. The Procedural Commentary continues: "Hence the World-Honored One, dwelling in this world, thoroughly penetrated the capacities of all beings. In everything he undertook to establish, he invariably took proper conduct as the foundation. This is simply because, although the actual karmic acts arise through body and speech, and it is these the precepts exist to guard against, the three poisons that suddenly arise are, at root, driven by the mind alone. Hence one must first seize hold with the precepts, next bind fast with concentration, and only afterward cut through with wisdom — is this ordering of the three trainings not entirely reasonable? Yet there are, today, unworthy persons who, not even recognizing their own actual station, recklessly claim for themselves the name of the Great Vehicle, making light of the genuine scriptures while puffing up their own preferred teaching instead. But the Śrīmālā Sūtra itself states that the Vinaya is precisely a Great Vehicle study; and the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra states that the eighty divisions of the canonical Vinaya are precisely śīla-pāramitā itself. When scriptures as clear as these fail even to enter such a person's ears, is this not truly lamentable?" The Zichi Commentary explains: "'Foundation' is much like 'the most honored.' The training in precepts occupies the very first place, which is precisely what explains why it is called 'the foundation.' 'Station' refers to their being, in truth, still ordinary worldlings of the shallowest capacity. Even though the teaching itself is perfectly clear, they hear it and simply do not believe — hence 'fail even to enter such a person's ears.'"

The Parable of the Two Disciples. The Procedural Commentary further says: "Hence the Sutra of the Hundred Parables relates: once there was a teacher who kept two disciples, each assigned to massage one of his legs at the appointed time. The elder disciple, resenting the younger one, struck and broke the leg the younger disciple was responsible for. The younger disciple, resenting this in turn, struck and broke the leg the elder disciple was responsible for. This is a parable for how, today, students of the Mahāyāna scriptures disparage the Lesser Vehicle, while students of the Lesser Vehicle in turn disparage the Mahāyāna scriptures — causing the Great Sage's own Dharma-teaching, in both its branches at once, to be destroyed together. This may be verified by what we ourselves actually witness today." The Zichi Commentary explains: "The teacher is a metaphor for the Tathāgata, the disciples for students of the two vehicles; the legs are a metaphor for the two vehicles themselves, and the massaging for diligent study. 'Mahāyāna scriptures' is simply a general name for the Great Vehicle."

The Closing Exhortation. The Procedural Commentary further says: "I fear that later beginners, lacking proper knowledge, may be clouded over by the very dust of such wrong views — this is why I have gone to such trouble to draw out and elaborate the point at such length. And yet I still fear that some will be defiled by the same error regardless — how truly lamentable this would be." The Zichi Commentary explains: "As the saying goes, plain white silk is easily dyed, and once dyed, red and purple are difficult to tell apart again; even though the point has now been laid out in the fullest possible detail, some will still fail to recognize the need to turn back. Is this not simply because restraining one's feelings and curbing one's desires is difficult for the whole world alike, while indulging the mind in wrongdoing is exactly what people naturally desire? Even in the age of the patriarchs themselves, this same tendency already prevailed — how much more so today; there is nothing here that should really surprise us." [All of the above from Zichi Commentary, fascicle 14]