The Twelve Vows through the Sīla Lens

I. Introduction: At the Seam — Why Some Can Keep the Precepts and Some Cannot

At the close of the preceding volume, DĀNA (the Gate of Giving), we identified a seam. The join between the Gate of Giving and the Gate of the Precepts was not arranged after the fact by an author; it was already standing in the canon — the line "complete the three-encompassing precepts" in the fifth great vow of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra itself carries the merit and the goods that giving accomplishes across to the threshold of precept-keeping.¹ That paper only acknowledged the seam; it did not unfold it. What the present paper now unfolds is exactly this seam: when the Medicine Buddha, in his causal ground, vowed that all beings who cultivate the brahmacarya within his Dharma should "obtain the unbroken precepts and complete the three-encompassing precepts," he made eleven further vows at the same time — and those eleven vows are addressing, precisely, the question of what lets a person keep the precepts in the first place.

Let us first set the question against a confusion common in the Western Buddhist setting. In much contemporary practice, precept-keeping is understood as a matter of pure will and resolve: you cannot hold the five precepts because "you are not diligent enough"; you cannot sit still, cannot endure, cannot break the habit, because "your concentration is too weak." This understanding loads the entire weight onto individual moral agency — that is, onto a person's actual capacity to keep a precept and to be the master of their own conduct. But one question is enough to unsettle it. Consider a person chronically starving, driven to commit evil deeds simply to secure a meal; a person locked in prison, bound with rope and flogged; a person racked by grave illness, with faculties broken or missing. For them, "keeping the precepts" is first of all not a question of will but a question of circumstance. For the will to operate at all, there must first be a field in which the will can operate.

This is the paper's central claim. The twelve great vows of the Medicine Buddha are not a scattered checklist of twelve independent this-worldly petitions but a single, structured support-condition architecture for precept-keeping. The term "support condition" is not used here in the narrow sense of "a helpful contributing cause." It names the enabling conditions that make something possible at all: without them, the thing in question cannot even be raised. Within this architecture the fifth great vow is the precept-vow proper — the one vow in the whole sūtra that states the precept-dharma directly; the remaining eleven vows build, across the dimensions of bodily wholeness, sensory capacity, food, clothing, the means of livelihood, the circumstance of gender, the legal and social circumstance, and even right view, the material and institutional ground on which precept-keeping can be established.

In other words, this paper means to take "precept-keeping" out of the frame of an isolated act of will and re-understand it as a gate of practice that is conditioned by its field. What the Medicine Buddha's vow-power guards is not abstract "precept" in itself but the dharmas without which — the moment any one of them is absent — precept-keeping has no footing. The argument advances in four steps. Chapter II establishes the canonical basis, showing the structurally unique place of the fifth vow among the twelve and, through a three-recension collation, the early stability of this precept-vow framework. Chapter III is the core argument, mapping the remaining eleven vows onto seven dimensions and showing, from internal evidence in the ancient commentaries, that the reading is grounded. Chapter IV places the reading in dialogue with three modern scholars. Chapter V is a set of middle-way corrections marking the limits of the reading. Chapter VI draws the threads together and points to the next paper.

---

II. The Canonical Basis: The Fifth Great Vow and the Structure of the Twelve

II.1 The Fifth Vow: The Sole Precept-Vow Proper in the Whole Sūtra

In recounting the twelve great vows the Medicine Buddha made in his causal ground, the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra gives the fifth vow thus:

願我來世得菩提時，若有無量無邊有情，於我法中修行梵行，一切皆令得不缺戒，具三聚戒。設有毀犯，聞我名已，還得清淨，不墮惡趣。 "When in a future age I attain bodhi, may all the countless and boundless beings who cultivate the brahmacarya within my Dharma be made, all of them, to obtain the unbroken precepts and to complete the three-encompassing precepts; and should any transgress, then upon hearing my name they shall regain purity and not fall into the evil destinies."²

This vow holds a structurally unique place among the twelve. A character-by-character search of the whole sūtra shows that the two terms "brahmacarya" and "three-encompassing" occur in this fifth vow and nowhere else; that the two graphs for "breaking the precept" do not appear in the sūtra at all; and that every place touching the marring of the precepts reads instead "breaking śīla," "transgression," or "violating faith and precept."³ This means that the fifth vow is the one vow in the whole sūtra that states the precept-dharma directly and positively. For just this reason, if the remaining eleven vows are to be understood within the sūtra's own precept-frame, they have to be read as the support conditions of this fifth precept-vow — and this is not a layer of foreign interpretation forced onto the text but the reading the text's own structure invites.

Two terms must be defined at the outset to forestall misreading. The first is "brahmacarya." Set beside "three-encompassing" in the fifth vow, it names the whole of the pure religious life, not merely the narrow ascetic sense of abstention from sexual conduct; it covers a practitioner's integral conduct of purity. The second is "complete the three-encompassing precepts." The three-encompassing pure precepts — the precepts of restraint (saṃvara-śīla), the precept that embraces wholesome dharmas (kuśala-dharma-saṃgrāhaka-śīla), and the precept that benefits sentient beings — are a complete architecture of Mahāyāna precept-theory, the unfolding of which is the main arena of another paper; here the present paper only identifies it and does not lay it out.⁴ What needs marking here is only this: by setting "unbroken" beside "complete the three-encompassing," the fifth vow holds together the śrāvaka-disciplinary register of being "unbroken" and the Mahāyāna register of "completing" the three-encompassing — the precept-vow proper is composed of just these two.

II.2 Three Recensions Collated: The Early Stability of the Framework, and One Variant

The Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra had three principal Chinese translations: Dharmagupta's Bhaiṣajyaguru-pūrvapraṇidhāna-sūtra of the Sui (615); Xuanzang's Bhaiṣajyaguru-vaiḍūryaprabhāsa-pūrvapraṇidhāna-sūtra of the Tang (650, the recension chiefly relied on here); and Yijing's Sūtra of the Vows of the Seven Bhaiṣajyaguru Buddhas of the Tang (707). Setting the fifth vow of all three side by side brings out a phenomenon in the history of translation-diction worth noticing.

Dharmagupta's earliest version (615) already reads: "those who cultivate the brahmacarya within my Dharma … all obtain the undiminished precepts, complete the three-encompassing precepts, with none breaking the precepts and bound for the evil destinies."⁵ Xuanzang's version (650) reads: "all made to obtain the unbroken precepts, to complete the three-encompassing precepts … and should any transgress, upon hearing my name they regain purity." Both use the phrase "complete the three-encompassing precepts." But in the latest version, Yijing's (707), the phrase is replaced: "all made to obtain the unbroken precepts, to well guard the three karmas, with none transgressing or falling into the evil destinies; and should any transgress, then upon hearing my name they single-mindedly hold it and with utmost sincerity disclose their faults, and regain purity."⁶ — Yijing has substituted "well guard the three karmas" for "complete the three-encompassing precepts."

This collation yields two conclusions. First, the precept-vow framework "complete the three-encompassing precepts" is shared by the earliest translator, Dharmagupta (615), and by Xuanzang (650), which shows it to be early and stable within the Chinese translation tradition and not the idiosyncratic choice of Xuanzang alone; yet Yijing's substitution (707) shows that it remained, in the end, a translator's choice rather than a fixed term invariant in the underlying Sanskrit. For this series the point carries methodological weight: it justifies the series' consistent practice of citing the Chinese recensions directly, with their Taishō numbers, rather than positing a single authoritative original behind them.

The second conclusion concerns the recovery clause, "should any transgress, upon hearing my name they regain purity." Read across the three, the clause shows a genealogy of progressive thickening: Dharmagupta (615) has no such mechanism yet, only the purely aspirational "with none breaking the precepts and bound for the evil destinies"; Xuanzang (650) adds "should any transgress, upon hearing my name they regain purity"; Yijing (707) goes further, adding after "upon hearing my name" the phrase "single-mindedly hold it and with utmost sincerity disclose their faults" — that is, an explicit sense of confessional disclosure.⁶ This line of thickening from 615 to 707 obliges us to handle the doctrinal sense of "regaining purity upon hearing the name" with care: is it, or is it not, a kind of "other-powered absolution"? That question the paper answers at the end of Chapter III, through the ancient commentaries' internal-causal reading.

---

III. The Core Argument: The Eleven Vows as Support Conditions across Seven Dimensions

III.1 The Eleven Vows Mapped to Seven Dimensions

If the fifth vow is the precept-vow proper, what are the remaining eleven doing? This paper argues that they can be indexed back, precisely, to seven dimensions — and that those seven dimensions cover exactly the material and institutional prerequisites of precept-keeping. The correspondences are set out below:

Dimension	Vow(s)	Core of the vow
Body (health)	Sixth (congenital) + Seventh (acquired)	those born with incomplete faculties and manifold sicknesses made upright and keen-witted; all sicknesses removed
Faculties (the senses)	Sixth	the ugly, dull, blind, deaf, mute, lame, and hunchbacked all made complete in their faculties
Food	Eleventh	those tormented by hunger and thirst, who commit evil deeds for the sake of food, first satisfied in body with excellent food
Clothing	Twelfth	those poor and without clothing, tormented day and night by mosquitoes, gnats, cold and heat, given fine garments
Livelihood (the means of use)	Third (+ refined in 7, 11, 12)	by immeasurable, boundless skillful means, all beings given inexhaustible goods for their use
Gender (circumstance)	Eighth	those oppressed by the hundred ills of womanhood, weary of it and wishing to leave the female body, granted transformation from female to male form
Social circumstance (peril before the law)	Tenth	those seized by the law of the king, bound with rope, flogged, imprisoned, or facing execution, all set free
Right view	Fourth + Ninth	established in the Great Vehicle; drawn out of the net of Māra's wrong views and freed from all the bonds of the heterodox

Take several of these vows in turn. The sixth vow addresses the congenital impairment of body and faculty — those whose "bodies are inferior, faculties incomplete, who are ugly, dull, blind, deaf, mute, lame, hunchbacked, leprous, mad, afflicted with every manner of sickness" — vowing that they "all attain to being upright and keen-witted, complete in their faculties, free of every sickness and pain";⁷ the tenth vow addresses legal and social distress — those "seized by the law of the king, bound with rope, flogged, imprisoned, or facing execution";⁸ the eleventh and twelfth vows address, respectively, the deprivation of food and clothing — those "tormented by hunger and thirst, who for the sake of food commit evil deeds," and those "poor and without clothing, tormented day and night by mosquitoes, gnats, cold and heat."⁹

What this vow-by-vow mapping discloses is a systematic fact: what these eleven vows cover — bodily wholeness, sensory capacity, food, clothing, the means of livelihood, the circumstance of gender, legal and social circumstance, and right view — is exactly the material and institutional precondition of a person's being able to keep the precepts. The eleventh vow names the causal layer with particular bluntness: a person commits evil deeds "for the sake of food" not because their will is weak but because the circumstance of hunger compels them; satisfy the body first, and only then can the precepts be spoken of. The contribution of this paper lies precisely in reading, for the first time and systematically, these eleven non-precept vows as the enabling conditions of the fifth precept-vow, rather than as a scattered list of this-worldly benefits.

III.2 Internal Evidence from the Ancient Commentaries: Taehyŏn's "Six Paired Gates" and the Obstructions to the Three-Encompassing Precepts

Is this reading merely the paper's own retrospective construction? It is not — the ancient commentaries already carried it. The Silla monk Taehyŏn (8th c.), in his Traces of the Ancients on the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra, in setting out an analytic outline of the twelve vows, proposed a classification of "six paired gates," pairing the twelve vows two by two into six gates. The third gate is especially telling:

三、存戒存身門，即次二願，不缺重戒，具三聚故、六根之身皆得淨故……五內外解縛門，即次二願，攝置正見，解惡見縛……出魔羂故，以威神力，出刑縛故。六志食與衣門，即次二願，以食法味而建立故、以妙衣等而令滿足故。 "Third, the gate of preserving the precepts and preserving the body: namely the next two vows — because one does not lack the grave precepts and completes the three-encompassing, and because the body of the six faculties all attains purity … Fifth, the gate of loosing the bonds, inner and outer: namely the next two vows — establishing right view and loosing the bonds of evil views … drawing beings out of Māra's snare, and by awesome spiritual power drawing them out of the bonds of punishment. Sixth, the gate of resolve, of food and clothing: namely the next two vows — establishing beings by the savor of the food of Dharma, and satisfying them with fine garments and the like."¹⁰

Taehyŏn pairs "preserving the precepts" with "preserving the body" in a single gate, and sets "loosing the bonds" (right view and legal distress) and "food and clothing" each as a gate. This means that in Taehyŏn's outline, "keeping the precepts" (preserving the precepts) stands side by side with, and mutually requires, "keeping body and faculty whole" (preserving the body), "loosing the bonds," and "satisfying food and clothing." In other words, the ancient commentary already reads the material vows as the support of precept-keeping. This paper's claim that "the eleven vows are support conditions" thus has the direct backing of Taehyŏn's analytic outline; it is not an interpretive layer the paper adds from outside.

A further passage of Taehyŏn ties the reading back to the three-encompassing pure precepts. Glossing the sūtra's passage on the stages of degeneration in breaking śīla, he matches each form of degeneration to one of the three obstructions to the three-encompassing precepts:

初門有三：一攝律儀戒障，如經「破尸羅軌則」故。言尸羅者，別解脫戒；言軌則者，於往來等正知而住。二攝善法戒障，如經「毀正見、棄多聞、增上慢」故。三攝有情戒障，如經「復令無量俱胝有情墮大險坑」故……乃至三聚速圓滿故。 "The first gate has three obstructions: first, the obstruction to the precepts of restraint, as where the sūtra says 'breaking the śīla and the rule'; 'śīla' means the prātimokṣa precepts, and 'rule' means abiding in clear awareness in coming and going and the rest. Second, the obstruction to the precept that embraces wholesome dharmas, as where the sūtra says 'destroying right view, casting away learning, overweening pride.' Third, the obstruction to the precept that benefits sentient beings, as where the sūtra says 'further causing immeasurable koṭis of beings to fall into the great pit of peril' … so that the three-encompassing precepts may swiftly be brought to completion."¹¹

A terminological clarification must be appended here, lest the reader stumble when reading across the series. Taehyŏn writes "the precept that benefits sentient beings"; the late-Ming Lingyao (below) writes "the precept that benefits and aids sentient beings"; both belong to the diction of Xuanzang's translation bureau. The other paper of this series that treats the three-encompassing architecture works from a recension that reads "the precept that embraces sentient beings," belonging to the diction of Dharmakṣema's bureau. The two are different renderings, under different translation bureaus, of one and the same precept (śīla) — not two different precepts.¹² Wherever this paper cites Taehyŏn, Lingyao, or the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra itself, it keeps their Xuanzang-bureau diction, "the precept that benefits sentient beings," and does not mix it within a single passage with the other bureau's "the precept that embraces sentient beings."

One limit must also be marked honestly: among the ancient commentaries, only two — Taehyŏn and the late-Ming Lingyao — read the fifth vow through the three-encompassing pure precepts. The two Commentaries on the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra recovered at Dunhuang (unattributed, belonging to a pre-Xuanzang transmission) contain, throughout, no words "three-encompassing" or "unbroken precepts" — and this is not an omission but follows from the fact that the pre-Xuanzang recension they comment on simply has no line "complete the three-encompassing precepts" in its fifth vow.¹³ The paper's wording must therefore be "Taehyŏn and the late-Ming Lingyao read it through the three-encompassing pure precepts, while the commentaries on the pre-Xuanzang Dunhuang transmission have no such language," and must not be written as "the commentarial tradition uniformly reads it as the three-encompassing pure precepts."

III.3 Regaining Purity upon Hearing the Name: Internal Causation, Not Other-Powered Grace

We return at last to the question left open at the end of Chapter II: does the recovery clause "should any transgress, upon hearing my name they regain purity" mean a kind of other-powered absolution?

The sūtra contains a further precept-passage describing a ladder of degeneration in breaking śīla:

雖於如來受諸學處，而破尸羅；有雖不破尸羅，而破軌則；有於尸羅、軌則，雖得不壞，然毀正見；有雖不毀正見，而棄多聞…… "Though they receive the points of training under the Tathāgata, they break the śīla; some, though they do not break the śīla, break the rule; some, though their śīla and rule remain unbroken, yet destroy right view; some, though they do not destroy right view, cast away learning …"

From breaking śīla, to breaking the rule, to destroying right view, to casting away learning, the degeneration descends stage by stage — and yet, in the end, because such a one "comes to hear the name of the Tathāgata Bhaiṣajyaguru, forsakes evil conduct, cultivates wholesome dharmas, and does not fall into the evil destinies," recovery is had.¹⁴ This structure of degeneration and recovery resonates exactly with the fifth vow's "should any transgress, upon hearing my name they regain purity."

The question is: on what does this "regaining purity" rest? The late-Ming Tiantai monk Lingyao, in his Direct Explanation of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra, gives an answer that does not appeal to other-powered grace. He reads "regaining purity upon hearing the name" as two great conditions:

今以聞佛名故，不墮惡趣，則是兩種大緣而得懺悔：一者、最初元在藥師法中持戒功德；二者、聞藥師名，如阿伽陀藥，徧治眾病，故能起死回生，不墮大辟。 "Now, because one hears the Buddha's name and so does not fall into the evil destinies, it is by two great conditions that repentance is obtained: first, the merit of precept-keeping that was one's own from the start within Bhaiṣajyaguru's Dharma; second, that hearing Bhaiṣajyaguru's name is like the agada medicine that heals every illness, and so can raise the dead back to life and avert the capital penalty."¹⁵

What makes Lingyao's answer important is its first condition: "the merit of precept-keeping that was one's own from the start within Bhaiṣajyaguru's Dharma." That is: hearing the name can return one to purity not because some absolution drifts in from outside and is freely conferred, but because this person was already one who had kept the precepts — what hearing the name reactivates is the wholesome precept-merit this very person had previously accumulated. The name, like the agada medicine that heals every illness, is the condition; the person's own existing merit of precept-keeping is the cause. On this reading, "regaining purity upon hearing the name" rests upon the continuity of śīla, not upon grace in any soteriological sense. This is of a piece with the paper's reading throughout: its angle is always how the capacity to keep precepts is supported and sustained, not how some external power absolves.

It may be added that one of the Dunhuang Commentaries cites Asvabhāva's Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha to gloss regaining-purity through the Yogācāra "seed of right hearing-perfuming": "this single-thought seed of right hearing-perfuming, though within a worldly, tainted mind, is, in its very nature, a supramundane, untainted mind-seed."¹⁶ This line of explaining recovery through seed-causation resonates at a distance with another paper of this series, on precept-substance and the manas; here it is only a pointer, and its six meanings of a seed are not restated. The point is this: whether by Lingyao's "prior precept-merit" or by the Dunhuang commentary's "seed of right hearing-perfuming," the ancient commentaries' answer to "regaining purity upon hearing the name" is one of internal causation, not of other-powered grace.

---

IV. Interdisciplinary Dialogue

This paper's reading places the twelve vows of the Medicine Buddha within an ethical (precept-theoretical) frame. To calibrate where that reading stands, the following enters into dialogue with three modern English-language scholars. A note first: all three are engaged by paraphrase, with no verbatim transcription; their works appear in the bibliography.

IV.1 The History of Bhaiṣajyaguru Devotion: Birnbaum

The founding study of Bhaiṣajyaguru devotion in English scholarship is Raoul Birnbaum's The Healing Buddha (first ed. 1979; rev. 1989). The convergence: Birnbaum documents, fully and finely, the material content of the twelve vows, together with the ritual, iconographic, and this-worldly salvific functions of the cult through its history — source-work no later discussion can go around. The fundamental difference: yet he reads the twelve vows throughout within a frame of the history of devotion, ritual, and image; in his handling, the vows are objects of devotional practice, and are never read as a mutually related architecture of support conditions for precept-keeping. Reading the eleven vows as the enabling conditions of the fifth precept-vow is an angle absent from his study. The irreducibility claim: this is not to say the present reading is more "correct" than the history of devotion; the two ask different questions. The history of devotion asks "how did people venerate and practice the Bhaiṣajyaguru cult"; this paper asks "what structure do the vows constitute in precept-theory" — a heuristic shift of angle, not a denial of Birnbaum's historiographic achievement.

IV.2 Buddhist Medicine: Salguero

The second interlocutor is C. Pierce Salguero's Translating Buddhist Medicine in Medieval China (2014). The convergence: the dimensions of body, faculty, sickness, and food in the vows are indeed part of the medical culture of medieval Buddhism; Salguero's handling of the frame in which "healing and salvation interweave" supplies rich context for understanding the material substrate of these vows. The fundamental difference: what this paper means to do is to redirect that same material substrate from "medicine" toward "ethics." For Salguero, body and material condition point toward healing itself; for this paper, body and material condition point toward the precondition of moral agency — a person's actual capacity to keep the precepts and be the master of their own conduct. Wholeness of body and faculty, the removal of sickness, are, in this paper's reading, not the terminus but the condition that makes precept-keeping possible. The irreducibility claim: this is a redirection of angle, not a claim that "the medical reading is wrong"; one and the same set of vows can be understood within the history of medicine and within precept-theory, each in its own field.

IV.3 The Field-Conditions of Ethics: Heim

The third interlocutor is Maria Heim's Theories of the Gift in South Asia (Routledge). The choice of Heim rather than a consequentialist ethicist is deliberate: Heim treats the conditionality of ethical action through the field constituted by the giver, the recipient, the gift, and the giver's intention — which sidesteps exactly the consequentialist frame several earlier papers of this series have already used. The convergence: Heim argues that ethical action is always conditioned by its material and social field; an act of giving cannot have its ethical sense assessed in isolation from that field. The difference and the advance: this paper extends Heim's field-conditionality, originally argued of giving (dāna), to precept-keeping (śīla) — the Medicine Buddha's eleven vows being a canonical conception of "the conditions that make the field of precept-keeping possible." And this extension picks up exactly the inter-volume seam laid at the close of the preceding volume, DĀNA: the field-conditionality argued in the Gate of Giving finds, in the Gate of the Precepts, its scriptural attestation. The irreducibility claim: transferring Heim's field-theory of giving to the precepts is an extension inspired by her work, not a claim that Heim herself treated the Bhaiṣajyaguru vows or precept-keeping; the responsibility for the transfer lies with this paper, not with Heim.

IV.4 An Honest Marking of a Scholarly Gap

It must be stated plainly: so far as this paper can ascertain, English-language scholarship contains no monograph or article that has read the twelve vows of the Medicine Buddha as a support-condition architecture for precept-keeping. Birnbaum's work belongs to the history of devotion, Salguero's to the history of medicine; neither enters the problem-space of precept-theory. What this paper fills is exactly this gap: the first systematic reading of the eleven non-precept vows as the enabling ground of the fifth precept-vow. Marking the gap is both scholarly honesty and a way of letting the reader see clearly the limits — and the novelty — of the paper's claim.

---

V. Middle-Way Corrections

This chapter marks several limits of the reading, to guard against over-extension and reductionism.

❌ One must not take the fifth vow's "complete the three-encompassing precepts" as the full unfolding of the three-encompassing pure precepts. At the fifth vow this paper only identifies, pointing out that it holds the three-encompassing framework; the unfolding of the three-encompassing architecture itself — how restraint, embracing-wholesome-dharmas, and benefiting-sentient-beings constitute the Mahāyāna precept-body — is the main arena of another paper of this series, and is not laid out here. A reader who mistakes this paper's identification for a full account of the three-encompassing architecture has crossed a boundary.

❌ One must not write "the commentarial tradition uniformly reads it as the three-encompassing pure precepts." As Chapter III made clear, among the ancient commentaries only Taehyŏn and the late-Ming Lingyao gloss the fifth vow through the three-encompassing pure precepts; the two pre-Xuanzang Dunhuang commentaries have no "three-encompassing" language at all — a fact of the transmission, not an oversight of the commentators. To expand the position of these two into "the consensus of the tradition" is a textual misstatement.

❌ One must not read "regaining purity upon hearing the name" as other-powered absolution or grace. This paper reads it consistently through internal causation: recovery is rooted in this person's prior merit of precept-keeping (Lingyao) or in the seed of right hearing-perfuming (cited in the Dunhuang commentary). The paper's angle is the continuity of śīla, not soteriology; to let "regaining purity upon hearing the name" slide into the register of "other-powered pardon, rebirth in the Pure Land" is to depart from the descriptive-historical orientation the paper keeps.

⚠ The handling of the eighth vow, "transformation from female to male form." In this paper the eighth vow is listed only as one of the seven dimensions of support condition (the circumstance of gender), and is not excavated — a fuller discussion of this vow is deferred to the next paper of the series. Particular care is owed here: this paper reads the eighth vow within its ancient frame, as "removing a social and bodily obstacle that, under the conditions of antiquity, made precept-keeping harder," and presents it in a descriptive-historical manner. It neither endorses that frame from a modern value-standpoint nor critiques the scripture from a modern view of gender. This is a heuristic analysis of circumstance, not a value-judgment.

⚠ "Support condition" is not material determinism. The paper argues that precept-keeping is conditioned by its material and institutional field, but this does not mean that once material conditions are in place, precept-keeping happens automatically. Support conditions make precept-keeping possible, not inevitable; the conduct of the precept must still be enacted by a person. To misread "field-conditioned" as "matter determines everything and the will is irrelevant" is a reductionist slide the paper does not adopt.

⚠ The analogies with modern scholarship are all heuristic. Chapter IV's redirection of Salguero's "medicine → ethics," and its transfer of Heim's field-theory of giving, are both borrowings of angle inspired by their work, not claims that this paper is equivalent to their theories. The problem-space of the ancient vow-scripture and the problem-spaces of the modern disciplines are not ontologically the same; the paper's dialogue is for calibrating position, not for reducing the Dharma to any modern theory.

---

VI. Conclusion

A concise restatement. This paper argues that the twelve great vows of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra are not twelve isolated this-worldly petitions but a structured support-condition architecture for precept-keeping. The fifth great vow is the precept-vow proper (the unbroken precepts, completing the three-encompassing, regaining purity upon hearing the name); the remaining eleven vows constitute, across the dimensions of body, faculty, food, clothing, livelihood, gender, social circumstance, and right view, the material and institutional conditions that make precept-keeping possible. The three-recension collation shows this precept-vow framework already stabilized in the earliest translation; Taehyŏn's "six paired gates" outline and Lingyao's recovery-gloss show that reading the material vows as the support of precept-keeping is a reading the ancient commentaries already carried, not one the paper adds from outside. From this it can be said: precept-keeping is not an isolated act of will but is conditioned by its material and institutional field.

Guidance for practice. This angle offers a structural, rather than purely moral, understanding of the self-reproach of "I cannot keep the precepts." When a practitioner cannot hold a precept, the problem need not lie only in "insufficient diligence"; it may lie in some support condition — of body, of faculty, of food, of clothing, of circumstance — that lets precept-keeping stand, and that is at present absent. What the Medicine Buddha's vow-power guards are precisely the dharmas that let the brahmacarya stand. To see this is both to grant oneself a more truthful compassion toward one's own weakness and to grant others a more compassionate understanding of how hard precept-keeping can be: before requiring of a person that they "keep the precepts well," it may be necessary first to ask whether the field their precept-keeping requires is in place.

Open questions. This paper has treated only the lateral support-condition architecture — which dharmas the Medicine Buddha guards so as to make precept-keeping possible. It has not treated a vertical question: among the twelve vows, is there a sequence to the disciplining of body and mind — is the body and its faculties settled first, and only then the mind, and the precepts? And the eighth vow (the circumstance of gender), passed over here in a single stroke, how is its bound-up question of circumstance and of body-and-mind to be understood in depth? These questions are left for the next paper of the series to unfold.

---

---

Bibliography

Primary Buddhist Sources

• Bhaiṣajyaguru-vaiḍūryaprabhāsa-pūrvapraṇidhāna-sūtra (藥師琉璃光如來本願功德經), trans. Xuanzang; the Taishō, vol. 14, No. 0450.
• Bhaiṣajyaguru-pūrvapraṇidhāna-sūtra (藥師如來本願經), trans. Dharmagupta; the Taishō, vol. 14, No. 0449.
• Sūtra of the Vows of the Seven Bhaiṣajyaguru Buddhas (藥師琉璃光七佛本願功德經), trans. Yijing; the Taishō, vol. 14, No. 0451.
• Traces of the Ancients on the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra (本願藥師經古迹), by Taehyŏn; the Taishō, vol. 38, No. 1770.
• Commentary on the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra (藥師經疏, Dunhuang manuscript); the Taishō, vol. 85, No. 2766.
• Commentary on the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra (藥師經疏, Dunhuang manuscript); the Taishō, vol. 85, No. 2767.
• Direct Explanation of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra (藥師經直解), by Lingyao; the Manji (Xuzangjing), vol. 21, No. 0381.
• Bodhisattvabhūmi (菩薩地持經), trans. Dharmakṣema; the Taishō, vol. 30, No. 1581.
• Bodhisattva-keyūra-sūtra (菩薩瓔珞本業經); the Taishō, vol. 24, No. 1485.
• Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa (大智度論), trans. Kumārajīva; the Taishō, vol. 25, No. 1509.

All scriptural citations above have been collated against the CBETA Electronic Tripiṭaka.

Modern Scholarship

• Birnbaum, Raoul. The Healing Buddha. Boulder: Shambhala, 1979; rev. ed. 1989. (Engaged through paraphrase.)
• Salguero, C. Pierce. Translating Buddhist Medicine in Medieval China. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014. (Engaged through paraphrase.)
• Heim, Maria. Theories of the Gift in South Asia: Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain Reflections on Dāna. New York: Routledge, 2004. (Engaged through paraphrase.)

Sūtra & Śāstra Index

Short title	Full title	Author / Translator	Taishō / Manji
Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra (Xuanzang)	藥師琉璃光如來本願功德經	trans. Xuanzang	Taishō vol. 14, No. 0450
Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra (Dharmagupta)	藥師如來本願經	trans. Dharmagupta	Taishō vol. 14, No. 0449
Seven-Buddha Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra	藥師琉璃光七佛本願功德經	trans. Yijing	Taishō vol. 14, No. 0451
Traces of the Ancients	本願藥師經古迹	Taehyŏn (Silla)	Taishō vol. 38, No. 1770
Dunhuang Commentary A	藥師經疏	Dunhuang ms. (unattributed)	Taishō vol. 85, No. 2766
Dunhuang Commentary B	藥師經疏	Dunhuang ms. (unattributed)	Taishō vol. 85, No. 2767
Direct Explanation	藥師經直解	Lingyao (Tiantai)	Manji vol. 21, No. 0381
Bodhisattvabhūmi	菩薩地持經	trans. Dharmakṣema	Taishō vol. 30, No. 1581
Keyūra-sūtra	菩薩瓔珞本業經	—	Taishō vol. 24, No. 1485
Upadeśa	大智度論	trans. Kumārajīva	Taishō vol. 25, No. 1509

---

Series Cross-References

• DĀNA P31 What You Just Walked Through — §V "The Seam" identifies the Dāna–Sīla inter-volume seam already laid in the fifth vow of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra; this paper's opening continues it.
• SĪLA The Three-Body Architecture of Bodhisattva Sīla (P12) — the main arena for the three-encompassing pure precepts (restraint / embracing wholesome dharmas / embracing sentient beings); this paper, at the fifth vow, only identifies and does not re-derive.
• SĪLA Precept-Substance and Manas — the main arena for the seed-perfuming ontology; the source of this paper's one-line Dunhuang "seed of right hearing-perfuming" cross-reference.
• SĪLA P20 (Bhaiṣajyaguru #2) — the developmental sequence of body-and-mind discipline among the twelve vows, and the deep-dive into the eighth vow's circumstance of gender — what this paper's conclusion points toward.

---

正法眼藏，不立文字——The value of the Dharma lies in the Dharma itself, not in the identity of the one who expounds it.

Pointing at the Moon ｜ Six Practice Gates · SĪLA 戒 ｜ CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Scriptural citations collated against the CBETA Electronic Tripiṭaka ｜ github.com/pointing-at-the-moon/six-practice-gates

Pointing at the Moon · The Six Practice Gates · Volume IV SĪLA · Paper 19 · Part VI #1 · May 2026

Footnotes

1. This opening takes up the verdict of DĀNA P31, What You Just Walked Through, §V "The Seam." That section identified the inter-volume seam between the Gate of Giving and the Gate of the Precepts as already laid in the fifth great vow of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra — the line "complete the three-encompassing precepts" (the Taishō, vol. 14, No. 0450, p. 405a) — read together with the three-encompassing pairing of the Bodhisattva-keyūra-sūtra (No. 1485) and the opening of the śīla-pāramitā chapter of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa (No. 1509). That paper only acknowledged the seam; the present paper unfolds it. ↩

2. The Bhaiṣajyaguru-vaiḍūryaprabhāsa-pūrvapraṇidhāna-sūtra, trans. Xuanzang, the fifth great vow; the Taishō, vol. 14, No. 0450, p. 405a (the core line "obtain the unbroken precepts, complete the three-encompassing precepts"). ↩

3. A character-by-character search of the whole sūtra: "brahmacarya" and "three-encompassing" occur only in the fifth vow; the two graphs for "breaking the precept" do not occur anywhere in the sūtra; every place that touches the marring of the precepts reads "breaking śīla," "transgression," or "violating faith and precept." ↩

4. The architecture of the three-encompassing pure precepts (the precepts of restraint, the precept that embraces wholesome dharmas, the precept that benefits sentient beings) is unfolded in full in another paper of this series; here it is only identified. "Brahmacarya" here names the whole of the pure religious life, not merely the narrow sense of abstention from sexual conduct. ↩

5. The Bhaiṣajyaguru-pūrvapraṇidhāna-sūtra, trans. Dharmagupta (Sui, 615), the fifth vow; the Taishō, vol. 14, No. 0449, p. 401c. ↩

6. The Sūtra of the Vows of the Seven Bhaiṣajyaguru Buddhas, trans. Yijing (Tang, 707), the Bhaiṣajyaguru (seventh-buddha) fascicle, the fifth vow; the Taishō, vol. 14, No. 0451, p. 413a. This recension replaces "complete the three-encompassing precepts" with "well guard the three karmas," and adds to the recovery mechanism "single-mindedly hold it and with utmost sincerity disclose one's faults." Note that the phrase "the fifth great vow" occurs three times in Yijing's recension; the first two belong to the first and second of the seven minor buddhas, and only the passage at p. 413a is the precept-vow of Bhaiṣajyaguru himself — that is the passage to be cited. ↩ ↩²

7. The Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra, the sixth vow; the Taishō, vol. 14, No. 0450, p. 405a. The seventh vow, "all sicknesses removed," follows immediately. ↩

8. Same source, the tenth vow, p. 405b. The reading "bound with rope" carries collation variants across the Palace, Dunhuang, Song, Yuan, and Ming editions. ↩

9. Same source, the eleventh and twelfth vows, p. 405b. ↩

10. The Traces of the Ancients on the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra, by Taehyŏn (Silla, 8th c.), the six-paired-gates outline; the Taishō, vol. 38, No. 1770, p. 258b–c. "Preserving the precepts" is set in paired apposition with "preserving the body / loosing the bonds / food and clothing" — that is, the ancient commentary already reads the material vows as the support of precept-keeping. ↩

11. Same source, the passage matching each of the three-encompassing obstructions to the stages of breaking śīla; the Taishō, vol. 38, No. 1770, p. 259b. ↩

12. Taehyŏn, Lingyao, and the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra itself all belong to Xuanzang's translation bureau, in which the third of the three-encompassing precepts reads "the precept that benefits sentient beings"; the other paper of this series treating the three-encompassing architecture works from a recension reading "the precept that embraces sentient beings," belonging to Dharmakṣema's bureau (the Bodhisattvabhūmi, No. 1581). These are two renderings, in two translation lineages, of one and the same precept (śīla), not two precepts. The distinction must be marked when reading across papers; the two must not be mixed within a single passage. ↩

13. The two Dunhuang manuscript Commentaries on the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra (Nos. 2766 and 2767, the Taishō vol. 85, both unattributed) contain throughout no words "three-encompassing" or "unbroken precepts," because the pre-Xuanzang recension they comment on simply has no line "complete the three-encompassing precepts" in its fifth vow. This is a fact of the transmission, not an oversight of the commentators. ↩

14. The Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra, the passage on the five stages of breaking śīla and the regaining of purity; the Taishō, vol. 14, No. 0450, pp. 405c–406a. ↩

15. The Direct Explanation of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra, by Lingyao (Tiantai, late Ming–early Qing), the two great conditions of regaining purity; the Manji (Xuzangjing), vol. 21, No. 0381, p. 610c. In the same place Lingyao reads the fifth vow through the round-teaching three-encompassing pure precepts, taking "unbroken" as one item-precept within the precepts of restraint and "completing the three-encompassing" as the perfected pāramitā of the precept. ↩

16. The Commentary on the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra (Dunhuang manuscript), citing Asvabhāva's Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha; the Taishō, vol. 85, No. 2767, p. 320c. Reading the regaining of purity through the Yogācāra seed of right hearing-perfuming, this echoes the other paper of this series on precept-substance and the manas; here it is only a pointer, and the six meanings of a seed are not restated. ↩