四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.20

2.20

"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.