四分律行事鈔資持記 2.549

2.549

次科。以古師互判，故問以決之。答中，初據文答。無別提者，以謗即是妄，無二業故。今下，約義釋。元意兩期，意是業本，故兼二犯。如下，舉例有二。初例，若約各論，殺父、羅漢，並結一夷，更兼一逆；若父證羅漢，則一夷二逆；望父違恩養，望羅漢損福田故。次例，即《多論》，將口三過互織辨犯，如小妄中委引，彼云：傳他此語向彼說，以不實故是妄語，作分離心故名兩舌。此並一境兩犯，足為前例。餘下，指廣。彼問云：元謗望僧治，何因言了，結？答：能謗意在治，治擯唯僧力；遂瞋暢思決，言了便成犯。

The next section. Because ancient masters differed in their determinations, a question is posed to resolve it. In the reply, first it answers based on the text. There is no separate pāyattika because slander is itself falsehood, without two distinct karmas. From "Now..." downward explains according to the doctrine. The original intention had two expectations, and the intention is the root of karma, hence it combines both offenses. From "As in..." downward gives two examples. The first example: if discussed separately, killing one's father and killing an arhat each constitute a pārājika, and additionally constitute an ānantarya; if the father has attained arhatship, then there is one pārājika and two ānantaryas; because toward the father it violates filial kindness, and toward the arhat it impairs a field of merit. The next example is from the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā, which intertwines the three vocal faults to discern the offenses, as cited in detail under minor false speech; it says: "Relaying these words of another and speaking them to that person, because it is untrue, is false speech; having the intention to cause division, it is called malicious speech." These are both two offenses on a single objective support, sufficient as a preceding example. From "The rest..." downward points to the wider explanation. That [treatise] asks: "The original slander aimed at the saṃgha punishing him; why is it concluded when the speech is completed?" Answer: "The intention of the slanderer was punishment, and punishing and expelling relies solely on the power of the saṃgha; venting his anger, his thought was resolved, and when the speech was completed, it immediately constituted an offense."