[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四分比丘戒本疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807) › 1.43 # 四分比丘戒本疏 1.43 四分比丘戒本疏 1.43 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1.43) 第九、假重罪根謗比丘戒。文有九句。一容犯人。二、「以嗔恚故」。三、「於異分事中取片」者，《善見》第十三云「餘分」者，沓婆是人，羊是非人，以羊當沓婆處，是名餘分。以母羊當慈尼，亦名餘分。何以故？以事相似故。是故律本中說取片。《述》曰「於異分中取片，計相似也。」如律中說：慈地比丘從耆闍崛山下，見大羝羊與母羊行婬，即相謂言：此羝羊即是沓婆摩羅子，母羊即是慈比丘尼。便向僧說：「我親眼見沓婆摩羅子共慈比丘尼行婬。」慈地比丘意與羝羊立名沓婆，向僧說時非是無根，但希僧信濫罰沓婆，故曰假根。羊上見根雖似舉罪，舉罪實於沓婆上無根，故成謗也。戒文中略。若准律中，假下篇罪、假餘犯人、假在家時、假自語響，並名假根。若實見犯而言聞者，望聞是無即是無根，非是假根。四、「非波羅夷比丘」，實非十三難，亦在其限。五、「以無根」，羊雖有根，沓婆無故。六、「波羅夷法謗」，七、發業心，八、自伏首，九、結罪。 > Ninth: the precept on slandering a monk by fabricating the ground of a grave offence. The text has nine phrases: First, it allows for the offender. Second, 'out of hatred'. Third, 'taking a fragment from a different case': The thirteenth chapter of the Samantapāsādikā states that 'different case' means: Dabba is a human being, while a sheep is non-human; taking the sheep in place of Dabba is called a 'different case'. Taking a female goat in place of the nun Mettiyā is also called a 'different case'. Why is this? Because the matters were similar. Therefore, the Prātimokṣa text speaks of 'taking a fragment'. The Commentary states: '"Taking a fragment from a different case" means calculating a similarity.' As related in the Vinaya: the monk Meṭṭiya came down from Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain and saw a large he-goat copulating with a she-goat. He then said to \[his companion\]: 'This he-goat is Dabba Mallaputta, and the she-goat is the nun Mettiyā.' He then said to the Saṃgha: 'I saw with my own eyes Dabba Mallaputta copulating with the nun Mettiyā.' The monk Meṭṭiya intended to assign the name Dabba to the he-goat; when he spoke to the Saṃgha, it was not completely groundless, but wishing the Saṃgha would believe it and wrongly punish Dabba, it is called 'fabricating a ground'. Although the ground of seeing on the sheep seemed like raising an offence, raising the offence was truly groundless regarding Dabba; therefore, it constitutes slander. The precept text is abridged. According to the Vinaya, fabricating an offence from a lower category, fabricating another offender, fabricating a time when one was a householder, and fabricating an echo of one's own speech are all called 'fabricating a ground'. If one actually saw the commission but claimed to have heard it, with respect to hearing it is non-existent, hence it is 'groundless' and not 'fabricating a ground'. Fourth, 'a monk who is not a pārājika': one who truly lacks the thirteen obstacles is also within this scope. Fifth, 'groundless': although there was a ground with the sheep, there was none with Dabba. Sixth, 'slanders with a pārājika dharma'. Seventh, the intention initiating the action. Eighth, voluntary submission and confession. Ninth, conclusion of the offence. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1.42) - [Next: 1.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1.44) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807~en-mt.1.43) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1.43) · Pramāṇa