菩薩戒本疏 1.51

1.51

制意釋名者，令人虛解，違真之甚，故制之。違想而說，故名「妄語」。事設是實，若違內心，皆名妄語。具緣中事，謂見、聞、覺、知、不見、不聞、不覺、不知。想者，謂於見等，或翻彼想。翻想有二事：一、想事俱翻，如不見事，起不見想，而說言見；二、翻想不翻事，如不見事，起見想，而言不見。此二俱成妄語也。欲樂者，謂覆藏想，樂說之欲。煩惱者，如上。方便究竟者，謂時眾及對論者領解。結犯輕重者，若隨境論，一云：三品境俱重。一云：唯上中結重，對下境唯輕垢也。隨心可知。又若准律，唯說上人法犯重令，既無簡別，理應通制。學處同異者，大小乘俱制，道俗亦同也。又大乘中，有益處開。《菩薩地》云：「又如菩薩為多有情解脫命難，囹圄縛難，刖手足難，劓鼻刵耳剜眼等難。雖諸菩薩為自命難，亦不正知說於妄語。然為救脫彼有情故，知而思擇，故說妄語。以要言之，菩薩唯觀有情義利，自非無義利，自無染心。唯為饒益諸有情故，覆想正知而說異語。說是語時，於菩薩戒無所違犯，生多功德。」釋文中，餘事易解。「身心妄語」者，身妄語，謂由身業表示令人妄解，如由起坐表知是聖等。心妄語者，如說戒時默表清淨。雖由二表令他妄解，而所成業語業所攝，故云妄語。

Regarding explaining the purpose of the prohibition and the name: causing others to arrive at a false understanding profoundly contradicts reality; therefore, it is prohibited. Speaking contrary to one's perception is called "false speech." Even if the fact were true, if it contradicts one's inner mind, it is all called false speech. Among the conditions, regarding the object: it refers to seen, heard, sensed, or known; or not seen, not heard, not sensed, or not known. Regarding perception: it refers to the perception of seeing and the like, or inverted perception regarding them. Inverted perception has two situations: first, both the perception and the fact are inverted, such as with a matter not seen, giving rise to the perception of not seeing, yet saying one saw it; second, the perception is inverted while the fact is not inverted, such as with a matter not seen, giving rise to the perception of seeing, yet saying one did not see it. Both of these constitute false speech. Regarding desire: it refers to the intention to conceal, the desire to delight in speaking [falsely]. Regarding affliction: as above. Regarding preliminary and consummation: it refers to the audience and the interlocutor comprehending the meaning. Regarding the gradation of offenses: if discussed according to the object, one says: objects of all three grades are grave. Another says: it is judged grave only with regard to superior and middling objects; toward inferior objects, it is only a duṣkṛta offense. According to the mind, it can be understood. Furthermore, if according to the Vinaya, only claiming the states of a superhuman being constitutes a grave offense; since there is no qualification here, in principle it should apply generally. Regarding the similarities and differences in the precepts: both the Mahāyāna and Small Vehicle prohibit it, and it is the same for both monastics and laity. Moreover, in the Mahāyāna, it is permitted where there is benefit. The *Bodhisattvabhūmi* states: "Furthermore, for example, a bodhisattva acts for the sake of many sentient beings to liberate them from mortal danger, the danger of imprisonment and binding, the danger of having hands or feet severed, or the danger of having nose cut off, ears lopped off, eyes gouged out, and the like. Although bodhisattvas, even for the sake of their own lives, would not speak false speech with clear awareness; yet for the sake of rescuing and liberating those sentient beings, knowing and deliberating, they speak false speech. In brief, a bodhisattva considers only the benefit of sentient beings; it is not for his own lack of benefit, nor does he have a defiled mind. Solely for the sake of benefiting sentient beings, concealing his perception and with clear awareness, he speaks differently. When speaking such words, he does not violate the bodhisattva precepts and generates much merit." In explaining the text, the remaining matters are easy to understand. Regarding "bodily and mental false speech": bodily false speech means causing others to misunderstand through bodily actions, such as indicating through rising or sitting that one is an arya, and so forth. Mental false speech means, for example, when the precepts are recited, remaining silent to indicate purity. Although causing another to misunderstand through these two indications, the karma that is completed is subsumed under verbal karma; therefore, it is called false speech.