What a Layperson Should Never Do

The Procedural Commentary (Xingshi Chao) states: "The Five-Part Vinaya says: those invited by Sangha-order invitation — ordinary worldlings, sages, those who sit in meditation, those who recite the sutras, those who assist with the assembly's affairs — all who have left the household life for liberation are admitted into the Sangha-order roster, with the sole exception of those of evil discipline. If it is said that inviting in seniority order still counts as Sangha-order invitation, one must also ask: up to what point does someone actually count as a 'senior'? The Buddha said: wherever there is no one more senior present, that person is called the senior. Selecting a person by a fixed standard, without even naming him by name, is nevertheless still called singling-out invitation, and is reproved by the Buddha."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "First, this distinguishes who is capable of receiving [the invitation]. The text lists five kinds, all of whom are entitled to be counted among those invited, and none of whom may be selectively excluded. What follows forms a second part, showing the method of Sangha-order invitation, itself in two parts: first, a direct demonstration; then, beginning 'selecting by a fixed standard...,' it shows what is false about it — even though such a person is not named individually, singling him out by his learning already fails to be Sangha-order invitation. This is what is meant by 'though it passes through everyone in general, it is still particular' — it fails to be truly equal. What follows, citing the Ten Recitations Vinaya, forms a third part, citing a further text as proof: it says that someone once invited the Buddha together with five hundred arhats, and the Buddha said this could not be called inviting the field of merit that is the Sangha; but if one is able to invite, from within the Sangha, even a single monk who merely resembles [a real monastic] and is utterly evil, one still obtains immeasurable reward. This agrees in meaning with the passage below from the Ekottarika [Āgama]." Seen in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 23.

The Procedural Commentary states further: "The Brahma Net Sutra says: property [given through] singling-out invitation is itself theft of property belonging to the Sangha of the ten directions. The Sutra for Humane Kings likewise reproves the fault of singling-out invitation. Since Sangha-order invitation carries the greater merit, whoever has occasion to invite [monastics] should explain the merit of Sangha-order invitation, so as to open and awaken the minds of the laity, and not allow singling-out invitation to occur."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "First, this cites the text to demonstrate the point. As for 'the Sutra for Humane Kings likewise reproves it' — that sutra says: those evil bhikṣus who accept singling-out invitations are practicing a non-Buddhist teaching, utterly not my own doctrine, and so on. What follows, beginning 'since...,' forms a second part, urging that Sangha-order invitation be praised and encouraged." Seen in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 38.

The Procedural Commentary states further: "The Ekottarika [Āgama] says: the elder Siṃha singled out five hundred arhats to invite personally. The Buddha said: this does not compare to inviting a single person by Sangha-order, whose merit cannot be measured. He then illustrated this with the image of drinking from the great ocean, which is thereby to drink every stream that flows into it. Siṃha said: from now on, I will no longer invite by singling out. The Buddha said: nor do I ask you to give without any discrimination at all among individuals, for that too would be without merit. Siṃha then gave with true equality, no longer asking whether this monk kept the precepts or that one had broken them. The Buddha praised him: excellent — a gift given with equality obtains immeasurable merit; whoever gives equally is foremost among all givers.

"In the Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish, [a woman] offered a blanket to the Buddha, and the Buddha in turn passed it on to the Sangha — the meaning here is the same. Even if, in a future age when the Dharma is on the verge of utter extinction, bhikṣus should keep wives and embrace children, so long as four or more of them still bear the name of 'Sangha' and are invited generally [by Sangha-order], one should still regard them with the same reverence as Śāriputra and the rest."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part cites the Ekottarika. It says: the Buddha was in Rājagṛha, and the elder invited Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, and five hundred others. The Buddha's rebuke is as given in the Commentary. 'Drinking from the great ocean' means that because the mind opens through to the Jewel of the Sangha without any discrimination, even obtaining a single person is thereby to make offering to all the sages and worldlings of the ten directions. In the Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish: [the Buddha's] maternal aunt spun the thread herself and wove a single length of golden-colored blanket to offer to the Buddha. The Buddha said: this may be given to the Sangha, and immeasurable merit will be obtained. 'Embrace' here means to hold in one's arms. 'Name-only Sangha' means those who bear the name but lack any real virtue."

The Zichi Commentary says: "Question: the Five-Part Vinaya cited earlier excludes those of evil discipline — how does this not contradict [the passage just given]?

"Answer: the Commentary [on the Precept-Text, Jieshu] says: the Five-Part Vinaya's selection of persons is fine-grained; the Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish's admission of persons is coarse-grained. Giving to one who has broken the precepts still takes hold of an outsider's arising faith, allowing him, within the great sea of the Sangha, to bring about for himself the merit of having given — it is not that a deficiency in conduct can somehow consume merit given in faith. This is the meaning within the Commentary. My own view is this: the Five-Part Vinaya's exclusion of those of evil discipline and the like is entirely a matter of the strictest admonition directed at the Sangha's own internal members, meant to spur them to discipline themselves. The Ekottarika, the Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish, the Ten Recitations Vinaya, and the Sutra on Upasaka Precepts [also called the Sutra of Shansheng] are all, by contrast, teachings directed at guiding the laity, out of fear that they might carelessly show contempt toward the Sangha and thereby bring ruin upon themselves. From this we know: whether what one receives is pure or not is a matter the recipient must undoubtedly answer for himself; but giving must be universal and complete — if it is not complete, then what is given yields no merit at all. Judging the matter by this standard, there is truly no contradiction here." All of the above is found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 23.

The Procedural Commentary states: "Within the Buddha Dharma there is no such thing as noble or base, kin or stranger. Only insofar as the Dharma is present should equal protection be extended accordingly. When someone comes begging or asking for something, there is no single fixed rule for giving to them. If one simply gives according to one's own feelings on the matter, this is precisely to destroy the Dharma."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "This first part urges reliance on the Dharma. 'There is no single rule for giving' means that one must not act wrongly through mere habit of use. If the mind is able to rely on the Dharma, then what follows will permit certain exceptions."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "Laypeople are not, by their basic status, entitled to receive the food of a fast. Even so, one must first ask them: those able to keep the fast should be given food; those unable to keep it should be told of cause and effect, so that they come to trust in the reality of offense and blessing, understand that this is no mere stinginess, and withdraw with a glad heart. In none of this should the person be made to feel especially favored, nor especially disliked. One must not simply grow angry at people on the one hand, nor simply let everyone who is not fasting eat on the other. One must set personal feeling aside and hold to the Way, skillfully understanding how to weigh each situation.

"For this reason, one who carefully upholds the Buddha's teaching and prudently guards the Sangha's Dharma is the very foremost person of compassion — because it is for the sake of all sentient beings, present and future, that they should be freed from suffering and attain happiness."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "This second part shows the loss and the benefit, in two parts; the first, on the benefit of upholding the teaching, first clarifies its proper use. The note 'not especially favored' means one has not simply followed personal feeling; 'not especially disliked' means one has acted according to the Dharma. What follows draws the conclusion as to the benefit."

[The term] "fast" mentioned above is treated in full within the section on the eight precepts, in the Root and Essence Fascicle. That a layperson able to keep the fast may receive food comes from the Five-Part Vinaya.

The Procedural Commentary continues: "If one fails to uphold the Buddha's teaching and, following personal feeling, destroys the Dharma — meaning that one permits laypeople who are not fasting to eat anyway, and whenever anyone comes begging, simply gives to them as asked — this causes all sentient beings to lose their sense of the distinction between the monastic and the lay, thereby ruining the Sangha's Dharma and damaging the three refuges. Once the three refuges are lost, one grows distant from the Three Jewels. This causes all sentient beings to sink into the river of offense and flow out into the sea of suffering, forfeiting benefit and happiness — all of this arising from the destruction of the Dharma. For this reason, one who fails to uphold the Buddha's teaching, is not versed in the Vinaya-piṭaka, fails in his duty to instruct all beings, and darkens his own understanding within the net of the age, is called the very foremost person without compassion."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "This second part, on the harm of violating the teaching, first clarifies its improper use. What follows, beginning 'causes...,' forms a second part, showing the fault: it first clarifies the loss of benefit, and what follows, beginning 'causes all... [to sink],' clarifies the falling into suffering. 'The distinction between the monastic and the lay' means: the monastic cultivates wisdom and thereby serves as a field of merit for the laity, while the laity cultivates merit and thereby ought to make offerings to the monastic assembly. Here the two are reversed and thrown into confusion, hence it speaks of 'not knowing' [the distinction]. 'Damaging the three refuges' means the loss of that person's own faith, and an encroachment upon the Three Jewels. What follows, beginning 'for this reason...,' forms a third part, drawing the conclusion as to the loss." All of the above is found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 7.

The Procedural Commentary states: "The Five-Part Vinaya says: if a layman enters the monastery and the Sangha does not give him food, he grows resentful. The Buddha said: they should give to him. But if the food is then given to him in a shabby vessel, he again grows resentful. The Buddha said: give it to him in a fine vessel.

"This refers to the case of an unattached, ordinary layperson who sees only the Sangha's apparent fault. But if the person is one of the two kinds of lay disciples in the household life, or a discerning and cultivated layperson, one must explain that food obtained through blessing is difficult to digest [without corresponding virtue] — this is not a matter of stinginess."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "First, this cites the text. What follows resolves its meaning: it first points out that the preceding text concerns specifically one without faith. 'Unattached' means one who is distant from the Three Jewels and has nowhere to take refuge. What follows next clarifies the case of one who does have faith. 'Food obtained through blessing' means food given by a donor in search of merit, offered to the assembled Sangha."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "The Ten Recitations Vinaya: in providing kings and great ministers firewood, fire, lamps, and candles, one is permitted to use up to nineteen coins on one's own authority without needing to inform the Sangha; if more is required than this, the Sangha should be informed and then provide it. Should fierce bandits arrive, one may respond as the moment demands, without any fixed limit.

"The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya: as for fierce bandits, donors, craftsmen, and even kings and great ministers — anyone with the power to either harm or benefit [the Sangha] — food and drink should be given to them. The Sarvāstivāda Treatise (Duo Lun) says: one who has the power to cause harm should be given to; one who has already brought benefit should not additionally be given to, for this would itself be 'polluting the household.' But where both parties understand the Dharma, this too may be permitted, as in the Vinaya."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "First, this cites the Ten Recitations Vinaya to clarify the proper limit of use — first, providing for kings and ministers. 'Nineteen coins' refers to the large bronze coins of that land, where one was equal to sixteen [smaller units], amounting to roughly three hundred in coins of the present day. What follows clarifies the danger of bandits, where no fixed number can be given. Next, in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, five kinds of persons are listed together; the first three are readily understood. What follows shows that, in the case of kings and ministers, their actual power must be taken into account — where someone genuinely lacks such power, this permission should not apply to him. What follows, citing the Sarvāstivāda Treatise, settles the matter: since the Vinaya passage above speaks of giving in either case, whether harmful or beneficial, and it stands to reason that one who has already brought benefit ought not to be given to, the text was not yet complete, and so [the Sarvāstivāda Treatise] goes on to settle it further. What follows, beginning 'but where...,' reconciles this with the Vinaya passage above: a layperson who understands that the Sangha's property is difficult to properly digest will certainly not receive it without real cause, and a monastic who understands that 'polluting the household' is improper will certainly not give it away carelessly — but wherever there is genuine occasion requiring provision, even a small amount may still be permitted through it; this is surely the reasoning behind the Ten Recitations Vinaya's general allowance." All of the above is found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 17.

The Procedural Commentary states: "Whenever a bhikṣu, whatever he may be seeking, takes property given in faith — whether intended for the Three Jewels, for himself, or for anyone at all — and gives it instead to great ministers, laypeople, and the like, this is entirely called 'polluting the household.'

"Because property given in faith is given away to persons in white [i.e., laypeople], this destroys the equal, wholesome intention of the original donor. Whoever afterward receives such a gift feels joy and affection toward the giver; whoever does not receive one, however worthy and good he may actually be, feels no love or reverence in return — and thereby that person loses what would otherwise have been his own deep field of merit. Moreover, this overturns and throws the Buddha Dharma into confusion: ordinary laypeople in the household life constantly seek pure merit from the Three Jewels, cutting into their own flesh and blood, as it were, in order to plant good roots — yet now, if a monastic instead takes property given in faith and bestows it as a gift upon laypeople, the laity, in turn, come to hold expectant hopes directed at the monastic.

"Furthermore, even if one were to take some small gift given to a layperson and use it as the occasion to raise up a seven-jeweled stūpa, or build a monastery, or supply the four requisites to every sage throughout the whole of Jambudvīpa — this still would not compare to sitting quietly and keeping the precepts purely, which is itself the true offering made to the real Dharma-body."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "Whatever is sought here gathers up many different matters at once — it makes no difference whether public or private, good or bad in intention, none of it is permitted. As for 'however worthy and good he may actually be' — this is said with reference to the bhikṣu himself [i.e., the giver's own judgment of the recipient's worth changes nothing]."

The Procedural Commentary also says: "Among what the Vinaya does not treat as an offense: giving to one's father, one's mother, the sick, small children, a pregnant woman, those confined in prison, or those employed as workers within the monastery itself — none of this is an offense." All of the above is found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 19.

As for giving to one's father or mother, according to the Vinaya Mātṛkā (Piniimu Lun) this is permitted only where the parents are themselves poor and destitute, and have already first received the refuges and precepts.

The Procedural Commentary states: "The Sūtra of the Ten Wheels says: bhikṣus who uphold and protect the precepts are worshipped by gods and humans, and should not be subjected to punitive discipline.

"This excludes those who are learned and precept-keeping. Even one who has broken the precepts, so long as he has genuinely left the household life, may still reveal to the eight classes of gods and dragon-spirits their own precious hidden treasures. One should form ten kinds of superior regard toward him — regard him even as one would a Buddha, and bow at his feet. He will afterward be reborn into wealth and nobility, and will attain nirvāṇa. For this reason, whether one who has left the household life under me keeps the precepts or breaks them, no wheel-turning king or minister is permitted to subject him to punitive discipline — how much less so for lesser offenses.

"A bhikṣu who has broken the precepts, though he is, in a sense, already a dead man, still retains the residual power of the precepts, just as in the analogies of ox-bezoar, musk, medicinal eye-salve, and burning incense. A bhikṣu who has broken the precepts, though he burns himself in the fire of others' distrust and falls, of himself, into an evil destiny, can nevertheless still cause other beings to increase their good roots. For this reason, all those in white robes [i.e., laypeople] should protect and guard [such monastics], and are not permitted to subject them to punitive discipline."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first four lines clarify the case of upholding the precepts. What follows, beginning 'excludes...,' clarifies the case of breaking the precepts, in two parts: the first, urging in terms of consequence, where the first two lines exclude the case of one acting in accordance with the Dharma. What follows clarifies the continuing efficacy of one who has broken [the precepts] — this necessarily concerns a grave offense. What follows, beginning 'gods and dragon-spirits...,' lists in full, in the original text, yakṣas and other classes down to humans and non-humans, which the present text has abbreviated. What follows, beginning 'one should...,' urges the laity to reverence; what follows that shows the resulting reward; and what follows that draws the conclusion of its meaning.

"What follows, beginning 'a bhikṣu who has broken...,' next urges by way of analogy, first raising the analogies themselves. As for 'ox-bezoar' — the sutra says that although the ox is dead, people still take the bezoar from it; likewise, musk still has its use after the musk-deer has died. It further says: it is like a merchant who, venturing into the great ocean, takes the life of countless beings, gouging out their two eyes to compound a medicine — and if a blind person, one utterly without sight, even one blind from the womb, has this medicine applied to his eyes, his sight becomes bright and clear once more; though those beings are dead, their material still has efficacy. It further says: it is like burning incense — though the substance of the incense itself is consumed, it still perfumes whatever it touches with its fragrance. What follows, beginning 'a bhikṣu who has broken...,' applies the analogies to the Dharma: the first three lines correspond to the dead ox and musk-deer and the consumed substance of the incense; what follows, beginning 'can nevertheless...,' corresponds to the efficacy of the medicine and the fragrance that perfumes others. What follows, beginning 'for this reason...,' draws the conclusion of its meaning." Seen in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 7.

The Procedural Commentary states: "The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: I now entrust the unsurpassed true Dharma to the various kings, great ministers, and chief officials, together with the fourfold assembly. You should encourage and exhort all those who are training in it to study the true Dharma. But if there are those who grow lax, break the precepts, and destroy the true Dharma, the great ministers and the fourfold assembly should subject them to strict correction."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part directs that study be encouraged. The 'fourfold assembly' means monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen; where the text below speaks of 'the four groups,' this is likewise the same. 'True Dharma' corresponds, in the sutra itself, to concentration and wisdom. What follows, beginning 'but if...,' forms a second part, urging strict correction."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra says: if, in a future age, there are kings of faith, or those of the four castes and so on, who, for the sake of protecting the Dharma, are able to give up their very lives — and would rather protect a single precept-keeping bhikṣu in accordance with the Dharma than protect any number of evil bhikṣus — such a king, upon giving up his life, will be reborn in a pure land. But if instead he follows the words of evil bhikṣus, that king's transgression will keep him from a human body again for immeasurable kalpas."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part clarifies the benefit of protecting one who acts in accordance with the Dharma. 'The four castes' refers to the fact that in the lands of the West [India], lineages and clans are governed by only four categories: first, the kṣatriya, the royal caste; second, the brāhmaṇa, devoted to pure conduct; third, the vaiśya, merchants and traders; and fourth, the śūdra, farmers and laborers. What follows, beginning 'but if...,' forms a second part, clarifying the loss incurred by following an evil person."

The Procedural Commentary states: "The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra says: if, in the age of the Dharma's decline, there are disciples of mine who possess great wealth and power, and the king and others fail to bring them under control — this amounts to cutting off the very seed of the Three Jewels, and gouging out the eyes of sentient beings. Even though such a person may have cultivated the precepts and given generously across immeasurable ages, all of this will thereby be lost and destroyed. This is explained at length in the Chapter on Protecting the Dharma, fascicle twenty-eight."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part clarifies the case of a king who indulges such a person in committing evil. What follows, beginning 'this amounts to...,' reveals the fault: 'cutting off the Three Jewels' means obscuring and obstructing the true Dharma; 'gouging out the eyes of sentient beings' means damaging others' correct view; 'the precepts and giving being lost and destroyed' means damaging one's own store of merit." All of the above is found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 7.

The Procedural Commentary states: "Question: the Sūtra of the Ten Wheels cited earlier does not permit lay correction [of monastics], while the Nirvāṇa and Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtras direct that evildoers be corrected — [how are these reconciled]?"

The Zichi Commentary explains: "Within the question itself: the two sets of sūtras appear to contradict one another, and therefore require reconciliation."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "Answer: as for the Sūtra of the Ten Wheels not permitting correction — this concerns a bhikṣu who, though inwardly flawed, still presents outwardly a wholesome appearance, is broadly learned and well informed, and gives rise to faith in many people; for this reason, correction is not directed at him. But where someone is genuinely bound up in ignorance and confusion, unable to distinguish right from wrong, and thereby opens the three evil gateways for both monastic and lay alike, it is right, in principle, that he be corrected — just as the latter two sūtras direct.

"Moreover, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra represents the final, ultimate entrustment underlying the Buddha's teaching as a whole, and settles the true meaning definitively. Even where the earlier text does not permit correction, one should rely on the later text as the settled position. Both readings may also be allowed to stand together; or, alternatively, the earlier text may simply be set aside — either is likewise correct."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "Within the answer, the first part offers the interpretation that allows both to stand together. What follows, beginning 'moreover...,' offers the interpretation that sets the earlier text aside. 'Ultimate' is glossed as 'utmost'; 'entrustment' means a final charge laid upon another. Since it is what the Buddha's entire teaching-life ultimately returns to, it is called 'the underlying source of the teaching.' Because it settles definitively what the earlier text left undetermined, it is called 'the true meaning.' What follows, beginning 'both...,' draws the two readings together in conclusion." All of the above is found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 7.

The Procedural Commentary states: "The various Vinayas all treat fish and meat as permitted food eaten at the proper time — but this represents an earlier teaching that has since been superseded.

"The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: from this day forward, I do not permit my disciples to eat meat. Contemplate all such flesh with the thought that it is the flesh of one's own child. Whoever eats meat cuts off the very seed of great compassion, and becomes the enemy of every creature that has life, whether dwelling in water, on land, or in the air — for this reason, meat-eating is not permitted. This is explained at length in that sūtra. The sūtra also says: the earlier permission to eat meat did not, in fact, refer to the flesh of any of the four kinds of birth at all, but was merely an apparent manifestation, expediently shown for the sake of saving beings."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part cites the Nirvāṇa Sūtra's prohibition, itself in two parts: first, it shows that the earlier teaching is superseded. What follows, beginning 'the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says...,' next cites the later prohibition. Although meat had already been prohibited before this, as in the Laṅkāvatāra and elsewhere, those passages only pointed generally to its fault. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra represents the final, ultimate teaching, precisely intended to open up and reconcile [the earlier teachings], which is why it is cited here specifically — this passage comes from the Chapter on the Tathāgata's Nature. The first citation superseding the earlier teaching itself has three parts: the first two lines establish the prohibition; the next line teaches contemplation, so as to produce revulsion. The sūtra says: it is like a husband and wife who, traveling together with their one child through a dangerous wilderness, run out of provisions, and kill and eat the child, swallowing their food through tears, unable to find any pleasure in its taste. If one now contemplates the flesh of every sentient being as though it were the flesh of one's own child, forming this thought, one will certainly no longer crave to eat it. What follows, beginning 'whoever...,' reveals the fault and harm involved: great compassion is the very mind of a Buddha, so [eating meat] is precisely to cut off the seed of Buddhahood in both oneself and others. 'Whether dwelling in water, on land, or in the air' gathers together every location so as to encompass every kind of being, leaving out nothing that swims, dives, flies, or walks. Whoever now eats meat, by taking that being's life, becomes precisely that being's enemy.

"What follows, beginning 'the sūtra also says...,' next cites the passage that resolves the earlier teaching, wishing to make clear that the earlier teaching itself was free of fault. 'The four kinds of birth' are the womb-born, egg-born, moisture-born, and transformation-born. The sūtra says: for the sake of saving sentient beings, [the Buddha] displayed the outward appearance of eating meat, while in reality never actually eating it."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: there are immeasurable causes and conditions on account of which one should not eat meat. Briefly stated, there are ten. First, all sentient beings have, since beginningless time, constantly been one's own six classes of kin; because one should regard them with this thought of kinship, one should not eat meat. Second, [the meat of] foxes, dogs, humans, and horses is mixed together and sold indiscriminately by butchers. Third, it is generated and grows from impure emanations. Fourth, sentient beings who smell its odor are all filled with fear. Fifth, it prevents the practitioner from giving rise to a compassionate mind. Sixth, it is what the foolish and ignorant habitually practice, foul-smelling and impure, without any good reputation attached to it. Seventh, it prevents the successful accomplishment of mantra practice. Eighth, through eating meat, seeing its form gives rise to consciousness, becoming attached through defiled taste. Ninth, it is what the gods themselves reject, it brings on many evil dreams, and it draws tigers and wolves by its scent. Tenth, because of eating one kind of meat after another, one eventually comes to devour human flesh, as told in the Story of King Kalmāṣapāda."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The second part cites the Laṅkāvatāra to show the faults [of meat-eating]. The ten faults within the Laṅkāvatāra most require careful contemplation. The first fears that one might come to devour one's own parents, thereby committing a grave transgression against them; the Brahma Net Sutra says: all men and women without exception have, at some time, been my own father or mother, since I have, life after life, without exception, received birth through them — so to kill and eat them is precisely to kill one's own parents. The second fears eating one's own kind, which is contrary to a humane mind. The third means that the meat is formed from the mingled reproductive fluids and blood of mating birds and beasts — a foul, rank, and impure substance, taken into the mouth from outside oneself — the act of one deeply impure; hence, though it may be eaten, it earns no good reputation. The seventh means that one who holds and practices mantras must be pure and undefiled; if even pungent [root vegetables] are prohibited to such a person, how much more so meat. The eighth means that whenever one encounters the form of an animal, one's thoughts immediately turn to devouring its flavor. The ninth contains three faults together: the gods' own reward is pure, and this is why they reject it; one who does not practice wholesome dharmas accordingly has many evil dreams; and one whose body carries the same odor as an animal's is accordingly preyed upon by tigers and wolves. The tenth means that, through this mutual causation, one eventually comes to devour one's own kind. As for King Kalmāṣapāda: his father, while hunting in the mountains, mated with a lion and thereby fathered him, so that he was born with a human form but spotted feet. He later succeeded to the throne. One day, when the palace cook lacked meat, he obtained the flesh of a small child to make up the shortfall. The king noticed the unusual flavor and thereupon decreed that it be regularly supplied. As the killing grew ever more extensive, the people sought to kill the king in turn; the king then transformed into a flying rākṣasa, and for twelve years continually devoured human flesh."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "There are now many foolish and ignorant people who greatly relish meat of every kind. Among all offenses, none is graver than this. For it is precisely because those who butcher and sell meat find that meat-eaters would otherwise certainly have none to eat that they refrain from butchering at all. Hence one should understand: the eater shares equally in the very karma of the butcher, and is implicated together with the one who takes life. How could this fail to be a warning?"

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The third part, in delivering this warning, first clarifies the gravity of the offense, as already set out above. What follows, beginning 'for it is precisely because...,' next clarifies the depth of the karma involved — because it is identical to the karma of the one who does the actual killing." All of the above is found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 33.

The Procedural Commentary states: "The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: if an animal is killed for the sake of a bhikṣu, none of the sevenfold assembly should eat of it; and likewise, if it is killed for the sake of even a single upāsikā, none of the sevenfold assembly should eat of it either."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "First, this cites the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya's strict prohibition. That killing done for the sake of a single individual should result in a prohibition binding the entire sevenfold assembly is because all equally share in the same precepts of the Buddha, and the meaning extends to all alike. That Vinaya does permit the eating of the three kinds of pure meat — meaning meat from an animal one has not seen, not heard, and has no reason to suspect was killed specifically for oneself. From this we can see: although it is said that such meat may be eaten, this in practice amounts to the same thing as an outright prohibition. What follows, citing the Four-Part Vinaya, makes this meaning still clearer."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "Those who study the Vinaya today, for the most part, do not eat meat, matching the same practice as the Mahāyāna monastics of the Middle Land [i.e., India].

"There are those who, while claiming to study the Mahāyāna, make use of wine and meat as though this were itself spiritual practice and understanding. Such persons are received by neither the Mahāyāna nor the Hīnayāna teaching, and have of themselves entered into the ranks of butchers. Even heavenly demons and non-Buddhist ascetics do not drink wine or eat meat — such a person is nothing more than an underling of King Yama."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The second part rebukes those who study but disregard the times, first clarifying the case of those who study the Vinaya. Those in the Middle Land who study the Mahāyāna all follow the regulations of the Brahma Net Sutra, the Laṅkāvatāra, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, and the like. Having already undertaken the great practice, with compassionate deliverance placed first, how could there be a 'Mahāyāna' that then goes on to commit killing? What follows, beginning 'there are...,' singles out such people for censure. 'Practice' here means doing such a thing without any shame; 'understanding' means clinging to it without any doubt. That 'neither teaching receives' them means that both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna equally prohibit this, and that, on the contrary, they fail to follow either teaching's actual practice, so that neither teaching's protection extends to them. Since neither teaching's protection extends to them, they are not disciples of the Buddha at all — being without compassion and fond of killing, it is fitting that they enter the ranks of butchers. Heavenly demons enjoy a superior reward, brought about by pure causes; non-Buddhist ascetics practice austerities such as subsisting on wind or starving themselves. Hence we know: meat-eaters do not even rise to the level of demons or non-Buddhist ascetics — they are truly of the same kind as underlings of King Yama. 'Underlings' refers to yakṣas, ghost-soldiers, and the like."

The Procedural Commentary continues: "The Four-Part Vinaya says: if the one doing the killing thereby carries out one of the ten evil deeds, killing for one's own sake, even including meat from a great sacrificial rite, one is not permitted to eat it — because the mind of the one who prepared and brought it has no fixed, settled object [i.e., one cannot be certain it was not killed for oneself]. Since butchers nowadays kill indiscriminately for the general market, it follows, according to this teaching, that there is no meat at all that may be eaten — this is precisely to cut off meat-eating outright.

"The Vinaya says: if a person upholds the ten wholesome deeds, that person would never, in the end, take the life of any being for one's own sake — meat from such a person alone could be eaten. Judging by this standard, how could one ever actually obtain meat to eat at all?"

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The third part reveals the Four-Part Vinaya's hidden prohibition, first clarifying the prohibition itself: both 'for one's own sake' and 'a great sacrificial rite' refer to meat that is impure in either case. What follows, beginning 'since...,' reveals the intended meaning. What follows next clarifies the permitted case of eating: the one who gives the meat must be a person who practices the ten wholesome deeds — but how could there ever actually be such a person, who practices the ten wholesome deeds and yet still has meat to give? Hence it is said, 'how could one ever actually obtain meat to eat,' and so on." All of the above is found in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 33.

The Procedural Commentary states: "The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: wine, meat, and the class of pungent roots — scallion, garlic, leek, and shallot — none of these should ever be tasted at all."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "Wine and meat here are paired together with the five pungent roots, though the text is missing [the fifth, called] hing. Some call it asafoetida; others say it has a root of its own resembling a radish. 'Garlic' is pronounced suan; 'leek' is pronounced jiu; 'shallot' is pronounced xie, with the fanqie reading hu-jie — all of these are classed as pungent vegetables. The Brahma Net Sutra says that none of these should be eaten in any dish whatsoever. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra says: eaten cooked, they arouse lustful desire; eaten raw, they increase anger. Anyone in this world who eats such pungent things, even if he is able to expound all twelve divisions of the sūtra-piṭaka, will still be shunned and kept at a distance by every heavenly immortal of the ten directions, who find his stench offensive; and hungry ghosts, drawn by the very act of his eating, will come and lick at his lips — such a person constantly dwells together with ghosts, his store of merit diminishes daily, and in the long run he gains no benefit at all." Seen in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 33.

Moreover, within the Nanshan Vinaya tradition, silk garments [made from cultivated silkworm cocoons] are strictly forbidden, and milk and honey are permitted only in cases of serious illness, never to be drunk merely at will. As Dao Xuan's own Compendium on Monastic Dress (Shimen Zhangfu Yi) puts it: taking milk is like imprisoning the calf, and taking honey is like robbing the bees. Though such an offense is a serious one, it does not go so far as [eating] silk itself; compared to the scale of hunting and slaughter, it is a lesser matter by a factor of tens of thousands. The relevant passages are too numerous to cite here in full.

The Procedural Commentary states: "Some people keep cats and dogs specifically in order to have them kill mice and rats — this constitutes an 'evil convention.'

"The Miscellaneous Abhidharma Treatise on the Heart says: what is called an 'evil convention' is formed through a continuous, unbroken outflow [of killing-intent]. The Sutra on Upasaka Precepts [also called the Sutra of Shansheng] and the *Tattvasiddhi Śāstra both say: whoever takes on an evil convention thereby loses all wholesome precepts."

The Zichi Commentary explains: "The first part reveals the fault. What follows, citing the Miscellaneous [Abhidharma Treatise on the] Heart, explains it further: 'outflow' means that the unwholesome karma pervades everything; 'continuous' means that it increases with every single thought, moment after moment. The reason this is so is that such a killing intent is not confined to a single object, and moreover has no limit in time. As for the Sutra on Upasaka Precepts and the *Tattvasiddhi's statement that one thereby loses wholesome precepts: this is because the force of the evil intention is so strong — unwholesome karma, following and reinforcing the underlying affliction, grows so fierce and overpowering that every wholesome precept is thereby cut off from continuing at all. Some say this refers only to the wholesome precept as it specifically concerns this one class of being, namely mice, and not that every other precept is thereby lost as well; others say that this is simply the sharp edge of an admonition meant to warn and restrain." Seen in the Zichi Commentary, fascicle 7.

The Treatise for Weighing Light and Heavy Offenses states: "Keeping and raising cats and dogs specifically in order to carry out killing — the sūtras and treatises judge this to be an 'evil convention'; simply keeping such an animal already causes one to lose one's wholesome precepts. Selling it on to someone else still involves a living creature, and only makes the resulting karmic obstruction deeper still. Giving it away to another likewise only continues its killing intent, and in the end only ties the knot of entanglement more tightly. It is best to release it into the deep wilds, and let it come and go as it will. Should one feel compelled to keep it tied at a visible post, this only increases its burden of forced labor. Simply following the judgment given above, both parties — oneself and the animal — are set at peace with one another: this thereby extinguishes any house of mutual enmity built on killing, and newly establishes, in its place, a sacred abode of compassion." Seen in the Treatise for Weighing Light and Heavy Offenses, fascicle 1.