[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) › 3.4 # 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.4 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3.4) 若比丘知而妄語者波逸提　此滿足戒本文有三句。一者犯人。二故妄語。三違制結犯。初句可知。第二言知而妄語者。於中文三。一明妄語境。二辯誑人犯義。三前後方便多少。言妄語境者。有其八種。一見言不見。二聞言不聞。三觸言不觸。四知言不知。餘四反上可知。此是妄語境。言第二犯語者。眼見者識能見知者。乃至意能知。不見者除眼識。餘五識是類反。言第三方便多少者。於中有四。初三時有心本作妄語。念時憶是妄語。語已知是妄語。第二第三各有兩句。二時有心一時無心。第四一句三時無心。第三言波逸提者。犯名。若三時有心妄語者。皆得根本提罪。次有兩句。二時有心一時無心者。未句根本。有心前後無心。此四亦提。前後有心根本。無心前一有心後二無心。後一有心前二無心。此三得吉。如律廣說。第四一句三時無心悉皆不犯。又律云。所見異所忍異所欲異所觸異所想異所心異。如此諸事皆是妄語。言所見異者。行心之中見於虎狼。言見佛像是。言所忍異者。領納違境安心苦受。名之為忍。對他樂受異。本所忍故曰所忍異。言所欲者。緣於財色悕須名欲。即言欲得聞法故曰所欲異。言所觸異者。坐禪行中實得冷觸。言得熱觸。是名熱觸異。言所想異者。無生異怨想。言有親想故曰也。言所心異者。行心緣此益。言緣彼故云所心異。皆得提罪。又律云。說戒時乃至三問。憶念有罪。而不發露者犯默妄吉羅。僧祇屠兒等逐畜生問言見不不得。妄語不得。爾處應問餘事。乃至看自指甲應方便引接。令畜生遠去。如是方便無犯。十誦若語高性人云。是下性者犯墮。若語兩眼人云。如一眼得妄語提。又輕惱比丘故提。若語一眼人云。汝是瞎眼人得輕惱他罪。又明五種妄語。從夷至吉是。今約此戒因果三種。若起心欲誑前人得責吉。若發言前人未解得對首吉。若言了前人解即得提罪。不犯中。律云。但稱想說。見言見。不見言不見。乃至知等八種皆爾。若意有見想便說者皆不犯。 > "If a bhikṣu knowingly speaks falsely, it is a prāyaścittika." This complete precept text has three clauses: first, the person committing the offense; second, deliberate false speech; third, the determination of the offense for transgressing the rule. The first clause is self-evident. Second, as for "knowingly speaks falsely," the text comprises three parts: first, explaining the objects of false speech; second, distinguishing the meaning of the offense of deceiving others; third, the quantity of prior and subsequent preparatory stages. As for the objects of false speech, there are eight kinds: 1) saying one did not see what one saw; 2) saying one did not hear what one heard; 3) saying one did not touch what one touched; 4) saying one did not know what one knew; the remaining four are the reverse of the above and may be understood accordingly. These are the objects of false speech. Second, as for the words of the offense: what is seen by the eye refers to what consciousness can see and know, extending to what the mind can know. What is unseen excludes the eye-consciousness, and the remaining five consciousnesses are analogous in reverse. Third, as for the quantity of preparatory stages, there are four variations: First, having the intention during all three times—originally making false speech, remembering it is false speech while conceiving it, and knowing it is false speech having spoken it. In the second and third \[variations\], each has two permutations: having intention at two times and lacking intention at one time. In the fourth, one permutation lacks intention at all three times. Third, as for "prāyaścittika": this is the name of the offense. If one speaks falsely having intention at all three times, all incur the fundamental prāyaścittika offense. Next are two permutations: having intention at two times and lacking intention at one time—in the latter permutation, having intention at the fundamental \[moment\] and lacking intention before and after, these four \[combinations\] also incur a prāyaścittika; having intention before and after but lacking it at the fundamental \[moment\], having intention at the first and lacking it at the latter two, or having intention at the last and lacking it at the former two—these three incur a duṣkṛta, as broadly explained in the Vinaya. In the fourth permutation, lacking intention at all three times, none constitute an offense at all. Furthermore, the Vinaya states: "what is seen is different, what is endured is different, what is desired is different, what is touched is different, what is ideated is different, what is minded is different; all such matters are false speech." "What is seen is different" means that in one's active mind one sees a tiger or wolf, yet says one saw a Buddha image. "What is endured is different" means that receiving an adverse sensory object and settling one's mind upon painful feeling is called "endurance"; stating it to be different from that originally endured by contrasting it with another's pleasurable feeling is called "what is endured is different." "What is desired" means that being oriented toward wealth or sex and longing for it is called desire; saying that one desires to hear the Dharma is thus called "what is desired is different." "What is touched is different" means that while practicing sitting meditation one actually experiences a sensation of cold, yet says one experiences a sensation of heat; this is called "heat sensation is different." "What is ideated is different" means that without conceiving of an enemy one says one has friendly ideation; hence it is so stated. "What is minded is different" means that the active mind is oriented toward this benefit, yet one says it is oriented toward that; hence it is said "what is minded is different." All incur a prāyaścittika offense. Furthermore, the Vinaya states: "During the recitation of the precepts, up to three inquiries are made; if one remembers having an offense and does not disclose it, one commits a duṣkṛta of silence-based false speech." The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states: If a butcher or the like chases an animal and asks, "Did you see it or not?" one must not speak falsely, nor may one say \[one saw it\]. At that point one should inquire about other matters, or even look at one's own fingernails, and by expedient means divert them so the animal gets far away; using such expedients constitutes no offense. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya states: If one tells a person of noble birth that they are of low birth, one commits a fall (prāyaścittika). If one tells a person with two eyes, "You are like one with one eye," one incurs a prāyaścittika of false speech, and also incurs a prāyaścittika for slighting and distressing a bhikṣu. If one tells a one-eyed person, "You are a blind person," one incurs an offense of slighting and distressing another. It also explains five kinds of false speech, ranging from pārājika to duṣkṛta. Now, regarding this precept, there are three types of cause and effect: if one gives rise to the intention to deceive another person, one incurs a duṣkṛta of reproof; if one utters the words but the other person has not understood, one incurs a face-to-face duṣkṛta; if the words are clear and the other person understands, one directly incurs a prāyaścittika offense. Under non-offenses, the Vinaya states: if one speaks only matching one's ideation—saying one saw when one saw, saying one did not see when one did not see, up to the eight kinds such as knowing, all are likewise. If in one's mind there is the ideation of seeing and one then speaks, none constitute an offense. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3.3) - [Next: 3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3.5) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787~en-mt.3.4) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [四分律比丘含注戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1806.2.7) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3.4) · Pramāṇa