菩薩戒本疏 2.45

2.45

無事毀謗，容陷善人，故制斷也。大小乘俱制，七眾同禁，此戒偏制語放逸也。問：此戒既制謗他重事，與第六重有何差別？答：舊人欲別二戒相故，有根、無根各作四句。有根四句者：一、向有戒人說有戒人重罪、輕罪，悉犯輕垢，此戒正制；二、向無戒人說無戒人重罪、輕罪，亦犯輕垢，前戒兼制；三、向有戒人說無戒人重罪、輕罪，亦犯輕垢，此戒兼制；四、向無戒人說有戒人過，若說重罪犯重，前戒正制，若說輕過犯輕，前戒兼制。無根四句者：一、向有戒人說有戒人重罪、輕罪，悉犯輕垢，此戒在文正制說重，兼制說輕。後之三句作法同前，但就無根為異。復有人說：第六重中制說實過，彼云說「四眾罪過」故。今此戒中遮無事謗，文言「謗他良善人」故。前後二戒仍不簡別所向說人有戒無戒，既無簡別理應通俱。問：聲聞法中無根謗重、說實犯輕，何故菩薩反之？答：聲聞法中制護自過，無根謗他情過是重，有根說過情過容輕，故制輕重有不同也。菩薩法中制護損他，說他實犯，容有永損退沒前人。無實毀謗，事既不實無容永損。制有重輕，義在斯也。文言「惡心無事謗」者，唯欲毀他無利益心故云「惡心」，三根無端故云「無事」。「良人、善人」，所謗之人實無犯過故云「良善」，想淨故名「良」，實淨故名「善」，非如前戒非奴名「良」。「法師、師僧、國王、貴人」者，偏舉所謗中重境也。言「犯七逆十重」者，偏舉謗事中重者也。「父母兄弟六親中」者，三世相融無非親故。「而反更加逆害」者，無事重謗故云「加逆」。「墮不如意處」者，由我謗故墮在違意處也。

Slandering without cause can frame virtuous people; therefore it is prohibited and cut off. Both the Mahāyāna and the Lesser Vehicle prohibit it, and the seven assemblies are equally forbidden from it; this precept specifically prohibits pramāda of speech. Question: Since this precept prohibits slandering another regarding grave matters, what difference is there between this and the sixth parājika offense? Answer: Former commentators, wishing to distinguish the aspects of the two precepts, formulated four propositions each for 'with basis' and 'without basis.' The four propositions with basis are: 1. Speaking to a precept-holding person of a precept-holding person's grave or light offenses—all are duṣkṛta offenses; this precept directly prohibits this. 2. Speaking to a preceptless person of a preceptless person's grave or light offenses—also a duṣkṛta offense; the former precept additionally prohibits this. 3. Speaking to a precept-holding person of a preceptless person's grave or light offenses—also a duṣkṛta offense; this precept additionally prohibits this. 4. Speaking to a preceptless person of a precept-holding person's transgressions—if speaking of a grave offense, one incurs a parājika offense, which the former precept directly prohibits; if speaking of a light transgression, one incurs a duṣkṛta offense, which the former precept additionally prohibits. The four propositions without basis are: 1. Speaking to a precept-holding person of a precept-holding person's grave or light offenses—all are duṣkṛta offenses; this precept in its text directly prohibits speaking of the grave, and additionally prohibits speaking of the light. The latter three propositions follow the same method as before, differing only in being without basis. Another says: In the sixth parājika offense, speaking of actual transgressions is prohibited, because it says 'speaking of the sins and transgressions of the four assemblies.' In this precept now, slander without cause is prevented, because the text says 'slanders another free and virtuous person.' Neither of the two precepts, earlier or later, distinguishes whether the person spoken to holds precepts or lacks precepts; since there is no distinction, by principle it should apply to both. Question: In the śrāvaka Dharma, slander without basis is grave, while speaking the truth incurs a light offense; why is it the reverse for a bodhisattva? Answer: In the śrāvaka Dharma, the prohibition guards against one's own transgressions; slandering another without basis involves a grave mental transgression, whereas speaking of transgressions with basis involves a mental transgression that may be light; hence the prohibition of grave and light is not the same. In the bodhisattva Dharma, the prohibition guards against harming others; speaking of another's actual offenses may well cause the other person to be permanently harmed and to retrogress and perish. In slander without actuality, since the matter is not real, it cannot cause permanent harm. That there is a division into grave and light has its meaning right here. The text says 'with an evil mind, without cause slanders': having solely the desire to denigrate another without any mind to benefit is called 'evil mind'; being devoid of origin in the three bases is called 'without cause.' 'Free persons, virtuous persons': the persons slandered actually have committed no transgressions, hence they are called 'free and virtuous'; being pure in conception is called 'free' (liang), and being pure in actuality is called 'virtuous' (shan); it is not like the previous precept where non-slave is called 'free.' 'Dharma masters, preceptor monks, kings, noble persons': specifically cites the grave objects among those slandered. Saying 'have committed the seven ānantarya sins or the ten parājika offenses': specifically cites the gravest matters among the slanders. 'Toward parents, siblings, and the six relations': throughout the three periods of time they merge mutually, so there is no one who is not a relative. 'Instead adds further rebellious harm': slandering gravely without cause, hence it says 'adds further rebellious harm.' 'Causing them to fall into undesirable places': because of my slander, they fall into places contrary to their wishes.