四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.20

2.20

若比丘以瞋恚故於異分事中取片非波羅夷比丘以無根以無根波羅夷法謗欲壞彼清淨行彼於異時若問若不問知是以異分事中取片是比丘自言我瞋恚故作是作是語者僧伽婆尸沙　此滿足戒本文有七句。一犯人。二瞋心。三假異分上根。四所謗境界清淨。五以無根重謗。六自言。七結罪。廣釋中初二兩句可知。第三句言於異分事中取片者。所言異分者。律說五種異分。一異趣異分。如指羊事為人。二異罪異分。如不犯波羅夷言犯波羅夷。以異分無根法謗僧殘。若比丘夷謂犯殘。以異分無根夷謗殘。不犯殘彼見提乃至吉。以異分事無根夷法謗殘。若犯殘彼言犯夷。以異分無根夷法謗殘。若犯殘彼謂犯提乃至吉。以異分事無根夷法謗殘。乃至第三異人異分。不清淨人相似名同姓同想同。以此人事謗彼。以異分無根夷法謗。第四異時異分。若見在家時犯四重。便言我言比丘犯初篇。以異分無根四事法謗。第五異聲異分。若聞自稱犯四事取自嚮聲。以異分無根四事謗。第四句言非波羅夷比丘者。見彼清淨。第五句無根夷法謗者。不見聞疑彼犯四重誣他犯重。言欲壞彼清淨行者。彰其謗意。謂言眾僧滅殯。此人我得安樂。第六句若於異時至作是語已來。發覺或因檢問或不因檢問。自言由前得惡房惡食懷瞋恨故便謗彼耳。第七句若比丘下結犯相。經重如前戒破僧違諫戒第十　一制意。和眾法同義無乖諍。理應詳遵。猶如水乳。今反倚傍聖教說相似語。或亂群情壞僧斷法。墜陷無辜為惡茲甚。是故聖制　二釋名。邪法改真分眾異執稱為破僧。固執不捨名曰違諫戒　三具緣。通緣如上。別緣有五。一立邪寶。謂是諫所為事故。二行作於時若不行作即無設諫。如法簡非法設諫簡不設諫故。四固執己心不肯從勸己若從諫不成重故。五三羯磨竟以若未竟但結輕罪。故須言竟　四闕緣。若闕初緣亦是闕於第二不行邪化即破僧心息便闕下四。單有立邪三寶方便小吉。若闕第三若不設諫即無違諫容違屏諫。犯於小罪復得前二緣破方便罪。若僧諫不成知不成者亦無違諫。正有破僧方便究竟之罪。若作如法之心拒得蘭罪。闕第四緣若未白前捨無違諫罪。有違屏諫。若白竟捨一蘭。乃至第三未竟捨四蘭。闕第五緣類前可知。已下正明戒本。此戒因提婆達多破僧故制此戒。

"If a monk, out of anger and malice, takes a fragment from a different matter and 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, knowing that he took a fragment from a different matter, this monk says himself: 'Because I was angry, I said this,' if he makes this statement, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa."
This complete prātimokṣa text contains seven phrases:
1. The transgressor;
2. The state of anger;
3. Fabricating a ground upon a different matter;
4. The target defamed is pure;
5. Defaming heavily without grounds;
6. Self-admission;
7. Concluding the offense.
In the extensive explanation, the first two phrases can be understood.
The third phrase, "takes a fragment from a different matter": regarding what is called "a different matter", the Vinaya explains five kinds of different matters:
1. A different realm: as when pointing to a sheep's deed as being a human's.
2. A different offense: as when one has not committed a pārājika, saying that he committed a pārājika, defaming him with a different, groundless offense that is saṃghāvaśeṣa; or if a monk committed a pārājika and one alleges he committed a saṃghāvaśeṣa, defaming him with a different, groundless pārājika that is saṃghāvaśeṣa; or if he has not committed a saṃghāvaśeṣa and one saw him [commit] a prāyaścittika down to a duṣkṛta, defaming him with a different, groundless pārājika offense that is saṃghāvaśeṣa; or if he committed a saṃghāvaśeṣa and one says he committed a pārājika, defaming him with a different, groundless pārājika offense that is saṃghāvaśeṣa; or if he committed a saṃghāvaśeṣa and one alleges he committed a prāyaścittika down to a duṣkṛta, defaming him with a different matter and groundless pārājika offense that is saṃghāvaśeṣa.
Up to the third, a different person: an impure person who resembles him, having the same name, same clan name, or same appearance—using this person's deeds to defame that person, defaming him with a different, groundless pārājika offense.
Fourth, a different time: if seeing that while at home as a layperson he committed the four grave offenses, one then says, 'I say the monk committed the first division,' defaming him with a different, groundless fourfold matter.
Fifth, a different sound: if hearing someone self-proclaim to have committed the four matters, taking an echo of the voice, defaming him with a different, groundless fourfold matter.
The fourth phrase, "a monk who is not a pārājika": seeing that he is pure.
The fifth phrase, "defames with a groundless pārājika offense": neither seeing, hearing, nor suspecting that he committed the four grave offenses, yet falsely accusing him of committing a grave offense. The words "wishing to destroy his pure conduct" reveal his defamatory intent, meaning 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": Being discovered, either because of investigation and questioning or not because of investigation and questioning, he confesses himself, "Because previously I received poor rooms and poor food, I harbored resentment and thus defamed him."
The seventh phrase, from "if a monk" downwards, concludes the aspects of the offense. The gravity is as in the preceding precept.

The tenth precept: Refusing admonition against schism.
1. Intention of establishing the precept: When the assembly is harmonious and the Dharma is unified, there is no dispute or discord; in principle, it should be thoroughly respected, just like water and milk. Now, conversely relying on the holy teachings, one speaks words of resemblance, which may confuse the assembly, break the Saṃgha, sever the Dharma, and ruin the innocent; the evil of this is extreme. For this reason, the holy injunction was established.
2. Explanation of the name: Using false teachings to alter the true, and dividing the assembly with heterodox attachments, is called "breaking the Saṃgha". Persistently holding to it without relinquishing it is called the precept of "refusing admonition".
3. Complete conditions: General conditions are as above. Specific conditions are five:
1. Establishing false jewels, meaning the matter about which admonition is given;
2. Putting it into practice at the time—if one does not put it into practice, no admonition is established;
3. Giving admonition in accordance with Dharma—the Dharma distinguishes the non-Dharma, and establishing admonition distinguishes not establishing admonition;
4. Persistently holding to one's own mind and refusing to heed the exhortation—if one heeds the admonition, it does not constitute a grave offense;
5. Completing the three karmavācanās—if not yet completed, only a light offense is settled, hence it must be said "completed".
4. Deficient conditions: If the first condition is lacking, it also lacks the second; not practicing heterodox transformation means the mind to break the Saṃgha ceases, thereby lacking the remaining four; merely having the expedient means of establishing the false Three Jewels is a minor duṣkṛta. If the third is lacking: if admonition is not given, there is no refusing admonition; it allows for refusing private admonition, incurring a minor offense, plus incurring the offense of the preparatory expedient to schism from the previous two conditions; if the Saṃgha's admonition is not validly completed and one knows it is incomplete, there is also no refusing admonition, but only the finished offense of the expedient to breaking the Saṃgha; if one resists while having the intention of [holding it to be] according to Dharma, one incurs a thullaccaya. If lacking the fourth condition: if one relinquishes before the motion (jñapti), there is no offense of refusing admonition, but there is refusing private admonition; if relinquishing after the motion, one thullaccaya; up to relinquishing before the third [recitation] is completed, four thullaccayas. Lacking the fifth condition can be understood by analogy with the preceding.
Below, the prātimokṣa text is properly explained. This precept was established on account of Devadatta breaking the Saṃgha.