菩薩戒義疏 2.9

2.9

The sixth is the precept against speaking of the faults of the four assemblies. 'Speaking' is the designation for discussing and talking; the 'assemblies' mean those of the shared Dharma; the 'faults of the four assemblies' are the seven heinous offenses and the ten major offenses. This incurs an offense primarily because it suppresses the other person and harms the true Dharma. The seven assemblies are equally capable of violating this precept; both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna proscribe it. A mahāsattva's mind is to conceal evil and make known the good, hence the offense is major. In the śrāvaka Dharma, the superior offense falls under the second division, the intermediate under the third division, and the inferior under the seventh category; such is the śrāvaka Dharma, which differs from that of the bodhisattva. The textual phrases are the same as before. This precept constitutes a major offense when six conditions are fully present: first, it is a sentient being; second, the notion of a sentient being; third, the intention to speak of offenses; fourth, the offenses spoken of; fifth, the person to whom they are spoken; sixth, the other person understands. Regarding the first, that it is a sentient being: among the superior and intermediate objects, only those who possess the bodhisattva precepts constitute a major offense, because one obstructs their superior karma. If they lack the bodhisattva precepts and possess only the śrāvaka precepts, or for inferior objects whether they have precepts or not, it all incurs a minor defilement infraction. This precept concurrently proscribes it because it obstructs the conditions for karma. When the text says 'lay bodhisattvas', it refers to laymen and laywomen of pure faith; 'monastic bodhisattvas' refers to those with the ten precepts or the complete precepts. It also says 'bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs': one interpretation says this still refers to monastic bodhisattvas who have the complete precepts; another says it refers to śrāvaka monks and nuns. If one speaks of this person's major offenses, it likewise constitutes a major offense. Because these are beings of superior practice, it likewise damages the profound Dharma. Second, the notion of a sentient being includes correct, doubtful, and mistaken notions, the general meaning being the same as before. Third, regarding speaking of faults, there are two intentions: first, an intention to ruin them, wishing to cause the other person to lose fame, gain, and the like; second, an intention to punish, wishing to cause the other person to be bound, restrained, and the like. Both of these intentions are masters of the karma and necessarily violate this precept. If one speaks with an intention to encourage and admonish, or speaks when assigned to do so, no offense is incurred in either case. Fourth, the faults spoken of refer to the seven heinous offenses and the ten major offenses. Naming the offender's personal name is what is directly proscribed in this precept. If it is with an intention to punish, it is proscribed in the forty-eighth precept against destroying the Dharma. If one speaks of shedding the Buddha's blood or causing a schism in the Saṃgha, according to the original proscriptions of the Vinaya texts, speaking of it to the Saṃgha slanders the Saṃgha; knowing that matters such as shedding blood are rare, it is of lesser gravity; here it directly proscribes speaking to those without precepts, which should incur a major offense. If one speaks of a major offense using a major designation, that is correct in fact; if one speaks using a minor designation, in discourse this loses its correctness. Yet here, if the mind regards it as major and the matter is major, both alike constitute a major offense; this is an error in designation. As for an error in fact: if it is actually minor but thought to be major, one incurs a major offense; if it is actually major but thought to be minor, the offense is of lesser gravity, because of what one's mind considers minor or major. If one writes a letter or dispatches an emissary: one interpretation says it is equally major; the second says the offense is of lesser gravity. However, when someone commits the seven heinous offenses or the ten major offenses, that person loses the precepts; speaking of it after they have lost the precepts incurs only a minor defilement infraction. Fifth, the person to whom it is spoken refers to those within the superior and intermediate objects who lack the bodhisattva precepts; speaking to them incurs a major offense, because the damage to the Dharma is profound. Speaking to inferior objects is of lesser gravity in all cases, as the vilification is not excessive. The text says: 'If a bodhisattva hears non-Buddhists or followers of the two vehicles speak of faults in the Buddha-Dharma, they should teach and transform them with compassion; yet if, on the contrary, they speak of them themselves'—this means speaking to such persons, which inflicts the greatest damage and disgrace. Sixth, when the other person believes and understands what one has spoken, the vocal karma is accomplished, and the determination of the offense is based on this moment. As to the quantity of determined offenses: one interpretation says it is according to the persons; the other says it is according to the vocal karma.