四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 1.350

1.350

三約法者。《五分》云：欲別作羯磨，僧不可和者，當於說戒前作之；以是制眾法，僧不敢散故。《四分》云：若有人舉罪者，不得輒信舉罪人語；便喚所告之人，對僧詶答。先問見聞疑三根。若云見者，為自見？從他見？見在何處犯？犯何等罪？為犯戒耶，犯何等戒？破見耶，破何等見？破威儀耶，破何等威儀？如是舉罪人一一能答，有智人者，方可隨其所告，問眾上中下及所犯人，取其自言，證正舉治。若不能答，有智人隨有違者，便隨所誣謗罪，依法治之。故文云：若舉無根無餘罪者，不成遮，治其謗罪。文亦不顯情之虛實，即結其犯，義須斟酌。

Third, regarding the legal procedure: The Pañcavargika-vinaya states: "If one wishes to perform a separate karman and the saṃgha cannot be harmonized, it should be performed before the upoṣadha recitation; because this rule restrains the assembly, the saṃgha will not dare disperse." The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: "If someone accuses another of an offense, one must not lightly believe the accuser's words; summon the accused to respond before the saṃgha. First interrogate him on the three grounds of seeing, hearing, and suspecting. If he says he saw it: did he see it himself, or hear of seeing it from another? Where did he see the offense committed? What kind of offense was committed? Was it an offense against the precepts? If so, which precept? Was it a disruption of right view? If so, what view was disrupted? Was it a breach of īryāpatha? If so, what īryāpatha was breached? If the accuser can answer each of these questions, only then may a wise person proceed according to his accusation, question the elders, middle-ranking, and junior members of the assembly, as well as the accused, obtain the accused’s own confession, and verify it to formally initiate disciplinary proceedings. If he cannot answer, or if a wise person finds discrepancies in what he says, he should be dealt with according to the Dharma for the offense of false slander." Hence the text states: "If one brings a groundless accusation of an offense without remainder, it does not constitute a valid barring, and he shall be punished for the offense of slander." The text does not explicitly distinguish the actual truth or falsehood of the intent, but immediately concludes the offense; this requires careful consideration.