Sign-Based Repentance

I. Crouching Down at the Middle Rung

The preceding paper stood back and surveyed the whole stair: procedural repentance, sign-contemplating repentance, non-arising repentance — each rung steadying the next on the way up, every rung still standing and every rung still counting. The viewpoint of that paper was the long look — seeing how the three repentances make up one ramp from the phenomenal into the principial. This paper does the opposite: it crouches down to look hard at the rung in the middle.

Why this middle rung? Because it is the easiest to skip and the easiest to misread. Procedural repentance can be seen — it happens within the saṅgha, with a confessor, with a formal procedure, with a countable number of monks and a set sequence; a Western, lay reader, even one who knows nothing of the Vinaya, will recognize it as a thing of the kind "own up before others, and let an institution judge you clean." Non-arising repentance, with "emptiness" and "non-arising" in its very name, carries an air of mystery that tempts one to leap straight to it. The sign-based repentance wedged between has neither the institution's visibility nor emptiness's allure, and so it is often read as "just sitting in meditation and seeing a few auspicious omens" — as though it were procedural repentance upgraded, or a warm-up for non-arising.

This is a misreading. What makes the middle rung the vertebra is precisely that it does one thing the rung before did not do and the rung after does not repeat: it draws repentance into the concentrated mind.

In the second fascicle of his Explaining the Stages of the Perfection of Dhyāna, sorting repentance into three, Zhiyi says plainly that "sign-contemplating repentance buttresses the dharma of concentration" — the three repentances each buttress one of morality, concentration, and wisdom, and sign-contemplating repentance answers to concentration.¹ He then gives the definition:

二、明觀相懺悔者，行人依諸經中懺悔方法，專心用意，於靜心中見種種諸相，如菩薩戒中所說。若懺十重，要須見好相乃滅相者，佛來摩頂，見光、華種種瑞相已，罪即得滅。若不見相，雖懺無益。……此悉就定心中作故，觀相懺悔多依修定法說。²

Second, sign-contemplating repentance: the practitioner, following the methods of repentance set out in the scriptures, with focused mind and applied intent, sees within a stilled mind various signs, as told in the bodhisattva precepts. To repent the ten grave offences, one must see an auspicious sign before extinction follows — a Buddha coming to stroke the crown, the sight of light, of flowers, of various auspicious omens — and the offence is then extinguished. Without a sign seen, repentance, though made, brings no avail … all this is done within the concentrated mind, and so sign-contemplating repentance is mostly expounded according to the methods of cultivating concentration.

The hinge is the final clause: "all this is done within the concentrated mind." Procedural repentance is completed in the saṅgha, that external setting — it leans on the mouth, on the assembly, on the rule. Sign-based repentance turns wholly inward, into the "stilled mind / concentrated mind." This is the first time repentance no longer leans on people outside to judge you, but asks you first to settle your own mind, and within concentration to see the sign and judge by it.

Later Tiantai gave this rung a cleaner name. In his Essentials of Cultivating Repentance, Zhili says:

取相懺，謂定心運想，相起為期。³

Sign-based repentance means that the concentrated mind conjures the contemplation, and takes the arising of a sign as its term.

Eight characters tell the whole shape of this rung: there must be a "concentrated mind"; there must be "conjuring the contemplation" (an intentional contemplating done within concentration); and the "arising of a sign" is its term and its verification. Repentance, here, becomes for the first time a thing that takes effort, takes a stilled mind, takes a waiting for the sign to arise. It is no longer an act but the beginning of a process — and a process is exactly where phenomenal confession grows an inner contemplation. This is why the middle rung is "the vertebra where phenomenal confession grows into the principial." ⟨An honest disclosure is owed first: the synthesized judgement that "the middle rung is the pivot and vertebra between the phenomenal and the principial" is this series' reading. Zhiyi's own "buttresses concentration" and Zhili's own "takes the arising of a sign as its term" are sufficient textual warrant; but to read this as "the vertebra between phenomenal and principial repentance," and to set it in resonance with the six-gate sequence "repentance → … → concentration," is this series' architectural reading, not the six-gate frame Zhiyi presupposed.⟩

One matter of name-and-thing must also be made clear at the outset, or the later pages will pin the wrong label. Throughout, Zhiyi himself uses the name sign-contemplating repentance; "sign-based repentance" is the later common name — and not only in Vinaya usage. Tiantai's own Zhili, of Siming, writes "sign-based repentance" in both his Essentials of Cultivating Repentance and his Notes on the Words and Phrases of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra, while the Vinaya master Yuanzhao, in his Zichi ji, calls it "the sign-based repentance of the Northern teaching."⁴ The two lineages, Tiantai and Vinaya, converge on the common name "sign-based repentance." So this paper's title uses the current name, Sign-Based Repentance; but wherever a passage of Zhiyi's is cited, his own word "sign-contemplating" is kept, and wherever Zhili or Yuanzhao is cited, "sign-based" is used — the two never mixed. Same referent, different name, each kept as its own text has it.

---

II. Where the Signs Come From, and What They Look Like

Since this rung takes "the arising of a sign" for its term, one must first ask: what sign is it? Where does it come from? What does it look like?

The earliest and most cited source for the phrase "seeing an auspicious sign" is a passage in the Brahmā's Net Sūtra on repenting a grave precept:

好相者，佛來摩頂，見光見華種種異相，便得滅罪。若無好相，雖懺無益。⁵

An auspicious sign means: a Buddha comes to stroke your crown; you see light, see flowers, and various extraordinary signs — and the offence is then extinguished. Without an auspicious sign, repentance, though made, brings no avail.

A Buddha strokes the crown of your head; you see light, see flowers — these "various extraordinary signs" are the auspicious sign, and only when one is seen does the offence count as extinguished; without it, repentance does no good. This is a very strong line: it ties the offence's extinction to a visible token.

One thing must be marked honestly here: the textual home of "seeing an auspicious sign" is not a single one. The Brahmā's Net Sūtra gives the kind of auspicious omen that is "a Buddha coming to stroke the crown, the sight of light and flowers"; the Sūtra on Divining the Requital of Good and Evil Actions gives a "pure sign" and its opposite, "not a good sign"; Zhiyi, in the Explaining the Stages, gives another set, "the four kinds of signs"; Zhili, in the Notes on the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, lists the twelve dream-kings of the Vaipulya dhāraṇī, Ākāśagarbha's voice-proclaiming and arm-sealing, and more.⁶ These are not one and the same list; each has its own source. This paper draws on them together, but sources each in turn and does not blur them into one mass.

Zhiyi's "four kinds of signs" has the most structure and is worth recording in full:

相不出四種：一、夢中見相；二、於行道時聞空中聲，或見異相及諸靈瑞；三、坐中覩見善、惡、破戒、持戒等相；四、以內證種種法門道心開發等為相。⁷

Signs do not exceed four kinds: first, signs seen in dream; second, while practising, hearing a voice in the air, or seeing strange signs and various numinous omens; third, seeing in seated stillness signs of good and evil, of precept-breaking and precept-keeping; fourth, taking the inward realization of various dharma-gates and the opening-forth of the mind of the way as a sign.

From dream, to the time of practice, to seated stillness, and finally to "the inward realization of dharma-gates, the opening-forth of the mind of the way" — the four run from outer to inner, from object-sign to mind-sign, the last of which is no longer "seeing something" but "some dharma-gate within has opened, the mind of the way has stirred." The ordering itself betrays the direction of sign-based repentance: the sign need not halt at an external object such as "seeing a Buddha, seeing light"; its deepest kind is a turning of the mind.

As for how these signs are to be sought and contemplated — how, say, the Vaipulya rite seeks the dream-kings, or the Divining rite casts its lots — this paper writes nothing at all. Zhiyi himself pushed the matter aside:

觀相懺悔行法云何？答曰：方法出在諸大乘方等修多羅中，行者當自尋經，依文而行。⁸

What is the practice-method of sign-contemplating repentance? Answer: the method is set out in the various Mahāyāna Vaipulya sūtras; let the practitioner seek the sūtras for himself and act by the text.

If even Zhiyi says "seek the sūtras yourself and act by the text," this paper still less oversteps to teach the operational steps. How these practice-methods come down as concrete rite after concrete rite — the Lotus samādhi, the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, the Vaipulya, the Divining-lot rite — is the business of this volume-part's later treatment of the Chinese repentance liturgies (Part VI). Here they are named only, not taught.

One more line must be drawn clear. In another context, "seeing an auspicious sign" is the switch for "whether the precept-substance may be received" — to receive the bodhisattva precepts one must see an auspicious sign — and that is the ordination face, already handled in an earlier part (the death-and-rebirth bridge of Part IV, and the precept-side papers). This paper takes the other face: seeing an auspicious sign as the token that an offence is extinguished, as the verification of concentrated-mind repentance. Of the one "seeing an auspicious sign," the ordination face has been told; this paper does not re-walk the ordination mechanism, and takes only its face as "the token of an offence extinguished."

---

III. The Sign Cannot Be Relied On — Sorting False from True, and Not Grasping

The second chapter spoke of the sign as though it were quite reliable: see an auspicious sign, and the offence is extinguished. Yet the true axis of sign-based repentance is exactly the reverse — the sign cannot be relied on.

First unreliability: the sign can be false; māra can make one too. Zhiyi sets up his own question and answer:

魔羅亦能作此等相，云何可別？答曰：實爾，邪正難別，不可定取。若相現時，良師乃識，事須面決，非可文載，是故行者初懺悔時，必須近善知識、別邪正之人。⁹

Māra too can produce signs of this kind — how is one to tell them apart? Answer: just so. The false and the true are hard to distinguish and cannot be fixed upon. When a sign appears, it is a good teacher who knows it; the matter must be decided face to face and cannot be set down in writing. Therefore, when a practitioner first repents, he must keep close to a good and wise friend, one able to distinguish the false from the true.

"The false and the true are hard to distinguish and cannot be fixed upon" — he concedes it outright: the sign you see is hard to tell true from false, and you cannot certify it on sight. What then? A good teacher must sort it for you face to face, and "it cannot be set down in writing" — this is a thing no book can hold; it takes a good and wise friend who can tell false from true to decide it in person. This is the gate sign-based repentance sets against the "false sign of an external māra."

Second unreliability: the sign can also be the mind deceiving itself. The Sūtra on Divining the Requital of Good and Evil Actions sets up a check against self-deception — if a person has already seen and heard various excellent things before seeking the pure sign, that is no auspicious sign:

但先見聞如此諸事者，則為虛妄誑惑詐偽，非善相也。¹⁰

But if one has first seen and heard such things, then they are hollow, deluding, counterfeit — this is not a good sign.

Zhiyi guards against the outer māra fabricating a false sign; the Divining Sūtra guards against the inner defiled mind rushing ahead to fabricate for itself a false sign of "I am already pure." The two texts, one outward and one inward, together make the middle rung's double gate against self-deception: outside, a good teacher to sort false from true; inside, the measuring-rod "this is not a good sign."

But the single most decisive line of sign-based repentance is not "how to tell true from false," but a line that pulls the firewood out from under the pot: even a true sign must not be grasped. Zhiyi says:

言觀相者，但用心行道，功成相現，取此判之，便知罪滅、不滅。非謂行道之時，心存相事，而生取著。若如此用心，必定多來魔事。¹¹

What is meant by contemplating signs is only this: apply the mind and practise; when the effort succeeds and the sign appears, take it for the judgement, and one knows whether the offence is extinguished or not. It does not mean that, while practising, one keeps the sign in mind and gives rise to grasping. If one applies the mind so, the work of māra will surely come in abundance.

Look closely at the structure of this line. The sign appears, and you "take it for the judgement" — you use it to judge whether the offence is extinguished; the sign is a criterion. But "it does not mean … one keeps the sign in mind and gives rise to grasping" — it is by no means to halt the mind on the sign and cling to it. To glue the mind to the sign means "the work of māra will surely come in abundance."

This is the axis of sign-based repentance, and the paradox of why a thing called "sign-taking" teaches one "not to take the sign": the sign is for verifying (whether the offence is extinguished), not for abiding in (it is not the destination of your practice). It teaches you to use the sign without being used by it. Once the sign is taken for a goal, for an attainment, for an experience to be savoured again and again, it turns from verification into attachment, from helper into the doorway of māra's work.

It is worth pausing on one layer: why is this injunction "do not grasp" placed precisely at this "sign-taking" rung? Procedural repentance has no such problem — you own up before the saṅgha, and there is no "sign" to grasp at. The far end, non-arising repentance, has no such problem either — by the time one reaches it, the sign has already been seen through into emptiness, and there is no sign to take. The middle rung alone is the one at which signs really do arise, do appear, do grow vivid enough to make one want to seize them — and so, at this rung alone, "must not grasp" becomes a gate that cannot be left unset. To put it another way: sign-based repentance is the one rung among the three that hands you "something worth grasping," and then, on the spot, teaches you not to grasp it. This is what makes it bear weight as a pivot: it does not preach letting-go where there is no temptation, but teaches letting-go just where the temptation is most concrete.

It is exactly this inner momentum — "the sign arises, yet one does not abide in the sign" — that points sign-based repentance toward the next rung. To see the sign and not take it — to make the sign a measure and not a home — is already a turning toward the contemplation of principle. The sign is still there (this end joined to the phenomenal), yet the mind no longer abides in the sign (that end opening onto the principial); the body within the sign and the mind unstuck from it — that is the very instant in which the four words "from the phenomenal into the principial" actually happen. What makes the middle rung a pivot turns just here.

---

IV. Why a Middle Rung: Neither End Can Be Spared

If sign-based repentance were only "sitting in meditation and seeing auspicious omens," then it could indeed be skipped: either go back to procedural repentance and own up properly, or run straight to non-arising repentance and contemplate emptiness. The reason it cannot be skipped is that what it does, neither rung before nor after can do in its place. This chapter is the paper's main beam.

Downward, it breaks an offence that procedural repentance cannot reach. Zhiyi sorts offences into three grades, each repentance breaking one: procedural repentance breaks "the path-obstructing offence from violating the non-expressive [precept]" (the offence of breaking an instituted precept), sign-contemplating repentance breaks "the offence of intrinsic nature" (offences such as killing and stealing, which are evil in their own nature), and the deepest grade, "the root offence of ignorance-and-affliction," belongs to the highest rung. The layering of these three grades matters greatly. An instituted offence is an offence only "because the Buddha instituted a precept and you broke the institution" — it exists only once the precept is laid down. A natural offence is one where "the act itself is evil" — it does not wait on an instituted precept, and to commit it is already to do harm. Procedural repentance can repair the former — it mends back the layer of institutional violation; but it cannot touch the latter — the layer that killing and stealing carry in their very karmic nature. The grade sign-contemplating repentance breaks is exactly the layer procedural repentance cannot reach:

二、明觀相懺者，破除體性惡業罪，故《摩訶衍論》云：「若比丘犯殺生戒，雖復懺悔，得戒清淨，障道罪滅，而殺報不滅。」……當知觀相懺悔，用功既大，能除體性之罪。¹²

Second, sign-contemplating repentance breaks the offence of intrinsic evil karma. Thus the Mahāyāna treatise says: "If a monk breaks the precept against killing, then though he repents and the precept-substance is made pure and the path-obstructing offence extinguished, yet the karmic retribution for the killing is not extinguished." … Know, then, that sign-contemplating repentance, since the effort it takes is great, can remove the offence of intrinsic nature.

The Mahāyāna treatise cited here is what Zhiyi calls the Dazhidu lun.¹³ It states a hard thing: a monk has broken the precept against killing; he repents lawfully, and can "make the precept-substance pure and extinguish the path-obstructing offence" — that is, the layer procedural repentance can repair (the precept-substance restored, the path no longer obstructed) comes back; but "the karmic retribution for the killing is not extinguished" — the karmic fruit that killing carries in cause and effect, procedural repentance cannot touch. What can go further and touch this layer of "the offence of intrinsic nature" is sign-contemplating repentance, because "the effort it takes is great." ⟨The line here, "the path-obstructing offence extinguished, yet the retribution for the killing not extinguished," speaks in the same voice as the salt-simile of this volume-part's earlier paper on retribution, against any single-stroke cancellation of the karmic fruit: repentance can repair the relationship and the precept-substance, but this does not equal wiping out, whole, the karmic fruit of an act already done.⟩

Upward, it still does not reach the ultimate. The offence of intrinsic nature broken, the root offence of ignorance-and-affliction still remains — and that is the business of the highest rung. So sign-based repentance is wedged in the middle: deeper than procedural repentance, shallower than non-arising. The offence it breaks is a different grade — not procedural repentance done over again, but a layer dug down further after procedural repentance.

So between it and procedural repentance — which, in the end, supersedes which? Yuanzhao has a passage, "the four-phrase analysis of repenting an offence," that frames the matter as a whole system. Take its first two phrases:

一、化淨制不淨，如犯篇聚，理觀明照，達罪性空；而不依律懺，縱得好相，不入淨僧。二、制淨化不淨，犯依律悔，而無觀慧，但滅違制，業性確然。¹⁴

First, pure on the transformative-teaching side but impure on the disciplinary side: as when one has fallen into the categories of offence, and by the contemplation of principle illumines them clearly and reaches the emptiness of the offence's nature — yet does not repent according to the Vinaya. Though one gains an auspicious sign, one does not enter the pure saṅgha. Second, pure on the disciplinary side but impure on the transformative side: one repents the offence according to the Vinaya, but without the wisdom of contemplation; the violation of institution is extinguished, yet the karmic nature stands firm.

First phrase: to rely only on the contemplation of principle to see the offence's nature as empty, yet not repent by the Vinaya — the result is "though one gains an auspicious sign, one does not enter the pure saṅgha." Even if you have seen an auspicious sign in concentration and the transformative-teaching face is clean, the institutional face of the saṅgha is not clean, and you cannot enter the ranks of the pure saṅgha. Second phrase: to rely only on the Vinaya repentance, yet have no wisdom of contemplation — the result is "the violation of institution is extinguished, yet the karmic nature stands firm." The institutional face is clean, but the offence at the layer of karmic nature most certainly remains.

Put together, these two phrases overturn the question "which supersedes which" altogether: the instituted offence (which procedural repentance answers to) and the natural offence (which the contemplation of principle, and sign-taking, answer to) are two different offences, and lacking either face leaves a gap that cannot be closed. The higher rung cannot fill the lower rung's place, nor the reverse.

On the Tiantai side, Zhili gives the cleanest summary of the whole:

法雖三種，行在一時。寧可闕於前前，不得虧於後後。無生最要，取相尚寬。¹⁵

Though the methods are three, they are performed in one and the same time. Better to lack in the earlier than to fall short in the later. Non-arising is most essential; sign-taking is still lenient.

"Performed in one and the same time" — the three repentances are not a matter of finishing one before changing to the next, but run simultaneously, layer pervading layer. "Better to lack in the earlier than to fall short in the later" establishes the weighting upward: the higher one goes, the less it may be lacked — "non-arising is most essential; sign-taking is still lenient." But note: this speaks of weight, not of supersession. The weight differs, yet every layer is still present. The higher grade does not abolish the lower — this is exactly the boundary-stone the preceding paper set (the three repentances buttress, they aid and add; the later rung does not void the earlier; climbing the rungs is not dismantling them), here made firm in Zhili's own text.

Last, sign-based repentance has not itself yet broken free of the "phenomenal." In his Notes on the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, Zhili names several of its practice-forms:

取相懺者，如方等求十二夢王，菩薩戒見華光摩頂，虛空藏中唱聲印臂，相起罪滅。雖不正明作法，兼得事用也。¹⁶

Sign-based repentance — as in the Vaipulya rite's seeking the twelve dream-kings, the bodhisattva-precept rite's seeing flowers and light and the stroking of the crown, the Ākāśagarbha rite's voice-proclaiming and arm-sealing — the sign arises and the offence is extinguished. Though it does not directly set forth a formal procedure, it also obtains phenomenal function.

The four words "also obtains phenomenal function" matter greatly: though sign-based repentance does not, like procedural repentance, "directly set forth a formal procedure" (plainly walking the saṅgha's rule), it still "also obtains phenomenal function" — it remains a phenomenal repentance that carries a "sign" for its token, not yet purified into a repentance of principle. This proves, once more, that sign-based repentance stands between the phenomenal and the principial. One foot is still in the phenomenal sign (a sign must be seen; the sign arises and the offence is extinguished); the other foot has already stepped toward the contemplation of principle (the sign arises, yet one does not abide in the sign). This is the middle rung — treading on both ends, sparing neither.

---

V. Three Mirrors

Set sign-based repentance before three Western mirrors, and one can see its shape clearly — and see, too, just where it parts ways with the Western experiences that resemble it.

The first mirror: the discernment of spirits. The Catholic contemplative tradition has a discipline called the discernment of spirits. Ignatius of Loyola, in the Spiritual Exercises, finely sorts "consolation" from "desolation": one and the same inner sign, one and the same inner movement, may come from a good spirit or from an evil one, and must be sorted by rule and by a spiritual director face to face. This mirror falls almost word for word against Zhiyi's "the false and the true are hard to distinguish … it is a good teacher who knows it … a friend able to distinguish the false from the true," and against the Divining Sūtra's "this is not a good sign." John of the Cross goes further: even a true vision is not to be grasped — the soul must pass through it and not rest in it — which falls exactly against Zhiyi's "do not keep the sign in mind and give rise to grasping" and Zhili's "takes the arising of a sign as its term."

But the mirror that shows the shape shows the difference too. Christian discernment of spirits is finally oriented toward union with a divine Other — a personal God who "bestows" consolation, who actively draws near. Sign-based repentance's seeing of an auspicious sign is not like this: it is a verification-index within the path of cultivation (whether the offence is extinguished, how far the concentrated mind has been brought along), with no Other behind it who bestows the sign or receives it. This echoes a line this volume-part has held throughout — reception is not absolution: there is no external person bestowing or absolving, no one judging or pardoning you; the sign is only a token that the process itself displays. And sign-based repentance's "not grasping" runs directly toward the highest rung — the sign arises, yet one does not abide in it — and behind that door is the non-arising repentance this paper names only and does not enter.

The second mirror: the problem of authenticating a vision. William James, in The Varieties of Religious Experience, points to one feature of mystical experience: it carries a "noetic quality," a self-certifying truth-feel, so that the one who has it is sure he truly knows something — yet that certainty binds only the subject, and to be acknowledged by others it still needs external authentication. Held to sign-based repentance, this mirror reflects exactly the paradox of "see the sign, judge the offence extinguished": the sign presents itself as proof that "the offence is gone," yet the truth of the sign cannot be settled by the sign itself.

This is the place where sign-based repentance is most easily read awry, and the point this paper must most firmly hold. Reading on with James, it is easy to dissolve sign-based repentance into "subjective religious psychology plus confirmation bias" — you want to see the offence extinguished, so your mind fabricates for you a "sign of extinction," and then you take this self-made sign to confirm the conclusion you wanted. If sign-based repentance were truly this, it would be only a mechanism of self-comfort.

But this dissolution reads the rung's single most crucial move backwards. The criteria of Zhiyi and the Divining Sūtra aim not to make the sign more credible, but to teach one not to rely on the sign. A good teacher sorting false from true, the Divining Sūtra's "not a good sign," Zhiyi's injunction "must not grasp" — this whole apparatus does one and the same thing: it demotes the sign from "destination" to "criterion," and pushes the person from "relying on the sign" toward "not abiding in the sign." On the confirmation-bias reading, the only remedy would be to "seek a more reliable, more vivid sign"; the way out sign-based repentance gives is the exact opposite — not a better sign, but the turn of "the sign arises and is not grasped." It has no intention of staking the wager on the sign's credibility at all. What sign-based repentance actually trains is using the sign without being used by it. Just for this, it is a pivot between the phenomenal and the principial, not a peak of phenomenal experience. This line is this paper's watershed against the "subjective religious psychology" reading.

The third mirror: placebo and the expectancy effect. There is a more secular reading still: seeing a sign is no more than the body-and-mind's self-confirmation of the expectation "the offence is gone," the same mechanism as a placebo. This mirror may be held up, but it quickly reflects the counter that sign-based repentance has built into itself — the warning of māra's work, the check of "not a good sign," the injunction "must not grasp," all of which presuppose that "the sign may be false" and set defences against it. A discipline that assumes in advance it might be deceiving itself, and sets defences for that, is not the same thing as a plain placebo. This mirror is touched and set down.

---

VI. Boundary-Stones, and Closing the Volume-Part

Having looked hard at the middle rung, as usual a few boundary-stones are set, marking where the road is and where the ditch.

❌ Not a mysticism of seeking visions. Sign-based repentance takes "seeing an auspicious sign" for its token, but its whole design — the guard against māra's work, the sorting of false from true, the injunction "must not grasp" — is precisely what dismantles the road of "pursuing visions, collecting mystical experiences." To take sign-based repentance for a method of "sitting in meditation to see light and flowers" is to mistake the verification for the goal — exactly the bypath Zhiyi calls "the work of māra will surely come in abundance."

❌ It does not supersede procedural repentance. This is where this paper most easily capsizes, and it must be said dead: sign-based repentance does not abolish procedural repentance. Yuanzhao's two phrases, "does not enter the pure saṅgha" and "the karmic nature stands firm," already prove it — instituted offence and natural offence are two offences, and lacking either face leaves a gap. Climbing the rungs is not dismantling them; Zhili's "performed in one time; better to lack in the earlier than fall short in the later" speaks of weight, not of replacement.

⚠️ Not a psychological mechanism of self-comfort. Seeing a sign and judging the offence extinguished looks, on the surface, like confirmation bias or placebo; but sign-based repentance has built into itself three defences — māra's work, "not a good sign," "must not grasp" — presupposing that the sign may be false and guarding against it. To read it as "want to see the offence extinguished, and so you see it" is to read a discipline against self-deception as self-deception itself.

⚠️ "The middle rung is the vertebra between the phenomenal and the principial" is a reading this series has synthesized. Zhiyi's own "buttresses concentration, breaks the offence of intrinsic nature" and Zhili's own "performed in one time, sign-taking still lenient" are sufficient textual warrant; but to read this rung as "the vertebra where phenomenal confession grows into the principial," and to set it in resonance with the six-gate sequence, is this series' architectural reading, not the frame Zhiyi presupposed. The reader should know it for a reading, not a plain statement of the texts.

⚠️ The highest rung is named only, kept outside the door. The summit of the three repentances — non-arising repentance — this paper, from first to last, names only and does not enter. What it contemplates, and how it ultimately removes the source of the deepest grade of offence it breaks, are all reserved for this volume-part's end (Part VII). The middle rung's turn of "the sign arises, yet one does not abide in the sign" is a turning toward that door; but the country behind the door this paper does not open.

To close at last. Sign-based repentance has been looked at hard: it takes "the arising of a sign" for its token, yet teaches one "not to take the sign" — and it is precisely in this one taking and one releasing that repentance turns from the rule outside, in the saṅgha, into the concentrated mind of the individual; and from that one thought within concentration, "not abiding in the sign," points on toward the deeper contemplation of principle. Downward it breaks the offence of intrinsic nature that procedural repentance cannot reach; upward it opens a door toward non-arising repentance; yet it itself breaks free of neither end — this is the vertebra where phenomenal confession grows into the principial, the rung that neither end can spare.

The highest rung still keeps outside the door (Part VII); how these practice-forms that "take the sign's arising, and extinguish the offence by the sign" come down as concrete Chinese repentance liturgies, rite after rite, is the business of Part VI. The two papers of this volume-part on the three repentances — the preceding one standing back to survey the whole stair, this one crouching down to look at the middle rung — now join into one skeleton. The shape of the three repentances is, from here, set.

---

Footnotes

1. Explaining the Stages of the Perfection of Dhyāna (釋禪波羅蜜次第法門), fascicle 2, expounded by the Sui master Zhiyi, on the pairing of the three repentances with the three trainings: "procedural repentance buttresses the discipline of morality / sign-contemplating repentance buttresses the dharma of concentration / non-arising-contemplating repentance buttresses the dharma of wisdom." Taishō vol. 46, no. 1916, p. 485b. ↩

2. Ibid., no. 1916, p. 485c (0485c18–c27). Zhiyi's own text reads "sign-contemplating repentance." ↩

3. Zhili (Song), Essentials of Cultivating Repentance (修懺要旨), collected in the Records of the Teaching and Practice of the Venerable of Siming, Taishō vol. 46, no. 1937, p. 868b (0868b25). ↩

4. "Sign-based repentance" is the later common name. Zhili's Essentials of Cultivating Repentance (no. 1937) and his Notes on the Words and Phrases of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra (no. 1785, Taishō vol. 39) both read "sign-based repentance"; the Vinaya master Yuanzhao, in his Zichi ji (四分律行事鈔資持記), calls it "the sign-based repentance of the Northern teaching," Taishō vol. 40, no. 1805, p. 365c (0365c09). The Zichi ji is attributed to Yuanzhao of the Song, not to Daoxuan; an earlier part has corrected this mis-attribution. ↩

5. Brahmā's Net Sūtra (梵網經), trans. (attrib.) Kumārajīva, Later Qin, Taishō vol. 24, no. 1484, p. 1008c (1008c17). ↩

6. The textual home of "seeing an auspicious sign" is not single: Brahmā's Net (no. 1484) gives a Buddha stroking the crown, the sight of light and flowers; the Divining Sūtra (no. 0839) gives the pure sign and "not a good sign"; Zhiyi (no. 1916) gives "the four kinds of signs"; Zhili's Notes on the Suvarṇaprabhāsa (no. 1785, p. 60c, 0060c11) gives the twelve dream-kings of the Vaipulya and Ākāśagarbha's voice-proclaiming and arm-sealing. Each is sourced to its own text. ↩

7. Zhiyi, Explaining the Stages of the Perfection of Dhyāna, fascicle 2, no. 1916, pp. 485c–486a (0485c29–0486a03). ↩

8. Ibid., no. 1916, p. 486a (0486a14). ↩

9. Ibid., no. 1916, p. 486a (0486a04–a08). ↩

10. Sūtra on Divining the Requital of Good and Evil Actions (占察善惡業報經), trans. (attrib.) Bodhidīpa, Taishō vol. 17, no. 0839, p. 904b (0904b13). Its lot-casting operations for seeking a sign (the three throws of the wooden blocks, etc.) belong to the practice-operation and are not relayed here. ↩

11. Zhiyi, Explaining the Stages of the Perfection of Dhyāna, fascicle 2, no. 1916, p. 486a (0486a10–a13). ↩

12. Ibid., no. 1916, p. 486c (0486c08–c11). ↩

13. The "Mahāyāna treatise" Zhiyi names here is the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (大智度論, Taishō vol. 25, no. 1509), composed by Nāgārjuna and translated by Kumārajīva — not the Śāstra Explaining the Mahāyāna (釋摩訶衍論, no. 1668). ↩

14. Yuanzhao (Song), Zichi ji (四分律行事鈔資持記), no. 1805, p. 175a (0175a19–a24). The "four-phrase analysis of repenting an offence"; the first two phrases are taken here. ↩

15. Zhili (Song), Essentials of Cultivating Repentance, no. 1937, p. 868b (0868b28). ↩

16. Zhili (Song), Notes on the Words and Phrases of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra (金光明經文句記), Taishō vol. 39, no. 1785, p. 60c (0060c11). The operations of its practice-forms — the Vaipulya rite's seeking the dream-kings, Ākāśagarbha's arm-sealing, and the rest — belong to the scope of Part VI's Chinese repentance liturgies in this volume-part; this paper names them only and does not teach the method. ↩