The fundamental criterion for determining whether an offense has been committed lies in examining the motivation behind the act.

Question: If one has taken the Five Precepts, would acts of theft like those mentioned by the Master—such as taking a family member's belongings to give to others—also be prohibited? Would this be considered a violation? Can such "benevolent theft" only be done before taking the Five Precepts?

Answer: Whether it constitutes a violation of the precept against stealing depends primarily on whether there was an intent to steal—that is, whether there was a purpose to take the item for one's own enjoyment and whether it harmed the other party's interests. If there was no such malicious intent, but rather a benevolent heart seeking to benefit the other, then it is not considered theft. Both precepts and karma are centered on the mind: a good mind reaps good rewards, an evil mind reaps evil retribution. These matters must be considered comprehensively, taking into account whether the ultimate outcome is good or evil, whether the benefits outweigh the harms. If the benefits are greater, it should be done; if the harms are greater, it should not. The altruistic bodhicitta is the most important and precious. If one cannot clearly discern this or cannot generate an altruistic mind, then one should strictly uphold the precepts, acting with utmost caution and avoiding even the slightest offense. This applies to both the Hinayana and Mahayana precepts.

Bodhisattvas who have cultivated to a certain degree possess minds filled with goodness, almost entirely free from evil. They do not harm others for personal gain; everything they do is for the benefit of sentient beings, without considering personal gain or loss. Thus, they may disregard certain matters as long as the result is good, even if the superficial process appears unvirtuous. For the sake of cultivation and propagating the Dharma, I have been unable to uphold some Hinayana precepts. If I were to uphold the Hinayana precepts, I would be unable to cultivate, and the Mahayana precepts would inevitably be violated. When weighing the Hinayana and Mahayana precepts, the Mahayana precepts are undoubtedly more important—sentient beings are important, the development of Buddhism is important. My personal status is insignificant. However, I personally would never commit any violation or incur any karmic retribution, for in reality, there is no fault but only merit.

Master Kumarajiva came from Eastern India to Zhendan (China) to propagate the Dharma. The emperor, wishing to keep him there, arranged for him to marry several women. Had he refused, he would have been unable to spread the Dharma. To facilitate the propagation of the Dharma, the Master had no choice but to accept and lived daily with several women. Superficially, it appeared as if he had violated the precepts, but in truth, he upheld the bodhisattva precepts. A bodhisattva acts to benefit sentient beings and Buddhism. Once the fundamental purpose is achieved, other aspects cannot be perfected. Of course, ordinary people must not imitate this, for doing so would violate the precepts, as their cultivation and mental purity are insufficient.

Whether one violates the precepts depends on the mind. Without the intent to violate, without arising of thought or mental activity, it is not considered a violation. How could the precept substance be lost? To avoid violating precepts, one must attain the first dhyāna and eradicate the view of self to reach the third fruit of the Small Vehicle (Hinayana). For the Mahayana, the stage of the first bhūmi is required. Only then are the fundamental afflictions severed, and without an evil mind, unwholesome mind, or defiled mind, one does not violate the precepts. Otherwise, violations are inevitable.

The Venerable Upāli was a Vinaya master of the Hinayana tradition. He frequently judged bhikshus and bhikshunis to have violated precepts. Yet, in the view of Vimalakirti the layman and the Buddha, some had not violated the precepts at all. The Buddha would observe the mental state of the bhikshus and bhikshunis at the time—whether thoughts or mental activities had arisen. If no thoughts or mental activities had arisen, then according to the Mahayana, they did not violate the precepts.

For bhikshus and bhikshunis who violated precepts, Hinayana Vinaya masters would expel them from the Sangha. However, the Buddha was very compassionate toward disciples who appeared to have violated precepts but had not actually done so. For example, a bhikshuni who was raped and became pregnant would, according to Hinayana rules, have violated a fundamental precept and should have been expelled from the Sangha. Yet the Buddha determined that the bhikshuni had not violated the precepts and even permitted her to give birth to the child in the royal palace. Therefore, determining whether someone has violated precepts requires great wisdom, even the use of spiritual powers to observe through direct perception—examining the motivation and mental state at the time, not the superficial action.

Sentient beings today possess extremely limited wisdom. Their judgments of people and events are based on emotions and superficial perceptions. They fundamentally cannot distinguish good from evil, right from wrong, or virtuous teachers from unvirtuous ones. They do not observe others' motivations, mental states, the starting point of their actions, or their fundamental purpose. Instead, they blindly reject or worship, mistaking good for evil and evil for good, reversing right and wrong. They are exceedingly difficult to guide.