The Fundamental Basis for Determining Whether One Has Violated a Precept Is to Look at the Intention.

Question: If one has received and upheld the five precepts, does stealing of the kind the Master gave as an example (taking family members' belongings to give to others) also count as a violation? Does it also count as breaking the precept? Can this kind of well-intentioned stealing only be done before upholding the five precepts?

Answer: Whether it counts as violating the precept against stealing mainly depends on whether there was an intention to steal, whether there was the purpose of taking the thing into one's own hands for one's own enjoyment, and whether it harmed the other party's interests. If there was no such evil intent, but rather a kind heart intending to benefit the other party, then it does not count as stealing. Both precepts and cause-and-effect are centered on the mind: a good mind reaps good retribution, an evil mind reaps evil retribution. These questions must be considered comprehensively; one must also consider whether the final ultimate result is good or evil, whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks or vice versa. If the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, do it; if the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, do not do it. The altruistic bodhicitta is the most important and the most precious. If one cannot think it through clearly and cannot bring forth the altruistic mind, then strictly keep the precepts, be cautious and meticulous, and do not violate them in the slightest. This applies to both the precepts of the Great Vehicle and the Small Vehicle.

Bodhisattvas who have cultivated to a certain level have minds that are mostly good with almost no evil; they will not harm others to benefit themselves. Everything they do is for the benefit of sentient beings, without considering their own gains and losses. Therefore, they do not care about some things: as long as the result is good, they do not consider the superficial unwholesomeness of the process. For the sake of my cultivation and for the sake of propagating the Dharma, there are some Small Vehicle precepts that I cannot uphold. If I upheld the Small Vehicle precepts, I could not cultivate, and I would necessarily violate the Great Vehicle precepts. Weighing the precepts of the Great and Small Vehicles, of course the Great Vehicle precepts are more important, sentient beings are more important, and the development of Buddhism is more important; I personally am not important. But personally I would absolutely not commit any precept violation or incur any sinful retribution, because in reality there is no offense but rather merit.

Dharma Master Kumārajīva came from East India to China (Cīnasthāna) to propagate the Dharma. In order to keep him, the emperor married several women to him. If he did not accept, he could not propagate the Dharma. In order to propagate the Dharma smoothly, the Master could only accept, living together with several women every day. On the surface it seems he broke the precepts, but in reality he upheld the bodhisattva precepts. A bodhisattva is one who benefits sentient beings and benefits Buddhism; with the fundamental purpose accomplished, other things could not be perfect. Of course, ordinary people cannot imitate such things; imitating them would be breaking the precepts, because their cultivation is insufficient and their mental conduct is not pure enough.

Whether one breaks a precept lies in the mind. If there is no mind of breaking precepts, no arising of thought and mental activity, then it does not count as breaking a precept—how could the precept substance be lost? To avoid breaking precepts, one must have first-dhyāna meditative concentration (samādhi), must eradicate the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) and become an anāgāmin of the Small Vehicle, and in the Great Vehicle one's fruition stage must be at the first bhūmi. In this way the fundamental afflictions are eradicated, and without evil minds, unwholesome minds, or defiled minds, one does not violate the precepts in conduct. Apart from this, breaking precepts is hard to avoid.

The Venerable Upāli was the Vinaya master of the Small Vehicle; he often judged bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs as having broken precepts, yet in the view of the layman Vimalakīrti and the Buddha, some of them had not broken precepts at all. The Buddha would observe the mental conduct of the bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs at that moment—whether they had given rise to thoughts and mental activity. If there was no arising of thought and mental activity, then according to the Great Vehicle there was no precept violation.

For bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs who broke precepts, Small Vehicle precept masters would expel them from the Saṅgha, but the Buddha was very tolerant toward some disciples who appeared to have broken precepts but actually had not. For example, a bhikṣuṇī was raped and became pregnant; according to the Small Vehicle this would be breaking a fundamental precept and she should be expelled from the Saṅgha, yet the Buddha determined that the bhikṣuṇī had not broken a precept, and even allowed the bhikṣuṇī to give birth to the child in the royal palace. Therefore, whether a person has broken a precept requires great wisdom to determine, and can even be judged through direct perception using supernatural powers, by observing the intention and mental application at that time, not by looking at the superficial behavior.

Sentient beings today have extremely limited wisdom; their judgments of people and matters are based on emotions and superficial cognition. They simply cannot distinguish wholesome from unwholesome, true from false; they cannot distinguish good spiritual teachers from bad ones; they do not know how to observe a person's intention and mental application, or the starting point and fundamental purpose of their actions. They blindly reject and blindly worship, taking the good as evil and the evil as good, inverting right and wrong—extremely difficult to teach and transform.