佛說優婆塞五戒相經

1/ THE PRECEPT AGAINST TAKING LIFE.

Thus have I heard. At one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the kingdom of Kapilavastu. At that time, King Suddhodana came to where the Buddha was staying. Having bowed his head and face at the Buddha’s feet, he respectfully joined his palms and addressed the Buddha: “I now have a request to make, so that I may deliver myself. I humbly beseech the Blessed One to have compassion and instruct me.”

The Buddha said: “Very well. The Tathagata shall comply with the request of the royal father.”

The king addressed the Buddha: “Blessed One, you have established the lighter and heavier provisions of the Vinaya for bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, sramaneras, and sramanerikas. I humbly hope that the Tathagata will also distinguish the five precepts for us upasakas, explaining which offenses may be repented and which may not, so that we may clearly understand the characteristics of the precepts and remain free from doubt.”

The Buddha said: “Excellent! Excellent! Gautama has already had this thought and has long intended to distinguish and teach the five precepts of the upasakas. If a good man receives and upholds them without transgression, through these causes and conditions he will attain the Buddha’s path. But one who transgresses and does not repent will perpetually dwell in the three evil destinies.” The Buddha then explained the relevant causes and conditions to King Suddhodana. After hearing the Dharma, the king came before the Buddha, bowed at his feet, and then circumambulated him.

On account of these causes and conditions, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “I shall now explain for the upasakas the relative gravity of offenses against the precepts and which offenses may or may not be repented.”

The bhikkhus all replied: “Yes, indeed. We wish to hear.”

The Buddha said: “Bhikkhus! Regarding transgression of the precept against taking life, there are three ways of taking a human life: first, doing it oneself; second, instructing another; and third, commanding another to do it.

– Doing it oneself means personally taking the life of another. Instructing another means directing someone else, saying: ‘Seize that person, bind them, and take their life.’ Commanding another means telling someone: ‘Do you know such-and-such a person? If you do, seize that person, bind them, and take their life.’ The upasaka thereby commits an offense that cannot be repented.

– There are also three ways of taking a human life: first, by means of an internal form; second, by means of a non-internal form; and third, by means of an internal and non-internal form.

– An internal form means that an upasaka strikes another person with his own hand, foot, or another part of his body, while thinking: ‘May this cause that person to die.’ If that person consequently dies, this is called an offense that cannot be repented. If the person does not die immediately but later dies from that cause, it is likewise an offense that cannot be repented. If the person does not die immediately and later dies from some other cause, the offense may be repented.

– Using a non-internal form means taking wood, tiles, stones, knives, spears, bows and arrows, pieces of pewter, or leaden clubs and casting them at a person from a distance, while thinking: ‘May this cause that person to die.’ If that person consequently dies, one commits an offense that cannot be repented. If the person does not die immediately but later dies from that cause, one likewise commits an offense that cannot be repented. If the person does not die immediately and does not subsequently die, the offense may be repented.

– Using an internal and non-internal form means that someone holds in his hand a club, tile, stone, knife, spear, bow and arrow, piece of pewter, leaden club, or piece of wood and strikes another person while thinking: ‘May this cause that person to die.’ If that person consequently dies, one commits an offense that cannot be repented. If the person does not die immediately but dies afterward, one commits an offense that cannot be repented. If the person does not die immediately and does not subsequently die, the offense may be repented.

There may also be someone who kills another without using an internal form, a non-internal form, or an internal and non-internal form, but instead compounds poisons and places them upon the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, or body; upon a wound; in food; in bedding; or in a carriage or palanquin, while thinking: ‘May this cause that person to die.’ If that person consequently dies, one commits an offense that cannot be repented. If the person does not die immediately but later dies from that cause, one likewise commits an offense that cannot be repented. If the person does not die immediately and also does not subsequently die, the offense may be repented.

There may also be someone who digs a smokeless, fireless pit to kill another; kills by means of seeds; kills by means of a sprung trap; kills by digging a pit; kills by causing something to spring upward; kills by means of the Vidala spell; kills by inducing an abortion; kills by causing someone to fall into water or fire; kills by causing someone to fall into a pit; or secretly contrives to send someone away so that the person dies along the road.

This extends even to employing means to kill an embryo that has only just taken form and possesses two faculties—the bodily faculty and the life faculty. As for killing by means of a smokeless, fireless pit: if an upasaka knows that a certain person will travel along a particular road, he digs a smokeless, fireless pit and covers it with sand and earth. Or he may say aloud: ‘Because that person will travel along this road, I am making this pit.’ If the person consequently dies, he commits an offense that cannot be repented.

If the person does not die immediately but later dies from that cause, he commits an offense that cannot be repented. If the person does not die immediately and later does not die from that cause, the offense may be repented.

If one digs a smokeless, fireless pit for the purpose of killing a human being, and a human being dies, the offense cannot be repented. If a nonhuman being dies, one commits an intermediate offense that may be repented. If an animal dies, one commits a minor offense that may be repented.

If one makes a pit to kill a nonhuman being and a nonhuman being dies, one commits an intermediate offense that may be repented. If a human being dies, one commits a minor offense that may be repented. If an animal dies, one commits a minor offense that may be repented.

If one makes a pit to kill an animal and an animal dies, the offense is minor and may be repented. If a human being or a nonhuman being falls into it and dies, one likewise commits a minor offense that may be repented.

If an upasaka makes a pit without designating a particular intended victim, so that any kind of being that comes and falls into it will die, then, if a human being dies, he commits an offense that cannot be repented; if a nonhuman being dies, the offense is intermediate and may be repented; if an animal dies, the offense is minor and may be repented. If none of them dies, he commits three preparatory offenses that may be repented. This is called killing by making a smokeless, fireless pit.

As for using the Vidala spell: if an upasaka sets aside twenty-nine days to summon various kinds of demons and recites spells over a corpse, using sorcery to cause the dead body to rise, then bathes the corpse with water and dresses it in clothing, and by means of a spell directs it to hold a knife in its hand; or if he thinks in his mind and says with his mouth: ‘For the sake of killing such-and-such a person, I shall use this Vidala spell,’ and then recites the incantation—if the intended victim dies immediately, he commits an offense that cannot be repented.

If that person had previously entered one of the samadhis, is protected by heavenly spirits, or is rescued and released by a great master of spells so that the harmful rite does not succeed, the upasaka commits an intermediate offense that may be repented. This is called killing by means of the Vidala spell.

As for killing by means of half of the Vidala rite: if an upasaka sets aside twenty-nine days to make an iron cart and, after completing it, makes an iron man, recites a spell to cause the iron man to rise, then bathes it with water and wine and dresses it in clothing, directing the iron man to hold a knife in its hand; or if he thinks in his mind and says with his mouth: ‘For the sake of killing such-and-such a person, I shall recite this spell’—if that person dies, he commits an offense that cannot be repented.

If that person had previously entered one of the samadhis, is protected by heavenly spirits, or is rescued and delivered by a master of spells and therefore does not die, the upasaka commits an intermediate offense that may be repented. This is called killing by means of half of the Vidala rite.

Severing life means setting aside twenty-nine days, smearing the ground with cow dung, placing liquor and food in a pot, and then, after kindling a fire, immediately pouring water over it. While mentally contemplating and verbally reciting an incantation, one says: “Just as fire is extinguished in water, if this fire is extinguished, may the life of my enemy likewise perish.”

Again, throughout twenty-nine days and nights, one smears the ground with cow dung, places liquor and meat in a pot, and then draws an image of the person one wishes to kill. After making the image, one erases it while mentally contemplating and verbally reciting an incantation: “Just as this drawn image disappears, so may the life of my enemy also disappear. When this image disappears, may that person’s life also disappear.”

Again, one sets aside twenty-nine days, smears the ground with cow dung, places liquor and food inside a pot, and inserts a needle diagonally into the hem of a robe, repeatedly inserting and withdrawing it while mentally contemplating and verbally reciting an incantation: “Just as I withdraw this needle, may that person’s life thereby perish.” This is called severing life. If one employs any of these incantations to cast a curse and thereby causes the person to die, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated. If the person does not die, the offense can be expiated.

Again, causing a miscarriage means giving medicine to a pregnant woman and then inducing her to vomit; pouring water upon every place where poison has been put; scattering poison everywhere so that the woman steps upon it; piercing a blood vessel with a needle; or even placing drops of medicine into her eyes. If, while doing this, one intends to cause that woman to die, and she actually dies, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated. If she does not die immediately but dies afterward, one likewise commits an offense that cannot be expiated. If she does not die immediately and does not subsequently die because of it, the offense can be expiated.

If one causes a miscarriage because one wishes to kill the mother, and the mother dies, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated. If the fetus dies, the offense can be expiated. If both die, the offense cannot be expiated. If neither dies, one commits an offense of the intermediate grade that can be expiated. If one employs a method of inducing miscarriage in order to kill the fetus, and the fetus dies, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated. If the fetus does not die, one commits an offense of the intermediate grade that can be expiated. If the mother dies, one commits an offense of the intermediate grade that can be expiated. If both die, the offense cannot be expiated. This is called killing by causing a miscarriage.

Killing by pressing the abdomen means compelling a pregnant woman to perform heavy labor, carry a heavy object, pull a cart, or ascend a steep and dangerous slope, while thinking: “I shall cause this woman to die.” If the woman dies, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated. If she does not die because of this, the offense is of the intermediate grade and can be expiated. The same applies if one subjects a pregnant woman to the acts described above. This is called killing by pressing the abdomen.

Sending another to die on the road means knowing that a certain road contains starving and ravenous beasts, yet scheming to send that person along it while thinking: “I shall cause that person to die upon this dangerous road.” If the person dies, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated. In all other cases, the offenses are as previously explained. This is called killing on a dangerous road. Even when, within the mother’s womb, the two faculties—the body faculty and the life faculty—have only just arisen, if during that brief interval one forms the intention to kill and employs a means to cause death, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated. As for the other offenses, they are as previously explained.

Praising death is of three kinds: 1. in relation to a person of evil conduct; 2. in relation to a person of virtuous conduct; and 3. in relation to an elderly or sick person. A person of evil conduct is one who slaughters cattle or goats; raises pigs or chickens; releases hawks to hunt; catches fish; hunts; traps rabbits in nets; catches musk deer or deer; works as a butcher; steals or robs; casts curses; or guards a prison.

If one approaches such a person and says: “You are a person of evil conduct. Why, after committing wrongdoing for so long, do you not die soon?” and that person dies because of these words, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated. If the person does not die because of them, one commits an offense of the intermediate grade that can be expiated.

If one speaks thus to an evil person, but that person does not heed one’s words and does not die because of them, one commits an offense of the intermediate grade that can be expiated. Or, after praising death and thereby urging the person to die, one may feel remorse and think: “Why did I cause this person to die in this way?” One then returns and says: “Although you are an evil person, through the conditions provided by a good spiritual friend, by drawing near to good people, hearing the wholesome Dharma, and practicing right contemplation, you can abandon wrongdoing.

You must not kill yourself.” If that person accepts these words and does not die, the offense is of the intermediate grade and can be expiated. Thus should the fourfold assembly of the Tathagata be properly admonished and instructed.

If one approaches a person of virtuous conduct and says: “You observe virtuous precepts and possess merit. If you die, you will immediately obtain heavenly blessings. Why do you not take your own life?” and that person consequently kills themself, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated.

If the person does not kill themself, one commits an offense of the intermediate grade that can be expiated. If the person of virtuous conduct thinks: “Why should I heed another person’s words and kill myself?” and does not die, the offense can be expiated. If, after instructing another person to die, one feels remorse and thinks: “I was wrong.

Why did I tell a good person to die?” one should then return and say: “You are a good person. Live out the full measure of your lifespan. The longer your merit increases, the more abundant the blessings you will receive.

You must not take your own life.” If the person does not die because of the earlier instruction, one commits an offense of the intermediate grade that can be expiated.

When the four great elements of an elderly or sick person increase and diminish, causing that person to endure many afflictions, if one approaches and says: “Why do you endure this suffering for so long? Why do you not end your own life?” and that person dies because of these words, the offense cannot be expiated. If the person does not die because of them, one commits an offense of the intermediate grade that can be expiated.

If one thinks: “For what reason did I tell another person to take their own life?” or, after speaking to the sick person, one feels remorse and thinks: “What I said was wrong. Why did I tell this sick person to kill themself?” one should then go back and say: “Sick person, if you obtain good medicine, or if someone skillfully tends to your illness, gives you medicine, and provides suitable food and drink, this illness may be cured.

Therefore, do not end your own life.” If that sick person does not die because of the earlier words, one commits an offense of the intermediate grade that can be expiated. There are also seven other forms of killing, such as pushing someone into a pit or into fire. The cases of offense and non-offense have been clearly explained and are the same as above.

If one perceives a human being as a human being and kills them, the offense cannot be expiated. If one perceives a human being as a nonhuman being and kills them, or kills a human being while harboring doubt as to whether that being is human, in both cases one commits an offense that cannot be expiated. If one perceives a nonhuman being as a human being and kills it, or kills a nonhuman being while harboring doubt, one commits an offense of the intermediate grade that can be expiated.

Again, a man whose hands and feet had been cut off was abandoned beside the city moat. Some women entering the city heard his cries and went to see him. They said among themselves: “If only someone could give this man poison so that he would die at once and not suffer for long.” Among them was a foolish person who, upon encountering the women, gave them poison to administer to him. As soon as he drank it, he died. The women said: “You have committed a precept offense that cannot be expiated.” They then reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha taught: “Whoever gives another person medicine to drink in order to cause that person’s death commits a precept offense that cannot be expiated.”

If a lay practitioner employs some means intending to kill his mother but mistakenly kills someone who is not his mother, that offense may be confessed and repented. If a lay practitioner intends to kill someone who is not his mother but mistakenly kills his own mother, he commits an offense of the intermediate grade that may be confessed and repented; it is not a heinous offense. If a lay practitioner employs some means intending to kill a human being but instead kills a nonhuman being, that offense may be confessed and repented.

If a lay practitioner employs some means intending to kill a nonhuman being but mistakenly kills a human being, he commits a minor offense that may be confessed and repented.

If a person is pregnant with an animal fetus and someone seeks to abort that fetus, the person commits an offense that may be confessed and repented. If an animal is pregnant with a human fetus and someone seeks to abort that fetus, should the fetus die, the person commits an offense that cannot be confessed and repented.

If a lay practitioner devises a scheme to kill someone, but the lay practitioner dies first and, a short while later, that person falls victim to the scheme and dies, the lay practitioner commits an offense of the intermediate grade that may be confessed and repented.

If a lay practitioner intends to kill his parents but then becomes doubtful, not knowing whether they truly are his parents, and if, after clearly recognizing that they are indeed his parents, he kills them, he commits a heinous offense that cannot be confessed and repented.

If a lay practitioner arouses the intention to kill someone but then becomes doubtful, not knowing whether this is indeed the person he intended to kill, and if, after becoming certain that this is the person he intended to kill, he proceeds to kill him, he commits an offense that cannot be confessed and repented.

Suppose someone captures a bandit and intends to take him away to be killed, but the bandit escapes. The person then relies upon the authority of officials or the strength of his neighbors and sends people to search for that bandit. If a lay practitioner approaches from the opposite direction and the pursuers ask him, “Have you seen the bandit?” and because the lay practitioner had previously harbored malicious anger toward that bandit, he says, “I saw him at such-and-such a place…,” and through these causes and conditions the bandit loses his life, the lay practitioner commits an offense that cannot be confessed and repented.

Suppose someone is about to take many bandits away to be killed, but they escape. Relying either upon the authority of officials or the strength of the villagers, people pursue them. A lay practitioner approaches from the opposite direction, and the pursuers ask him, “Have you seen the bandits?” Among those bandits is one who had previously formed an enmity with the lay practitioner. The lay practitioner then says, “I saw them at such-and-such a place.” If they capture another bandit instead, not the one against whom the lay practitioner bore enmity, his offense may be confessed and repented. In other respects, it is as stated above.

If a lay practitioner deliberately intends to kill his mother but mistakenly kills someone else, he commits a heinous offense that cannot be confessed and repented. If, while jesting, he strikes another person and that person unexpectedly dies, the offense may be confessed and repented. If he is afflicted by insanity and is not conscious of the act of killing, there is no offense.

If an upasaka uses water containing living creatures, or even kills creatures dwelling in grasses and trees, he commits an offense in every case.

If an implement contains living creatures but he thinks it does not, he also commits an offense when he uses it. If it contains no living creatures but he thinks it does and nevertheless uses it, he also commits an offense.

A lay practitioner was building a new house. While climbing onto the roof, he accidentally dropped a beam onto a carpenter’s head, and the carpenter immediately died. The lay practitioner became doubtful as to whether he had committed an offense and asked the Buddha. The Buddha taught that because he had no deliberate intention to kill, there was no offense. On another occasion, while a lay practitioner was raising the ridge beam of a house, his strength was insufficient to hold it. It slipped from his hands and fell onto a carpenter’s head, and the carpenter immediately died. The lay practitioner then became doubtful. The Buddha taught that there was no offense. From that time onward, however, one should act attentively and carefully so as not to cause anyone’s death.

On another occasion, while a lay practitioner was climbing onto a roof, he encountered a scorpion. In fright, he jumped down and caused a piece of timber to fall onto a carpenter’s head, and the carpenter immediately died. The lay practitioner became doubtful. The Buddha taught that there was no offense, but that from that time onward he should work with a cautious mind so as not to cause anyone’s death.

On another occasion, a lay practitioner was traveling along a dangerous road after dark when he encountered a bandit. The bandit sought to seize him, and the lay practitioner struggled to escape. Because he could not see the road, he lost his footing and fell from the mountainside onto a weaver’s house, and the weaver immediately died. The lay practitioner became doubtful. The Buddha taught that there was no offense.

On another occasion, a lay practitioner pried loose a rock on a mountaintop. The rock fell and killed someone. The Buddha taught that there was no offense, but that before rolling a rock down, one must first call out, saying that a rock is about to be rolled down, so that people may know.

On another occasion, a person had a boil that had not yet ripened. A lay practitioner helped squeeze and rupture it, causing the person to die, and the lay practitioner then became doubtful. The Buddha taught that if one squeezes a boil before it has ripened and the person dies, one commits an offense of the intermediate grade that may be confessed and repented. If one ruptures a boil after it has ripened and the person dies, there is no offense.

On another occasion, there was a child who was fond of laughing. A lay practitioner tickled the child, causing the child to laugh loudly, but the child then died. The lay practitioner became doubtful. The Buddha taught that because it was done in play, he had not committed the offense of killing, but that from that time onward one should not tickle others to make them laugh.

On another occasion, a person sat with a robe covering his entire body. A lay practitioner told him to rise. The person said, “Do not call me; if I stand up, I will die at once.” Nevertheless, the lay practitioner compelled him to stand. As soon as the person stood up, he died. The lay practitioner became doubtful and reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha taught that the offense may be confessed and repented.

2/ THE PRECEPT AGAINST STEALING.

The Buddha taught the bhiksus: When an upasaka takes another person’s valuable property in three ways, he commits an offense that cannot be confessed and repented.

First, by means of the mind.

Second, by means of the body.

Third, by removing it from its original place.

By means of the mind means arousing the thought and intention to commit theft or robbery.

By means of the body means using a part of one’s body to take another person’s property.

Removing it from its original place means moving an object from where it was to another place.

There are also three ways of taking another person’s valuable property that constitute an offense that cannot be confessed and repented.

First, taking it oneself.

Second, instructing another person to take it.

Third, commanding another person to take it.

Taking it oneself means personally lifting it and removing it from its original place.

Instructing another person to take it means that if an upasaka instructs someone to steal another person’s property and that person then removes it from its original place, the offense is committed.

Commanding another person means saying to someone, “Do you know where that valuable object is kept?” The person replies, “I know the place.” One then commands him to steal it, and following the instruction, that person takes it and removes it from its original place.

There are also five ways of taking another person’s valuable property that constitute an offense that cannot be confessed and repented.

1) Taking it deliberately.

2) Taking it out of contempt.

3) Taking it oneself by fraudulently assuming a name or identity.

4) Taking it by force.

5) Taking property entrusted to one’s care.

A valuable object means an object worth five coins or more; taking it constitutes an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. If a lay practitioner knows that another person possesses one of the five kinds of precious objects, or something resembling one of the five kinds of precious objects, and, with the intention to steal, selects it but has not yet moved it from its original place, that person commits an offense that can be expiated through repentance.

If, after selecting it, one takes it away from its original place, and the object is worth five coins, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. “Taking it away from its original place” is as follows: in weaving cloth, if one has promised another person to use one particular thread but instead weaves with another thread, this is called changing its place. With leather or a garment, using precisely one color is called its proper place; whenever another color is used, this is called changing its place.

With a woolen blanket, a single layer of wool is called its proper place, and one color is called its proper place; another color is called another place. This is what is meant by another place. If a lay practitioner is hired to carry an object for someone and, with the intention to steal, shifts it from the left shoulder to the right shoulder, or from the right hand to the left hand, such changes from one part of the body to another are called changing its place.

For a cart, the wheels, axle, and crossbar constitute its places. For a boat, the rudders at the bow and stern constitute its places. For a house, the beams, pillars, rafters, purlins, horizontal supports, four corners, and surrounding parts all constitute its places.

If, with the intention to steal, one moves an object and places it elsewhere, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. Stealing an object from the water refers to a tree that someone has cut down and set afloat with the current. If a lay practitioner takes it with the intention to steal, that person commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance.

If, with the intention to steal, one grasps the tree and causes it to remain behind in the current or come ahead toward the bank, then, with the intention to steal, causes it to sink to the riverbed, or if one has just taken it out of the water, in every case one commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance.

Furthermore, suppose an owner raises birds in a pond. If a lay practitioner, with the intention to steal, forces them beneath the water, that person commits an offense that can be expiated through repentance. If one takes them out of the pond, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. Or suppose birds raised in another person’s household fly into an abandoned pond. If a lay practitioner, with the intention to steal, captures and carries them elsewhere, or even forces them down to the bottom, that person commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance.

Furthermore, suppose a lay practitioner, fully adorned within and without with all manner of ornaments, is observing from an upper story and sees owned birds carrying precious objects in their beaks as they fly away. If the lay practitioner, with the intention to steal, seizes the precious objects from those birds, that person commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. If one sees a bird carrying a precious object in its beak and flying away and, with the intention to steal, watches and waits for it from afar, one commits an intermediate offense that can be expiated through repentance.

If one uses the power of a spell to cause that bird to go as one wishes to the place one desires, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. If it goes to some other place, one commits an offense that can be expiated through repentance.

If a wild bird carries a precious object in its beak and flies away, and a lay practitioner, with the intention to steal, seizes the precious object from that wild bird, that person commits an offense that can be expiated through repentance. If one merely waits for the wild bird to arrive, one commits a minor offense that can be expiated through repentance.

Furthermore, suppose wild birds carry precious objects in their beaks and fly to various places, and an owned bird seizes an object from a wild bird. If a lay practitioner, with the intention to steal, seizes that precious object from the owned bird, that person commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. If one merely waits for the bird to arrive, one commits an intermediate offense that can be expiated through repentance; the remaining cases are as stated above.

Furthermore, suppose owned birds carry precious objects in their beaks and fly away, but wild birds seize the objects from them. If a lay practitioner, with the intention to steal, seizes the objects from the wild birds, that person commits an intermediate offense that can be expiated through repentance. Waiting for them also constitutes an offense that can be expiated through repentance; the remaining cases are likewise as stated above.

If lay practitioners playing a board game, with the intention to steal, change the positions of the game pieces in order to defeat another person, and thereby win five coins, they commit an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance.

If a lay practitioner, with the intention to steal, takes relics, that person commits an intermediate offense that can be expiated through repentance. If, however, one takes them out of reverence, thinking, “The Buddha is also my teacher; I shall take them with a pure mind,” no offense is committed.

If a lay practitioner, with the intention to steal, takes a scripture, that person commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance; nevertheless, the value of the scripture must be calculated to determine whether the offense is grave or light.

Regarding the theft of fields, there are two causes by which another person’s field may be appropriated: first, prevailing in a legal action; second, encroaching upon its boundary. If a lay practitioner wishes to occupy the land and therefore deliberately encroaches upon it, and the excess portion is worth five coins, that person commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance.

If lay practitioners are liable to pay tax but evade payment, and the amount exceeds five coins, they commit an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. Furthermore, suppose a lay practitioner carrying goods must pass through a customs station and says to other lay practitioners, “Please carry these goods through the checkpoint for me, and I shall give you half the tax.” If those lay practitioners agree and carry them through, and the tax evaded exceeds five coins, they commit an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance.

If a lay practitioner directs another person to an alternate route so that the person may evade a tax, and the goods carried through are worth five coins, the lay practitioner commits an intermediate offense that can be expiated through repentance. If there are bandits, ferocious beasts, hunger, or thirst at the customs station, and one points out another route solely to avoid these dangers entirely, no offense is committed.

Furthermore, suppose a lay practitioner makes an agreement with bandits to conspire together to plunder villages and, after obtaining property, they divide it among themselves. If the lay practitioner’s share is worth five coins, that person commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance.

Regarding the theft of footless living beings: if a lay practitioner sees someone scoop up mosquito larvae and pour them into that person’s jar, and later secretly pours them into the practitioner’s own jar, the practitioner commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. The distinctions are the same as above.

Regarding the theft of two-footed or three-footed beings—humans and birds such as swans, geese, parrots, and others—if birds are confined in cages and one seizes and takes them with the intention to steal, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. The remaining cases are as explained above.

There are two ways of stealing a person: first, carrying the person away; second, making an agreement with the person. If a lay practitioner, with the intention to steal, carries a person on the shoulder, and both of that person’s feet leave the ground, the practitioner commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. If one has made an agreement with the person, then as soon as the person has gone more than two steps, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. All remaining cases are as stated above.

Regarding the theft of four-footed animals, such as elephants, horses, cattle, goats, and others: when an animal belonging to someone has been tethered with a rope to a fixed place, if a lay practitioner, with the intention to steal, leads it away, then as soon as all four of the animal’s feet have taken steps, the practitioner commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. If the animal is lying in one place and one, with the intention to steal, drives it away, then as soon as the animal rises and all four feet have taken steps, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. The same applies to creatures with many feet.

If the animal is lying in a pen that has an outer fence and an inner partition, and one, with the intention to steal, drives or catches it, then as soon as the animal leaves the pen, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. The other cases are as stated above.

If that animal is grazing in the open fields and a lay practitioner, with the intention to steal, thinks, “If only the herdsman would enter the forest, then I would steal it,” then as soon as such a thought arises, the practitioner commits an intermediate offense that can be expiated through repentance.

If one personally kills the animal, the offense is equivalent to that of killing. If, after killing it, one takes meat worth five coins, one commits an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance.

Furthermore, there are seven conditions:

1) Knowing that the object is not one’s own.

2) The owner has not consented.

3) It is not taken for temporary use.

4) Knowing that it has an owner.

5) One is not insane.

6) One’s mind is not deranged.

7) One is not afflicted by an illness that clouds the mind.

Under these seven conditions, taking a valuable object constitutes an offense that cannot be expiated through repentance. Taking an object of little value constitutes an offense that can be expiated through repentance. There are also seven conditions:

1) Thinking that the object is one’s own.

2) The other person has consented.

3) Taking it for temporary use.

4) The object has no owner.

5) Acting because of insanity.

6) Having a deranged mind.

7) Being afflicted by an illness that clouds the mind.

Taking an object under any of these seven conditions does not constitute an offense.

There was a layman who cultivated radishes. Another person came to the garden and said to the layman, “Give me some radishes.” The layman asked, “Do you have any money?” He replied, “I have no money.” The layman said, “If you need radishes, bring money, and only then will I give them to you. If I give them away for nothing, what shall I use to provide for my morning and evening meals?” The visitor asked, “Are you determined not to give me any?” The owner replied, “How could I give them to you for nothing?” The visitor then used a spell to cause the radishes to wither and die.

After returning home, he became doubtful and went to report the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha taught, “Calculate the value of the stalks, leaves, flowers, fruits, and roots; then it may be known whether the offense is grave or light and whether it can be confessed and absolved.”

There was a man in Jetavana who, while plowing a field, took off his robe and left it on the bank. At that time, a layman passing by saw the robe. Looking all around and seeing no one, he took the robe and carried it away.

The plowman saw him from afar and called to the layman, “Hey, do not take my robe!” The layman did not hear him and, as no one seemed to be there, assumed that the robe had no owner and carried it away. The plowman immediately chased after him, seized him by the shoulder, and said, “Is your way of making a living to take what has not been given?” The layman replied, “I thought this robe had no owner, and therefore I took it.

This is not my way of making a living.” The plowman said, “This robe is mine.” The layman replied, “If it is your robe, then take it back.” The layman became doubtful, not knowing whether he had incurred an offense or whether he had committed an offense that could not be confessed and absolved. He then went to the Buddha and asked about the matter. Although the Buddha already knew, he deliberately asked, “With what intention did you take it?” The layman said, “I believed it had no owner.” The Buddha taught, “If that was so, you did not commit an offense.

From now on, however, when taking an object, you must carefully consider the matter. Sometimes an object may have no one guarding it, yet in truth it already has an owner. If one forms the intention to steal it but has not yet taken it, one commits a minor offense that can be confessed and absolved.

If one takes it, but its value is less than five coins, one commits an intermediate offense that can be confessed and absolved. If one takes it and its value amounts to five coins, one commits an offense that cannot be confessed and absolved.”

3/ THE PRECEPT AGAINST SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “A lay Buddhist should not give rise to thoughts of sensual desire. One should not even give rise to a mind that entertains the sensation of sensual desire, much less deliberately arouse thoughts of sensual desire, anger, and delusion, thereby becoming bound by the fundamentally impure roots of unwholesome karma. Here, the objects in relation to which the offense of sexual misconduct may be committed are of four kinds: males, females, paṇḍakas, and persons possessing both sexual organs.

“‘Male’ means a human male, a nonhuman male, or a male animal.

“‘Female’ means a human female, a nonhuman female, or a female animal.

“Paṇḍakas and persons possessing both sexual organs are likewise classified as above.

“If a lay Buddhist engages in sexual intercourse in any of the three places with a human female, a nonhuman female, or a female animal, that person commits an offense that cannot be confessed and absolved. If that person engages in sexual intercourse in either of the two places with a human male, a nonhuman male, a male animal, a paṇḍaka, or a person possessing both sexual organs, that person commits an offense that cannot be confessed and absolved. If one gives rise to the intention to engage in sexual intercourse but has not yet coupled, one commits an offense that can be confessed and absolved.

“If a lay Buddhist engages in sexual intercourse with a female servant who is already married, that person commits an offense that cannot be confessed and absolved. Other lesser offenses are as explained above. The three places are the mouth, the anus, and the genital organ. If one engages in sexual activity at any place other than these three, the offense can be confessed and absolved.

“If a lay Buddhist engages in sexual intercourse through an improper passage with an unmarried female servant, that person commits an offense that can be confessed and absolved, but in a future life will undergo severe karmic retribution.

“If a lay Buddhist engages in sexual intercourse in either of the two places with a male, a child, a messenger, or others, that person commits an offense that cannot be confessed and absolved. Lesser offenses are as explained above.

“If a lay Buddhist agrees upon a price with a prostitute and then engages in sexual intercourse with her, but afterward cheats her and does not pay, that person commits the offense of sexual misconduct, which cannot be confessed and absolved. If the payment is made, no offense is committed.

“If a dead human being, or even a dead animal, still has intact sexual organs, and one then commits sexual misconduct with the female corpse in any of the three places, one commits an offense that cannot be confessed and absolved. Lesser offenses are as explained above.

“If a lay Buddhist has personally undertaken the eightfold fasting precepts and then engages in sexual intercourse, that person commits an offense that cannot be confessed and absolved. Under the eightfold fasting precepts, whether the sexual act is improper or proper, every such act constitutes an offense.

“Although a lay Buddhist may not have undertaken the precepts, if that person engages in sexual intercourse with a disciple of the Buddha, then even though the person does not incur the offense of violating a precept, that person will forever afterward be ineligible to undertake the Five Precepts and, even if going forth, will be ineligible to receive full ordination.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “I have two bodies: the body born of birth and the body of precepts. If a good man were, for my sake, to erect a stupa made of the seven precious substances reaching as high as the Brahmā Heaven, and someone deliberately caused it to collapse, that offense could still be confessed and absolved. But if someone damages my body of precepts, that offense is truly immeasurable, as in the case of the Dragon King Yila.”

4/ THE PRECEPT AGAINST FALSE SPEECH.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “By various skillful means, I have censured false speech and praised those who do not speak falsely. One should not utter falsehoods even in jest or laughter, much less deliberately speak falsely. The forms of offense herein are as follows: If a lay Buddhist, while neither knowing nor seeing a superhuman noble attainment, personally declares, ‘I am an arhat,’ or ‘I am progressing toward the fruit of arhatship,’ that person commits an offense that cannot be confessed and absolved.

If one says, ‘I am a non-returner, a once-returner, or a stream-enterer,’ or even, ‘I am progressing toward stream-entry’; or claims to have attained the first dhyana, the second dhyana, the third dhyana, or the fourth dhyana; or to have attained the immeasurable states of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity; or to have attained the formless concentrations—the concentration on the sphere of infinite space, the concentration on the sphere of infinite consciousness, the concentration on the sphere of nothingness, or the concentration on the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception; or to have attained the contemplation of impurity or ānāpāna; or says, ‘Devas have come to me; nagas, yakshas, pretas, pishacas, kumbhandas, and rakshasas have come to me.

They questioned me, and I answered them; I questioned them, and they answered me’—in all such cases, that person commits an offense that cannot be confessed and absolved. If one intends to say ‘arhat’ but mistakenly says ‘non-returner,’ that offense can be confessed and absolved. Other such offenses are likewise.

“If a lay Buddhist is asked, ‘Have you attained the Path?’ and either remains silent or displays some sign implying that one has, that person commits an offense that can be confessed and absolved. Even if one says that spirits and local earth deities carried upon the wind have come to oneself, one commits an offense that can be confessed and absolved.

“If a lay Buddhist has truly heard something but says that it was not heard, has truly seen something but says that it was not seen, suspects that something exists but says that it does not, or knows that it does not exist but says that it does, all such false speech constitutes an offense that can be confessed and absolved. If one gives rise to the intention to speak falsely but has not yet spoken, one commits an offense that can be confessed and absolved.

If one speaks but does not fully express the intended meaning, one commits an offense that can be confessed and absolved. If one goes to another person and claims to have attained the Path, one commits an offense that cannot be confessed and absolved. If one’s mind is deranged, or if one speaks without knowing what one is saying, no offense is committed.”

5/ THE PRECEPT AGAINST DRINKING ALCOHOL.

The Buddha was in the country of Ceti, in the settlement of Bhaddalavatika, where there was a venomous dragon named Ambalatthika. It was fierce, violent, and harmful, and no one could approach its dwelling. Neither elephants, horses, cattle, goats, donkeys, nor camels could draw near; even birds dared not fly through the sky above it.

When the grain ripened, it would destroy the crops. The elder Sagata was traveling through the country of Ceti and gradually came to Bhaddalavatika. After spending the night there, early the next morning he donned his robe, took up his alms bowl, and entered the village for alms.

While on his alms round, he heard that in this settlement there was a venomous dragon named Ambalatthika, fierce, violent, and harmful, because of which the people, birds, and animals could not live in peace. When the grain ripened, it would destroy the crops. Having heard this, the Venerable One completed his alms round and meal, then went to the place where the venomous dragon Ambalatthika dwelt.

He spread out his large sitting cloth and sat beneath a tree beside the stream. Detecting his scent, the venomous dragon became enraged and emitted smoke from its body. The elder Sagata immediately entered right concentration, exercised his supernormal power, and likewise emitted smoke from his body.

The venomous dragon grew still more furious and emitted fire from its body. Sagata then entered the fire-radiance samadhi and likewise emitted fire from his body. The venomous dragon sent down a shower of hailstones, but Sagata transformed all the hailstones into cakes—Ku cakes, marrow cakes, and Papala cakes.

The venomous dragon then brought forth thunder and lightning, but Sagata transformed them into various delightful cakes. The venomous dragon next rained down bows, arrows, swords, and spears, but Sagata transformed them into utpala, padma, and kumuda flowers. The venomous dragon then rained down poisonous snakes, centipedes, cobras, and slugs, but Sagata transformed them into garlands of utpala flowers, garlands of champaka flowers, garlands of vassika flowers, and garlands of atimuktaka flowers.

The venomous dragon displayed all such powers before Sagata. Having manifested such abilities but being unable to overcome the Venerable One, it lost its might and radiance.

The elder Sagata knew that the dragon’s strength was exhausted and that it could do nothing more. He then made his own body small and entered through the dragon’s ear, emerging through its two eyes. After coming out through its eyes, he entered through its two nostrils and emerged from its mouth. He then stood upon the venomous dragon’s head and walked back and forth, yet did not injure it.

When the dragon saw and understood what was happening, it became greatly alarmed and terrified, and the hair on its body stood on end. The dragon joined its palms, approached the elder Sagata, and said, “I take refuge in you.”

Sagata said, “You need not take refuge in me. You should take refuge in my Teacher—that is, take refuge in the Buddha.” The dragon said, “From this day forward, I take refuge in the Three Jewels. Please bear witness that for the rest of my life I shall be a disciple and upasaka of the Buddha.”

After the venomous dragon had received the Three Refuges and become a disciple of the Buddha, it no longer dared to commit the vicious deeds it had formerly done. People, birds, and animals could all approach that place, and when the grain ripened it was no longer destroyed. Thus the elder’s good reputation spread throughout the country. The elder Sagata had subdued the venomous dragon and caused it to become gentle and wholesome. People, birds, and animals could approach the dragon’s dwelling, and the ripened grain was no longer destroyed. Consequently, the good reputation of the elder Sagata spread everywhere, and people all prepared meals and invited him to receive them.

Among them was a poor woman who respectfully invited the elder Sagata, and Sagata silently accepted. The woman prepared a food called milk porridge, which the elder accepted and ate. The woman thought, “This śramana has consumed milk porridge; it may cause him to become chilled.” She therefore offered him alcohol. Sagata inattentively took it and drank it. After teaching her the Dharma, he took his leave and departed. After he had passed beyond the direction of the monastery, the alcohol gradually took effect and he became intoxicated. As he drew near the monastery, he fell to the ground. His sanghati robe, water strainer, bowl, staff, oil bag, footwear, needle case, and other belongings lay scattered in one place while his body lay in another. He was utterly drunk and knew nothing.

At that time, the Buddha was traveling to that place together with Ananda. When the Buddha saw this bhikkhu, though he knew who it was, he deliberately asked, “Ananda! Who is this man?” Ananda replied, “Blessed One, this is the elder Sagata.” The Buddha then told Ananda, “Spread out a seat for me, prepare water, and assemble the Sangha.” Obeying the instruction, Ananda spread out the seat, prepared water, and assembled the Sangha.

He then approached the Blessed One and said, “I have spread out the seat, prepared the water, and assembled the Sangha. May the Buddha know that the time has come.” The Buddha then washed his feet, sat down, and asked the bhikkhus, “Have you heard that there was a venomous dragon named Ambalatthika, fierce, violent, and harmful, whose dwelling no one formerly dared approach? Not even elephants, horses, cattle, goats, donkeys, or camels could go there.

Even birds did not dare fly through the sky above it, and whenever the grain ripened, the venomous dragon destroyed it all. The good man Sagata was able to subdue the venomous dragon and cause it to become gentle and wholesome, so that now people, birds, and animals can safely approach the stream.” Those in the assembly who had seen it said they had seen it, and those who had heard of it said they had heard of it, saying, “Yes, Blessed One.” The Buddha said to the bhikkhus, “What do you think?

Could the good man Sagata now subdue a bullfrog?” They replied, “He could not, Blessed One.” The Buddha taught, “When a noble person drinks alcohol, even he incurs faults such as these; how much more so an ordinary person? All such transgressions arise from drinking alcohol. From this day forward, anyone who declares himself my disciple must not drink alcohol—not even a drop as small as that which rests upon the tip of a blade of grass.” After reproaching the faults of drinking alcohol in various ways, the Buddha told the bhikkhus, “Upasakas must not drink alcohol.”

There are two kinds: alcohol brewed from grain and alcohol made from plants. Alcohol made from plants is produced from various roots, stalks, leaves, flowers, fruits, seeds, medicinal herbs, or mixtures of these. If it has the color, aroma, and taste of alcohol and can intoxicate a person when consumed, it is called alcohol.

If an upasaka tastes it and it passes beyond the throat, this is called drinking, and an offense is committed. When drinking grain alcohol, an offense is committed with every mouthful. When drinking sour alcohol, an offense is committed with every mouthful.

When drinking sweet alcohol, an offense is committed with every mouthful. When drinking fermenting liquor capable of causing intoxication, an offense is committed with every mouthful. When drinking wine dregs, an offense is committed with every mouthful.

When drinking a substance resembling alcohol that has the color, aroma, and taste of alcohol and can cause intoxication, an offense is committed with every mouthful consumed. If a substance merely has the color of alcohol but neither its aroma nor its taste, and lacks the properties capable of causing intoxication, then drinking it or other such substances does not constitute an offense./.

THE SUTRA ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIVE PRECEPTS FOR UPASAKAS