Exclusively Mahāyāna Precepts

Chinese T’ien-t’ai masters such as Chih-i and Chan-jan were more interested in meditation and doctrinal issues than in the precepts. In the Mo ho Chih kuan, Chih-i discussed the precepts as a preliminary practice for meditation, a position which was consistent with traditional theories of the threefold learning. He also applied the Tendai kaie (reveal and harmonize) mode of exegesis to the Ssu fen lü precepts in order to explain their significance for Mahāyāna practice. Chan-jan argued that the attitude of the practitioner, not the Hinayāna origin of the precepts, was the crucial factor in the interpretation of Ssu fen lü ordinations.

Saichō was deeply dissatisfied with these interpretations. Previous efforts to interpret the Ssu fen lü precepts as a form of Mahāyāna monastic discipline or to supplement them with the bodhisattva precepts were unconvincing to Saichō. What was needed, he argued, was a set of precepts which were exclusively Mahāyāna. He stated his position in the Kenkairon:

Although the ten major precepts (of the Fan wang Ching) have been transmitted before, this was in name only; their (true) meaning was not transmitted. How do I know that their (true) meaning was not transmitted? Because their Perfect meaning has not yet been understood and because they have been followed together with the Hinayāna precepts.

Saichō explained his reasons for stressing that the Fan wang precepts must be practiced without reference to the Ssu fen lü precepts in the following passage:

The monastic leaders (sōtō) state: The Lotus Sūtra teaches that one should not consort with anyone who seeks Hinayāna goals, but in Japan there are no monks who seek Hinayāna goals.

Saichō replies: Although (those who board) the sheep vehicle or elephant vehicle do not seek Hinayāna rewards, still they backslide to the realms of the two (Hinayāna) vehicles and take 80,000 kalpas to recover (and attain Buddhahood). Although no monks in this country seek Hinayāna goals, they do follow the Hinayāna rules of conduct and thus follow Hinayāna practices. How can this not lead to a Hinayāna result (in the end)?

Saichō: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School, p191-192