菩薩戒本疏 2.45

2.45

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.