菩薩戒本疏 1.57

1.57

制意釋名者，同法相護義同昆弟，而反向異道揚彼過短，近則陷沒善人，遠則損壞正法，其過非輕故制斷也。可毀可厭故云「罪過」，向他顯揚故名「說」也。具緣中事者，謂有戒人所有罪過，向無戒人說。七逆十重是正所制，自餘輕過亦兼制也。想者，於罪過起罪過想也。欲樂者，欲說罪過之望樂也。此有二：一、陷沒心，欲令前人失名利等；二、治罰心，欲令前人被繫縛等。以此二心說他罪過，皆犯重也。煩惱可知。方便究竟者，若自說若教他說，前人領解時即成究竟也。結犯輕重者，准之可知。學處同異者，聲聞向未受具說他重罪犯第三篇，若說僧殘已下皆犯第五篇，菩薩兼濟為懷故制重也。文但云說過不別輕重，下輕戒第十三戒說七逆十重，准彼此亦應爾，但彼向同法說故輕，此向異法故重。又一云：彼說無事故輕，若知無事不能陷沒或治罰故，此說有實犯重。釋文可知。

Explaining the intent of the regulation and the name: Those of the same Dharma protect one another with a significance like that of brothers; yet to turn instead toward other paths to proclaim their faults and shortcomings proximately ruins wholesome people and distantly damages the true Dharma. Because its fault is not light, it is regulated and prohibited. Because it is blameworthy and detestable, it is called 'faults'; because it is proclaimed toward others, it is called 'speaking'. Concerning the objective factors among the requisite conditions: it refers to having the faults of a person who possesses precepts spoken to a person without precepts. The seven ānantarya sins and the ten parājika offenses are precisely what is regulated; the remaining minor faults are also concurrently prohibited. Concerning perception: giving rise to the perception of faults regarding faults. Concerning desire and pleasure: the longing and pleasure of desiring to speak of the faults. This has two aspects: first, the mind to ruin, desiring to cause the other person to lose reputation, gain, and the like; second, the mind to punish, desiring to cause the other person to be bound, imprisoned, and the like. Speaking of another's faults with these two minds both constitutes a grave offense. Afflictions can be known. Concerning the preparatory stage and the culmination: whether speaking oneself or teaching another to speak, as soon as the other person understands, the culmination is achieved. The gravity of the violation can be known by inference. Concerning the similarities and differences among the śikṣāpadas: for a śrāvaka to speak of another's grave offense to one who has not received the full ordination is an offense of the third category (pācattika); if speaking of a saṃghāvaśeṣa or below, all are offenses of the fifth category (duṣkṛta). Because a bodhisattva cherishes universal deliverance in mind, it is regulated as grave. The text merely says 'speaking of faults' without distinguishing light and grave; below, the thirteenth minor precept speaks of the seven ānantarya sins and ten parājika offenses, and in accordance with that, this should also be so; however, because that one is spoken to those of the same Dharma it is light, whereas this one is spoken to those of a different Dharma, hence it is grave. Another explanation says: that one is speaking without a factual basis, hence it is light, because if one knows there is no factual basis, one cannot ruin or punish them; whereas this one speaks of what is true, incurring a grave offense. The textual explanation can be known.