四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.16

3.16

若比丘知他比丘犯麁惡罪向未受大戒人說除僧羯磨波逸提　此滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二知麁罪。三向未受人說。四除僧羯磨。五結罪。初句可知。第二句言知他犯麁者。律云。犯初二兩篇名為麁惡罪。第三句言向未受戒人說者。律云。除比丘比丘尼餘人是。第四句言除僧羯磨者。是開限文。第五句言波逸提者。是違犯罪。故多論云。寧破塔壞像不說他麁罪。若破佛塔其罪有限。說他麁罪破壞法身罪同五逆。故律云。不問前人有罪無罪。眾僧不作羯磨。向人說一一皆墮。五分尼白衣說僧汎爾。小小罪過皆墮。僧祇若人問某甲比丘犯婬飲酒。答云。彼自當知。除上二篇說餘罪。一一犯吉。又若說名字。若種姓若衣服。若房舍若相貌皆犯提罪。說下三篇得吉。若自說麁罪亦犯吉羅。不犯者。若不知。若僧差。若非麁想。若白衣先已聞。皆不犯。非不有小罪。

"If a bhikṣu, knowing that another bhikṣu has committed a grave evil offense, speaks of it to a person who has not received the upasampadā precepts, except by a legal act of the Saṃgha, it is a prāyaścittika." This complete Prātimokṣa text contains five phrases: first, the person who commits the offense; second, knowing the grave offense; third, speaking to an unordained person; fourth, except by a legal act of the Saṃgha; fifth, declaring the offense. The first phrase is obvious. Regarding the second phrase, "knowing that another committed a grave offense": the Vinaya states that committing [offenses of] the first two sections is called a grave evil offense. Regarding the third phrase, "speaking to a person who has not received the precepts": the Vinaya states that this refers to other persons, excluding bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs. Regarding the fourth phrase, "except by a legal act of the Saṃgha": this is the text of permission. Regarding the fifth phrase, "prāyaścittika": this is the offense of transgression. Hence the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: "Better to destroy a stūpa and smash an image than to speak of another's grave offense. If one destroys a Buddha stūpa, the offense is limited; but speaking of another's grave offense destroys the Dharmakāya, an offense equivalent to the five heinous crimes." Therefore the Vinaya states: regardless of whether the other person is guilty or not, if the Saṃgha has not performed a legal act and one speaks to others, in each case it is a falling offense. The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya states: if a bhikṣuṇī speaks to laypersons of the Saṃgha's general, petty offenses, in all cases it is a falling offense. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states: if someone asks whether a certain bhikṣu has committed sexual misconduct or drunk alcohol, and one answers, "He should know that himself," except for the top two sections, speaking of other offenses incurs a duṣkṛta in each case. Furthermore, if one reveals the name, clan, robes, dwelling, or appearance, in all cases one commits a prāyaścittika offense; speaking of the lower three sections incurs a duṣkṛta. If one speaks of one's own grave offenses, one also commits a duṣkṛta. Regarding non-offenses: if one does not know; if one is appointed by the Saṃgha; if one does not think it is grave; or if the layperson has already heard of it beforehand—in all such cases there is no offense, though it is not without minor fault.