..續本文上一頁he welfare destroyed is great. Further, when it occurs on the part of householders who, not wishing to give away some belonging of theirs, say "I do not have it," it is less blameworthy; when one who is a witness speaks (falsely) for the purpose of destroying another”s welfare, it is more blameworthy. In the case of those gone forth, when it occurs by their saying as a joke, after they have obtained just a little oil or ghee, in the manner of the Puranas, "Today the oil is flowing in the village just like a river," then it is less blameworthy; but for those who speak (as a witness) saying that they have seen what they have not seen it is more blameworthy.
There are four constituents of this act: an untrue case, the mind to deceive, the appropriate effort, the communicating of that meaning to another. The means is single: one”s own person only. That is to be regarded as the performing of the action of deceiving another by means of the body or by means of something attached to the body or by means of speech. If, through that action, the other understands that meaning, one is bound by the kamma of false speech at the very moment of the volition initiating the action.
Malicious speech, etc.: The kind of speech that creates in the heart of the person to whom it is spoken affection for oneself and voidness (of affection) for another is malicious speech (pisuna vaca). The kind of speech by which one makes both oneself and another harsh, the kind of speech which is also itself harsh, being pleasant neither to the ear nor to the heart — that is harsh speech (pharusa vaca). That by which one gossips idly, without meaning, is gossip (samphappalapa). Also, the volition that is the root cause of these gains the name "malicious speech," etc. And that only is intended here.
Therein, malicious speech is the volition of one with a defiled mind, which (volition) initiates an effort by body or by speech either to cause pision among others or to endear oneself (to another). It is less blameworthy when the person pided has few good qualities, and more blameworthy when such a one has great qualities. Its constituents are four: another person to be pided, the intention to pide, (thinking) "Thus these will be separated and split" or the desire to endear oneself, (thinking) "Thus I shall become loved and intimate," the appropriate effort, the communicating of that meaning to that person.
Harsh speech is the entirely harsh volition initiating an effort by body or by speech to wound another”s vital feelings. This is an example given for the purpose of making it clear: A village boy, it is said, went to the forest without heeding his mother”s words. Unable to make him turn back, she scolded him angrily, saying: "May a wild buffalo chase you!" Then a buffalo appeared before him right there in the forest. The boy made an asseveration of truth, saying: "Let it not be as my mother said but as she thought!" The buffalo stood as though tied there. Thus, although the means (employed) was that of wounding the vital feelings, because of the gentleness of her mind it was not harsh speech. For sometimes parents even say to their children, "May robbers chop you to pieces!" yet they do not even wish a lotus leaf to fall upon them. And teachers and preceptors sometimes say to their pupils, "What is the use of these shameless and heedless brats
Drive them out!" yet they wish for their success in learning and attainment.
Just as, through gentleness of mind, speech is not harsh, so through gentleness of speech, speech does not become unharsh; for the words "Let him sleep in peace" spoken by one wishing to kill are not unharsh speech. But harsh speech is such on account of harshness of mind only. It is less blameworthy when the person to whom it is spoken has few good q…
《The Discourse on Right View - The Sammaditthi Sutta and its Commentary》全文未完，請進入下頁繼續閱讀…