四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.18

2.18

"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.