四分律行事鈔資持記 2.911

2.911

犯相中，先引本律釋名，次引《僧祇》示犯。云惡法者即同罵戒，彼有七事。上三事有下中上，初種姓有三（下謂旃陀羅等，中即兵吏等，上即剎帝利等。），二業行三者（下即屠兒等，中即賣香肆上人，上即金銀肆上人等。），三相貌三者（下即瞎鋸齒，中謂太白太黑，上謂三十二相。）。後四則無三品，皆名為下；四病者（疥廯顛狂等），五罪者（夷至吉羅），六罵者（作世間淫穢醜惡語，《四分》無此。），七結使者（愚癡暗鈍等）。某甲說汝是句絕，即指上七種，傳告彼人也。若前三種有下中上，一切皆墮；後四無有下中上，亦一切墮；今引後四結文，通收七種；無論品類，欲離皆犯，故云無有等。離不離墮者，離取起心，不論前境。後引《多論》彰異，上句明重結。如一說未離，再三說故。下明緣闕。此戒所犯，必兼二處；今但自搆，故入輕中。準此，若但傳言，不欲離散，理亦非重。一切吉者，彼論但云突吉羅，而前列多相，並是輕罪；故加一切，統而收之。彼云說汝是多食戲笑欺誑多詐等，傳向比丘者，聞則吉羅，不聞亦吉。

Under marks of violation, the root Vinaya is first cited to explain the name, and next the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya is cited to indicate the violation. It says "evil things," which is the same as the precept against reviling, where there are seven matters. The first three matters each have low, middling, and high [grades]: First, lineage has three (the low refers to caṇḍālas, etc.; the middling refers to soldiers, officials, etc.; the high refers to kṣatriyas, etc.). Second, occupational activities have three (the low refers to butchers, etc.; the middling refers to merchants at incense shops; the high refers to merchants at gold and silver shops, etc.). Third, physical appearance has three (the low refers to blindness, saw-like teeth; the middling refers to being too pale or too dark; the high refers to the thirty-two marks). The latter four do not have three grades, but are all termed low: Fourth, illness (scabies, madness, etc.); fifth, offenses (from pārājika to duṣkṛta); sixth, abuse (speaking mundane, impure, and foul words; this is absent from the Dharmaguptaka); seventh, fetters (delusion, dull-wittedness, etc.). "So-and-so said you are [such-and-such]" marks the end of the sentence, referring to the above seven types being conveyed and told to that person. Whereas the first three types have low, middling, and high [grades], all incur a pāyattika; the latter four have no low, middling, or high [grades], and also all incur a pāyattika. Now, citing the concluding text of the latter four, it covers all seven types: regardless of grade or category, if one desires to divide, all incur a violation; hence it says "no [grades]," etc. As for whether dividing or not dividing incurs a pāyattika: dividing takes the arising of the mind as decisive, regardless of the target party. Later, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā is cited to display differences: the upper sentence clarifies compounding the offense, as when after one statement they have not divided, one speaks a second or third time. Below, it clarifies deficiency of conditions. The violation of this precept necessarily involves both parties; here, since one only instigates on one's own, it enters into the lighter class. By this standard, if one merely conveys words without the desire to alienate, it is reasonably not grave. "All [incur] a duṣkṛta": that treatise merely says duṣkṛta, but the many marks listed above are all light offenses; hence "all" is added to encompass them comprehensively. Where it says, "Saying, 'You are a glutton, given to joking, deceitful, full of tricks,' etc., and conveying this to a bhikṣu": if he hears it, it is a duṣkṛta; if he does not hear it, it is also a duṣkṛta.