四分律行事鈔資持記 2.904

2.904

罵相中，本律分二；初明惡法又二，先出語相。種類者，六品是種，隨一品下多相為類。一卑姓家生者，即旃陀羅、除糞種、竹師種、車師種等。二行業者，即屠獵漁捕作賊守城等。三伎術卑者，鍛（丁貫反）作，木作，瓦陶（音[宋-木+(徭-彳)]）作，皮革作等。四犯過者，作七聚罪也。注中。若據餘五，依實亦同。恐謂實犯，呵毀無過，故特注之。問：不實成謗，為犯何戒？答：前謗戒中，引《僧祇》云對所謗人前罵謗語語僧殘，不言罵罪。今此注云依實亦犯，反知虛亦成罵。今準前文謗妄離合，若元誣謗，意兼毀辱，理應合結；若單為謗，如上《僧祇》；若專為罵，但犯此戒。又七聚中，謗分三犯，罵局一提，如是知之。五多結使者，從瞋恚乃至五百結。（依律引之，未詳配數。）六若盲下，且列三病，律中更列跛聾瘂及餘眾患等。疏云：前三明其外相，就姓業為言；後三明其內報，約身心為語。次有三下，正行罵業。即用上六，分為三位；初是直說，二即比他，三謂比己。文中皆略舉卑姓，第三更兼行業病患，餘以等字攝之。乃至二字，但略卑姓中多種，非越次也。二善法中。三皆例上，且出面罵。文略乞食衲衣，故云乃至。並謂假其善事，意在毀辱；但望前惡語，情過輕微，故罪分差降耳。

Under the characteristics of reviling, our own vinaya divides it into two; first, explaining evil qualities, which also has two: first, setting out the characteristics of speech. "Species and classes": the six categories are the species; under any single category, the many characteristics are the classes. First, "born in a lowly clan" refers to caṇḍālas, waste-cleaners, reed-workers, cartwrights, and the like. Second, "occupations" refers to butchers, hunters, fishers, thieves, city guards, and the like. Third, "lowly crafts" refers to blacksmithing, woodworking, pottery, leatherworking, and the like. Fourth, "transgressing offenses" refers to committing offenses of the seven classes. In the note: if based on the remaining five, conforming with reality is also the same. Fearing that one might think there is no fault in scolding and disparaging when someone has actually transgressed, it is specially noted. Question: If it is not true, it becomes slander; what precept does it violate? Answer: Above, under the slander precept, citing the *Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya*, it states that to speak reviling and slanderous words before the person slandered is a saṃghāvaśeṣa, without mentioning a reviling offense. Now this note says that conforming with reality also constitutes a violation, from which it is known conversely that what is false also constitutes reviling. Now, based on the previous text's separation and combination of slander and false speech: if it was originally false slander and the intention also included insult, in principle they should be joined in judgment; if it was solely for the sake of slander, it is as in the *Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya* above; if it was exclusively to revile, it only violates this precept. Furthermore, within the seven classes, slander is divided into three violations, whereas reviling is restricted to a single pāyattika; it should be known in this way. Fifth, "having many fetters" extends from anger to the five hundred fetters. (Citing according to the vinaya, the distribution of numbers is not clear.) Sixth, under "if blind...", it briefly lists three illnesses; the vinaya further lists lameness, deafness, muteness, and various other afflictions. The commentary says: the first three explain external marks, spoken in terms of clan and occupation; the latter three explain internal retribution, spoken regarding body and mind. Next, under "there are three...", it directly addresses the action of reviling. Namely, using the above six, it divides them into three positions: the first is direct statement, the second is comparing to another, and the third is comparing to oneself. In the text, lowly clans are briefly adduced throughout; the third further combines occupation and illness, and the rest are subsumed with the word "etc.". The words "and so forth" merely abbreviate the many species within the lowly clans, not skipping over the order. Second, under good qualities: all three are analogous to the above, briefly presenting face-to-face reviling. The text omits begging for food and rag-robes, hence saying "and so forth". All of these mean borrowing good matters with the intention to insult; however, looking at them in comparison to the previous evil words, the emotional fault is lighter, and therefore the offense is graded lower.