菩薩戒本

Bodhisattvas! After receiving the pure precepts of a bodhisattva, you should constantly and single-mindedly reflect with care: “This is what a bodhisattva should do; this is what a bodhisattva should not do.” Having reflected in this way, in order to perfect the bodhisattva practices, you must diligently cultivate them. You must also listen attentively to the Bodhisattva Sutra-pitaka and Matrka-pitaka, and diligently study and practice in accordance with what you have heard.

Bodhisattvas! Within the pure disciplinary precepts upheld by bodhisattvas, there are four “grounds of defeat.” What are these four?

1). The precept against praising oneself and disparaging others:

If a bodhisattva, out of craving for gain and honor, praises himself while disparaging, denigrating, and humiliating others, this is called committing the first “ground of defeat.”

2). The precept against withholding wealth and the Buddha-Dharma:

If a bodhisattva presently possesses wealth but, out of stinginess, sees destitute people without refuge come to ask for material assistance and does not give rise to compassion or offer them alms; or if someone comes seeking the Dharma and, because of stinginess, the bodhisattva refuses to teach it even though he clearly understands the Buddha-Dharma, this is called committing the second “ground of defeat.”

3). The precept against angrily refusing an apology:

If a bodhisattva harbors resentment in his heart and, because of it, not only utters harsh words but, in his anger, also uses his hands, feet, tiles, bricks, knives, or sticks to strike and injure others, causing them suffering and distress; and if, driven by intense anger, he has assaulted another person, yet when that person pleads and begs for forgiveness, he refuses to accept the apology, continues to harbor resentment, and will not let it go, this is called committing the third “ground of defeat.”

4). The precept against maligning and corrupting the true Dharma:

If a bodhisattva maligns the Bodhisattva Dharma-pitaka and delights in expounding, revealing, and establishing teachings that merely resemble the true Dharma, whether he personally believes in and accepts such counterfeit teachings or has been incited to do so by others, this is called committing the fourth “ground of defeat.”

The foregoing are called the four “grounds of defeat” for bodhisattvas. If a bodhisattva commits even one of these four grounds of defeat, he cannot advance in his practice during the present life, nor can he gather the vast provisions of a bodhisattva. In his practice during the present life, he cannot experience joy or pure aspiration—how much less so if he commits all four. Such a person is called a semblance bodhisattva, not a true bodhisattva.

If a bodhisattva transgresses these four grounds of defeat with a lesser or intermediate degree of affliction, he does not lose the essence of the bodhisattva disciplinary precepts. If he transgresses them with a severe degree of affliction, however, he is said to have lost the essence of the precepts.

If a bodhisattva repeatedly transgresses the four grounds of defeat, feels no shame whatsoever, takes delight in doing so, and regards transgression as meritorious, this is called transgressing the precepts with a severe degree of affliction.

A bodhisattva does not lose the essence of the precepts immediately upon a single commission of a ground of defeat, as a bhiksu loses the essence of the bhiksu precepts immediately upon committing a ground of defeat.

If a bodhisattva loses the essence of the bodhisattva precepts by committing a grave transgression, he may receive them again in the present life; they are not lost permanently. This differs from the pratimoksa precepts of a bhiksu: if a bhiksu commits a ground of defeat, he cannot receive the bhiksu precepts again in that same life.

Thus, bodhisattvas who receive and uphold the bodhisattva disciplinary precepts should clearly understand which circumstances constitute a transgression and which do not, whether the mind at the time of transgression is defiled or undefiled, and whether the transgression is of a lesser, intermediate, or severe degree.

1). The precept against failing to make offerings to the Three Jewels:

If a bodhisattva who has received and upholds the pure bodhisattva disciplinary precepts allows a day to pass without making an offering, whether great or small, to the Tathagata, a stupa or shrine, the true Dharma, the sutras and treatises, or the Sangha—that is, the bodhisattvas of the ten directions who have entered the bhumis—or without at least respectfully making one prostration or praising the genuine virtues of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha with a four-line verse, this is called a defiled violation of a bodhisattva training precept. If he fails to make offerings because of laziness or timidity, it is called an undefiled violation.

Cases in which there is no transgression: if he is mentally deranged; or if he has realized “pure aspiration,” in which case he does not ordinarily transgress. Bodhisattvas who have realized “pure aspiration” are like bhiksus who have attained the “four unshakable confidences”: they constantly make offerings to and respectfully attend upon the Three Jewels—the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha—in accordance with the Dharma.

2). The precept against craving fame and gain:

If a bodhisattva who has received and upholds the pure bodhisattva disciplinary precepts indulges in unrestrained craving and remains attached to gain and honor, unwilling to relinquish that attachment, this is called a defiled violation of a bodhisattva training precept.

A case in which there is no transgression: although he has earnestly and diligently striven to eliminate craving, because his habitual tendencies are deep and powerful and he is obscured by ignorance, craving continues to arise in his mind.

3). The precept against failing to respect companions in the Dharma:

If a bodhisattva who has received and upholds the pure bodhisattva disciplinary precepts sees virtuous and venerable fellow bodhisattvas who uphold the same precepts approaching, but, being controlled by pride and harboring resentment, anger, and irritation, does not rise to greet them or offer them a seat; or if they come to converse with him, comfort him, or inquire after him, but, being controlled by pride and harboring resentment, he refuses to answer them courteously, this is called a defiled violation of a bodhisattva training precept. If he is not controlled by pride and harbors no resentment, anger, or irritation, but fails to respond solely because of laziness, negligence, or being in a neutral state of mind, it is called an undefiled violation.

Cases in which there is no transgression: if he is gravely ill; if he is mentally deranged; if he is asleep and the other person, thinking him awake, comes to converse with him, comfort him, or inquire after him; if he is teaching others or analyzing the principles of a Dharma treatise; if he is conversing or making inquiries with someone else; if he is listening to others discuss or analyze the principles of a Dharma treatise; if he fears that his reply would offend the person teaching the true Dharma; if he wishes to accommodate the Dharma teacher; if he wishes to employ this skillful means to discipline the other person, causing that person to abandon evil paths and return to wholesome ones; if he is complying with the regulations of the Sangha;

or if he wishes to accommodate the assembly.

In all these circumstances, there is no transgression.

4). Failing to accept an invitation to receive offerings:

If a bodhisattva who has received and upholds the pure bodhisattva disciplinary precepts is invited to someone’s home or to another monastery to receive offerings of food, clothing, and other necessities, but, being controlled by pride and harboring resentment, anger, and irritation, refuses to go and receive the offerings or declines the invitation, this is called a defiled violation of a bodhisattva training precept. If he does not go to receive the offerings or accept the invitation because of laziness, timidity, negligence, or being in a neutral state of mind, it is called an undefiled violation.

Cases in which there is no transgression: when one is ill; when one lacks the strength; when one is mentally deranged; when the place to which one is invited is too far away; when the road is fraught with many dangers; when one wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the other person, causing them to leave evil paths and return to wholesome paths; when one has previously accepted an invitation elsewhere; when one is cultivating wholesome Dharmas and wishes to prevent one’s practice from being interrupted; or when one does not wish the teachings one has heard to decline—the cases of discussing and discerning the meaning and principles of the Dharma are the same as the case of listening to the Dharma;

when one knows that the other person harbors an intent to cause harm and has come under the pretense of extending an invitation; when one does not wish to provoke the suspicion or resentment of many others; or when, in compliance with the regulations of the Sangha, one does not go to the place of invitation or accept the invitation.

In all such cases, there is no transgression.

5). The Precept against Refusing Gladly Offered Gifts:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts is respectfully and earnestly presented with various kinds of gold, silver, money, wealth, and precious objects as offerings, but, out of resentment, anger, or vexation, refuses to accept them, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training rule, because the bodhisattva has abandoned sentient beings. If the bodhisattva refuses to accept them because of laziness, timidity, absent-mindedness, or while the mind is in a neutral state, it is called an undefiled violation.

Cases in which there is no transgression: when one knows that, after accepting the gift, one will develop attachment and craving; when one knows that the donor will afterward feel regret or become deranged; when one knows that accepting the gift will cause the donor to become impoverished; when one knows that the gift belongs to the Sangha or to a stupa or shrine; when one knows that the gift was stolen; or when one knows that accepting it will bring much trouble, such as being killed, imprisoned, punished, expelled, or subjected to the suspicion or reproach of others. In these cases, refusing to accept the gift is not a transgression.

6). The Precept against Refusing to Bestow the Dharma:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts is approached by someone seeking the Dharma, but, out of resentment, anger, vexation, or jealousy, refuses to teach the Dharma, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training rule. If the bodhisattva refuses to teach the Dharma because of laziness, timidity, inattentiveness, or while the mind is in a neutral state, it is called an undefiled violation.

Cases in which there is no transgression: when a follower of another path comes seeking faults; when one is gravely ill; when one is mentally deranged; when one wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the other person, causing them to leave evil paths and return to wholesome paths; when one has not yet thoroughly understood the teaching to be studied; when the other person is disrespectful and shameless, approaching with an arrogant and insolent attitude; when one knows that the other person is dull-witted and, in relation to the vast and ultimate Buddhadharma, would either become frightened, give rise to wrong views, or strengthen their wrong views and attachments;

or when one knows that, after hearing the Dharma, the person will repeat it to evil people, and for this reason one does not teach it.

In all such cases, there is no transgression.

7). The Precept against Abandoning Evil Persons:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts feels resentment, anger, or vexation toward vicious sentient beings who violate the precepts, and consequently abandons them and refuses to benefit them, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training rule. If the bodhisattva abandons them because of laziness or timidity, it is called an undefiled violation. Why is this so? Because bodhisattvas arouse compassion and wish to benefit violent and evil sentient beings who violate the precepts and create the causes of suffering even more than they wish to benefit sentient beings who uphold the precepts and whose three kinds of karma are pure.

Cases in which there is no transgression: when one is mentally deranged; when one wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the other person, as explained above; when one wishes to accommodate the wishes of many others; or when, in compliance with the regulations of the Sangha, one abandons the person and does not benefit them. In all such cases, there is no transgression.

8). The Precept of Training Together with the Shravakas:

If a bodhisattva upholds the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, then, just as the Blessed One, wishing to cause sentient beings who had no faith in the Buddhadharma to give rise to faith and those who already had faith to increase it, established prohibitive offenses in the Pratimoksha precepts that the shravakas must not violate, the bodhisattva must train in these precepts together with the shravakas, without any difference whatsoever.

Why is this so? The shravakas, although seeking only their own benefit, still do not forsake practices that benefit others, but train in these precepts so that sentient beings who have no faith may give rise to faith and those who already have faith may increase it. How much more, then, should bodhisattvas, who seek the benefit of all sentient beings, do so?

9). The Precept of Not Training Together with the Shravakas:

If a bodhisattva upholds the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, then, just as the Tathagata, wishing the shravakas to dwell amid few duties, few undertakings, and few desires, established prohibitive precepts in the Pratimoksha that the shravakas must not violate, the bodhisattva should not train in these precepts together with the shravakas. Why is this so? The shravakas devote themselves to their own benefit and do not consider benefiting others.

Because they do not benefit others, the practices of having few duties, few undertakings, and few desires may be said to be appropriate for them. Yet for bodhisattvas, who devote themselves to benefiting others and do not consider their own benefit, these practices of having few duties, few undertakings, and few desires are not appropriate.

Thus, in order to benefit others, a bodhisattva may request hundreds or thousands of kinds of clothing from elders, householders, or brahmins who are not relatives. The bodhisattva should examine whether the giver has sufficient means to donate, and accept according to the giver’s ability to give. The case of requesting an alms bowl is the same as that of requesting clothing.

Likewise, a bodhisattva may request weaving thread and ask weavers who are not relatives to weave it into cloth for making garments. For the sake of benefiting others, the bodhisattva may make various kinds of “kaushika” robes or as many as hundreds of sitting cloths; or may store gold, silver, and cash amounting to tens of thousands of kotis, or even more. Thus, in regard to prohibitive offenses established for the sake of having few duties, few undertakings, and few desires, the bodhisattva shall not train together with the shravakas.

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, while engaged in benefiting others, adheres to these practices of having few duties, few undertakings, and few desires out of resentment, anger, or vexation, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training rule.

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, through skillful means and for the sake of benefiting others, happens to commit an offense that is wrong by nature, then, because it was motivated by benefiting others, it is not called a violation of the bodhisattva’s training rule; rather, the bodhisattva thereby acquires abundant merit.

For example, suppose a bodhisattva sees a robber who, out of greed for wealth, intends to kill many people, or intends to kill shravakas, pratyekabuddhas, or bodhisattvas, or intends to commit many deeds of immediate retribution. Having seen this, the bodhisattva reflects: “If I kill this evil person, I shall fall into hell; yet if I do not kill him and allow him to commit deeds of immediate retribution, he will undergo immense suffering in future lives.

I would rather kill this evil person and fall into hell myself than allow him to suffer the painful retribution of the Avici hell.” Having carefully considered the matter, the bodhisattva, with a wholesome mind and a clear understanding of the circumstances, feels profound shame regarding the future retribution and, moved by compassion, kills the evil person. For this reason, not only does the bodhisattva not violate the bodhisattva precepts, but also acquires much merit.

Again, suppose a bodhisattva sees powerful persons—whether kings or officials—who are exceedingly cruel, have no compassion for the people, and continually engage in oppression, causing everyone suffering and lamentation. Having seen this, the bodhisattva arouses compassion and resolves to benefit everyone. According to the authority available to the bodhisattva, such powerful persons may be deposed or expelled. For this reason, not only does the bodhisattva not violate the bodhisattva precepts, but also acquires much merit.

Again, suppose a bodhisattva sees robbers seizing the property of others, the property of the Sangha, or the property of stupas and temples, and then regarding the stolen property as their own and wantonly squandering it. Having seen this, the bodhisattva arouses compassion for them and resolves to bring them benefit and happiness. Therefore, according to the bodhisattva’s strength or authority, the stolen objects are forcibly recovered so that the robbers will not squander them and consequently undergo punishment and suffering for a long time. The recovered objects are then returned accordingly: property of the Sangha is returned to the Sangha, property of stupas and temples is returned to the stupas and temples, and the property of sentient beings is returned to those sentient beings.

Again, suppose a bodhisattva sees stewards or managers of fields and gardens taking property belonging to the Sangha or to stupas and temples, regarding it as their own, and freely using it. Having seen this, the bodhisattva reflects upon their evil conduct and arouses compassion, not wishing them to undergo futile punishment and suffering for a long time because of this wrongful use. Therefore, according to the bodhisattva’s strength or authority, the bodhisattva takes back those objects. Although the bodhisattva carries out such forcible recovery, not only does the bodhisattva not violate the bodhisattva precepts, but also acquires much merit.

Again, suppose a lay bodhisattva sees a woman who has no relatives, is habituated to sexual desire, has set her mind upon the bodhisattva, and wishes to engage in “conduct contrary to celibacy.” Having perceived this, the bodhisattva reflects: “I should not allow her to become so distressed that she acts recklessly. If I comply with her wish, she will become at ease, and I can then skillfully guide her, enabling her to plant roots of virtue and relinquish her unwholesome habit.” Moved by compassion, the bodhisattva engages in “conduct contrary to celibacy.” Although engaging in such a “defiled” act, not only does the bodhisattva not violate the bodhisattva precepts, but also acquires much merit.

An ordained bodhisattva, however, in order to uphold the teaching for shravakas established by the Blessed One and prevent the true Dharma from perishing, must never engage in “conduct contrary to celibacy.”

Again, although a bodhisattva would not tell a lie even when the bodhisattva’s own life is endangered, nevertheless, in order to save other sentient beings from danger to their lives, from imprisonment, or from punishments such as having their hands or feet cut off, their noses or ears severed, their eyes gouged out, and so forth, the bodhisattva may knowingly speak falsely. In brief, when the bodhisattva seeks to benefit sentient beings, not to harm them, and has no defiled or acquisitive intention, but acts solely to benefit others, then, although knowingly speaking contrary to the truth, the bodhisattva does not violate the bodhisattva precepts, but instead acquires much merit.

Again, suppose a bodhisattva sees sentient beings enticed by evil friends and bound to them inseparably. Having seen this, the bodhisattva arouses compassion and resolves to benefit them. According to the bodhisattva’s ability or authority, the bodhisattva speaks words that cause division, so that those sentient beings will not, through association with evil friends, undergo futile suffering for a long time. Although, with such a wish to benefit them, the bodhisattva speaks divisively and disrupts the intimacy of others, the bodhisattva does not violate the bodhisattva precepts, but instead acquires much merit.

Again, suppose a bodhisattva sees sentient beings acting perversely and contrary to worldly norms. The bodhisattva then rebukes them loudly and speaks harsh words, using this skillful means to cause them to abandon evil and return to the path of virtue. Although, with such a wish to benefit them, the bodhisattva speaks harsh and severe words to sentient beings, the bodhisattva does not violate the bodhisattva precepts, but instead acquires much merit.

Again, suppose a bodhisattva sees sentient beings who delight in performances, recitations, songs, or discussions of current political affairs, food and drink, amusements, gossip, and so forth. The bodhisattva should be extremely skillful regarding such matters. Arousing compassion for these sentient beings and wishing to benefit them, the bodhisattva accords with their inclinations and appears to enjoy performances, recitations, songs, or discussions of current political affairs, food and drink, amusements, gossip, and so forth.

By this skillful means, the bodhisattva gathers them in and guides them away from delight in such useless controversies and back to the path of virtue. Although the bodhisattva thus appears to engage in frivolous speech, the bodhisattva does not violate the bodhisattva precepts, but instead acquires much merit.

10). The Precept Against Livelihood by Wrong Means:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva’s pure precepts of moral discipline becomes deceitful and fraudulent, discussing matters that are half false and half true, and by such means seeks offerings and gain, living by wrong livelihood without shame and refusing to relinquish it, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva precepts.

Cases in which there is no violation: The bodhisattva wishes to eliminate the habit of living by wrong livelihood and, although striving diligently to abandon it, continues to engage in wrong livelihood because the afflictions are too powerful.

11). The Precept Against Restlessness and Jesting:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva’s pure precepts is restless by nature, the mind not tranquil, speaking and laughing loudly, boasting and making a commotion, behaving playfully, and hoping that others will cheerfully join in, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva precepts. If such restless jesting occurs through absentmindedness, it is called a non-defiled violation.

Cases in which there is no offense: although wishing to eliminate the habit of restlessness, one has not yet succeeded in doing so, as explained above; or one wishes by this skillful means to dispel another person's resentment; or one wishes to relieve the other person's distress; or the other person is naturally restless, and, wishing through skillful means to attract and protect them, one displays a restless manner like theirs; or the other person suspects that the bodhisattva bears resentment toward them or is plotting against them, so the bodhisattva displays a playful manner, thereby revealing the impartial purity of their own mind. In all these cases, there is no offense.

12). The Precept against Expounding the Bodhisattva Dharma in a Confused Manner:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva's pure precepts gives rise to the following view or argument: "Bodhisattvas should not seek nirvana; they should become disenchanted with nirvana. They should neither fear the afflictions and subsidiary afflictions and seek to eliminate them, nor resolutely give rise to disenchantment with them, because bodhisattvas must remain amid birth and death for three incalculable eons in quest of unsurpassed bodhi," this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva training precept.

Why is this so? Śrāvakas give rise to a mind that seeks the realization of nirvana and becomes disenchanted with the afflictions and subsidiary afflictions; yet the bodhisattva's aspiration to realize nirvana and disenchantment with the afflictions and subsidiary afflictions are a hundred thousand myriad koṭis of times greater than those of the śrāvakas. This is because śrāvakas are concerned only with liberating themselves and diligently cultivate in order to realize nirvana, whereas bodhisattvas diligently cultivate in order to realize nirvana for the sake of all sentient beings.

Therefore, bodhisattvas should diligently cultivate an undefiled mind. Although they accomplish conditioned undertakings, their cultivation of the Dharma of the undefiled mind far surpasses that of the śrāvakas.

13). The Precept against Failing to Guard against and Refute Slander:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva's pure precepts of disciplined conduct causes others to lose faith in the bodhisattva—for example, through accusations, insults, or gossip—and the bodhisattva refuses to offer a clear explanation, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva training precept. If the allegations are untrue and the bodhisattva nevertheless refuses to offer a clear explanation, this is called an undefiled violation.

Cases in which there is no offense: one is slandered by non-Buddhists; one is slandered by envious and jealous persons; one is slandered because, as a monastic, one goes on almsround or practices wholesome Dharma; or one is slandered by a person who is angry or whose mind is confused. In all these cases, there is no violation in failing to offer a clear explanation.

14). The Precept against Failing to Discipline Sentient Beings:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva's pure precepts of disciplined conduct sees sentient beings who can be benefited only by stern rebuke or punishment, but, fearing that they will become distressed, neither rebukes nor punishes them, this is called an undefiled violation of the bodhisattva training precept.

A case in which there is no offense: one knows that rebuke or punishment would not benefit the other person but would instead cause them great distress.

15). The Precept against Retaliating in Response to Anger or Beating:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva's pure precepts of disciplined conduct, upon being reviled by another, reviles them in return; upon being met with anger, becomes angry in return; or upon being beaten, beats the other person in return, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva training precept.

16). The Precept against Refusing to Apologize:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva's pure precepts of disciplined conduct has wronged another person, or, although not having wronged them, is misunderstood by the other person as having done so, and, because of resentment, jealousy, or arrogance, refuses to apologize properly, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva training precept. If the bodhisattva fails to apologize because of laziness, timidity, or heedlessness, this is called an undefiled violation.

Cases in which there is no offense: one wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the other person, causing them to leave evil paths and return to wholesome paths; one knows that the other person is a non-Buddhist or a wicked person holding wrong views; the other person demands that the bodhisattva commit an unlawful act before accepting the apology; one knows that the other person is quarrelsome and that an apology would only make them more enraged; one knows that the other person is gentle and bears no fixed resentment; or one knows that an apology would only make the other person more ashamed. In all these cases, there is no offense in not apologizing.

17). The Precept against Refusing to Accept an Apology:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva's pure precepts of disciplined conduct has been wronged by someone who has properly apologized, yet harbors resentment and, wishing to cause the other person distress, refuses to accept the apology, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva training precept. Or, although the bodhisattva harbors no resentment and does not wish to cause the other person distress, because of narrow-mindedness and an inability to forgive, refuses to accept the apology, this too is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva training precept.

Cases in which there is no offense: one wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the other person, as explained above; or the other person's apology is neither sincere and impartial nor properly made, and therefore one does not accept it. In all these cases, there is no offense.

18). Harboring Resentment and Refusing to Relinquish It:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva's pure precepts of disciplined conduct harbors resentment toward another and refuses to relinquish it, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva training precept.

A case in which there is no offense: although one earnestly seeks every possible means to eliminate it, the affliction continues to arise, as explained above.

19). The Precept against Taking and Supporting Disciples out of Greed:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva's pure precepts of disciplined conduct accepts and supports disciples out of a desire for offerings and service, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva training precept.

A case in which there is no offense: one accepts and supports disciples without seeking offerings or service.

20). The Precept against Indulgence in Sleep and Repose:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva's pure precepts of disciplined conduct is lazy and timid, delights in sleep and repose, enjoys lying down or reclining, and does so without a fixed schedule or moderation, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva training precept.

Cases in which there is no offense: one is seriously ill; one lacks physical strength; one is weary after returning from a long journey; or one is striving to eliminate the habit of excessive sleep but has not yet succeeded in doing so, as explained above.

21). The Precept against Delighting in Useless Conversation and Wasting Time:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva's pure precepts of disciplined conduct delights in discussing worldly affairs and thereby wastes time, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva training precept. If one wastes time through inattentiveness, this is called an undefiled violation.

Cases in which there is no offense: seeing others discussing worldly affairs, one listens briefly and mindfully in order to accommodate them; one briefly inquires about an extraordinary and rare event; or one answers the other person's questions. In all these cases, there is no offense.

22). The Precept against Failing to Seek Instruction:

If a bodhisattva, having undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, wishes to make the mind abide in stability and attain concentration, yet, out of resentment or arrogance, refuses to approach teachers and request instruction, this is called a defiled transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts. If, because of laziness or timidity, the bodhisattva does not request instruction, it is called an undefiled transgression.

There is no transgression in the following cases: if the bodhisattva is ill; lacks strength; knows that the teacher would give erroneous instruction; is personally learned and possesses sufficient wisdom to attain concentration; or has previously learned the method of cultivation. In these cases, not requesting instruction is not a transgression.

23). The Precept against Failing to Eliminate the Five Hindrances:

If a bodhisattva, having undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, gives rise to sensual desire and refuses to seek a way to eliminate it, this is called a defiled transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts.

There is no transgression if the bodhisattva is striving to eliminate the affliction of sensual desire and, although diligently seeking every means of counteracting it, the affliction continues to arise.

The same applies to the other afflictions, such as anger, sloth and torpor, restlessness, or doubt; all are treated in the same way as sensual desire.

24). The Precept against Attachment to Worldly Meditative Concentration:

If a bodhisattva, having undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, becomes attached to worldly states of meditative concentration and regards them as meritorious, this is called a defiled transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts.

There is no transgression if the bodhisattva is striving to eliminate attachment to worldly meditative concentration but has not yet succeeded in eliminating it, as explained above.

25). The Precept against Failing to Study the Teachings of the Lesser Vehicle:

If a bodhisattva, having undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, gives rise to the following view or argument: “Bodhisattvas should not listen to the teachings of the shravakas, should not retain them, and should not study or practice them. What need have bodhisattvas to listen to, retain, and diligently study and practice the teachings of the shravakas?”—this is called a defiled transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts. Why is this so? Bodhisattvas must study and investigate even the writings of non-Buddhist traditions; how much more, then, the teachings spoken by the Buddha!

There is no transgression if the bodhisattva speaks in this way in order to cause those who are exclusively devoted to studying the teachings of the Lesser Vehicle to relinquish their attachment to them.

26). The Precept against Abandoning the Great Vehicle to Study the Lesser Vehicle:

If a bodhisattva, having undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, has not yet thoroughly investigated the bodhisattva teachings, but neglects and abandons them and turns instead to single-minded study and practice of the teachings of the Lesser Vehicle, this is called an undefiled transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts.

27). The Precept against Abandoning the Buddha’s Dharma to Study Non-Buddhist Teachings:

If a bodhisattva, having undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, has Buddhist scriptures readily available and has not yet thoroughly investigated the Buddha’s Dharma, but turns instead to diligently studying worldly writings and the scriptures of non-Buddhist traditions, this is called a defiled transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts.

There is no transgression in the following cases: if the bodhisattva is capable of learning the Buddha’s Dharma quickly; has studied it for a long time and has not yet forgotten it; is able to contemplate the Buddha’s Dharma and penetrate its principles; has discerned its true meaning and attained the power of patient acceptance, so that the arguments of non-Buddhist traditions can no longer sway the mind; or devotes two parts of each day to studying and practicing the Buddha’s Dharma and one part to studying non-Buddhist writings. In all these cases, there is no transgression.

28). The Precept against Devoting Oneself to Worldly Writings:

If a bodhisattva, having undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, fails to uphold the bodhisattva precepts, yet thoroughly investigates worldly writings and the false doctrines of non-Buddhist traditions, taking delight in and becoming attached to them rather than regarding them as dregs or poison, this is called a defiled transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts.

29). The Precept against Giving Rise to Slander upon Hearing the Profound Teachings:

If a bodhisattva, having undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, hears true, profound, and exceedingly profound principles, as well as accounts of the inconceivable spiritual powers of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, but not only fails to give rise to faith and instead gives rise to slander, saying, “These things do not lead to benefit, do not accord with the true Dharma, were not spoken by the Tathagata, and cannot bring benefit and happiness to sentient beings,” this is called a defiled transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts. Such slander arises either from the bodhisattva’s own mistaken views or through the instigation of others.

There is no transgression in the following case: when a bodhisattva who has undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts hears profound and exceedingly profound teachings but neither believes nor understands them, the bodhisattva should nevertheless compel the mind to accept them in faith, without deceit, and reflect thus: “I truly lack wholesome roots;

I am blind and possess no eye of wisdom. How could I dare to give rise to slander regarding the Tathagata’s teachings, which are difficult to understand and fathom, when the Tathagata possesses the fully perfected eye of wisdom and teaches in accordance with the capacities of sentient beings?” The bodhisattva must thus recognize their own “ignorance” and exalt the Tathagata as one who, with regard to the Buddha’s Dharma, knows and sees everything, and who manifests in various forms and teaches the Dharma impartially in accordance with sentient beings.

If the bodhisattva maintains such a proper attitude, then even without understanding or believing, there is no transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts.

30). The Precept against Praising Oneself and Disparaging Others:

If a bodhisattva, having undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, praises themselves or slanders others before a gathering, whether out of greed or anger, this is called a defiled transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts.

There is no transgression in the following cases: if this is done to subdue non-Buddhist practitioners; to preserve and uphold the Tathagata’s true Dharma; to employ this skillful means to discipline another, as explained above; or to cause those who have not yet developed faith to give rise to pure faith and those who already possess pure faith to increase it.

31). The Precept against Arrogantly Refusing to Attend Dharma Teachings:

If a bodhisattva, having undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, hears that the true Dharma is being taught or discussed somewhere but refuses to attend because of arrogance, anger, or resentment, this is called a defiled transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts. If the bodhisattva does not attend because of laziness or timidity, it is called an undefiled transgression.

There is no transgression in the following cases: if the bodhisattva is unaware of the teaching; is ill; lacks strength; knows that the Dharma teacher expounds erroneous matters; wishes to be considerate of the teacher’s feelings; already clearly understands the meaning the teacher intends to convey; has already heard, retained, and thoroughly comprehended it many times; is learned and well-versed in the Buddha’s Dharma; is maintaining the mind on a single object and does not wish to be interrupted; is diligently cultivating meditative concentration; or has dull faculties and is unable to comprehend or practice the Buddha’s Dharma or bring the mind into concentration. In these cases, not attending the Dharma teaching is not a transgression.

32). The Precept against Disrespecting and Slandering a Dharma Teacher:

If a bodhisattva, having undertaken the bodhisattva’s pure disciplinary precepts, deliberately treats a Dharma teacher with contempt, slanders the teacher, fails to give rise to respect, and ridicules and disparages the teacher, saying, “They merely cling to the written words and do not understand their meaning,” this is called a defiled transgression of the bodhisattva training precepts.

33). The Precept against Failing to Assist Others as a Friend:

If a bodhisattva who observes the bodhisattva’s pure ethical discipline sees sentient beings engaged in some task but, out of resentment or anger, does not help them with work that the bodhisattva is capable of undertaking—such as traveling together along the same route, planning a task, managing property, mediating a dispute or lawsuit, assisting at festive gatherings, or helping with meritorious activities—this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training precepts. If the bodhisattva does not help because of laziness or timidity, it is called an undefiled violation.

There is no violation in the following cases: if the bodhisattva is ill or lacks the strength; knows that the other person can manage alone; knows that the other person has someone upon whom to rely; knows that the other person’s undertaking is unjust or contrary to the Dharma; wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the other person, as explained above; has previously promised to help someone else; has arranged for another person to help them; is diligently cultivating wholesome Dharma and does not wish to interrupt the practice temporarily; or, being of dull faculties, is encountering obstacles in receiving and practicing the Dharma that has been heard, as explained above; wishes to respect the wishes of the assembly; or is complying with the regulations of the Sangha.

In these cases, there is no violation in not helping.

34). The Precept against Failing to Care for the Sick:

If a bodhisattva who observes the bodhisattva’s pure ethical discipline encounters someone who is seriously ill but, out of resentment or anger, does not go to care for that person, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training precepts. If the bodhisattva does not go to provide care because of laziness or timidity, it is called an undefiled violation.

There is no violation in the following cases: if the bodhisattva is ill; lacks the strength; has arranged for someone else to provide care; knows that the sick person has someone caring for them; knows that the sick person still has sufficient strength to care for themselves; knows that the person has a chronic illness that they can endure on their own; is diligently cultivating vast and supreme wholesome Dharma; wishes to prevent the practice from being interrupted; or, being of dull faculties, is encountering obstacles in retaining the Dharma being studied and cannot gather the mind in meditative concentration; or has previously promised to care for another sick person. In these cases, there is no violation in not going to provide care.

The same applies when encountering someone who is poor and suffering.

35). The Precept against Failing to Admonish Those Who Act Unreasonably:

If a bodhisattva who observes the bodhisattva’s pure ethical discipline sees sentient beings acting unreasonably out of craving for gain in this life or a future life but, out of resentment or anger, refuses to explain to them what is right, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training precepts. If the bodhisattva does not speak because of laziness or timidity, it is called an undefiled violation.

There is no violation in the following cases: if the bodhisattva is unaware of the matter; lacks the strength; has arranged for someone else to explain it to them; knows that the other person possesses sufficient wisdom to correct themselves; knows that the other person has spiritual friends who counsel and remind them; wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the other person, as explained above; knows that, if told what is right, the other person will become resentful and abusive; knows that the other person will misconstrue the bodhisattva’s meaning; knows that the other person feels neither affection nor respect for the bodhisattva; or knows that the other person is obstinate and unwilling to accept sound counsel. In these cases, there is no violation in not speaking.

36). The Precept against Failing to Repay Kindness:

If a bodhisattva who observes the bodhisattva’s pure ethical discipline fails to recognize or understand the kindness of sentient beings who have benefited them and, harboring resentment, refuses to seek a proper way to repay their kindness in this present life, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training precepts. If the bodhisattva fails to repay their kindness because of laziness or timidity, this is called a violation arising from an undefiled mind.

There is no violation in the following cases: if the bodhisattva has tried every possible means but still lacks the ability to make repayment; wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the other person, as explained above; or wishes to repay the kindness, but the other person refuses to accept it. In all these cases, there is no violation.

37). The Precept against Failing to Console Those in Sorrow:

If a bodhisattva who observes the bodhisattva’s pure ethical discipline sees sentient beings grieving because they have fallen into suffering—such as the loss of wealth, separation from loved ones, or unemployment—but, out of resentment, refuses to go and seek ways to console and assist them, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training precepts. If the bodhisattva does not go to console and assist them because of laziness or timidity, this is called a violation arising from an undefiled mind.

The cases in which there is no violation are as explained under the precept “Failing to Assist Others as a Friend.”

38). The Precept against Failing to Give Material Goods:

If a bodhisattva who observes the bodhisattva’s pure ethical discipline has food, necessities, and other goods available and sees sentient beings come to ask for them but, out of resentment or anger, refuses to give to them, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training precepts. If the bodhisattva does not give because of laziness, timidity, or negligence, it is called an undefiled violation.

There is no violation in the following cases: if the bodhisattva presently has no material goods or necessities to give; if the other person requests unlawful or unsuitable things; if the bodhisattva wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the other person, as explained above; or if the petitioner is an offender and the bodhisattva therefore refrains from giving in order to comply with the regulations of the Sangha. In all these cases, there is no violation.

39). The Precept against Failing to Care Properly for Disciples:

If a bodhisattva who observes the bodhisattva’s pure ethical discipline is responsible for disciples but, out of resentment, refuses to teach them the true Dharma or admonish them at the appropriate time; or knows that the disciples are in need but does not approach lay devotees on their behalf to solicit food, clothing, medicine, and other necessary articles for their use, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training precepts. If the bodhisattva fails to teach, admonish, or provide them with necessary articles because of laziness, timidity, or negligence, this is called a violation arising from an undefiled mind.

There is no violation in the following cases: if the bodhisattva wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the disciples, as explained above; is complying with the regulations of the Sangha; is ill; lacks the strength; has arranged for someone else to teach and care for them; knows that the disciples possess great merit and can themselves seek food, clothing, and other necessities; has already given all the instruction that needed to be given; or knows that the other person is actually a follower of a non-Buddhist path who has mingled among the disciples to eavesdrop on the Dharma and is by nature difficult to teach and admonish. In these cases, there is no violation in neither teaching nor providing for them.

40). The Precept against Failing to Accommodate Sentient Beings:

If a bodhisattva who observes the bodhisattva’s pure ethical discipline refuses, out of resentment, to accommodate others, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training precepts. If the bodhisattva fails to accommodate them because of laziness, timidity, or negligence, it is called an undefiled violation.

Cases in which there is no violation are as follows: if the other person wishes to engage in unlawful acts; if the bodhisattva is ill; if the bodhisattva lacks the strength; if the bodhisattva is complying with the regulations of the Sangha; if what the other person wishes to do is appropriate, but many others do not accept it; if the bodhisattva wishes to subdue evil non-Buddhists; or if the bodhisattva wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the other person, as explained above. In all such cases, there is no violation.

41). The Precept against Failing to Rejoice in the Merits of Others:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva’s pure discipline of moral restraint harbors resentment and, upon seeing that another truly possesses virtue, refuses to commend them; upon seeing that another truly enjoys a good reputation, refuses to extol them; or upon hearing another truly speak fine and wholesome words, refuses to praise them, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training precept. If, because of laziness or timidity, the bodhisattva fails to commend, extol, or praise them, this is called a violation arising from an undefiled state of mind.

Cases in which there is no violation are as follows: if the bodhisattva knows that the other person dislikes being praised and therefore, out of consideration for that person’s feelings, does not praise them; if the bodhisattva is ill; if the bodhisattva lacks the strength; if the bodhisattva wishes to use this skillful means to discipline the other person, as explained above; if the bodhisattva is complying with the regulations of the Sangha; if the bodhisattva knows that commending, extolling, or praising the person would cause that person to become arrogant or develop other faults and therefore, wishing to prevent such things, does not commend them and so forth;

if the bodhisattva knows that the other person’s deed appears meritorious but is not truly meritorious, that the person’s reputation appears good but is not truly good, or that the person’s words sound fine and wholesome but are not truly so; if the bodhisattva wishes to subdue non-Buddhists; or if the bodhisattva is waiting until the other person has completed their work before commending, extolling, or praising them.

In all such cases, there is no violation.

42). The Precept against Failing to Reprimand and Restrain:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva’s pure discipline of moral restraint sees sentient beings who need to be reprimanded, disciplined, or expelled, yet, because of partiality, refuses to reprimand them; or although reprimanding them, does not discipline them; or although disciplining them, does not expel them, this is called a defiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training precept. If, because of laziness, timidity, or heedlessness, the bodhisattva fails to reprimand, discipline, or expel them, this is called an undefiled violation.

Cases in which there is no violation are as follows: if the bodhisattva knows that the other person cannot be reformed, will not listen when admonished, delights in coarse speech, and is prone to resentment; if the bodhisattva is waiting for a suitable opportunity; if the bodhisattva knows that such measures would lead to disputes or litigation; if the bodhisattva knows that they would cause disturbance or lead to the dissolution of the Sangha; or if the bodhisattva knows that the other person is not deceitful, possesses a sense of shame, and can quickly correct themselves, and therefore does not reprimand or discipline them. In all such cases, there is no violation.

43). The Precept against Failing to Use Supernatural Powers to Discipline and Guide:

If a bodhisattva who upholds the bodhisattva’s pure discipline of moral restraint has attained various kinds of miraculous powers and manifestations, then toward sentient beings who need to be reformed through intimidation, the bodhisattva should intimidate them; and toward those who need to be reformed through methods of inducement, the bodhisattva should induce them. Yet if the bodhisattva does not wish donors to make greater offerings because of the use of supernatural powers, and therefore does not use such powers to subdue and guide the other person, this is called an undefiled violation of the bodhisattva’s training precept.

Cases in which there is no violation are as follows: if the bodhisattva knows that the other person is attached to the practices of sorcery; or if the bodhisattva fears that non-Buddhists would thereby slander the Buddha’s Dharma and increase their wrong views, and therefore does not manifest supernatural powers to attract and subdue the other person. In all such cases, there is no violation.

Furthermore, in all cases there is no violation if the bodhisattva’s mind is completely deranged; if the bodhisattva is oppressed by suffering and anguish to an extreme degree; or if the bodhisattva has never received the bodhisattva precepts.

If a bodhisattva, with a pure mind wishing to learn, with a mind aspiring to unsurpassed bodhi, or with a mind wishing to benefit all sentient beings, formally receives the discipline of moral restraint from a spiritual teacher, that bodhisattva should give rise to the utmost reverence and respect for the bodhisattva precepts. From the very beginning, the bodhisattva must practice them diligently and resolutely refrain from violating them. If the bodhisattva should inadvertently violate a precept, they must swiftly repent, praying that the karmic obstruction of the offense be dispelled and purity restored.

It should be understood that every violation of the bodhisattva’s discipline of moral restraint is included within the offense of wrongdoing. One should confess before a spiritual teacher, whether of the Mahayana or the Hinayana, who clearly understands and is able to accept the bodhisattva’s confession, and request confession so that the offense of violating the precepts may be eliminated.

If a bodhisattva violates a “defeat” rule under the influence of a severe affliction, the essence of the discipline is lost, and the precepts must be received again.

If a bodhisattva violates a “defeat” rule under the influence of a moderate affliction, they should disclose the offense before three or more spiritual teachers—or before a still greater number—and thereby eliminate the offense of wrongdoing. First, they should state the name of the precept they have violated. They should then make the following formal declaration: “Venerable Elders (or Venerable Ones), please listen. I, the bodhisattva ......., have violated the bodhisattva Vinaya, namely the precept just stated above, and have committed the offense of wrongdoing, .....” The remainder is the same as the bhikshu’s rite for confessing an offense of wrongdoing.

If a bodhisattva violates a “defeat” rule under the influence of a mild affliction, or violates any other training precept, they should disclose and confess the offense before one spiritual teacher in the manner described above. If no spiritual teacher is presently available before whom to confess, the karmic obstruction of the offense may also be eliminated through the practice of “mental confession.” At that time, with a pure mind, the bodhisattva should make the following vow before the Three Jewels: “I vow to uphold the precepts and am resolved never to transgress them again in the future.” If this is done, purity may be restored with respect to the precepts that were violated.

Furthermore, the bodhisattva training precepts explained above are found scattered throughout the Sutra Pitaka, where the Blessed One expounded them in accordance with the capacities of sentient beings. They are namely: the discipline of moral restraint, the discipline of gathering wholesome dharmas, and the discipline of gathering sentient beings. Here, in this Bodhisattva Matrka Pitaka, they have now been gathered together in an orderly and lucid manner. Bodhisattvas should give rise to a mind of respect toward these precepts and diligently study and practice them with the utmost reverence.