四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.110

2.110

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.