阿毘達磨俱舍論

Part 14

This part discusses the characteristics of manifest and non-manifest action.

[The three kinds of non-manifest action are restraint,

Non-restraint, and neither restraint nor non-restraint.]

Treatise: Non-manifest action is of three kinds: ⁽¹⁾ restraint (saṃvara), which is capable of restraining (saṃvṛṇoti) and eliminating or checking the continuous course of misconduct (dauḥṣīlyaprabandha); ⁽²⁾ non-restraint (asaṃvara), which is the opposite of restraint, that is, the absence of restraint; ⁽³⁾ neither restraint nor non-restraint (naivasaṃvarmāsaṃvara), which possesses the nature of neither restraint nor non-restraint.

律儀別解脫　　靜慮及道生.

[Prātimokṣa restraint,

Dhyāna restraint, and uncontaminated restraint.]

Treatise: There are three kinds of restraint: ⁽¹⁾ prātimokṣa restraint (prātimokṣasaṃvara), the discipline (śīla) pertaining to the desire realm and the discipline of beings in this world; ⁽²⁾ dhyāna restraint, which arises from meditation (dhyāna) and is the discipline pertaining to the form realm; ⁽³⁾

[The first restraint has eight kinds,

But in reality there are only four;

Because physical forms differ, their names differ;

Although distinct from one another, they are not incompatible.]

Treatise: Prātimokṣa restraint has eight kinds. These are the restraints of a bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇi, śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, śrāmaṇerikā, upāsaka, upāsikā, and upavāsastha. All eight are prātimokṣa restraints and are therefore divided, nominally, into eight kinds; in reality, however, there are only four kinds possessing distinct characteristics: the restraints of the bhikṣu, śrāmaṇera, upāsaka, and upavāsastha. Indeed, the restraint of a bhikṣuṇi neither differs from nor is separate from that of a bhikṣu; the restraints of a śikṣamāṇā and śrāmaṇerikā do not differ from that of a śrāmaṇera; and the restraint of an upāsikā does not differ from that of an upāsaka.

The sexual characteristic (vyañjana), that is, the liṅga, distinguishes males from females. It is precisely because of the sexual characteristic that names such as bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇi, and so forth differ.

When the sexual characteristic changes (transformation of the sexual faculty), a bhikṣu becomes a bhikṣuṇi, a bhikṣuṇi becomes a bhikṣu, a śrāmaṇera becomes a śrāmaṇerikā, a śrāmaṇerikā or śikṣamāṇā becomes a śrāmaṇera, an upāsaka becomes an upāsikā, and an upāsikā becomes an upāsaka. Nevertheless, it cannot be maintained that when the sexual characteristic changes (parivṛttavyañjana), the former restraint is relinquished and a new restraint acquired, because a change in the sexual characteristic cannot have such efficacy. Therefore, the four kinds of restraint belonging to females correspond to the three kinds of restraint belonging to males.

(Question) When the restraints are undertaken successively—from the upāsaka restraint with five precepts, followed by the śrāmaṇera restraint with ten precepts, and then the bhikṣu restraint with two hundred and fifty precepts—do these kinds of restraint differ only through the addition of new precepts, just as the numbers five, ten, and twenty differ, or as a number with one final digit differs from one with two final digits; or does each restraint arise separately and therefore remain distinct from the others?

(Answer) The restraints are distinct from one another and do not intermingle. Even in the precepts they have in common—such as the upāsaka, śrāmaṇera, and bhikṣu all abstaining (virati) from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and intoxicating drinks—the three kinds of restraint each possess their own distinct characteristics.

Their difference lies in the circumstances giving rise to transgression (nidāna). The more disciplinary rules (training rules; śikṣāpada) a person undertakes, the more circumstances occasioning conceit (mada) and heedlessness (pramādasthāna) that person avoids; that is, the more causes and conditions for transgressions such as killing are avoided. Thus, these three kinds of abstention are not confused with one another. Were this not so—if the restraints of the upāsaka and śrāmaṇera were included (antarbhāva) within the restraint of the bhikṣu—then when a bhikṣu relinquished the bhikṣu restraint (saṃvaraṃ pratyācakṣāṇaḥ), he would immediately relinquish all three kinds of restraint. But no one accepts this; therefore, the various restraints are distinct from one another.

Nevertheless, they are not incompatible. They can coexist because, when undertaking a new discipline, one does not relinquish the discipline previously undertaken. This also means that when a bhikṣu relinquishes the bhikṣu precepts, he still retains the restraints of the upāsaka and śrāmaṇera. (Vibhāṣā, 124, 4).

(Question) How does one become an upāsaka, upavāsastha, śrāmaṇera, or bhikṣu?

The verse answers:

[By undertaking abstention from five, eight, or ten things,

Or from all that must be abandoned,

One becomes an upāsaka, upavāsastha, śrāmaṇera, or bhikṣu.]

Treatise: By undertaking abstention (viratisamādāna) from five things—⁽¹⁾ killing (prāṇātipāta), ⁽²⁾ stealing (adattādāna), ⁽³⁾ sexual misconduct (wrong conduct in sensual desire, kāmamithyācāra), ⁽⁴⁾ false speech (mṛṣāvāda), and ⁽⁵⁾ intoxicating drinks (surāmaireyapramādasthānavirata)—one places oneself under the restraint of an upāsaka. By undertaking abstention from eight things—⁽¹⁾ killing, ⁽²⁾ stealing, ⁽³⁾ sexual activity (unchaste conduct, abrahmacarya), ⁽⁴⁾ false speech, ⁽⁵⁾ intoxicating drinks, ⁽⁶⁾ the use of perfumes, garlands, and cosmetics (gandhamālyavilepana), and watching or listening to dancing, singing, and music (nṛtyagītavāditā), ⁽⁷⁾ high or large beds (uccaśayana, mahāśayana), and ⁽⁸⁾ eating at an improper time (untimely eating,

vikālabhojana)—one places oneself under the restraint of an upavāsastha.

By accepting abstention from the eight things above, together with abstention from gold and silver, one places oneself under the restraint of a śrāmaṇera. In this case they are still counted as ten because the sixth item above is divided into two: the use of perfumes, garlands, and cosmetics; and watching or listening to dancing, singing, and music.

By accepting abstention from all bodily and verbal actions that must be abandoned, one places oneself under the restraint of a bhikṣu.

(Question) What are the different names of prātimokṣa restraint?

The verse answers:

[All are called śīla,

Excellent conduct, karma, and restraint;

Only the manifest and the first non-manifest action

Constitute the path of karma.]

Treatise: Śīla (discipline) is that which corrects (pratisaṃsthāpana) what is improper (viṣama), because those who commit offenses often conduct themselves improperly toward others. The original meaning of śīla is “to make cool,” as a verse states: “Blessed is the undertaking of discipline, for discipline does not burn.”

It is called excellent conduct because the wise praise these disciplines.

It is called karma because the essential nature of discipline is precisely karma.

(Objection) The scripture above states that non-manifest action is “non-performance” (akaraṇa); how, then, can it be karma?

(Explanation) Non-manifest action certainly causes one who has undertaken the precepts, with a sense of shame and moral dread, to vow to remain apart from evil; therefore, it is called “non-performance.” Nevertheless, non-manifest action is still karma because it is produced by manifest bodily or verbal action (vijñapti), or by the mind (citta).

Some masters say that non-manifest action is karma because it is both the cause and the effect of action.

It is called restraint because discipline checks or restrains body and speech.

The expression “prātimokṣa restraint” refers to all prātimokṣa restraint reckoned from its very first moment.

The designation “individual liberation” (prātimokṣa) refers to the first manifest action and the first unmanifest action of undertaking the precepts. It is so called because it is the relinquishment (tyāga) of evil (pāpa); and this relinquishment is precisely the function of the first moment—that is, the manifest and unmanifest actions—of undertaking the precepts.

This first manifest and unmanifest action is also the “discipline of individual liberation,” because it is capable of restraining body and speech. It is also a course of action, that is, the “course of fundamental action” (fundamental course of action).

At the next moment and in subsequent moments, it is no longer called individual liberation, because evil is no longer being relinquished (prātimokṣyate) by the second moment after having been relinquished (prātimokṣita) by the first moment. There then remains only the “discipline of individual liberation” (prātimokṣasaṃvara), that is, the discipline “belonging to individual liberation” or the discipline “arising from individual liberation”; and it is no longer called a “fundamental course of action,” but only a “subsequently arisen action.”

(Question) Who possesses each of these three disciplines?

The verse replies:

[Eight classes of persons possess individual liberation.

Those who attain meditative concentration, and noble ones,

Possess the discipline of meditative concentration and the undefiled discipline;

These two follow the mind.]

Commentary: Only eight classes of persons possess individual liberation: bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, and so forth, through to those observing the one-day precepts.

(Question) Can outsiders (bāhya) possess the precepts they have undertaken (samādānaśīla)?

(Answer) They can possess these precepts, but they cannot possess the discipline of individual liberation, because the precepts they undertake—such as, “I abstain from killing,” and so forth—are based upon a conception dependent on existence (bavasaṃniśrita). Even when reborn in some heavenly realm, they still regard this as “liberation” (mokṣa), because they understand liberation merely as some particular kind of existence. Therefore, through the precepts they undertake, evil cannot be relinquished absolutely.

Whoever attains meditative concentration (dhyāna) also possesses the discipline arising from that meditative concentration.

“Born of meditative concentration” (dhyānaja) means arising from meditative concentration or produced through meditative concentration.

The expression “through meditative concentration” implies not only the four principal stages of concentration (fundamental, maula), but also the neighboring concentrations (sāmantaka; bordering meditative concentrations). It is just as when one says, “There are rice fields in this village,” thereby referring to both the village and the rice fields surrounding it.

Noble ones, comprising trainees (Śaikṣa) and those beyond training (Aśaikṣa), possess the undefiled discipline (born of the Path).

(Question) In the preceding explanation of the conascent cause, two kinds of discipline were said always to follow the mind (cittānuvartin). What are these two?

(Answer) They are the discipline arising from meditative concentration (dhyāna) and the undefiled discipline (born of the Path), but not the discipline of individual liberation, because the latter continues to exist (anvṛtti) in persons whose minds are unwholesome or neutral—whose minds are of a different kind—or in persons who are without mind (anyacittācitaka).

(Question) At what stage are these two established?

The verse replies:

[Arising from the nine uninterrupted paths in the Preliminary Concentration,

They are both called disciplines of abandonment.]

Commentary: The discipline of meditative concentration and the undefiled discipline both arise from the nine uninterrupted paths (ānantaryamārga) belonging to the Preliminary Concentration (anāgamya), and are also called the “discipline of abandonment” (prahāṇasaṃvara), because through these two kinds of discipline, misconduct (dauḥśīlya) and the afflictions that give rise to such misconduct (tatsamutthāpaka) are eliminated.

Thus, there is a kind of discipline arising from meditative concentration that is not called a discipline of abandonment.

There are four cases:

⁽¹⁾ The defiled discipline of meditative concentration (sāsrava)—except for those disciplines arising from the uninterrupted paths belonging to the Preliminary Concentration—is a discipline arising from meditative concentration but not a discipline of abandonment.

⁽²⁾ The undefiled discipline attained on the uninterrupted paths of the Preliminary Concentration is a discipline of abandonment but is not a discipline arising from meditative concentration.

⁽³⁾ The defiled discipline on the uninterrupted paths of the Preliminary Concentration is both a discipline arising from meditative concentration and a discipline of abandonment.

⁽⁴⁾ The undefiled discipline arising from the uninterrupted paths of the Preliminary Concentration is a discipline that neither arises from meditative concentration nor belongs to abandonment.

According to the principles above, four cases can be established with regard to an undefiled discipline that is not a discipline of abandonment, a discipline of abandonment that is not undefiled, and so forth. (Vibhāṣā, 44, 17).

The Blessed One said: “Excellent is the discipline of the body, the discipline of speech, the discipline of mind, and discipline in all respects (universal discipline)” (Saṃyutta, i. 73; Dhammapada, 361); and, “One dwells restrained through discipline of the faculty of the eye” (Anguttara, iii. 387).

(Question) What is the intrinsic nature of the discipline of mind and the discipline of the faculties?

(Answer) Neither is unmanifest action.

[Both clear comprehension and right mindfulness

Are the discipline of mind and the discipline of the faculties.]

Commentary: Lest readers mistakenly understand the first discipline to be only clear comprehension (saṃprajñāna) and the second discipline to be only right mindfulness (smṛti), the author of the treatise says “both” (together).

Here, let us examine who possesses manifest and unmanifest action, and to which period each belongs in every case.

[Those abiding in the discipline of individual liberation possess unmanifest action

At all times, provided they have not relinquished the discipline;

After the first moment, they also possess past unmanifest action.

The same applies in the case of indiscipline.

Those who attain the discipline of meditative concentration

Always possess past and future unmanifest action.

At the first moment, noble ones do not possess past unmanifest action.

While abiding in concentration or on the Path, they possess present unmanifest action.]

Commentary: Those who have undertaken the discipline of individual liberation and have not yet relinquished the unmanifest action constituting this discipline always possess present unmanifest action.

After the first moment—the moment called individual liberation—these persons also possess past unmanifest action, provided they have not relinquished this discipline.

This is the case for those who observe the discipline of individual liberation.

The same applies to those who are in the state of indiscipline (asaṃvarastha): for as long as they have not relinquished indiscipline, they continue to possess present unmanifest action. They also possess past unmanifest action beginning with the second moment of the state of indiscipline.

Those who acquire the discipline of meditative concentration (dhyānasaṃvara), for as long as they have not fallen away from this discipline, always possess past and future unmanifest action, because this unmanifest action—the discipline arising from meditative concentration—follows the mind. From the first moment in which they attain the discipline of meditative concentration, they also acquire the past discipline of meditative concentration from which they had fallen away in this life or in a previous life.

Noble ones possess unmanifest action that is undefiled; that is, the kind of unmanifest action constituting their undefiled restraint, just as those who possess the restraint arising from meditative concentration possess the unmanifest action arising from meditative concentration. This means that noble ones also possess past and future unmanifest action. The sole exception occurs at the first moment of the noble path: because undefiled unmanifest action arises then for the first time, it is evident that the noble one cannot possess any past undefiled unmanifest action.

Those who are in meditative absorption (samāhita), and those who have entered the noble path (āryamārgaṃ samāpannaḥ), possess their own present unmanifest action, namely, the unmanifest action arising from meditative concentration or undefiled unmanifest action. But when they emerge from absorption (vyutthita), they no longer possess this present unmanifest action, because it evolves in conformity with the mind.

Those who are in a state of neither restraint nor non-restraint are called “intermediate” (madhyastha), because they possess neither such restraints as the restraint of a bhikshu and so forth, nor non-restraint like those who commit offenses.

[If one in the “intermediate” state has unmanifest action,

At the first moment one possesses the present; at the following moment one possesses both.]

Treatise: At the first moment, one in the “intermediate” state may possess “intermediate” unmanifest action, provided that unmanifest action arises.

Here, “intermediate” (madhya) designates the present, which lies between the past and the future.

Manifest action (vijñapti) does not necessarily produce unmanifest action, and those in the “intermediate” state do not necessarily possess unmanifest action. If unmanifest action is present, it may be produced by an action belonging to misconduct (dauḥśīlya), by an action belonging to a constituent of morality (śīlāṅga), or by other wholesome or unwholesome actions, such as paying homage to a stupa or injuring another person. At the moment this unmanifest action arises, such persons possess it in the present. Thereafter, provided they have not relinquished it, they may possess it as both present and past.

(Question) Can a person under restraint possess unwholesome unmanifest action? Can a person under non-restraint possess wholesome unmanifest action? In both cases, how long does such possession continue?

The stanza answers:

[One abiding in restraint or non-restraint

May produce defiled or pure unmanifest action;

At the first moment one possesses the present, thereafter both present and past,

Until the force of defilement or purity is exhausted.]

Treatise: If one is abiding in restraint (saṃvarastha), but because the afflictions are exceedingly powerful (kleśavega) one performs unwholesome actions such as killing, striking, binding, and so forth, unwholesome unmanifest action nevertheless arises. If one is abiding in non-restraint, but through the power of faith (praśādavega) performs a wholesome action such as paying homage to a stupa, wholesome unmanifest action nevertheless arises. As long as the force of the afflictions or the power of faith persists, these two kinds of defiled and pure unmanifest action continue.

At the moment when the actions described above are performed, the agent possesses present unmanifest action; thereafter, the agent possesses unmanifest action as both present and past.

[When manifest action is performed, it is possessed in the present;

Thereafter it is possessed as past, but not as future.

Obscured and unobscured manifest actions

Are possessed only in the present.]

Treatise: Whoever performs a bodily or verbal action (vijñapti), whether belonging to restraint, non-restraint, or the “intermediate” state, possesses this manifest action in the present, that is, throughout the duration of its performance. From the second moment onward, one possesses only the past manifest action, until it is relinquished.

No one can possess future manifest action, because manifest action does not evolve in conformity with the mind (cittānuparivartinī).

Nor does one possess past manifest actions of the two kinds, obscured and unobscured—that is, actions that are obscured-neutral or unobscured-neutral.

Once these kinds of action have become past, they are no longer possessed, because the acquisition (prāpti) of a weak dharma—that is, an acquisition that is itself weak—cannot persist for long (anubandhinī).

(Question) Why is this dharma, namely, an action neutral in nature, weak?

(Answer) Because the mind that produces it is also weak.

(Question) Then would the acquisition of that mind itself also be unable to persist for long?

(Answer) No, because the two cases differ. Manifest action is intrinsically inert (jaḍa), because it does not apprehend objects (anālambanatvāt); moreover, it is a dependent dharma (paratantra), because it must depend upon the mind, whereas the mind is not like this. Therefore, the manifest action produced by a neutral mind is weaker than that mind; the acquisition of the manifest action cannot persist, but the acquisition of the mind that produces the manifest action can persist.

Non-restraint and those abiding in non-restraint were mentioned above. What, then, is non-restraint (asaṃvara)?

The stanza answers:

[It is evil conduct, misconduct, action,

A course of action, and non-restraint.]

Treatise: It is non-restraint because body and speech are not restrained.

It is evil conduct (duścarita) because the wise censure it and because it brings about painful results.

It is misconduct (dauḥśīlya) because it is contrary (vipakṣa) to morality.

It is action because it is performed through body and speech.

It is a course of action because it is included among the fundamental actions (maulasaṃgṛhītatvāt).

Those who possess manifest action may also possess unmanifest action.

There are four cases:

[Possessing manifest but not unmanifest action

Is the case of one in the “intermediate” state who acts with weak volition.

A noble one who has relinquished manifest action or has not produced it

Possesses only unmanifest action, not manifest action.]

Treatise: Those who are in the state of “neither restraint nor non-restraint” and perform wholesome or unwholesome manifest action (vijñapti) with weak volition (cetanā) possess only that action and do not possess unmanifest action. All the more can they not possess unmanifest action when the manifest action is neutral (avyākṛta).

A noble one who, after being reborn, has not performed manifest action—for example, while still in the womb or after being reborn in the Formless Realm—or who has relinquished manifest action, namely, manifest action produced by neutral volition, possesses only unmanifest action—that is, the undefiled unmanifest action acquired in a previous life—and does not possess manifest action.

The remaining two cases—possessing both manifest and unmanifest action, and possessing neither manifest nor unmanifest action—are established according to the principles stated above.

(Question) How are these restraints acquired?

The stanza answers:

[Restraint arising from meditative concentration is acquired through a mind belonging to a sphere of concentration;

When such a mind is noble, undefiled restraint is acquired.

The restraint of individual liberation

Is acquired through communication from another, and so forth.]

Treatise: The restraint of meditation is acquired through a type of mind belonging to a certain stage of meditation. This is a mind belonging to a fundamental meditation (mauladhyāna)—that is, one of the four stages of meditation—or to a preliminary meditation (sāmaṇtaka)—that is, one of the four concentrations preceding the four stages of meditation—and it is a contaminated mind, namely, a type of mind that does not constitute part of the Noble Path; for this kind of restraint also exists simultaneously with the mind (sahabhūta).

Uncontaminated restraint is likewise acquired through the minds mentioned above, but only when they are “noble.” Here, “noble” (ārya) means uncontaminated (anāsrava), namely, a type of mind that constitutes part of the Noble Path.

Later, further explanation will be given concerning this “noble” mind in the six stages of meditation: the four fundamental meditations, the intermediate meditation (dhyānāntara), and the Concentration Not-Yet-Reached (anāgamya), that is, the first preliminary meditation.

The restraint of individual liberation is acquired through “communication by another” (paravijñāpana), and so forth. “Communication by another” means communication from another and communication through another. The candidate makes something known to another, and the other person in turn makes something known to the candidate. In this case, the “other” may be the Sangha when one receives the restraint of a bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇī, or śikṣamāṇā, but it may also be a single person (pudgala) when one receives the other five precepts of individual liberation.

According to the Vinaya masters of the Vibhāṣā school, there are ten kinds of ordination (upasaṃpad). In order to include all ten kinds within the definition above, the author of the treatise said: … “Through communication by another, and so forth.”

⁽¹⁾ Ordination acquired by oneself—that is, spontaneously—as in the case of a Buddha and a pratyekabuddha.

⁽²⁾ Through entrance into the Noble Path (entrance into the certainty of perfection, niyāmāvakrānti), as in the case of the five bhikṣus, namely, Ājñātakauṇdinya and his companions on the path.

⁽³⁾ Through the Buddha’s words, “Come here, bhikṣu!” as in the case of Ājñāta.

⁽⁴⁾ Through accepting the Blessed One as one’s teacher, as in the case of Mahākāśyapa.

⁽⁵⁾ Through correctly answering a question posed by the Blessed One, as in the case of Sodāyin.

⁽⁶⁾ Through accepting the special rules for those who have gone forth, as in the case of Mahāprajāpatī.

⁽⁷⁾ Through a messenger, as in the case of Dharmadinnā, the bhikṣuṇī.

⁽⁸⁾ With a Vinaya master (vinayadhara) as the fifth member, that is, ordination before a Sangha consisting of five bhikṣus in frontier regions.

⁽⁹⁾ Through ten bhikṣus, namely, in regions situated within the central country (madhyadeśa).

⁽¹⁰⁾ Through repeating three times the vow to take refuge in the Three Jewels, as in the case of the sixty members of the Bhadravarga who received ordination together.

Thus, according to the masters mentioned above, the restraint of individual liberation is not necessarily acquired through manifest action, as may be seen, for example, in the case of the Buddha and others.

(Question) When may the restraint of individual liberation be undertaken (samādāna), and for how long must it be observed?

Verse in reply:

[The restraint of individual liberation

Is undertaken for life or for only one day and one night.]

Treatise: The first seven groups among the restraints of individual liberation are undertaken for one’s entire life; the restraint of the upavāsa observance (upvāsastha) is undertaken for only one day and one night. This has been established as the rule.

Why is this so? Because there are only two time limits (kālāvadhi): the period extending throughout one’s entire life, and the period of one day and one night. Periods of fifteen days, half a month, and other such periods are all included within this period of one day and one night.

(Question) What is the dharma called “time” (kāla)?

(Answer) It is not an eternal real entity (padārtha), as some have believed. The word “time” is merely a manner of speaking by which one refers to conditioned phenomena (saṃskāras) as past, future, or present.

Day is the period of light in the four great continents, and night is the period of darkness.

(Sautrāntikas) We acknowledge that the restraint of individual liberation can arise only for the duration of a single life. Indeed, even if we vow to observe the precepts in the next life, we cannot thereby produce this kind of restraint for that life, because ⁽¹⁾ the supporting body (āśraya) will then be different (nikāyasabhāga); ⁽²⁾ the new supporting body will not possess the capacity appropriate to the restraints previously undertaken; and ⁽³⁾ the new supporting body will not remember the vow to undertake the precepts.

Nevertheless, if someone undertakes the precepts of the upavāsa observance for more than one day and one night—for five days, ten days, and so forth—what obstacle could prevent many upavāsa restraints from arising in that person?

(Sarvāstivādins) There must certainly be some obstacle, because the Blessed One said in the sūtras that the upavāsa precepts are to be undertaken for only one day and one night.

(Sautrāntikas) Thus the question arises: Why did the Blessed One teach this? Did he think that the restraint of the upavāsa observance could not arise for a longer period? Or did he think that the faculties of sentient beings are very difficult to tame, and therefore that the upavāsa precepts should be undertaken for only one day and one night so that they might be more easily observed? For in truth there is no contradiction in the restraint of the upavāsa observance arising for a period longer than one day.

The Vibhāṣā masters, however, hold that the foregoing explanation cannot be accepted, because the Blessed One did not speak of undertaking the restraint of the upavāsa observance for a longer period.

(Question) For how long does the acquisition of non-restraint endure?

Verse in reply:

[Evil discipline is not for only one day and one night;

Thus it is unlike undertaking virtuous precepts.]

Treatise: Non-restraint never endures for only one day and one night, as does the restraint of the upavāsa observance, because non-restraint is produced by undertaking the practice of evil karma for an entire lifetime (pādadharmābhyupagama).

(Question) Why is this so?

(Answer) One does not acquire non-restraint as one acquires the restraint of the upavāsa observance by saying, “I vow to abide in non-restraint for one day and one night,” because this would be highly blameworthy.

(Objection) Nor does anyone acquire non-restraint by saying, “I vow to abide in non-restraint throughout my life”; therefore, there should be no case of acquiring non-restraint for an entire lifetime.

(Explanation) It is true that no one acquires non-restraint in this manner. One does not acquire non-restraint through a ceremony, but through actions performed with the intention of continually doing evil; nor does one acquire non-restraint through intentions to do evil only for a certain period of time (kālāntaravipanna). In the case of the Upavāsa restraint, such an intention is not “continual,” but the restraint must be acquired through the force of an act such as: “I vow to abide in the Upavāsa precepts for one day and one night”; and one performs this act solely from the desire to acquire this restraint.

If someone wished to acquire non-restraint, that person could certainly undertake non-restraint for a certain period and would acquire it for that period. This case, however, does not occur; therefore, we do not regard non-restraint as something undertaken “for a certain fixed period” (for a stipulated term).

The Sautrantika masters say that non-restraint does not truly exist (dravyatas) apart from volition (cetanāvyatirikta). Non-restraint is precisely the intention to commit evil (pāpakriyābhisaṃdhi); that is, a particular kind of volition (cetanāviśeṣa), together with the traces (anubandha, vāsanā) left behind by that volition. As long as this volition and its traces have not been eliminated by another, opposing volition, a person, even when possessing a wholesome mind, remains filled with non-restraint (asaṃvaravān) and remains one who is without restraint.

(Question) How does one undertake the restraint for one day and one night, namely, the Upavāsa restraint?

The stanza answers:

[The Upavāsa restraint is undertaken early in the morning;

Seated below, one receives the precepts from a teacher;

Following the instructions, one possesses all eight factors;

Having put aside ornaments, for one day and one night.]

Treatise: The Upavāsa restraint is undertaken:

⁽¹⁾ In a humble posture, either squatting (utkuṭuka) or kneeling; with both hands clasped in the pigeon-like manner (kapotaka) (by placing the four fingers of one hand between the thumb and index finger of the other), or with the palms joined together (añjali); except in the case of illness. Without reverence, the restraint cannot arise.

⁽²⁾ The precept recipient must not speak before the preceptor (dātṛ), nor speak at the same time. It is therefore said that the precepts are acquired from another, through the instruction of a teacher; otherwise, both the reception and the conferral of the precepts would be invalid.

⁽³⁾ The precept recipient does not wear ornaments; however, ordinary everyday ornaments may be retained because they do not give rise to pride.

⁽⁴⁾ The undertaking lasts until the following morning, when the sun rises.

⁽⁵⁾ The precept recipient must undertake all eight factors without omitting any; only then is the Upavāsa restraint complete.

⁽⁶⁾ The precept recipient begins the undertaking early in the morning at sunrise because this is a restraint pertaining to “one day and one night” (Vibhāṣā, 124, 7).

Those who have previously made the vow, “I shall always observe the Upavāsa precepts on the eighth day of the fortnight, and so forth,” acquire this restraint even after they have eaten.

⁽⁷⁾ The precept recipient must undertake the Upavāsa restraint from another and cannot undertake it by oneself. If later circumstances conducive to wrongdoing arise (conditions for violating the precepts), then, through feeling shame before the preceptor, the recipient may refrain from violating the precepts already undertaken.

If the foregoing requirements are not properly observed, the precept recipient may perform wholesome conduct but cannot acquire the restraint. If they are properly observed, the Upavāsa restraint will be highly beneficial even to those who, during that day and night, might otherwise commit acts contrary to the precepts, such as killing, stealing, and so forth.

This restraint is called Upavāsa because, by manifesting a way of life conforming to that of the arhats (tadanuśikṣaṇāt), this restraint is brought near (upa) to the arhats. Another opinion holds that it is called Upavāsa because it is close to the type of restraint undertaken for life (Vibhāṣā, 124, 11).

The purpose of this restraint is to provide (dhā) increase (poṣa) for the wholesome roots (kuśalamūla) of those whose wholesome roots are only weak. Because it causes wholesome roots to increase, the Blessed One said: “This restraint is called nourishment and growth (poṣadha).”

(Question) Why must the Upavāsa restraint be undertaken with all eight factors?

The stanza answers:

[The factors of morality, heedfulness, and restriction

Comprise, in the above order, four, one, and three factors;

They guard against inherently blameworthy acts,

Loss of mindfulness, and arrogant indulgence.]

Treatise: Four factors—abstention from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and false speech—constitute a single factor of wholesome morality (the factor of morality, śīlāṅga), because through this factor, offenses that are “inherently” blameworthy (prakṛtisāvadya) are eliminated.

Abstention from intoxicating drinks constitutes a factor of “heedfulness,” because through this factor “heedlessness” (pramāda) is prevented. Even a person who has acquired the moral restraint remains heedless (pramatta) if that person drinks alcohol.

The other three factors—abstention from high beds, listening to music, and so forth, and eating at improper times—constitute a factor of restriction, because these factors are conducive and appropriate to spiritual urgency and disillusionment (saṃvega).

(Question) Why is it necessary to undertake the factors of “heedfulness” and “restriction”?

(Answer) To avoid loss of mindfulness and the arrogance of intoxication: when drunk, one no longer remembers what should and should not be done. When using a broad and high bed or sitting to watch dancing and singing, pride arises in the mind. In either case, it is very difficult to avoid violating the precepts.

When the precept concerning eating at the proper time is maintained, and eating at improper times is abandoned, mindfulness of the Upavāsa restraint remains, and spiritual urgency and disillusionment (saṃvega) can arise. Without the eighth factor, there would no longer be mindfulness of spiritual disillusionment.

Some masters maintain that the Upavāsa restraint takes fasting (upavāsa), namely, abstention from eating at improper times, as its principal practice; the other abstentions are merely components (factors of fasting, upavāsāṅga) of this fast. Abstention from food and drink is not itself one factor; therefore, to obtain the number of eight factors, the seventh factor must be divided into two: ⁽¹⁾ not watching or listening to dancing, singing, and music; and ⁽²⁾ not using perfumes, garlands, or cosmetics.

(The Sautrantikas) This explanation does not accord with the sutra, because the sutra states that immediately after undertaking abstention from eating at improper times, the precept recipient must say: “By this eighth observance, I follow the training rule; I follow the training rule of the arhats” (Aṅguttara, iv. 248).

(Question) If so, what is the fast, such that it can be said to be distinct from those eight abstentions and that those eight abstentions are merely its components?

(Sautrāntika) It is precisely from the collective assemblage of the factors that one may say the fast observance has these factors; and all the factors are comprised within this very assemblage. The expression “the eight factors of the fast observance” (trai giới bát chi) is analogous to saying “the parts of a chariot” (xa chúng phần), “an army of four divisions” (tứ chi quân, caturaṅgabala), or “a medicinal powder compounded of five ingredients” (ngũ chi tán, pañcāṅgapiṣṭa).

According to the Vaibhāṣikas, abstention from eating at an improper time is both the fast observance and a factor of the fast observance. This is just as right view (samyagdṛṣṭi) is both the noble path and a factor of the path (mārgāṅga); the awakening factor of investigation of dharmas (dharmapravicaya) is both awakening (bodhi) and a factor of awakening; and concentration (samādhi) is both meditative absorption (dhyāna) and a factor of meditative absorption.

(Sautrāntika) But right view, the awakening factor of investigation of dharmas, or concentration cannot be a factor of itself. If it is maintained that a previously arisen right view, and so forth, can nevertheless be a factor of a subsequently arisen right view, and so forth, then it must also be admitted that the first moment of the noble path does not possess eight factors, and that the final moment of the factors of awakening is not a factor.

(Question) Is the acquisition of the discipline of the one-day observance limited to lay followers?

The stanza replies:

[Others also acquire the one-day observance;

But without taking the Three Refuges, they cannot.]

Exposition: When someone who is not a lay follower takes the Three Refuges for one day and one night before receiving the precepts of the one-day observance, the discipline of the one-day observance nevertheless arises in that person. This kind of discipline cannot be acquired without taking refuge, except in the case of one who does not know this.

(Question) The Mahānāma Sūtra (Mahānāmasūtra; Saṃyukta, 33, 11) says: “Mahānāma, if a male householder clad in white and endowed with the five faculties, after taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, says, ‘Regard me as a lay follower (Upāsaka),’ he becomes a lay follower.” Does this mean that merely by taking refuge in the Three Jewels one can become a lay follower?

(Answer) The masters of the western regions (aparāntakas) say that one can (Vibhāṣā, 124, 1); but the masters of Kaśmīra maintain that one cannot become a lay follower without acquiring the discipline of a lay follower.

(Question) If so, does this not contradict the sūtra?

(Answer) It does not, because:

[By declaring oneself a lay follower, the precepts arise;

But further explanation is required, as in the case of a bhikṣu.]

Exposition: The discipline of a lay follower can arise in a person who accepts the qualities of a lay follower when that person says: “From this day until the end of my life, regard me as a lay follower who has relinquished killing living beings (prāṇāpeta).”

(Question) What does “relinquished living beings” mean?

(Answer) It is an abbreviated form of the expression “having relinquished the taking of life” (prāṇātipātāpeta), uttered after one has renounced killing.

Thus, by accepting the qualities of a lay follower, a person can acquire this discipline [because that person has shown that they have renounced killing]. Nevertheless, to enable that person to understand the other precepts (śikṣāpada), further explanation is required, just as in the case of a bhikṣu.

Through the act performed by those who confer ordination, a bhikṣu acquires the discipline of a bhikṣu; nevertheless, he must still be instructed in the most important precepts: “The candidate must abstain from this and must abstain from that. His companions in the holy life will explain the remaining precepts to him.” [Vyākhyā: yathaiva hi bhikṣur labdhasaṃvaro ‘Pāṇini jñāpticaturthena karmanā śikṣāpadāni yathāsthūlaṃ grāhyate prajñāpyate / itaś cāmutaś ca pārājikādibhyas tava saṃvaraḥ / anyāni ca te sabrahmacāriṇaḥ kathayiṣyantīti]

The same applies to a śrāmaṇera. So too in the case of a lay follower: one who receives the discipline of a lay follower must take the Three Refuges once, twice, and three times; afterward, that person must be led to undertake (grāhyate) the precepts: “Having abandoned killing, I abstain from killing.” Therefore, one cannot become a lay follower without accomplishing the discipline of a lay follower.

[If the discipline must be complete,

How can a lay follower be “one-part,” and so forth?

Such statements are made with reference to observance of the precepts.]

Exposition: If all lay followers must possess the complete discipline of a lay follower, how could the Blessed One describe four kinds of lay followers: a lay follower of one precept (one who is capable of practicing one part, ekadeśakārin), a lay follower of two precepts (one who is capable of practicing a small portion, pradeśakārin), a lay follower of three or four precepts (one who is capable of practicing the greater portion, yadbhūyaskārin), and a lay follower of five precepts (one who is capable of practicing the complete portion, paripūṇakārin)?

This is said with reference to the observance of the precepts. Indeed, when a lay follower observes (rakṣati) one of the precepts [although that person has received them all], that person is said to be capable of practicing (kar) that precept. [Thus, it should not be understood that a lay follower of one precept is a lay follower who has undertaken only a single precept.] All lay followers alike are established in the same discipline.

(Sautrāntika) The foregoing position contradicts the sūtra (utsūtra). You say that one acquires the discipline merely by accepting the qualities of a lay follower who has “relinquished killing living beings,” as in: “Regard the disciple … as a lay follower who has relinquished it.” Yet the words cited above are not found in the scriptural text. The sūtra to which we refer is the Mahānāma Sūtra (Mahānāmasūtra), which gives a definition of a lay follower, and there is no other sūtra besides it. But the Mahānāma Sūtra does not contain the additional expression “having relinquished killing living beings” (prāṇāpeta).

If you say that you have relied on another sūtra, in which it is written: “From this day until the end of my life [regard me as a lay follower], even at the cost of my life (prāṇopeta), having taken refuge in the Three Jewels and having attained complete confidence (abhiprasanna),” this passage refers only to those who have seen the Four Noble Truths, acquired right faith, and therefore resolved to follow the true Dharma even at the sacrifice of their lives: “We cannot abandon the true Dharma, even to save our lives.” Thus, this passage does not provide a definition of the discipline of a lay follower.

Furthermore, the expression “having relinquished killing living beings,” upon which you have based the foregoing explanations, is stated nowhere: it occurs neither in the Mahānāma Sūtra nor in the Sūtra on Seeing the Truth (Dṛṣṭasatyasūtra). Who could accept expressions whose meaning is so imprecise? And if one relies merely on confidence in the meaning of the expression above, who could accept that a lay follower has acquired the five precepts before the act of receiving them?

If the expression “having relinquished killing living beings” is intended to refer to the case of one who violates the precepts, then even the question raised in the sūtra cited above would be unreasonable, much less the answer. For how could someone who understands the discipline of a lay follower perfectly well and knows that it has all five factors nevertheless be unable to explain that “one who does not violate one precept observes one precept,” and likewise with the remaining precepts?

On the contrary, only those who do not understand the greater or lesser extent of the Upāsaka discipline, and who see people capable of observing only one, two, three, or all of the precepts (tanmātraśikṣamān prati), would raise the questions: “How does one become an Upāsaka who observes one precept?… How does one become an Upāsaka who observes all the precepts?”

(Vaibhāṣikas) If one could become an Upāsaka without acquiring the Upāsaka discipline, one could likewise become a bhikṣu or śrāmaṇera without undertaking the complete discipline.

(Sautrāntikas) How do we know the greater or lesser extent of the disciplines of an Upāsaka, a śrāmaṇera, and a bhikṣu? Surely through the teaching of the Great Teacher. He spoke of an Upāsaka who had not acquired the entire discipline, but he did not speak of a bhikṣu or śrāmaṇera who had acquired only part of the discipline.

The Vaibhāṣika masters of Kaśmīr, however, do not accept this view.

(Question) How are all the disciplines of an Upāsaka and so forth divided into three different grades?

The stanza answers:

[Weak, middling, or strong, according to the mind.]

Exposition: The division of the eight kinds of discipline into inferior, middling, and superior grades depends upon whether the mind undertaking them (samādāna) is weak, middling, or strong. If this is so, the prātimokṣa discipline of an arhat may belong to the inferior grade, while the prātimokṣa discipline of an ordinary being may belong to the superior grade.

(Question) If one undertakes the discipline without taking refuge, does one become an Upāsaka?

(Answer) No, except when both the preceptor and the recipient of the precepts are unaware of this.

(Question) In what does one take refuge when taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha?

The stanza answers:

[One takes refuge in the dharmas that constitute the Buddha and the Sangha,

Such as the dharmas of those beyond training and the dharmas “of both kinds,”

And one takes refuge in nirvana, analytical cessation.

Thus the Three Refuges are complete.]

Exposition: Taking refuge in the Buddha means taking refuge in the dharmas of an arhat that are capable of constituting a Buddha (buddhakāraka). These are the dharmas that cause the designation “Buddha”: it is by virtue of these dharmas as the principal cause that a person is called a Buddha; alternatively, they are the dharmas through the attainment of which a person can know all things and is therefore called a Buddha. These dharmas are the knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna), the knowledge of non-arising (anutpādajñāna), and right view (samyagdṛṣṭi), together with the dharmas accompanying these knowledges (their retinue, parivāra), namely, the five uncontaminated skandhas.

As for the physical body (rūpakāya) of the Buddha, because this body is not transformed by the attainment of the qualities of Buddhahood, one does not take refuge in the Buddha’s physical body, which is the physical body of the bodhisattva.

(Question) Should one therefore take refuge in all Buddhas or in only one Buddha?

(Answer) Strictly speaking, one should say, “I take refuge in all Buddhas,” because all Buddhas follow the same path: the mundane path (laukika) and the supramundane path (lokottara).

Taking refuge in the Sangha (saṃgha) means taking refuge in the dharmas of those in training (śaikṣa) and those beyond training (aśaikṣa) that are capable of constituting the Sangha. These are the dharmas through the attainment of which the eight classes of noble persons (āryapudgala) become an “assembly” (saṃghībhavanti), becoming a unified body (samagrarūpa) that is indivisible (abhedyatvāt) with respect to the Noble Path.

(Question) Should one take refuge in all Sanghas or in only one Sangha?

(Answer) Strictly speaking, one should say, “I take refuge in all Sanghas,” because the path of the noble Sangha is always the same. It is evident that the Buddha said to the two merchants, “You should also take refuge in the Sangha of the future” (Vibhāṣā, 34, 12). The Blessed One, however, said this only to praise the qualities of the Jewel of the Sangha, which these merchants would soon behold.

Taking refuge in the Dharma means taking refuge in nirvana, that is, the dharma of analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha); and one must take refuge in nirvana in its entirety, because all nirvana shares the single characteristic of bringing an end to the afflictions and suffering of oneself and other beings (śāntyekalakṣaṇatvāt).

(Question) If the Buddha is nothing other than the dharmas of those beyond training, why does maliciously causing the Buddha’s body to bleed constitute an offense of immediate retribution (ānantarya)?

(Answer) The Vaibhāṣikas (Vibhāṣā, 34, 9) say that when one causes the primary elements (rūpa) serving as the basis of these dharmas to bleed (āśrayavipādanāt), these very dharmas are also harmed.

(Question) The treatise (Śāstra) (Vibhāṣā, 34, 8), however, does not say that the Buddha is “only” the dharmas of those beyond training. It merely says that the Buddha consists of the dharmas capable of constituting a Buddha, meaning the mundane or supramundane dharmas (laukika, lokottara) that are the referent of the designation “Buddha” and are themselves the Buddha. Thus, the treatise does not deny that the supporting basis—composed of the five mundane skandhas—forms part of the qualities of Buddhahood (buddhatvāpratiṣedha). Therefore, it is unnecessary to raise the preceding difficulty concerning the shedding of the Buddha’s blood.

If this were not so—if the Buddha consisted solely of the dharmas of those beyond training, and if the Sangha, namely the noble persons in training and the arhats, consisted solely of the dharmas of those in training and beyond training—then while abiding in a mundane state of mind (laukikacittastha), one would no longer be a Buddha or a member of the Sangha. According to these principles, a bhikṣu too would be nothing but moral conduct, nothing but the bhikṣu discipline.

(Vaibhāṣikas) But if the supporting body is also included among the dharmas that constitute a Buddha, why does the treatise say, “One who takes refuge in the Buddha takes refuge in the dharmas of those beyond training that constitute a Buddha”?

(Sautrāntikas) If so, one could likewise say that when a person venerates a bhikṣu, what that person venerates is solely the moral conduct that constitutes a bhikṣu.

Some hold that taking refuge in the Buddha means taking refuge in the eighteen distinctive dharmas (āveṇikadharmas) of a Buddha.

(Question) What is the essential nature of taking refuge?

(Answer) It is verbal expression. (Vibhāṣā, 34, 10)

(Question) What, then, is the meaning of refuge (a place of safety, śaraṇa)?

(Answer) These three “places of safety” are so called because, by seeking shelter in them, one can forever be liberated from all suffering.

The Blessed One once said (Dhammapada, 188–192; Udānavarga, xxvii. 28–30; Divyāvadāna, p. 164; Vibhāṣā, 34, 8): “When oppressed by fear, people commonly flee for refuge to mountains, forests, thickets, and sacred trees (caitya trees, caityavṛkṣa = caityakalpitavṛkṣa). This is not a secure refuge, nor is it the supreme refuge; by taking refuge there, one is not freed from all suffering. Those who take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, and who discern with wisdom the Four Truths—suffering, the origin of suffering, the transcendence of suffering, and the Noble Eightfold Path leading to peaceful nirvana—have found the most secure refuge, the supreme refuge;

for by taking refuge there, they are liberated from all suffering.” Therefore, taking refuge is the gateway to undertaking all the disciplines.

(Question) Why do the other disciplines all include abstention from sexual intercourse (non-celibacy, abrahmacaryavirati), whereas the Upāsaka discipline includes only abstention from sexual misconduct (wrong conduct in sensuality, kāmamithyācāra)?

The stanza answers:

[Misconduct is the most blameworthy,

Easy to renounce, and has been abandoned by noble ones.]

Treatise: Sexual misconduct is the most blameworthy act in the world because it violates another person’s wife or concubine and brings about the result of rebirth in an evil destiny (apāyikatvāt). Laypeople can easily relinquish sexual misconduct, but they find it very difficult to abstain from sexual activity; they cannot renounce worldly life because they do not possess sufficient capacity to undertake such difficult practices.

With regard to sexual misconduct, noble ones all attain the restraint of non-commission (akaraṇasaṃvara), meaning that they have attained permanent abstention from sexual misconduct. Indeed, in a subsequent life they can never transgress this precept; however, abstention from non-celibacy is different. Therefore, the discipline of a lay devotee includes only abstention from sexual misconduct. Nor should it be thought that a noble one in a subsequent life (a noble one by birth) could transgress the discipline of a lay devotee: this could occur only if the discipline of a lay devotee included abstention from non-celibacy as well. The expression “restraint of non-commission” (akaraṇasaṃvara) should be understood as the definitive renunciation of an action (akriyāni = akriyāyām ekāntatā).

(Question) If a person marries after having undertaken the discipline of a lay devotee, did that person, at the earlier time of receiving the precepts, attain abstention with regard to this newly married wife?

(Answer) According to the Vibhāṣā, this abstention was indeed attained; for otherwise that person would have attained only a partial discipline (prādeśika).

(Question) But upon marrying, has that person not transgressed the precept?

(Answer) That is not so.

得律儀如誓　　非總於相續.

[One attains the discipline in accordance with one’s vow;

The vow is not made with regard to the entire continuum of another person.]

Treatise: Because that person has undertaken the discipline, the discipline is attained. The discipline was undertaken when the person vowed: “This disciple abstains from sexual misconduct,” meaning: “This disciple abstains from all sexual misconduct with all protected women (agamya)”; the vow was not: “This disciple will not engage in non-celibacy with such-and-such a person.” Consequently, the person does not transgress the discipline upon marrying, because the person has abstained from sexual misconduct, not from sexual activity (non-celibacy).

(Question) Among verbal offenses, why does abstention (tyāya) from false speech become a training rule (śikṣānga) for a lay devotee, whereas the other verbal offenses are not included?

(Answer) For the same reasons stated above. False speech is the most blameworthy act in the world; laypeople can easily abstain from it, while noble ones are incapable of speaking falsely. There is also a fourth reason:

[For one would speak falsely

After transgressing a precept.]

Treatise: [If false speech were not prohibited,] then after transgressing any precept and being questioned, the transgressor would lie, saying: “I did not do that.” Therefore, a lay devotee must renounce false speech, thinking: “If I transgress a precept, I shall say that I have transgressed it.”

(Question) Why is abstention from offenses of the type involving “disobedience” (prohibited offenses, pratikṣepaṇasāvadya) not included in the discipline of a lay devotee?

(Answer) The question is inappropriate, because abstention from intoxicating drink is an abstention from an offense involving disobedience.

(Question) Why does a lay devotee abstain only from intoxicating drink and not from the other offenses involving disobedience?

The stanza answers:

[Among offenses involving disobedience, one abstains only from intoxicating drink

In order to safeguard the other precepts.]

Treatise: Those who become intoxicated by drinking cannot preserve the other precepts.

The Abhidharma masters maintain that intoxicating beverages do not have the nature of a “natural” offense (prakṛtisāvadya). A natural offense is committed only by one whose mind is defiled (kliṣṭa), whereas for the treatment of illness one may drink an amount of alcohol insufficient to cause intoxication. The mind will be defiled if the drinker knows that the amount consumed will cause intoxication, but the mind will not be defiled if the drinker knows that the amount consumed cannot cause intoxication (amadanīyamātraṃ viditvā).

This, however, is not the view of the Vinaya masters (Vinayadharas). According to them, intoxicating beverages are natural offenses.

The Venerable Upāli asked: “How should a sick person be cared for?” The Blessed One replied: “Upāli, with the sole exception of anything that is a natural offense (prakṛtisāvadyam Upāle sthāpāyitvā).” Moreover, the Blessed One did not permit members of the Śākya clan to consume alcohol (madyapāna) when ill: “Those who have accepted me as their teacher must not drink alcohol, even an amount as small as the tip of a blade of grass.” (Madhyamāgama, 38, 9). In the case of illness, the Blessed One prohibited only natural offenses (Upālisūtra), yet he also did not permit the drinking of alcohol. It is therefore clear that drinking alcohol is a natural offense.

In subsequent lives, noble ones do not drink alcohol, nor do they commit other natural offenses such as killing and so forth. [If someone pours milk mixed with alcohol into their mouths, only the milk flows in, not the alcohol. (Sumangalavilāsinī, p. 305)].

The scriptures (Nandikasūtra, etc.) also classify alcohol among bodily misconducts (kāyaduścarita).

The Abhidharma masters (Ābhidārmikas) explain:

⁽¹⁾ In general, offenses involving “disobedience” are permitted in cases of illness, as demonstrated by the answer given to Upāli above. The case of drinking alcohol, however, is an exception: although it is only an offense involving disobedience, it is nevertheless forbidden to the sick. This is done to prevent the unfortunate consequences caused by alcohol (prasangaparihārārtham), because it is impossible to determine precisely what amount will cause intoxication.

⁽²⁾ If noble ones have attained the restraint of non-commission with regard to alcohol, this is not because drinking alcohol is a natural offense, but only because noble ones are fully endowed with moral shame and dread of wrongdoing; [if they do not drink it secretly (Vyākhyā: Yadi hrīmattvāt tadanadhyācaraṇam ajñātam udakādivat kasmān na pibanti)], it is only because alcohol causes them to lose right mindfulness (smṛtināśa). If they do not drink even a single drop, it is because the intoxicating quantity cannot be determined, just as with poison.

⁽³⁾ The scriptures regard drinking alcohol as bodily misconduct because alcohol is a “cause” of heedlessness (occasion of heedlessness, pramādasthāna). Indeed, the precept concerning intoxicating drink contains these words: “Having eliminated the cause of heedlessness consisting of drinking alcohol, grain liquor (surā), and fruit liquor (maireya), I relinquish the cause of heedlessness….” This is not the case with other offenses: one does not say, “I relinquish the cause of heedlessness consisting of killing,” because the other offenses are all natural offenses.

The scripture (Nandikasūtra; Dīgha, iii. 182) states that rebirth in hell results from habitual drinking. On account of (prasangena) drinking alcohol, a continuous succession of unwholesome states of mind repeatedly arises (abhīkṣṇam akuśalasaṃtatipravṛttes); from this there arises (ākṣepa, āvedha) a new kind of karma that brings about rebirth in hell, or an old karma is activated at the time of death.

(Question) What does the compound surāmaireyamadyapramādasthāna (tốt-la-mê-lệ-da-mạt-đà, occasion of heedlessness) mean?

(Answer) Surā is a fermented drink (āsava) brewed from rice; maireya is a fermented drink brewed from various other ingredients (such as sugarcane juice, etc.). Sometimes these drinks are only slightly intoxicating, and sometimes they are not intoxicating at all; therefore the word madya, “intoxicating,” has been added. Betel nuts, kodrava grass, and so forth, which cause intoxication when eaten, are also called surā and maireya.

Drinking alcohol is merely an offense of disobedience. Therefore, the expression “basis of heedlessness” (pramādasthāna) should be understood to mean that one must abstain from drinking alcohol because it is the cause of all instances of impaired mindfulness (sarvapramādānām āspadatvāt).