菩薩戒義疏 2.13

2.13

Tenth is the precept against slandering the Three Jewels, also called slandering the bodhisattva Dharma, or called the precept against wrong views and wrong speech. "Slander" is a name for running counter; whenever an understanding does not conform to principle, words are unexamined and untrue, or one expounds with aberrant interpretations, these are all termed "slander." Because it runs counter to one's own lineage, one incurs an offense. Members of the seven assemblies equally commit it, and it is prohibited in both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna. The mahāsattva takes transforming others as their responsibility; causing wrong speech to cut off the correct [Dharma] constitutes a major offense. For the śrāvaka it is different: refusing to cease after three admonitions violates the third category (pāyattika). The words of the text are the same as before. This precept is complete with five conditions to constitute a major offense: first, that it is a sentient being; second, the notion of a sentient being; third, the intention to speak; fourth, the actual uttering; fifth, the other person understands. First, that it is a sentient being: this refers to objects of the upper and middle grades; whether bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, or non-Buddhists, speaking to them constitutes a major offense. Second, the notion of a sentient being: there are accurate, doubtful, and mistaken [notions], as above. Third, the intention to speak means stirring the mind to form the intention of wishing to speak to them. Fourth, actual speaking means voicing words toward the other, whether speaking to the other oneself or having another convey the speech; all are major. Fifth, the other person understands: receiving the wrong words; with each utterance a major [offense] is incurred. If one composes a treatise of wrong speech with the intention of making people understand, as they read it through and give rise to understanding, with each utterance it is major. When wrong views are deduced and schematized, the threads are manifold, but in brief there are four kinds: first, superior wrong views; second, intermediate; third, inferior; fourth, mixed. Superior wrong views mean denying everything, asserting there is neither cause nor effect, like an icchantika. Intermediate wrong views do not say there is no cause and effect whatsoever, but merely claim that the Three Jewels are inferior to non-Buddhists. This has two aspects: first, difference in doctrinal characteristics, meaning that the Three Jewels are inferior; this is a debased mind, and when the notion is completed, the precepts are lost. Second, non-doctrinal characteristics: knowing that the Three Jewels are superior yet verbally asserting they are inferior; since one has not overturned one's refuge, the precept-goodness is not lost, but one incurs a major offense with each word uttered, which is also prohibited by this precept. Inferior wrong views do not say that the Three Jewels are inferior to non-Buddhists, but merely reject the Great [Vehicle] and adopt the Lesser within [Buddhism], thinking in one's mind that the two vehicles are superior and the Mahāyāna is inferior. If the notion is not yet completed, it incurs a minor defilement infraction; below there is explicitly [the precept against] turning one's back on the Great and facing the Lesser, which is explained at length under that precept. Mixed wrong views are of four kinds: first, one-sided clinging; second, mixed faith; third, fixing thoughts on the Hīnayāna; fourth, aberrant misconceptions of meaning. One-sided clinging has two forms: first, clinging to the Great and slandering the Lesser; second, one-sidedly slandering a single text. Clinging to the Great and slandering the Lesser means conceiving that there is only the Mahāyāna and no Hīnayāna whatsoever, and that it is not spoken by the Buddha; this slanders the Śrāvakapiṭaka and incurs a minor [offense]. One-sidedly slandering a single text means singling out one text among the vaipulya [sūtras] and saying it was not spoken by the Buddha; if the notion is completed, it incurs a minor defilement infraction; since it does not completely contradict the scriptural teachings, it incurs a minor defilement infraction and one does not lose the precepts. Second, mixed faith means that in one's mind one does not turn away from cause and effect, the Three Jewels, or the Mahāyāna, but merely asserts that non-Buddhist ghosts and spirits have authoritative power, consequently presenting memorials to appease spirits, or encouraging others to do so; all incur a minor defilement infraction. Third, fixed faith in the Hīnayāna: knowing that the Mahāyāna is lofty and superior, but temporarily wishing to sever afflictions and attain the lesser fruition, intending to cultivate the Great later; this is called retrogressive thought; if the notion is completed, it incurs a minor defilement infraction. Fourth, aberrant misconceptions of meaning: such as the shallow understandings of people nowadays expounded by three or five schools. This should not be an offense, as it is a case where my intellectual capacity falls short, not an intentional, forced denial. Furthermore, there are those who explain flippantly while knowing the meaning to be slight, and those who willfully establish differences while knowing others to be correct; these all belong to the category of aberrant deductions, and what is committed is a minor defilement infraction.