法與律

Dhamma-Vinaya was the Buddha’s own name for the religion he founded. Dhamma—the truth—is what he discovered and pointed out as advice for all who want to gain release from suffering. Vinaya—discipline—is what he formulated as rules, ideals, and standards of behavior for those of his followers who go forth from home life to take up the quest for release in greater earnestness. Although this book deals primarily with discipline, we should note at the outset that total training in the Buddha’s path requires that Dhamma and Vinaya function together. In theory they may be separate, but in the person who practices them they merge as qualities developed in the mind and character. Dhamma-Vinaya（法與律）是佛陀對自己所創立的宗教的名字。法（Dhamma）——真理——是他發現並指出的，作為對所有想要從痛苦中解脫的人的建議。律（Vinaya）是他為追隨者制定的規則、理想和行為標準。這些追隨者離開家庭生活，更加認真地尋求解脫。雖然本書主要討論戒律，但我們首先應該注意，佛陀道路上的全面修行需要法與律的共同作用。從理論上講，它們可能是分開的，但對於實踐它們的人來說，它們作為心靈和性格中發展的品質而融合在一起。
“Gotamī, the qualities of which you may know, ‘These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered and not to being fettered; to shedding and not to accumulating; to modesty and not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment and not to discontent; to seclusion and not to entanglement; to aroused energy and not to laziness; to being unburdensome and not to being burdensome’: You may definitely hold, ‘This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’”—Cv.X.5
“瞿曇彌！若汝所知之法，‘此法導致冷靜而非熱情、導致離繫而非繫縛、導致損減而非積集、導致謙遜而非自誇、導致滿足而非不滿足、資長閑寂而非糾纏、導致精勤而非懈怠、導致易養而非難養者’：汝可以肯定：‘此是法、此是律、此是導師之言教。’”—《小品》.十.5
Ultimately, the Buddha said, just as the sea has a single taste, that of salt, so too the Dhamma and Vinaya have a single taste: that of release. The connection between discipline and release is spelled out in a passage that recurs at several points in the Canon: 佛陀說，最終，正如大海只有一種味道，即鹽的味道一樣，法和律也只有一種味道：解脫的味道。戒律和解脫之間的聯繫在《聖典》中多次重複出現的一段話中得到了闡明：
“Discipline is for the sake of restraint, restraint for the sake of freedom from remorse, freedom from remorse for the sake of joy, joy for the sake of rapture, rapture for the sake of tranquility, tranquility for the sake of pleasure, pleasure for the sake of concentration, concentration for the sake of knowledge and vision of things as they have come to be, knowledge and vision of things as they have come to be for the sake of disenchantment, disenchantment for the sake of dispassion, dispassion for the sake of release, release for the sake of knowledge and vision of release, knowledge and vision of release for the sake of total unbinding through non-clinging.”—Pv.XII.2
「戒律是為了克制，克制是為了無悔，無悔是為了歡悅，歡悅是為了喜，喜是為了輕安，輕安是為了樂，樂是為了定，定是為了如實知見，如實知見是為了厭離，厭離是為了離欲，離欲是為了解脫，解脫是為了解脫知見，解脫知見是為了無取著般涅槃。」——《附隨》.十二.2
In establishing his religion of release, though, the Buddha did not simply set out a body of recommendations and rules. He also founded a company (parisā) of followers. This company falls into four main groups: bhikkhus (monks), bhikkhunīs (nuns), lay men, and lay women. Although the Buddha saw no need to organize the laity in any manner, he arranged for the bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs—who had given up the entanglements of the household life to devote themselves more fully to the goal of release—to develop into communities. And he saw that they needed, as all communities do, ideals and standards, rules and customs to ensure their stability. This need is what gave rise to the Vinaya. 然而，在建立他的解脫宗教時，佛陀並沒有僅只提出一系列建議和規則。他還創立了追隨眾（ parisā ）。該眾分為四個主要群體：比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞（男在家）和優婆夷（女在家）。雖然佛陀認為沒有必要以任何方式組織在家眾，但他安排比丘和比丘尼——他們已經放棄了家庭生活的糾纏，更充分地致力於解脫的目標——發展成團體。他認為，正如所有團體一樣，他們需要理想和標準、規則和習俗來確保穩定。這種需要就是戒律的產生。
In the early years of the Buddha’s career, the texts tell us, there was no need to formulate monastic disciplinary rules. All of the bhikkhus in his following—the Community of bhikkhunīs had not yet been started—were men of high personal attainments who had succeeded in subduing many or all of their mental defilements. They knew his teachings well and behaved accordingly. The Canon tells of how Ven. Sāriputta, one of the Buddha’s foremost disciples, asked the Buddha at an early date to formulate a Pāṭimokkha, or code of rules, to ensure that the celibate life the Buddha had founded would last long, just as a thread holding together a floral arrangement ensures that the flowers are not scattered by the wind. The Buddha replied that the time for such a code had not yet come, for even the most backward of the men in the Community at that time had already had their first glimpse of the goal. Only when mental effluents (āsava) made themselves felt in the Community would there be a need for a Pāṭimokkha. 文獻告訴我們，在佛陀生涯的早期，沒有必要制戒。他追隨者中的所有比丘——比丘尼僧團尚未成立——都是具有很高個人成就的人，他們已經成功地降伏了許多或全部的心理煩惱。他們非常了解他的教導，並按照他的教導行事。《聖典》講述了舍利弗尊者是佛陀的上首弟子之一，他很早就請求佛陀制定《波羅提木叉》戒律，以確保佛陀所創立的梵行生活能夠久住，就像用一根線將插花連接在一起一樣，花不會被風吹散。佛陀回答說，制戒的時候還沒有到來，因為即使是當時僧團中最落後的人也已經得法眼淨。只有當漏（ āsava ）在僧團中出現時，才會需要《波羅提木叉》。
As time passed, the conditions that provided an opening for the effluents within the Community eventually began to appear. The Bhaddāli Sutta (MN 65) presents the Buddha at a later point in his career listing these conditions as five: 隨著時間的推移，僧團內漏的因緣最終開始出現。 《跋陀利經》 （《中部》65經）佛陀在生涯的後期將這些因緣列出為五個：

Ven. Bhaddāli: “Why is it, venerable sir, that there used to be fewer training rules and more bhikkhus established in the knowledge of Awakening? And why is it that there are now more training rules and fewer bhikkhus established in the knowledge of Awakening?” [Bhaddāli, who has been unwilling to abide by the training rules, seems to be suggesting that the rise in the number of training rules is itself the cause for fewer bhikkhus’ attaining Awakening. The Buddha, however, offers a different explanation.]

The Buddha: “So it is, Bhaddāli. When beings have begun to degenerate and the true Dhamma has begun to disappear, there are more training rules and fewer bhikkhus established in the knowledge of Awakening. The Teacher does not lay down a training rule for his disciples as long as there are no cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents have arisen in the Community. But when there are cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents have arisen in the Community, then the Teacher lays down a training rule for his disciples so as to counteract those very conditions.

“There are no cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents have arisen in the Community as long as the Community has not become large. But when the Community has become large, then there are cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents arise in the Community, and the Teacher then lays down a training rule for his disciples so as to counteract those very conditions.... When the Community possesses great material gains... great status... a large body of learning… When the Community is long-standing, then there are cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents arise in the Community, and the Teacher then lays down a training rule for his disciples so as to counteract those very conditions.”

〔跋陀利曰：〕「師尊！依何因、何緣，昔日學處較少而悟入住立之比丘較多耶？又，師尊！依何因、何緣，今日學處較多而悟入住立之比丘〔反〕較少耶？」[跋陀利一直不願意遵守戒律，他似乎在暗示戒律數量的增加本身就是導致證悟的比丘減少的原因。然而，佛陀提供了不同的解釋。]

〔世尊曰：〕「跋陀利！其實如次：即於諸有情衰落、正法滅沒時，學處較多而悟入住立之比丘較少。跋陀利！在此少許漏住法不現於僧團之期間內，師對諸弟子不予制定學處。跋陀利！若有少許漏住法出現僧團中時，此時師為防衛彼等諸漏住法，而為諸弟子制定學處。

跋陀利！僧眾不達廣大期間，在此，無少許漏住法出現於僧團中。然而，跋陀利！僧眾達廣大期間時，在此，少許漏住法出現於僧團中。此時，師為防護彼等漏住法，對諸弟子制定學處也。跋陀利！僧團不達〔追求〕最勝利養……乃至……〔不〕達最勝名聞……〔不〕達〔世俗〕多聞……〔不〕達經驗豐富期間（十臘），在此無少許漏住法顯現於僧團中。然而，跋陀利！僧團到達經驗豐富時，在此，少許漏住法出現於僧團中。此時，師為防衛彼等漏住法，對諸弟子制定學處也。
Thus the rules themselves were not the cause for degeneracy in the Community, and the conditions that provided a foothold for the effluents were not themselves effluents. Rather, the growing complexity of the Community provided the opportunity for bhikkhus to act on the basis of their defilements in a growing variety of ways, and the rules—although they could not prevent any of the five conditions—had to become correspondingly complex to counteract the opportunities those conditions provided for unenlightened behavior. 因此，戒律本身並不是僧團墮落的原因，為漏提供立足點的因緣本身也不是漏。相反，僧團的日益複雜性為比丘們提供了機會，以越來越多的方式根據他們的煩惱採取行動，而戒律——儘管它們不能阻止五種因緣中的任何一種——必須變得相對應地複雜以抵銷這些因緣為無明的行為提供的機會。
Even when these conditions did arise, though, the Buddha did not set out a full code at once. Instead, he formulated rules one at a time in response to events. The considerations that went into formulating each rule are best illustrated by the events surrounding the formulation of the first. 然而，即使這些因緣確實出現，佛陀也沒有立即制定完整的戒律。相反，他針對事件一次一個地制戒。制定每個戒條時所考慮的因素可以透過圍繞第一個戒條制定時的事件得到最好的說明。
Ven. Sudinna, the story goes, had strong faith in the Buddha and had ordained after receiving his parents’ grudging consent. He was their only child and, though married, was childless. His parents, fearing that the government would confiscate their property at their death if it had no heir, devised various schemes to lure Ven. Sudinna back to the lay life, but to no avail. Finally, his mother realized that he was firm in his intention to stay a bhikkhu and so asked him at least to have intercourse with his former wife so that their property would have an heir. Ven. Sudinna consented, took his wife into the forest, and had intercourse three times. 據說， 須提那迦蘭陀子 尊者對佛陀有著堅定的信心，並在父母勉強同意後出家。他是父母唯一的孩子，雖然已婚，但沒有孩子。他的父母擔心，如果他們死後沒有繼承人，政府會沒收他們的財產，因此設計了各種計劃來引誘須提那尊者重回俗家生活，但卻無效。最後，他的母親意識到他做比丘的決心很堅定，所以要求他至少和他的前妻發生性關係，這樣他們的財產就有繼承人。須提那尊者答應了，帶著妻子走進森林，發生了三次性關係。
Immediately he felt remorse and eventually confessed his deed to his fellow bhikkhus. Word reached the Buddha, who called a meeting of the Community, questioned Ven. Sudinna, and gave him a rebuke. The rebuke fell into two major parts. In the first part, the Buddha reminded Ven. Sudinna of his position as a samaṇa —a monk or contemplative—and that his behavior was unworthy of his position. Also, the Buddha pointed out to him the aims of the teaching and noted that his behavior ran counter to them. The implication here was that Ven. Sudinna had not only acted inconsistently with the content of the teaching, but had also shown callous disregard for the Buddha’s compassionate aims in making the Dhamma known. 他立刻感到後悔，並最終向同儕比丘坦白了自己的行為。消息傳到了佛陀那裡，佛陀召開了一次僧團會議，詢問了須提那尊者，並訶責了他。訶責分為兩個主要部分。第一部分，佛陀提醒須提那尊者，指出他作為 samaṇa （沙門）的地位，以及他的行為與他的地位不相稱。此外，佛陀向他指出了教法的目的，並指出他的行為與這些目的背道而馳。這裡的意思是須提那尊者的行為不僅與佛法的內容不符，而且還冷酷無情地漠視佛陀弘揚佛法的慈悲目的。

“‘Worthless man, it is unseemly, out of line, unsuitable, and unworthy of a contemplative; improper and not to be done…. Haven’t I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the sake of dispassion and not for passion; for unfettering and not for fettering; for freedom from clinging and not for clinging? Yet here, while I have taught the Dhamma for dispassion, you set your heart on passion; while I have taught the Dhamma for unfettering, you set your heart on being fettered; while I have taught the Dhamma for freedom from clinging, you set your heart on clinging.

“‘Worthless man, haven’t I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the fading of passion, the sobering of intoxication, the subduing of thirst, the destruction of attachment, the severing of the round, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, unbinding? Haven’t I in many ways advocated abandoning sensual pleasures, comprehending sensual perceptions, subduing sensual thirst, destroying sensual thoughts, calming sensual fevers? Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman’s vagina. Why is that? For that reason you would undergo death or death-like suffering, but you would not on that account, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. But for this reason you would, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell….

“‘Worthless man, this neither inspires faith in the faithless nor increases the faithful. Rather, it inspires lack of faith in the faithless and wavering in some of the faithful.’”

「愚人！此非相應法、非隨順行、非威儀、非沙門行、非清淨行、非所當為……我以種種方便為離欲而說法，非為具欲；為離縛而說法，非為具縛；為無著而說法，非為有著。然而，須提那！汝實將我所說離欲法，以為具欲；所說離縛法，以為具縛；所說無著法，以為有著。

愚人！我以種種方便，豈非為離欲而說法；為破憍慢、為調伏渴愛、為除去執著、為斷絕輪迴、為滅盡愛、為離欲、為證滅、為涅槃而說法耶？我以種種方便，豈非說諸欲之斷滅、說諸欲想之遍知、說諸欲渴之調伏、說諸欲尋之滅除、說諸欲熱之止靜耶？愚人！寧入男根於毒蛇口中，亦勿入於女根中。寧入男根於恐怖毒牙口中，亦勿入於女根中。寧入男根於燃盛之火坑中，亦勿入於女根中。何以故？由彼因緣，實可能受死或等於死之苦，而身壞命終後，不生於惡處、惡道、苦趣、地獄。然而，由此因緣，身壞命終後，當生惡處、惡道、苦趣、地獄……

愚人！此非令未信者生信，已信者增長也。此實是使未信者不生信，已信者部分轉向他去也。」
The second part of the rebuke dealt in terms of personal qualities: those that a bhikkhu practicing discipline is to abandon, and those he is to develop. 訶責的第二部分涉及個人素質：比丘修習戒律時應捨棄的素質，以及修持戒律時應培養的素質。
“Then the Blessed One, having in many ways rebuked Ven. Sudinna, having spoken in dispraise of being burdensome, demanding, arrogant, discontented, entangled, and indolent; in various ways having spoken in praise of being unburdensome, undemanding, modest, content, scrupulous, austere, gracious, self-effacing, and energetic; having given a Dhamma talk on what is seemly and becoming for bhikkhus, addressed the bhikkhus.”
「如是，世尊以種種方便呵責尊者須提那後，說難扶養、難教養、多欲不知足、參與眾中、放逸之非。然後，以種種方便，說易扶養、易教養、清淨少欲知足、好頭陀行、端正而不參與眾中、勇猛精進之美，並且為諸比丘說隨順適切之法後，謂諸比丘曰：」
This was where the Buddha formulated the training rule, after first stating his reasons for doing so. 佛陀在先陳述他這樣做的理由之後，制定學處。
“‘In that case, bhikkhus, I will formulate a training rule for the bhikkhus with ten aims in mind: the excellence of the Community, the comfort of the Community, the curbing of the impudent, the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of effluents related to the present life, the prevention of effluents related to the next life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the true Dhamma, and the fostering of discipline.’”
「諸比丘！然，以十利故，我為諸比丘制立學處，為攝僧、為僧安樂、為調伏惡人、為善比丘得安樂住、為防護現世漏、為滅後世漏、為令未信者生信、為令已信者增長、為令正法久住、為敬重律。」
These reasons fall into three main types. The first two are external: 1) to ensure peace and well being within the Community itself, and 2) to foster and protect faith among the laity, on whom the bhikkhus depend for their support. (The origin stories of the various rules depict the laity as being very quick to generalize. One bhikkhu misbehaves, and they complain, “How can these Sakyan-son monks do that?”) The third type of reason, though, is internal: The rule is to help restrain and prevent mental effluents within the individual bhikkhus. Thus the rules aim not only at the external well being of the Community but also at the internal well being of the individual. This latter point soon becomes apparent to anyone who seriously tries to keep to the rules, for they foster mindfulness and circumspection in one’s actions, qualities that carry over into the training of the mind. 這些原因主要分為三種。前兩者是外在的：1）確保僧團內部的和平與福祉，以及2）培養和保護在家人的信仰，比丘們依賴他們的支持。（各種戒律的起源故事都描述了居士非常容易一概而論。一位比丘行為不端，他們抱怨道：「這些釋迦子沙門怎麼能這麼做呢？」）第三種原因是內在的：戒律是為了幫助限制和防止個別比丘們的精神煩惱。因此，規則不僅旨在實現僧團的外在福祉，而且還旨在實現個人的內在福祉。對於任何認真遵守戒律的人來說，後一點很快就會變得顯而易見，因為它們培養了一個人行動中的正念和謹慎，這些品質會延續到心的訓練中。
Over the course of time the Buddha formulated more than 200 major and minor rules, forming the Pāṭimokkha that was recited fortnightly in each Community of bhikkhus. In addition, he formulated many other minor rules that were memorized by those of his followers who specialized in the subject of discipline, but nothing is known for sure of what format they used to organize this body of knowledge during his lifetime. 隨著時間的推移，佛陀制定了超過 200 條主要和次要的戒律，形成了每個比丘僧團每半月念誦的《波羅提木叉》。此外，他還制定了許多其他小戒條，這些戒條被他的那些專精戒律的追隨者記住了，但我們無法確定他們在他一生中使用什麼格式來組織這一知識體系。
After his total nibbāna, though, his followers made a concerted effort to establish a standard canon of Dhamma and Vinaya, and the Pali Canon as we know it began to take shape. The Vinaya was organized into two main parts: 1) the Sutta Vibhaṅga, the ‘Exposition of the Text’ (which from here on we will refer to simply as the Vibhaṅga), containing almost all the material dealing with the Pāṭimokkha rules; and 2) the Khandhakas, or Groupings, which contain the remaining material organized loosely according to subject matter. The Khandhakas themselves are divided into two parts, the Mahāvagga, or Greater Chapter, and the Cullavagga, or Lesser Chapter. Historians estimate that the Vibhaṅga and Khandhakas reached their present form in approximately the 2nd century B.C.E., and that the Parivāra, or Addenda—a summary and study guide—was added a few centuries later, closing the Vinaya Piṭaka, the part of the Canon dealing with discipline. 然而，在他無餘涅槃之後，他的追隨者齊心協力建立了標準的法和律經典，而我們所知的《巴利聖典》開始成形。戒律分為兩個主要部分：1）Sutta Vibhaṅga《經分別》，即「文本的解釋」（從這裡開始，我們將簡稱為 Vibhaṅga），包含幾乎所有涉及《波羅提木叉》戒條的材料； 2) Khandhaka《犍度》或稱篇章，其中包含根據主題鬆散組織的剩餘材料。《犍度》本身分為兩部分：Mahāvagga（大品）和 Cullavagga（小品）。歷史學家估計，《經分別》和《犍度》在大約公元前2世紀達到了現在的形式，而 Parivāra 或稱《附隨》——一份總結和學習指南——在幾個世紀後被添加，完成了《律藏》（Vinaya Piṭaka），即《聖典》有關戒律的部份。
Because the purpose of this volume is to translate and explain the Pāṭimokkha, we are most directly concerned with the Vibhaṅga. It is organized as follows: The rules in the Pāṭimokkha are presented one by one, each rule preceded by an origin story relating the events leading up to its formulation. In some instances a rule went through one or more reformulations, in which case an additional story is provided for each amendment to show what prompted it. With each new formulation of a rule, any previous formulations were automatically rescinded. Otherwise, the added restrictions or allowances contained in the reformulations would have been rendered meaningless. Thus, the final formulation of the rule is the authoritative one, with the earlier formulations holding only historical interest. 因為本冊的目的是翻譯和解釋《波羅提木叉》，所以我們最直接關心的是《經分別》。它的組織如下：《波羅提木叉》中的戒條一個接一個介紹，每條戒條之前都有一個起源故事，講述了導致其制定的事件。在某些情況下，一條戒條經歷了一次或多次重新制定，在這種情況下，為每一項修正提供了一個額外的故事，以顯示促使其發生的原因。隨著戒條的每一個新的制定，任何先前的制定都將自動廢除。否則，重新制定中所包含的附加限制或開緣將變得毫無意義。因此，該戒條的最終表述具有權威性，而早期的表述僅具有歷史意義。
After the final statement of the rule is a word-analysis (pada-bhājaniya), which explains in detail most of the important terms in the rule. For many of the rules this analysis includes one or more “wheels,” or tables, giving the contingencies connected with the rule, working out all their possible permutations and passing judgment as to what penalty, if any, each permutation entails. For example, the discussion of the first rule contains a wheel that gives all the objects with which a person might have sexual intercourse, lists them against the variables of the sort of intercourse and whether or not the bhikkhu involved gives his consent, and announces the penalty for each possible combination of factors. 戒條的最後陳述之後是語句解說 (pada-bhājaniya)，它詳細解釋了戒條中的大多數重要術語。對於許多戒條，這種解說包括一個或多個「輪子」，或稱表格，給出與戒條相關的意外情況，計算出所有可能的排列，並判斷每種排列所帶來的懲罰（如果有的話）。例如，第一條戒條的討論包含一個輪子，給出一個人可能發生性交的所有物體，根據性交類型以及所涉及的比丘是否同意的變數列出它們，並宣布對每種可能的因素組合的懲罰。
Following the word-analysis for each rule is a section of non-offense clauses, listing extenuating circumstances under which a bhikkhu would be exempted from the penalty imposed by the rule. 每條戒條的語句解說之後是不犯條款部分，列出了比丘可以免除該戒條所施加的處罰的情有可原的情況。
Finally, for the major rules, there is the Vinīta-vatthu, or Precedents, listing various cases related to the rule and giving verdicts as to what penalty, if any, they entail. 最後，對於主要戒條，有《Vinīta-vatthu》（先例），列出了與該戒條相關的各種案例，並就這些戒條所帶來的懲罰（如果有的話）給出了判決。
The Vibhaṅga forms the basis for most of the explanations of the training rules given in this volume. However, there are many questions on which the Vibhaṅga is silent or unclear. To answer these questions, I have turned either to the Khandhakas or to the commentarial literature that has grown up around the Vinaya over the course of the centuries. The primary works I have consulted are these: 《經分別》構成了本冊大部分學處解釋的基礎。然而，有許多問題《經分別》沒有提及或不清楚。為了回答這些問題，我要麼求助於《犍度》，要麼求助於幾個世紀以來圍繞戒律發展起來的註釋文獻。我查閱過的主要著作有：
  1. The Samanta-pāsādikā—“The Thoroughly Inspiring”—(from here on referred to as the Commentary), a commentary on the Vinaya Piṭaka compiled in the 5th century C.E. by Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa, who based his work on ancient commentaries. The originals for these ancient commentaries may have been brought to Sri Lanka from India and translated into Sinhalese, but frequent references throughout the commentaries to places and people in Sri Lanka show that much of the material in the commentaries was composed in Sri Lanka. From internal evidence in Buddhaghosa’s writings—he compiled commentaries on a major portion of the Canon—historians have estimated that the ancient commentaries were collected over a span of several centuries and closed in approximately the 4th century C.E. Buddhaghosa’s work thus contains material much older than his date would indicate.
 1） Samanta-pāsādikā 《一切善見》 、《普端嚴》、《善見註》 －「徹底啟發」－（以下稱為《義註》），是由 尊敬的導師 佛音 (Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa) 在古代註釋的基礎上於公元5世紀編撰的一部律藏註釋。這些古代註釋的原件可能是從印度帶到斯里蘭卡並翻譯成僧伽羅語，但註釋中經常提到斯里蘭卡的地方和人物，這表明註釋中的大部分材料是在斯里蘭卡撰寫的。根據佛音著作中的內部證據（他對《聖典》的主要部分進行了註釋），歷史學家估計這些古代註釋是在幾個世紀的時間裡收集起來的，並於大約公元4世紀完成。因此，佛音的作品中包含的材料比他的時期所顯示的要古老得多。
By Buddhaghosa’s time a belief had grown up that the ancient commentaries were the work of the Buddha’s immediate disciples and thus indisputably conveyed the true intent of the Canon. However, as we shall see below, the ancient commentaries themselves did not make such exalted claims for themselves. 到了佛音時代，人們逐漸相信古代註釋是佛陀直接弟子的作品，因而無可爭議地傳達了《聖典》的真實意圖。然而，正如我們將在下面看到的，古代註釋本身並沒有做出如此崇高的宣稱。
Still, the existence of this belief in the 5th century placed certain constraints on Buddhaghosa’s work. At points where the ancient commentaries conflicted with the Canon, he had to write the discrepancies off as copier’s mistakes or else side with the commentaries against the Canon. At a few points, such as his explanation of Pc 9, he provides arguments effectively demolishing the ancient commentaries’ interpretation but then backs off, saying that the ancient commentaries must be right because their authors knew the Buddha’s intentions. Perhaps pressure from the elder bhikkhus at the Mahāvihāra in Anurādhapura—the place where the ancient commentaries had been preserved and where Buddhaghosa was allowed to do his work—was what made him back off in this way. At any rate, only on points where the different ancient commentaries were silent or gave divergent opinions did he feel free to express his own. 儘管如此，這種在五世紀存在的相信還是對佛音的作品造成了一定的限制。當古代註釋與《聖典》發生衝突時，他必須將這些差異作為抄寫者的錯誤予以記錄，否則就站在反對《聖典》的註釋一邊。在一些要點上，例如他對《波逸提》九的解釋，他提供了有效地推翻古代註釋解釋的論據，但隨後又退縮了，說古代註釋一定是正確的，因為它們的作者知道佛陀的意圖。也許是來自 阿㝹羅陀補羅 大寺 的長老比丘們的壓力——那裡保存著古代註釋，佛音也被允許在那裡做他的工作——是讓他如此退縮的原因。無論如何，只有在不同的古代註釋沒有提及或有不同意見的地方，他才可以自由地表達自己的觀點。
  1. The Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī—“The Subjugator of Uncertainty”—(the K/Commentary), a commentary on the Pāṭimokkha also compiled by Buddhaghosa. Although this work is largely a synopsis of material in the Commentary, it contains some independent material, in particular a system of classifying the offenses under each training rule into their component factors. It also contradicts the Commentary from time to time, suggesting that it may have been based on a commentarial tradition different from the one underlying the Commentary.
 2） Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī 《疑惑度脫》 －「不確定性的征服者」－（K/《義註》），也是佛音編撰的《波羅提木叉》的註釋。雖然這部作品主要是《義註》中材料的概要，但它包含一些獨立的材料，特別是將每個學處下的違規行為分類為其組成因素的體系。它也不時與《義註》相矛盾，表明它所基於的註釋傳統可能與《義註》所依據的註釋傳統不同。
  1. The Sārattha-dīpanī—“The Essence-Meaning Illustrator”—(the Sub-commentary), a sub-commentary on the Commentary, written in Sri Lanka in the 12th century C.E. by a Ven. Sāriputta, the first Mahāsāmin, or head of the Sri Lankan Saṅgha, after that Saṅgha was reformed and unified under the patronage of King Parakrāmabāhu I. This work not only explains the Commentary but also deals with points in the Canon itself, sometimes indicating passages where the Commentary has deviated from the Canon. It also quotes as authoritative the judgments of three ancient texts—the Gaṇṭhipadas, which are no longer extant—and of Ven. Buddhadatta, a scholar of the 4th century C.E. who wrote two extant Vinaya guides.
 3） Sārattha-dīpanī 《闡明實義》、《實義燈疏》、《心義燈》 ——「精義說明者」——（《複註》），是《義註》的再註釋，於公元 12 世紀在斯里蘭卡，由沙利子(Sāriputta)尊者撰寫，他是第一任摩訶薩明(Mahāsāmin)，斯里蘭卡僧伽的領袖。之後，僧伽在 波羅迦羅摩巴忽一世 (Parakrāmabāhu I) 的贊助下進行了改革和統一。這部著作不僅解釋了《義註》，也涉及《聖典》本身的要點，有時指出了《義註》已偏離《聖典》的段落。它也將三部古代文獻的判斷做為權威引述，包含現已不復存在的《隱晦文句》（Gaṇṭhipada），以及兩本現存的戒律指南，由公元 4 世紀的學者佛授(Buddhadatta)尊者撰寫。
  1. The Vimati-vinodanī—“The Remover of Perplexity”—(the V/Sub-commentary), another 12th-century sub-commentary, written in southern India by a Ven. Kassapa, who also wrote the Mohavicchedanī, a synopsis of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka and Buddhaghosa’s commentaries on it.
 4） Vimati-vinodanī 《除疑》－「困惑的消除者」－（V/《複註》），另一本 12 世紀的《複註》，由 迦舍博尊者 在南印度撰寫，他也寫了《斷除愚痴》（ Mohavicchedanī ）、是 《論藏》 和佛音對其的註釋的概要。
  1. The Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī-purāṇa-ṭīkā and the Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī-abhinava-ṭīkā—the old and new sub-commentaries to the K/Commentary—(Old K/Sub-commentary and New K/Sub-commentary). The first, which appears to be missing some passages, was written by an unnamed author during the Anurādhapura period, which predates the time of the Ven. Sāriputta mentioned above. The second—whose full name is the Vinayattha-mañjūsā Līnapakāsanī, “The Chest for the Meaning of the Discipline, the Clarifier of Subtle Meaning”—was written by Ven. Buddhanāga, a student of Ven. Sāriputta. Both works comment not only on the K/Commentary but also on the Commentary and the Canon.
 5） Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī-purāṇa-ṭīkā 《疑惑度脫舊複註》和 Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī-abhinava-ṭīkā 《疑惑度脫新複註》－K/《義註》的新舊《複註》－（舊K/《複註》和新K/《複註》）。第一本似乎缺少一些段落，是由一位不知名的作者在 阿㝹羅陀補羅 時期撰寫的，該時期早於上面提到的沙利子(Sāriputta)尊者的時代。第二本書的全名是 Vinayattha-mañjūsā Līnapakāsanī ，「戒律意義的寶箱，微妙意義的澄清者」－由佛龍尊者(Buddhanāga)撰寫，他是沙利子尊者的弟子。這兩本著作不僅對K/《義註》做了註釋，而且還對《義註》和《聖典》做了註釋。
  1. The Attha-yojanā—“The Interpretation of the Meaning”—(the A/Sub-commentary), a sub-commentary that—unlike the works of Vens. Sāriputta, Kassapa, and Buddhanāga—does little more than analyze the language of the Commentary. This was written in the 15th century C.E. by a Chieng Mai grammarian named Ven. Ñāṇakitti.
 6） Attha-yojanā——「意義的解釋」——（A/《複註》），是一本再註釋書——與沙利子、迦舍博和佛龍尊者的著作不同——所做的只不過是分析《義註》的語言。這是由一位名叫智名(Ñāṇakitti)尊者的清邁文法學家於公元 15 世紀撰寫的。
From here on “the ancient commentaries” will denote the original commentaries that Buddhaghosa had to work with, and “the commentaries” all seven works listed above. 從這裡開始，「古代註釋」指佛音所著的原始註釋，而「註釋」則指上面列出的所有七部作品。
In addition to the Canon and the commentaries, I have referred to the texts listed in the Bibliography. Three of these deserve special mention here. 除了《聖典》和註釋之外，我還參考了參考書目中列出的文本。其中三個值得特別一提。
  1. The Pubbasikkhā-vaṇṇanā, a large compendium of rules from the Canon and the Commentary, compiled in 1860 by Phra Amarabhirakkhit (Amaro Koed), a pupil of King Rāma IV. This was the first comprehensive Vinaya guide compiled for use in the Dhammayut sect, which was founded by Rāma IV while he was still a monk. Although this book was officially supplanted by the Vinaya-mukha (see below), many Communities in Thailand, especially among the Kammaṭṭhāna forest tradition, still prefer it as more authoritative. The book contains a minimum of explanatory material, but it does occasionally provide interpretations of the Canon that cannot be traced directly to the Commentary. Many of these interpretations were carried over into the Vinaya-mukha, so a bhikkhu practicing in Thailand would be well advised to know them. Thus I have made reference to them wherever relevant.
 1） Pubbasikkhā-vaṇṇanā ，一部來自《聖典》和《義註》的大型戒條綱要，由 拉瑪四世 國王的弟子 Phra Amarabhirakkhit (Amaro Koed) 於 1860 年編撰。這是第一本供 法宗派 使用的綜合戒律指南，該教派是由拉瑪四世在還是比丘時創立的。儘管這本書已正式被《戒律入口》（見下文）取代，但泰國的許多僧團，尤其是 泰國森林傳統 中，仍然更偏好它，更具權威性。本書包含最少的解釋性資料，但偶爾也會提供對《聖典》的解釋，這些解釋無法直接追溯到《義註》。其中許多解釋都被帶入到了《戒律入口》中，所以在泰國修行的比丘最好了解它們。因此，我在相關的地方會提到它們。
  1. The Vinaya-mukha, a guide to the Vinaya written in Thai in the early 20th century by Prince Vajirañāṇavarorasa, a son of King Rāma IV who ordained as a bhikkhu and eventually held the position of Supreme Patriarch of the Thai Saṅgha for many years. This work he wrote as part of his attempt both to create a centralized, bhikkhu-administered ecclesiastical organization for the Thai Saṅgha and to unite its two major sects. The attempt at unification failed, but the attempt at centralization succeeded, and the book is still used as the official textbook on Vinaya for the examinations run by the Thai Council of Elders. Prince Vajirañāṇa in his interpretations often disagrees openly not only with the commentaries, but also with the Vibhaṅga itself. Some of his disagreements with the commentaries are well taken, some not.
 2） 《戒律入口》（ Vinaya-mukha ），20世紀初由 Vajirañāṇavarorasa 王子 所著的泰語戒律指南。他是 拉瑪四世 國王之兒子，受戒成為比丘，最終成為了 泰國僧伽的僧王 多年。他寫這本書是他為泰國僧伽創建一個中央集權的、由比丘管理的教團組織，並統一其兩個主要教派的嘗試的一部分。統一的嘗試失敗了，但中央集權的嘗試成功了，這本書仍然被用作泰國長老會考試的官方戒律教科書。金剛智(Vajirañāṇa)王子在他的解釋中不僅經常公開地不同意註釋，而且也不同意《經分別》本身。他對註釋的一些不同意見得到了廣泛接受，而另一些則沒有。
I include the book here both for the valuable suggestions it makes for dealing with unclear points in the older texts and because it is taken as authoritative through much of Thailand. It has been translated into English, as The Entrance to the Vinaya, but the translation is so flawed that I have chosen to translate anew all the passages I quote from it. 我在此包括這本書，一方面是因為它為處理舊文本中的不清楚之處提出了寶貴的建議，另一方面因為它在泰國大部分地區被視為權威。它已被翻譯成英文，書名 The Entrance to the Vinaya ，但翻譯有很大缺陷，因此我選擇重新翻譯我引用的所有段落。
  1. The Book of Discipline, a translation of almost the entire Vinaya Piṭaka into English by Miss I. B. Horner. Although I have learned much from Miss Horner’s work, there are points where my translations and conclusions differ from hers. Because many readers will want to check the information in this book against hers, I have marked these points with a “(§).” Anyone curious as to which interpretation is correct should check the passages in question against the primary sources listed in the Bibliography at the back of this book.
 3） 《戒律書》，是 I. B. Horner 小姐將幾乎整部律藏翻譯成英文。雖然我從 Horner 小姐的著作中學到了很多東西，但我的翻譯和結論與她的在某些地方有所不同。因為許多讀者想要將本書中的資訊與她的進行核對，所以我用「(§)」標記了這些地方。任何好奇哪種解釋是正確的人應該根據本書後面參考書目中列出的主要來源檢查相關段落。
Disagreements among the texts 文本之間的分歧
There are two levels of difficulty in trying to collate all these various texts. The first is that the Canon and Commentary, in Pali, exist in four major printed editions: Thai, Burmese, Sri Lankan, and European (printed by the Pali Text Society (PTS)). Although these editions are largely in agreement, they occasionally differ in ways that can have an important practical impact. Thus, where the editions differ, I have had to choose the reading that seems most reasonable and consistent with the rest of the Canon. In some cases, this has meant adopting a reading followed in only one edition against a reading followed in all the others (see, for example, the discussions under Sg 3 & 4). Where different readings seem equally reasonable, I have given the alternative readings as well. 試圖整理所有這些不同的文本有兩個層次的困難。首先，巴利的《聖典》和《義註》有四個主要印刷版：泰國版、緬甸版、斯里蘭卡版和歐洲版（由巴利文獻協會（PTS）印刷）。儘管這些版本在很大程度上是一致的，但它們偶爾在某些方面存在差異，從而產生重要的實際影響。因此，當版本不同時，我必須選擇看起來最合理且與《聖典》的其餘部分一致的拼讀。在某些情況下，這意味著採用僅在一個版本中遵循的拼讀，而不是在所有其他版本中遵循的拼讀（例如，請參閱《僧殘》三和《僧殘》四中的討論）。如果不同的拼讀看起來同樣合理，我也給了替代的拼讀。
In using the principle of internal consistency here, I am following the Great Standards that—as the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (DN 16) reports—the Buddha formulated at Bhoganagara shortly before his passing away: 在這裡使用內在一致性原則時，我遵循的是佛陀在圓寂前不久在負彌城制定的《四大教示》——正如《大般涅槃經》（《長部》16經）所記述的那樣：

“There is the case where a bhikkhu says this: ‘Face-to-face with the Blessed One have I heard this, face-to-face have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ His statement is neither to be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his words and make them stand against the Suttas and tally them against the Vinaya. If, on making them stand against the Suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they don’t stand with the Suttas or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is not the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has misunderstood it’—and you should reject it. But if… they stand with the Suttas and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has understood it rightly.’”

[The same criteria are to be used when the bhikkhu cites as his authority a Community with well-known leading elders; a monastery with many learned elders who know the tradition, who have memorized the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Mātikā (the precursor to the Abhidhamma as we know it); or a single elder who knows the tradition.]

“比丘們，如果有一位比丘說： ‘賢友，我曾在佛陀跟前聽聞及受持這些法、這些律、這些導師的教誡。’ 比丘們，首先不要對這位比丘的說話隨喜，也不要排斥，好好地記著這些字句，然後和經核對，和律比較，如果在和經核對、和律比較時不相符，便可得出一個結論：肯定這不是佛陀的說話，這位比丘受持錯誤。因此應該捨棄它。如果在和經核對、和律比較時相符，便可得出一個結論：肯定這是佛陀的說話，這位比丘受持正確。

[當比丘引用具有知名長老的團體作為其權威時，應使用相同的標準；一座寺院，有許多博學的長老，他們了解傳承，背誦佛法、戒律和論母（我們所知的阿毘達摩的前身）；或一位了解傳統的長者。]
In other words, the determining factor in deciding a correct understanding is not personal authority but consistency. Only if a statement stands up under comparison with what is known of the Canon should it be accepted as true Dhamma or Vinaya. This standard was enunciated when the texts were still orally transmitted, but applied to our situation at present it means that we cannot take the assumed reliability of a particular printed edition as definitive. If a certain reading seems more consistent than its alternatives with what is known of the rest of the Canon, then—regardless of the edition in which it is found—it should be preferred. If two variant readings seem equally consistent with the known Canon, they may both be treated with respect. 換句話說，判別正確理解的決定因素不是個人權威，而是一致性。只有當一個陳述與已知的《聖典》相比較時站得住腳，它才可以被接受為真正的法或律。該標準是在文本仍在口頭傳播時闡明的，但應用於我們目前的情況意味著我們不能將特定印刷版本的假定可靠性視為最完整可靠的。如果某種拼讀看起來比它的另一拼讀更符合已知的《聖典》其餘部分，那麼——無論它是在哪個版本中找到的——它應該是首選。如果兩種不同的拼讀看起來與已知的《聖典》同樣一致，那麼它們都可受到尊重。
The second level of difficulty in dealing with differences among the texts is that there are points on which the Vibhaṅga is at variance with the wording of the Pāṭimokkha rules, and the commentaries are at variance with the Canon. This forces us to decide which strata of the texts to take as definitive. As far as discrepancies between the Vibhaṅga and the rules are concerned, the following passage in the Cullavagga (X.4) suggests that the Buddha himself gave preference to the way the bhikkhus worked out the rules in the Vibhaṅga: 處理文本之間差異的第二層困難是，《經分別》與《波羅提木叉》戒條的措詞有些不一致，而且註釋與《聖典》也有不一致。這迫使我們決定將文本的哪一部分視為最完整可靠的。至於《經分別》與戒條之間的差異，《小品》（十.4）中的以下段落表明佛陀本人更傾向於比丘們理解《經分別》中戒條的方式：

“As she was standing to one side, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī said to the Blessed One: ‘Venerable sir, those rules of training for the bhikkhunīs that are in common with those for the bhikkhus: What line of conduct should we follow in regard to them?’

“‘Those rules of training for the bhikkhunīs, Gotamī, that are in common with those for the bhikkhus: As the bhikkhus train themselves, so should you train yourselves.’… (emphasis added).

“‘And those rules of training for bhikkhunīs that are not in common with those for bhikkhus, venerable sir: What line of conduct should we follow in regard to them?’

“‘Those rules of training for the bhikkhunīs, Gotamī, that are not in common with those for the bhikkhus: Train yourselves in them as they are formulated.’”

於一面立已，摩訶波闍波提瞿曇彌白世尊：「世尊！比丘尼之學處有與比丘共通者，於彼學處，我等如何為之耶？」

「瞿曇彌！比丘尼之學處與比丘共通者，應如諸比丘之所學而學其學處！」

「比丘尼之學處有與比丘不共通者，於彼學處，我等應如何為之耶？」

「瞿曇彌！比丘尼之學處與比丘不共通者，隨所制之學處而學之！」
This passage implies that already in the time of the Buddha the bhikkhus had begun working out a way to interpret the rules that in some cases was not exactly in line with the way the Buddha had originally formulated them. Some people have read this passage as suggesting that the Buddha, though resigned to this development, was displeased with it. This, however, would contradict the many passages in the Canon where the Buddha speaks in high praise of Ven. Upāli, the foremost of his bhikkhu disciples in terms of his knowledge of Vinaya, who was responsible for teaching the rules to the other bhikkhus and who was largely responsible for the shape of the Vinaya as we now have it. It seems more likely that the Buddha in this passage is simply saying that, to avoid unnecessary controversy, the way the bhikkhus had worked out the implications of the rules was to be accepted as is. 這段經文暗示，早在佛陀時代，比丘們就已經開始想辦法來解釋這些戒條，在某些情況下，這些戒條並不完全符合佛陀最初制定的方式。有些人讀到這段話時認為，佛陀雖然聽任了這種發展，但卻對此不滿意。然而，這與《聖典》中佛陀高度讚揚優婆離尊者的許多段落相矛盾。優婆離尊者是比丘弟子中，就戒律知識而言是第一的，負責向其他比丘教導戒律，並且對我們現在所擁有的戒律的形成負有主要責任。佛陀在這段經文中似乎更可能只是說，為了避免不必要的爭議，比丘們弄清楚戒條意思的方式應該照原樣接受。
Because this development eventually led to the Vibhaṅga, we can be fairly confident that in adhering to the Vibhaṅga we are acting as the Buddha would have us do. And when we check the few places where the Vibhaṅga deviates from the wording of the rules, we find that almost invariably it has tried to reconcile contradictions among the rules themselves, and between the rules and the Khandhakas, so as to make the Vinaya a more coherent whole. This is particularly true with rules that touch on Community transactions. Apparently, many of these rules were formulated before the general patterns for transactions were finalized in the Khandhakas. Thus, after the patterns were established, the compilers of the Vibhaṅga were sometimes forced to deviate from the wording of the original rules to bring them into line with the patterns. 因為這種發展最終導致了《經分別》，所以我們可以相當有信心地相信，在遵從《經分別》時，我們正在按照佛陀的要求行事。當我們檢視《經分別》中與戒條措詞有偏差的少數地方時，我們發現它幾乎無一例外地試圖調和戒條本身、以及戒條與《犍度》之間的矛盾，從而使戒律成為一個更連貫的整體。對於涉及僧伽羯磨的戒條尤其如此。顯然，在《犍度》裡，羯磨的一般模式最終確定之前，其中許多戒條已制定。因此，在模式確立後，《經分別》的編纂者有時被迫偏離原始戒條的措詞，以使其與模式保持一致。
As for contradictions between the Commentary and the Vibhaṅga, this is a more controversial area, with two extremes of thought. One is to reject the Commentary entirely, as it is not the Buddha’s word, for modern historical scholarship has shown decisively that it contains material dating many hundreds of years after the Buddha’s passing away. The other extreme is to accept the Commentary as superseding the Vibhaṅga entirely, in line with the traditional belief that grew up around it: that it was composed at the First Council to express the true intent of those who composed the Vibhaṅga and yet somehow were unable to put what they really meant to say into the Canon itself. Although exponents of each extreme can cite traditional sources in their defense, neither extreme complies with the two sets of Great Standards—the one mentioned above, the other below—that the Buddha formulated for judging what is and is not allowable under the Vinaya, and what does and does not count as Dhamma-Vinaya in the first place. 至於《義註》與《經分別》的矛盾，這是一個比較有爭議的領域，有兩個極端的想法。一是完全拒絕《義註》，因為它不是佛陀的教言，因為現代歷史學術已經明確地表明，它所包含的材料可以追溯到佛陀入滅後數百年。另一個極端是接受《義註》完全取代《經分別》，這與圍繞它產生的傳統信仰是一致的：它是在第一次結集時撰寫的，旨在表達那些撰寫《經分別》的人的真實意圖，但不知何故無法做到把他們真正想說的話放進《聖典》本身。雖然每個極端的倡導者都可以引用傳統資料來為自己辯護，但兩個極端都不符合《四大教示》中的兩項教示——上文已提到一項，下文將提到另一項——《四大教示》是佛陀起初為判斷戒律所允許的和不允許的，以及符不符合法與律而制定的
In support of the first extreme, it is possible to cite the origin story to NP 15, which quotes the Buddha as saying, “What has not been formulated (as a rule) should not be formulated, and what has been formulated should not be rescinded, but one should dwell in conformity and in accordance with the rules that have been formulated.” 為了支持第一種極端，可以引用《捨墮》一五的起源故事，其中引用了佛陀的話說：「未制不得制，已制不得壞，隨所制之戒而持住。」
From this statement, it is possible to argue that the Commentary has no legislative authority at all. One of its most controversial aspects—and this applies to the Sub-commentary as well—is a tendency not only to explain passages in the Canon but also to extrapolate from them, assigning prohibitions and allowances in areas that the Canon did not cover. This would appear to be in violation of the above statement. However, we must remember that the rules formulated by the Buddha include not only prohibitions but also allowances. As the Dhamma-Vinaya has spread to many nations, encountering new cultures, and has endured over time, encountering new technologies, the question has often arisen: Is everything not allowed prohibited? Is everything not prohibited allowed? Either position carried to its extreme would create huge problems in the practice. To say that everything not allowed is prohibited would prevent bhikkhus from utilizing many harmless conveniences; to say that everything not prohibited is allowed would give countless defilements free rein. 從這個說法來看，可以說《義註》根本沒有制戒權。它最具爭議性的方面之一（這也適用於《複註》）是傾向於不僅解釋《聖典》中的段落，而且還從中進行推斷，在《聖典》未涵蓋的領域中指定禁止和許可。這似乎違反了上述聲明。然而，我們必須記住，佛陀制定的戒條不僅包括禁止，還包括允許。隨著法與律傳播到許多國家，遇到新的文化，並隨著時間的推移，遇到新科技，經常出現這樣的問題：是不是一切不允許的事情都被禁止了？一切不被禁止的事情都是允許的嗎？任何一種走向極端的立場都會在實踐中產生巨大的問題。如果說一切不被允許的事情都是被禁止的，就會阻止比丘們利用許多無害的方便；如果說一切不被禁止的事情都是允許的，就會讓無數的煩惱肆意妄為。
The Buddha, however, had enough foresight to see that, over the course of many centuries, new situations would arise that had not existed in his lifetime, and there would be a need to extend the principles of the Vinaya to cover those situations as well. Thus, Mv.VI.40.1 reports that he established the following four guidelines for judgment—called the Great Standards (not to be confused with the Great Standards given in DN 16 and mentioned above)—for judging cases not mentioned in the rules: 然而，佛陀有足夠的遠見，他看到，在許多個世紀的時間推移，將會出現他有生之年中不存在的新情況，因此需要擴展戒律的原則以涵蓋這些情況。因此，《大品》.六.40.1記述說，他制定了以下四項判斷指南——稱為《四大教示》（不要與《長部》16經中給出的《四大教示》和上面提到的混淆）——用於判斷戒條中未提及的情況：

“Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if it conforms with what is not allowable, if it goes against [literally, “preempts”] what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.

“Whatever I have not objected to, saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if it conforms with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you.

“And whatever I have not permitted, saying, ‘This is allowable,’ if it conforms with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.

“And whatever I have not permitted, saying, ‘This is allowable,’ if it conforms with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you.”—Mv.VI.40.1

「諸比丘！如此，我雖未禁曰：『不相應。』若順不相應事，違相應事者，此，汝等為不相應也。

諸比丘！如此，我雖未禁曰：『不相應。』若隨順相應事，違不相應事者，此，汝等為相應也。

諸比丘！如此，我雖未許曰：『相應。』若順不相應事，違相應事者，此，汝等為不相應也。

諸比丘！如此，我雖未許曰：『相應。』若順相應事，違不相應事者，此，汝等為相應也。」——《大品》.六.40.1
Thus it is easy to see that the Commentary and Sub-commentary, in extrapolating from the rules in the Canon to assign new prohibitions and allowances, are simply exercising their right to apply these Great Standards. The question in weighing these commentaries, then, is not whether they have the right to extrapolate from the Canon to formulate prohibitions and allowances, but whether they have applied these Standards in a wise and appropriate way. We ourselves will have recourse to these Standards in the course of this book, both to evaluate the judgments of the commentaries and to determine how the principles of Vinaya apply to new situations today. 由此容易看出，《義註》和《複註》從《聖典》的戒條中推斷出新的禁止和許可，只是在行使其適用這《四大教示》的權利。那麼，權衡這些註釋的問題不在於他們是否有權從《聖典》中推斷以制定禁止和許可，而在於他們是否以明智和適當的方式應用了這《四大教示》。在本書的過程中，我們自己也會依靠這《四大教示》，既用以評估註釋的判斷，並且也決定戒律的原則如何應用於當今的新情況。
The second extreme, however, argues that we have no right to pass judgment on the authority of the Commentary at all. This position, however, runs counter to the principle of consistency espoused in the Great Standards mentioned in DN 16 (and discussed above) for judging what is and isn’t the word of the Buddha. Just as variant readings in the Canon should be judged for consistency with what is already known of the Canon, explanations of the Canon given by later teachers have to be judged for their consistency with the known Canon as well. 然而，第二種極端則認為我們根本沒有權利對《義註》的權威性做出判斷。然而，這個立場違背了《長部》16經中提到的《四大教示》（以及上面討論的）中所奉行的一致性原則，用於判斷什麼是佛陀之言，什麼不是佛陀之言。正如《聖典》中的不同拼讀應被判斷是否與已知的經典一致一樣，後來的導師們對《聖典》的解釋也必須被判斷是否與已知的《聖典》一致。
This point is borne out by three important passages in the texts. One is the narrative of the Second Council, during which the bhikkhus of Vesālī defended ten practices on the grounds that they had learned them from their teachers. The elders who judged the case, though, insisted on evaluating the practices in terms of whether they adhered to the Canon. The primary point of controversy—the question of whose authority was greater, the Canon’s or the teachers’—was point six: 文本中的三個重要段落證實了這一點。第一個段落是第二次結集的敘述，在結集期間，毘舍離的比丘們以從他們的導師們那裡學到的十事為由進行辯護。然而，審理此事的長老們堅持以是否遵守《聖典》來評定這些事。主要爭議點——《聖典》和導師誰的權威更大——是第六點：

“‘The practice of what is habitual, sir—is it allowable?’

“‘What is the practice of what is habitual, my friend?’

“‘To practice (thinking), this is the way my preceptor habitually practiced; this is the way my teacher habitually practiced—is this allowable?’

“‘The practice of what is habitual is sometimes allowable, sometimes not.’”—Cv.XII.2.8

「大德！常法，淨耶？」

「友！何者為常法淨耶？」

「大德！言：此我和尚之常法，此我阿闍梨之常法而行之，淨耶？」

「友！常法一分淨、一分不淨也。」——《小品》.一二.2.8

(上面取自元亨寺漢譯南傳大藏經，以下從英文直譯)

「大德，習慣性的做法可以嗎？」

「友，習慣的做法是什麼？」

「這是我的戒師習慣修行的方式；這是我依止師習慣修行的方式，依照而行，這樣允許嗎？」

「習慣性的做法有時是允許的，有時是不允許的。」
What this means, as the elders showed in their conduct of the meeting, is that one’s teacher’s and preceptor’s practices are to be followed only when in accordance with the Canon. 正如長老們在會議的主持中所表明的那樣，這意味著只有在符合《聖典》的情況下才能遵循依止師（古譯：阿闍梨）和戒師（古譯：和尚）的做法。
The second passage is the discussion of the Great Standards in the Commentary to DN 16, which concludes that the commentaries are to be accepted only where they are in agreement with the Canon. Apparently the teachers who compiled the ancient commentaries took a more modest view of their authority than did the elders of the Mahāvihāra at the time of Buddhaghosa, and did not pretend to supersede the Canon as the final word on what is and is not true Dhamma and Vinaya. 第二個段落是針對《長部》16經的《義註》中《四大教示》的討論，其結論是註釋只有在與《聖典》一致的情況下才被接受。顯然，編纂古代註釋的導師們比佛音時代大寺（Mahāvihāra）的長老們對自己的權威持更為謙虛的態度，並且沒有裝作取代《聖典》去為什麼是或不是真正的法與律下最終定論。
The third passage, a discussion in the Commentary to Pr 1, further elaborates this point by listing four levels of Vinaya, in descending order of authority: the level found in the Canon, the level based on the four Great Standards given in Mv.VI.40.1, the level found in the Commentary, and the level based on one’s personal opinion. Any disagreement among these sources, this passage notes, should be settled by siding with the opinion of the higher authority. Thus the Commentary to the Vinaya puts itself only on the third level of authority, adding that not all of the Commentary qualifies even for that level. The opinions of Vinaya experts after the first generation of commentators, even though included in the Commentary, count only as personal opinion. At present there is no way of knowing for sure which opinions are first-generation and which are not, although the opinions of Sri Lankan Vinaya experts named in the Commentary would obviously fall in the latter category. 第三個段落是針對《波羅夷》一的《義註》中的討論，進一步闡述了這一點，按照權威性由高到低，列出了戒律的四個階層：《聖典》中找到的層級，基於《大品》.六.40.1給出的《四大教示》的層級，《義註》中找到的層級，以及基於個人意見的層級。這段話指出，這些來源之間的任何分歧都應該以更高權威的意見為準。因此，戒律的《義註》僅將自己置於第三級權威，並補充說，並不是所有的《義註》都符合這一級別。第一代論師之後的戒律專家的意見，即使包含在《義註》中，也僅算作個人意見。目前無法確定哪些觀點是第一代，哪些不是，儘管《義註》中點名的斯里蘭卡戒律專家的觀點顯然屬於後一類。
Some may object that to pass judgment on the Commentary is to lack respect for the tradition, but actually it is because of respect for the compilers of the Vibhaṅga that I make the following assumptions in checking the Commentary against the Vibhaṅga: 也許有人會反對說，對《義註》進行評判是缺乏對傳統的尊重，但實際上，正是出於對《經分別》編撰者的尊重，我在對照《經分別》來檢查《義註》時做出了以下假設：
  1. The compilers of the Vibhaṅga were intelligent enough to be consistent within the discussion of each rule. Any explanation based on the premise that they were not consistent should give way to an explanation showing that they were.
 1）《經分別》的編纂者足夠聰慧，能夠在每條戒條的討論中保持一致。任何基於它們不一致的前提的解釋都應該被表明它們一致的解釋取代。
  1. The compilers were well enough acquainted with the contingencies surrounding each rule that they knew which factors were and were not crucial in determining what is and is not an offense. Any explanation that adds or subtracts factors from those mentioned in the Vibhaṅga should give way to one that follows the Vibhaṅga’s analysis. Also, any attempt to use the Great Standards in taking the explanations for one rule and applying them to override the explanations given for another rule should be rejected, inasmuch as those Standards are meant solely for issues where nothing has already been explicitly forbidden or allowed.
 2） 編纂者非常熟悉每條戒條可能發生的事，他們知道哪些因素對於決定什麼是犯戒、什麼不是犯戒至關重要。任何對《經分別》中提到的因素進行添加或刪減的解釋都應該被遵循《經分別》分析的解釋取代。此外，任何試圖使用《四大教示》來將一條戒條的解釋應用於推翻另一條戒條的解釋都應該被拒絕，因為《四大教示》僅適用於尚未明確禁止或允許的議題。
  1. The compilers, in reporting the precedents in the Vinīta-vatthu—the cases the Buddha judged against an existing rule—were careful enough to include all the important factors bearing on the judgment. Any explanation that requires rewriting the precedents, adding extra details extraneous to the Vibhaṅga to account for the judgment, should give way to an explanation that can make sense out of the precedents as they are reported and in terms of the analyses presented elsewhere in the Vibhaṅga.
 3）編纂者在記述《Vinīta-vatthu》中的先例（佛陀根據現有戒條做出判決的案例）時，足夠謹慎地包括了與判決有關的所有重要因素。任何需要修訂先例、添加與《經分別》無關的額外細節以說明判決的解釋，都應該被可以從記述的先例中以及根據《經分別》中其他地方提出的分析的合理解釋取代。
It’s not that I take any joy in arguing with the Commentary. In fact, wherever possible, I have been happy to give it the benefit of the doubt, and on many points I am very much in its debt. Still, now that Buddhism is coming to the West, I feel it is time to stop and take stock of the commentarial tradition and to check it against the earliest sources. This is especially important in a way of thought and life that, from the very beginning, has appealed to reason and investigation rather than to blindly accepted authority. In doing this, I am simply following a pattern that has repeated itself through the history of the Theravādin tradition: that of returning to the original principles whenever the religion reaches an historic turning point. 我並不是以與《義註》爭論為樂。事實上，只要有可能，我都樂意姑且先相信它，並且在很多方面我都非常感激它。儘管如此，既然佛教正在傳入西方，我覺得是時候停下來全面盤點註釋傳統，並根據最早的來源進行檢查。這對於從一開始就訴諸理性和調查而不是盲目接受權威的思想和生活方式來說尤其重要。 在這樣做時，我只是遵循了上座部傳統歷史中不斷重複的模式：每當宗教達到歷史轉折點時，就回到最初的原則。
There is, of course, a danger in being too independent in interpreting the tradition, in that strongly held opinions can lead to disharmony in the Community. Thus in evaluating the Commentary against the Canon, I do not want to imply that my conclusions are the only ones possible. Important points may have slipped my attention or escaped my grasp. For this reason, even in instances where I think that the Commentary does not do justice to the Vibhaṅga, I have tried to give a faithful account of the important points from the Commentary so that those who wish to take it as their authority may still use this book as a guide. If there are any points on which I am mistaken, I would be pleased if knowledgeable people would correct me. 當然，過度獨立地解釋傳統是有危險的，因為強烈的觀點可能會導致僧團的不和諧。因此，在根據《聖典》來評估《義註》時，我不想暗示我的結論是唯一的可能。我可能沒注意到或理解到重要的點。因此，即使在我認為《義註》沒有公正地對待《經分別》的情況下，我也盡力忠實地敘述《義註》中的要點，以便那些希望將其視為權威的人仍然可以使用本書作為指南。如果我有任何錯誤的地方，請知識淵博的人糾正我，我將很高興。
At the same time, I hope that this book will show that there are many areas on which the Vibhaṅga is unclear and lends itself to a variety of equally valid interpretations. For proof of this, we need only look at the various traditions that have developed in the different Theravādin countries, and even within each country. For some reason, people who may be very tolerant of different interpretations of the Dhamma can be very intolerant of different interpretations of the Vinaya, getting into heated arguments over minor issues having very little to do with the training of the mind. 同時，我希望這本書能夠表明，《經分別》有許多不清楚的領域，並且各種同樣有效的解釋都適用。為了證明這一點，我們只需要看看不同上座部國家、甚至每個國家內部發展出來的各種傳統。出於某種原因，那些對法的不同解釋非常寬容的人，可能對律的不同解釋卻非常不寬容，他們會因為一些與修心無關的小問題而陷入激烈的爭論。
I have tried to make the point throughout this book that any interpretation based on a sound reading of the Canon should be respected: that each bhikkhu should follow the interpretations of the Community in which he is living, as long as they do not conflict with the Canon, so as to avoid conflict over minor matters in daily life; and that he should also show respect for the differing interpretations of other Communities where they too do not conflict with the Canon, so as to avoid the pitfalls of pride and narrow-mindedness. 我在本書中試圖指出，任何基於對《聖典》的正確解讀的解釋都應該受到尊重：每個比丘都應該遵循他所居住的僧團的解釋，只要它們不與《聖典》相衝突，以避免因日常生活中的小事發生衝突；他也應該尊重其他僧團的不同解釋，只要這些解釋也不與《聖典》相衝突，以避免陷入驕傲和心胸狹隘的陷阱。
This is especially true now that monasteries of different nationalities are taking root in close proximity to one another in the West. In the past, Thais, Burmese, and Sri Lankans could look down on one another’s traditions without causing friction, as they lived in separate countries and spoke different languages. Now, however, we have become neighbors and have begun to speak common languages, so we must be especially careful not to waste what little time we have in the celibate life on minor disagreements. 這在現在尤其為真，不同民族的寺院正在西方彼此毗鄰的地方紮根。過去，泰國人、緬甸人和斯里蘭卡人可以互相看不起對方的傳統，而不會造成摩擦，因為生活在不同的國家，講不同的語言。然而，現在我們已經成為鄰居，開始說共同語言，所以我們必須特別小心，不要把梵行生活中僅有的一點時間浪費在一些小分歧上。
My aim throughout this book has been practical. I have avoided dealing with academic issues concerning the authenticity and reliability of the tradition, and instead have tried simply to report and explain what the tradition has to say. Of course, I have had to be selective. Whatever the unconscious factors that have influenced my choice of material, the conscious considerations shaping this book are briefly as follows: 我貫穿本書的目標都是實際的。我避免處理有關傳統的真實性和可靠性的學術問題，而是試圖僅只記述和解釋傳統的內容。當然，我必須有所選擇。無論有哪些無意識因素影響了我對材料的選擇，塑造本書的有意識的考量簡要如下：
We are dealing primarily with rules, but rules are not the only way to express disciplinary norms, and the texts we are surveying express their norms in a variety of forms: as rules, principles, models, and virtues. The different forms are best suited for different purposes. Principles, models, and virtues are meant as personal, subjective standards and tend to be loosely defined. Their interpretation and application are left to the judgment of the individual. Rules are meant to serve as more objective standards. To work, they must be precisely defined in a way acceptable to the Community at large. The compilers of the Canon, recognizing this need, provided definitions for most of the terms in the rules, and the authors of the commentaries continued this task, carrying it out with even greater thoroughness. Thus much of this book, in reporting these texts, is concerned with the definition of terms. 我們主要處理的是戒條，但戒條並不是表達戒律規範的唯一方式，我們正在審視的文本以多種形式表達其規範：戒條、原則、模型和美德。不同的形式最適合不同的目的。原則、模型和美德被視為個人的、主觀的標準，並且往往被鬆散地定義。它們的解釋和應用取決於個人的判斷。戒條旨在作為更客觀的標準。為了發揮作用，必須以整個僧團可接受的方式對它們進行精確定義。《聖典》的編纂者認識到這一需要，為戒條中的大多數術語提供了定義，而註釋的作者們則繼續這項任務，並更加徹底地執行它。因此，本書在記述這些文本時，大部分內容都與術語的定義有關。
This need for precision, though, accounts for the weakness of rules in general as universal guides to behavior. First, there is the question of where to draw the line between what is and is not an infraction of the rule. A clear break-off point is needed because rules—unlike principles—deal in two colors: black and white. In some cases, it is difficult to find a clear break-off point that corresponds exactly to one’s sense of what is right and wrong, and so it is necessary to include the areas of gray either with the white or the black. In general, but not always, the Vibhaṅga’s position is to include the gray with the white, and to rely on the principles of the Dhamma to encourage the individual bhikkhu to stay away from the gray. 然而，這種對精確性的需求解釋了一般戒條作為普遍行為指南的弱點。首先，存在一個問題：在哪裡劃清什麼是或不是犯戒的界線。需要一個明確的分界點，因為戒條（與原則不同）涉及兩種顏色：黑色和白色。在某些情況下，很難找到一個明確的分界點來準確地對應一個人的是非觀念，因此有必要將灰色地帶若非與白色就是與黑色包含在一起。一般而言，但並非總是如此，《經分別》的立場是將灰色與白色包含在一起，並依靠法的原則來鼓勵個別比丘遠離灰色。
Take, for instance, the rule against masturbation. The Vibhaṅga limits this rule to forbidding only those forms of masturbation that aim at ejaculation, for if it had drawn the line anywhere else, it would have become an offense for a bhikkhu simply to scratch himself. Thus self-stimulation that does not aim at ejaculation is not an offense, although in many cases it is clearly against the spirit of the Dhamma. The Vinaya-mukha notes, disapprovingly, a number of older Vinaya guides that like to dwell on these areas of gray and seem to delight in figuring out ways to avoid an offense by working around the letter of the rules. In this book I am taking a different tack: Under those rules that include large areas of gray with the white, I have noted a few relevant principles from the Dhamma to spell out a wise policy with regard to the gray areas—not to reformulate the rule, but simply as a reminder that, as noted above, the Vinaya without the Dhamma does not suffice as a guide to the goal. 以禁止自慰的戒條為例。《經分別》將這條戒條限制為僅禁止以射精為目的的自慰形式，因為如果它在其他地方劃定界限，那麼比丘僅僅抓撓自己就會成為一種犯戒。因此，不以射精為目的的自我刺激並不構成犯戒，儘管在許多情況下這顯然違背了法的精神。《戒律入口》（ Vinaya-mukha ）不以為然地指出，一些較老的戒律指南喜歡老是想著這些灰色地帶，並且似乎樂於通過繞過戒條的字面意義來找出避免犯戒的方法。在這本書中，我採取了不同的策略：在那些包含大片灰色地帶和白色的戒條下，我說明了一些來自法的相關原則，以闡明有關灰色地帶的明智方針，而不是重新制定戒條，但只是在提醒，如上所述，沒有法的律不足以作為目標的指南。
Second, there is the drawback that a large body of rules demands two tactics of interpretation that can, on occasion, prove mutually exclusive. On the one hand there is the need for logical consistency in applying basic principles across all the rules so as to lend authority to the system as a whole, at the same time making it easy to understand and memorize. On the other hand there is the need to give reasonable weight to the particular constellation of factors surrounding each individual rule. The first approach runs the risk of sacrificing common sense and the human context of the rules; the second, the risk of appearing inconsistent and arbitrary. Although the compilers of the Vibhaṅga are consistent within the discussion of each rule, they take each rule on a case-by-case basis and do not always come to the same conclusions when analyzing rules that, on the surface, might seem to merit parallel treatment. In other words, when the demands of reasonableness conflict with the demands of logical consistency in a narrow sense, their consistency lies in consistently choosing the reasonable approach. Under the major rules, they provide enough examples in the Vinīta-vatthu to bolster the case for their interpretive strategy. Under the minor rules, they leave it to the reader to ponder their strategy for himself. This approach places heavy demands on each bhikkhu, in that a reasonable system is harder to memorize than a narrowly logical one, but in the long run it aids in the maturity and sensitivity of the bhikkhu who is willing to learn from the Vibhaṅga, and in the livability of the Vinaya as a whole. 其次，有一個缺點，即大量戒條需要兩種解釋手法，有時可能會相互排斥。一方面，在所有戒條中應用基本原則時需要邏輯上的一致性，以賦予整體系統權威性，同時使其易於理解和記憶。另一方面，需要對圍繞每條戒條的特定一連串因素給予合理的重視。第一種方法存在犧牲常識和戒條的人文背景的風險；第二種則有出現不一致和隨意武斷的風險。儘管《經分別》的編纂者在每條戒條之中的討論是一致的，但他們對待每條戒條是根據逐條的具體情況而定，並且在分析表面上似乎值得類似對待的戒條時，並不總是得出相同的結論。換句話說，當合理性的要求與狹義的邏輯一致性的要求發生衝突時，它們的一致性在於始終選擇合理的方法。在主要戒條之下，他們在《Vinīta-vatthu》裡提供了足夠的例子來支持他們的解釋策略。在次要戒條之下，他們讓讀者自己思考他們的策略。這種方法對每個比丘的要求很高，因為一個合理的系統比一個狹隘的邏輯系統更難記住，但從長遠來看，它有助於願意學習《經分別》的比丘的成熟度和敏感度，並有助於戒律作為一個整體的宜居性。
A third drawback resulting from the need for precision in rules is that the more precisely a rule is defined to suit a particular time and place, the less well it may fit other times and places. The compilers of the Canon, in order to make up for this weakness, thus provided the origin stories and precedents to show the type of situation the rule was intended to prevent, providing principles and models that indicate the spirit of the rule and aid in applying it to differing contexts. In writing this book I have often made reference to these stories, to give this added dimension. 由於戒條需要精確性而產生的第三個缺點是，為適應特定時間和地點而定義的戒條越精確，它就越不適合其他時間和地點。為了彌補這一弱點，《聖典》的編撰者提供了起源故事和先例來展示該戒條旨在防止的情況類型，提供了表明該戒條精神的原則和模型，並有助於應用在不同的上下文。在寫這本書時，我經常參考這些故事，以給予此增廣的層面。
However, I have also found it important not to make the origin stories the principle guide in interpreting the rules, for in many cases the range of circumstances they cover is narrow, whereas the range of the rules they introduce is much broader. The first rule, for instance, was formulated when a bhikkhu had sex with a former wife, and was amended when another bhikkhu had sex with a monkey, but the rule is not limited to cases where monkeys and former wives are a bhikkhu’s partner in sex. In some instances—such as the origin story dealing with the establishment of the Invitation ceremony—the incidents leading up to the formulation of a rule were only tangentially connected to the rule; in others—such as the origin story for the establishment of the kaṭhina ceremony—the story reports no wrong-doing on anyone’s part. These indicate that in some cases the Buddha had specific rules in mind and was simply waiting for the slightest pretext to formulate them. Thus the origin stories can at most help fill in the blanks in the explanatory material. They can never be trusted as guides for overriding the explicit information that that material provides. 然而，我還發現，不要將起源故事作為解釋戒條的原則指南是重要的，因為在許多情況下，它們所涵蓋的情況範圍很窄，而它們介紹的戒條範圍卻要廣泛得多。例如，第一條戒條是在一位比丘與前妻發生性行為時制定的，而在另一位比丘與猴子發生性關係時則被修改，但該戒條並不限於猴子和前妻是比丘的性對象的情況。在某些情況下，例如關於自恣儀式建立的起源故事，導致制定戒條的事件與戒條僅略微相關；在其他故事中，例如建立功德衣儀式的起源故事，故事記述沒有任何人有任何不當行為。這些表明，在某些情況下，佛陀心裡已有特定的戒條，只是等待最輕微的藉口來制定它們。因此，起源故事最多只能幫助填補解釋材料中的空白。它們永遠不能被信任為指南，用來推翻該材料提供的明確資訊。
Admittedly, the stories do not always make for inspiring reading. For example, instead of reading about bhikkhus accepting a meal at a donor’s house and then uplifting the donor with a talk on Dhamma, we read about Ven. Udāyin accepting a meal at the dwelling of a bhikkhunī who was his former wife, and the two of them sitting there exposing their genitals to each other. Still, the stories do remind us that the more inspiring stories we read in the discourses took place in a very real human world, and they also reveal the insight and understated wit of those who framed and interpreted the rules. The element of wit here is especially important, for without it there is no true understanding of human nature, and no intelligent system of discipline. 誠然，這些故事並不總是能讓人讀起來鼓舞人心。例如，我們讀到的不是比丘在施主家裡接受一頓飯，然後透過開示佛法來提升施主的道德境界，而是讀到了優陀夷(Udāyin)尊者在一位比丘尼（他的前妻）的住所接受了一頓飯，兩人坐在那裡，彼此暴露了生殖器。儘管如此，這些故事確實提醒我們，我們在經文中讀到的更鼓舞人心的故事發生在一個非常真實的人類世界中，它們也揭示了那些制定和解釋規則的人的洞察力和低調樸素的智慧。智慧的元素在此尤其重要，因為沒有它，就沒有對人性的真正理解，也就沒有智慧的戒律體系。
Finally, in compiling this book, I have tried to include whatever seems most worth knowing for the bhikkhu who aims at fostering the qualities of discipline in his life—so as to help train his mind and live in peace with his fellow bhikkhus—and for anyone who wants to support and encourage the bhikkhus in that aim. 最後，在編寫本書的過程中，我試圖包含那些對於旨在培養生活中戒律品質的比丘來說似乎最值得了解的內容，以幫助訓練他的心，並與他的比丘同儕和睦相處。以及包含對任何想要支持和鼓勵比丘實現這一目標的人值得了解的內容。