四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.110

2.110

無根重罪謗他戒第八。《多論》：為護自行，令法久住故；二為止謗毀，令梵行者，安樂修道故。問：謗他是妄語，得幾罪？答：《善見》云：無別提罪，以謗假虛成。今以義通，若元意專謗，無妄語墮；若兼誑僧，望前人得僧殘，望僧虛解得墮；如殺父羅漢，妄語兩舌，相對互說。餘如《戒本疏》。具八緣：一是大比丘及尼，除下三眾。二想心謂淨，不妨實不淨；如打破戒，犯墮。故文云：若遮無根無餘作，不成遮，治其謗罪。二謂作大比丘想。三內有瞋心。四無三根。五下至對一比丘說；《僧祇》：對所謗比丘前罵謗，語語僧殘。六者重事如誣。七言辭了了。八前人知，犯。《善見》云：若有謗他，在僧中請判者，僧未應判。若彼語僧，若不是者，我便不受；僧應語言：汝且禮佛，為其說法，後當為判此事。若遷延至暝者，當語明朝來。如是三反，猶剛強者，語云：此處少律師，不得斷，可往餘寺；彼餘寺僧知如是者，亦云：此無律師。如是覓寺不得，來還本寺，心懦折伏，隨僧教行者，方問被謗之僧，依法斷之。律不犯中，見、聞、疑三根說實。實有五種：一真實；二想實；三事實，如殺王還道殺王；四三根不互實；五四戒不互實。若反此五，謗他犯殘。《十誦》：四重互說成謗。《四分》亦同。

The eighth saṃghāvaśeṣa precept: Groundlessly slandering another with a grave offense. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā says: "Firstly, to protect one's own practice and cause the Dharma to endure long; secondly, to halt defamation, so that practitioners of the holy life may cultivate the Path in peace and happiness." Question: Slandering another is false speech; how many offenses are incurred? Answer: The Samantapāsādikā says: "There is no separate pāyattika offense, because the slander is constructed falsely." Now, reconciling this doctrinally: if the original intention was purely to slander, there is no pāyattika of false speech; if it simultaneously deceives the saṃgha, in relation to the other person one incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa, and in relation to the saṃgha's false understanding one incurs a pāyattika; this is like killing an arhat who is one's father, or false speech and divisive speech, which are spoken mutually in relation to each other. The rest is as in the Prātimokṣasūtra Commentary. Eight conditions constitute the offense: 1. the person is a fully ordained bhikṣu or bhikṣuṇī, excluding the lower three assemblies; 2. one's mind perceives them as pure, which does not prevent them from actually being impure, just as denouncing an actual breach of precepts incurs a pāyattika—thus the text says: 'If one suspends another groundlessly and completely without basis, the suspension is not effected, and one is disciplined for the offense of slander'; 2. [in another reckoning] one regards them as a fully ordained bhikṣu; 3. one harbors an angry mind within; 4. there are no three grounds; 5. down to speaking to a single bhikṣu; the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya says: 'Cursing and slandering to the face of the slandered bhikṣu incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa with every word'; 6. the grave matter is like a fabricated charge; 7. the words are clear; 8. the other person understands—an offense is committed. The Samantapāsādikā says: "If there is someone who slanders another and asks for a ruling in the saṃgha, the saṃgha should not rule immediately. If that person says to the saṃgha, 'If it is not so, then I will not accept it,' the saṃgha should tell him: 'Worship the Buddha for now, let Dharma be expounded to you, and afterward we will rule on this matter.' If he delays until evening, he should be told to come tomorrow morning. If, after three such repetitions, he remains stubborn, they should tell him: 'There are few Vinaya masters here, so we cannot decide; you may go to another monastery.' When the monks of that other monastery know this, they too should say: 'There are no Vinaya masters here.' When he cannot find a monastery in this way and returns to the original monastery, his mind softened and subdued, ready to follow the saṃgha's instruction, only then should they question the slandered monk and decide the matter according to the Dharma." In the 'no offense' section of the Vinaya, speaking the truth based on the three grounds of seeing, hearing, or suspecting is exempt. Truth is of five kinds: 1. real truth; 2. perceived truth; 3. factual truth, as in saying one killed a king when one actually killed a king; 4. the three grounds are not mutually interchanged; 5. the four grave precepts are not mutually interchanged. If one reverses these five, slandering another incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya says: "Interchanging the four grave offenses constitutes slander." The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya is also the same.