菩薩戒本疏 1.69

1.69

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.