四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.178

2.178

九十中小妄語戒一。此戒人多喜犯者，良由妄業熏積，識種尤多；故隨塵境，動便虛構；不思反流之始，但願畢世之終。以此安生為要，當死定非排業，良可悲夫！加以犯無定境，起必依心；但使違內想心，不論外緣虛實，一切皆墮。六緣：一是人，不簡道俗；二作人想；三違想說；四知違想說；五言了；六聞解。《多論》：妄語、兩舌、惡口，相歷作四句。一是妄語，非兩舌惡口。傳他此語向彼說，以不實故是妄語；不以分離心，故非兩舌；耎語說故非惡口。餘句類上，有無可知。《成論》云：餘口三業，或合或離；綺語一種，必不相離。《善生》經：有人於十業道，一時作二三四乃至八事，不得作十，以貪瞋不得一時故。其餘八事，六處遣使，自為二事：一淫他妻，二謂無業道。《四分》、《五分》：因法師比丘常好論義，以是為非，以非為是。餘人問故，答云：我實知非，恥墮負處。僧中妄語，罪重百羅漢前。《多》云：不妄語法者，若說法、義論、傳語、一切是非，莫自稱為是；常令推寄有本，則無過也；不爾，斧在口中。律云：見聞觸知違想說，乃至所見異、所忍異、所想異，皆是妄語。又有三時，前後知是妄語，吉羅；正口言妄者墮。若僧說戒時三問，憶念罪而不說，吉羅。《善生》：若有疑心、無疑心，若見聞覺知，若問不問；異本音者，是名妄語。若言不大見聞亦犯。若破相說、無覆藏說，非犯。若異音說，前人不解。若顛倒語，若發大聲不了語，若有所說前人不解，並犯。《僧祇》：屠兒等逐畜生走，問言見不？不得妄語，不得示處，應令看指甲等（應方便引接，令畜生遠去）。《十誦》：若語高姓人，云是下姓人者，犯墮。若語兩眼人，云汝一眼，得妄語，提；又輕惱比丘故提。若語一眼人，云汝是瞎眼人，得輕惱他，墮。《四分》不犯中，但稱想說故不犯。文如注戒本中。

Among the ninety [pāyattikas], Precept 1: Deliberate lying. That many people are prone to committing this precept is truly because the karmic habit of falsehood has accumulated, and the seeds of consciousness are especially abundant; therefore, following sensory objects, they fabricate falsehoods at every turn. They do not reflect on the beginning of turning back the flow, but only wish to reach the end of their lives. Taking this as essential for securing life, yet at death it certainly cannot ward off karma—how truly lamentable! Moreover, the offense has no fixed object, but necessarily arises dependent on the mind; as long as one speaks contrary to one's internal conception, regardless of whether the external circumstances are real or unreal, all constitute pāyattika. Six conditions: (1) it is a human being, making no distinction between monastic or lay; (2) one conceives them to be human; (3) one speaks contrary to one's conception; (4) one knows that one is speaking contrary to one's conception; (5) the words are articulate; (6) the hearer understands. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā sets out four permutations across lying, divisive speech, and harsh speech: (1) It is a lie, but not divisive speech or harsh speech: conveying words from another person to this person, which is a lie because it is untrue; because it lacks an intention to cause division, it is not divisive speech; and because it is spoken with gentle words, it is not harsh speech. The remaining permutations are analogous to this, and their presence or absence can be known accordingly. The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra states: 'The other three verbal karmas may be joined or separated, but frivolous talk is never separated [from them].' The Sujāta Sūtra states: 'A person may commit two, three, four, up to eight deeds among the ten courses of karma at the same time, but cannot commit all ten, because greed and hatred cannot occur simultaneously. For the remaining eight deeds, one dispatches agents for six, and does two oneself: first, committing adultery with another's wife; second, asserting that there is no course of karma.' The Dharmaguptaka and Pañcavargika Vinayas state: 'Because a Dharma-master monk was constantly fond of debating doctrines, taking what was right as wrong and what was wrong as right. When asked by others, he replied, 'I actually knew it was wrong, but was ashamed to fall into defeat.' Lying in the midst of the saṃgha is a heavier offense than doing so before a hundred arhats.' The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: 'As for the method of not lying: when preaching the Dharma, debating doctrines, conveying messages, or dealing with any right and wrong, do not assert yourself to be correct; always attribute and trace it to an authoritative source, and then there will be no fault; otherwise, an axe is in your mouth.' The Vinaya states: 'Speaking contrary to one's conception of what is seen, heard, sensed, or known, up to what is seen being different, what is accepted being different, or what is conceived being different—all these are lies.' Furthermore, there are three times: knowing beforehand and afterwards that it is a lie constitutes a duṣkṛta; speaking the lie directly with the mouth constitutes a pāyattika. If during the saṃgha's upoṣadha recitation, when questioned three times, one remembers an offense and does not speak, it is a duṣkṛta. The Sujāta [Sūtra states]: 'Whether having doubt or having no doubt, whether having seen, heard, sensed, or known, whether questioned or unquestioned, if it differs from the original fact, this is called a lie. Saying that one has not seen or heard much is also an offense. Speaking to break characteristics or speaking without concealment is not an offense. If spoken in a different dialect and the other person does not understand; if speaking incoherently; if uttering loud, unintelligible words; or if what is said is not understood by the other person—all these are offenses.' The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: 'When butchers and the like are chasing an animal and ask, 'Did you see it?' one must not lie, nor point out the place, but should have them look at one's fingernails and the like (one should use skillful means to guide them so the animal gets far away).' The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: 'If one tells a person of high caste that they are of low caste, one incurs a pāyattika. If one tells a person with two eyes, 'You have one eye,' one incurs a pāyattika for lying, and another pāyattika for slighting and vexing a monk. If one tells a one-eyed person, 'You are a blind person,' one incurs a pāyattika for slighting another.' Among non-offenses in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, speaking in accord with one's conception entails no offense. The text is as explained in the notes to the Prātimokṣa.