梵網經菩薩戒本疏 4.34

4.34

第十、釋文者，四義同前：一、舉過；二、正制；三、違犯；四、結罪。初中先能謗人，謂自他也。因、緣、法、業，是所用謗法。四釋同前，類彼釋此可知。二、「而菩薩」下，明正制。於中先法後喻。前中具二種人：一、外道，謂邪見故；二、惡人，謂內外俱無信故。「一言謗」者，明所聞少也；「三百鉾刺心」者，明痛切多也。問：《華嚴經》云：「菩薩聞讚佛毀佛，於佛法中心定不動。」云何此中乃云如鉾刺心？答：四類眾生：一、聞毀佛生喜，以邪見故；二、無喜無憂，以佛法外人故；三、聞已生痛，以是初心弟子故；四、聞已無憂無喜，以是不退菩薩故。知佛功德不可毀故，毀所不到故。彼經據不退位，此文約初心，故不同也。若是初心強同後位而不復痛者，是愚惡人順本惡見忍受此事，故不可也。問：諸法皆空，何須強痛？答：真空不壞緣起業果，是故尊卑宛然。若壞此為空，是惡取空外道見也。如《涅槃經》五百婆羅門謗云：一切皆空，何處更有佛菩提等？由此謗故，王殺彼類，得福無罪。汝今豈欲同彼類耶？三、「況口自」下，明違犯。於中舉輕況重，謂聞一言尚生此痛，舉輕也；況自謗為，況重也。不信不孝，是謗因也。四、「而反更」下，正成違犯。謂助前二種人以成謗事。下結示罪名。上來十重竟。

Tenth, explanation of the text: the four meanings are as before: 1. citing the fault; 2. direct prohibition; 3. transgression; 4. adjudication of the offense. In the first, it first refers to the agent who slanders, namely oneself or another. Cause, condition, method, and karma are the means used to slander. The four explanations are as before; one may understand this by analogy with those explanations. Second, from "whereas a bodhisattva" downward explains the direct prohibition. Within this, the Dharma is presented first, followed by the simile. In the former, two types of persons are involved: 1. tīrthikas, due to wrong view; 2. evil persons, due to having no faith, whether internally or externally. "Slandering in a single word" clarifies that what is heard is minimal; "three hundred spears piercing the heart" clarifies that the acute pain is immense. Question: The Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: "When a bodhisattva hears the Buddha being praised or defamed, in the Buddha Dharma their mind remains steadfast and unmoved." Why does this text say that it is like spears piercing the heart? Answer: Sentient beings are of four types: 1. those who feel joy upon hearing defamation of the Buddha, due to wrong view; 2. those who feel neither joy nor sorrow, being outsiders to the Buddha Dharma; 3. those who feel pain upon hearing it, being disciples of initial aspiration; 4. those who feel neither sorrow nor joy upon hearing it, being non-retrogressing bodhisattvas, because they know that the Buddha's merit cannot be defamed, as defamation cannot reach it. That sūtra is based on the stage of non-retrogression, while this passage pertains to initial aspiration; hence they differ. If one at the initial aspiration were forcefully to identify with the latter stage and feel no pain, they would be a foolish, evil person who accords with their original evil view to endure such a thing, which is inadmissible. Question: All dharmas are empty; why must one force oneself to feel pain? Answer: True emptiness does not destroy conditioned origination and karmic fruit; therefore, superior and inferior are clearly distinct. If one destroys this as empty, it is the tīrthika view of wrongly grasping emptiness. As stated in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, five hundred brāhmaṇas slandered: "All is empty; where could there be the Buddha, bodhi, and so forth?" Due to this slander, the king killed those sorts of people, gaining merit without sin. Would you now wish to be like them? Third, from "how much more so if by one's own mouth" downward explains transgression. Here, it cites the lesser to illustrate the greater: hearing a single word already produces such pain is citing the lesser; how much more so committing slander oneself illustrates the greater. Lack of faith and lack of filial piety are the causes of slander. Fourth, from "yet instead, conversely" downward formally constitutes transgression, meaning aiding the aforementioned two kinds of persons to accomplish slanderous deeds. Below, it concludes by specifying the name of the offense. The above concludes the ten major precepts.