四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.3

3.3

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.