四分律行事鈔資持記 2.550

2.550

列緣中。第二緣。準疏古解有二。初約體淨，彼據戒本非波羅夷為證。次師約想淨，即如鈔引；文中，初出彼所立；故下，準疏是今師引破；彼云：無餘是重，作是曾犯。是則明知有犯，亦成謗罪，豈須想淨耶！今師但據自無三根，不論彼境淨穢；循古引示，而非所取，故別立第二。八前人知者，但取所對，不必所謗。

Under "Enumerating conditions," the second condition. According to the commentary, the ancient explanations are twofold. The first concerns purity of the substance; it takes the Prātimokṣa's "not a pārājika" as proof. The second master concerns purity of conception, as cited in the manual; in the text, it first sets forth what that master established; from "Therefore..." downward, according to the commentary, is our master citing it to refute it; he says: "If there is no remainder, it is grave; acting thus, he had previously committed it." If so, then clearly knowing that there was an offense also constitutes the offense of slander; how could it require purity of conception! Our master merely relies on one's own lacking the three grounds, without discussing whether that objective support is pure or defiled; he follows the ancients in citing it for illustration, but it is not what is accepted, hence he separately establishes the second. Eighth, "the person before one understands" takes only the one addressed, not necessarily the one slandered.