<p>Notes on the Brahmā’s Net sūtra （Fanwangjing ji 梵網経記）, written by the late-Tang dynasty Huayan 華厳 scholar Chuan’ao 伝奥, is an important work for understanding the development of Chinese philosophical thought regarding the precepts. However, previous research has been limited to bibliographic analysis, with no work done on the systems of thought contained within these texts. Here, I analyze the contents of the Notes on the Brahmā’s Net sūtra in order to shed light on Chuan’ao’s understanding of the precepts.</p><p>In the Explanatory Dictionary of Buddhist Texts （Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 仏書解説大辞典）, Ōno Hōdō suggested that Chuan’ao’s Notes on the Brahmā’s Net sūtra was based on Fazang’s 法蔵 Commentary on the Bodhisattva Precept Code in the Brahma’s Net sūtra （Fanwangjing pusa jiebunshu 梵網経菩薩戒本疏）. But a closer examination of the differ­ences between the two works reveals that, despite similarities, there are inconsistencies between them that cannot be overlooked―inconsistencies that reveal Chuan’ao’s unique understanding of the precepts.</p><p>In this paper, I will investigate Chuan’ao’s theory of buddha-nature as seen in his Notes on the Brahmā’s Net sūtra. In this work, Chuan’ao invokes the Yogācāra school’s doctrines of buddha-nature and “potentiality” （zhongzi 種子, the metaphorical “seeds” that help explain the nature of “store consciousness”, or ālayavijñāna）, along with the doctrine of the tathāgatagarbha, in his interpretation of the Brahmā’s Net sūtra’s use of the term “buddha-nature” （foxing 仏性）.</p><p>According to Chuan’ao, all sentient beings have both “essential-nature” （lixing 理性） and “practice-nature” （xingxing 行性）. Essential-nature is the tathāgatagarbha, while practice-nature is the “root consciousness” （benshi 本識, an early term for “store conscious­ness”）. This “practice-nature” is in fact the precepts, and contained within the essential-nature. In addition, practice-nature has both the innate seeds （benyou wulou zhongzi 本有無漏種子） of the “naturally endowed lineage” （benxingzhu zhongxing 本性住種性） and the newly acquired seeds （xinxun wulou zhongzi 新熏無漏種子） of the “seed-nature developed from habituation” （xisuocheng zhongxing 習所成種性）, with the latter increasing the former.</p><p>These ideas are not found in typical Yogācāra writings. As such, I would like to compare them with Fazang’s interpretation in his Commentary on the Bodhisattva Precept Code in the Brahma’s Net sūtra. In so doing, I will identify the characteristics of precept doctrine derived from the Huayan school’s doctrine of the tathāgatagarbha, as well as elucidate the originality of Chuan’ao’s commentaries in his Notes on the Brahmā’s Net sūtra.</p>