菩薩戒義疏 2.7

2.7

第四，妄語戒。妄是不實之名，欺凡罔聖迴惑人心，所以得罪。此戒七眾同犯，大小乘俱制，與聲聞同異大略同前殺戒。序事三段不應中三別：初三句明妄語等事，次四句明成業，後三句舉輕況重。自妄語者，言得上法。教他者，教說或教他自說。方便妄說，如蜜塗樹眾蜂悉來。此戒備五緣成重：一、是眾生，二、眾生想，三、欺誑心，四、說重具，五、前人頌解。一、是眾生者，謂前三品境，上品境中自父母、師僧妄語犯重。向諸佛聖人兩解：一云入重因；二云此人不惑，又能神力遮餘人令不聞，但犯輕垢。聖人有大小，有他心智者、有不得者，今從多例。羅漢及解行已上向說罪輕，降此或得他心或不得者，例悉同重。向中品境，天、人等同重，正是惑解防道之限。向下品境，四趣等或言同重，今釋輕垢。二、眾生想，有當、有疑、有僻，大略同前。有言妄語心通本向此說，此不聞而彼聞說亦同重，今釋不重，於彼無心故。三、欺誑心是業主，若避難及增上慢皆不犯。《地持》云：菩薩味禪，石染污犯。當知菩薩起增上慢亦輕垢。遣使有兩解：一云教他說我是聖人亦重，以士無珪璧談者為價，傍人讚說勝自道。教他道是聖，名利不入我，非重也。二云聖法冥密證之在我，必須自說方重，他說坐輕。四、說重具，謂身證眼見，若說得四果十地八禪神通，若言見天龍鬼神悉是重具，若說得登性地，一云既是凡法罪輕垢。五、前人領解，結罪時節多少兩解：一云隨人，二云隨語結。此戒既制口業，理應隨語，遠為妨損必應通人，小妄語戒應隨人，人復隨語，若增上煩惱犯，則失戒者復說但犯性罪，若對面不解且結方便，後追思前言忽解者，則壞輕結重。十重皆有因緣，今且釋四重，餘可例知。直出為言，宣述為語。論述有所表明，能詮理事，名為語也。

The fourth is the precept against false speech. 'False' is the designation for what is not real; deceiving ordinary people, deceiving holy beings, and leading astray the minds of people—for these reasons an offense is incurred. The seven assemblies are equally capable of violating this precept; both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna proscribe it, and its similarities and differences with the śrāvakas are broadly the same as the precept against killing above. In the three sections presenting the matter, what is improper has three distinct parts: the first three phrases clarify the acts of false speech and the like; the next four phrases clarify the constitution of karma; the last three phrases use the minor to illustrate the major. 'False speech oneself' means claiming to have attained superior dharmas. 'Instructing another' means instructing them to speak, or instructing another to speak of oneself. 'Expedient false claims' are like smearing a tree with honey so that all the bees arrive. This precept constitutes a major offense when five conditions are fully present: first, it is a sentient being; second, the notion of a sentient being; third, a deceptive mind; fourth, speaking of major attributes; fifth, the other person understands. Regarding the first, that it is a sentient being, this refers to the previous three grades of objects. Within the superior grade of objects, lying to one's parents, masters, or monks constitutes a major offense. Toward buddhas and holy beings, there are two interpretations: one says it enters the cause of a major offense; the other says these persons cannot be deluded, and moreover can use supernormal powers to prevent others from hearing it, so it incurs only a minor defilement infraction. Holy beings include great and small, those possessing knowledge of others' minds and those who do not; here we follow the predominant case. Speaking [falsely] toward an arhat or someone of the stage of resolving and practice and above is an offense of lesser gravity; below this, whether they possess knowledge of others' minds or not, all alike constitute a major offense. Toward the intermediate grade of objects—gods, humans, and the like—all alike constitute a major offense, precisely because they fall within the bounds of being deluded, understanding, and obstructing the path. Toward the inferior grade of objects—the four destinies and the like—some say it likewise constitutes a major offense, but our present interpretation is that it is a minor defilement infraction. Second, the notion of a sentient being includes correct, doubtful, and mistaken notions, broadly the same as before. Some say that if the intention to speak falsely originally aims toward this person, yet this person does not hear it while that person hears the speech, it likewise constitutes a major offense; our present interpretation is that it is not major, because one had no intention toward that other person. Third, a deceptive mind is the master of the karma; if done to avert danger or out of excessive pride, it does not constitute an offense in either case. The Bodhisattvabhūmi states: 'If a bodhisattva relishes absorption, that is an offense of stone-like defilement.' One should know that when a bodhisattva gives rise to excessive pride, it is also a minor defilement infraction. Dispatching an emissary has two interpretations: one says instructing another to say that oneself is a holy being is also major, because 'when a gentleman lacks a jade badge, a speaker sets his value'—having an onlooker praise and speak of one surpasses stating it oneself. Instructing another to say he is a holy person does not direct fame and gain to oneself, so it is not major. The second interpretation says that holy dharmas are profound and secret, their verification rests in oneself, and only when spoken by oneself does it constitute a major offense, whereas sitting by while another speaks is of lesser gravity. Fourth, speaking of major attributes refers to personal realization and direct seeing: if one claims to have attained the four fruits, the ten grounds, the eight absorptions, or supernormal powers, or if one claims to have seen devas, dragons, ghosts, or spirits, all are major attributes. If one claims to have ascended to the ground of nature, one view says that since it is an ordinary dharma, the offense is a minor defilement infraction. Fifth, the other person understands. Regarding the timing and quantity of determining the offense, there are two interpretations: one says it is determined according to the persons; the other says it is determined according to the utterances. Since this precept proscribes vocal karma, it should properly be according to the utterances; yet since it causes hindrance and harm from afar, it must necessarily extend to the persons. The precept against minor false speech should be according to the persons, and the persons in turn according to the utterances. If one commits an infraction out of overwhelming defilement, having thus lost the precepts, then to speak again incurs only an inherent offense. If the other party does not understand face-to-face, it is provisionally determined as an expedient; if they later recall the previous words and suddenly understand, then the minor is overturned and determined as major. All ten major precepts have their conditions; here we provisionally explain four major precepts, and the remainder may be known by analogy. Uttering directly is 'speech' (yan); expounding and recounting is 'discourse' (yu). When a discourse has something to express and can interpret principles and phenomena, it is called 'discourse'.