[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [菩薩戒本疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814) › 1.69 # 菩薩戒本疏 1.69 菩薩戒本疏 1.69 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.69](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1.69) 《地論》唯云「謗菩薩藏」，三中謗法過偏重故。佛、法、僧寶，初信之勝境，歸終之極地，理應承而奉順，反生誹毀，其過非輕，故制斷也。心言乖寶，故名為「謗」，亦從所防為「戒」名也。具緣成犯中事者，有二：一、所對境事，謂上、中二境。若向下境，結罪則輕；今謂若對有知解者，罪亦應重。二、所謗境事，謂即三寶。業道門中通云「寶有義」，今簡取勝，故唯云三寶。想者，論云「於有非有想」，此就所謗境辨其想也。欲樂者，謂即如是愛欲，欲謗三寶之意樂也。煩惱者，以癡為主，或具或單。方便究竟者，古說前人領納邪言，隨語結重。《決擇》業道中云「究竟者，謂誹謗決定。」又《菩薩地》云：「若諸菩薩謗菩薩藏，愛樂宣說開示建立像似正法，於像似法，或自信解，或隨他轉，是名第四他勝處法。」結犯輕重者，凡說邪見，有其二種：一、損減邪見，撥實有事；二、增益邪見，立實無事。損減有二：一、全分總撥一切因果法；二、一分或執外謗內，或執小謗大。非撥一切，都無有也。全分邪見若起，即失戒；總撥因果，即退菩提。故若發言謗，唯得性罪，無戒可犯，不名犯戒。此時雖失戒，而未斷善根，未至增上品，故唯可名為退菩提捨。一分邪見中，若由執外謗內法時，退菩提心，即失戒善；若未退心，即犯謗重。若此謗心至增上品，設不退心，亦失戒善，即是增上纏犯重捨也。若由執小謗大乘時，退菩提心，亦即捨戒；若不退大，即犯輕中第八戒也。彼云：「心背大乘常住經、律，言非佛說，而受持二乘、聲聞戒經故。」又增益邪見，立實無事者，即《地論》云：「愛樂、宣說、開示、建立像似正法。」像似正法者，謂五法等相，狀似正法，而非正法故。若謗正法，而愛似法，即犯重罪；若不謗正，而愛似法，即犯輕中第二十四。彼云：「有佛經、律、大乘法，而不能勤學修習，文學邪見二乘、外道、俗典」等故。古疏「邪見」義說有四：一、上邪見，二、中，三、下，四雜邪見。上邪見者，謂撥一切因果皆無，即與上說全邪見同。自有兩種：一、法想，謂心中決定起無因果想，戒善即失。如下邪見成，上品善便斷，後發言謗，無戒可犯，唯得性罪。二、非法想，謂內心中起有因果想，唯口中說無，戒不失故，隨說犯重。犯後失戒，事如前說。今謂若心中起有因果想，此則見不壞，豈名邪見邪？又若起非法想謗者，應如破僧，是虛誑語。既名邪見謗，故知非妄語。中邪見者，不言都無因果，但說三寶不及外道。此即同上一分邪見中執外謗內者。是亦有二：若起法想，即失戒善；非法想說，隨說犯重。妨難如前。下邪見者，不說三寶不及外道，但執小乘，謗毀大乘。如諸部小乘謗大非佛說。此亦有二：若起法想，計畫未成，即犯輕中第八戒也；計畫若成，即失戒善。計小勝大時，即退菩提故。今謂計小勝大，未必便退大，謂若有人信小乘中樹下成佛，不信大乘文成正覺，而不欲取二乘四果，豈可名為退菩提邪？二、非法想說，隨說犯重。今謂既知大乘勝於小乘，而唯口言劣，豈名邪見？謗雜邪見者，此復有四：一者偏執，謂執大謗小，或偏執一部。二者雜信，謂雖不背佛家正法，而言外道所說亦有道理，又言鬼神亦有威力，如說儒、道、佛家三宗齊致。三、暫念小乘，謂欲且依小道斷惑，然後更修大乘行也。四、思義僻謬，謂隨聲取義，起五過等。此四雜見未必犯重，隨其所應，犯下輕垢辨輕重說。學處同異者，小乘謗法不制為重，如說欲不障惡。邪見者，若起見時唯吉，違三諫時方提，如破僧、五邪等。若起法想，唯蘭非逆；若非法想，犯逆并蘭。今大乘中若謗三寶及菩薩藏，乖違過深，故並制重。依《善生經》，於俗菩薩亦不制重，今此經中通制七眾。文中「外道」者，謂佛法外行異道者。「惡人」者，謂佛法中起惡見者。愍彼無事起惡，墜於無底狂坑，傷此正法被損，虧於行人心中，故見一言謗聲，痛如三百鉾㓨。見者聞見，餘文易了。此謗法戒更無開緣。 > The \*Bodhisattvabhūmi\* only speaks of 'slandering the Bodhisattva Canon' because among the three, slandering the Dharma is an exceptionally grave fault. The treasures of the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha are the supreme objects of initial faith and the ultimate ground of final refuge; by principle one should respectfully follow them. If, on the contrary, one generates defamation, the fault is by no means light, and therefore it is prohibited. Because mind and speech contradict the Jewels, it is called 'slander'; it also takes its name as a 'precept' from what it guards against. > > Regarding the matter in the factors constituting the offense, there are two: First, the matter of the object confronted, which refers to the superior and middling objects. If directed toward an inferior object, the offense is reckoned as light; here it is maintained that if directed toward someone possessing understanding, the offense should also be grave. Second, the matter of the slandered object, which refers to the Three Jewels. In the section on courses of action, it is generally stated that 'the Jewels have substance'; here, distinguishing and selecting the supreme, it only speaks of the Three Jewels. > > Regarding conception: The treatise says, 'conceiving what exists as non-existent'; this discerns the conception with respect to the object slandered. > > Regarding intention: This refers to such longing and intention to slander the Three Jewels. > > Regarding afflictions: Delusion is primary, functioning either together \[with others\] or singly. > > Regarding the culmination of the expedient: An ancient explanation holds that when the other person receives and accepts the false words, the grave offense is constituted upon the speech. In the \*Viniścaya\* on courses of action it says: 'Culmination means slander that is resolute.' Furthermore, the \*Bodhisattvabhūmi\* says: 'If bodhisattvas slander the Bodhisattva Canon, delight in declaring, showing, and establishing a counterfeit true Dharma, and toward that counterfeit Dharma either have self-conviction or follow others, this is called the fourth defeating condition.' > > Regarding the graduation of the offenses as light or grave: In general, wrong views are of two kinds: first, the wrong view of deprecation, which rejects things that truly exist; second, the wrong view of superimposition, which establishes things that truly do not exist. Deprecation has two types: first, deprecating all dharmas of cause and effect in their entirety; second, deprecating in part, either by grasping the external and slandering the internal, or grasping the small and slandering the great, without rejecting everything as totally non-existent. > > If the complete wrong view arises, one immediately loses the precepts; by universally deprecating cause and effect, one immediately regresses from bodhi. Therefore, if one utters slanderous words, one incurs only an offense of intrinsic nature; having no precepts to violate, it is not called breaking a precept. Although at this time one loses the precepts, because one has not yet severed good roots and has not reached the upper grade \[of affliction\], it can only be termed relinquishment through regressing from bodhi. > > Among the partial wrong views, if through clinging to the external and slandering internal Dharma one regresses from the bodhicitta, one immediately loses the good of the precepts; if one has not regressed from the mind, one commits the grave offense of slander. If this slanderous mind reaches the upper grade, even if one does not regress from the mind, one also loses the good of the precepts, which is relinquishment through committing a grave offense with predominant entanglement. If, through clinging to the small, one slanders the Mahāyāna and regresses from the bodhicitta, one also relinquishes the precepts; if one does not regress from the great, one violates the eighth among the minor precepts. That \[precept\] states: 'Because in one's mind one turns against the Mahāyāna scriptures and Vinaya of permanence, asserting they are not spoken by the Buddha, and upholds the prātimokṣa-sūtras of the Two Vehicles and the śrāvakas.' > > Furthermore, regarding the wrong view of superimposition establishing what truly does not exist: this is what the \*Bodhisattvabhūmi\* calls 'delighting in, declaring, showing, and establishing a counterfeit true Dharma.' 'Counterfeit true Dharma' means that the characteristics of the five dharmas and so forth resemble the true Dharma, yet are not the true Dharma. If one slanders the true Dharma and delights in counterfeit Dharma, one commits a grave offense; if one does not slander the true \[Dharma\] but delights in counterfeit Dharma, one violates the twenty-fourth among the minor precepts. That \[precept\] states: 'Because while possessing the Buddha’s sūtras, Vinaya, and Mahāyāna Dharma, one fails to study and cultivate them diligently, but instead studies the wrong views of the Two Vehicles, outsiders, and secular texts.' > > An ancient commentary explains 'wrong view' as having four meanings: first, superior wrong view; second, middling; third, inferior; fourth, mixed wrong view. > > Superior wrong view means rejecting all cause and effect as non-existent, which is identical to the complete wrong view mentioned above. This itself has two types: First, conception of Dharma: that is, when one firmly gives rise in one's mind to the conception that there is no cause and effect, the good of the precepts is immediately lost. As with the completion of inferior wrong view, superior good is severed; if one later speaks words of slander, there are no precepts to violate, and one incurs only an offense of intrinsic nature. Second, conception of non-Dharma: that is, within one's mind one conceives that cause and effect exist, yet only with the mouth asserts they do not; because the precepts are not lost, one commits a grave offense upon speaking. The loss of precepts after the offense is as explained before. Now it is maintained: if in one's mind one gives rise to the conception that cause and effect exist, then one's view is not corrupted—how could this be called a wrong view? Furthermore, if one slanders while giving rise to the conception of non-Dharma, this would be like disrupting the Saṅgha, which is false speech. Since it is termed slander of wrong view, one knows it is not mere false speech. > > Middling wrong view does not claim that cause and effect are entirely non-existent, but merely says that the Three Jewels are inferior to outsiders. This is the same as clinging to the external and slandering the internal in the partial wrong view above. This also has two types: if one gives rise to the conception of Dharma, one immediately loses the good of the precepts; if one speaks with the conception of non-Dharma, one commits a grave offense upon speaking. The objections and difficulties are as before. > > Inferior wrong view does not say that the Three Jewels are inferior to outsiders, but merely clings to the Small Vehicle and slanders the Great Vehicle, like the various Hinayāna sects slandering the Great Vehicle as not spoken by the Buddha. This also has two types: if one gives rise to the conception of Dharma, before the scheme is completed, one violates the eighth among the minor precepts; if the scheme is completed, one loses the good of the precepts, because when one reckons the small as superior to the great, one regresses from bodhi. Now it is maintained: reckoning the small as superior to the great does not necessarily mean regressing from the great. If someone believes that becoming a Buddha beneath the tree in the Small Vehicle is true, does not believe that realization of correct awakening in the Mahāyāna texts is true, yet does not wish to attain the four fruits of the Two Vehicles, how could this be called regressing from bodhi? Second, speaking with the conception of non-Dharma: one commits a grave offense upon speaking. Now it is maintained: since one already knows that the Great Vehicle is superior to the Small Vehicle, yet merely says with the mouth that it is inferior, how could this be called a wrong view? > > As for mixed wrong views of slander, these further have four types: First, one-sided attachment, which means clinging to the great and slandering the small, or clinging one-sidedly to a single text. Second, mixed belief, which means that although one does not turn away from the Buddha's true Dharma, one says that what outsiders teach also has principle, and says that ghosts and spirits also possess mighty power, like claiming that the three schools of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism share the same goal. Third, temporarily contemplating the Small Vehicle, which means intending to rely temporarily on the small path to sever delusions, and only afterwards cultivating the practices of the Great Vehicle. Fourth, perverse misunderstanding of meaning, which means grasping meanings according to literal sound and giving rise to the five errors and so forth. These four mixed views do not necessarily constitute grave offenses; according to what is appropriate, they fall under the light defilements below, explained according to light and grave. > > Regarding similarities and differences in the śikṣāpadas: in the Small Vehicle, slandering the Dharma is not formulated as grave, as in the case of claiming desires do not obstruct evil. As for wrong view, when the view arises, it is merely a duṣkṛta; only when disobeying three admonitions does it become a prāyaścittika, like disrupting the Saṅgha, the five wrong views, and so forth. If one gives rise to the conception of Dharma, it is merely a thullaccaya and not an ānantarya; if with the conception of non-Dharma, one commits an ānantarya along with a thullaccaya. Now in the Great Vehicle, if one slanders the Three Jewels and the Bodhisattva Canon, the fault of contradiction is profound, and therefore both are formulated as grave. According to the \*Sūtra of Upāsaka Precepts\*, it is also not formulated as grave for lay bodhisattvas, but in this sūtra it is formulated universally for the seven assemblies. > > In the text, 'outsiders' refers to those who practice different paths outside the Buddha Dharma. 'Evil persons' refers to those who generate evil views within the Buddha Dharma. Pitying those who needlessly give rise to evil and fall into a bottomless pit of madness, and lamenting that this true Dharma is damaged and impaired within the minds of practitioners, therefore seeing or hearing a single word of slander, the pain is like being pierced by three hundred spears. 'Seeing' means hearing and seeing; the rest of the text is easy to understand. This precept against slandering the Dharma has no conditions of exception. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.68](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1.68) - [Next: 1.70](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1.70) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814~en-mt.1.69) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [瑜伽師地論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.yogacarabhumi*zh-xuanzang.40.102) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1.69](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1.69) · Pramāṇa