四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.3

3.3

故妄語戒第一　一制意者。然出家之人理宜稱實。寧喪身命許無虛謬。今反違心背想。欺誑前人令他虛解自失。正利過患之甚。是以聖制　二釋名者。言不稱實。所以名妄。彰之在口曰語。無心不犯故。曰故妄語戒　三具緣通緣如上。別緣有六。一人。二作人想。三遣想說。四知違想語說。五口言了了。六前人聞知　四闕緣。比說可知。多論妄語兩舌惡口歷作四句。或有是妄語非兩舌非惡口。傳他語時。以不實故是妄語。不分離心非兩舌。軟語說故非惡口。第二是妄語是兩舌非惡口。不實故是妄。分離心故是兩舌。軟語說故非惡口。第三是妄是惡口非兩舌。第四具有三。下毀呰兩舌作法亦有四句。類說可知。已下正明本。此戒因象力比丘善能談論與外道。議前後語異。梵志譏嫌。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。

The first precept: intentional lying. 1. The intention behind the prohibition: Those who have left household life ought in principle to speak in accordance with truth. They would rather forfeit life than allow falsehood. Yet now, running contrary to one's heart and betraying one's thoughts, one deceives the other person, causing them false understanding while oneself losing correct benefit—this is an extreme fault. Therefore the Sage established the prohibition. 2. Explaining the name: Speech that does not accord with truth is called false (wang). Expressing it through the mouth is called speech (yu). Because without intention there is no offense, it is called the precept of intentional lying. 3. Complete conditions: General conditions are as above. Specific conditions are six: 1. A human being. 2. Perceiving them as a human being. 3. Speaking with the intention to dispatch [untruth]. 4. Speaking knowing that it contradicts one's perception. 5. Clear vocal words. 6. The other person hears and understands. 4. Deficient conditions: These can be understood by analogy. The *Vibhāṣā* (多論) sets forth a tetralemma regarding lying, divisive speech, and harsh speech: (1) There may be what is a lie, but not divisive speech nor harsh speech: when conveying another's words, because it is untrue it is a lie; because there is no divisive mind it is not divisive speech; because it is spoken in gentle words it is not harsh speech. (2) It is a lie and divisive speech, but not harsh speech: because it is untrue it is a lie; because of a divisive mind it is divisive speech; because it is spoken in gentle words it is not harsh speech. (3) It is a lie and harsh speech, but not divisive speech. (4) Possessing all three. Below, the procedures for reviling and divisive speech also have a tetralemma, which can be understood analogously. Below, the root [story] is properly explained. This precept was occasioned by the monk Hastikāśyapa (象力), who was skilled in debate; when discussing with a non-Buddhist, his earlier and later statements contradicted each other. The parivrājaka mocked and criticized him; the monks pointed out the fault, and the Buddha thereupon formulated the precept.