Where the Precepts Actually Live

The Precept-Essence divides into four chapters: (1) the marks of the precept-essence; (2) sameness and difference between reception and ongoing practice; (3) the breadth of the object conditioned; (4) the quantity of precepts generated.

The Zichi Commentary states: "The precept-essence [section comprises] four chapters. The first two chapters discuss the essence itself, though conduct is already implicated within the second. The third and fourth belong to its application, and the fourth also touches on the precept-marks. This is stated roughly in passing; the fuller elaboration follows below."

Although this section is headed "the precept-essence," it in fact touches on the precept-Dharma, precept-conduct, and precept-marks all together, precisely to show that the four gates mutually include one another.

The Procedural Commentary states: "The reason the prātimokṣa precepts, though received by everyone alike, are actually understood clearly by only three or five people in a hundred is entirely that they had no broad grounding beforehand, and did not consult widely. As a result, at the very moment of formal reception, most people remain confused about the essence and its marks, and the whole event is completed as though blind, or as in a dream. And when it comes to whether they actually obtained the precepts or not, they are as lost as if gazing across the Milky Way. This is exactly why, at the very head of the chapters on the precept-marks, these several gates are set forth — so that one may determine for oneself whether one has actually obtained the precepts, and only then take up the practice of keeping and transgressing them." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "'Blind' is a metaphor for not knowing; 'dream' is a metaphor for what is unreal. 'The Milky Way' is a metaphor for being utterly lost, unable to see any shore." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

Chapter One: The Marks of the Precept-Essence. This divides into two sections: (1) the mark of the receiving mind; (2) the generated karma-essence. Section One: the mark of the receiving mind.

The Procedural Commentary states: "As for the precept-essence — if one speaks of it in general terms, one explains the karma-essence that is thereby generated; but here, addressing it directly, I state plainly the mark of the mind that is able to receive it." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "The opening sentence points to both sides at once. What is 'generated' is precisely the unmanifest [karma]. 'Mark' means the mind's own configuration."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "What is meant is this: with respect to the dust-mote-and-sand-grain-like multiplicity of the Dharma-realm and its various teachings such as the two truths, one takes one's own vow and undertakes the expedient means [of the ordination ritual]; one makes the mind's own vessel wholesome and pure, resolved never to do evil, weighing one's intention with clear wisdom; and one's mind silently merges with the Dharma set before it. This vowing mind then corresponds with that sublime Dharma, and with respect to that Dharma there occurs the sense of a condition arising — and this being received and held within the mind is called the precept-essence." The Zichi Commentary explains at length: the opening lines establish the "measure" of the precepts — the Dharma-realm names the ten realms as environment and inhabitant together, "dust-motes and sand-grains" is a metaphor for their sheer multiplicity, and "the two truths" names what the Buddha himself established as teaching. From "with one's own" onward, the mind's actual configuration is explained: the first clause is the vow taken for the whole of one's remaining life; the next clause covers the bodily and verbal karma of reverent bowing and reciting the words [of the ordination formula]; "wholesome" refers to banishing false thoughts; "weighing" refers to the correspondence between mind and Dharma — this "weighing intention" is the very root from which karma is accomplished and the cause by which the precepts are obtained, whichever of the three grades of mind happens to arise; "clear wisdom" means reflecting on mind and object exactly as principle and teaching require, rather than inverted thinking that falsely clings to the object before one. The passage above concerns how the mind is used; what follows concerns how it unites with the Dharma. Because the mind that arises must range universally over dust-mote-and-sand-grain-like objects, the Dharma too, being regulated by its object, is universal in measure; the mind arises following the Dharma, the Dharma being vast, the mind too is all-pervading — mind and Dharma correspond, fitting together exactly like a lid on its vessel, which is why this is called "silently merging." The Dharma, properly speaking, still resides in its object; because the mind faces toward it, it is called "the Dharma set before it" — the same holds, below, for "that Dharma." From "with this" onward, a third point shows how the essence is received, itself in three stages: the first two clauses pick up the "silent merging" just mentioned; from "with respect to" onward it shows how the Dharma arises following the mind — the Dharma, being non-sentient, only arises through being conditioned by mind, and so in turn follows the mind; hence, at the moment the essence is received, the Dharma first stirs in its object, next gathers in space, and only then enters the mind — and because the Dharma depends on mind, it is called "the Dharma-essence." The final clause shows where the essence actually resides: strictly by category, the essence itself is "not mind," and does not disclose what it depends on — the essence and the mind [are distinct]. But to say here that it "resides in the mind" is to adopt the Consummate meaning — namely, that the store-consciousness itself is pointed to as its very locus.

The Zichi Commentary asks: "Why not simply point directly to the unmanifest [karma], instead of explaining the mind's mark?" And answers: "The receiving mind is precisely what is essential to the generation of the essence — this alone is explained at length here, since nowhere else is it addressed. For it is only by examining the original source from which the Dharma is obtained that one can determine whether one's own reception has actually succeeded. Should one remain confused on this very point, what more is there left to say? Some receive it with an indeterminate mind wandering at random, some with a merely ordinary scattering of virtue; a whole lifetime passes in a fog, and one remains hesitant to the very end [about whether one has any precepts at all] — yet the sage's own words carry real intent on this point. This is exactly why it is pointed out here — the meaning is not idle." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 3]

Section Two: the generated karma-essence. This divides into six items: (1) distinguishing how many kinds of essence there are; (2) establishing the two names; (3) deriving the essence according to the treatises; (4) establishing the true doctrine; (5) sequential generation; (6) the number of kinds of unmanifest karma. Item One: distinguishing how many kinds of essence there are.

The Procedural Commentary states: "Question: how many kinds can the prātimokṣa precepts actually have? Answer: discussing the essence strictly by its objects, it is truly limitless — the precepts exist fundamentally to guard against wrongdoing, and since the conditions for wrongdoing are many, the precepts they give rise to are correspondingly many. Hence the Sutra on Upāsaka Precepts says, 'sentient beings are limitless, and so the precepts are likewise limitless,' and so on. But reasoning it through now, in essentials there are only two kinds: active karma and unmanifest karma. These two precepts together gather in everything; there is no object they fail to exhaust." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "The answer first indicates the measure by way of the object, then, from 'but' onward, gathers up the essentials. Since we are now clarifying the essence directly, these two are what is essential, and so they alone are singled out. 'Gathering in everything' means that, since these two precepts hold universal guard, they are already included within the totality of the generated essence. That this gathers in the Dharma-essence yet speaks in terms of 'object' is meant to show that the Dharma reaching every possible object all reduces to these two precepts."

Item Two: establishing the two names. This divides into two supports: (1) why exactly two are established; (2) explaining the meaning of the two names together. Support One: why exactly two are established.

The Procedural Commentary states: "Question: why not establish just one, or else three?" The Zichi Commentary glosses: "'Not one' is meant to show that the two mutually require each other, hence the question is framed in terms of their mutual dependence. 'Or else three' — the Commentary on Karman Procedures raises the question of why not combine them into three, on the grounds that action-concurrent unmanifest karma is itself a distinct third thing occurring simultaneously with the [other] two, and so, it might seem, ought to be set up as one further category alongside the previous two, making three altogether."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "Answer. If active karma alone were established, then, once the act itself has ceased and passed away, it could not go on guarding against transgression, nor can one keep acting continuously forever — hence unmanifest karma is required, to guard against transgression over the long term. If unmanifest karma alone were established, then it would have nothing from which to arise, and could not spring up on its own — it necessarily depends on active karma to generate it. The two thus mutually depend on each other, and neither can be established alone." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "The first answer, on why not just one, first explains that active karma requires unmanifest karma. 'Once ceased, it cannot guard' is because the act itself is brief. 'Cannot act continuously' is because the mind must also attend to other things. Next, from 'if unmanifest alone' onward, it explains that unmanifest karma requires active karma. The final sentence draws the conclusion."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "Why not three? Simply because the very principle of their essence and marks contradicts [a third category]. First, active and unmanifest karma are themselves distinct; second, mind and not-mind are themselves distinct. Their natures cannot be merged, and so only two can be established. As for what is being guarded against, that varies limitlessly according to its object." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "The second answer, on why not three: 'active and unmanifest are distinct' is because motion and stillness differ; 'mind and not-mind are distinct' is because their essences themselves contradict each other. From 'as for' onward resolves a further doubt — since three are not permitted, one might suppose the precept-Dharma is confined to only these two [narrow categories]; this is specifically clarified to show that the point above is made strictly with respect to the capacity to guard, and it is for this reason alone that there are just two." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

Support Two: explaining the meaning of the two names together.

The Procedural Commentary states: "Question: now that we know there are two precepts, please explain their names." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "This concludes the preceding and opens what follows, asking generally about the three names."

The three names are these: "active" and "unmanifest" are the individual names, while "karma" is the shared, general name — together they make three.

The Procedural Commentary continues: "The answer is this. What is called 'active' [karma] is named by analogy with the moment a potter's wheel is turning — it is called 'active.' Hence the Abhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra Miscellany says: 'Action is bodily; it is the expedient means that moves the body.'" The Zichi Commentary glosses: "'Active' carries the meaning of expedient means, construction. 'Potter' means one who works clay. 'The wheel' is the cart-like device that shapes clay into a vessel — set in motion, it turns; hence it is used as the analogy. The substance made of the four great elements is called 'retribution-matter'; the movement arising from conditions is called 'expedient means.' Retribution gives rise to the expedient means, and the expedient means depends on retribution — the two mutually borrow from each other, neither identical nor wholly different. But to speak of 'retribution' does not necessarily mean 'expedient means,' whereas to speak of 'expedient means' necessarily implies retribution is present. Here the turning wheel-wood is the analogy for the substance of retribution, and the wheel's turning is the analogy for the expedient means — the motion itself is what is named 'active.' What follows cites proof; 'the body, and what moves the body' can be understood by the correspondence."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "As for what is called 'unmanifest' [karma]: once arisen it goes on continuously manifesting, present without interruption from beginning to end, [accompanying] the four aggregates of mind across the three moral qualities, requiring no further condition to bring it about. Hence the Abhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra Miscellany says: 'Once the bodily action has ceased, [it continues] together with the remaining consciousnesses; this dharma arises following after — hence it is called unmanifest.' And the chapter on the unmanifest in the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra says: 'Because of a [prior] mental state, offense and merit are generated; even during sleep or unconsciousness, it constantly continues to arise at such times — hence it is called unmanifest.'" The Zichi Commentary glosses at length: "'Once arisen' — 'once' here means 'at the start'; this clause explains the initial completion of the karma-essence, namely the very first instant when the three-part [ordination] ritual concludes, at which point [the unmanifest karma] is perfected together with the active karma — this is when the essence is generated. 'Goes on continuously manifesting' — once the active karma itself has ceased, the unmanifest alone persists, continuing without break; hence it is said to 'go on manifesting.' 'From beginning' refers back to the moment just described as 'once arisen'; 'to end' means the very end, namely when life itself terminates and the precepts are relinquished — though relinquishment generally occurs in any of four ways, only this one, the ordinary case, is mentioned here, the other three being omitted. This clause explains the long duration of the karma-essence. 'The four aggregates' refers generally to the four [non-form] aggregates [of mind]; 'the three moral qualities' specifically indicates the aggregate of mental formations, since [of the four,] only that aggregate spans all three moral qualities — this clause shows that [the unmanifest] is 'not mind.' The next clause directly indicates the meaning of 'unmanifest' itself. Read as the reverse of 'active': the first clause reverses 'having already ceased'; the next reverses 'a single momentary thought'; the third reverses 'a wholesome mind engaged in practice'; the fourth reverses 'constructed through conditions.' The citations that follow offer two proofs. In the Abhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra Miscellany: the first clause picks up on the preceding point that the active karma has ceased, giving rise to the unmanifest; 'the remaining consciousnesses' means the four aggregates of mind, [here] the later mind looking back on the earlier active mind, hence called 'remaining.' 'Together' means simultaneous. 'This dharma' means the unmanifest itself. 'Arises following after' means it arises spontaneously, without further effort. In the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra: this passage explains the principle of karma generally, and is not confined to the precepts alone. 'Because of a [prior] mental state' shows that it is generated from the active [karma]. 'Offense and merit are generated' — 'generated' is precisely 'arisen'; 'offense and merit' means the unwholesome and wholesome unmanifest [karma] respectively. The text mentions the morally-neutral case, thereby implicitly including the other mental states as well."

The passage "once arisen it goes on continuously manifesting" and so forth is difficult for beginners to follow. A table, drawn from the discussion of sequential generation in Item Five below, is provided further on for reference. What this passage calls "unmanifest" is what that table calls "lifespan-coextensive unmanifest karma."

[Editorial note: the four modes of relinquishment are treated below, in the Gate of Precept-Conduct, under the chapter explaining the relinquishing of precepts. That the four aggregates across three moral qualities show "not-mind" should be cross-checked against the passage below, under "deriving the essence according to the treatises," in the discussion "moreover, the mental faculty itself has no precept-restraint."]

The Procedural Commentary continues: "What, then, is meant by 'precept'? A precept prohibits unwholesome dharmas. Hence the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: precept is simply that which restrains and checks every unwholesome dharma; not committing evil is itself called upholding the precepts." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "The first two clauses directly state the true meaning, since both these precepts alike put a stop to evil. What follows cites proof; 'restrain and check' carries precisely the meaning of prohibiting and cutting off." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

Item Three: deriving the essence according to the treatises.

The Jiyuan Commentary states: "This gate's exposition of the essence here follows what two schools maintain [the Sarvāstivāda and Tattvasiddhi]. It is only later, in the true doctrine's three-school analysis, that our present master's own true derivation of the essence appears." [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 15]

The Procedural Commentary states: "The two treatises differ; here I follow our own school and expound according to the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "'The two treatises' refers to the Vibhāṣā and Tattvasiddhi. Now, though the present Procedural Commentary expounds the essence according to school, it does so pointing only in outline toward the Sarvāstivāda position — fearing that later students, reaching this text, might otherwise get stuck, a brief indication is required. The Commentary on Karman Procedures lays out six positions in its analysis; here only the essentials are extracted and shown. First, it explains that the two precepts are both conditioned, not among the three unconditioned dharmas, since they are constructed through borrowed conditions and subject to the four marks [of arising, abiding, changing, ceasing] — this is the conditioned/unconditioned distinction. [The three unconditioned dharmas are space, cessation-through-discernment, and cessation-not-through-discernment; the four marks are arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing.] Second, all conditioned dharmas altogether form three aggregates: the aggregate of matter, the aggregate of mind, and the aggregate of what is neither matter nor mind; the two precepts are both matter, not either of the other two aggregates — this is the three-aggregate distinction within the conditioned. Third, matter comprises eleven kinds, reducible to three: visible-and-resistant matter, namely the sense-object of form; invisible-and-resistant matter, namely the five sense-faculties and four [subtle elements of the remaining] sense-objects; and invisible-and-non-resistant matter, namely a portion of the sense-object of dharmas — this last being a not-mind dharma, [specifically] past matter, into which the unmanifest [karma] is gathered. As for active karma itself: bodily action is the first kind of matter, verbal action is the sound-portion of the second kind of matter, while bodily and verbal unmanifest [karma] both belong to the third kind of matter — this is the three-matter distinction within the aggregate of matter. Fourth, within matter there is a further division into two: original retribution-matter, meaning the four great elements, and expedient-means matter, meaning movement and construction; active karma is not original retribution but is expedient means, while unmanifest karma is neither of the two [kinds of] matter — this is the two-matter distinction within bodily-and-verbal matter. Fifth, active karma is wholesome form-and-sound, not unwholesome or morally neutral; the essence of unmanifest karma is likewise wholesome, self-evidently — this is the three-quality distinction within expedient means. Sixth, karmic action, from beginning to end, may always count as a precept, unlike other wholesome acts; the essence of unmanifest karma is [already] the precept itself, and is not what is being discussed here — this is, within the wholesome, a distinction confined strictly to the beginning and end of active karma. The above six positions together show that, on that school's view, both precepts are matter: active [karma as] matter is precisely the two sense-objects of form and sound, while unmanifest matter is gathered within the sense-object of dharmas, and is termed 'imputed matter.'" [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

Support One: the essence of active karma.

The Procedural Commentary states: "First, explaining the essence of active karma. The treatise says: it takes body-and-speech-karma-as-intention for its essence. As for body and speech themselves, these are merely the instruments by which good and evil are produced." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "'Active' begins at the ordination platform and ends just before the first instant at which the three-part ritual concludes — throughout this span, the three kinds of karma are engaged in expedient construction. The citation from the treatise makes two points: the first clause directly states the essence itself. 'Body-and-speech-karma-as-intention' means this: bodily conduct such as advancing, kneeling, and bowing is the bodily action; reciting the words to request the precepts is the verbal action; and setting one's resolve, taking the vow, aspiring toward the Dharma while conditioned upon its object, the mind carrying through from start to finish and governing both body and speech — this altogether is called 'body-and-speech-karma-as-intention.' It is precisely this karma-as-intention that is the essence of the active [karma]. From 'as for body and speech' onward, the commentary shows the sense in which they are merely 'accompanying conditions': to call them 'instruments' shows that the bodily aspect has no efficacy of its own, and must ultimately be attributed to the mind — just as, in the world, when something is manufactured, the tools of the hundred crafts cannot accomplish anything by themselves, but must be operated by a person; the analogy may be understood accordingly. Question: the Commentary on Karman Procedures' first explanation takes matter-and-mind together as the essence — how does this differ? Answer: the 'bodily aspect' is precisely matter, and 'karma-as-intention' is precisely mind — so there is no real difference; the Procedural Commentary simply states what is essential, to make it easier to understand."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "Why is this so? Just as when a person kills without any [murderous] intent, no offense of killing is incurred — hence we know that mind is what constitutes the essence." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "Using the case of transgression to illustrate reception [works] because, although good and evil differ, the principle by which karma is generated is one and the same. As in the Vinaya: where mind, doubt, or perception go astray, [the act] does not reach its full culmination as an offense. And among the cases classed as 'not an offense': throwing a knife, staff, tile, or piece of wood that accidentally strikes and kills someone, or supporting and carrying a sick person back and forth resulting in death — in every such case where there is no intent to harm, none of these constitute an offense. Though matter is set in motion here, because there is no [harmful] intent, no karma is actually accomplished."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "The text states: these three kinds of karma are, in every case, simply mind — apart from mind there is neither intention nor bodily-and-verbal karma." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "This citation is from the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra. The first two clauses trace the branch back to the root; the latter two clauses show that, once the root is set aside, there is no branch left at all. Question: in discussing the essence of active karma here, is it the mind-king [the mind itself] or mental intention that is meant? Answer: it was already stated above as 'karma-as-intention' — why raise the doubt again? If one reads the treatise's words that 'the three karmas are, in every case, simply mind; apart from mind there is no intention,' it might seem to point to the mind-king. But mind-king and mental factors are distinguished as essence and function: function arises from essence, and function is itself the essence. The present discussion of active karma speaks in terms of function. Hence the Commentary on Karman Procedures says: to speak of 'mind' does not necessarily mean 'intention,' but to speak of 'intention' necessarily implies mind is present. This should be examined carefully."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "Were one to point to matter as the essence of karma, this would not be correct — the fourteen kinds of matter are all morally neutral, and are not of the nature of offense or merit." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "This refutes the Sarvāstivāda school directly. The five sense-faculties, five sense-objects, and four great elements together make the fourteen kinds of matter." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

Support Two: the essence of unmanifest karma.

The Procedural Commentary states: "As for unmanifest karma — its essence is 'neither matter nor mind.'" The Zichi Commentary glosses: "'Neither matter nor mind' is precisely the name of the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra's third aggregate, also called the aggregate of dharmas dissociated from mind. This aggregate contains seventeen dharmas, and the unmanifest is one of them. Precisely because the essence of the unmanifest is neither of the [other] two categories, it is gathered into this one — the aggregate's own name is used to designate its essence." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "As for 'not matter': since it is generated by mind, how could it be composed of sense-objects or the great elements? Hence it is said to be 'not matter.' Five arguments come to prove this. First, matter has a shape and a location; second, matter has fourteen [or, in another reckoning,] twenty kinds; third, matter can be afflicted and damaged; fourth, matter is materially obstructive; fifth, matter is what is apprehended by the five sense-consciousnesses. The unmanifest possesses none of these five features — hence it is not called matter." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The explanation of 'not matter' has two parts. First, [the passage] distinguishes it in relation to what actually produces [ordinary matter]: 'sense-objects' means the five sense-objects, and 'the great elements' means the four great elements — both of these are matter. Since [the unmanifest] is not composed of these, this shows it is not a material dharma. From 'five' onward, [the passage] offers counter-proof by way of the very meaning of matter itself — the sense-objects and great elements mentioned above possess exactly these five features, whereas the unmanifest does not: first, it has no shape or location; second, it admits of no such gradations; third, it cannot be afflicted or damaged; fourth, it is not obstructive; fifth, it is not the object [of the five sense-consciousnesses]. The fourteen kinds are as given above. The twenty kinds are the twelve manifest colors — blue, yellow, red, white, light, shadow, brightness, darkness, smoke, cloud, dust, and mist, this group being confined to the morally neutral — together with the eight shapes: long, short, high, low, square, round, slanted, and upright, this group spanning all three moral qualities. 'Afflicted and damaged' — the treatise states that if matter is damaged, distress results; and further, that sentient [matter] can be afflicted while non-sentient [matter] can [merely] be damaged. 'The five sense-consciousnesses' means the eye, ear, and so on. 'What is apprehended' means the five sense-objects themselves."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "As for 'not mind': its essence does not cognize an object. Five arguments come to prove this. First, mind is what reflects and cognizes; second, mind admits of clarity or confusion; third, mind spans all three moral qualities; fourth, mind admits of breadth or narrowness; fifth, mind is a retributive dharma." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The explanation of 'not mind' has two parts. The first clause distinguishes it directly: the essence of unmanifest karma does not cognize, cannot reflect on an object, and differs from the essence of mind — hence it is called 'not mind.' From 'five' onward comes the counter-proof: mind possesses all five of these measures, and the unmanifest is the reverse of each. First, it does not reflect or cognize — this is the point just made. Second, it is [what might be called] 'inert wholesomeness,' admitting no distinction of foolish or wise, deluded or awakened, and hence has no [corresponding] bright or dark object. Third, it is exclusively wholesome, never unwholesome or morally neutral. Fourth, it is fixed to just one [quality], and so has neither breadth nor narrowness — the mental faculty alone would be 'narrow,' while the four aggregates of mind together with the six consciousnesses and mental factors would be 'broad.' Fifth, it is what the three kinds of karma themselves construct and generate, and so is not a retributive dharma."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "Hence the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra says: as the sutra states, diligence brings about long life, and abundant merit brings the enjoyment of heavenly bliss. If [this depended on] mere momentary good intention alone, how could it bring about such abundant merit? Why is this? Because one cannot possibly sustain a wholesome mind at all times." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "This citation from the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra makes two points. The first proves 'not mind,' itself in two parts: first, the initial passage — the sutra text is cited by the treatise's own author; diligence is [the] active [karma], long life is its present retribution, abundant merit refers to the growth of the unmanifest, and heavenly bliss is its future retribution. From 'if' onward, the treatise's author brings out the sutra's real intent: a person's mind is not constantly fixed — how could it possibly remain wholesome at all times? This shows that, once generated, the unmanifest goes on spontaneously increasing without further need of the mind's own construction — which is precisely the meaning of 'not mind.'"

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Moreover, the mental faculty itself has no precept-restraint. Why is this? If a person, while [engaged in some] one of the three moral qualities of mind, is [still] said to be upholding the precepts, then we know that, at that time, there is no active [karma occurring] — since the unmanifest is generated from the active. Now, while acting with an unwholesome mind, how could one also, at the same time, be generating active karma, and thereby further generating unmanifest karma? It is precisely because this karma-essence is neither matter nor mind that, even while behaving unwholesomely, the karmic action originally performed [at ordination] suffers no loss or leakage." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The second citation, of the latter passage, has two parts. First, it cites the treatise directly: [the point is] that within mental intention itself there is no precept-essence, which shows that it is 'not mind.' 'The three moral qualities of mind' means the remaining wholesome mind, and the unwholesome or morally-neutral mind. 'At that time there is no active [karma]' means that when the mental faculty enters into one of the other moral qualities, there is no construction occurring — and yet this is still called 'upholding the precepts,' precisely because we know the unmanifest persists spontaneously at all times, and this is why it is called upholding the precepts. From 'moreover' onward, the commentary's own author explains this at length, in two parts: first explaining the meaning of 'at that time there is no active [karma]'; then, from 'it is precisely because' onward, explaining why [conduct during] the three moral qualities can still be called upholding the precepts."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Hence that treatise itself raises the question: if the unmanifest has the mark of matter, what fault is there [in calling it matter]? Answer: the five sense-objects such as matter are not of the nature of offense or merit — one does not take the nature of matter as the unmanifest on that basis alone. Furthermore, as the Buddha says, matter has the mark of being afflicted and damaged, while the unmanifest has no such mark of being afflicted or damaged — since [that mark] cannot be found [in it], it cannot be called matter." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The second proof of 'not matter' has two parts. First, [the passage] cites the preceding question and answer. In the answer: were [the unmanifest] established as matter, there would be two faults — first, it is not of the nature of offense or merit; second, it would then be subject to affliction and damage, since the five sense-objects and four great elements all possess this quality of being harmed, afflicted, and damaged."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Question: the unmanifest is [classified as] bodily-and-verbal karma, and the very nature of bodily-and-verbal karma is itself matter. Answer: what is called 'unmanifest' is merely named 'bodily-and-verbal karma' — it is not, in reality, produced by body and speech themselves. It is only because it is generated through bodily, verbal, and mental karma [together] that it is spoken of as having 'the nature of bodily-and-verbal karma.' Moreover, the unmanifest also arises from mental intention — how, then, could it be said to have the nature of matter? Just as, in the formless realm, there is likewise unmanifest karma [present, even though there is no matter at all there] — could this, too, be called matter?" The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The second citation, of the latter question and answer. In the question: body and speech are matter, so the nature of this karma ought likewise to be matter. In the answer, two points: first, it directly clarifies the terminology — 'not, in reality, produced by body and speech' is because, during [conduct under] the three moral qualities, there is no active [karma occurring at all]; 'generated through bodily, verbal, and mental karma' means it derives its name from the original active karma. From 'moreover' onward, a further point clarifies 'not matter,' in two parts: first, questioning what it produces by way of what actually constructs it; then, from 'just as' onward, using the formless realm to interrogate the very cause of its karma." [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 15]

Item Four: establishing the true doctrine. [Master Hongyi's own note:] This item is the most essential and refined of all; students should devote real effort to studying it exhaustively.

The Zichi Commentary states: "Everything above has merely been set out according to the treatises; when it comes to the essence and its marks in strict, considered terms, it is not yet very refined. It is only when we reach the Commentary on Karman Procedures that the true doctrine is finally set forth — and there turn out to be three schools." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

Establishing the true doctrine divides into three supports: (1) the Substantialist School; (2) the Nominalist School; (3) the Consummate Teaching.

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "What, then, is the precept-essence? It is what receives the sagely Dharma into the very breast of the mind — that Dharma is itself the precept-essence that is thereby received. And only afterward, depending on this essence, does its function arise, warding off and blocking whatever conditions might give rise to transgression. Here we discuss this Dharma according to three schools." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The opening briefly indicates the essence's own configuration. 'Receiving' is the mind that is able to receive; 'the sagely Dharma' is the precept that is thereby received. Subject and object silently merge, mind and Dharma unite, and karma is thereby accomplished. Grasping the Dharma constitutes the karma, and this is the very foundation of the path — hence it is called the precept-essence. The essence fills one's whole present retribution-body, with mind as its overall master — hence it is called 'the breast of the mind.' At the moment of initial reception, mind is the receiving subject and Dharma is the received object; once reception is complete, the relationship reverses — Dharma becomes what is depended upon, and mind becomes what depends on it. 'Depending on the essence, its function arises' refers precisely to ongoing practice. From 'here' onward, the schools are named and each is explained in turn." [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 16]

Support One: the Substantialist School.

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "As with the Sarvāstivāda, which holds that the two precepts are alike matter." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "'Sarvāstivāda' names the school by its doctrine; the Abhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra Miscellany, the Abhidharmakośa, and the Abhidharma treatises [generally] all share this view."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "That school explains that dharmas each have their own [threefold] bondage and function. The precept-essence, once generated, depends on body and speech to be accomplished; wherever the requisite karma is fully constructed, it is uniformly classed as matter. This karma is precisely the precept-essence, capable both of sustaining and of being damaged. Since it is already a wholesome dharma that has come to constitute a 'retributive function,' the karma that brings about future rebirth and accumulates is enacted in ongoing practice. On this view the precept-essence, once the vow is completed, remains coextensive with the practitioner's lifespan; accordingly it is described as a wholesome-natured 'retributive karma,' since it is able to give rise to the later conduct of ongoing practice." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses at length: "The first part, up through 'classed as matter,' recounts what that school holds. 'Each have their own bondage' means bondage to the three realms: the desire realm's coarse four great elements, the form realm's pure four great elements — the karma thereby produced and the fruit thereby brought about are, in either case, material dharmas. In the formless realm, since [beings there] are not constructed of the four great elements, there is no matter at all — but this only means there is no matter constructed of the four great elements; it does not mean the heavens there lack a resultant matter altogether. 'Wherever the requisite karma is fully constructed' — 'requisite' means body and speech. What produces it is matter, and what it gives rise to is likewise matter; the active and unmanifest [karma] belong to the same aggregate, hence it is said to be 'uniformly classed as matter.' From 'this karma' onward, the next two clauses show the sense in which it is matter: because, lacking [any concept of] essence-without-manifestation, [this school holds that karma] fattens when kept and wastes away when transgressed, having this quality of increase and decrease, it is therefore established as matter. From 'since' onward, the third point clarifies the nature of this karma: its original retributive nature is morally neutral, but through wholesome or unwholesome conditions it is transformed by expedient means into manifest form; the precept, being a wholesome dharma, [means that] both the manifest and unmanifest essences are alike wholesome matter. Since [this school] does not attribute this to mental construction, it is described as 'coming to constitute a function of retribution' [rather than of intention]. Because its force is weak, it cannot by itself bring about a fruit, and so [this school] attributes the capacity to generate accumulating karma to ongoing practice — meaning the karma that draws forth future rebirth, whose essence is the cause of accumulation, hence 'accumulating karma.' From 'on this view' onward, the fourth point sums up the essence and its marks: 'once the vow is completed' means once the active [karma] has ceased and the lifespan-coextensive [unmanifest karma] remains — meaning the unmanifest persists until the end of one's life. Regarded in relation to the later conduct of ongoing practice, it earns the name 'wholesome retribution,' hence 'accordingly described.' On this view, then, the manifest gives rise to the unmanifest, the unmanifest gives rise to ongoing practice, ongoing practice is able to generate accumulating karma, and accumulated conduct draws forth future retribution."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "As the Vinaya explains regarding karma: the heavenly eye perceives wholesome form and unwholesome form, wholesome destinies and unwholesome destinies, knowing exactly, as it truly is, whatever conduct has been performed. This passage proves precisely that the essence of karma is a material dharma." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The second part, citing the Vinaya to establish [the school's] position, has two parts: first citing the passage, then, from 'this' onward, drawing out the proof. If this really does establish [karma as] matter, it would represent the Buddha's own original intent — the various treatises, contending over their distinctions, have simply failed to exhaust this meaning; and it goes without saying that lesser expositors have fallen still further short of grasping it."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "As for the matter cited above — some speak of it in terms of the sense-objects, which is speaking from the standpoint of its condition; some speak of it in terms of being non-resistant, which is speaking from the standpoint of its being contrasted [with resistant matter]. Although many citations are brought forward to clarify how the function reveals karmic matter, this matter-essence is actually the same as an intermediate-state being's — subtle and difficult to know, perceptible only to the heavenly eye, which sees it with its features, wholesome or unwholesome, entirely distinct. How, then, could one confine [an understanding of] its material nature merely to the terms of sense-objects and resistance? The various masters' one-sided judgments about its basis, when their reasoning about the measure of karma is examined, amount to just this." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The third part, in three sections, refutes the various other explanations. First it restates what was established above: 'in terms of the sense-objects' means the unmanifest's imputed matter is classified under the sense-object of dharmas, that is, the sense-object of dharmas itself; this refers to active karma's two sense-objects of form and sound, hence 'speaking from the standpoint of its condition,' the condition being active karma. 'In terms of being non-resistant' means the unmanifest's essence is invisible and non-resistant — this being the reverse of the two [other] kinds of resistant matter, hence 'speaking from the standpoint of contrast.' From 'although' onward, the passage next refutes their failure to grasp the point — citing the intermediate-state being as an analogy for karmic matter, and noting that the retribution of the formless heavens is of the same kind; the Tathāgata, on this basis, spoke of karma as matter, yet the various masters, not understanding this, forcibly divided up the doctrine — hence, 'how could one confine it merely to sense-objects and resistance,' and so on. From 'the various masters' onward, the third section concludes by summing up their mistaken judgment — namely, the six-position analysis given above."

Support Two: the Nominalist School.

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "Second, following the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra, our own school, which distinguishes active and unmanifest karma as having different essences." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "'Our own school' is said in contrast to the preceding, which is not our proper school of study. 'Different essences' is said in contrast to the preceding school, in which the two [precepts] share a single essence."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Because this school partially opens onto the Mahayana, holding that karma arises from mind, it surpasses the preceding position. It distinguishes mind as constituting matter — matter being the dependent retribution, mind being the true cause — and so it explains that active karma takes matter-and-mind as its essence. This is a case of naming the essence by including both the accompanying condition and what actually reveals the true [cause]. Since active karma initially arises, it necessarily borrows matter and mind; unmanifest karma arises afterward, differing from the preceding condition, and so it is only provisionally designated as 'neither matter nor mind.'" The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The first part, generally showing the school's basis, has two parts: first recounting the school's superiority; then, from 'distinguishes' onward, showing the essence and its marks, itself in two parts — first clarifying the essence of active karma. 'Distinguishes mind as constituting matter': if one speaks in terms of the dharmas thereby accomplished, then both internal and external material retribution are, in every case, produced by mind; if one speaks in terms of the karma thereby accomplished, then bodily and verbal movement are, in every case, simply mind. 'Matter is the dependent retribution' and so on: if internal and external are set against each other, then the land is the dependent [retribution] and the four modes of birth are the true [retribution]; if cause and effect are set against each other, then material retribution is the dependent [factor] and mind-consciousness is the true [cause]. 'Accompanying condition' refers to the matter belonging to dependent retribution; 'revealing the true' refers to the mind belonging to the true cause — this shows that the two dharmas cannot be separated from each other, hence 'included together.' From 'since' onward, the passage next distinguishes the unmanifest: named as the reverse of 'active,' it is not constructed through matter and mind, and so differs from the preceding condition. Though the dharma-essence does exist, it is neither matter nor mind, and has no [proper] name by which to be designated — so it is only provisionally labeled with these two negations to designate its essence, hence 'provisionally.'"

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Examining this karma-essence, it is originally generated by mind. It then, in turn, perfumes the original mind, possessing both capacity and function. Yet the way of the mind is obscure and hidden — it can only be given a general designation. Hence [this school] investigates and derives its essential nature strictly in terms of matter and mind; seeking it by each of their five defining marks in turn, it cannot be found under either, and not knowing what else to call it, [this school] provisionally labels it with the two negations." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The second part, investigating the essence by way of its meaning, has two parts: first directly showing the essence and its marks, itself in two parts — first directly showing the karma-essence. The first two clauses trace back to the platform from which it is generated; 'generated by mind' means it is constructed by the intention of the sixth consciousness itself. The next two clauses show its function once generated: the sixth consciousness in turn perfumes the sixth consciousness, hence 'perfumes in turn'; the mind that generates the essence is called 'the original mind.' If one speaks of its initial arising, then mind is what generates and the essence is what is generated; if one speaks in terms of perfuming, then the essence is what perfumes and mind is what is perfumed. Mind and the karma-essence are mutually subject and object of each other, possessing both capacity and function — 'capacity' means the power to give rise to later conduct, and 'function' means the power to ward off and block conditions leading to transgression. From 'the way of the mind' onward, the passage traces back to what is thereby established: mind has no form or shape, hence 'obscure and hidden'; it has only a name, hence 'can only be given a general designation.' Since it is originally, purely constructed by mind, yet mind itself is obscure while matter is manifest, [this school] therefore includes both together [in its account]. Wishing to make clear that the karma-essence is what this [mind] has constructed, it is said to 'investigate and derive its essential nature' — this is precisely the point at which the essence is [really] being indicated, though, fearing to disrupt the school's own stated doctrine, [the commentary] declines to point this out directly; students should reflect on this themselves. Just as matter and mind each have their own five defining marks, as explained above, the unmanifest possesses neither set — hence it is labeled with the two negations. This shows that the lesser vehicle's teaching cannot point directly [at the true essence], and so, attached to its own provisional intent, distinguishes it under a different name — hence 'provisionally labeled.' Question: twice it says 'provisionally labeled' — what teaching-intent does this reflect? Answer: strictly according to the school's own proper teaching, it is named as the reverse of 'active.' But taking the more inclusive sense, once one truly discerns its essential configuration, one comes to know that these two negations are themselves attached to a provisional intent in being established at all — hence 'provisionally.'"

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Question: as the true doctrine holds, [the unmanifest] perfumes the fundamental store-consciousness, and this is itself a seed capable of [supporting] later habituation — how, then, can it be said that, when the [precept-]term ends, the precept itself is relinquished? Answer: the seed is generated from mental intention; the vow is the resolve [taken at ordination]. The vow pertains to the whole of one's lifespan — when the lifespan ends, the precept is relinquished. Conduct follows from the vow and arises accordingly, but its function surpasses what preceded it, since this function is generated by mind, and follows the mind without ever being cut off. Hence [later scripture] speaks specifically in terms of conduct, [which] is able to give rise to later habituation — it does not speak in terms of the [merely] empty vow as what brings about the resulting fruit of bliss." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The second part, a question-and-answer resolving a doubt. This question arises because, later, the Consummate Teaching will determine that these very 'two negations' are in fact a consciousness-seed — and since consciousness itself is permanently present, the seed too would never cease, which would contradict the present school's own doctrine that the precept is lost when life ends. Hence [the commentary] reaches ahead to the later text to raise this objection, in order to make clear there is no real contradiction between the earlier and later positions. The first four clauses cite the later Consummate Teaching's text. 'This is' refers to the two negations mentioned above. The next two clauses state the objection directly. The mention of 'life's end' is simply an example — the point applies equally to all four modes of relinquishment. The answer has three parts: the first two clauses state the point generally. 'Intention' is the mind that conditions upon its object; 'vow' means the resolve taken for a fixed term. From 'the vow pertains' onward, two separate explanations follow: first explaining the latter clause — since the vow has both a beginning and an end, there is accordingly a relinquishment tied to that fixed term. From 'conduct' onward, next explaining the former clause — since intention itself has no fixed limit, the seed accordingly never perishes; 'conduct' here means the mind of intention itself; conduct arises after the vow, hence it is said to 'surpass what preceded it.' From 'hence' onward, the third part draws the two conclusions together: the first two clauses conclude that the seed persists; the latter two clauses conclude that the vow is relinquished. Question: how does this 'later habituation' differ from the Substantialist school's 'accumulating karma' discussed earlier? Answer: that school explains karma as the cause of accumulation, whereas this shows the seed as what is capable of being perfumed through habituation — the full details are given below."

Support Three: the Consummate Teaching.

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "Finally, explaining the precept-essence according to the Consummate Teaching." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses at length: "Third, on the Consummate Teaching: the preceding two are both lesser teachings, whereas this one is Mahayana — using the greater to settle the lesser, without needing to formally receive Mahayana [precepts separately], this is precisely the sense of 'consummate and sudden.' The preceding two schools each grasp one-sidedly at emptiness or existence unevenly; now, awakening to the fact that [their] teachings are [merely] provisional, [we see that] the names differ while the essence is one — matter and non-matter are, without exception, the same in this respect — this is precisely the sense of 'consummate and all-pervading.' Since the preceding [schools] proceeded from provisional [teaching] suited to one particular occasion and audience, whereas the present [teaching] genuinely, exhaustively, and ultimately reveals [the essence] — this is precisely the sense of 'consummate and complete.' Possessing all these senses together, it is therefore called 'consummate.' Question: the two schools each already claim a self-sufficient account of the essence — why is a separate Consummate Teaching needed at all? Answer: the two schools' derivations of the essence each rest on their own, differing teachings. If one relies on them alone, the essence is left unclear; but if one relies on neither at all, the various schools fall into confusion. Hence, following two [Mahayana] sutras, a single further teaching is separately established, exhaustively investigating principle and fully realizing [our own true] nature, resolving the matter once and for all — so that students may have something to rely on in their practice, and know where their own aspiration is ultimately headed; [this teaching] becomes a field of merit for all beings, and carries forward the causal seed of all the sages. It revives and exalts the Buddha-dharma, transcending birth-and-death. Unheard of across ten thousand kalpas, it is encountered in this very life. Apart from this one path, there is no other way at all. Were it not for the exhaustive investigation of our own patriarch's vehicle, one would have to trust that no single lifetime devoted to this path is ever spent in vain — how could this not be a grave error [to overlook]? Alas! Question: on the basis of what teaching and doctrine is this teaching established? Answer: what follows cites the Lotus and Nirvāṇa Sūtras as proof. The Lotus Sūtra opens the śrāvaka's path so that they, too, become Buddhas; the Nirvāṇa Sūtra upholds the lesser vehicle's Vinaya while expounding [the Buddha-nature's] permanence. Apart from these two sutras, no other scripture carries quite this same meaning. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra stands apart at a separate remove; the Vaipulya sutras [merely] rebuke and reprove. Hence the Brahma Net Sutra censures the two [lesser] vehicles as holding a mistaken view if they study [only the lesser teaching, without proceeding further]; the Sutra on Upāsaka Precepts treats the lesser teaching's dharmas as [merely] expedient means, holding it an offense not to go on studying further. The distinction between these two categories of scripture is made clear on this very basis."

The Zhiyuan Yibian states: "Question: is this the same as, or different from, the Tiantai school's own Consummate Teaching? Answer: the underlying principle is the same, though the exposition differs. Why say the principle is the same? Because the commentary below cites the Lotus Sūtra's text and adopts the Lotus Sūtra's own intent in establishing this consummate essence. It is only that that school's teaching encompasses everything comprehensively, whereas the present teaching is confined to this one single matter [of the precept-essence]. Taking this one matter and placing it within that comprehensive teaching, it corresponds to the precept as one of the sagely practices within that school's own 'sublime conduct.' Why say the exposition differs? Here, in order to clarify the precept-essence, [Dao Xuan] takes the Buddha's own intent directly and fuses the preceding two schools together, arriving at this account on his own terms — it is not a matter of simply borrowing from that other school. It is only that the names and categories happen to overlap, and this is why they are said to differ." [Zhiyuan Yibian, fasc. 1]

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Precepts are the condition that rouses the intention. Since ordinary beings, from beginningless time, have followed delusion in giving rise to karma, whatever they do, they meet again with delusion — with no thought at all of turning back toward the source. It is for this very reason that the great sages establish precepts, to rouse the intention, so that one does not fall further into delusion and continue to sink through birth-and-death." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The first part, recounting the fundamental purpose of establishing this teaching, has two parts. The first clause states this directly: 'the condition that rouses the intention' shows that every single precept is nothing other than the karma of one's own mind — the World-Honored One, following karma, establishes the [corresponding] teaching and thereby rouses and awakens it; there is no separate 'precept' apart from this. Since beings' karma is limitless, precepts too are limitless; since karma is inexhaustible, precepts too are inexhaustible. One should know that the two hundred fifty [monastic] precepts, the three thousand [modes of dignified conduct], the eighty thousand [minor observances] — every one of these limitless codes of restraint — are nothing other than [this same mind]. From 'since' onward, the direct explanation: because mind is turned by its object, it follows delusion; because mind and object unite, karma arises. Having grown accustomed to delusion for so long, whatever stirs follows after sense-objects, hence 'meets with delusion' — 'meeting' means uniting. Sinking through kalpa after kalpa, one forgets one's own source ever more completely — the 'source' being one's own mind itself; apart from the Buddha's teaching, how could one ever think to turn back? This recounts the inexhaustibility of beings' own deluded karma. From 'it is for this reason' onward, the passage next recounts how the Tathāgata, on the basis of karma, establishes precepts, so as to bring deluded karma to rest. Once deluded karma is at rest, the resulting fruit of suffering likewise collapses, and one no longer sinks through birth-and-death — thus one is able to turn back to the source and awaken again to one's own mind."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "The foolish take [the essence] to be one thing or another, and, clinging to their own position, become attached to it — some relying on matter-and-mind, others on neither matter nor mind. The wise know that the object conditioned upon is, at root, simply constructed by mind. Without falsely conditioning upon [external] objects, there is only the one consciousness, which, following conditions, transforms and manifests as this and as that." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses at length: "The second part, on the different capacities of practitioners, has two parts. First, recounting the dull practitioner's mistaken calculation. Examining this passage closely, it directly resolves the essence as it is actually received today: the earlier explanation of subtle matter has already refuted the Sarvāstivāda school; the present passage decides, specifically, the Dharmaguptaka school's own account of active and unmanifest karma. Active karma is constructed by mind, [yet that school] also includes matter [in its account]; unmanifest karma is a mental seed, [yet that school] holds it to be neither matter nor mind. This difference arises because, in the Buddha's own lifetime, [his listeners'] capacities for awakening differed, causing [his followers], after his passing, to divide into schools, each holding its own calculation. Hence the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'In my sutras, sometimes I spoke [of the precept-essence] as matter, and the bhikṣus accordingly say it is matter; sometimes I spoke of it as not matter, and the bhikṣus accordingly say it is not matter — in every case this is because they fail to understand my true intent,' meaning they do not recognize that the Buddha spoke by way of expedient means. From 'the wise' onward, the passage next recounts the sharp-facultied practitioner's easy awakening, in two parts: first, clarifying awakened understanding brought about through the teaching. 'Object' refers to both sentient and non-sentient objects such as the two truths; 'condition' refers to the dust-mote-and-sand-grain-like dharmas regulated according to their object — both of these are [ultimately] mind. 'Constructed' means all of it, without exception, is simply mind. From 'without' onward, the passage next clarifies reflective contemplation: having already realized that everything is simply mind, then, whatever stirs and functions, one no longer conditions upon external objects at all; gathering the mind and reflecting inward, one sees only the one consciousness. This consciousness is precisely the essence of mind — not fixed to any single nature of its own, it follows defiled or pure conditions to construct dark or bright karma, forming wholesome or unwholesome retribution — hence there arise the differentiated ten realms of both sentient beings and Buddhas, as environment and inhabitant alike; hence it is said to have 'this and that.' From beginningless time, failing to understand this, [beings] construct false karma pervading the entire Dharma-realm as their object, appearing and disappearing throughout birth-and-death. It is for this very reason that the Tathāgata, matching the Dharma-realm as object, establishes precepts without limit. The precepts have no separate essence of their own — they are simply this same false karma; just as with lust, theft, and so on — how could there be some separate 'precept' apart from these? Precisely by turning false [conduct] into karma, restraining that karma is what is called 'precept.' Hence the Procedural Commentary says: before receiving the precepts, unwholesomeness pervades the entire Dharma-realm; now, wishing to proceed to reception, one reverses those former unwholesome objects and gives rise, in their place, to a wholesome mind — hence the very cause from which the precept arises likewise pervades the entire Dharma-realm. And the Sutra on Upāsaka Precepts says: sentient beings are limitless, the great earth is limitless, plants and trees are limitless, the ocean's waters are immeasurable, empty space is without boundary — and the precepts are equally so. All of this carries the very same meaning."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Wishing to bring deluded feeling to an end, one must first know deluded karma for what it is. Hence, through the formal act of reception, one perfumes the deluded mind in turn; and within the fundamental store-consciousness, a wholesome seed is thereby formed. This is the precept-essence." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses at length: "The third part, on the received essence, has three sections. First, showing the essence and its marks according to the Consummate meaning. What was explained above concerned the sharp-facultied practitioner giving rise to great understanding before formal reception; what is explained here concerns the fact that cultivation and realization must first begin with receiving the precepts. The passage itself has three parts. The first clause expresses the wish to be liberated — 'bring to an end' means exhaust completely; the words 'deluded feeling' broadly include the afflictions of views, thought, and fundamental ignorance. The second clause looks back on one's own accumulated karma: from beginningless time, habituated over and over, unwholesomeness has accumulated deeply over a long span; though one may already understand that everything is simply mind, it remains genuinely difficult to actually tame and subdue in practice. Apart from the precept-Dharma, there is no way to settle this karma. Hence it is said: the precepts the Buddha established are like a chain on a monkey, a bit and bridle on a horse, or a hand seizing a thief; they cut off the stream of birth-and-death and give rise to the power of concentration and wisdom. They are the very foundation of bodhi, the first gate to nirvāṇa — which is exactly why the sages of all three vehicles alike proceed along this very path. To set this aside and still seek to cultivate the path is to waste one's efforts in vain; to step backward while seeking to go forward can never arrive anywhere at all. From 'hence' onward, the third section explains how the Dharma is received according to this same condition, itself in two parts. The first two clauses show the active karma: 'the formal act' broadly covers everything from the initial expedient preparations through to the moment of formal reception itself. 'Perfuming the deluded mind' means that, borrowing the sublime object set before one, a sublime mind is roused into activity; this mind, turning back against delusion, is itself the true mind — and it is by means of this true [mind] perfuming the deluded [mind] that delusion is kept from arising. This is exactly what the Procedural Commentary means when it says: taking one's own vow, undertaking the expedient means, making the mind's own vessel wholesome and pure, resolved never to do evil, weighing one's intention with clear wisdom, one's mind silently merges with the Dharma set before it. This is precisely the perfuming subject, with delusion as what is perfumed. This is the 'active' perfuming — comparable to burning incense to perfume away every foul odor. The next three clauses directly explain the unmanifest: through this perfuming, karma is accomplished, and once karma is perfected, it becomes a seed. This seed possesses its own force and function; without needing any further construction, it perfumes on its own, spontaneously and continuously — the deluded seed lies dormant and hidden, and deluded thoughts no longer arise. This is the 'unmanifest' perfuming — comparable to how, even once the incense itself has burned away, its lingering fragrance still remains. The first clause indicates the locus depended upon, which is also what is perfumed; the next clause reveals the essence that depends upon it, which is also the perfuming subject itself. 'Wholesome' distinguishes it from the unwholesome. 'Seed' is a metaphor: just as, in the world, every grain and fruit possesses its own seed, so too, stated briefly, ten features apply — (1) it arises from a coming-together of manifold conditions; (2) its essential nature differs from case to case; (3) its generative nature persists continuously; (4) it grows and matures spontaneously, without further effort; (5) it already contains within it root, stalk, flower, leaf, and every such feature; (6) though it already contains all this, none of it can actually be perceived or grasped; (7) when the proper time comes, it opens and unfolds; (8) seed and resulting fruit never fail to correspond; (9) it continues on, one generation flowing into the next; (10) what it produces multiplies many times over. The unmanifest possesses all these same features, and so is compared to a seed in this way. Yet the term 'seed' is used broadly, and its precise meaning requires careful distinction. First, with respect to the ten realms: the four evil destinies are unwholesome, the remaining six are wholesome. Next, within the wholesome: the human and heavenly realms are [merely] contaminated, while the four sagely realms are uncontaminated. Third, within the sagely realms themselves: the three vehicles' own scriptures are one-sided and provisional, while only the Buddha-vehicle is consummate and real. Now, this precept-seed under discussion here — the text only distinguishes it from the unwholesome — but, measured against the human and heavenly realms, it is an uncontaminated seed, and measured against the one-sided, provisional [teachings], it is a consummate, real seed. The practitioner should know that the very essence one originally received is nothing other than the seed of the single essence shared by the three bodies of Buddhahood. The Bodhisattva-gocaropāya-viṣaya-vikurvāṇa-nirdeśa Sūtra [spoken to the Nirgrantha] says: 'the Tathāgata's own body, adorned with merit, takes receiving the precepts as its root, and upholding the precepts as its starting point.' And the Lotus Sūtra says: 'the Buddha-seed arises through conditions' — this carries exactly the same meaning. The clause that follows concludes and shows that what is truly, ultimately established amounts to just this one point. Question: once this essence has been generated, must one afterward still separately receive the bodhisattva precepts? If one need not receive them separately, should keeping and transgressing then simply be judged directly according to the Mahayana standard? But if one must still receive them separately, does this mean the unmanifest karma is generated a second time, redundantly? Both possibilities require careful examination — they must not be carelessly conflated."

The Zhiyuan Yibian states: "The Tiantai commentary says: '[the nature] simply has not yet arisen; once it arises, it is the nature's own unmanifest, imputed form.' The Nanshan [tradition, i.e. Dao Xuan] says: 'it perfumes the fundamental store-consciousness, forming a wholesome seed — this is the precept-essence.' In Tiantai's account, the single word 'nature' names the very cause capable of arising, while 'unmanifest, imputed form' names the essence thereby generated. In Nanshan's account, 'the store-consciousness' names the very locus depended upon, while 'the wholesome seed' names the essence that depends upon it. What is capable of arising, and what it depends upon, is a nature already inherently present; what is thereby generated, and what depends upon it, is the essence [actually constituted] through today's reception. If the essence is derived in this way, the textual basis is entirely clear — subject and object are each distinctly accounted for, and essence and nature are never carelessly conflated. Only then can reception be free of doubt, and cultivation have something genuine to rely upon." [Zhiyuan Yibian, fasc. 2]

The Zhiyuan Yibian further states: "What the sutras and treatises describe as the bodhisattva precepts actually divide, of themselves, into two essences. The first is 'the essence proper,' which is precisely the precept-essence, no different from the wholesome seed discussed here. The second is 'the depended-upon essence,' which is the mind-nature itself. This being so, the mind-nature is merely what the precept-essence depends upon — it is, in reality, not itself the precept-essence." [Zhiyuan Yibian, fasc. 1]

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Because this original seed perfumes the mind, its power remains constant, and it is able to draw forth later habituation. Since it gives rise to its own function, with respect to every object of possible transgression it possesses the capacity to remember, to uphold, and to guard against wrongdoing; following the mind's own activity, it in turn perfumes the fundamental consciousness once again, and through this cycling process it is able to quiet the very source of delusion. If one fails to examine oneself diligently, even the slightest lapse into a deluded state of mind will, in turn, perfume that original delusion once more, deepening and compounding it still further." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses at length: "The second part, on clarifying keeping and transgressing according to ongoing practice, has two sections. First, clarifying reverent upholding, itself in two parts: the first clause picks up on the received essence discussed above. From 'because' onward, the practice of ongoing conduct is directly recounted, in three parts. The first clause clarifies its power: to say its power 'remains constant' is because it operates ceaselessly, life after life, always abiding. The next clause clarifies its capacity: 'later habituation' has two distinct senses — first, the habituated cause, which extends all the way into the future; second, the habituated fruit, which is precisely the three bodies of Buddhahood realized afterward. What is explained here, in speaking of 'giving rise to what follows,' concerns specifically the cause. The clauses that follow clarify its function: 'able to remember' means it is not forgotten at any time; 'able to uphold' means it is grasped and preserved without loss; 'able to guard against' means sense-conditions cannot invade or overcome it. Because of remembering, one is able to uphold; because of upholding, one is able to guard — one single mind, three functions, with neither before nor after, following the mind's own activity, spanning from beginning to end without exception. 'Perfuming the fundamental consciousness' refers to the perfuming that occurs within ongoing practice itself, which encompasses both active and unmanifest karma alike. This cycling process has four stages: first, differentiation according to the object encountered; second, the sequence in which the mind arises; third, the continuous succession of retribution that follows; fourth, the graded distinctions among the stages [of the path] one enters. 'Quiets the very source of delusion' is a phrase spanning both cause and effect — according to what is explained further below, once cultivation reveals and one fully realizes the three consummate bodies, [delusion] is ultimately and permanently exhausted, hence 'quiets.' From 'if' onward, the passage next clarifies negligent transgression, in two parts: the first two clauses reverse the three functions described above; the latter two clauses reverse the precept's own perfuming described above. Question: how many kinds of perfuming are there? Answer: first, the perfuming of active karma at the moment of reception, which perfumes and forms the unmanifest; next, the perfuming of the unmanifest itself, which perfumes and gives rise to ongoing practice; third, the perfuming of both active and unmanifest karma within ongoing practice itself, which in turn nourishes the original essence. As for what is perfumed, in every case it is the mind-consciousness that is perfumed."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Hence the practitioner should constantly reflect that this conduct is precisely the Restraint Collection [of the Three Collections of Pure Precepts], serving as the pure mind of the Dharma-body Buddha. Because delusion covers over the true, it does not allow this purity to shine forth clearly — hence one must cultivate in order to reveal it. This is called the Dharma-body Buddha." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses at length: "The third section, exhorting in detail by way of cause and effect, has three parts: first, the Restraint Collection; second, the Wholesome Dharmas Collection; third, the Benefiting Sentient Beings Collection. First, one should know the underlying intent. A being's own consciousness-essence is, of itself, originally pure, free of every defiling stain — but because of false thinking, it turns instead into affliction. It is, moreover, originally free and self-sufficient, complete with skillful means, wisdom, and awe-inspiring virtuous function — but because of delusion, it turns instead into karmic bondage. It is, moreover, originally equal throughout, with no distinction of self and other, love and hatred — but because of false thinking, it turns instead into birth-and-death. Now, wishing to return to this source, three vows are established. First, the vow to cut off evil: one receives the Restraint Collection, cultivates practice free of defilement, and proceeds toward the Gate of Wishlessness-Liberation, thereby restoring original purity and realizing the Dharma-body Buddha — this is called the virtue of severance. Second, the vow to cultivate wholesomeness: one receives the Wholesome Dharmas Collection, cultivates skillful-means practice, and proceeds toward the Gate of Emptiness-Liberation, thereby restoring original freedom and realizing the Reward-body Buddha — this is called the virtue of wisdom. Third, the vow to liberate sentient beings: one receives the Benefiting Sentient Beings Collection, cultivates compassionate-wisdom practice, and proceeds toward the Gate of Signlessness-Liberation, thereby restoring original equality and realizing the Response-body Buddha — this is called the virtue of grace. Yet these three vows, three precept-collections, three practices, three liberations, three bodies, and three virtues — whichever single vow one raises up, all three vows are already complete within it; and this holds equally for the three bodies and three virtues, each and every one. Though they are stated in sequence, in principle there is no real separation among them. Receiving with this very mind is itself what generates the consummate essence; upholding with this very mind is itself what accomplishes consummate conduct. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'precepts are the very root of unsurpassed bodhi.' The Vimalakīrti Sūtra says: 'one who is able to do this is said to truly uphold the Vinaya.' The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'one who wishes to see the Buddha-nature and realize great nirvāṇa must uphold the precepts,' and so on — all of this carries exactly this same meaning. The first explanation, of the Restraint Collection, has two parts: first, stating cause and fruit together. The single word 'precisely' points to the small and identifies it with the great — this is exactly the sense in which the Consummate school fuses everything together. The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom takes the eighty recitations [of the Vinaya] as themselves the pāramitā of moral discipline; the Śrīmālā-devī Sūtra holds that the Vinaya is itself Mahayana learning — one must grasp this same sense in order to make that other passage's meaning fully accessible. 'Restraint' here means prohibiting evil, stopping karma, breaking through affliction all the way to its ultimate exhaustion. 'The pure mind' is precisely the essence of the Dharma-body. From 'from' onward, the reason is next explained, in two parts: the first two clauses recount past delusion — 'not shining forth clearly' is because it is obstructed by greed and defilement, having lost its own original purity. The next two clauses reveal present awakening: 'must cultivate in order to reveal it' — receiving the precepts, breaking through the obstruction, is precisely the cause capable of revealing; the Dharma-body is precisely the fruit thereby revealed."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Because delusion covers over the true, deludedly conditioning upon hatred and attachment, there comes to be [the false distinction between] self and other, and the turning wheel of birth-and-death. Now, turning back to the very source of this delusion, one recognizes that whatever thought of another arises is not falsely to be met with resentment or injury, but rather protected and cherished exactly as one would one's own past life — this is precisely what is called the Benefiting Sentient Beings Collection. Since beings are limitless, this mind of protection is likewise limitless; it is able to perfume the fundamental store-consciousness, and becomes the Transformation-body Buddha. Following wherever that mind stirs, there is no case in which it fails to respond — just like the moon reflected in water, responding to whatever vessel, large or small, happens to receive it." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses at length: "Third, the Benefiting Sentient Beings Collection, in two parts: first, recounting delusion. 'Hatred and attachment' are precisely the obstruction, since they forget original equality; because of the discrimination between self and other, one receives the mixed retribution of birth-and-death. From 'now' onward, awakening is revealed, in two parts: first, cultivating the cause, itself in three parts. The first two clauses open up the understanding of equality: recognizing that whatever thought of another arises is likewise simply a transformation of consciousness-only, self and other sharing one and the same essence, with no distinction of higher or lower. The next two clauses cultivate the practice of equality: 'protect and cherish' broadly includes the four great vows, the four immeasurable states of mind, and the four means of attracting beings. From 'this is' onward, the next two clauses conclude with the name. From 'since beings' onward, the next section concerns bringing about the fruit, in three parts: the first two clauses show mind and object corresponding to each other; the next two clauses show compassion's perfuming bringing the fruit to completion; the final four clauses clarify how, following conditions, response arises. 'Like the moon in water': water is the metaphor for the capacity that calls forth response, the moon is the metaphor for the response that descends; the moon does not actually enter the water, nor does the water actually sully the moon — yet, according to the vessel's size, once the ripples settle, its reflection appears. The power of compassion's wholesome root, and the response it calls forth, are truly inconceivable."

The Jiyuan Commentary states: "Question: are the Three Collections and the three bodies the same, or different? Answer: the terms differ, but the meaning is one. Raise up any single precept, and all Three Collections are already complete within it; raise up any single collection, and each mutually includes the others in exactly the same way. Hence we know that, at the moment of initial reception, one gives rise to all three vows in their full consummation; through ongoing upholding, one fully cultivates all three practices in their consummation; and, as the cause comes to fruition, one fully realizes the three bodies in their consummation. The three vows are themselves the Three Collections and three bodies; the Three Collections are themselves the three bodies and three vows; the three bodies are themselves the three vows and Three Collections. Mind and Buddha are without difference; cause and effect are not two. Only one who can see it this way deserves the name 'consummate precept' — this alone is the pāramitā, the truly ultimate liberation. Hence we know: if a practitioner gives rise to this very mind, if a practitioner obtains this very essence, one should recognize this as nothing other than the seed of the three Buddha-bodies. How, then, could one belittle oneself, and fail to hold it precious? And though these three precept-collections mutually include one another, when it comes to actual cultivation, since [the third collection, benefiting sentient beings] is constantly employed in gathering in beings, it is able to spontaneously encompass everything else — how, then, could it be confined to just this one collection alone? Question: since the [lesser] teaching has its own proper boundaries, why is this [Mahayana framework] shown here at all? Answer: it is in order to establish our own school's sense of 'partially opening onto the Mahayana.' Why is this so? As the Sutra on the Bodhisattva Precepts explains, the five, the ten, and the full monastic precepts each in turn serve as an expedient means for what follows: hence one receives the five and habituates the ten, receives the ten and habituates the full precepts, receives the full precepts and habituates the Mahayana — and so the first three precept-levels are all, alike, called 'expedient means.' Our Nominalist school, knowing this to be provisional, does not remain fixed within the provisional; it accords with, and opens onto, the deeper intent of that other division [of the canon], serving as the very preface to formally receiving the Mahayana. This is exactly why the Procedural Commentary recounts generating the [initial] resolve in terms of accomplishing the Three Collections, while here [in this later gate] ongoing practice is explained in correspondence with the three bodies — vow and conduct mutually support each other, each illuminating the other in turn. There, the resolve is made in anticipation of a later, [separate Mahayana] reception; here, the very conduct itself already constitutes the earlier cultivation — only this way can one truly see how deeply grounded the Consummate school's own claim actually is. If this is so, then, having already shown this 'partial opening,' why is a separate teaching still required? Answer: though the underlying meaning already opens onto the Mahayana, the [formal] teaching itself remains, in the end, confined to the lesser vehicle, and the two must not be carelessly conflated. Hence a separate teaching is required, following its own intent to its full logical conclusion, without throwing the [proper distinctions between] schools into disorder. Consider: in the earlier account of the Substantialist school, not a single word 'mind' appears; in the account that follows of the Nominalist school, not a single word 'seed' appears — only here does one truly see how deeply our sagely master grasped both the provisional and the real together. Beyond this, the ordinary and the foolish are not yet equipped to fathom such a meaning."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "This gate has, in outline, distinguished the small differences among the three schools' accounts of the precept-essence — and in doing so has, of necessity, involved a great deal of language." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "'In outline' shows that this is not exhaustive. 'Small differences' means that, considered strictly by school and by terminology, the accounts do not overlap — but considered in terms of the karma-essence itself, they are, in the end, always one and the same. One should know that 'subtle matter,' 'the two negations,' and 'the seed' are simply different accounts the Tathāgata offers according to what is fitting in each case. 'Involved a great deal of language' refers precisely to how elaborate this discussion has become."

[Editorial note: from the very opening of Item Four, "Establishing the True Doctrine" — where the Commentary on Karman Procedures asks "what, then, is the precept-essence?" — down through this present passage, "of necessity involved a great deal of language," the Commentary on Karman Procedures's own text, laying out the three schools in turn, represents the single most refined and profound piece of writing in Dao Xuan's entire body of work. Scholars both past and present, throughout China and beyond, have transmitted and recited it widely. But because the commentary text has been interwoven with, and cut apart by, the root text, the Commentary's own prose has ended up fragmented and scattered, unable to be read as one continuous, unified whole. It is my earnest hope that readers will separately copy out this passage in full, gather it into a single continuous scroll, and recite and hold it regularly — so that its subtlety may truly be glimpsed, and the sagely intent of our Vinaya patriarch's own guidance not be betrayed.]

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "[All this is] so that one may recognize the underlying condition, and know that it ultimately returns to the Mahayana — hence one's mind must be fixed on that very place. As the sutra says: 'throughout the Buddha-lands of the ten directions, there is only the one vehicle — except when the Buddha, as expedient means, speaks provisionally, using assumed names.' Once one knows this meaning, one should guard [the precepts] as one would guard one's own life, as one would guard a life-raft [in the ocean]. As the text says: 'once I have bound my disciples to the precepts on their behalf, they would rather die than transgress them.' And there is also the analogy, in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, of the demon and the life-raft." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses at length: "First, showing where one ultimately returns. 'Recognize the underlying condition' means this: the myriad objects, countless as dust-motes and sand-grains, and the boundless [precept-]restraints established for them, are, from beginningless time, [the product of] inverted thinking mistaking them for external things — and it is on this basis that one undergoes the turning wheel [of birth-and-death]. Now, knowing that everything is simply consciousness, with no external sense-object at all, at the very moment of formal reception one conditions oneself universally upon the entire Dharma-realm, boldly gives rise to the three vows, reverses one's three former obstructions, and, through the power of mind and karma, binds together a seed, which becomes, of itself, the precept-essence. One should know that the conditioning subject and its object, what gives rise and what is thereby given rise to, the perfuming subject and what is perfumed — none of these is anything other than the mind's own nature. Since mind is boundless, the essence too is boundless; since mind is inexhaustible, the precepts too are inexhaustible. One should know that this is precisely giving rise to the bodhi-mind, cultivating the practice of great compassion, and seeking the unsurpassed fruit. This is called the real path; this is precisely the Mahayana. The Tathāgatas of the three times, the Buddhas of the ten directions, appearing in birth and proclaiming their passing, opening [the teaching] suddenly for some and guiding others gradually, through a hundred, a thousand expedient means, through limitless Dharma-gates, through every manner of skillful activity — none of it is anything other than this. Hence it is said: 'though I speak of every kind of path, in truth it is all for the sake of the one Buddha-vehicle.' This is precisely the place where practice itself fixes the mind. And yet, in this turbid age, obstructions run deep, habituated patterns are difficult to break, and the beginner's mind is often timid, liable to retreat from bodhi. Hence one must, in addition, set one's aim on rebirth in Amitābha's Pure Land. Moreover, the Consummate school's own Three Collections are themselves precisely the three minds of the highest grade [of rebirth in that Pure Land]: cutting off evil through the Restraint Collection is precisely the utterly sincere mind; gathering wholesomeness and cultivating wisdom through the Wholesome Dharmas Collection is precisely the profound mind; and gathering beings and benefiting them through the Benefiting Sentient Beings Collection is precisely the mind that dedicates merit and makes the vow. Once these three minds are complete, one is certain to attain the highest grade [of rebirth] — one obtains the forbearance of the unborn without needing many further lifetimes, and one's own attainment of bodhi suffers no retreat or discouragement at all. This, too, is the ultimate place where the practitioner's own mind is fixed. What follows cites proof, namely the Lotus Sūtra's own text on revealing the [one true teaching]. The sutra says: 'these nine divisions of my own teaching, spoken according to what beings can accept, all take entry into the Mahayana as their root' — of the twelve divisions [of scripture], nine belong to the lesser vehicle, since these too ultimately return to the one Buddha-vehicle. And it further says: 'whether śrāvaka or bodhisattva, whoever hears the Dharma I have spoken — even a single verse of it — will, without any doubt, all become Buddhas. Among the Buddha-lands of the ten directions, there is only the one vehicle's teaching' — this holds true throughout the ten directions, not for Śākyamuni's own land alone; there is neither a second vehicle nor a third. [The 'one vehicle' is set against 'two' when contrasted with the great and small, and set against 'three' when contrasted with the three vehicles.] 'Except when the Buddha speaks as expedient means, using assumed names alone to guide sentient beings, in order to proclaim the Buddha's own wisdom' — [teachings concerning] the other vehicles' cultivation, realization, cause, fruit, matter or non-matter, and so forth, are all, alike, expedient means and assumed names. From 'once' onward, cultivation is urged, in two parts: the first clause picks up on the awakening just described — because one recognizes the underlying condition, should one give rise to any violation or transgression, this is precisely to transgress against one's own mind, to increase deluded karma, to sink further into birth-and-death, to defile the Buddha-seed, to retreat from bodhi, and to lose the benefit of merit and virtue. The Mahayana and lesser-vehicle sutras and treatises alike broadly exhort upholding [the precepts], and though this is not always stated explicitly, the sages' own intent lies exactly here. If one does not know this, the gain or loss involved seems slight; but once one truly knows this, what is gained is profound indeed, and what is lost correspondingly great — hence, by principle, one must guard oneself with real care, and must not indulge oneself even slightly. From 'therefore' onward, the passage concludes by exhorting upholding: life itself, and a life-raft, are what ordinary people in the world hold most dear, and are cited here simply as an analogy. The various sutras and treatises tell of the goose and the pearl, the bhikṣu bound by grass, the bhikṣu on the ship's plank — in every case forgetting their own lives in order to guard the precepts; by comparison, even one's own lifespan and a life-raft are not, after all, worth so very much. 'As the text says' refers to the root Vinaya text itself: 'would rather die than transgress' means the precepts are valued as more than mere life itself. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra's demon begging for a life-raft, down to the smallest scrap of it, and the bodhisattva's refusal to yield even that much — this is an analogy for guarding even the smallest, seemingly minor transgression." [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 16]

The Zhiyuan Yibian states: "As for the precept-essence: it is the very hinge of the entire Vinaya canon, the very foundation of keeping and transgressing, the very fountainhead of turning the current back, the very guide that leads all practice forward. But because the various teachings [on this point] have remained submerged and obscure, and the underlying principle runs so deep, across nine dynasties of transmitted teaching, eminent worthies have appeared from time to time, and though each pursued his own separate path, none was ever heard to reach a final, settled resolution. It was only when the Tang dynasty came that our own patriarch alone exhaustively investigated the hidden depths and fully realized [our own true] nature, turning over the ancients' teachings again and again, dismissing whatever was superficial or false, dissecting and adjudicating the schools' own doctrines, carefully weighing their meaning and principle, and firmly establishing the three schools as they now stand. This may truly be called gathering together the very wellspring of the Buddha's teaching throughout its transformations, and kindling the sun of wisdom for the multitude still lost in confusion. First, the Sarvāstivāda school: both the active and unmanifest essences are matter — this much is already understood. Second, the Tattvasiddhi school: active karma takes matter-and-mind as its essence — this, too, is already understood. As for the unmanifest karma, said to take neither matter nor mind as its essence: 'neither matter nor mind' is, however, merely the name of the aggregate under which it is classified, and is not, in reality, a description of its actual configuration — and this has led, across the generations, to no small amount of mistaken commentary on the point. Now, following the Commentary's own text, one may derive its true name directly: it is, in secret, simply speaking of the wholesome seed all along. It is only that, being confined to the lesser vehicle's own teaching, [that school] could not yet point to this directly, and so, externally, gave it the name 'neither matter nor mind.' Hence the Commentary says: 'examining this karma-essence, it is originally generated by mind, and in turn perfumes the original mind, possessing both capacity and function' — down to where it says, 'not knowing what else to call it, it is provisionally labeled with the two negations.' Examining this passage closely, though it does not yet say 'wholesome seed' outright, it already says the essence 'perfumes the mind' and 'possesses function' — the secret meaning here is plainly visible for anyone who looks. One should recognize that this is already the very essence that will later be derived as 'neither matter nor mind.' Third, the Consummate Teaching: this fuses together the preceding schools, pointing directly to the real meaning itself. What the preceding two schools each call their essence is, in fact, already the wholesome seed — grasping the root by way of the branch, this same wholesome seed is precisely what the preceding two essences actually were all along; gathering the branch back into the root is precisely what is meant by 'the Consummate account' — the name used makes no real difference either way. Hence the Commentary says: 'here we discuss this one single dharma according to three schools' — hence we know the distinctions are three, while the essence itself is, in reality, not two. Question: if it is said that the essence is only one, while the distinctions are three, does this mean the preceding two schools possess only an empty name, with no real essence behind it at all? Answer: though the schools each hold their own calculation, how could the essence itself actually differ or diverge? It is simply that, taking it to be different, they forcibly constructed their own separate names for it. One should know that the Sarvāstivāda school calculates the seed as matter, the Tattvasiddhi school calculates the seed as neither matter nor mind — it is only the later Consummate Teaching that points out what the preceding two really were, all along. Hence the Commentary says: 'the foolish take it to be different, and, clinging to their own position, become attached to it,' and so on. Let me offer a further analogy: it is like a fine piece of jade found in the world. One person, out of ignorance, calls the jade a mere stone; another calls it 'not-stone,' without yet being able to reveal its true substance; only a later person, grasping the real truth, can point out the error in both earlier accounts at once. If there were no jade-substance there to begin with, how could there be any failure to recognize it? This is the analogy for how the present three schools resemble one another in this same respect. Question: for what reason is it called 'wholesome seed'? Answer: 'wholesome' is the Dharma-essence itself; 'seed' is the metaphor. What is meant is this: the precept-Dharma, countless as dust-motes and sand-grains, is received into the fundamental store-consciousness, and thereafter gives rise to ongoing conduct; this conduct is able to draw forth a future fruit — just as a grain of rice, sown into a field, sprouts, grows into a stalk, and eventually bears fruit as a full head of grain. The correspondence holds without any real difference — hence the name is given."

The Zhiyuan Yibian further states: "As for the essence of the received Dharma, following the Commentary on Karman Procedures's own three-school analysis: first, the Sarvāstivāda school. Active and unmanifest karma are both, in essence, matter. The continuous wholesome form-and-sound produced by bodily and verbal expedient means is the essence of active karma; matter gathered under the sense-object of dharmas, [i.e.] imputed matter, is the essence of the unmanifest. Now, our own patriarch, in investigating the essence, holds that this is, in fact, the very nature of wholesome and unwholesome karma itself — perceptible to the heavenly eye, distinctly and clearly, the same in kind as an intermediate-state being, subtle and difficult to know, differing from the coarse matter perceived by the ordinary fleshly eye; hence it is called 'subtle matter.' Second, the Tattvasiddhi school. The essences of active and unmanifest karma differ from each other: body-and-speech-karma-as-intention, which is able to produce both matter and mind, is the essence of active karma; 'neither matter nor mind' — sought by each of the five defining marks in turn, and in every case unattainable — is the essence of the unmanifest. Our patriarch, investigating the essence, [holds that] it is precisely mind constructing karma, perfuming through habituation and thereby possessing function, able to give rise to later habituation; since mind itself cannot be given any fixed shape, it is provisionally described by way of matter, in order to make it manifest. The measure of the karma thereby generated differs from that of active karma — possessing both mind and matter together, and yet corresponding to neither exactly — and so it is provisionally named with the two negations, taken together as the precept-essence. Third, according to the Consummate Teaching school, clarifying the essence: it is simply that the two preceding schools, each following their own respective calculation, describe the matter in terms of motion or stillness, but in the end neither reaches the ultimate truth. Hence [Dao Xuan] reaches across and takes up the Mahayana's own consummate, real meaning, pointing directly to that same essence as nothing other than the ālaya store-consciousness itself, flowing and transforming according to conditions, and thereby constructing a karma-seed. What actually constructs it is the sixth consciousness — this is precisely the active karma. The karma thus constructed, held and preserved by the ālaya, is what is called the unmanifest; the karmic cause thereby stored up is called the wholesome seed. Though karma is constructed by mind, once it is accomplished, it stands together with the remaining consciousnesses, its nature no longer subject to opposition or obstruction; and it is, moreover, constructed of the four great elements, its essence subject to increase and decrease, perceptible to the heavenly eye as distinctly wholesome or unwholesome. This is precisely why the Tathāgata, according to differing capacities, meeting differing beings, sometimes speaks of it as neither matter nor mind, and sometimes speaks of it as matter. Lesser capacities, failing to grasp this fully, calculate it as matter, thereby rejecting the emptiness-school's own view; or cling to 'neither matter nor mind,' thereby denouncing the Sarvāstivāda school as mistaken. As in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, [where the Buddha says] this is, in every case, simply because [his listeners] fail to understand his own true intent — causing contending calculations to diverge along separate paths. But the school we follow here takes, throughout, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra's own final, ultimate teaching, gathering together these divergent extremes and bringing them back to a single, unified conclusion. This may truly be called uniting the essence from beginning to end throughout the whole transformative teaching, and cutting through the net of doubt for later generations. Hence the Commentary on Karman Procedures says: 'it ultimately returns to the Mahayana, hence one's mind must be fixed on that very place' — this same clear instruction is elaborated at length in that text. What people today receive corresponds precisely to the Tattvasiddhi Nominalist school: 'neither matter nor mind' is its own stated Dharma-essence; taking the Consummate view to gain full access to it, this is nothing other than the wholesome seed itself. What has been set forth here gives only a rough outline of the matter's own thread; when it comes to the deep intricacies of karmic theory, it runs extremely deep and subtle, and without sustained study one is genuinely liable to be left at a loss — as when the blind men each grasp a different part of the elephant, the confusion remains widespread even among people today." [Zhiyuan Yibian, fasc. 1]

Item Five: sequential generation.

The Zichi Commentary states: "As for active karma, there is no question of before-and-after at all [since it occupies only the one span of ritual activity]. It is unmanifest karma alone that has attracted multiple explanations, and so requires careful resolution."

The Procedural Commentary states: "The first explanation holds that, like the two horns of an ox, the two arise at exactly the same moment. Hence the Sarvāstivāda treatise says: in the very first instant, the precept possesses both the manifest and unmanifest teaching together; in the second instant, only the unmanifest teaching remains." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "The first, 'simultaneous,' explanation has two parts: the first two clauses offer the analogy; from 'hence' onward, proof is cited. That both are present together in the first instant can be verified as arising at exactly the same time."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "The second explanation holds that the two arise in sequence, one after the other. Hence the Sutra on Upāsaka Precepts says: among worldly dharmas, wherever there is a cause, there is also a fruit — just as, because of water or a mirror, a reflected face appears. Hence we know that active karma arises first, and unmanifest karma arises only afterward. As for the treatise's statement that, 'at the moment of the [ordination] act, both manifest and unmanifest are already present together' — this refers to action-concurrent unmanifest karma, which, together with the manifest act, both belong to the causal stage; only once the three-part ritual concludes and the karma reaches its full completion are both precepts brought to their consummation together — hence it is said that 'the manifest act already possesses the unmanifest.' This does not, however, rule out that lifespan-coextensive unmanifest karma still arises only afterward — that is to say, at the very moment that first single thought concludes, once both precepts have [momentarily] ceased, the [lasting] unmanifest then arises." The Zichi Commentary glosses at length: "The second, 'sequential,' explanation has two parts. First, establishing the position, in four parts: the first clause states the position; from 'hence' onward, proof is cited — 'worldly dharmas' means whatever is constructed through conditions; 'cause' refers to active karma, 'fruit' refers to the unmanifest; from 'just as' onward, an analogy illustrates the point; from 'hence' onward, the position is confirmed. From 'the treatise says' onward is the second part, resolving an apparent objection — since a sequential order has just been established, yet the treatise's own text, cited above, states both are present together in the first instant, this apparent conflict requires resolution. The passage divides into two: first, restating the objection; from 'this' onward, resolving it, in two parts — first clarifying that the action-concurrent [unmanifest] arises at exactly the same time [as the act]; from 'this does not' onward, showing that the lifespan-coextensive [unmanifest] arises only afterward. The phrase 'still... afterward' above has not yet made this fully explicit, and, fearing it might be mistaken as referring to that same first instant, [the commentary] once more clears this up by adding 'that is to say,' and so on."

[Editorial note: the distinction between action-concurrent unmanifest karma and lifespan-coextensive unmanifest karma may be cross-referenced against the table given earlier, under Item Two, "establishing the two names."]

The Zichi Commentary states: "The two explanations given above are both older positions. According to the Commentary on Karman Procedures, [Dao Xuan] actually adopts the first explanation — it is simply that it does not clarify the three distinct time-stages, and so its account remains incomplete." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "My own explanation holds that the two arise at one and the same time, not one after the other. How could there be a case where the manifest act has already ceased before the unmanifest is even generated? From the very moment one first ascends the ordination platform, the resolve taken for the whole of one's lifespan already constitutes the causal stage. Then, at the following instant, each and every precept is brought to full completion together — hence it is said that 'at the moment of the act, the unmanifest is already present.'" The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "Showing the present explanation, in two parts: first, reconciling the preceding two positions in terms of simultaneity, itself in three parts — first, adopting the earlier master's position; from 'how could' onward, refuting the later master's position; from 'from' onward, stating the reason, in two parts — first recounting the initial arising: 'the resolve taken for the whole of one's lifespan' refers precisely to the lifespan-coextensive [unmanifest]; from 'then' onward, next clarifying its completion: 'the following instant' means precisely the first moment after the three-part ritual concludes; 'each precept... completion together' means the manifest act together with the lifespan-coextensive unmanifest."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Furthermore, with respect to a single reception, there are unmanifest [karmas belonging to] three distinct times. First, unmanifest karma at the causal stage: this, together with the manifest act, does not actually contradict their being generated together; it does not rule out that the lifespan-coextensive [unmanifest] has already been causally formed even though not yet outwardly manifest. Second, unmanifest karma at the fruit stage, of which there are two kinds: one still arises together with the manifest act, exactly as explained above; the other is the lifespan-coextensive kind, which only now becomes the essence proper, at the very moment the three-part ritual concludes and it is outwardly manifested. Third, unmanifest karma after the fruit stage, which persists all the way to the end of one's lifespan." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "The second part, showing the marks according to the three time-stages, first states them generally. 'The three times' refers to the same first two instants discussed in the Sarvāstivāda treatise above, except that, within that same first instant, [this analysis] further takes the period just before it as the causal stage. From 'first' onward, each is listed separately: at the causal stage there are two — the action-concurrent [unmanifest], not yet complete, and the lifespan-coextensive [unmanifest], generated but still latent; both together constitute the causal stage. 'At the fruit stage' refers to the very first instant at which both of the above two kinds reach their completion. 'After the fruit stage' refers to the second instant onward, at which point the action-concurrent [unmanifest] has already ceased following the act, and only the lifespan-coextensive [unmanifest] remains." [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 16]

Item Six: the number of kinds of unmanifest karma.

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "Surveying karma broadly, following the Sarvāstivāda treatise, there are eight in the broad outline." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "'Surveying broadly' means explaining every kind of manifest and unmanifest karma together — spanning wholesome and unwholesome, spanning the transformative and the regulatory, spanning concentrated and scattered [states of mind], spanning contaminated and uncontaminated — hence 'every kind of karma.' The treatise's eight kinds are not given in strict sequence, but simply gather together, in outline, whatever terms and marks are found scattered throughout the text — hence 'eight in the broad outline.' The analysis that follows also draws on other treatises besides."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "First, action-concurrent unmanifest karma. Following whatever wholesome or unwholesome act one performs, in the very instant that bodily or verbal action arises, a corresponding karmic mark is generated together with the act itself. Once the act ceases and the karma [it directly produces] stops, [this residue] is still able to draw forth what follows — not through any further arising of intention, but arising spontaneously of its own accord. Hence it is named action-concurrent unmanifest karma. The remaining seven follow this same pattern." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "First, showing the mark of this karma: 'once the act ceases, the karma stops' shows its own proper boundary; 'able to draw forth what follows' makes clear its functional power. From 'not' onward, the name and meaning are explained. Question: since it arises following the act, does this not mean it does not depend on mind at all? Answer: this is precisely what shows the meaning of 'unmanifest' — giving rise to intention belongs to the active [karma alone]; the unmanifest's own force operates spontaneously, not depending on the act itself. It may be compared to a tree's shadow in the world. From 'the remaining' onward, the pattern is indicated by example — the remaining seven cases below, each with its own distinct unmanifest name and meaning, all follow this very same pattern without exception."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Second, lifespan-coextensive unmanifest karma — such as the wholesome or unwholesome restraint received today [at ordination]. It is necessarily bound to the span of a single lifetime, continuing without interruption over a long duration; it possesses a karmic measure that operates spontaneously, following the mind." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "From 'necessarily' onward, the name is shown: because the original vow was taken for a fixed term, bound to a single lifespan. From 'it possesses' onward, its essence is revealed. What is being explained here, in the reception of the essence, precisely makes use of these first two [of the eight] categories; the remaining six are cited only by way of analogous example."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Third, vow-bound unmanifest karma — such as the ten great vows, or the eight-part fast. This arises as one's own resolve intends, exactly according to the vow that is taken. It is also called 'aspiration.' Hence that treatise says: this unmanifest also arises from a vow — just as when a person makes a vow to hold an assembly or to donate robes, unmanifest [merit] is continuously generated, sustaining and assisting the one who made the vow." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "First, the name and mark are explained: 'the ten great vows' refers to the Śrīmālā-devī Sūtra's ten vows; 'the eight-part fast' refers to the eight precepts — the earlier citation from the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra applies broadly to self-made vows in general. From 'also' onward, an alternate name is shown."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Fourth, cross-conditioned unmanifest karma — as when bodily action generates verbal unmanifest karma, and so forth." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "That school [the Sarvāstivāda] holds that the seven branches [of karma] do not interchange, and so posits 'cross-conditioning': bodily action generating verbal karma is like feigning an appearance to tell a false lie; verbal action generating bodily karma is like [luring someone toward] a deep river through deception, resulting in death — though borrowing a different condition [from the usual one], it still generates the very same underlying karma. The Tattvasiddhi school holds otherwise: bodily action generates only bodily [unmanifest karma], verbal action generates only verbal [unmanifest karma] — whichever is actually performed generates its own corresponding karma, with no cross-conditioning at all."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Fifth, assisted unmanifest karma — as the chapter on the unmanifest [in the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra] says: one who instructs another to kill incurs an offense at the very moment the killing is actually carried out by the one instructed. This is precisely such a case." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "This citation is from the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra. It concerns instructing another person, where the instructed party's own act assists in completing what the instructing party set in motion. The text clarifies this in terms of generating an offense, but the same holds equally for generating merit."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Sixth, object-persisting unmanifest karma. The treatise says: so long as the donated object remains unbroken, the unmanifest [merit] continues without interruption. The Sarvāstivāda treatise says: if one builds a monastery, a stupa or image, a road, a bridge, or a well, merit is continuously generated, except under three conditions — first, the object itself is destroyed; second, the one who built it dies; third, a great false view arises — in any of these cases, the wholesome karma [generated by the object] ceases. The same holds, in reverse, for unwholesome karma: as when one keeps whips, staffs, bows, and instruments of torture — so long as these objects persist, the unwholesome karma continues without interruption in exactly the same way." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "First explaining the wholesome case: 'the treatise says' refers to the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra's text; 'the Sarvāstivāda treatise says' refers to that treatise. 'Vast' [in the original, of a road etc.] simply means large. As for the three conditions: the first is that the constructed object itself is destroyed; the second and third are that the conditions that produced it are extinguished. There ought properly to be four cases considered: first, both the person and the object remain — in this case nothing is lost; second, the object is destroyed but the person remains; third, the object remains but the person has died — in these latter two cases, [the merit] is lost in each. If this is so, then when the object is destroyed or its builder has died, should there be no further merit at all? Answer: the text below says merely that the wholesome [karma in question] ceases — this does not mean it vanishes forever; the earlier-generated karma still remains, it simply no longer continues to accumulate further. From 'the same holds, in reverse' onward, the unwholesome case is given by analogy — the parallel can be understood directly."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Seventh, unmanifest karma arising from use. The treatise says: one who wears a donor's robe and enters into one of the immeasurable meditative absorptions thereby causes the original donor to obtain immeasurable merit. In just this way, whether the resulting karma is wholesome or unwholesome, whatever arises through use follows this same pattern." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "This citation, too, is from the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra. 'Entering the immeasurable absorptions' refers to the four immeasurable meditations. 'Whether wholesome or unwholesome' indicates this holds as a general principle."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Eighth, mind-following unmanifest karma. While abiding in a concentrated or wisdom-imbued state of mind, unmanifest [merit] constantly arises. The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra says: whether entering or emerging [from such a state], it is constantly present; constantly, [the practitioner] does no evil, and the wholesome mind grows ever more excellent — even amid ordinary worldly confusion, this unmanifest [merit] is never lost. To speak of it as 'mind-following' does not mean it follows [only] states of concentration or wisdom — it means that, following the mind bound up in birth-and-death itself, unmanifest [karma] is constantly present." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "In this eighth item, clarifying the unmanifest karma generated within states of concentration and wisdom — the two schools differ here, and so both accounts must be given side by side. First, according to the Sarvāstivāda's own explanation: 'following concentration and wisdom' means it is present only while one has actually entered concentration and given rise to wisdom, and altogether absent once one emerges from that state. Second, citing the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra's own explanation: 'constantly present whether entering or emerging' means it is not confined to the moment of entering meditative absorption or the path itself. 'Following the mind bound up in birth-and-death' means that, dying here and being born there, it is never lost throughout."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "Question: how does this 'unmanifest karma arising from use' actually differ from the earlier 'action-concurrent' unmanifest karma? Answer: karmic marks pass freely through one another, without mutual obstruction; they mingle together and arise at the very same time, distinguished only according to the specific circumstance. Take, for instance, someone who habitually keeps a whip, always intending to inflict suffering with it: since there is no fixed time-limit involved, this is not [formal, ordination-based] restraint at all, but rather lifespan-coextensive karma [in the broader sense]. Taking a vow to carry this out regularly is precisely vow-bound karma. Verbally instructing another to strike or beat someone is precisely cross-conditioned karma. The one who receives these instructions and actually carries them out is, in turn, assisted karma. Karma arising the very moment [the whip] is actually put in motion is precisely action-concurrent karma. So long as the whip itself remains intact, this is precisely object-persisting karma. Karma generated through the whip's actual use is nothing other than karma arising from use. And the unwholesome intention, not yet extinguished, is, further, mind-following karma. Hence, citing this one single case, all eight kinds of karma are shown to apply at once. The remaining cases may be judged by analogy, as present or absent accordingly." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "In the question, the aim is to clarify karmic marks, and so the question is framed by way of their apparent overlap. The answer has three parts: first, a general indication — karma arising from a stirring of intention has, in every case, mind as its own essence, hence it is said to 'pass freely through one another,' and so on; arising in a flash, unfixed, hence 'mingle together at the very same time.' What follows takes up a single case to illustrate this mingling. If one recognizes that mental intention arises and ceases following conditions, stirring and changing without any constancy, then wholesome, unwholesome, deviant, and correct states may separate or combine, changing ten thousand times in a single instant — how could this be confined merely to the present illustration? From 'take, for instance' onward, the cases are listed out: the first, action-concurrent karma, appears at the very start [of the original eightfold list], but here falls into the fifth position; the rest correspond as before, and can be seen directly by examining the text. As for the 'mind-following' case discussed further on, though originally based on concentration and wisdom, it is here spoken of as 'unwholesome intention not yet extinguished' — this is simply extending the same principle by analogy. Question: 'karma arising the moment [something] is actually put in motion' and 'karma generated through actual use' would seem, in the end, to overlap entirely — how are they to be distinguished? Answer: action-concurrent karma applies universally to everything; karma-from-use is confined specifically to material objects. Because it is confined to an object, there is a distinction between using it and not using it — hence, whenever it is actually being used, it necessarily also carries the other karma [i.e., action-concurrent karma] along with it. Hence we know: action-concurrent karma does not necessarily involve karma-from-use, but karma-from-use necessarily also involves action-concurrent karma — in every case, both minds [i.e., both kinds of intention] are simultaneously present, which is exactly why karma follows and arises together with mind in this way. From 'hence' onward, the case is cited as an example: the eight kinds of karma explained above are stated on the assumption that all eight are fully present together; one must recognize that the actual principle of karma follows intention without any fixed pattern, hence it is said that one must judge each case as present or absent accordingly. As for the essence received here in ordination itself: at the very start, it already involves both action-concurrent and lifespan-coextensive karma arising together; it also involves vow-bound karma, since a preceptor is required to administer the ritual formula, which is itself assisted karma; and its capacity to draw forth later habituation is, likewise, mind-following karma. As for ongoing practice, action-concurrent karma is certainly always present; mutual construction, instructing others, cross-conditioned karma, and assisted karma; robes, bowls, and other requisites are object-persisting and arise-from-use karma; and whatever merit has already been accomplished, never lost, is nothing other than mind-following karma. Cited in this way, category by category, the fuller extent can already be seen." [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 16] The Zichi Commentary states: "Following this account, [karma] may appear singly or in combination, mingling together without any fixed pattern. A thorough, exhaustive investigation of the principle of karma is to be found precisely in this passage." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

[Colophon: The above concludes the first chapter, the Marks of the Precept-Essence, within this second gate.]

Chapter Two: Sameness and Difference Between Reception and Ongoing Practice. This divides into two sections: (1) interpreting the two terms; (2) distinguishing their sameness and difference. Section One: interpreting the two terms.

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "Question: what is meant by 'reception' and 'ongoing practice'?"

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Answer: what is called 'reception' is this — first taking one's vow, gathering the conditions [of the ritual] into full completion, and receiving the Dharma into the mind: this is called reception. It is this very received essence that carries the meaning of being able to guard against transgression, and it is for this reason that it is called a precept. This refers to the moment the vow is raised on the ordination platform, resolving to uphold and maintain it — there is not yet any [ongoing] conduct at this point." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "Explaining the term 'reception' has three parts: first, explaining the meaning of reception itself — 'taking the vow' is the mind; 'gathering conditions' is the object; 'receiving the Dharma into the mind' is mind and object corresponding to each other. From 'it is' onward, next showing the meaning of 'precept.' From 'this refers to' onward, concluding by marking its own proper boundary."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Once the vow has been taken, then, for as long as it remains in force, whenever one encounters an object relevant to the precepts, one must be watchful and vigilant, guarding and upholding it, without ever falsely violating or losing it — matching exactly the mind of the original vow. It is because of this conduct that it is called 'ongoing practice.' Reception is confined strictly to what is pure — should any defilement be mixed in, it cannot succeed as reception at all. Ongoing practice, by contrast, encompasses both keeping and transgressing alike, since both, in every case, depend on reception having already occurred." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "Explaining the term 'ongoing practice' has four parts: first, recounting the meaning of the precept itself — 'watchful and vigilant' is precisely the capacity to guard; 'guarding and upholding' is precisely the capacity to uphold; 'without falsely [violating]' is precisely the capacity to remember. From 'matching' onward, next showing the meaning of 'ongoing.' From 'it is because' onward, the two names are joined together. From 'reception' onward, the two are jointly judged as, respectively, universal and restricted [in scope]."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "Question: vow and conduct depend on each other, just like a cart's wheel and a bird's wing — keeping the precepts may accordingly be said to accord with reception, but how could transgression possibly be called 'ongoing practice' too? Answer: 'ongoing practice' is of two kinds, keeping and transgressing, which do indeed differ — yet both alike are generated only after reception has occurred. Conduct includes both wholesome and unwholesome alike, and both, in every case, arise on the basis of reception — accordingly, both are alike designated 'ongoing practice.'" The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "In the question, the objection challenges the earlier claim that 'ongoing practice' includes transgression — just as a cart's wheel and a bird's wing can neither one be dispensed with, this illustrates that vow and conduct must necessarily correspond to each other. In the answer: though according and violating differ, both, regarded in relation to the original reception, are alike called 'ongoing practice.'"

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "Question: as for the name 'unmanifest,' this may properly be classed as 'precept' — but the 'ongoing act' [of daily practice] is merely a later act of guarding the [precept-]condition; should this not simply be called 'wholesomeness,' rather than being granted the name 'precept' at all? Answer: 'precept' means being watchful of mind from beginning to end, with every condition fully present — vow and conduct together accomplished, the expedient means brought to consummate virtue. It is precisely because, from the initial mind all the way through to the final accompanying conduct, both alike conform to this same restraint, according with and consummating reception, that it is not called mere 'wholesomeness' alone — since its object encompasses the whole, comprehensively." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "In the question, the intent is that the received active karma may properly be called 'precept,' while the ongoing active karma should merely be called 'wholesomeness' — this challenges the claim that the received act alone monopolizes the name 'precept.' The answer has two parts: first, generally showing the meaning of 'precept' — the phrase 'from beginning to end' broadly covers both kinds of active karma and both kinds of unmanifest karma together, none of which is anything other than watchfulness of mind; encompassing the entire Dharma-realm without the slightest gap, hence it is called 'consummate virtue.' From 'it is precisely' onward, directly answering the question raised — 'the initial mind' refers to the received active karma, and 'the final accompanying conduct' refers to the ongoing active karma; according with reception is why it is called 'precept'; its object being comprehensive is why it is not [mere] 'wholesomeness.'" [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 16]

Section Two: distinguishing sameness and difference. This divides into two items: (1) explaining the two [kinds of] active karma; (2) explaining the two [kinds of] unmanifest karma. Item One: explaining the two [kinds of] active karma. This divides into two supports: (1) first explaining the two names; (2) directly distinguishing their sameness and difference. Support One: first explaining the two names.

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "What are meant by the two [kinds of] active karma? First, active karma within reception — as in the period from first requesting the preceptor through to just before the three-part ritual concludes, the [bodily and verbal] expedient movement engaged in throughout is called 'active'; and it is this very active engagement, in which the mind guards against a transgressive object, that is called 'precept.' Second, active karma within ongoing practice — once the precepts have already been received, conduct arises in accordance with whatever object is encountered, in order to guard what was received; this is why it is called 'ongoing.' Raising up a guard in response to the object, according with the original vow taken at reception, is why it is called 'active' — without this active engagement, it would not exist at all; it necessarily arises through this active engagement. And because it directly confronts the object and upholds [the precept] there, it is called 'precept.'" [Note: the source text here contains a duplicated gloss, evidently a transcription repetition, both instances preserved as they appear:] The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "First, the question posed generally. From 'first' onward, listed and explained in two parts: first explaining active karma within reception — 'movement' is called 'active'; 'guarding against transgression' is called 'precept.' Next explaining active karma within ongoing practice — 'raising up a guard' is called 'active'; 'confronting and upholding' is called 'precept.'" The Jiyuan Commentary glosses again: "First, the question posed generally. From 'first' onward, listed and explained in two parts: first explaining active karma within reception — 'movement' is called 'active'; 'guarding against transgression' is called 'precept.' Next explaining active karma within ongoing practice — 'raising up a guard' is called 'active'; 'confronting and upholding' is called 'precept.'" [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 16]

Support Two: directly distinguishing sameness and difference.

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "With respect to these first two [kinds of] active karma, there are five similarities and four differences. First, same in name — both alike are called 'active karma.' Second, same in meaning — both alike guard against a transgressive object. Third, same in essence — both alike take matter-and-mind [as their essence]. Fourth, same in brevity — both alike are marked off distinctly by their [brief] duration. Fifth, same in narrowness — both alike are confined strictly to the wholesome nature." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "Among the five similarities, the fourth, 'marked off distinctly by their duration,' means that both are confined strictly to the brief moment of matter-and-mind's own movement, and do not extend to any other time."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "As for the four differences: first, the total-versus-particular difference. Active karma within reception cuts off wrongdoing totally, since the resolve taken universally spans every object, vowing comprehensive prevention. Active karma within ongoing practice cuts off wrongdoing only particularly, since conduct arises in accordance with a specific object as encountered — though the object [in principle] spans both matter and mind and cannot be exhausted by conditioning alone, conduct only actually arises wherever the mind happens to reach; this very conduct is what is named 'ongoing active karma,' precisely because the mind cannot condition on two objects at once, and no object can manifest all at once in its entirety. Second, the root-versus-branch difference. The received [active karma] is the very root of conduct; the ongoing [active karma] arises afterward, and is designated the branch. Third, the anticipatory-versus-confronted difference. Reception begins at the ordination platform, where [wrongdoing] is not yet actually present — it is merely a general, anticipatory restraint fixed in advance. Ongoing active karma, confronting the actual object, raises a corrective guard right there, precisely because its capacity to counteract prevents the object from actually being violated. Fourth, the single-versus-multiple-grade difference. The mind that causes received active karma is fixed to a single grade; ongoing active karma has multiple grades, because objects vary in superiority or inferiority and the mind varies in intensity or mildness, and so the mind's intensity, matched against its object, rises or falls accordingly." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "On the four differences: in the first, received active karma cuts off wrongdoing totally because the mind, in raising its vow, is capable of universal generation; ongoing active karma cuts off wrongdoing only particularly because conduct, following its object, cannot occur for every object simultaneously. 'The object spans both matter and mind' means matter spans both sentient and non-sentient objects, while mind is confined to sentient objects alone. In the third: 'anticipatory' is the received essence, 'confronted' is precisely ongoing practice. 'Not yet actually present' means the wrongdoing does not yet exist. 'Capacity to counteract' means the power of active countermeasure. 'Actually being violated' means genuine transgression. In the fourth: received active karma is fixed once and for all, admitting no further change thereafter, and so the sense of upper, middle, and lower grades does not apply to it at the same time [as it does to ongoing practice]." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "As for the fourth point, that received [active karma] is a 'single grade': Question — this may hold for the Sarvāstivāda school, but our own Tattvasiddhi school permits repeated reception of the precepts, so how can it be said to be 'fixed to a single grade'? Answer: although repeated reception is permitted, the three grades [of intensity] are never present all at once. But if this is so, why is it that the unmanifest karma [resulting from reception] is divided into three grades? Answer: because the unmanifest is neither matter nor mind, though it may in principle have three grades, any increase [through repeated reception] simply augments what remains a single essence. Active karma, being matter-and-mind, even if increased through three separate receptions, remains distinct at each earlier and later occasion — hence it does not, in the same way, admit of multiple grades [existing simultaneously]." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

Item Two: explaining the two [kinds of] unmanifest karma. This divides into two supports: (1) first explaining the two names; (2) directly distinguishing their sameness and difference. Support One: first explaining the two names.

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "What is meant by received unmanifest karma? It is precisely this: the practitioner vows to cut off the continuous succession of afflicted karma. From beginningless time, deluded habituation is difficult to interrupt through mere thought alone — hence one turns to a powerful [external] condition, seeking the assistance of a [ritual] act, and personally utters sincere words: this is its cause. The three-part ritual's own fixed term, setting the precept-karma into motion, karma being accomplished together with resolve: this is its condition. It is precisely this conditioned karma that forms the very root of vowed conduct, and this is called received unmanifest karma. As for ongoing unmanifest karma: from the [very next] instant onward, [conduct] guards against the object encountered — this is called active karma [within ongoing practice]; and once this active engagement subsides and its karma is accomplished, this very karma is called ongoing unmanifest karma." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "First, on received unmanifest karma, three parts: first, the question. From 'it is' onward, next the explanation, in two parts — first recounting the awakening of understanding; from 'hence' onward, next clarifying how the Dharma is received, distinguishing cause and condition, the two dharmas uniting to form the received essence. 'The three-part ritual's fixed term' means the ritual itself reaching completion. From 'it is precisely' onward, third, concluding with the name and essence. Next, on ongoing unmanifest karma: 'from the instant onward' marks its own proper boundary. Since ongoing karma depends on active karma, active karma is mentioned again here in order to clarify the unmanifest." [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 16]

Support Two: directly distinguishing sameness and difference.

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "Examining these two kinds of karma closely, there are first five similarities. First, same in name — both alike are called 'unmanifest,' since neither is anything other than karma arising spontaneously of its own accord. Second, same in meaning — both alike guard against the seven kinds of wrongdoing. Third, same in essence — as explained above, according to the three schools respectively. Fourth, same in confronting [transgression] — since the received essence, fixed for the term of one's life, guards in advance against future wrongdoing, serving as the protective essence, this essence itself is accordingly said to possess the capacity to guard against wrongdoing; and it is precisely ongoing conduct that actually carries this capacity out, this conduct arising to protect the root essence — the two mutually depending on and sustaining each other. As for ongoing unmanifest karma: confronting wrongdoing and raising a countermeasure against it, matching active karma exactly — this unmanifest karma here is not the same as action-concurrent unmanifest karma; rather, it means that, as a countermeasure is raised, a corresponding wholesome conduct is generated together with it, and once the [momentary] active function has subsided, this wholesome [residue] continues to remain — hence this karma is called ongoing unmanifest karma. Since it confronts wrongdoing directly, it is accordingly the same as received [unmanifest karma] in this respect. Fifth, same in admitting multiple grades — since reception can be repeated, the [resulting] unmanifest karma may be strong or weak; and since the ongoing mind varies in intensity, the principle of karma [generated through ongoing practice] likewise varies between thin and rich." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses at length: "In the third, referring back to the three schools mentioned above: according to the Substantialist school, both [received and ongoing unmanifest karma] are matter; according to the Nominalist school, both are neither matter nor mind; according to the later Consummate school, both are mind-seed. In the fourth, there are two parts: first clarifying the received essence — since the received unmanifest, by itself, has no actual capacity to guard against wrongdoing, yet cannot guard itself on its own, it must borrow ongoing conduct [to carry this out] — just as a spear or halberd, however sharp, must actually be wielded by someone in order to break through an approaching enemy; hence it is said, 'the two mutually depend on and sustain each other.' Next, clarifying the ongoing case, in three parts: first, a general indication; from 'this' onward, distinguishing it from what might be confused with it; from 'it means' onward, revealing its actual mark. According to this analysis, multiple kinds of karma confront wrongdoing at the very same time: one is the fundamental received unmanifest karma itself; the second is precisely the action-concurrent karma occurring within ongoing practice; the third is the ongoing unmanifest karma that directly confronts wrongdoing. In the fifth, there are two parts: first, following the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra, clarifying the similarity, itself in two parts — first clarifying the received essence: the original reception permits repeated increase, [such that] a single essence may come to possess three grades — the initial reception being the lower grade, a further increase making it the middle grade, and yet a further increase making it the upper grade; if there is only a single increase, then there are two grades; if the original reception is never increased at all, then there remains only a single grade. From 'ongoing' onward, clarifying ongoing conduct: as with the earlier discussion of ongoing transgression, [intensity] is divided according to the mind into three grades in just the same way, hence 'thin and rich' — 'the principle of karma' here means precisely the unmanifest itself. From 'according to' onward, next citing the Sarvāstivāda treatise to show a point of difference: that treatise does not establish repeated reception at all, and even raises its own objection: 'if this is so, then why does the precept [nonetheless] admit of being weak or not weak?' Answer: this pertains to ongoing conduct, and does not concern the received essence itself." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "As for the fourth, 'same in confronting': it is precisely because the fundamental essence exists that guarding conduct can then arise at all — hence the fundamental essence itself is said to possess the capacity to guard against wrongdoing. In the fifth: the received essence has three grades, and so the ongoing essence likewise has three. Since karma arises following the mind, both the received and ongoing precepts each possess three [corresponding] states of mind, and this is why the unmanifest, in each case, likewise has three grades." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Next, explaining the four differences. First, the total-versus-particular difference. Reception is a matter of the vow alone, wishing not to commit evil across ten thousand objects at once; the Dharma-realm itself is its measure, conditioned upon in a single thought — how could this not be total generation? Ongoing practice, by contrast, concerns actual conduct, which is never sudden but only gradual, and so is particular, as explained above. Second, the long-versus-short difference. The received essence, fixed for the term of one's life, anticipates and guards in advance, and so is described as long-lasting; ongoing unmanifest karma, arising from actual conduct, occurs together with the expedient act itself, and once the mind ceases [its activity], it too comes to rest — hence it is called short-lived. Third, the broad-versus-narrow difference. The received essence continues without interruption, persisting all the way to the end of one's life; even amid the four [ordinary, non-wholesome] states of mind that intervene from time to time, the fundamental precept is never lost — hence it is called broad. Ongoing unmanifest karma, by contrast, is confined strictly to the wholesome nature, guarding against wrongdoing and protecting the root essence; since unwholesome or morally neutral states do not accord with reception, it is said, in this sense, not to be present at those times — hence it is called narrow. Fourth, the root-versus-branch difference, exactly as with the two kinds of active karma discussed earlier, which should resolve any remaining doubt here." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "In the second: since ongoing unmanifest karma occurs at the very same time as the [ongoing] active karma, it too comes to rest once the mind ceases. But if this is so, why was it said earlier that 'this wholesome [residue] continues to remain'? Answer: that earlier statement concerned [conduct] no longer actively confronting wrongdoing at all, whereas the present point concerns [merely] that what has already been done is not lost. Since it can no longer actually guard against anything, it does not count as 'ongoing precept' in the fuller sense, but is simply called 'wholesome' — unlike the received essence, which is able to guard for one's entire life, precisely because of its original fixed term. In the third: the four [aggregates of] mind span all three moral qualities; [the specific state of] the three intervening moral qualities is morally neutral, while conduct itself divides into wholesome and unwholesome. In the text, reception is discussed in terms of the four aggregates of mind, while ongoing practice is distinguished by the three moral qualities — the two are simply cited from complementary angles. In the fourth: this refers back to the earlier discussion of the two kinds of active karma, root versus branch, which is no different here." [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 16] The Zichi Commentary glosses: "In the first: reception is simply a matter of raising the intention, and so can be generated totally, all at once; ongoing practice is a matter of actual construction and cultivation, and so can only be generated particularly, one occasion at a time. In the second: as for saying that ongoing unmanifest karma 'comes to rest once the matter itself ceases' — this does not mean the unmanifest karma is entirely absent; it simply means that, as far as counting toward 'ongoing precept' [in the strict sense] goes, ongoing active karma guards against wrongdoing only while it is actually active — once the act has ceased, though the wholesome residue remains, it no longer possesses the capacity to guard against anything, and so it is not called 'ongoing precept,' but rather said to be 'absent' in that specific sense. The earlier commentary's statement that 'this wholesome [residue] continues to remain' already makes this textually clear." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

[Colophon: The above concludes the second chapter, Sameness and Difference Between Reception and Ongoing Practice.]

Chapter Three: the breadth of the object conditioned. This divides into two sections: (1) enumerating and explaining [its four components]; (2) specific clarifications. Section One: enumerating and explaining.

The Procedural Commentary states: "Within this there are four components. First, the conditioning mind — this conditions [upon its object] within the present, continuously flowing mind. Second, the object conditioned upon — this object spans all three times. Take, for instance, an enemy: though the enemy [as such] belongs to the past, one might still give rise to a hateful thought and mutilate the corpse. An enemy's living child belongs to the present, and is likewise capable of being harmed. Future objects may be understood by analogy. Hence the object conditioned upon spans the three times, and it is on this basis that the precept is generated. Third, the actual generation of the precept — this is obtained within the present, continuously flowing mind. Fourth, guarding against wrongdoing — this only guards against wrongdoing belonging to the past or future; there is no wrongdoing in the present against which anything could be guarded." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "The reason this discussion of the object conditioned is divided into these four components is this: since mind arises following its object, the mind is explained first; since mind and object, once corresponding, generate the received essence, the precept is explained third; and since a precept must necessarily have a function, guarding is explained last. These four points are interlinked with one another, and none can stand alone. In the first, on the conditioning mind: 'present' distinguishes it from past and future; 'continuously flowing' distinguishes it from a single isolated thought. The Commentary on Karman Procedures says: though thought after thought passes away, there is no lack of further thought arising in succession — and it is precisely this [continuously flowing] mind that serves as the very causal basis of the precept. In the second, on the object conditioned upon, there are two parts: first indicating the object itself; from 'take, for instance' onward, citing a concrete case to reveal its mark. As in the example: one's own enemy, already dead, belongs to the past; the enemy's living child belongs to the present; a grandchild, though not yet born, will certainly become a future enemy once born, and so belongs to the future. Toward all three of these objects, one is equally capable of giving rise to harmful intent; and in order to accomplish a genuinely pure precept, one must bring such hateful intent to rest with respect to all three — hence the object conditioned upon must comprehensively span all three times. In the third, on the actual generation of the precept: question — how does this differ from 'the conditioning mind' discussed above? Answer: the former is the conditioning mind itself, whereas this is the precept thereby generated. Since the received essence itself has no way of being directly indicated, it is [instead] indicated indirectly, by reference to the conditioning mind, in order to make clear what is thereby generated. Moreover, the first two components concern active karma, while the latter two concern unmanifest karma; and the third component is confined to the received essence, while the fourth extends into ongoing practice. In the fourth, on guarding against wrongdoing: 'no wrongdoing in the present' is stated strictly with respect to how the mind's own counteractive conduct is discussed across the three times. Guarding is a matter of anticipating in advance, so as not to allow wrongdoing to arise at all. When the countermeasure is actually present, it guards against wrongdoing that has not yet occurred; but the very instant right mindfulness is lost, [the matter] has already fallen into past wrongdoing — hence we know there is, properly speaking, no sense of 'guarding' that applies to the present moment itself." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16] The Jiyuan Commentary states: "In the third, on the actual generation of the precept: if one considers karma's generation broadly, it does in fact extend into the future as well — but here, since the discussion concerns the precept's initial attainment specifically, it is confined to the present. This is simply because the matter is being framed in terms of the conditioning mind, in order to mark its own proper boundary." [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 17]

Section Two: specific clarifications.

The Procedural Commentary states: "This being so: though the object conditioned upon spans all three times, actual transgression is incurred only in the present, while the past and future objects can only ever be the target of a [present] thought arising — hence it is said, loosely, that [the precept] is 'generated across the three times.' But strictly with respect to actually obtaining the precept, this occurs only in the single present thought." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "First, distinguishing the object conditioned upon: 'transgression is incurred in the present' is because keeping and transgressing, within ongoing practice, must always confront an actual, real object. 'Past and future can only be the target of a thought arising' is because such objects are not actually present and confronted, and can only be the target of the mind's own conditioning. 'It is said, loosely' shows that this is not, strictly speaking, entirely accurate. From 'but' onward, next distinguishing what is thereby generated: 'the single [present] thought' is confined to the single instant at which the three-part ritual concludes. The preceding discussion concerned the object conditioned upon, which spans all three times; the generation of the precept, by contrast, spans [merely] a continuous flow [within the present] — this distinction must be drawn again here, to mark its own proper, restricted boundary."

The Procedural Commentary states: "Question: if the precept is generated across the three times, why is it that only two [of the three, past and future,] admit of wrongdoing [being guarded against]? Answer: as for the received essence alone, considered strictly by itself, it is incapable of guarding against anything at all — it is merely the instrument of guarding. It absolutely requires the practitioner to actually grasp and uphold it, relying on ongoing conduct to carry this out, before it can actually succeed in guarding against wrongdoing. It does not guard against the present, simply because there is no wrongdoing there to guard against: if one lacks the mind to uphold [the precept], an offense is thereby directly committed; if right mindfulness is present, no wrongdoing arises in the first place. Furthermore, it is precisely by relying on ongoing conduct that future wrongdoing which would otherwise arise is prevented from arising at all — hence it 'guards against future wrongdoing.' Without this reception, ongoing conduct would have nothing to arise from at all. And once unwholesome karma has already arisen, this is called 'past wrongdoing' — protecting the received essence from being defiled by this, and repenting and clearing away the past karma, is called 'guarding against past wrongdoing.'" The Zichi Commentary glosses: "In the question, conditioning and guarding are set side by side, in order to bring out the point that guarding does not extend to the present. The answer has two parts: first, with respect to ongoing conduct, clarifying why the present is not guarded, itself in two parts — first, directly determining that there is no [present] wrongdoing; 'if one lacks...' and what follows explains why there is no [present] wrongdoing — the first two clauses show how past wrongdoing is thereby brought about, the latter two clauses show that this then belongs to future wrongdoing. From 'furthermore' onward, next, with respect to the received essence, explaining how it guards against the past and future, in two parts — first clarifying how it guards against wrongdoing not yet arisen; from 'once' onward, next clarifying how it guards against wrongdoing already past."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "If this is so, then, [since] the precept guards against wrongdoing, why does wrongdoing arise at all? Answer: it absolutely requires the practitioner, through the expedient means of ongoing practice, to actually grasp, uphold, and actively resist [wrongdoing] before it can properly be called 'guarding against wrongdoing' — as in the analogy of a city's moat, or a bow and blade, [each of which] is meant to ward off and strike down an attacking bandit." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "In this further objection: the point made above is that the received essence is capable of guarding against past and future [wrongdoing] — here the objector wishes to press the point that the actual power to guard belongs to ongoing conduct instead, and so raises this challenge. The answer has two parts: first, directly stating the point; from 'as' onward, illustrating it with an analogy. The city's moat and the bow and blade are analogies for the received essence; warding off and striking down the attacking bandit is the analogy for ongoing conduct. The Commentary on Karman Procedures says: the precept is indeed truly capable of guarding, cutting off and preventing [wrongdoing] from arising — yet it constantly requires ongoing conduct to spur it on, uphold it, and stand ready to resist, before one can actually move through a world thick with sense-objects without being overrun by them. Just as, in the world, a bow and blade are genuinely capable of repelling an enemy, yet still must actually be grasped and wielded by someone before they can actually break through an approaching battle-line." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

[Colophon: The above concludes the third chapter, the Breadth of the Object Conditioned.]

Chapter Four: the quantity of precepts generated. This divides into two sections: (1) clarifying that the object must be universal; (2) clarifying the actual number of precepts generated. Section One: clarifying that the object must be universal.

The Procedural Commentary states: "The Abhidharmakośa says: the precepts are obtained from all sentient beings [as object] — this is fixed; the [number of precept-]branches and the [mental] cause are not fixed. Why is this? Because one cannot obtain [the precepts] from [merely] one particular kind of sentient being." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "First, a general statement. Since students often find this obscure, a brief explanation is needed first. 'Branches' refers to the [precept's] branches — namely, the seven branches of karma. 'Cause' refers to the precept's [mental] cause — namely, the receiving mind. This passage means to show that the four grades of precepts — the five, the eight, the ten, and the full monastic precepts — all alike must reach every sentient being as their object; hence branches and mind are cited together for comparison. That is to say: whether the precept's branches or the receiving mind are complete or incomplete, the precepts may still be obtained regardless — but if the object, [namely] sentient beings, is not comprehensively reached, the precepts are definitely not generated at all. That is: the three [lower grades of] precepts generate only four branches, while the full precepts generate all seven branches — this shows that, whether many or few of the seven branches are involved, the precepts are obtained regardless, which is precisely the sense in which 'the branches are not fixed.' Further, if considered in terms of the three wholesome [roots as cause], then the three [corresponding minds] arise simultaneously; but if considered in terms of the three grades [of intensity], then only one grade is obtained at a time — this shows that, whether all three minds are fully present or not, the precepts may still be generated regardless, which is precisely the sense in which 'the cause is not fixed.' Only the object, sentient beings, cannot fail to be comprehensive — hence it is said to be 'fixed.' From 'why' onward, the meaning of 'fixed' is questioned and explained: 'cannot [obtain it] from one particular kind' means it absolutely must be comprehensive."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "As for 'the branches are not fixed': some people obtain the precepts from all [seven] branches — this refers to receiving the bhikṣu precepts. Some obtain them from [only] four branches — this refers to receiving all the other precepts, namely the five, eight, and ten precepts. As for 'the cause is not fixed,' this has two senses: if one takes freedom from greed, hatred, and delusion as the precept's generative cause, then it is obtained from all three at once, since these three cannot be separated from one another; but if one takes the upper, middle, or lower grade of intention as the precept's generative cause, then it is not obtained from all three at once." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "Second, explaining each point separately, in two parts: first, explaining 'not fixed,' itself in two parts — first, on 'the branches not fixed': 'all' means the seven branches. The Abhidharmakośa reflects the Sarvāstivādin calculation, namely that only the bhikṣu precepts obtain all seven branches, since these alone count as 'full,' while the remaining [lower grades] obtain only three or four branches, since these do not count as 'full.' According to the Tattvasiddhi school, by contrast, all four grades of precepts alike generate all seven branches — meaning all are, in this sense, alike 'fixed' as obtained from the totality. This point, cited according to that other school's own calculation, should be understood accordingly. Second, on 'the cause not fixed,' in two parts: first, clarifying the three wholesome [roots] — 'all at once' means the three minds arise simultaneously; if the three poisons arise, there may be one alone or several together, but if the three wholesome [roots] arise, they are necessarily inseparable from one another. Next, clarifying the three grades: 'not obtained from all at once' means the three [corresponding] minds do not arise together."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "If [the precepts] are not obtained from all sentient beings [as object], then there is simply no precept at all. Why is this? Because it is only by giving rise to a wholesome [mind] that comprehensively reaches every sentient being that the precept is obtained — apart from this, it cannot be obtained. Why is this so? Because [otherwise] one's own ill will has not actually been extinguished." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "Second, explaining what is 'fixed': in contrast to the preceding point that the branches and cause, even when incomplete, still generate the precepts regardless — here, with respect to the object conditioned upon, the reverse holds, hence 'if [the precepts] are not obtained from all...' and so on. From 'why' onward, the reason there is no precept at all is explained. From 'why is this so' onward, the sense in which it 'cannot be obtained' is further explained — 'extinguished' means brought to rest."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "If a person makes any of five kinds of mental reservation, they obtain [merely ordinary] wholesomeness, not the prātimokṣa precept itself. [The five reservations are:] first, 'with respect to this particular being, I will refrain from killing,' and so on [implying other beings are excluded]; second, 'with respect to this particular branch, I will uphold it' [implying others are excluded]; third, 'in this particular place, I am able to uphold it' [implying elsewhere one is not]; fourth, 'at this particular time, I am able to uphold it' [implying at other times one is not]; fifth, 'under this particular circumstance, I will not uphold it' — such as excepting the circumstance of warfare. One who receives the precepts in this way obtains [merely ordinary] wholesomeness, not the precept itself." The Zichi Commentary glosses: "'Five kinds of mental reservation' means this: at the moment of initial reception, one gives rise to the resolve to cut off wrongdoing — and with respect to these five matters, one either can or cannot fully commit, and so a reservation, accepting some and rejecting others, arises. The first distinguishes among kinds of beings, some included and some excluded. The second distinguishes among precept-branches — that school [the Sarvāstivāda] confines the five and eight precepts to a fixed, limited number of branches, so if one receives only one or two of them, one obtains merely ordinary wholesome conduct; the Tattvasiddhi school holds otherwise — whether receiving in part or in full, the precept is obtained regardless. The third refers to country, province, or district. The fourth refers to year, month, day, or hour. The fifth: [according to the Sarvāstivādin reckoning,] the [five] precepts are discussed as lasting one's whole life, while the eight precepts are discussed within a single day and night — that school fixes these terms; the Tattvasiddhi school holds that both kinds of precept last one's whole life, or half a day [for the eight precepts], adjusted according to the practitioner's own capacity. Within the fifth reservation, the text itself explains 'excepting the circumstance of warfare' as meaning that, should this particular circumstance actually arise, one would be unable to uphold [the precept] then. From 'one who' onward, a general conclusion is drawn — from this we may judge, accordingly, the difference between wholesome conduct that is comprehensive and wholesome conduct that is not." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "Now, in discussing the precepts: only when one's mind is entirely free of harmful intent, universally, toward every sentient being as object, does one accomplish the practice of great compassion, the very foremost of every practice. How, then, could merely studying a partial portion, hoping thereby to accomplish this great wholesome practice, ever actually succeed? By principle, it simply cannot." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "'Great compassion' is precisely the Buddha's own practice. 'The very foremost of every practice' refers to the sense of setting forth on the path itself. 'Studying a partial portion' means upholding only some fraction [of the precepts] without the object reaching everywhere. 'This great wholesome practice' refers back to 'the practice of great compassion, the very foremost' mentioned just above." [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 16]

The Zichi Commentary states: "From this we may know that the mind which actually obtains the precept cannot tolerate even the slightest trace of evil, however minute — it rises far above ten thousand wholesome deeds, and provides the very guiding rail for all five vehicles [of Buddhist practice] alike. It is precisely for this reason that the sages, one and all, praise and extol it." [Xingshi Chao Ji, fasc. 16]

Section Two: clarifying the actual number of precepts generated.

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "First, with respect to the number obtained by a layman or laywoman receiving the five precepts. As the Sarvāstivāda treatise states: as for the marks of the five precepts — with respect to every sentient being, whether killable or not killable, all the way through to whether deceivable or not deceivable, [this reaches] every sentient being, downward as far as the Avīci hell, upward as far as the peak of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and extending across the great trichiliocosm, [reaching] every living kind, even up to the Tathāgata himself — with respect to all of these, one obtains four precepts. Through the three [afflictive] causes [operating across these four], one obtains twelve precepts. Further, bound to the term of one's lifespan, with respect to every drop of wine throughout the entire trichiliocosm that might pass one's throat, one obtains three further precepts, since, at the moment of initial reception, one resolves not to drink any wine whatsoever. Even should [all the wine in existence] be entirely exhausted upon [one's] entry into parinirvāṇa, the precept, once accomplished, is never thereby lost." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "First, separately listing the two categories of object, in two parts: first, clarifying the sentient-object category. 'Not killable' and 'not deceivable' [and so on] may refer either to an object too formidable [to attack], such as a Buddha or a sage, or to an object too weak [to warrant restraint in the ordinary sense], such as a crawling insect [which cannot, e.g., be sexually violated or lied to in any meaningful sense], or to an object one simply cannot approach at all, such as the various heavenly beings, beings of other continents, or beings of other destinies. 'All the way through' should be understood to include 'stealable or not stealable' and 'subject to sexual misconduct or not' as well. 'The Avīci hell' and 'neither-perception-nor-non-perception' are stated in terms of vertical range; 'across... the great trichiliocosm' is stated in terms of horizontal range — the lesser vehicle's own teaching measures its object no further than this. 'Four precepts' refers to the four branches [of killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and false speech] just mentioned, generated with respect to the sentient-object category. 'The three causes' means passing through each of the three poisons [of greed, hatred, and delusion] individually. From 'further' onward, next, the non-sentient-object category: 'every drop... that might pass one's throat' generates three precepts, which, added to the preceding twelve, together generate fifteen precepts in total. From 'even should' onward, a general point is shown — that though the object itself may cease to exist, the precept nevertheless remains: 'entry into parinirvāṇa' concerns the sentient-object category, while 'wine exhausted' concerns the non-sentient-object category."

[Editorial note: "entry into parinirvāṇa" means entering final nirvāṇa. Stealing and false speech likewise include a non-sentient-object dimension, as already explained above in the discussion of the scope of the object that generates the precept.]

The Commentary on Karman Procedures continues: "Reasoning this through further: greed and the other afflictive poisons occur intermixed, in no fixed pattern — three occurring singly, three occurring in pairs, and one instance of all three occurring together, making seven combinations altogether. Passing this through the precepts as strictly enumerated in the text, there are five [precept-branches]; matched against [the further division of] the object [in the case of sexual misconduct], there are seven; and factored together with the non-sentient-object category, there are eight, or, [with the sexual-misconduct branch further divided,] ten. Taking these seven afflictive combinations and passing them through the text in this way, one obtains thirty-five precepts with respect to each and every object taken singly — of which twenty-eight pertain to the four kinds of sentient beings [as later specified] and seven to the non-sentient-object category. Further categories may be extrapolated in just this same way." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "First, separating out the seven afflictive combinations: the three occurring singly are self-explanatory; the three pairs are greed-and-hatred, greed-and-delusion, and hatred-and-delusion; the one triple combination is all three poisons arising together. From 'passing' onward, next passing this through the precepts, in two parts: first, listing the categories — 'five, as strictly enumerated in the text' refers to the marks as listed in the text itself; 'seven, matched against the object' refers to the sexual-misconduct branch being further divided into three separate objects; 'factored together with the non-sentient-object category' means adding the wine-precept to the seven branches, making eight, or, with sexual misconduct further divided, ten. From 'taking' onward, the actual calculation is carried out — the resulting sums can be seen directly [in the tables]."

The Commentary on Karman Procedures states: "Second, explaining the eight precepts. The sentient-object category matches the four [branches] as above; the non-sentient-object category obtains five. Passing the seven afflictive combinations through these, one obtains sixty-three precepts with respect to each and every object." The Jiyuan Commentary glosses: "'The sentient-object category matches the four' means it matches the first four branches within the five [precepts] discussed above. 'The non-sentient-object category obtains five' — the eight precepts, properly counted, actually total nine [branches, once the eighth is subdivided]; the resulting sums are as given in the text. Matched against [the further division of] the object, as before, this becomes eleven; factored together with the non-sentient-object category, this becomes twelve, or fourteen." [Yeshu Ji, fasc. 17]

[Editorial note: the foregoing explains that the numbers obtained for the five and eight precepts differ depending on whether one follows the treatise's own figures or the figures derived by inference. A table gathering together the commentary and sub-commentary's own text is given below for reference. The Procedural Commentary's own inferred figures further differ from those of the Commentary on Karman Procedures; a further table gathering together the Procedural Commentary and its own sub-commentary is likewise appended below, for reference. No explicit textual figure is given for the eight precepts according to the treatise itself; the following table extrapolates this by analogy with the five precepts, based on the total figures given in the Zichi Commentary.]

[Master Hongyi's closing note: the tables given above follow the Sarvāstivāda school's own reckoning, according to which the five and eight precepts possess only four branches each, and are calculated on this basis. According to the Tattvasiddhi school, by contrast, the five and eight precepts each possess all seven branches — and, following this same method, the resulting figures would need to be correspondingly increased.]