Are "precepts" as they are often known rules, vows or something else?
In East Asia more often than not the idea of jie 戒 (Skt. śīla; Tib. tshul khrims) is one where an "unexpressed form dharma" (Chn. wubiao sefa 無表色法; Skt. avijñapti-rūpa-dharma) is transmitted from preceptor to the recipient. This is why lineage for precepts is essential. You cannot just pick up the Vinaya or Bodhisattva precepts and practice from there. There must be some kind of formal transmission of this form dharma otherwise it doesn't exist and you are not really "upholding precepts", or so the theory suggests.
That being said, though, in my research of precepts in Buddhism I sense there is something at odds with how śīla seems to have been understood in the early sangha.
It was generally just rules laid down for the community, which somewhere along the lines became formalized precepts which disciples would formally vow to uphold. The five lay precepts and later ten virtues were formalized extensions of the original ground rules laid down over the course of the Buddha's career. When alcohol was prohibited, for example, it was merely a rule laid down by the Buddha following an incident. I wrote about this here if you're interested:
http://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2012/03/ ... cohol.html
However, the texts just indicate this was a rule people were expected to follow. It was not a vow or precept. Just a house rule.
So, it begs the question, what is śīla? Is it just rules for the sangha and personal conduct? Is it sacred vows that must be upheld under penalty of karmic retribution? Is it a form dharma that is formally transmitted from a preceptor that furthermore must be maintained?

