The fundamental criterion for determining whether a precept has been violated lies in examining the mind's intention

Question: If one has received the five precepts, does stealing like the example the teacher gave (taking family members' belongings to give to others) also count as a violation? Does it count as breaking the precept? Can such well-intentioned stealing only be done before receiving the five precepts?

Answer: Whether it counts as violating the precept against stealing mainly depends on whether there is a mind of stealing—whether there is the intention to steal something into one's own hands for personal enjoyment, and whether it harms the other party's interests. If there is no such evil intent, but rather a wholesome mind that benefits the other party, then it does not count as stealing. Both precepts and karma are governed primarily by the mind: a wholesome mind receives wholesome retribution, an evil mind receives evil retribution. These questions must be considered comprehensively; one must also consider whether the final outcome is wholesome or unwholesome, whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. If the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, do it; if the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, do not do it. The bodhicitta of benefiting others is the most important and the most precious. If one cannot think it through clearly and cannot bring forth the mind to benefit others, then strictly keep the precepts, be cautious and meticulous, and never transgress 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 wholesome, with almost no unwholesomeness; they do 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 wholesome, they do not concern themselves with 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 I cannot keep; if I kept the Small Vehicle precepts, I could not cultivate, and 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 important, and the development of Buddhism is important; I myself 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 (Zhendan) to propagate the Dharma. In order to keep him, the emperor arranged several women to be married to him. If he did not accept, he could not propagate the Dharma. In order to propagate the Dharma smoothly, the master had no choice but to 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; once the fundamental purpose is achieved, everything else cannot be perfect. Of course, ordinary people cannot imitate such things—if they imitate it, they break the precepts, because their cultivation is insufficient and their mental conduct is not pure enough.

Whether a precept is broken lies in the mind. If there is no mind of breaking the precept, no arising of thought or mental activity, it does not count as breaking the precept—how could the precept substance be lost? To avoid breaking precepts, one must attain the dhyāna of the first jhāna, and must eliminate self-view to become a third-fruit Small Vehicle practitioner; for the Great Vehicle, the fruition is at the first bhūmi. In this way, the fundamental afflictions are eliminated, and without evil minds, unwholesome minds, or defiled minds, one does not violate the precepts. Apart from this, breaking precepts is hard to avoid.

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

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 constituted breaking a fundamental precept and she should have been expelled from the Saṅgha. Yet the Buddha determined that the bhikṣuṇī had not broken the precept, and even allowed her to give birth to the child in the royal palace. Therefore, whether a person has broken a precept requires great wisdom to judge, and can even be determined through direct perception using superknowledge, by observing the intention and mental application at the 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 fundamentally cannot distinguish wholesome from unwholesome, true from false; they cannot distinguish good teachers from bad teachers; 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 wholesome as unwholesome and the unwholesome as wholesome, inverting right and wrong—extremely difficult to teach and transform.