[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) › [四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787) › 2.18 # 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.18 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.18 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.18) 若比丘瞋恚所䨱故非波羅夷比丘以無根波羅夷法謗欲壞彼清淨行若於異時若問若不問知此事無根說我瞋恚故作是語若比丘作是語者僧伽婆尸沙　此滿足戒本文有七句。初列。後釋。言列者。一犯人。二瞋心。三所謗境界。四無三根。五以波羅夷重事加誣。六謗時。七若比丘下結犯。言釋者。初句若比丘義如上辨。第二句瞋恚所覆。故律云。有十惡法因緣故瞋。隨十事中以一一事而生瞋。十惡法者。祇三世九惱通非情處起瞋。是名十惡法。因緣廣說可知。第三句非波羅夷比丘。律云。清淨無犯名非波羅夷比丘。第四句以無根夷法謗者。欲解無根先解有根。言根者生後之名。根義不同。若標三別。謂見根聞根疑根。觀赤青等稱之為見。納鄉飡聲名之為聞。見聞之後猶預不決心無定執。號之為疑。此之三種咸生舉語故齊名根。故四分律云。見根者。見犯梵行。見偷五錢。見斷人命。若他見從彼聞。是謂見根。聞根者。聞犯梵行。聞偷五錢聞斷人命。聞自言得上人法。若彼說從彼聞。是謂聞根　疑根二種。從見生者。見與婦人入林出林。無衣裸形。不淨污身。捉刀血污。惡人為伴是也。從聞生者。若在闇地聞動床聲。聞轉側聲若共語聲若聞我犯非梵行聲。乃至若聞我得上人法聲。除此三根已更以餘法謗者是無根也。第五句波羅夷法謗者。重事加誣言犯之法。此法要說初篇。即是麁獷言。欲壞彼清淨行。此是顯己謗意。律云。謂言眾僧滅殯此人我得安樂住。第六句若於異時至作是說已來。是自言非即謗時故曰異時。雪彼清淨顯己謗情故。因我瞋恚故作是說。律云。若問若不問者。佛勅比丘問能謗者。此事實不。若以無根謗他。獲大重罪。自陳謗意。言沓婆清淨人無如是事。由前次得惡房惡食。懷瞋恨故便謗彼耳。第七句若比丘作是語者僧伽婆尸沙。此是為結犯輕重有三。一謗比丘。二謗尼。三謗下眾就比丘文中三。初句若已無根四事法謗比丘但使內無三根。莫問有實不實。自作遣使了了皆成謗罪。若不了得偷蘭。第二以非比丘法十三難事內無三根謗實比丘了了得殘。不了偷蘭。若實十三難人雖無三根。實伏說著作比丘相故但得蘭罪。不同四重謗人體是污戒比丘故也。若於十三中比丘犯五逆邊罪謗之僧殘。以教從理同合殯。故若十律云。出血破僧此二謗人得蘭。餘者吉羅。以名輕故。即是彼律以理從教。第三若以餘篇謗殘提兩罪。第二謗尼者亦同比丘。十律謗尼但得吉羅。五分僧謗比丘殘。謗尼四眾吉。尼謗尼殘。謗比丘提。第三謗下眾者皆得吉羅　不犯中律云。見聞疑三糧說實。實有五種。一真實。二想實。三事實。如殺王還道殺王。四三根不互實。五四戒不互實。若反此五謗他犯殘。十誦四重互說成謗。四分亦同。 > "If a monk, overcome by anger and malice, defames a monk who is not a pārājika with a groundless pārājika offense, wishing to destroy his pure conduct, and at another time, whether questioned or not questioned, knows this matter to be groundless and says, 'Because I was angry, I said this,' if the monk says this, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa." > This complete prātimokṣa text contains seven phrases. First, they are listed; later, they are explained. > Regarding the listing: > 1. The transgressor; > 2. The state of anger; > 3. The target defamed; > 4. Being without the three grounds; > 5. Falsely accusing with the serious matter of a pārājika; > 6. The time of defamation; > 7. The concluding of the offense from "if a monk" downwards. > > Regarding the explanation: > The first phrase, "if a monk", has its meaning explained above. > The second phrase, "overcome by anger and malice": Therefore, the Vinaya states that one grows angry due to causes and conditions involving the ten unwholesome phenomena. One gives rise to anger in accordance with any single one of the ten matters. As for the ten unwholesome phenomena, they are simply the nine vexations across the three times, along with giving rise to anger directed at inanimate objects—these are called the ten unwholesome phenomena. The causes and conditions can be understood as explained at length \[in the Vinaya\]. > The third phrase, "a monk who is not a pārājika": The Vinaya says that one who is pure and without transgression is called "a monk who is not a pārājika." > The fourth phrase, "defames with a groundless pārājika offense": To explain "groundless", one must first explain "grounded". "Ground" (mūla) is a term for what engenders what follows. The meanings of "ground" differ; if distinguishing three specific kinds, they are called the ground of seeing, the ground of hearing, and the ground of suspecting. Observing red, blue, and so forth is called "seeing". Receiving regional voices and sounds is called "hearing". Following seeing or hearing, being hesitant and undecided, with a mind lacking definite conviction, is designated as "suspecting". Because these three all give rise to speech making an accusation, they are equally called "grounds". Therefore, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: "Regarding the ground of seeing: seeing a breach of celibacy, seeing the theft of five coins, or seeing the taking of a human life; or if another saw it and one heard it from him—this is called the ground of seeing. Regarding the ground of hearing: hearing of a breach of celibacy, hearing of the theft of five coins, hearing of the taking of a human life, or hearing someone claim for himself to have attained a superhuman state; or if that person said it and one heard it from him—this is called the ground of hearing." > There are two kinds of ground of suspecting: That which arises from seeing: seeing \[a monk\] entering and leaving a forest with a woman, being unclothed and naked, being soiled with impure matter, holding a knife stained with blood, or keeping evil people as companions—such are these. That which arises from hearing: in a dark place, hearing the sound of a bed moving, hearing the sound of turning over, hearing the sound of talking together, or hearing the sound of, 'I committed an unchaste act,' up to hearing the sound of, 'I attained a superhuman state.' > If, setting aside these three grounds, one defames \[another\] with any other matter, it is groundless. > The fifth phrase, "defames with a pārājika offense": Falsely accusing \[another\] of a serious matter, asserting that he has committed such an offense. This offense must refer to the first division \[of offenses\]; that is, harsh speech. "Wishing to destroy his pure conduct": this reveals his intent in defaming. The Vinaya says: "Meaning that he thinks, 'If the Saṃgha expels this person, I shall dwell in peace and happiness.'" > The sixth phrase, from "if at another time" up to "makes this statement": This is his own admission, not at the very time of the defamation, hence it says "another time". It clears the other's purity and reveals his own defamatory intent, saying: "Because I was angry, I made this statement." The Vinaya says: "'Whether questioned or not questioned': The Buddha instructed the monks to ask the defamer, 'Is this matter true or not? If you defame another without grounds, you incur a great and heavy offense.' He himself confessed his defamatory intent, saying, 'Dabba is a pure person; there is no such matter. Because previously I repeatedly received poor rooms and poor food, I harbored resentment and thus defamed him.'" > The seventh phrase, "if a monk says this, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa": This concludes the offense. > Regarding gravity, there are three types: 1. defaming a monk; 2. defaming a nun; 3. defaming the inferior assemblies. > Within the text concerning monks, there are three: > In the first phrase, if one defames a monk with the four-offense teachings without ground, as long as one internally lacks the three grounds, regardless of whether it is true or untrue, whether done by oneself or by dispatching an emissary, if it is clearly expressed, it constitutes the offense of defamation. If not clearly expressed, one incurs a thullaccaya. > Second, if one defames a real monk without the three grounds using the non-bhikṣu dharma of the thirteen obstacles, if clearly expressed, one incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa; if not clearly expressed, a thullaccaya. If it is a person who genuinely has the thirteen obstacles, although one lacks the three grounds, since he actually conceals it and displays the appearance of a monk, one only incurs a thullaccaya offense; this is not like the four grave offenses where the defamed person is fundamentally a monk who has defiled his precepts. If, among the thirteen, a monk commits the five heinous deeds or the offense of being on the border (anantarika or pārājika-like acts), and one defames him, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa, because following the principle of the teaching he ought to be expelled together. Therefore, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: "Causing blood to flow and breaking the Saṃgha—defaming a person regarding these two incurs a thullaccaya; the rest are duṣkṛta, because their designations are light." That is, that Vinaya accords with teaching from principle. > Third, if one defames with other divisions, there are the two offenses of saṃghāvaśeṣa and prāyaścittika. > Second, regarding defaming a nun: this is also the same as for a monk. In the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, defaming a nun incurs only a duṣkṛta. In the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, when a monk defames a monk, it is saṃghāvaśeṣa; defaming a nun or the \[other\] four assemblies is duṣkṛta. When a nun defames a nun, it is saṃghāvaśeṣa; defaming a monk is prāyaścittika. > Third, regarding defaming the inferior assemblies: in all cases one incurs a duṣkṛta. > In the section on non-offense, the Vinaya says: "Speaking what is true based on the three grounds of seeing, hearing, or suspecting." There are five kinds of truth: > 1. genuine truth; > 2. truth of perception; > 3. truth of fact, such as actually killing a king and saying that one killed a king; > 4. non-interchangeable truth among the three grounds; > 5. non-interchangeable truth among the four precepts. > If, contrary to these five, one defames another, one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa. In the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, speaking interchangeably regarding the four grave offenses constitutes defamation; the Dharmaguptaka is also the same. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.17) - [Next: 2.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.19) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787~en-mt.2.18) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [四分律比丘含注戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1806.1.218) — Classical Chinese - [四分律比丘戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.pratimoksa.dharmaguptaka*zh-buddhayasas.1.32) — Classical Chinese - [四分僧戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.sastra.dharmaguptakapratimoksasutra*zh-buddhayasas.1.16) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.18) · Pramāṇa