四分比丘戒本疏 1.42

1.42

Eighth: the precept on slandering a monk with a groundless grave offence. The text has eight phrases: First, it allows for the offender. Second, 'because of being overcome by hatred and resentment': this refers to groundlessly giving rise to enmity and hatred toward someone who has no fault. Third, 'a monk who is not a pārājika': this is the object of slander. Because the text here is brief, it merely shows that he has not committed a pārājika offence; but according to the Vinaya, even if he had actually committed it, as long as the slanderer lacks the three grounds with regard to him, he is also called 'not a pārājika'. Thus the Vinaya text states: 'If that person is not pure, but one has neither seen, heard, nor suspected that he committed a pārājika, and one then says, "I saw, heard, or suspected that he committed a pārājika," slandering him with a groundless charge, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa.' Fully expanded, there are six clauses as stated in the Vinaya, which cannot be recounted in detail. Furthermore, if the other person is not one with the thirteen obstacles and one slanders him as being so, one also commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Slandering a nun with the eight pārājikas and the thirteen obstacles also incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa, all as explained in the Vinaya. Fourth, 'groundless': the bases upon which a charge of an offence is raised are briefly threefold, namely seeing, hearing, and suspecting; now, lacking these three bases, it is termed 'groundless'. If one sees with one's own eyes the commission of sexual intercourse, theft, and so forth, it is called the ground of seeing. If another person saw it and came to speak to me, that is also a ground of seeing. If one personally heard the matter of sexual intercourse, theft, and so forth being committed, or another person heard it, both are called the ground of hearing. The ground of suspicion has two aspects: First, personally seeing traces and giving rise to suspicion, namely seeing a monk entering or exiting a forest with a woman and suspecting the commission of sexual misconduct; theft and so forth are understood accordingly. Second, personally hearing sounds and giving rise to suspicion, namely hearing the sound of a bed moving with a woman, and so on; theft and so forth are likewise. These two kinds together are called the ground of suspicion. If another person has a suspicion and comes to speak to me, it is also reckoned as a ground of suspicion. These three grounds are precisely what qualify one to raise an offence. Apart from these three grounds, if within one's mind one suddenly and erratically conjures notions of seeing, hearing, or suspecting, or three erratic suspicions, and speaks according to one's whim—though it is not an offence of slander, it is not a proper raising of an offence, because the person has no fault and there is no witness. Fifth, 'slanders with a pārājika dharma': this excludes other lighter slanders, which do not breach this precept. Sixth, 'wishing to ruin his pure conduct': this explains the intention initiating the action. Seventh, from 'if at a later time' onward: this is his voluntary confession and submission. Dabba's purity was presently verifiable; he either yielded under questioning or confessed without questioning. He voluntarily submits and confesses, saying: 'I knew that this matter was truly groundless, but out of hatred I spoke these words.' Eighth, from 'if a monk' onward: the conclusion of the offence, as in the text.