四分律行事鈔資持記 2.895

2.895

《善生》中有二，初出妄語之相。有三毀，並以若字分之。有疑無疑者，如律云：於見聞觸知中生疑，便言無疑我見聞等，於不見聞生疑亦爾；又於見聞中無疑便言有疑，云我見聞等或言不見聞等，皆墮。二見聞等即是根塵，大同前律；覺即是觸，由觸而覺故。三問不問，即指所誑，下釋中並約前人是也。異本音者，轉其言相，意令不解。若言下，次釋犯不犯相，先釋見聞。不大等者，本實曾見，而云髣髴也。破相，即破執著我見，而言無見等，如經論中破根境之例。無覆藏者，如行懺法發露悔過，云不見不聞不覺不知等；此雖相同妄語，而非誑他，故無犯也。次釋異音，初二句通標。若顛倒下，別列三相。顛倒，謂前後倒亂如世反語。大聲不了，言雖不倒，混然莫辨。所說不解者，謂胡漢異音，楚夏別語，隱竊語等；但令使彼不解，皆此所收。問：列緣據解，異音不解而云犯者？答：雖非正解，不妨聞於不正之言。又緣中言解，止取聞知；故《十誦》兩舌戒云：解已更說波逸提，《多論》釋云解應言聞，此可例證。

In the *Suśrīparipṛcchā*, there are two parts: first, revealing the marks of false speech. There are three categories of violation, all demarcated by the word "if". As for "having doubt or not having doubt": it is as the vinaya states: if one conceives a doubt regarding what was seen, heard, sensed, or known, and says, "I have no doubt; I saw it, heard it, etc.", and likewise if one conceives a doubt regarding what was not seen or heard; furthermore, if within what was seen or heard one has no doubt and yet says, "I have a doubt," saying, "I saw it, heard it, etc.", or saying, "I did not see it, hear it, etc.", all incur a pāyattika. Second, "seen, heard, etc." are the sense bases and objects, which largely accords with the preceding vinaya; "sensed" is contact, because awareness arises by means of contact. Third, "asked or not asked" refers to the person deceived; the explanations below all take the person addressed as their reference. "Different local speech" means modifying the expression of speech with the intention of making them not understand. In "if one says...", next the characteristics of violation and non-violation are explained; first, seeing and hearing are explained. "Not great, etc." means that one actually had seen it, but says it was only vague. "Refuting marks" means refuting the attached view of a self and saying that there is no seeing, etc., as in the examples in sūtras and treatises of refuting sense faculties and objects. "Without concealment" refers to revealing and repenting errors when practicing repentance methods, saying, "I did not see, hear, sense, or know, etc."; although this is similar in appearance to false speech, it is not deceiving others, and therefore there is no violation. Next, explaining "different speech": the first two lines generally mark it. Under "if reversed...", three marks are separately listed. "Reversed" means scrambled before and after, like worldly anagrammatic slang. "Loud and indistinct" means that although the words are not reversed, they are blurred and indistinguishable. "What is spoken is not understood" refers to differences in foreign and Chinese pronunciation, regional dialects of Chu and Xia, cryptic jargon, and the like; whatever is spoken merely to make the other person not understand is included here. Question: Listing the conditions relies on understanding; if different speech is not understood, why is it said to be a violation? Answer: Although it is not correct comprehension, it does not prevent one from hearing improper words. Furthermore, when the conditions mention "understanding," it merely requires hearing and knowing; thus the *Daśādhyāya-vinaya*'s precept on malicious speech says, "having understood, to repeat it again is a pāyattika," and the *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā* explains that "understood" should be stated as "heard"; this may serve as an analogical proof.