Chinese
断此相续故称为杀。若杀天得偷兰罪者。明天难可得杀故不犯重。人非人想偷兰遮者。此文悟应得突吉罗。何以知之。此罪不于人边得。从非人边取想。而不断命。但有方便欲作杀心得突吉罗。于人边无杀心。不应得偷兰遮罪。人作非人想杀。应犯方便突吉罗。非人作人想若杀。犯方便重偷兰。若人非人生疑若杀。犯方便轻偷兰。若非人作非人想若杀。犯究竟重偷兰。若杀人非人畜生各具四缘。四缘成罪得知。皆犯究竟也。 妄语戒第四 圣人身证境法境心俱实。得作第一大实语。凡夫身不证法自知境心俱虚。妄称得圣得作第一妄语。可有五种料简。第一列妄语有五种。并配谤人犯罪作不一类。第二明圣人有两种实语故。则无五种妄语之罪。第三解五种妄语中。初偏妄语并诳非人得圣。此二妄语要是境心俱虚成妄语。余之三种妄语但取心虚。不验境之虚实。第四解妄语。诳人不待前人生信则成妄语。第五解自称得圣无根谤人犯重。此二戒本中。安自言。引虚余戒之本阙不安之。第一列妄语有五种。并列谤人之罪配遍有不相似。初妄语波罗夷。诳人得圣是。第二妄语僧残。无根谤人犯初遍是。第三妄语偷兰。诳非人得圣是。第四妄语波夜提。九十事初故妄语等谤人第二遍是。第五戏笑妄语并谤人犯。下三遍犯突吉 现代汉语译本 断绝这种相续（生命流）因此称为杀。如果杀天（deva，神）而得到偷兰罪（sthulakritya，粗罪）的话，因为天很难被杀死，所以不犯重罪。如果对人产生非人的想法而犯偷兰遮罪（sthulatyaya，粗过），那么根据这段文字的理解，应该得到突吉罗（duskrta，恶作）。为什么这么说呢？因为这个罪不是在人这边得到的，而是从非人那边产生想法，并且没有断命。只是有方便（upaya，手段）想要产生杀心，才会得到突吉罗。如果对人没有杀心，就不应该得到偷兰遮罪。如果把人当作非人来杀，应该犯方便突吉罗。如果把非人当作人来杀，犯方便重偷兰。如果对人或非人产生怀疑而杀，犯方便轻偷兰。如果把非人当作非人来杀，犯究竟重偷兰。如果杀人、非人、畜生，各自具备四种因缘，四种因缘成就罪行，可以得知，都犯究竟罪。 妄语戒第四：圣人身证境（visaya，境界）法境（dharma-visaya，法境）心（citta，心）都真实，可以作第一大实语。凡夫身不证法，自知境心都虚假，却妄称自己得圣，就犯了第一大妄语。可以有五种情况来分析。第一，列出妄语有五种，并且将诽谤人犯罪的情况进行配对，有相似和不相似之处。第二，说明圣人有两种实语，因此没有五种妄语之罪。第三，解释五种妄语中，最初的偏妄语和欺骗非人得圣，这两种妄语必须是境心都虚假才能构成妄语。其余三种妄语只取心虚，不验证境的虚实。第四，解释妄语，欺骗人不需要对方相信才能构成妄语。第五，解释自称得圣和无根诽谤人犯重罪。这两条戒的根本中，安立了‘自言’，引出虚假，其余戒的根本则缺少‘安立’。第一，列出妄语有五种，并且列出诽谤人的罪行，配对后有遍和不相似。最初的妄语是波罗夷（parajika，断头罪），欺骗人说自己得圣就是。第二种妄语是僧残（samghavasesa，僧残罪），无根诽谤人犯初遍是。第三种妄语是偷兰，欺骗非人说自己得圣就是。第四种妄语是波夜提（payantika，堕罪），九十事中的初故妄语等诽谤人第二遍是。第五种是戏笑妄语和诽谤人犯下三遍犯突吉罗。
English
English version The severing of this continuity (of life) is called killing. If one commits a sthulakritya (gross offense) by killing a deva (god), it is not a grave offense because it is difficult to kill a deva. If one has a non-human perception of a human and commits a sthulatyaya (gross transgression), according to this text, one should incur a duskrta (misdeed). Why is this so? Because this offense is not derived from the human side, but from having a perception of a non-human, and without taking a life. Only if there is an upaya (means) with the intention to kill does one incur a duskrta. If there is no intention to kill a human, one should not incur a sthulatyaya. If one kills a human with a non-human perception, one should incur a upaya-duskrta. If one kills a non-human with a human perception, one commits a upaya-sthulatyaya. If one kills with doubt about whether it is a human or a non-human, one commits a upaya-laghu-sthulatyaya (minor sthulatyaya). If one kills a non-human with a non-human perception, one commits a niscita-guru-sthulatyaya (definite major sthulatyaya). If one kills a human, a non-human, or an animal, each possessing the four conditions, and the four conditions are fulfilled, it can be known that all commit a niscita (definite) offense. The Fourth Precept Against False Speech: A sage whose body has realized the visaya (realm), dharma-visaya (realm of dharma), and citta (mind) is truthful, can speak the foremost great truth. An ordinary person whose body has not realized the dharma, knowing that their realm and mind are false, yet falsely claims to have attained sainthood, commits the foremost great falsehood. There are five types of analysis. First, there are five types of falsehoods, and the offenses of slandering people are paired with them, with similarities and dissimilarities. Second, it is explained that a sage has two types of truthful speech, therefore there is no offense of the five types of falsehoods. Third, in explaining the five types of falsehoods, the initial partial falsehood and deceiving non-humans about attaining sainthood, these two falsehoods must have both the realm and mind being false to constitute a falsehood. The remaining three types of falsehoods only consider the falsity of the mind, without verifying the truth or falsity of the realm. Fourth, in explaining falsehoods, deceiving people does not require the other person to believe it to constitute a falsehood. Fifth, it is explained that claiming to have attained sainthood and groundlessly slandering people are grave offenses. In the root of these two precepts, 'self-declaration' is established, leading to falsehood, while the roots of the other precepts lack 'establishment'. First, there are five types of falsehoods, and the offenses of slandering people are listed, paired with pervasive and dissimilar aspects. The initial falsehood is a parajika (defeat), which is deceiving people about having attained sainthood. The second falsehood is a samghavasesa (formal meeting offense), which is groundlessly slandering people, committing the initial pervasive offense. The third falsehood is a sthulakritya, which is deceiving non-humans about having attained sainthood. The fourth falsehood is a payantika (expiation offense), which is the initial intentional falsehood among the ninety matters, etc., slandering people, committing the second pervasive offense. The fifth is joking falsehood and slandering people, committing the lower three pervasive offenses, incurring a duskrta. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
罗是。虽同谤人犯罪轻重。配遍不同者。各有其意旨。不得相决。谤人初遍举灭摈事重。是故犯罪虽复可悔。但可悔中最重。是故即得作。第二遍谤人。第二遍罪犯第三遍罪。虽可悔但悔过中轻重殊自不同亦是诸他事重。是故次第列之得作第三遍。此是次第轻重相类谤第三遍。而犯第五遍者。即是不类但同是威仪。皆是对手忏悔治罪。轻重不多皆降。是故不得次第即作。第四遍依始谤上二遍。次第治罪。轻重皆降。谤人犯第三遍。犯罪已轻不得即作第四遍正合第五遍。若谤人第四遍洛在第五遍谤人。第五遍更无别罪名。亦是独头。但犯罪虽轻故洛在第五遍中。第二解圣人有两种实语故。则无五种妄语。二种实语是何。圣人身心证法境心俱实出观。何人说是第一实语。第二随心想说境。不必是如目连记七日。当两而竟不两亦得作实语也。凡夫之人无其第一身证法实语。故有五种妄语之罪。凡夫得有随想心实语。非是身证故不能断其妄语。凡夫亦有少分身心实语。如人患四大苦痛患。内心愚钝。常怀忧苦。但此非圣法。不能断五种妄语。又复此忧苦境界。或实或虚。此忧境在内。事实易知此忧境。或在他方。虽生忧苦不必定实。不同圣人身证法也。第三解五种妄语中。初遍妄语并诳非人得圣。此二妄语要取境心但虚则成妄 现代汉语译本：罗是（Luoshi）。即使同样是诽谤他人，犯罪的轻重和处罚的程度不同，各有其意义和旨意，不能互相混淆。诽谤他人，第一次遍举灭摈的事情最为严重，因此犯罪虽然可以忏悔，但在可忏悔的罪中是最重的，所以可以立即进行处罚。第二次遍谤他人，第二次犯罪，第三次犯罪，虽然可以忏悔，但忏悔的轻重程度各不相同，也与其他事情的严重程度有关，所以依次排列，可以进行第三次处罚。这是次第轻重相似的诽谤第三遍。而犯第五遍的人，就是不相似，但同样是威仪方面的问题，都可以通过对手忏悔来治理罪行，轻重差别不大，都减轻处罚，所以不能依次进行第四次处罚。依据开始诽谤的前两次，依次治理罪行，轻重都减轻。诽谤他人犯第三遍，犯罪已经较轻，不能立即进行第四遍，正好符合第五遍的情况。如果诽谤他人第四遍落在第五遍诽谤他人，第五遍没有其他罪名，也是独头罪，但犯罪虽然轻微，所以落在第五遍中。 第二种解释是，圣人有两种真实语，所以没有五种妄语。两种真实语是什么？圣人身心证法，境界和心都真实，出观时所说的话，就是第一种真实语。第二种是随心所想说出的境界，不一定是真实的，比如目连（Maudgalyayana）记载七日的事情，即使不完全真实，也可以说是真实语。凡夫之人没有第一种身证法实语，所以有五种妄语的罪过。凡夫可以有随想心实语，但不是身证，所以不能断除妄语。凡夫也有少部分身心实语，比如人患四大苦痛，内心愚钝，常常怀有忧愁痛苦，但这并非圣法，不能断除五种妄语。而且这种忧愁痛苦的境界，有时是真实的，有时是虚假的。这种忧愁的境界在内心，事实容易知道，这种忧愁的境界，或者在其他地方，即使产生忧愁痛苦，也不一定是真实的，不同于圣人身证法。 第三种解释是，五种妄语中，第一次遍妄语和欺骗非人得到圣果，这两种妄语要取境界和心，但虚假就成为妄语。
English
English version: Luoshi (Luoshi). Even though the offenses of slandering others vary in severity and the corresponding punishments differ, each has its own meaning and purpose, and they should not be confused. Slandering others, the first instance of extensively mentioning expulsion is the most serious. Therefore, although the offense is repentable, it is the most serious among repentable offenses, and thus punishment can be carried out immediately. The second instance of slandering others, the second offense, and the third offense, although repentable, differ in the degree of repentance, and are also related to the severity of other matters. Therefore, they are listed in order, and the third punishment can be carried out. This is similar in severity to the third instance of slander. However, someone who commits the fifth instance is dissimilar, but it is still a matter of demeanor. All can be governed by repentance from the opponent, and the difference in severity is not significant, so the punishment is reduced. Therefore, the fourth punishment cannot be carried out sequentially. Based on the first two instances of slander, the punishment is carried out sequentially, and the severity is reduced. If someone slanders others for the third time, the offense is already relatively minor, and the fourth instance cannot be carried out immediately, which corresponds to the fifth instance. If the fourth instance of slandering others falls under the fifth instance of slandering others, there is no other name for the fifth offense, and it is also a solitary offense. However, although the offense is minor, it falls under the fifth instance. The second explanation is that sages have two kinds of truthful speech, so there are no five kinds of false speech. What are the two kinds of truthful speech? When a sage embodies the Dharma with body and mind, the realm and mind are both true, and the words spoken when emerging from contemplation are the first kind of truthful speech. The second kind is the realm spoken according to one's thoughts, which may not necessarily be true. For example, the story of Maudgalyayana (Maudgalyayana) recording seven days, even if it is not completely true, can be said to be truthful speech. Ordinary people do not have the first kind of truthful speech embodied in the Dharma, so they have the sin of five kinds of false speech. Ordinary people can have truthful speech according to their thoughts, but it is not embodied, so they cannot eliminate false speech. Ordinary people also have a small portion of truthful speech embodied in body and mind, such as when people suffer from the great pain of the four elements, are dull in mind, and often harbor sorrow and suffering. However, this is not the holy Dharma and cannot eliminate the five kinds of false speech. Moreover, the realm of this sorrow and suffering is sometimes true and sometimes false. The realm of this sorrow is within the mind, and the facts are easy to know. The realm of this sorrow may be in other places, and even if sorrow and suffering arise, it may not necessarily be true, unlike the Dharma embodied by sages. The third explanation is that among the five kinds of false speech, the first instance of pervasive false speech and deceiving non-humans to attain sainthood, these two kinds of false speech require taking the realm and mind, but falsehood becomes false speech. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
语。所以尔者。此二妄语境心俱在其内。验虚实自知。是故要取境心俱虚结成妄语。余之三种妄语境界在外。难可验知虚实。是故但心虚结成妄语。不验境也。第四凡妄语法本欲使前人生信。然今妄语成罪都不待前人生信。便成不信不成。所以然者。前人信以不信难可验知。是故不待前人生信。第五料简五种妄语中。自称得圣无根谤人犯重。此二戒本中遍安自言引虚。余戒本则阙。计圣人制戒。一切戒本皆应安自言引虚。而今阙之。此二戒本所以独头者量有其意若犯余戒前境事粗显易验可知。不必要假前人自言引犯。是故阙之。若自称得圣无根谤人犯重。此二戒若不着自言。引已不虚。不引无根。前人境事何由可验。如自称得圣境据其内。若不着自言引虚。直取外相境验。何由可知。所以尔者。自称得圣。或有实或有虚。若不着自言引虚。此二言何由可识。是故须自言引虚。使异实得道者制戒不谬。谤戒亦尔。前人净秽何由可测谤。无根有根举罪。此二复不可知。是故戒文中言引无根。然后结罪不谬。谤人犯第二遍。所以不着自言引无根者。前人客有僧中自引忏悔之义。以表知前人有根无根。故戒本中阙。不着。自言引无根不同举他初遍。初遍前人无有僧中自引悔过之义是故前谤者须自言引无根得成谤罪。若彼此都无 自言清浊不别。此戒本永不可制。是故须安自言第三故妄语戒。境界虽复虚实难知。容有不侍前人自言引虚直验可知。且旨一事如有一人。先在水恻实知水深浅。后人来问水之深浅。水实深言浅。实浅言深。前人入水则知前人语之虚实。何假前人自言引虚。是故戒文中阙不着也。就此戒中有五段就因缘中三子段。第一从初讫唯圣知时已来。明敕诸比丘集会讲堂。第二从尔时世尊即诣讲堂以下讫令众疲苦已来。明以敕诸比丘随所宜安居。第三从时诸比丘闻世尊教已下讫未。明诸比丘顺其所敕安居。就第三正明安居中复有二子句。第一从初讫至气力充足以来。明二处安居。第二从诸余比丘以下讫因缘尽已来。明二处安居。僧问讯世尊。就婆裘河安居中有二子句。第一从时有众多比丘以下讫不为乞食所苦已来。明说妄语计。第二从尔时婆裘河边以下讫气力充足已来。正明妄语。就婆裘河边诸比丘问讯世尊中有四子句。第一从在婆裘河边以下讫或有实或无实已来。明三对六句。问其虚实。第二从佛告诸比丘以下讫以盗受人饮食故已来。明如来说二种大贼。第三时世尊已无数方便以下讫不共住已来。明如来举过呵啧制戒。第四从如是世尊以下讫增上慢人不犯以来。明开增上慢人不犯。前三戒名小贼后戒名大贼者。欲明前三戒但是 现代汉语译本 自称清净与不清净没有区别。这条戒律原本永远无法制定。因此必须安立自称（证悟）的第三条虚妄语戒。虽然境界的虚实难以知晓，但容许有不侍奉前人而自称（证悟），引导虚妄，直接验证可知的情况。例如，有一人先前在水边，确实知道水的深浅。后来有人来问水的深浅，水实际很深却说浅，实际很浅却说深。先前的人入水就能知道后来人话语的虚实，何必假借先前的人自称（证悟）引导虚妄呢？因此戒文中缺少不记载这种情况。就这条戒律中有五个段落，在因缘中有三个子段。第一段从开始到‘唯圣知时’为止，说明敕令诸比丘在讲堂（说法）。第二段从‘尔时世尊即诣讲堂’以下到‘令众疲苦’为止，说明敕令诸比丘随所适宜安居。第三段从‘时诸比丘闻世尊教’以下到‘未’为止，说明诸比丘顺从世尊的敕令安居。在第三段正式说明安居中又有两个子句。第一句从开始到‘至气力充足’为止，说明两处安居。第二句从‘诸余比丘’以下到‘因缘尽’为止，说明两处安居，僧众问讯世尊。在婆裘河（Bhaggu-nadī）安居中有两个子句。第一句从‘时有众多比丘’以下到‘不为乞食所苦’为止，说明说妄语的计较。第二句从‘尔时婆裘河边’以下到‘气力充足’为止，正式说明妄语。在婆裘河边诸比丘问讯世尊中有四个子句。第一句从‘在婆裘河边’以下到‘或有实或无实’为止，说明三对六句，询问其虚实。第二句从‘佛告诸比丘’以下到‘以盗受人饮食故’为止，说明如来说两种大贼。第三句从‘时世尊已无数方便’以下到‘不共住’为止，说明如来揭露过失，呵斥责备，制定戒律。第四句从‘如是世尊’以下到‘增上慢人不犯’为止，说明开许增上慢（adhimāna）人不犯戒。前三条戒名为小贼，后一条戒名为大贼，是想说明前三条戒只是（小贼）。