僧殘

This term means “involving the Community in the initial (ādi) and subsequent (sesa) acts.” It derives from the fact that the Community is the agent that initially calls on the bhikkhu who breaks any of the rules in this category to undergo the penalty (of mānatta, penance, and parivāsa, probation), subsequently reimposes the penalty if he does not properly carry it out, and finally lifts the penalty when he does. There are thirteen training rules here, the first nine entailing a saṅghādisesa immediately on transgression, the last four only after the offender has been rebuked three times as part of a Community transaction.

這個術語的意思是「讓僧團參與初始 (ādi) 和後續 (sesa) 行為」。它源於這樣一個事實，即僧團是最初要求違反此類戒條的比丘接受懲罰（ mānatta ，贖罪(摩那埵)，和 parivāsa ，別住(波利婆沙)）的代理，如果他沒有正確執行，則隨後重新施加懲罰，最終當他正確執行後解除懲罰。此處有十三個學處（訓練戒條），前九個在違反時即犯《僧殘》，最後四個只有在違反者作為僧伽羯磨的一部分被訶責三次之後才犯《僧殘》。

1	一
Intentional emission of semen, except while dreaming, entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	故意排出精液（除非在做夢時），僧殘。
The origin story to this rule is as follows:	本戒條的起源故事如下：
“Now at that time Ven. Seyyasaka was leading the celibate life dissatisfied. Because of this, he was thin, wretched, unattractive, and pale, his body covered with veins. Ven. Udāyin saw that Ven. Seyyasaka was thin… his body covered with veins. On seeing him, he said to him, ‘Seyyasaka, my friend, why are you thin… your body covered with veins? Could it be that you’re leading the celibate life dissatisfied?’	「爾時，施越尊者過著不滿的梵行生活。是故，他形體枯瘦，容貌憔悴，筋脈悉現。優陀夷尊者看到了施越尊者形體枯瘦……筋脈悉現。一見到他，就對他說：『友！施越！，你為什麼形體枯瘦…筋脈悉現？難道你對梵行生活不滿意？』
“‘Yes, friend.’	「『是的，朋友。』
“‘In that case, eat as you like and sleep as you like and bathe as you like; and having eaten, slept, and bathed as you like, when dissatisfaction arises and lust assails the mind, emit semen having attacked (!) with your hand.’	「『既然如此，想吃就吃，想睡就睡，想沐浴就沐浴；隨心所欲地飲食、睡眠、沐浴，當不滿生起、欲念侵襲心時，就用手攻擊（！）射出精液。』
“‘But is it okay to do that?’	「『但是這樣做可以嗎？』
“‘Of course. I do it myself.’	「『當然。我自己也這樣做。』
“So then Ven. Seyyasaka ate as he liked and slept as he liked… and when dissatisfaction arose and lust assailed his mind, he would emit semen having attacked with his hand. Then it wasn’t long before he became attractive, with rounded features, a clear complexion, and very bright skin. So the bhikkhus who were his friends said to him, ‘Before, friend Seyyasaka, you were thin… your body covered with veins. But now you are attractive, with rounded features, a clear complexion, and very bright skin. Could it be that you’re taking medicine?’	「於是，施越尊者想吃就吃，想睡就睡……當不滿生起，欲念侵襲心時，他就會用手攻擊射出精液。然後沒多久，他就變得很有魅力，五官圓潤，容貌光澤。因此，他的朋友比丘們對他說：『以前，朋友施越，你形體枯瘦……筋脈悉現。但現在的你很有魅力，五官圓潤，容貌光澤。難道是你在吃藥？』
“‘No, I’m not taking medicine, my friends. I just eat as I like and sleep as I like… and when dissatisfaction arises and lust assails my mind, I emit semen having attacked with my hand.’	「『不，我沒吃藥，朋友們。我只是隨心所欲地吃飯，隨心所欲地睡覺……當不滿生起，欲念侵襲心時，我用手攻擊射出精液。』
“‘But do you emit semen having attacked with the same hand you use to eat the gifts of the faithful?’	「『但是，你以此手食信施，又以此手攻擊射出精液？』
“‘Yes, my friends.’”	「『是的，我的朋友們。』」
This rule, in its outline form, is one of the simplest to explain. In its details, though, it is one of the most complex, not only because the subject is a sensitive matter but also because the Commentary deviates from the Vibhaṅga in its explanations of two of the three factors that constitute the full offense.	本戒條的大綱形式是最容易解釋的戒條之一。然而，就其細節而言，它是最複雜的之一，不僅因為該主題是一個敏感問題，而且因為《義註》在對構成完整違犯的三個因素中的兩個的解釋中偏離了《經分別》。
The three factors are result, intention, and effort: emission of semen caused by an intentional effort. When all three factors are present, the offense is a saṅghādisesa. If the last two—intention and effort—are present, the offense is a thullaccaya. Any single factor or any other combination of two factors—i.e., intention and result without making a physical effort, or effort and result without intention—is not grounds for an offense.	這三個因素是結果、意圖和努力：由於有意的努力而導致精液的排出。當這三個因素都存在時，該違犯就是《僧殘》。如果最後兩項——意圖和努力——都存在，那麼該違犯就是《偷蘭遮》。任何單一因素或兩個因素的任何其他組合——即沒有做出肉體的努力的意圖和結果，或沒有意圖的努力和結果——都不是犯戒。
It may seem strange to list the factor of result first, but I want to explain it first partly because, in understanding the types of intention and effort covered by this rule, it is necessary to know what they are aimed at, and also because result is the one factor where the Vibhaṅga and Commentary are in basic agreement.	首先列出結果因素似乎很奇怪，但我想先解釋一下，部分原因是，在理解本戒條所涵蓋的意圖和努力類型時，有必要知道它們的目的是什麼，也因為結果是《經分別》和《義註》基本上一致的因素之一。

Result	結果
The Vibhaṅga states that semen can come in ten colors—a classification derived from a diagnostic practice in ancient Indian medicine in which a doctor would examine his male patients’ ejaculates as a way of diagnosing their health. After presenting a long series of wheels based on these ten colors of semen, the Vibhaṅga arrives at the simple conclusion that the color and quality of the semen are irrelevant to the offense. This suggests that a bhikkhu who has had a vasectomy can still commit an offense under this rule, because he can still discharge the various components that go into seminal fluid—minus only the sperm—at orgasm.	《經分別》指出，精液有十種顏色，這種分類源自古印度醫學的診斷實踐，醫生會檢查男性患者的射精，以此作為診斷其健康狀況的一種方式。在根據這十種顏色的精液提出了一長系列的輪子之後，《經分別》得出了一個簡單的結論：精液的顏色和品質與犯戒無關。這表明，接受過輸精管結紮手術的比丘仍然可以犯下這條戒條，因為他仍然可以在性高潮時排出進入精液的各種成分（僅除去精子）。
Although the Vibhaṅga adds that semen is discharged when it “falls from its base,” it does not discuss this point in any detail. The Commentary discusses three opinions as to precisely when this happens in the course of sexual stimulation. Although its discussion is framed in terms of the physiology of ejaculation as understood at the time, its conclusion is clear: Semen moves from its base when “having made the whole body shake, it is released and descends into the urinary tract”—in other words, at the point of orgasm. The Commentary further explains that semen falls from its base when it enters the urinary tract, because from that point on the process is irreversible. Thus if the process of sexual stimulation has reached this point, the factor of result has been fulfilled even if one tries to prevent the semen from leaving the body at orgasm by pinching the end of one’s penis. Once in the urinary tract, it has already fallen from its base, so whether it then leaves the body is irrelevant as far as the factors of the offense are concerned.	儘管《經分別》補充說，當精液「從基底落下」時，精液就會被排出，但它並沒有詳細討論這一點。關於這種情況在性刺激過程中何時發生，《義註》討論了三種觀點。儘管它的討論是以當時所理解的射精生理學為框架的，但它的結論很明確：當「使整個身體搖晃時，它被釋放並下降到尿道」時，精液從其基底移動—換句話說，在性高潮的時候。《義註》進一步解釋說，精液在進入尿道時會從其基底落下，因為從那時起，該過程是不可逆轉的。因此，如果性刺激的過程達到了這一點，即使在性高潮時試圖透過捏住陰莖末端來阻止精液離開身體，結果因素也已經滿足。一旦進入尿道，它就已經從基底落下，因此就犯戒因素而言，它是否離開身體並不重要。
Although some sub-sub-commentaries have ventured a more cautious opinion than the Commentary’s—saying that semen counts as having fallen from its base when there appears a small amount of the clear alkaline fluid produced by the prostate and Cowper’s glands prior to ejaculation—there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to prove the Commentary wrong.	儘管一些《複註》的再註釋提出了比《義註》更謹慎的觀點，即當射精前的前列腺和考珀氏腺產生少量透明鹼性液體時，精液就被視為從其基底落下。《經分別》中沒有任何內容可以證明《義註》是錯誤的。

Intention	意圖
The Vibhaṅga defines intentionally as “having willed, having made the decision knowingly and consciously.” The Commentary explains these terms as follows: Having willed means having willed, having planned, with the intention of enjoying bringing about an emission. Having made the decision means having summoned up a reckless mind state, “crushing” through the power of an attack. (These are the same terms it uses to explain the same phrase under Pr 3, Pc 61, and Pc 77. The meaning is that one is not simply toying with the idea. One has definitely made up one’s mind to overcome all hesitation by aggressively setting upon an action aimed at causing emission.) Knowingly means knowing that, “I am making an exertion”—which the Sub-commentary explains as knowing that, “I am making an exertion for the sake of an emission.” Consciously means being aware that one’s efforts are bringing about an emission of semen.	《經分別》將故意定義為「有意願，明知地而且有意識地做出決定」。《義註》對這些術語的解釋如下：有意願，意思是已經願意、已經計劃、並且意圖享受射精。做出決定，意思是喚起了不顧後果的精神狀態，以攻擊之力「碾碎」。（這些是它用來解釋《波羅夷》三、《波逸提》六一和《波逸提》七七中相同措辭的相同術語。意思是，不僅玩弄這個想法。而是已經肯定地下定決心，克服所有猶豫，積極地採取旨在引起射精的行動。）明知意思是知道「我正在努力」——《複註》將其解釋為知道「我正在為了射精而努力」。有意識意思是意識到自己的努力正在導致精液的排出。
The Commentary’s definition of “having willed” is where it deviates from the Vibhaṅga’s discussion of the factor of intention. The Vibhaṅga, throughout its analysis, expresses this factor simply as “aiming at causing an emission,” and it lists ten possible motives for wanting to bring the emission about:	《義註》對「有意願」的定義與《經分別》對意圖因素的討論有所不同。《經分別》在其整個分析中僅僅將這一因素表述為「旨在引起射精」，並列出了想要引起射精的十種可能的動機：
for the sake of health,	為了健康，
for the sake of pleasure,	為了享樂，
for the sake of a medicine,	為了用藥，
for the sake of a gift (to insects, says the Commentary, although producing semen as a gift to one’s partner in a tantric ritual would also come under this category),	為了禮物（《義註》中說，是給昆蟲，儘管在密宗儀式中將精液作為禮物送給伴侶也屬於這一類），
for the sake of merit,	為了功德，
for the sake of a sacrifice,	為了犧牲，
for the sake of heaven,	為了天界，
for the sake of seed (to produce a child—a bhikkhu who gave semen to be used in artificial insemination would fit in this category),	為了留種（為了生孩子－比丘捐出精液用於人工受孕就屬於這一類），
for the sake of investigating (e.g., to diagnose one’s health), or	為了調查（例如，診斷某人的健康狀況），或
for the sake of playfulness or fun.	為了好玩或有趣。
Each of these motives, the Vibhaṅga says, fulfills the factor of intention here. Thus for the Commentary to limit the question of “deliberate intention” strictly to the enjoyment of the act of bringing about an emission (numbers 2 and 10 in the Vibhaṅga’s list) has no basis in the Canon. This means that the factor of intention under this rule is defined by deliberateness and immediate aim—causing an emission of semen—regardless of impulse or motive.	《經分別》說，這些動機中的每一個都滿足了這裡的意圖因素。因此，《義註》將「故意」問題嚴格限制為享受帶來射精的行為（《經分別》列表中的第2和10號）在《聖典》中是沒有根據的。這意味著本戒條下的意圖因素是由故意和直接目標（導致精液排出）定義的，無論衝動或動機如何。
Given the way intention is defined, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who brings on an emission of semen—	考慮到意圖的定義方式，對於比丘來說，導致射精的行為並不構成犯戒—
accidentally—e.g., toying with his penis simply for the pleasure of the contact, when it suddenly and unexpectedly goes off;	意外地－例如，僅僅為了接觸的樂趣而玩弄他的陰莖，但它突然意外地出來了；
not knowing that he is making an effort—e.g., when he is dreaming or in a semi-conscious state before fully waking up from sleep;	不知道自己正在努力－例如，當他在做夢時或在從睡眠中完全醒來之前處於半意識狀態時；
not conscious that his efforts are bringing about an emission of semen—e.g., when he is so engrossed in applying medicine to a sore on his penis that he doesn’t realize that he is bringing on an ejaculation;	沒有意識到他的努力導致了精液的射出－例如，當他全神貫注地為陰莖上的瘡口用藥時，他沒有意識到自己正在射精；
or when his efforts are motivated by a purpose other than that of causing an emission—e.g., when he wakes up, finds that he is about to have a spontaneous ejaculation, and grabs hold of his penis to keep the semen from soiling his robes or bedding.	或者當他的努力不是出於引起射精的目的時，例如，當他醒來時，發現他即將自然射精，抓住他的陰莖以防止精液弄髒他的袈裟或寢具。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga defines four types of effort that fulfill this factor: A bhikkhu causes an emission making an effort (1) at an internal object, (2) at an external object, (3) at both an internal and an external object, or (4) by shaking his pelvis in the air. It then goes on to explain these terms: The internal object is one’s own living body. External objects can either be animate or inanimate objects. The third type of effort involves a combination of the first two, and the fourth covers cases when one makes one’s penis erect (“workable”) by making an effort in the air.	《經分別》定義了滿足此因素的四種類型的努力：比丘造成射精藉由努力於：（1）內在所緣，（2）外在所緣，（3）內在所緣和外在所緣，或（4）透過在空中搖動骨盆。然後它繼續解釋這些術語：內在所緣是一個人自己的生命體。外在所緣可以是有生命的或無生命的所緣。第三種類型的努力涉及前兩種的組合，第四種涵蓋了透過在空中努力使陰莖勃起（「可行」）的情況。
The extremely general nature of these definitions gives the impression that the compilers of the Vibhaṅga wanted them to cover every imaginable type of bodily effort aimed at arousing oneself sexually, and this impression is borne out by the wide variety of cases covered in the Vinīta-vatthu. They include, among others, a bhikkhu who squeezes his penis with his fist, one who rubs his penis with his thumb, one who rubs his penis against his bed, one who inserts his penis into sand, one who bathes against the current in a stream, one who rubs his preceptor’s back in the bathing room, one who gets an erection from the friction of his thighs and robes while walking along, one who has his belly heated in the bathing room, and one who stretches his body. In each of these cases, if the bhikkhu aims at and succeeds in causing an emission, he incurs a saṅghādisesa.	這些定義極其籠統的性質給人的印象是，《經分別》的編撰者希望它們涵蓋所有可以想像到的旨在喚起性欲的身體努力類型，而這種印象在《Vinīta-vatthu》中涵蓋的各種案例中得到了證實。其中包括一位比丘用拳頭擠壓他的陰莖，一位比丘用拇指摩擦他的陰莖，一位比丘用床摩擦他的陰莖，一位將他的陰莖插入沙子中，一位在水流中逆流沐浴。一位是在浴房裡摩擦戒師的背部，一位是走路時大腿和袈裟摩擦而勃起的，一位是在浴房裡加熱腹部的，一位是伸展身體的。在上述每一種情況下，如果比丘目的在於射精並成功，他就會犯《僧殘》。
The Vinīta-vatthu also includes a case in which a bhikkhu, desiring to cause an emission, orders a novice to take hold of his (the bhikkhu’s) penis. He gets his emission and a saṅghādisesa to boot, which shows that getting someone else to make the effort for one fulfills the factor of effort here. Under the factor of consent, below, we will discuss a similar case from the Vinīta-vatthu to Pr 1 which indicates that simply lying still while allowing someone else to bring one to an orgasm fulfills the factor of effort here as well.	《Vinīta-vatthu》還包括一個例子，一位比丘想要射精，命令一位沙彌抓住他的（比丘的）陰莖。他得到了他的射精和《僧殘》，這表明讓別人為自己付出努力就滿足了這裡的努力因素。在下面的同意因素下，我們將討論從《波羅夷》一的《Vinīta-vatthu》中的一個類似案例，該案例表明，僅僅只是不動地躺著，同時允許別人使自己達到高潮，也滿足了這裡的努力因素。
In discussing the factor of effort, though, the Commentary adds an additional sub-factor: that the effort must be directed at one’s own penis. If this were so, then a bhikkhu who succeeded in causing an emission by stimulating any of the erogenous zones of his body aside from his penis would incur no penalty. The Commentary itself actually makes this point, and the Sub-commentary seconds it, although the V/Sub-commentary says that such a bhikkhu would incur a dukkaṭa—what it bases this opinion on, it doesn’t say: perhaps a misreading of the Case of the Sleeping Novice, which we will discuss below.	然而，在討論努力因素時，《義註》增加了一個額外的子因素：努力必須針對自己的陰莖。如果是這樣的話，那麼比丘如果透過刺激身體上除陰莖以外的任何性感帶而成功地導致射精，就不會受到懲罰。《義註》本身實際上提出了這一點，而《複註》也同意這一點，儘管V/《複註》說這樣的比丘會犯《突吉羅》—它並沒有說明此觀點基於什麼：也許是對睡眠沙彌案例的誤讀，我們將在下面討論。
At any rate, the Commentary in adding this last factor runs up against a number of cases in the Vinīta-vatthu in which the effort does not involve the penis: the bhikkhu warming his belly, the bhikkhu rubbing his preceptor’s back, a bhikkhu having his thighs massaged, and others. The Commentary deals with these cases by rewriting them, stating in most cases that the effort somehow had to involve the penis. This in itself is questionable, but when the Commentary actually contradicts the Vinīta-vatthu in the case of the bhikkhu who warms his belly, saying that this sort of effort could not involve an offense at all, even if one aims at and succeeds in causing an emission, the commentators have moved beyond the realm of commenting into the realm of rewriting the rule.	無論如何，《義註》在添加這最後一個因素時遭遇到了《Vinīta-vatthu》中的許多案例，其中努力不涉及陰莖：比丘溫暖他的腹部，比丘摩擦他的戒師的背部，比丘讓他的大腿被按摩，等等。《義註》透過改寫來處理這些案例，指出在大多數情況下，努力必須以某種方式涉及陰莖。這本身是有問題的，但是當《義註》實際上與《Vinīta-vatthu》中比丘溫暖腹部的案例相矛盾時，說這種努力根本不涉及犯戒，即使一個人的目的在於射精並成功，註釋者已經超越了註釋領域，進入了改寫戒條的領域。
As stated in the Introduction, we have to go on the assumption that the compilers of the Vibhaṅga knew the crucial factors of each offense well enough to know what is and is not an offense, and were careful enough to include all the relevant facts when describing the precedents in the Vinīta-vatthu in order to show how the Buddha arrived at his judgments. Because the Commentary’s position—adding the extra factor that the physical effort has to involve one’s own penis—directly contradicts the Vibhaṅga on this point, the extra factor cannot stand.	如同引言中所述，我們必須繼續假設，《經分別》的編纂者充分了解每種犯戒的關鍵因素，知道什麼是犯戒，什麼不是犯戒，並且在描述《Vinīta-vatthu》中的先例時足夠小心，包括所有相關事實，以表明佛陀如何得出他的判斷。因為《義註》的立場——增加了身體努力必須涉及自己的陰莖這一額外因素——在這一點上直接與《經分別》相矛盾，所以這個額外因素不能成立。
The question then is why the commentators added the extra factor in the first place. An answer may be found in one of the cases in the Vinīta-vatthu: the Case of the Sleeping Novice.	那麼問題便是為什麼註釋者當初添加了額外的因素。在《Vinīta-vatthu》中的一個案例中或許可以找到答案：睡眠沙彌案例。
“On that occasion a certain bhikkhu grabbed hold of the penis of a sleeping novice. His semen was emitted. He felt conscience-stricken…. ‘Bhikkhu, there is no saṅghādisesa offense. There is a dukkaṭa offense.’”	「有一次，某個比丘抓住了一個熟睡的沙彌的陰莖。他的精液被射出。他感到良心不安…。『比丘，非《僧殘》，乃《突吉羅》』」
The issue here is whose semen was emitted. Pali syntax, unlike English, doesn’t give us a clue, for there is no syntactical rule that the pronoun in one sentence should refer to the subject of the preceding sentence. There are many cases under Pr 3 that follow the form, “A stone badly held by the bhikkhu standing above hit the bhikkhu standing below on the head. The bhikkhu died. He felt conscience-stricken.” In these cases it is obvious from the context within the story which bhikkhu died and which one felt conscience-stricken, while with the sleeping novice we have to look for the context in other parts of the Vibhaṅga.	這裡的問題是誰的精液被排出了。巴利語法與英語不同，沒有給我們任何線索，因為沒有語法規則要求一個句子中的代名詞應該指前一個句子的主詞。《波羅夷》三中有許多案例遵循這樣的形式：「站在上面的比丘拙劣地握住一塊石頭，擊中了站在下面的比丘的頭部。比丘死了。他感到良心受到譴責。」在這些情況下，從故事的上下文中可以明顯看出哪個比丘死了，哪個比丘感到良心受到打擊，而對於睡眠的沙彌，我們必須在《經分別》的其他部分尋找上下文。
If the bhikkhu was the one who emitted semen, then perhaps there is a contradiction in the Vibhaṅga, and the Commentary is justified in saying that the effort must involve one’s penis, for otherwise the case would seem to fulfill the Vibhaṅga’s general definition for the factor of effort: The bhikkhu is making an effort at an outside body and has an emission. Following the general pattern of the rule, he would incur a saṅghādisesa if he intended emission, and no penalty at all if he didn’t. Yet—deviating from the standard pattern for the Vinīta-vatthu cases—the Buddha does not ask whether he aimed at emitting semen, and simply gives the bhikkhu a dukkaṭa, which suggests an inconsistency.	如果比丘是射出精液的人，那麼《經分別》中也許存在矛盾，而《義註》說努力必須涉及自己的陰莖是合理的，否則這種情況似乎滿足了《經分別》對努力因素的一般定義：比丘對對外部的身體施加努力並且射出精液。按照戒條的一般模式，如果他意圖射精，就會犯《僧殘》，如果他沒有意圖射精，則不會受到任何懲罰。然而，與《Vinīta-vatthu》案例的標準模式不同的是，佛陀並沒有問他是否旨在射精，而只是給了比丘《突吉羅》，這表明了不一致。
If, however, the novice was the one who emitted, there is no inconsistency at all: The bhikkhu incurs his dukkaṭa for making lustful bodily contact with another man (see the discussion under Sg 2, below), and the case is included here to show that the full offense under this rule concerns instances where one makes oneself emit semen, and not where one makes others emit. (Other than this case, there is nothing in the rule or the Vibhaṅga that expressly makes this point. The rule simply mentions bringing about the emission of semen, without explicitly mentioning whose. This would explain the bhikkhu’s uncertainty as to whether or not he had committed a saṅghādisesa.) And the reason there is no mention of whether or not the bhikkhu intended to emit semen is because—as it comes under another rule—it is irrelevant to the case.	然而，如果沙彌是射出精液的人，則根本沒有矛盾：比丘因與另一個男人進行淫蕩的身體接觸而犯《突吉羅》（參見下面《僧殘》二的討論），這個案例被包括在這裡，以顯示本戒條下的完全違犯涉及一個人使自己射出精液的情況，而不是使他人射出精液的情況。（除了這個例子之外，戒條或《經分別》中沒有任何內容明確說明這一點。戒條只是提到導致精液的排出，而沒有明確提及是誰的。這可以解釋比丘不確定自己是否犯《僧殘》。）之所以沒有提及比丘是否有意射精，是因為——它屬於另一條戒條——與本案例無關。
Thus, inasmuch as the second reading—the novice was the one who had an emission—does no violence to the rest of the Vibhaṅga, it seems to be the preferable one. If this was the case that led the commentators to add their extra factor, we can see that they misread it and that the Vibhaṅga’s original definition for the factor of effort still stands: Any bodily effort made at one’s own body, at another body or physical object, at both, or any effort made in the air—like shaking one’s pelvis or stretching one’s body—fulfills the factor of effort here.	因此，由於第二種讀法——沙彌是射精的人——對《經分別》的其餘部分沒有衝突，所以它似乎是更好的讀法。如果正是這種情況導致註釋者添加他們的額外因素，我們可以看到他們誤讀了它，而《經分別》對努力因素的原始定義仍然有效：對自己的身體、對另一個身體或身體對象，或對兩者皆是，還是在空中所做的任何努力——比如搖動一個人的骨盆或伸展一個人的身體——所做出的任何身體努力，都滿足了這裡的努力因素。
One case that does not fulfill the factor of effort, according to the Vinīta-vatthu, is when one is filled with lust and stares at the private parts of a woman or girl. In the case dealing with this contingency, the bhikkhu emits semen, but again the Buddha does not ask whether he intended to. Instead, he lays down a separate rule, imposing a dukkaṭa for staring lustfully at a woman’s private parts. This suggests that efforts with one’s eyes do not count as bodily efforts under this saṅghādisesa rule, for otherwise the penalty would have been a saṅghādisesa if the bhikkhu had intended emission, and no offense—not a dukkaṭa—if he hadn’t. And this also suggests that the dukkaṭa under this separate rule holds regardless of intention or result. The Commentary adds that this dukkaṭa applies also to staring lustfully at the genitals of a female animal or at the area of a fully-clothed woman’s body where her sexual organ is, thinking, “Her sexual organ is there.” At present we would impose the penalty on a bhikkhu who stares lustfully at a woman’s private parts in a pornographic photograph.	根據《Vinīta-vatthu》，一種不滿足努力因素的情況是，當一個人充滿欲望並盯著女人或女孩的私處時。在處理這種可能發生的情況時，比丘射出精液，但佛陀並沒有問他是否有意這樣做。相反地，他制定了一條單獨的戒條，對充滿欲望地凝視女性私處，處以《突吉羅》。這表明，在本《僧殘》戒條下，用眼睛做的努力不算作身體的努力，否則，如果比丘有意射精，就會受到《僧殘》的懲罰；如果他沒有無意，則沒有犯戒，而不是《突吉羅》。這也表明，無論意圖或結果如何，這條單獨戒條下的《突吉羅》都成立。《義註》補充說，這種《突吉羅》也適用於充滿欲望地凝視雌性動物的生殖器，或盯著穿著衣服的女性身體的性器官所在的區域，心想：「她的性器官就在那裡。」目前，我們會對在色情照片中充滿欲望地凝視女性私處的比丘施以此懲罰。
As we will see under the non-offense clauses, there is no offense in a nocturnal emission. The Commentary, however, discusses the question of conscious efforts made prior to sleep aimed at a nocturnal emission, and arrives at the following verdicts: If a bhikkhu, “usurped” with lust while lying down, grabs his penis with his fist or thighs and drops off to sleep maintaining that position in hopes of inducing an emission, he incurs the full offense if the emission takes place. If, however, he suppresses his “lust-usurpation” by reflecting on the foulness of the body and then dozes off with a pure mind, he incurs no offense even if an emission later occurs. The analysis here seems to be that the bhikkhu’s change of mind would separate the emission from the earlier effort enough so that it would not be regarded as a direct result of that effort. The Sub-commentary adds that, in addition to suppressing the lust in his mind, he also has to discontinue his effort to be free of an offense in this way. And both texts have to be qualified by saying that the “no offense” would apply only to the emission, for the earlier intentional effort would incur a thullaccaya.	正如我們將在不犯條款中看到的，遺精並不構成犯戒。然而，《義註》討論了在睡眠前為了遺精而有意識地努力的問題，並得出以下結論：如果比丘在躺下時被欲望「侵占」，用拳頭或大腿抓住他的陰莖，入睡時保持該姿勢以期引起遺精，如果發生遺精，他將完全違犯此戒條。然而，如果他透過反思身體的不淨來抑制「欲望篡奪」，然後以清淨的心入睡，即使後來發生遺精，他也不會犯戒。這裡的分析似乎是，比丘改變心意，會將射精與先前的努力充分分開，這樣它就不會被視為該努力的直接結果。《複註》又說，除了抑制內心的欲望之外，他還必須停止他的努力而免於以這種方式犯戒。這兩篇文本都必須加以限定，即「不犯」僅適用於射精，因為更早之前的故意努力會犯《偷蘭遮》。

Consent

同意

A special contingency covered by this rule occurs in two nearly identical cases in the Vinīta-vatthu for Pr 1: A woman approaches a bhikkhu and offers to make him emit semen by attacking with her hand (§). In both cases the bhikkhu lets her go ahead, and the Buddha says that he incurs a saṅghādisesa in doing so. The commentaries treat the cases as self-evident and offer no extra details. Thus, given the facts as we have them, it would seem that consent under this rule can be expressed physically simply by letting the act happen. A bhikkhu who acquiesces mentally when someone tries and succeeds in making him emit semen is not absolved from the full offense here even if he otherwise lies perfectly still throughout the event.

本戒條所涵蓋的特殊意外情況發生在《波羅夷》一的《Vinīta-vatthu》中的兩個幾乎相同的案例中：一名婦女走近一位比丘，提出用手攻擊讓他射出精液（§）。在這兩種情況下，比丘都讓她繼續，佛陀說他這樣做會犯《僧殘》。註釋認為這些案例是不言而喻的，沒有提供額外的細節。因此，鑑於我們所掌握的事實，似乎可以透過僅僅讓該行為發生在身體上來表達本戒條下的同意。當有人試圖並成功地讓比丘射出精液時，比丘在精神上默許，即使他在整個事件中完全靜止不動，也不能免除這裡的完全違犯。

Derived offenses	衍生違犯
As stated above, a bhikkhu who fulfills all three factors—result, intention, and effort—incurs a saṅghādisesa. One who fulfills only the last two—intention and effort—incurs a thullaccaya.	如上所述，比丘滿足了所有三個因素——結果、意圖和努力——就犯了《僧殘》。一個人只滿足最後兩項——意圖和努力——就會犯了《偷蘭遮》。
In discussing the case of a bhikkhu with fat thighs who develops an erection simply by walking along, the Commentary mentions that if one finds sensual “fever” arising in such a case, one must immediately stop walking and start contemplating the foulness of the body so as to purify the mind before continuing on one’s way. Otherwise, one would incur a thullaccaya simply for moving one’s legs. Sensual fever, here, probably refers to the desire to cause an emission, for there are several spots where the Commentary discusses bhikkhus who stimulate an erection simply for the enjoyment of the contact rather than to cause an emission, and the judgment is that they incur no penalty, even if an emission does inadvertently result.	在討論一位大腿肥大的比丘，只要走路就勃起的案例時，《義註》提到，如果在這種情況下發現欲「燒」，必須立即停止行走，並開始觀照身體的不淨，以便在繼續前進之前淨化內心。否則，僅僅因為移動雙腿就會招致《偷蘭遮》。這裡的欲燒可能是指想要引起射精的欲望，因為《義註》中有好幾處討論了比丘刺激勃起的原因，他們只是為了享受接觸的樂趣而不是為了引起射精，而判決結果是，即使無意中造成了射精，他們也不會受到懲罰。
Aside from the thullaccaya, the Vibhaṅga assigns no other derived offenses under this rule. A bhikkhu who has an ejaculation while thinking sensual thoughts but without making any physical effort to cause it, incurs no penalty regardless of whether the idea crosses his mind that he would like to have an emission, and regardless of whether he enjoys it when it occurs. However, the Commentary notes here that even though there is no offense involved, one should not let oneself be overcome by sensual thoughts in this way. This point is borne out by the famous simile that occurred to Prince Siddhattha before his Awakening and that later, as Buddha, he related to a number of listeners:	除了《偷蘭遮》之外，《經分別》在本戒條下沒有指定任何其他衍生違犯。比丘在想性欲念頭時射精，但沒有付出任何身體努力來導致射精，無論他的心中是否有想要射精的念頭，也無論當射精發生時他是否享受它，都不會受到懲罰。然而，《義註》在此指出，即使沒有犯戒，也不應該這樣讓自己被欲念所征服。悉達多太子在成佛之前，後來成為佛陀時，對許多聽眾講了一個著名的比喻，證實了這一點：
“‘Suppose there were a wet sappy piece of timber lying on dry ground far from water, and a man were to come along with an upper fire-stick, thinking, “I’ll light a fire. I’ll produce heat.” Now what do you think? Would he be able to light a fire and produce heat by rubbing the upper fire-stick in the wet sappy timber…?’	假如有一條潮濕的木柴，被人放在乾地上，一個人拿著一支木燧走來，想用那條木柴來生熱、取火。火種，你認為怎樣，那個人能否用木燧和那條木柴來生熱、取火呢？
“‘No, Master Gotama. And why is that? Because the wood is wet and sappy, even though it is lying on dry ground far from water. The man would reap only his share of weariness and disappointment.’	“喬答摩賢者，不能。這是什麼原因呢？因為雖然那條木柴被人放在乾地上，但仍是潮濕的。那個人只會為自己帶來疲勞和苦惱。”
“‘So it is with any brahman or contemplative who lives withdrawn from sensuality only in body, but whose desire, infatuation, urge, thirst, and fever for sensuality is not relinquished and stilled within him: Whether or not he feels painful, racking, piercing feelings due to his striving (for Awakening), he is incapable of knowledge, vision, and unexcelled self-awakening.’”—MN 36	同樣地，任何沙門婆羅門，如果不能從身體所帶來的欲樂之中退卻出來，不能善於捨棄和善於平息內心對貪欲的愛欲、愛著、迷戀、渴求、熱愛的話，在感受到強烈、猛烈、激烈的苦受時，他們沒有能力得到無上等正覺的知和見—《中部》36經

Non-offenses	不犯
In addition to the cases already mentioned—the bhikkhus who bring about emissions accidentally, not knowing that they are making an effort, not conscious that their efforts are bringing about an emission, whose efforts are motivated by a purpose other than that of causing an emission, or who without making any physical effort have an ejaculation while overcome by sensual thoughts—there is no offense for a bhikkhu who has an ejaculation while dreaming.	除了已經提到的情況外—比丘們無意中造成漏洩精液，他們不知道自己在努力，沒有意識到自己的努力正在帶來漏洩精液，他們的努力是出於除了造成漏洩精液之外的目的，或在沒有做出身體努力的情況下，被欲念所控制而射精—比丘在夢中射精並不犯戒。
The Commentary notes that some interpreters had taken the idiomatic term in the rule translated as, “while dreaming (supinantā),” and read it as a compound meaning literally “at the end of a dream (supin’antā),” thus opening an allowance for intentional effort and emission when awakening from a soon-to-be-wet dream. However, the Commentary goes on to rule out this overly literal interpretation, stating that what happens in the mind while one is sleeping falls in the bounds of the Abhidhamma, but what happens after one awakens falls within the bounds of the Vinaya; and that there is no such thing as a misdeed performed when one is in a “non-negligible” state of mind that does not count as an offense. (Non-negligible, according to the Sub-commentary, means “normal.”)	《義註》指出，一些解釋者將戒條中的慣用術語翻譯為「做夢時 (supinantā)」，並將其解讀為複合詞，字面意思是「在夢的結尾 (supin'antā)」，從而開緣了當從即將遺精的春夢中醒來時，允許有意識的努力和泄精。然而，《義註》接著排除了這種過於字面的解釋，指出睡著時內心發生的事情屬於阿毘達摩的範圍，而睡醒後發生的事情則屬於戒律的範圍。當一個人處於「不可忽略」的心態時，任何不端行為都算犯戒。（根據《複註》，不可忽略的意思是「正常」。）
In making the exception for what happens while asleep, the Buddha states that even though there may be the intention to cause an emission, it doesn’t count. The Commentary goes on to say, however, that if a bhikkhu fully awakens in the course of a wet dream, he should lie still and be extremely careful not to make a move that would fulfill the factor of effort under this rule. If the process has reached the point where it is irreversible and the ejaculation occurs spontaneously, he incurs no penalty regardless of whether he enjoys it. And as the Commentary quotes from the Kurundī, one of the ancient Sinhalese commentaries on which it is based, if he wakes up in the course of a wet dream and grabs hold of his penis to prevent the ejaculation from soiling his robes or bedding, there is no offense.	在對睡眠時發生的情況進行例外處理時，佛陀指出，即使可能有導致泄精的意圖，但這不算數。然而，《義註》接著說，如果比丘在春夢中完全醒來，他應該靜靜地躺著，並且要非常小心，不要做出會滿足本戒條下努力因素的舉動。如果這個過程已經達到不可逆轉的地步並且射精自然發生，那麼無論他是否享受它，他都不會受到懲罰。正如《義註》引用的《Kurundī》（這是其所依據的古代僧伽羅註釋之一）中的那樣，如果他在春夢中醒來並抓住他的陰莖以防止射精弄髒他的袈裟或床上用品，那麼並沒有犯戒。
However, the Commentary’s two cases concerning nocturnal emissions, mentioned above, indicate that if a nocturnal emission occurs after a bhikkhu made a fully intentional effort toward an emission before falling asleep, he would incur the full offense under this rule unless the effort and intent were clearly stopped with a clear change of heart while he was still awake. This is because all three factors under this rule would be fully present: a conscious, unhesitating decision to cause an emission; a conscious effort based on that decision; and the resulting emission. Whether or not one was conscious while it occurred is of no account.	然而，上述《義註》中關於遺精的兩個案例表明，如果比丘在入睡前完全有意地努力泄精，之後發生遺精，那麼他將完全違犯本戒條下，除非在他還醒著的時候，由於心意的明顯改變而明顯地停止了努力和意圖。這是因為本戒條下的所有三個因素都將完全存在：有意識地、毫不猶豫地決定引起泄精；基於該決定的有意識的努力；以及由此產生的泄精。事情發生時一個人是否有意識並不重要。
Summary: Intentionally causing oneself to emit semen, or getting someone else to cause one to emit semen—except during a dream—is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：故意使自己射出精液，或讓別人使自己射出精液（除了在夢中），是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

2	二
Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, engage in bodily contact with a woman, or in holding her hand, holding a lock of her hair, or caressing any of her limbs, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果任何比丘被貪欲所征服，以變易之心，與女人進行身體接觸，或握住她的手，握住她的一綹頭髮，或愛撫她的任何肢體，僧殘。
This rule has sometimes been viewed as a sign of prejudice against women. But, as the origin story makes clear, the Buddha formulated the rule not because women are bad, but because bhikkhus sometimes can be.	本戒條有時被視為對女性的偏見。但是，正如起源故事所表明的那樣，佛陀制定這條戒條並不是因為女人不好，而是因為比丘有時是不好的。
“Now at that time, Ven. Udāyin was living in the wilderness. His dwelling was beautiful, attractive, and appealing. The inner chamber was in the middle, entirely surrounded by the outer chamber. The bed and bench, the mattress and pillow were well arranged, the water for washing and drinking well placed, the surrounding area well swept. Many people came to look at it. Even a certain brahman together with his wife went to Ven. Udāyin and on arrival said, ‘We would like to look at your dwelling.’	「爾時，優陀夷尊者住在林野裡。他的住所美麗、迷人、吸引人。內室位於中間，完全被外室包圍。床板凳、床墊、枕頭都擺放整齊，洗用水及飲用水都擺放整齊，周圍打掃得井井有條。很多人都過來觀看。甚至有一位婆羅門與他的妻子一起去見優陀夷尊者，抵達後說：『我們想看看您的住所。』
“‘Very well then, brahman, have a look.’ Taking the key, unfastening the lock, and opening the door, he entered the dwelling. The brahman entered after Ven. Udāyin; the brahman lady after the brahman. Then Ven. Udāyin, opening some of the windows and closing others, walking around the inner room and coming up from behind, rubbed up against the brahman lady limb by limb.	「『那麼，婆羅門，你看看吧。』他拿了鑰匙，打開鎖，打開門，進入了住宅。婆羅門跟隨優陀夷尊者進入；婆羅門婦亦從婆羅門後而入。時，優陀夷尊者開一窗閉一窗，繞內屋而行，從後上來，觸摩婆羅門婦其身。
“Then, after exchanging pleasantries with Ven. Udāyin, the brahman left. Delighted, he burst out with words of delight: ‘How grand are these Sakyan contemplatives who live in the wilderness like this! And how grand is Ven. Udāyin who lives in the wilderness like this!’	「然後，與優陀夷尊者寒暄一番後，婆羅門離開了。他大喜，脫口而出欣喜之言：『這些釋迦沙門，如此生活在林野，是多麼偉大啊！優陀夷尊者就這樣生活在林野裡，是多麼偉大啊！
“When this was said, his wife said to him, ‘From where does he get his grandeur? He rubbed up against me limb by limb just the way you do!’	「如是說時，其婦言婆羅門曰：『他有何高貴？他就像你一樣，用肢體摩擦我！』
“So the brahman criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘They’re shameless, these bhikkhus—immoral, liars!… How can this contemplative Udāyin rub up against my wife limb by limb? It isn’t possible to go with your family wives, daughters, girls, daughters-in-law, and female slaves to a monastery or dwelling. If family wives, daughters, girls, daughters-in-law, and female slaves go to a monastery or dwelling, the Sakyan-son monks will molest them!’”	「於是，婆羅門批評、抱怨、散播說：『這些比丘，他們無恥，不道德，騙子！…這個優陀夷沙門怎麼能與我的妻子肢體接觸呢？實不能與你的家庭妻子、女兒、女孩、媳婦和女奴一起去寺院或精舍。如果家中的妻子、女兒、女孩、媳婦、女奴到寺院或精舍去，沙門釋子就會猥褻他們！』」
There are two ways in which a bhikkhu can come into contact with a woman: either actively (the bhikkhu makes the contact) or passively (the woman does). Because the Vibhaṅga uses different terms to analyze these two possibilities, we will discuss them separately.	比丘與女人接觸有兩種方式：主動（比丘接觸）或被動（女人接觸）。由於《經分別》使用不同的術語來分析這兩種可能性，因此我們將分別討論它們。

Active contact	主動接觸
The full offense for active contact here is composed of four factors.	這裡主動接觸的完全違犯由四個因素組成。
1) Object: a living woman—“even one born on that very day, all the more an older one.” Whether she is awake enough to realize what is going on is irrelevant to the offense.	1）對象：一個活著的女人——「即使是當天出生者，何況更年長者。」她是否清醒地意識到正在發生的事情與犯戒無關。
2) Perception: The bhikkhu correctly perceives her to be a woman.	2）感知：比丘正確地察覺她是女性。
3) Intention: He is impelled by lust.	3）意圖：他被欲望所驅使。
4) Effort: He comes into physical contact with her.	4）努力：他與她有身體接觸。
Of these four factors, only two—intention and effort—require detailed explanation.	在這四個因素中，只有兩個——意圖和努力——需要詳細解釋。

Intention	意圖
The Vibhaṅga explains the term overcome with lust as meaning “impassioned, desiring, a mind bound by attraction.” Altered, it says, can refer in general to one of three states of mind—passion, aversion, or delusion—but here it refers specifically to passion.	《經分別》將「被貪欲所征服」一詞解釋為「充滿激情、渴望、被吸引力束縛的心」。它說，「變易」一般可以指三種心理狀態之一──貪、瞋或癡──但這裡它特指貪。
The Commentary adds a piece of Abhidhamma analysis at this point, saying that altered refers to the moment when the mind leaves its state of pure neutrality in the bhavaṅga under the influence of desire. Thus the factor of intention here can be fulfilled not only by a prolonged or intense feeling of desire, but also by a momentary attraction.	《義註》在此加了阿毘達摩的分析，說「變易」是指心在欲望的影響下，離開有分的清淨中立狀態的時刻。因此，這裡的意圖因素不僅可以透過持久或強烈的欲望感來實現，也可以透過瞬間的吸引來實現。
The Commentary also tries to limit the range of passion to which this rule applies, saying that it covers only desire for the enjoyment of contact. As we noted under Pr 1, the ancient commentators formulated a list of eleven types of lust, each mutually exclusive, and the question of which rule applies to a particular case depends on which type of lust provokes the bhikkhu’s actions. Thus if a bhikkhu lusting for intercourse touches a woman, it says, he incurs only a dukkaṭa as a preliminary to sexual intercourse under Pr 1. If he touches her through his lust for an ejaculation, he incurs a thullaccaya as a preliminary to causing an emission under Sg 1. Only if he touches her with the simple desire to enjoy the sensation of contact does he incur a saṅghādisesa under this rule.	《義註》也試圖限制本戒條適用的激情範圍，稱它僅涵蓋享受接觸的欲望。正如我們在《波羅夷》一中所指出的，古代註釋者列出了十一種貪欲的清單，每種貪欲都是相互排斥的，而哪種戒條適用於某個特定情況的問題取決於哪種類型的貪欲會激起比丘的行動。因此，如果一個欲求性交的比丘觸摸一個女人，它說，他只會犯《突吉羅》，作為《波羅夷》一下性交的預備。如果他出於射精的欲望而觸摸她，他就會犯《偷蘭遮》，作為《僧殘》一下引起射精的預備。只有當他懷著享受接觸感覺的純粹欲望去觸碰她時，他才會根據本戒條犯《僧殘》。
This system, though very neat and orderly, flies in the face of common sense and, as we noted under Pr 1, contradicts the Vibhaṅga as well, so there is no need to adopt it. We can stick with the Vibhaṅga to this rule and say that any state of passion fulfills the factor of intention here. The Commentary’s discussion, though, is useful in showing that the passion needn’t be full-scale sexual lust. Even a momentary desire to enjoy the sensation of physical contact—overwhelming enough that one acts on it—is enough to fulfill this factor.	這個系統雖然非常整潔有序，但卻違背了常識，並且正如我們在《波羅夷》一中指出的那樣，也與《經分別》相矛盾，因此沒有必要採用它。我們可以遵循本戒條的《經分別》，並說任何激情狀態都滿足這裡的意圖因素。不過，《義註》的討論有助於顯示激情不一定是全面的性欲。即使是一瞬間想要享受身體接觸的感覺——強烈到足以讓人採取行動——也足以滿足本因素。

Effort

努力

The Vibhaṅga illustrates the effort of making physical contact with a list of activities: rubbing, rubbing up against, rubbing downwards, rubbing upwards, bending down, pulling up, drawing to, pushing away, seizing hold (restraining or pinning down—abhiniggaṇhanā), squeezing, grasping, or touching. The Vinīta-vatthu includes a case of a bhikkhu giving a woman a blow with his shoulder: He too incurs a saṅghādisesa, which shows that the Vibhaṅga’s list is meant to cover all similar actions as well. If a bhikkhu with lustful mind does anything of this sort to a living woman’s body, perceiving her to be a woman, he incurs the full penalty under this rule. As noted under Pr 1, mouth-to-mouth penetration with any human being or common animal would incur a thullaccaya. If this act is accompanied by other lustful bodily contact, the thullaccaya would be incurred in addition to any other penalty imposed here.

《經分別》說明了透過一系列活動進行身體接觸的努力：摩擦、偶然碰上、向下摩擦、向上摩擦、向下彎腰、向上拉、拉近、推開、抓住（限制或固定—abhiniggaṇhanā），擠壓、抓握或觸摸。《Vinīta-vatthu》中有一個比丘用肩膀碰女人的例子：他也犯了《僧殘》，這表明《經分別》的清單也旨在涵蓋所有類似的行為。如果一個比丘懷著貪欲的心，對一個活著的女人的身體做出這樣的事情，並認為她是一個女人，那麼他將根據本戒條受到完全的懲罰。如《波羅夷》一所述，與任何人類或普通動物進行口對口插入都會犯《偷蘭遮》。如果此行為伴隨著其他淫欲的身體接觸，除了此處施加的任何其他懲罰外，還將犯《偷蘭遮》。

Derived offenses	衍生違犯
Each of the factors of an offense allows a number of permutations that admit for different classes of offenses. Taken together, they form a complex system. Here we will consider each factor in turn.	犯戒的每個因素都允許多種排列，以適應不同類別的犯戒。它們結合在一起，形成了一個複雜的系統。這裡我們將依序考慮每個因素。
Object	對象
Assuming that the bhikkhu is acting with lustful intentions and is perceiving his object correctly, he incurs a thullaccaya for making bodily contact with a paṇḍaka, a female yakkha, or a dead woman; and a dukkaṭa for bodily contact with a man (or boy), a wooden doll, or a male or female animal.	假設比丘懷著貪欲而行動，並且正確地感知他的對象，他會因與黃門（paṇḍaka）、女夜叉或死去的女人進行身體接觸而犯《偷蘭遮》；與男人（或男孩）、木娃娃、雄性或雌性動物的身體接觸則犯《突吉羅》。
Paṇḍaka is usually translated as eunuch, but eunuchs are only one of five types of paṇḍakas recognized by the Commentary to Mv.I.61:	Paṇḍaka 通常被翻譯為太監，但太監只是《大品》.一.61的《義註》所認可的五種黃門（paṇḍaka）之一：
1) An āsitta (literally, a “sprinkled one”)—a man whose sexual desire is allayed by performing fellatio on another man and bringing him to climax. (Some have read this as classing all homosexual males as paṇḍakas, but there are two reasons for not accepting this interpretation: (a) It seems unlikely that many homosexuals would allay their sexual desire simply by bringing someone else to climax through oral sex; (b) other homosexual acts, even though they were known in ancient India, are not included under this type or under any of the types in this list.)	1）āsitta（字面意思是「被注入者」）－透過對另一個男人口交並使他達到高潮來緩解性欲的男人。（有些人認為這是將所有同性戀男性歸為黃門（paṇḍaka），但不接受這種解釋有兩個原因：（a）許多同性戀者似乎不太可能僅僅通過口交使別人達到高潮來減輕自己的性慾；（b）其他同性戀行為，即使它們在古印度為人所知，也不包含在此類型或此列表中的任何類型中。
2) A voyeur—a man whose sexual desire is allayed by watching other people commit sexual indiscretions.	2）窺淫癖者－透過觀看其他人的不檢點性行為來降低性慾的男人。
3) A eunuch—one who has been castrated.	3）太監－被閹割的人。
4) A half-time paṇḍaka—one who is a paṇḍaka only during the waning moon. (! — The Sub-commentary’s discussion of this point shows that its author and his contemporaries were as unfamiliar with this type as we are today. Perhaps this was how bisexuals were understood in ancient times.)	4）半月黃門（paṇḍaka）－僅在下弦月期間才是黃門（paṇḍaka）。（！－《複註》對這一點的討論表明，它的作者和他的同時代人對這種類型和我們今天一樣陌生。也許這就是古代對雙性戀的理解。）
5) A neuter—a person born without sexual organs.	5）中性人－出生時沒有性器官的人。
This passage in the Commentary further states that the last three types cannot take the Going-forth, while the first two can (although it also quotes from the Kurundī that the half-time paṇḍaka is forbidden from going-forth only during the waning moon (!).) As for the prohibition in Mv.I.61, that paṇḍakas cannot receive full ordination, the Commentary states that that refers only to those who cannot take the Going-forth.	《義註》中的這段話進一步指出，後三種不能出家，而前兩種可以（儘管它也引用《Kurundī》，半月黃門僅在下弦月期間禁止出家（！）。）至於《大品》.一.61中的禁令，即黃門不能受具足戒，《義註》指出，這僅指那些不能出家的人。
However, in the context of this rule, and other rules in the Pāṭimokkha where paṇḍakas enter into the calculation of an offense, the Commentary does not say whether paṇḍaka covers all five types of paṇḍakas or only those not allowed to ordain. In other words, in the context of these rules do “sprinkled ones” and voyeurs count as paṇḍakas or men? In the context of this rule the practical implications of the distinction are minor: If counted as men, they would be grounds for a dukkaṭa; if paṇḍakas, grounds for a thullaccaya. However, under Pc 6, 44, 45, & 67, the distinction makes the difference between an offense and a non-offense, and so it is an important one to draw. There seems good reason to count them as men under all rules, for if they could ordain and yet were considered paṇḍakas under these rules, the texts would have been obliged to deal with the issue of how bhikkhus were to treat validly ordained paṇḍakas in their midst in the context of these rules. But they don’t. This shows that the issue never arose, which means that, for the purposes of all the rules, these two types of individuals count as men.	然而，在本戒條的脈絡下，以及《波羅提木叉》中將黃門納入犯戒計算的其他戒條中，《義註》並沒有說明黃門是否涵蓋所有五種類型的黃門或僅涵蓋那些不允許出家的類型。換句話說，在這些戒條的脈絡下，「被注入者」和窺淫癖者算是「黃門」還是「男人」？在本戒條的戒條下，這種區別的實際含義是較不重要的：如果被算作男人，他們將成為《突吉羅》的理由；如果是黃門，則為《偷蘭遮》的理由。然而，在《波逸提》六、四四、四五和六七下，這一區別決定了犯戒和不犯之間的區別，因此這是一個重要的問題。似乎有充分的理由在所有戒條下將他們視為男人，因為如果他們能夠出家，但在這些戒條下仍被視為黃門，那麼文獻就必須處理比丘如何對待他們之中的有效出家的黃門的問題。但文獻沒有。這表明這個問題從未出現過，這意味著，就所有戒條而言，這兩類人都算是男性。
As for female yakkhas, the Commentary says that this also includes female devas. There is an ancient story in Chieng Mai of a bhikkhu who was visited by a dazzling heavenly maiden late one night while he was meditating alone in a cave at Wat Umong. She told him not to touch her, but he did—and went immediately out of his mind. The moral: This is one thullaccaya not to be taken lightly.	至於女夜叉，《義註》說，這也包括女天人。清邁有一個古老的故事，講的是一位比丘在悟蒙寺的一個山洞裡獨自冥想時，有一天深夜，一位耀眼的天女拜訪了他。她告訴他不要碰她，但他卻碰了——然後立刻就失去了理智。寓意：這是不可掉以輕心的《偷蘭遮》。
There is one exception to the dukkaṭa for lustful contact with an animal: Mv.V.9.3 states that a bhikkhu who touches the genitals of cattle incurs a thullaccaya.	對於與動物的淫欲接觸犯《突吉羅》，但有一個例外：《大品》.五.9.3指出，觸摸牛生殖器的比丘會犯《偷蘭遮》。
Other information from the Commentary:	《義註》中的其他資訊：
1) The thullaccaya for lustfully touching female corpses applies only to those that would be grounds for a full offense under Pr 1, i.e., those with an anal, oral, or genital orifice intact enough for one to perform the sexual act. Female corpses decomposed beyond that point are grounds for a dukkaṭa here.	1）淫欲觸摸女性屍體犯《偷蘭遮》僅適用於那些根據《波羅夷》一構成完全犯戒的屍體，即肛門、口腔或生殖器口完好無損，足以讓人進行性行為。在此之後腐爛的女性屍體在此犯《突吉羅》。
2) The dukkaṭa for lustfully touching wooden dolls (mannequins) applies also to any female form made out of other materials, and even to any picture of a woman.	2）淫欲地觸摸木娃娃（人體模型）犯《突吉羅》，也適用於任何用其他材料製成的女性形象，甚至任何女性照片。
3) Female animals include female nāgas as well as any female offspring of a union between a human being and an animal.	3）雌性動物包括雌性龍（nāga）以及人類與動物結合的雌性後代。
For some reason, male yakkhas and devas slipped out of the list. Perhaps they should come under men.	由於某種原因，男性夜叉和天神被排除在名單之外。也許他們應該受男人管轄。

Perception

感知

The Vibhaṅga shows that misperception affects the severity of the offense only in the cases of women and paṇḍakas. A bhikkhu who makes lustful bodily contact with a woman while under the impression that she is something else—a paṇḍaka, a man, or an animal—incurs a thullaccaya. If he makes lustful bodily contact with a paṇḍaka while under the impression that the paṇḍaka is a woman, a man, or an animal, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. In the cases of men and animals, misperception has no effect on the severity of the case: Lustful bodily contact—e.g., with a male transvestite whom one thinks to be a woman—still results in a dukkaṭa.

《經分別》表明，只有在女人和黃門的情況下，錯誤感知才會影響犯戒的嚴重程度。比丘與女性進行淫欲的身體接觸，同時又以為她是別的東西——黃門、男人或動物——犯《偷蘭遮》。如果他在以為黃門是女人、男人或動物而與之進行淫欲的身體接觸，則懲罰是《突吉羅》。對於男人和動物來說，錯誤感知對案件的嚴重性沒有影響：淫蕩的身體接觸——例如，與被認為是女性的男性易裝者——仍然犯《突吉羅》。

Intention	意圖
The Vinīta-vatthu contains cases of a bhikkhu who caresses his mother out of filial affection, one who caresses his daughter out of fatherly affection, and one who caresses his sister out of brotherly affection. In each case the penalty is a dukkaṭa.	《Vinīta-vatthu》中記載了一位比丘出於孝愛撫摸母親的例子，一位比丘出於父愛撫摸女兒的例子，還有一位比丘出於兄弟感情撫摸妹妹的例子。在每種情況下，懲罰都是《突吉羅》。
A bhikkhu who strikes a woman—or anyone else—out of anger would be treated under Pc 74. Both under that rule and in the context of Passive Contact under this rule, below, a bhikkhu who strikes or otherwise touches a woman out of a desire to escape from her commits no offense.	出於憤怒而毆打女人或任何其他人的比丘將受到《波逸提》七四的處理。無論是根據該戒條還是在下文中本戒條的被動接觸，出於逃離女人的願望而毆打或以其他方式觸摸婦女的比丘並不構成犯戒。
Otherwise, the Vibhaṅga does not discuss the issue of bhikkhus who intentionally make active contact with women for purposes other than lust or affection—e.g., helping a woman who has fallen into a raging river—but the Commentary does. It introduces the concept of anāmāsa, things carrying a dukkaṭa penalty when touched; women and women’s clothing top the list. (See BMC2, Appendix V for the entire list.) It then goes into great detail to tell how one should behave when one’s mother falls into a raging river. Under no circumstances, it says, should one grab hold of her, although one may extend a rope, a board, etc., in her direction. If she happens to grab hold of her son the bhikkhu, he should not shake her off but should simply let her hold on as he swims back to shore.	除此之外，《經分別》並沒有討論比丘出於欲望或感情以外的目的而故意與女人主動接觸的問題，例如幫助落入洶湧河流的女人，但《義註》卻討論了這一問題。它引入了 anāmāsa 的概念，即觸摸時會受到《突吉羅》懲罰的事物；女人和女人的服裝位居榜首。（完整清單請參見《佛教修道準則第二冊》附錄五）然後，它詳細講述了當母親掉進洶湧的河流時應該如何行動。它說，在任何情況下，都不應抓住她，儘管可以向她的方向伸出一根繩子、一塊木板等。如果她碰巧抓住了她的兒子比丘，他不應該把她甩開，而應該讓她抓住，然後游回岸邊。
Where the Commentary gets the concept of anāmāsa is hard to say. Perhaps it came from the practices of the brahman caste, who are very careful not to touch certain things and people of certain lower castes. At any rate, there is no direct basis for it in the Canon. Although the concept has received wide acceptance in Theravādin Communities, many highly respected Vinaya experts have made an exception right here, saying that there is nothing wrong in touching a woman when one’s action is based not on lust but on a desire to save her from danger. Even if there is an offense in doing so, there are other places where Buddhaghosa recommends that one be willing to incur a minor penalty for the sake of compassion (e.g., digging a person out of a hole into which he has fallen), and the same principle surely holds here.	很難說《義註》中的 anāmāsa 概念是從哪裡得到的。也許這來自婆羅門種姓的習俗，婆羅門種姓非常小心，不接觸某些低種姓的某些事物和人。無論如何，在《聖典》裡並沒有直接的依據。儘管這個概念在上座部僧團中得到了廣泛接受，但許多德高望重的律宗專家卻在這裡破例，他們說，當一個人的行為不是基於欲望而是出於拯救她脫離危險的願望時，觸摸女性並沒有什麼錯。即使這樣做是犯戒的，佛音在其他地方也建議人們出於慈悲心而願意受到輕微的懲罰（例如，將一個人從掉進的洞裡挖出來），並且同樣的原則在這裡肯定成立。
The Vibhaṅga assigns no offense for touching a being other than a woman if one’s intentions are not lustful, although tickling is an offense under Pc 52.	《經分別》規定，如果一個人的意圖不是淫欲，則觸摸除女性以外的其他眾生不會構成犯戒，但根據《波逸提》五二，撓癢癢是犯戒行為。

Effort	努力
Acts of lustful but indirect bodily contact with a woman one perceives to be a woman and a paṇḍaka one perceives to be a woman carry the following penalties:	與被認為是女性的女人，以及被認為是女性的黃門，進行淫蕩但間接的身體接觸的行為會受到以下懲罰：
For the woman: Using one’s body to make contact with an article connected to her body—e.g., using one’s hand to touch a rope or stick she is holding: a thullaccaya.	對於女人：用身體接觸與她身體相連的物品，例如，用手觸摸她拿著的繩子或棍子：《偷蘭遮》。
Using an item connected with one’s body to make contact with her body—e.g., using a flower one is holding to brush along her arm: a thullaccaya.	使用與身體相連的物品來接觸她的身體——例如，使用拿著的一朵花沿著她的手臂拂過：《偷蘭遮》。
Using an item connected with one’s body to make contact with an item connected with her body: a dukkaṭa.	使用與身體相連的物品來接觸與她身體相連的物品：《突吉羅》。
Taking an object—such as a flower—and tossing it against her body, an object connected with her body, or an object she has tossed: a dukkaṭa.	拿一個物體——比如一朵花——並將其扔到她的身體上，一個與她的身體相連的物體，或者一個她扔過的物體：《突吉羅》。
Taking hold of something she is standing or sitting on—a bridge, a tree, a boat, etc.—and giving it a shake: a dukkaṭa.	抓住她站立或坐在上面的東西——一座橋、一棵樹、一艘船等——並搖晃它：《突吉羅》。
For the paṇḍaka one assumes to be a woman, the penalty in all the above cases is a dukkaṭa.	對於認為是女性的黃門來說，上述所有情況的懲罰都是《突吉羅》。
These penalties for indirect contact have inspired the Commentary to say that if a bhikkhu makes contact with a clothed portion of a woman’s body or uses a clothed portion of his body to make contact with hers, and the cloth is so thick that neither his body hairs nor hers can penetrate it, the penalty is only a thullaccaya because he is not making direct contact. Only if the contact is skin-to-skin, skin-to-hair, or hair-to-hair (as might be possible through thin cloth) does he commit the full offense. Thus a bhikkhu who fondles the breasts, buttocks, or crotch of a fully clothed woman would incur only a thullaccaya because the contact was indirect.	這些對間接接觸的懲罰啟發《義註》說，如果比丘接觸女性身體的穿著部分，或者用自己身體的穿著部分接觸她的身體，而且衣服很厚，以至於他跟她的身體上沒有毛髮可以穿透它，懲罰只是《偷蘭遮》，因為他沒有直接接觸。只有當接觸是皮膚對皮膚、皮膚對頭髮或頭髮對頭髮（可能透過薄布）時，他才構成完全犯戒。因此，比丘撫摸衣著整齊的女人的胸部、臀部或胯部時，只會犯《偷蘭遮》，因為這種接觸是間接的。
There is a certain logic to the commentators’ assertion here, but why they adopted it is unclear. Perhaps they drew a parallel to the following rule—concerning lustful remarks made to a woman—which also contains derived offenses for remarks directed at items “connected with the body.” In that case, defining connected with the body to include clothing worn by the woman does no violence to the nature of the activity covered by the rule, for it is possible to make remarks about a woman’s clothing without using words that touch on her body at all.	註釋者的說法有一定的邏輯性，但為什麼會這樣，卻不得而知。也許他們與以下戒條（關於對女性發表淫欲言論）進行了類比，該戒條還包含針對「與身體相連」的物品的言論的衍生違犯。在該情況下，將與身體相連的定義包括女性所穿的衣服並不違反戒條所涵蓋的活動的性質，因為可以在不使用觸及女性身體的詞語的情況下對女性的衣服進行評論。
Here, however, the nature of the activity is different. If one pushes a woman, it does not matter how many layers of cloth lie between her body and one’s hand: One is pushing both the cloth and her. If one squeezes her fully clothed breasts, again, one is squeezing both the cloth and the breasts. To say that one is pushing or squeezing only the cloth is a denial of the true nature of the action. Also, if one stroked a woman’s fully clothed thigh, it is unlikely that the strength of her reaction would depend on whether her body hairs penetrated the cloth, or if one was wearing latex gloves that prevented her hair from touching one’s skin. Common linguistic usage reflects these facts, as does the law.	然而，這裡的活動性質有所不同。如果一個人推著一個女人，不管她的身體和手之間有多少層布：一個人既在推布，也在推她。如果一個人擠壓她穿著衣服的乳房，那麼，一個人同時擠壓了衣服和乳房。如果說一個人只推或擠壓布料，那就是對這動作真實性質的否認。此外，如果有人撫摸一位女性穿著衣服的大腿，她的反應強度不太可能取決於她的體毛是否穿透了布料，或者是否戴著乳膠手套以防止她的頭髮接觸自己的皮膚。常見的語言用法反映了這些事實，法律也是如此。
The question is, does the Vibhaṅga follow this common linguistic usage, and the answer appears to be Yes. In none of the Vinīta-vatthu cases concerning physical contact with women does the Buddha ever ask the bhikkhu if he made contact with the clothed or unclothed portions of the woman’s body. This suggests that the question of whether she was clothed or unclothed is irrelevant to the offense. In one of the cases, “a certain bhikkhu, seeing a woman he encountered coming in the opposite direction, was impassioned and gave her a blow with his shoulder.” Now, bhikkhus sometimes have their shoulders bared and sometimes robed; women walking along a road may have different parts of their body clothed or bared. If the presence or absence of a layer or two of cloth between the bhikkhu’s shoulder and the woman’s body were relevant to the severity of the offense, then given the Buddha’s usual thoroughness in cases like this he would have asked about the amount, location, and thickness of clothing on both the bhikkhu and the woman, to determine if the offense was a dukkaṭa, a thullaccaya, or a saṅghādisesa. But he didn’t. He simply penalized the bhikkhu with a saṅghādisesa, which again suggests that the presence or absence of cloth between the bhikkhu and the woman is irrelevant in all cases under this rule.	問題是，《經分別》是否遵循這種常見的語言用法，答案似乎是肯定的。在所有涉及與女性身體接觸的《Vinīta-vatthu》案例中，佛陀都沒有問過比丘是否接觸過女性身體的有衣或無衣部分。這顯示她是否穿衣服的問題與犯戒無關。在其中一個案例中，「一位比丘，看到他遇到的一位女人朝相反的方向走來，充滿激情地用肩膀碰了她。」現在，比丘有時裸露肩膀，有時穿著袈裟；走在路上的女人可能會在身體的不同部位穿衣服或裸露。如果比丘的肩膀和女人的身體之間有或沒有一層或兩層布與犯戒的嚴重程度有關，那麼鑑於佛陀在這種情況下一貫的徹底性，他會詢問比丘和女人的衣服的數量、位置和厚度，以確定所犯的罪行是《突吉羅》、《偷蘭遮》還是《僧殘》。但他沒有。他只是用《僧殘》懲罰比丘，這再次表明，在本戒條下，比丘和女人之間有或沒有衣服在所有情況下都是無關緊要的。
The only cases of indirect contact mentioned in the Vinīta-vatthu refer to contact of a much more remote sort: A bhikkhu pulls a cord of which a woman is holding the other end, pulls a stick of which she is holding the other end, or gives her a playful push with his bowl.	《Vinīta-vatthu》中提到的間接接觸的唯一情況是指一種更遙遠的接觸：比丘拉一根繩子，而女人握住另一端，拉動一根棍子，而女人握住另一端，或者頑皮地用缽推了她一下。
Thus in the context of this rule the Vibhaṅga defines “object connected to the body,” through which indirect contact is made, with examples of things that the person is holding. The Vinaya-mukha adds things that are hanging from the person, like the hem of a robe or a dress. In this context, contact made through cloth that the person is wearing would be classed as direct. This would parallel Pr 1, in which the question of whether there is anything covering either of the organs involved in intercourse is completely irrelevant to the offense. Thus the concept of direct and indirect contact here would seem to follow general linguistic usage: If a woman is wearing a long-sleeved shirt, for instance, grabbing her by the arm and grabbing her by the cuff of her shirt are two different things, and would receive different penalties under this rule.	因此，在本戒條的脈絡下，《經分別》定義了「與身體相連的物體」，透過它進行間接接觸，並以人所持有的東西為例。《戒律入口》添加了懸掛在人身上的東西，例如袈裟或服裝的摺邊。在這種脈絡下，透過人所穿的衣服進行的接觸將被歸類為直接接觸。這與《波羅夷》一類似，其中是否有任何東西覆蓋涉及性交的器官的問題與犯戒完全無關。因此，這裡直接和間接接觸的概念似乎遵循一般語言用法：例如，如果一個女人穿著長袖襯衫，抓住她的手臂和抓住她襯衫的袖口是兩個不同的事情，並根據本戒條受到不同的懲罰。
According to the Vibhaṅga, if a bhikkhu feels desire for contact with a woman and makes an effort that does not achieve even indirect contact—e.g., making a squeezing motion in the air near one of her breasts—the penalty is a dukkaṭa.	根據《經分別》，如果一個比丘感到想要與一位女性接觸，並且做出了努力，但沒有實現甚至間接的接觸——例如，在靠近她的乳房的空氣中做出擠壓動作——懲罰是《突吉羅》。

Passive contact	被動接觸
The Vibhaṅga’s analysis of passive contact—when the bhikkhu is the object rather than the agent making the contact—deals with only a limited number of variables.	《經分別》對被動接觸的分析──當比丘是客體而非進行接觸的主體時──只涉及有限數量的變數。
Agent:	媒介：
Either a woman the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, or a paṇḍaka he perceives to be a woman.	若非是比丘認為是女性的女人，則是他認為是女性的黃門。
The agent’s effort:	媒介的努力：
Any of the actions that fulfill the factor of effort for the full offense under active contact—rubbing, pulling, pushing, squeezing, etc.	任何在主動接觸下滿足完全違犯的努力因素的動作－摩擦、拉、推、擠等。
The bhikkhu’s aim	比丘的目標
The Vibhaṅga lists only two possibilities here: the desire to partake (of the contact) and the desire to escape (§). The Sub-commentary explains the first as desiring the pleasurable feeling of contact. It also states that if, in the course of receiving contact, one’s motives change from desiring contact to desiring escape, the second motive is what counts.	《經分別》在這裡只列出了兩個可能性：參與（接觸）的欲望和逃避的欲望（§）。《複註》將第一個解釋為渴望接觸的愉快感覺。它也指出，如果在接受接觸的過程中，一個人的動機從渴望接觸轉變為渴望逃避，那麼第二個動機才是算數的。
Effort	努力
The bhikkhu either makes a physical effort or he doesn’t. The Commentary includes under this factor even the slightest physical movements, such as winking, raising one’s eyebrows, or rolling one’s eyes.	比丘若非做出身體的努力，則是沒做。《義註》中在此因素甚至包括最輕微的身體動作，例如眨眼、揚眉或翻眼。
Result	結果
The bhikkhu either detects the contact or he doesn’t.	比丘要麼察覺到接觸，要麼沒有察覺。
The most important factor here is the bhikkhu’s aim: If he desires to escape from the contact, then no matter who the person making the contact is, whether or not the bhikkhu makes an effort, or whether or not he detects the contact, there is no offense. The Vinīta-vatthu gives an example:	這裡最重要的因素是比丘的目標：如果他想逃避接觸，那麼無論接觸的人是誰，無論比丘是否努力，或者無論他是否察覺到接觸，都沒有犯戒。《Vinīta-vatthu》給了一個例子：
“Now at that time, many women, pressing up to a certain bhikkhu, led him about arm-in-arm. He felt conscience-stricken…. ‘Did you consent, bhikkhu?’ (the Buddha) asked. ‘No, venerable sir, I did not.’ ‘Then there was no offense, bhikkhu, as you did not consent.’”	「當時，有許多女人，擠到某位比丘面前，挽著他的手牽著他。他感到良心不安… 『比丘，你同意了嗎？』（佛陀）問。『不，大德，我沒有。』『那麼，比丘，沒有犯戒，因為你不同意。』」
The Commentary mentions another example, in which a bhikkhu not desiring the contact is molested by a lustful woman. He remains perfectly still, with the thought, “When she realizes I’m not interested, she’ll go away.” He too commits no offense.	《義註》提到了另一個例子，一個不願接觸的比丘被一個好色的女人猥褻。他一動不動，心想：「當她意識到我不感興趣時，她就會走開。」他也沒有犯戒。
However, if the bhikkhu desires the contact, then the Vibhaṅga assigns offenses as follows:	然而，如果比丘欲望接觸，《經分別》會按如下方式指定犯戒罪行：
The agent is a woman, the bhikkhu makes an effort and detects contact: a saṅghādisesa. He makes an effort but detects no contact: a dukkaṭa. He makes no effort (e.g., he remains perfectly still as she grasps, squeezes, and rubs his body): no offense regardless of whether or not he detects contact. One exception here, though, would be the special case mentioned under “Consent” in the preceding rule, in which a bhikkhu lets a woman—or anyone at all, for that matter—make him have an emission and he incurs a saṅghādisesa under that rule as a result.	媒介是一位女性，比丘做出努力並察覺到接觸：《僧殘》。他做出了努力，但沒有察覺任何接觸：《突吉羅》。他沒有做出任何努力（例如，當她抓住、擠壓和摩擦他的身體時，他保持完全靜止）：無論他是否察覺到接觸，都沒有犯戒。不過，這裡有一個例外，就是前一戒條中「同意」項下提到的特殊情況，即比丘讓一位女性——或就此而言任何人——讓他泄精，並因此根據該戒條犯《僧殘》。
The agent is a paṇḍaka whom the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, the bhikkhu makes an effort and detects contact: a dukkaṭa. He doesn’t detect contact: a dukkaṭa (this point is included in the PTS edition, but not in the Sri Lankan or the Thai). Other possibilities—detected contact but no effort, no effort and no detected contact: no offense.	媒介是比丘認為是女性的黃門，比丘做出努力並察覺到接觸：《突吉羅》。他沒有察覺到接觸：《突吉羅》（這一點包含在 PTS 版本中，但斯里蘭卡或泰國版本中沒有）。其他可能性——察覺到接觸但沒有努力，沒有努力且沒有察覺到接觸：沒有犯戒。

Other derived offenses for passive contact	其他因被動接觸而衍生的犯戒
Other derived offenses for passive contact all deal with cases in which the bhikkhu desires contact and makes an effort. The variables focus on the agent, the agent’s effort, and the question of whether the bhikkhu detects contact or not, with the pattern of offenses following the pattern of derived offenses for active contact. In other words:	其他衍生的被動接觸犯戒都涉及比丘渴望接觸並做出努力的情況。這些變數集中在媒介、媒介的努力以及比丘是否察覺到接觸的問題上，犯戒模式遵循主動接觸的衍生犯戒模式。換句話說：
If the agent is a woman whom the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, then if she makes an effort at the bhikkhu’s body using something connected to her body, and the bhikkhu detects contact: a thullaccaya. If she makes an effort at something connected to the bhikkhu’s body using her body, and the bhikkhu detects contact: a thullaccaya. If she makes contact at something connected to the bhikkhu’s body using something connected to her body, and the bhikkhu detects contact: a dukkaṭa. If, in any of these cases, the bhikkhu does not detect contact, the offense is a dukkaṭa.	如果媒介是比丘認為是女性的女人，那麼如果她使用與她身體相連的東西對比丘的身體做出努力，並且比丘察覺到接觸：《偷蘭遮》。如果她用自己的身體對與比丘的身體相連的東西做出努力，而比丘察覺到接觸：《偷蘭遮》。如果她用與她身體相連的東西接觸與比丘身體相連的東西，而比丘察覺到接觸：《突吉羅》。如果在上述任何一種情況下，比丘沒有察覺到接觸，則犯《突吉羅》。
If she tosses something at or on his body, something connected with his body, or something he has tossed, then the offense is a dukkaṭa regardless of whether he detects contact or not.	如果她向他的身體或身上扔東西，與他的身體相連的東西，或者他扔過的東西，那麼無論他是否察覺到接觸，都犯《突吉羅》。
If the agent is a paṇḍaka whom the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, the offense is a dukkaṭa in each of the above cases.	如果媒介是比丘認為是女性的黃門，則在上述每種情況下，都犯《突吉羅》。

Counting offenses	犯戒計算
According to the Vibhaṅga, if a bhikkhu has lustful bodily contact with x number of people in any of the ways that constitute an offense here, he commits x number of offenses. For example, if he lustfully rubs up against two women in a bus, he incurs two saṅghādisesas. If, out of fatherly affection, he hugs his two daughters and three sons, he incurs two dukkaṭas for hugging his daughters and no penalty for hugging his sons.	根據《經分別》，如果一個比丘以任何構成犯戒的方式與 x 人進行淫欲的身體接觸，那麼他就犯了 x 次戒。例如，如果他在公車上淫欲地與兩個女人發生摩擦，他就會犯兩次《僧殘》。如果出於父愛，他擁抱了他的兩個女兒和三個兒子，那麼他會因為擁抱女兒而受到兩次《突吉羅》的懲罰，而擁抱兒子則無懲罰。
The Commentary adds that if he makes lustful contact with a person x number of times, he commits x number of offenses. For instance, he hugs a woman from behind, she fights him off, and he strikes her out of lust: two saṅghādisesas.	《義註》補充說，如果他與某人發生淫欲接觸 x 次，他就犯下了 x 次戒。例如，他從後面擁抱一個女人，她把他擊退，他出於欲望而擊打她：兩個《僧殘》。
The question of counting saṅghādisesas, though, is somewhat academic because the penalty for multiple offenses is almost identical with the penalty for one. The only difference is in the formal proclamations in the community transactions that accompany the penalty—e.g., when the Community places the offender under probation, when he informs others bhikkhus of why he is under probation, etc. For more on this point, see the concluding section of this chapter.	然而，計算《僧殘》的問題有些學術性，因為對多重犯戒的懲罰幾乎與單次犯戒的懲罰相同。唯一的區別在於伴隨懲罰的僧伽羯磨中的正式公告（羯磨文）——例如，當僧團將犯戒者置於別住之下時，當他告知其他比丘他為何處於別住之下時，等等。想更多知道這點，請參閱本章的結論部分。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense for a bhikkhu who makes contact with a woman—	比丘與女性接觸並不構成犯戒—
unintentionally—as when accidentally touching a woman while she is putting food in his bowl;	無意地——例如當一個女人把食物放進他的缽裡時不小心碰到了她；
unthinkingly—as when a woman runs into him and, startled, he pushes her away;	不假思索地──例如當一個女人撞見他時，他嚇了一跳，把她推開；
unknowingly—as when, without lust, he touches a tomboy he thinks to be a boy (this example is from the Commentary), when he doesn’t even know that he has run into a woman in a crowd, or when a woman touches him while he is asleep; or	未察覺地——比如當他在沒有欲望的情況下觸摸了一個他認為是男孩的假小子（這個例子來自《義註》），當他在人群中甚至不知道自己碰到了一個女人，或者當一個女人在他睡著的時候觸摸；或者
when he doesn’t give his consent—as in the case of the bhikkhu led around arm-in-arm by a crowd of women.	當他不同意時——就像比丘被一群女人挽著手臂的情況一樣。
For some reason, the non-offense clauses omit the non-offenses the Vibhaṅga lists under passive contact—i.e., there is no offense if:	由於某種原因，不犯條款忽略了《經分別》中被動接觸下列出的不犯——即，如果滿足以下條件，則不構成犯戒：
the bhikkhu does not desire contact or	比丘不欲接觸或
he does desire contact and yet makes no effort.	他確實渴望接觸，但卻沒有做出任何努力。
Summary: Lustful bodily contact with a woman whom one perceives to be a woman is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：與被認為是女性的女人進行淫欲的身體接觸，是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

3	三
Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, address lewd words to a woman in the manner of young men to a young woman alluding to sexual intercourse, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果任何比丘被貪欲所征服，以變易之心，以年輕男子對年輕女子暗示性交的方式對女子說出淫穢的話，僧殘。
“Now at that time Ven. Udāyin was living in the wilderness. And on that occasion many women came to the monastery to look at his dwelling. They went to him and on arrival said to him, ‘Venerable sir, we would like to look at your dwelling.’ Then Ven. Udāyin, showing the dwelling to the women and referring to their genital and anal orifices, praised and criticized and begged and implored and asked and quizzed and advised and instructed and insulted them. Those of the women who were brazen, mischievous, and shameless giggled along with Ven. Udāyin, coaxed him on, laughed aloud, and teased him; while those of the women who had a sense of shame complained to the bhikkhus as they left: ‘It’s improper, venerable sirs, and unbecoming! Even by our husbands we wouldn’t want (to hear) this sort of thing said, much less by Master Udāyin.’”	「爾時，優陀夷尊者住在林野裡。其時，許多女人來到寺院參觀他的住所。他們去找他，抵達後對他說：『尊者，我們想看看您的住所。』於是優陀夷尊者向女人們展示住處，並提及她們的生殖器和肛門孔，讚美、批評、乞求、懇求、要求、詢問、建議、指導、侮辱她們。那些厚顏無恥的女人，也隨著優陀夷尊者一起咯咯地笑起來，哄他，大笑，戲弄他。而那些有羞恥感的女人則在離開時向比丘們抱怨道：『尊者，這是不恰當的，不合時宜的！即使是我們的丈夫，我們也不想（聽到）這種話，更不用說大德優陀夷了。』」
The K/Commentary, summarizing the Vibhaṅga’s discussion, lists five factors for a full breach of this rule.	K/《義註》總結了《經分別》的討論，列出了完全違反本戒條的五個因素。
1) Object: a woman, i.e., any female human being experienced enough to know what is properly said and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd.	1）對象：女人，即任何有足夠經驗的女性，知道什麼是適當的言論，什麼是不適當的言論，什麼是淫穢的和不淫穢的。
2) Perception: The bhikkhu perceives her to be a woman.	2）感知：比丘認為她是女人。
3) Intention: He is impelled by lust. As in the preceding rule, we can take the Commentary’s definition of lust here as the minimum amount of lust to fulfill this factor: He wants to enjoy saying something lewd or improper.	3）意圖：他被欲望所驅使。正如前一條戒條一樣，我們可以將《義註》中對色欲的定義理解為滿足這一因素的最低限度的色欲：他想要享受說一些淫穢或不適當的事。
4) Effort: He makes remarks praising, criticizing, begging, imploring, asking, quizzing, advising, instructing, or insulting with reference to her genitals or anus, or to her performing sexual intercourse.	4）努力：他對她的生殖器或肛門或她進行性交發表讚揚、批評、乞求、懇求、要求、詢問、建議、指導或侮辱的言論。
5) Result: The woman immediately understands.	5）結果：女人立刻明白了。
The only factors requiring detailed explanation here are object, intention, effort, and result.	這裡唯一需要詳細解釋的因素是對象、意圖、努力和結果。

Object	對象
As the Commentary notes, a woman who does not know what is properly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd, may either be too young to know or, if she is an adult, too innocent or retarded to know. A woman who does not know the language in which one is speaking would also not fulfill the factor of object here.	正如《義註》所指出的，一個女人如果不知道什麼是適當的言論和不適當的言論，什麼是淫穢的和不淫穢的，可能要麼太年輕而無法知道，要麼，如果她是成年人，則太天真或太遲鈍而無法知道。一個不懂對方所用語言的女性也無法滿足這裡的對象因素。

Intention	意圖
The minimum level of desire required to fulfill this factor means that this rule covers cases where a bhikkhu simply gets a charge out of referring to a woman’s genitals, etc., in her presence, without necessarily having any desire actually to have sex with her.	滿足這一因素所需的最低欲望水平意思是，本戒條涵蓋了比丘只是因為在女人在場時提及女人的生殖器等而受到指控，而實際上不一定有與她發生性關係的任何欲望的情況。
The Vibhaṅga makes clear that this rule does not cover statements made in anger. Thus any insults a bhikkhu may direct at a woman out of anger rather than out of desire—even if they refer to her genitals, etc.—would come under Pc 2, rather than here.	《經分別》明確指出，本戒條不包括憤怒時所發表的言論。因此，比丘出於憤怒而不是出於欲望而對女性進行的任何侮辱——即使他們指的是她的生殖器等——都屬於《波逸提》二，而不是這裡。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga states that to incur the full penalty here when speaking to a woman, one must refer to her genitals, anus, or performing sexual intercourse (§).	《經分別》規定，在與女性交談時，必須提及她的生殖器、肛門或進行性交（§），才會受到全額懲罰。
The Commentary goes further and asserts that to incur the full penalty one must make direct mention of one of these three things, or accuse her of being sexually deformed in a way that refers directly to her genitals. Otherwise, if one refers lustfully to these matters without directly mentioning them, there is no saṅghādisesa, although the Sub-commentary quotes ancient texts called the Gaṇṭhipadas as assigning a dukkaṭa for such an act.	《義註》進一步指出，要受到全額懲罰，必須直接提及這三件事之一，或者以直接涉及其生殖器的方式指控她性畸形。否則，如果一個人貪欲地談起這些事情而不直接提及它們，則不犯《僧殘》，儘管《複註》引用了稱為《隱晦文句》（Gaṇṭhipada）的古代文獻，將這種行為指定為《突吉羅》。
However, these assertions from the commentaries contradict the Vibhaṅga. After listing the ways of referring to the woman’s anus, genitals, and sexual intercourse that would entail the full penalty under this rule, it illustrates them with examples. Many of the examples, although referring to the woman’s private parts or to her performing sexual intercourse, do not actually mention those words: “How do you give to your husband?” “How do you give to your lover?” “When will your mother be reconciled (to our having sex)?” “When will you have a good opportunity?” Although all of these statements refer to sexual intercourse, and people in those days would have understood them in that light, none of them actually mentions it.	然而，註釋書中的這些主張與《經分別》相矛盾。在列出了根據本戒條將導致全額懲罰的提及女性肛門、生殖器和性交的方式後，它舉例說明了它們。許多例子雖然提到了女性的私處或和她性交，但實際上並沒有提到這些字詞：「你如何給你的丈夫？」「你如何給你的愛人？」「你媽媽什麼時候才能接受（我們做愛）？」「什麼時候有個好機會？」儘管所有這些說法都涉及性交，當時的人們也會從這個角度來理解它們，但實際上沒有一個提到它。
Thus the Vibhaṅga’s examples indicate that if a bhikkhu is using slang expressions, euphemisms, or indirect statements to refer lustfully to the woman’s private parts or to her performing sexual intercourse, he fulfills this factor. There is no need for the euphemisms to be well known. If the speaker intends it as a reference to the forbidden topics, that fulfills the factor of effort. If his listener understands it as such, that fulfills the factor of result. Whether anyone else understands it as such is irrelevant to the offense.	因此，《經分別》的例子表明，如果比丘使用俚語、委婉語或間接的陳述來淫穢地提及女性的私處或她進行性交，他就滿足了這個因素。委婉語不需要眾所周知。如果說話者打算將其指涉禁忌話題，那就滿足了努力的因素。如果他的聽眾如此理解它，那就滿足了結果因素。其他人是否如此理解它與犯戒無關。
The K/Commentary notes that a hand gesture denoting the genitals, anus, or sexual intercourse of the person to whom it is directed would fulfill the factor of effort here as well.	K/《義註》指出，表示其所針對的人的生殖器、肛門或性交的手勢也可以滿足這裡的努力因素。
None of the texts mention the case in which a bhikkhu talks to one person about another person’s private parts, etc. Thus it is apparently not an offense.	所有的文獻都沒有提到比丘與某一個人談論另一個人的私處等等的情況。因此，這顯然不構成犯戒。

Result

結果

The K/Commentary insists that the factor of result is fulfilled only if the woman immediately understands. As the Vibhaṅga points out, if she does not understand, the bhikkhu incurs a lesser offense, which will be discussed below. If she understands only later, that does not turn the lesser offense into a saṅghādisesa. The examples from the Vinīta-vatthu indicate that the woman’s immediate understanding can be known by her immediate response to one’s comments.

K/《義註》堅持認為，只有當女人立即理解時，結果因素才得以實現。正如《經分別》所指出的，如果她不了解，比丘會犯較輕的罪行，這將在下面討論。如果她後來才明白，那不會將較輕的罪行變成《僧殘》。《Vinīta-vatthu》中的例子表明，女人的立即理解可以透過她對評論的立即反應來得知。

Derived offenses	衍生違犯
The factors of effort, object, perception, and result, taken together, yield a number of permutations to which the Vibhaṅga assigns lesser offenses. As for the permutations of intention, see the section on non-offenses, below.	努力、對象、感知和結果的因素加在一起，產生了許多排列組合，《經分別》將這些排列組合指定為較輕的罪行。至於意圖的排列組合，請參閱下面有關不犯的部分。

Effort	努力
A bhikkhu speaks to a woman he perceives to be a woman and refers lustfully to parts of her body—aside from her private parts—below her collarbones and above her knees, such as her breasts, buttocks, or thighs: a thullaccaya. He refers to parts of her body outside of that area, such as her face or hairdo, or to clothing or jewelry she is wearing: a dukkaṭa.	比丘對一位他認為是女人的女人說話，並貪欲地提到她身體的某些部位——除了她的私處——鎖骨以下和膝蓋以上，例如她的胸部、臀部或大腿：《偷蘭遮》。他指的是她身體在該區域之外的部分，例如她的臉或髮型，或她穿著的衣服或珠寶：《突吉羅》。

Object	對象
A bhikkhu speaks to a paṇḍaka (in this and the following cases we are assuming that he perceives his object correctly) and refers lustfully to his private parts or to his performing sexual intercourse: a thullaccaya (§). He refers lustfully to other parts of the paṇḍaka’s body, his clothing, etc.: a dukkaṭa (§).	比丘對黃門說話（在本例和以下情況中，我們假設他正確地感知了他的對象），並貪欲地提及他的私處或他進行的性交：《偷蘭遮》（§）。他貪欲地提及黃門身體的其他部位、衣服等：《突吉羅》（§）。
A bhikkhu speaks to a man (or boy) and refers lustfully to any part of his listener’s body, clothing, etc.: a dukkaṭa (§). The same penalty holds for speaking lustfully to an animal—e.g., a nāga—about his/her body, ornaments, etc. (§).	比丘對一位男人（或男孩）說話，並貪欲地提及他聽眾的身體、衣服等的任何部分：《突吉羅》（§）。對動物－例如龍（nāga）－談論他/她的身體、裝飾品等，也會受到同樣的懲罰（§）。
For some reason the PTS edition of the Canon omits these derived offenses related to object under this rule. The Burmese and Sri Lankan editions are non-committal on the topic, for the relevant paragraphs are filled with ellipses that have been read in two ways. The PTS edition of the K/Commentary reads the ellipses as including the thullaccaya and dukkaṭa for speaking lustfully to a paṇḍaka, but not the dukkaṭas for speaking lustfully to a man or animal. The editors of the Thai edition of the Canon have interpreted the parallelism with the similar paragraph in Sg 2 as indicating that “man” and “animal” would come under the ellipses, and so have included these cases in the text. This interpretation closes an important loophole and thus seems the more correct, so I have followed it here.	由於某種原因，《聖典》的 PTS 版本省略了與本戒條下的對象相關的這些衍生違犯。緬甸和斯里蘭卡版本對此主題不置可否，因為相關段落充滿了以兩種方式解讀的省略號。 K/《義註》的 PTS 版本將省略號解讀為包括貪欲地對黃門說話的《偷蘭遮》及《突吉羅》，但不包括貪欲地對人或動物說話的《突吉羅》。泰國版《聖典》的編輯者將《僧殘》二中類似段落的對應解釋為表明「人」和「動物」應該出現在省略號之下，因此將這些情況納入了文獻中。這個解釋彌補了一個重要的漏洞，因此看起來更正確，所以我在這裡遵循它。
None of the texts make any mention of speaking lustfully to a woman/girl too inexperienced to understand what is and is not lewd. Using the Great Standards, though, we might argue from the cases included in the Vinīta-vatthu—where bhikkhus make punning references to women’s private parts, and the women do not understand—that a bhikkhu incurs a thullaccaya for referring directly to her genitals, anus, or performing sexual intercourse in her presence, and a dukkaṭa for referring indirectly in her presence to such things.	這些文本都沒有提到貪欲地對一位缺乏經驗、無法理解什麼是淫穢、什麼不是淫穢的女人/女孩說話。然而，使用《四大教示》，我們可以從《Vinīta-vatthu》中包含的案例中論證——比丘們雙關地提到女性的私處，而女性不理解——比丘因在她面前直接提及其生殖器、肛門或進行性交而犯《偷蘭遮》，而在她面前間接提及此類事情犯《突吉羅》。

Perception

感知

A bhikkhu speaking to a woman whom he perceives to be something else—a paṇḍaka, a man, an animal—incurs a thullaccaya if he refers lustfully to her genitals, anus, or performing sexual intercourse. If he is speaking to a paṇḍaka, a man, or an animal he misperceives—e.g., he thinks the paṇḍaka is a woman, the man is a paṇḍaka, the animal is a man—he incurs a dukkaṭa if he refers lustfully to those topics (§). (Again, the PTS edition omits most of the cases in this last sentence and includes only the case of a bhikkhu speaking lustfully to a paṇḍaka he perceives to be a woman; the Thai edition seems more correct in including the remaining cases as well.)

比丘對一位他認為是非女人的女人——黃門、男人、動物——說話，如果他貪欲地提到她的生殖器、肛門或進行性交，犯《偷蘭遮》。如果他在對黃門、男人或動物說話，他錯誤地感知——例如，他認為黃門是女人，男人是黃門，動物是男人——如果他貪欲地提及這些話題，犯《突吉羅》。（§）（同樣，PTS 版本省略了最後一句中的大部分案例，僅包括比丘對他認為是女性的黃門貪欲地說話的案例；泰國版本包括了其餘的案例似乎更正確。）

Result	結果
As mentioned above, the Vinīta-vatthu contains a number of cases where bhikkhus speaking to women make punning references to the women’s genitals that the women do not understand. In one case the penalty is a thullaccaya; in the others, a dukkaṭa. The Commentary takes no note of the difference; the Sub-commentary notes it but has trouble making sense of it. In fact, it maintains that the bhikkhu in the thullaccaya case should receive a thullaccaya if the woman does understand his pun, which—given the explicit nature of the pun—makes no sense at all.	如上所述，《Vinīta-vatthu》包含許多比丘與女性交談時雙關地提到女性生殖器的例子，而女性並不理解。在其中一個案例，懲罰是《偷蘭遮》；其他則為《突吉羅》。《義註》沒有關注其中的差異；《複註》注意到了這一點，但在理解它上有問題。事實上，它堅稱，如果女人確實理解他的雙關語，那麼在《偷蘭遮》案例中的比丘就應該受《偷蘭遮》，但考慮到雙關語的明確性質，這完全說不通。
There is, however, a pattern to the Vinīta-vatthu cases. The thullaccaya case is the only one in which the bhikkhu actually mentions a word for genitals or anus (magga, which also means road, the meaning the woman understood). In the dukkaṭa cases, bhikkhus either use euphemisms for sexual intercourse (“plowing,” “working”) or else they make statements in which the words genitals or anus are implied but not actually stated. From this pattern we can argue that if a bhikkhu speaking to a woman makes direct reference to her genitals or anus, and the woman doesn’t immediately understand that he is referring to those things, he incurs a thullaccaya. If he makes a euphemistic reference to sexual intercourse or an implied reference to her genitals or anus, and she doesn’t immediately understand what he is referring to, he incurs a dukkaṭa.	然而，《Vinīta-vatthu》案例有一個模式。《偷蘭遮》案例是唯一一個比丘實際上提到了生殖器或肛門這個詞（magga，也意指道路，女人所理解的意思）的案例。在《突吉羅》的案例中，比丘要麼使用委婉說法來表示性交（「犁地」、「工作」），要麼在陳述中隱含生殖器或肛門這些詞，但實際上並未明說。從這個模式我們可以論證，如果比丘對女人說話時直接提到她的生殖器或肛門，而這個女人並沒有立即明白他指的是那些東西，他犯《偷蘭遮》。如果他委婉地提及性交或暗示提及她的生殖器或肛門，而她無法立即理解他所指的內容，他犯《突吉羅》。

Counting offenses

犯戒計算

A bhikkhu making a remark of the sort covered by this rule to x number of people commits x number of offenses, the type of offense being determined by the factors discussed above. Thus for a lustful remark to two women referring to their breasts, he would incur two thullaccayas; for a lustful remark to three men concerning their bodies, three dukkaṭas; for teasing a group of twenty old ladies about how their time for sexual performance is past, twenty saṅghādisesas.

比丘對 x 個人發表本戒條所涵蓋的那種言論，就犯下了 x 次罪行，罪行的類型由上述討論的因素決定。因此，如果他對兩個女人說了一句淫穢的話，指的是她們的乳房，他就會犯兩次《偷蘭遮》。對三個男人發表關於他們身體的淫穢言論，三次《突吉羅》；取笑一個有二十位老太太的群體，說她們的性行為時間已經過去了，二十次《僧殘》。

Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense for a bhikkhu who speaks aiming at (spiritual) welfare (attha—this can also mean the “meaning of the Dhamma”), aiming at Dhamma, or aiming at teaching. Thus, for example, if one is talking in front of women and has no lustful intent, one may recite or explain this training rule or go into detail on the topic of the loathsomeness of the body as a topic of meditation, all without incurring a penalty. The Commentary here adds an example of a bhikkhu addressing a sexually deformed woman, telling her to be heedful in her practice so as not to be born that way again. If, however, one were to broach any of these topics out of a desire to enjoy saying something lewd to one’s listeners, one would not be immune from an offense. The New K/Sub-commentary illustrates this point with an example: A bhikkhu, teaching the Vibhaṅga of this rule to a bhikkhunī, departs from a normal tone of voice and keeps sniggering while reciting the examples of lewd speech. This sort of behavior, it says, incurs the full offense here.	《經分別》指出，比丘以（精神）福祉為目的（attha－這也可指「法的意義」）、以法為目的或以教導為目的而發言，並不犯戒。譬如，若在女人面前說話，無淫欲意圖，可持誦或解說本學處，或詳述身可厭為禪修話題，皆不受懲罰。這裡的《義註》增加了比丘對性畸形女人發言的例子，告訴她在修行時要小心，以免再重生為那樣。然而，如果出於享受對聽眾說些淫穢話的欲望而提出這些話題，那麼他就不能免於犯戒。新 K/《複註》用一個例子來說明這一點：一位比丘在向比丘尼教授此戒條的《經分別》時，在背誦淫穢話的例子時，語氣偏離了正常的語氣，一直在竊笑。它說，這種行為會導致完全違犯。
A bhikkhu who without intending to be lewd makes innocent remarks that his listener takes to be lewd commits no offense.	比丘無淫穢意圖而發表無辜的言論，而他的聽者認為是淫穢，這並不犯戒。
Summary: Making a lustful remark to a woman about her genitals, anus, or about performing sexual intercourse is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：對女性的生殖器、肛門或進行性交做出淫穢的言論，是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

4	四
Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, speak in the presence of a woman in praise of ministering to his own sensuality thus: “This, sister, is the foremost ministration, that of ministering to a virtuous, fine-natured follower of the celibate life such as myself with this act”—alluding to sexual intercourse—it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	若有比丘，被貪欲所征服，以變易之心，在一位女人面前，稱讚侍奉自己的色欲，如是說：「姊妹，以此行為來侍奉持戒、善行，像我這樣的梵行生活的弟子，這是最上的侍奉。」——暗指性交——僧殘。
“Now at that time a certain woman, a widow, was beautiful, attractive, and appealing. So Ven. Udāyin, dressing (§) early in the morning, taking his robe and bowl, went to her residence. On arrival, he sat on an appointed seat. Then the woman went to him and, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As she was sitting there, Ven. Udāyin instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged her with a talk on Dhamma. Then the woman—instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged with Ven. Udāyin’s talk on Dhamma—said to him, ‘Tell me, venerable sir, what I would be capable of giving you that you need: Robe-cloth? Almsfood? Lodgings? Medicines for the sick?’	「當時有一個寡婦，美麗、有吸引力、迷人。所以優陀夷尊者一大早就穿好衣服（§），帶著袈裟和缽，去了她的住處。到達後，他坐在指定的座位。婦人走到他面前，向他頂禮，坐到一旁。當她坐在那裡時，優陀夷尊者以佛法開示來指導、敦促、喚醒和鼓勵她。然後，這位婦人—被優陀夷尊者的佛法開示指導、敦促、喚醒和鼓勵—對他說：『請告訴我，大德，我能夠給你什麼你需要的東西：袈裟布？飲食？住處？病人的醫藥？』
“‘Those things aren’t hard for us to come by, sister…. Give just what is hard for us to come by.’	「『這些東西對我們來說並不難得到，姐妹…給我們難以獲得的東西。』
“‘What, venerable sir?’	「『大德，是什麼？』
“‘Sexual intercourse.’	「『性交』
“‘Is it a need, venerable sir?’	「『這是大德所需要的？』
“‘A need, sister.’	「『姐妹，這是我所需要的』
“‘Then come, venerable sir.’ Entering into an inner room, taking off her cloak, she lay back on a bed. Then Ven. Udāyin went to the woman and, on arrival, said, ‘Who would touch this vile, stinking thing?’ And he departed, spitting.	「『那就來吧，大德。』進入內室，脫下大衣，躺在床上。然後優陀夷尊者走到那個女人面前，一到就說：『誰會碰這個骯髒、惡臭的東西？』然後他吐口唾沫離開了。
“So the woman criticized and complained and spread it about… ‘How can this monk Udāyin, when he himself begged me for sexual intercourse, say, “Who would touch this vile, stinking thing?” and depart spitting? What’s evil about me? What’s stinking about me? In what am I inferior to whom?’”	「所以那位婦女批評、抱怨並散佈這件事……『優陀夷沙門在親自乞求我性交時，怎麼能說：「誰會碰這個骯髒、惡臭的東西？」並吐痰離開？我有什麼不好的？我身上有什麼臭味？我在什麼方面不如誰？』」
At first glance this rule might seem redundant with the preceding one, for what we have here is another case of a bhikkhu advising, begging, or imploring a woman to perform sexual intercourse. The Sub-commentary, borrowing the Commentary’s classification of types of lust, states that the rules differ in terms of the lust involved. According to it, only the desire to say something lewd would fall under the preceding rule; only the desire for sexual intercourse would fall here. However, as we have seen, the Commentary’s neat system for classifying desires contradicts some important passages in the Vibhaṅga, and so the Sub-commentary’s explanation has no ground on which to stand.	與前一條乍看之下，本戒條似乎是多餘的，因為我們在這裡看到的是比丘建議、乞求或懇求女人進行性交的另一個例子。《複註》借用《義註》對貪欲種類的分類，指出戒條在所涉及的貪欲方面有所不同。根據它，只有想說一些淫穢的話才屬於前面的戒條；只有性交的欲望才會屬於這裡。然而，正如我們所看到的，《義註》對欲望的簡潔分類系統與《經分別》中的一些重要段落相矛盾，因此《複註》的解釋是沒有根據的。
A more likely explanation for the need for this rule derives from some facts about language and belief in the Buddha’s time that might have led some people to feel that the behavior in the origin story here was a special case not covered by the preceding rule. To prevent this sort of misunderstanding, it gets separate treatment under this rule.	對於本戒條的必要性，更可能的解釋來自於佛陀時代語言和信仰的一些事實，這些事實可能會讓一些人覺得這裡起源故事中的行為是前面的戒條未涵蓋的特殊情況。為了防止這種誤解，在本戒條下對其進行單獨處理。
“Giving,” in the Buddha’s time, was a common euphemism for having sex. If a woman “gave” to a man, that meant that she willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with him. Now, Buddhism was not the only religion of the time to teach that gifts—of a more innocent sort—given to contemplatives produced great reward to those who gave them, and ultimately somebody somewhere came up with the idea that because sex was the highest gift, giving it to a contemplative would produce the highest reward. Whether this idea was first formulated by faithful women or by clever contemplatives is hard to say. Several cases in the Vinīta-vatthu to Pr 1 tell of bhikkhus approached or attacked by women professing this belief, which shows that it had some currency: Sex was somehow seen as a way to higher benefits through the law of kamma.	在佛陀時代，「給予」是性行為的常見委婉說法。如果一個女人「給予」一個男人，那就意味著她願意與他發生性關係。現在，佛教並不是當時唯一的宗教教導說：給予沙門的布施（單純的那種）會給那些給予布施的人帶來巨大的回報，最終有人提出了這樣的想法，因為性是最高的布施，將其給予沙門將產生最高的回報。很難說這個想法最初是由忠實的女性提出的，還是由聰明的沙門提出的。《波羅夷》一的《Vinīta-vatthu》中的幾個案例講述了比丘受到自稱這種信仰的女人接近或攻擊的情況，這表明它具有一定的流行性：性在某種程度上被視為透過業力法則獲得更高利益的一種方式。
Because the preceding rule gives exemptions for bhikkhus speaking “aiming at (spiritual) welfare (attha), aiming at Dhamma,” some misguided souls who did not comprehend the Buddha’s teachings on sensuality might believe that welfare of this sort might fit under the exemption. The origin story alludes to this point in a punning way, in that the word for “need” is also attha, and perhaps the widow, in using the word, had both its meanings in mind: Her spiritual welfare would be enhanced by meeting a bhikkhu’s needs. Even today, although the rationale might be different, there are people who believe that having sex with spiritual teachers is beneficial for one’s spiritual well being. Thus we have this separate rule to show that the Buddha would have no part in such a notion, and that a bhikkhu who tries to suggest that his listener would benefit from having sex with him is not exempt from an offense.	因為前一戒條給予比丘「為了（精神）福祉（attha）、為了法」而說的豁免，一些不理解佛陀關於欲樂教義的被誤導心靈可能會認為這種福祉可能屬於豁免範圍。起源故事以雙關語的方式間接提到了這一點，因為「需要」這個詞也是 attha，也許寡婦在使用這個詞時考慮到了它的兩種含義：她的精神福祉將通過滿足比丘的需要而得到增強。即使在今天，儘管理由可能有所不同，但仍有人相信與靈性導師發生性關係對靈性健康有益。因此，我們有這條單獨的戒條來表明佛陀不會參與這樣的觀念，而試圖暗示聽眾會從與他發生性關係中受益的比丘也不能免於犯戒。
The K/Commentary lists five factors for the full offense here, but only four of them have a basis in the Vibhaṅga: object, perception, intention, and effort.	K/《義註》在這裡列出了完整違犯的五個因素，但其中只有四個因素在《經分別》裡有依據：對象、感知、意圖和努力。

Object:	對象：
A woman experienced enough to know what is properly or improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd.	一個有足夠經驗的女人知道什麼是適當的或不適當的，什麼是淫穢和不淫穢。

Perception	感知
The bhikkhu perceives her to be a woman.	比丘察覺到她是個女人。

Intention

意圖

He is impelled by lust. According to the K/Commentary, this means he is lustful for his listener to minister to his desire for sexual intercourse. However, the Vibhaṅga defines overcome with lust here in the same broad terms it uses under Sg 2 & 3. This suggests that the factor of intention here can be fulfilled simply by the desire to enjoy making such remarks in a woman’s presence—say, getting a charge out of testing her reaction, which appears to have been Ven. Udāyin’s impulse in the origin story—regardless of how one feels about actually having sex with her.

他被欲望所驅使。根據 K/《義註》，這意味著他渴望聽者滿足他的性交欲望。然而，《經分別》在這裡用與《僧殘》二和三中使用的相同廣泛的術語定義了「被貪慾征服」。這表明，這裡的意圖因素可以僅僅透過享受在女人面前發表這樣的言論的欲望來滿足——比如，通過測試她的反應來獲得興奮，這似乎正是優陀夷尊者在起源故事中的衝動——無論對與她發生性關係的感覺如何。

Effort	努力
The bhikkhu speaks to the woman in praise of her ministering to his sensual needs, referring to sexual intercourse as a meritorious gift. The Commentary maintains that his remarks must directly mention sexual intercourse for this factor to be fulfilled, but the examples in the rule itself and in the Vibhaṅga contradict its assertion. Some of the examples in the Vibhaṅga state simply, “This is foremost. This is best. This is the utmost. This is highest. This is excellent.” These statements are followed by the explanation that they have to allude to or be connected with sexual intercourse. It does not say that the allusion has to be explicit.	比丘對女人說話，稱讚她滿足他的感官需要，並稱性交為最有功德的布施。《義註》認為，他的言論必須直接提及性交才能滿足這一因素，但戒條本身和《經分別》中的例子與其主張相矛盾。《經分別》中的一些例子僅僅說：「這是最重要的。這是最好的。這是最大的。這是最高的。這太棒了。」這些陳述之後是它們必須暗示性交或與性交有關的解釋。它並沒有說暗示必須是明確的。
Also, the Vinīta-vatthu contains a number of cases in which bhikkhus simply tell women to give the highest gift, sexual intercourse—and one in which a bhikkhu simply tells a woman that sexual intercourse is the highest gift—without explicitly saying to whom it should be given. The bhikkhus all earn saṅghādisesas for their efforts, which shows that the reference to oneself need not be explicit, either.	此外，《Vinīta-vatthu》包含許多比丘僅僅告訴女性給予最高布施——性交的案例，還有一個比丘僅僅告訴女性性交是最高布施的案例，但沒有明確說明給予誰。比丘們都因自己的努力犯《僧殘》，這表明提及自己也不必是明確的。
Both the Commentary and the K/Commentary state that a physical gesture—this would include writing a letter—can fulfill the factor of effort here as well.	《義註》和 K/《義註》都指出，身體示意動作（包括寫一封信）也可以滿足這裡的努力因素。
The K/Commentary adds result as a fifth factor, saying that the woman must immediately understand one’s remark, but there is no basis for this in the Canon.	K/《義註》增加了結果作為第五個因素，說女人必須立即理解言論，但在《聖典》中沒有這方面的依據。

Derived offenses	衍生違犯
The only factors with permutations leading to lesser offenses are object and perception.	唯一導致較輕罪行的排列因素是對象和感知。
Object	對象
A bhikkhu, correctly perceiving his object and impelled by lust, makes such a remark to a paṇḍaka: a thullaccaya. To a man or animal: a dukkaṭa (§). (As under the preceding rule, the PTS edition of the Canon omits all of these cases, and the K/Commentary omits the man and the animal. The Burmese and Sri Lankan editions of the Canon put the relevant passages in ellipses; the Thai edition seems to be correct in mentioning all of these cases explicitly.)	一位比丘，正確地認知他的對象，並受貪欲的驅使，對黃門作這樣的言論：《偷蘭遮》。對人或動物：《突吉羅》（§）。（正如同前一戒條，PTS版本的《聖典》省略了所有這些情況，而 K/《義註》省略了人和動物。緬甸和斯里蘭卡版本的《聖典》將相關段落放在省略號中；泰國版本明確提及所有這些情況似乎是正確的。
Perception	感知
A bhikkhu, impelled by lust, makes such a remark to a woman he perceives to be something else—a paṇḍaka, man, or animal: a thullaccaya. To a paṇḍaka, a man, or an animal he perceives to be something else: a dukkaṭa (§). (Again, as under the preceding rule, the PTS edition omits most of the cases in this last sentence, including only the case of a bhikkhu speaking lustfully to a paṇḍaka he perceives to be a woman; the Thai edition seems more correct in including the remaining cases as well.)	一位比丘在貪欲的驅使下，對一位他認為是其他東西—黃門、男人或動物—的女人做出這樣的言論：《偷蘭遮》。對於他認為是其他東西的黃門、男人或動物：《突吉羅》（§）。（再次，正如同前一戒條，PTS版本省略了最後一句中的大部分案例，僅包括比丘對他認為是女性的黃門說淫穢語的案例；泰國版本似乎也更正確地包括了其餘情況。）

Counting offenses	犯戒計算
Offenses are counted by the number of people to whom one makes such a remark.	罪行是根據對之發表此類言論的人數來計算的。

Non-offenses	不犯
The non-offense clauses in the Vibhaṅga, in addition to the blanket exemptions mentioned under Pr 1, read simply: “There is no offense if he speaks saying, ‘Support us with the requisites of robe-cloth, almsfood, lodgings, or medicines for the sick.’” The K/Commentary explains this as meaning that if one is motivated by a sensual desire for robe-cloth, etc., one may speak to a potential donor in praise of giving these things. In other words, given this sort of desire, this sort of statement is allowable. From this interpretation it can be argued that when a bhikkhu is speaking without any lust or sensual desire of any sort, he may make any of the remarks that would fulfill the factor of effort here in the presence of others without incurring an offense. A prime example would be when, while explaining this rule, he quotes examples of the remarks it forbids.	《經分別》中的不犯條款，除了《波羅夷》一中提到的總括性豁免之外，僅說：「如果他說：『以袈裟、施食、住宿或病人的醫藥等必需品來支持我們』，並沒有犯戒」。 K/《義註》對此的解釋是，如果出於對袈裟等感官欲望等等的動機，可以對潛在的布施者稱讚給予這些東西。換句話說，鑑於這種願望，這種說法是可以被允許的。從這個解釋可以看出，當比丘在沒有任何形式的貪欲或感官慾望的情況下說話時，他可以在他人面前發表任何能夠滿足此處努力因素的言論，而不犯戒。一個典型的例子是，在解釋本戒條時，他引用了本戒條禁止的言論的例子。
Summary: Telling a woman that having sexual intercourse with a bhikkhu would be beneficial is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：告訴女人與比丘性交會有好處是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

5	五
Should any bhikkhu engage in conveying a man’s intentions to a woman or a woman’s intentions to a man, proposing marriage or paramourage—even if only for a momentary liaison—it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果任何比丘向女人傳達男人的意圖，或向男人傳達女人的意圖，求婚或情人——即使只是為了短暫的聯絡——僧殘。
There are two factors for a full offense under this rule: effort and object.	根據本戒條，完全違犯有兩個因素：努力和對象。

Effort	努力
The Commentary says that to engage in conveying means to take on the role of a go-between. This includes helping to arrange not only marriages and affairs but also “momentary associations” that, from the way it describes them, could include anything from appointments with a prostitute to arrangements for X to be Y’s date.	《義註》說，從事傳達，就是起牽線搭橋的作用。這不僅包括幫助安排婚姻和婚外情，還包括「暫時的聯繫」，從其描述的方式來看，這可包括從與妓女的約會到安排 X 與 Y 約會等任何事情。
The Vibhaṅga sets the component factors of a go-between’s role at three:	《經分別》將中間人角色的構成要素規定為三：
1) accepting the request of one party to convey a proposal;	1）接受一方傳達提議的請求；
2) inquiring, i.e., informing the second party and learning his/her/their reaction; and	2）詢問，即通知另一方並了解他/她/他們的反應；和
3) reporting what one has learned to the first party.	3）向第一方報告所了解到的事。
The penalties for these actions are: a dukkaṭa for performing any one of them, a thullaccaya for any two, and a saṅghādisesa for the full set of three. Thus a bhikkhu acting on his own initiative to sound out the possibility of a date between a man and a woman would incur a thullaccaya for inquiring and reporting. A bhikkhu planning to disrobe who asks a woman if she would be interested in marrying him after his return to lay life would incur a dukkaṭa for inquiring. If, on the way to inquire about a woman after accepting a man’s request to inquire about her, a bhikkhu asks people along the way of her whereabouts, that does not count as inquiring. If he goes no further in acting as a go-between, he incurs only a dukkaṭa.	對這些行為的處罰是：執行任何一項行為犯《突吉羅》，執行任意兩項行為犯《偷蘭遮》，全部三項行為犯《僧殘》。因此，比丘主動探詢男女約會的可能性時，會因詢問和報告而犯《偷蘭遮》。計劃還俗的比丘如果問一位女子是否有興趣在他還俗後嫁給他，他會因為詢問而犯《突吉羅》。如果比丘在接受男子詢問後，在詢問女子的路上，向沿途的人詢問她的行踪，這不算詢問。如果他不再充當中間人，他只會犯《突吉羅》。
The penalties are the same if the bhikkhu, instead of acting as a go-between himself, gets someone else to act for him. Thus a bhikkhu who agrees to convey such a proposal but then gets a lay follower or another bhikkhu to do the inquiring and reporting would incur a saṅghādisesa all the same.	如果比丘沒有親自充當中間人，而是讓其他人為他充當中間人，則懲罰是相同的。因此，比丘同意傳達這樣的提議，但隨後請一位在家弟子或另一位比丘來詢問和報告，仍然會犯《僧殘》。
If a bhikkhu agrees to a man’s request to inquire about a woman, gets his student (§) to do the inquiring, and then the student of his own accord reports to the man, both the original bhikkhu and his student—assuming that he, too, is a bhikkhu—incur thullaccayas.	如果一個比丘同意一個男人詢問一個女人的請求，讓他的學生（§）去詢問，然後他的學生自願向這個男人報告，包括原來的比丘和他的學生——假設他，也是比丘——都犯《偷蘭遮》。
If a group of bhikkhus are asked to act as go-betweens and they all accept, then even if only one of them performs any or all of the actions of a go-between, all the bhikkhus in the group incur the penalty for his actions.	如果一群比丘被要求充當中間人，而他們都接受了，那麼即使只有其中一個人執行中間人的任何或全部行為，該群中的所有比丘都會因其行為而受到懲罰。
“Result” is not a factor here, so the Commentary mentions that whether the arrangements succeed has no bearing on the offense.	「結果」在此並不是一個因素，所以《義註》中提到，安排是否成功與犯戒無關。
“Intention” is also not a factor, which leads the Sub-commentary to raise the issue of a man who writes his proposal in a letter and then, without disclosing the contents, gets a bhikkhu to deliver it. Its conclusion, though, is that this case would not qualify as an offense under this rule, in that both the Vibhaṅga and the Commentary define the action of conveying as “telling”: Only if the bhikkhu himself tells the proposal—whether repeating it orally, making a gesture, or writing a letter—does he commit an offense here. Simply carrying a letter, not knowing its contents, would not fulfill the factor of effort under this rule.	「意圖」也不是因素，因而導致《複註》提出這樣一個問題：一個男人將他的提議寫在一封信中，然後在沒有透露內容的情況下讓一位比丘將其傳達。然而，它的結論是，根據本戒條，這種情況不構成犯戒，因為《經分別》和《義註》都將傳達的行為定義為「告訴」：只有當比丘本人告訴該提議時——無論是口頭重複、做一個手勢、或寫一封信──他才會犯本戒。僅僅攜帶一封信而不知道其內容，並不能滿足本戒條下的努力因素。

Object	對象
The full offense is for acting as a go-between between a man and a woman who are not married to each other. If, instead of dealing directly with the man and woman, one deals with people speaking on their behalf (their parents, a pimp), one incurs the full penalty all the same.	完整的違犯是充當未婚男女之間的中間人。如果不是直接與這對男女打交道，而是與代表他們說話的人（他們的父母、皮條客）打交道，那麼他仍然會受到全額懲罰。
There is no offense for a bhikkhu who tries to effect a reconciliation between an estranged couple who are not divorced, but a full offense for one who tries to effect a reconciliation between a couple who are. “Perception” is also not a factor here, which inspires the Commentary to note that even an arahant could commit an offense under this rule if he tried to effect a reconciliation between his parents whom he assumed to be separated when they were actually divorced.	對一位比丘來說，試圖促成一對分居但未離婚的夫妻和解並沒有什麼罪過，但如果一個比丘試圖促成一對已離婚的夫妻和解，那就完全違犯了。「感知」也不是這裡的一個因素，這促使《義註》指出，即使是阿羅漢，如果他試圖在他認為實際上離婚時分居的父母之間實現和解，也可能犯下本戒條。
Elsewhere, in its discussion of the five precepts, the Commentary includes couples who live as husband and wife without having gone through a formal ceremony under its definition of married, and the same definition would seem to apply here.	在其他地方，《義註》在討論五戒時，根據其婚姻的定義，將未經過正式儀式而以夫妻身份生活的夫婦包括在內，同樣的定義似乎也適用於此。
The Vibhaṅga assigns a thullaccaya for acting as a go-between for a paṇḍaka; according to the Commentary, the same penalty applies for acting as a go-between for a female yakkha or peta (!).	《經分別》指派《偷蘭遮》給充當黃門的中間人；根據《義註》，為女性夜叉或餓鬼充當中間人也適用同樣的懲罰（！）。

Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga states that, in addition to the usual exemptions, there is no offense if a bhikkhu conveys a message from a man to a woman or vice versa dealing with “business of the Community, of a shrine, or of a sick person.” The Commentary illustrates the first two instances with cases of a bhikkhu conveying a message dealing with construction work for the Community or a shrine; and the third with a case where a bhikkhu, acting on behalf of a fellow bhikkhu who is sick, is sent by a male lay follower to a female lay follower for medicine.	《經分別》規定，除了通常的豁免之外，如果比丘處理「僧團、聖壇或病人的事務」，將訊息從男性傳達給女性，或反之亦然，則不會構成犯戒。《義註》以比丘傳達關於僧團或聖壇建築工程的訊息的案例來說明前兩個例子；第三種情況是，一位比丘代表一位生病的同儕比丘，由一位男居士送去給一位女居士求藥。
The Sub-commentary adds that any similar errand—i.e., not involving any sort of romantic liaison—is also exempt from penalty as long as it is not a form of subservience to lay people (see Sg 13, below).	《複註》補充說，任何類似的差事——即不涉及任何形式的浪漫關係——只要不是對居士的屈從，也可免受懲罰（見下文《僧殘》十三）。
Summary: Acting as a go-between to arrange a marriage, an affair, or a date between a man and a woman not married to each other is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：充當中間人安排未婚男女之間的婚姻、私通或約會是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

6	六
When a bhikkhu is having a hut built from (gains acquired by) his own begging (§)—having no sponsor and destined for himself—he is to have it built to the standard measurement. Here the standard is this: twelve spans, using the sugata span, in length (measuring outside); seven in width, (measuring) inside. Bhikkhus are to be assembled to designate the site. The site the bhikkhus designate should be without disturbances and with adequate space. If the bhikkhu should have a hut built from his own begging on a site with disturbances and without adequate space, or if he should not assemble the bhikkhus to designate the site, or if he should have the standard exceeded, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	當比丘用自己的乞討（得到的所得）（§）建造一間小屋時（§）——沒有資助者並且是為自己建造的——他應該按照標準尺寸建造小屋。這裡的標準是這樣的：長度（在外面測量）十二張手，使用善至張手；裡面寬（測量）為七張手。比丘們應聚集起來指定地點。比丘們指定的地點應該沒有干擾並且有合適的空間。如果比丘在一個干擾且沒有合適空間的地點，以自己的乞討建造一間小屋，或者如果他不召集比丘來指定地點，或者如果他超過標準，僧殘。
“At that time the bhikkhus of Āḷavī were having huts built from their own begging—having no sponsors, destined for themselves, not to any standard measurement—that did not come to completion. They were continually begging, continually hinting: ‘Give a man, give labor, give an ox, give a wagon, give a knife, give an ax, give an adze, give a hoe, give a chisel, give rushes, give bamboo, give reeds, give grass, give clay.’ People, harassed with the begging, harassed with the hinting, on seeing bhikkhus would feel apprehensive, alarmed, would run away; would take another route, face another direction, close the door. Even on seeing cows, they would run away, imagining them to be bhikkhus.”	「當時，阿羅毘的比丘們靠自己的乞討建造了小屋——沒有資助者，為自己而建造，沒有任何標準的尺寸——無所終止。他們不斷地乞求、不斷地暗示：『給人，給勞力，給牛，給車，給刀，給斧頭，給錛子，給鋤頭，給鑿子，給燈芯草，給竹子，給蘆葦、給草、給泥土。』人們因乞討而煩惱，因暗示而煩惱，一見到比丘就會感到害怕、驚慌、逃跑；會走另一條路，面向另一個方向，關上門。即使看到牛，他們也會逃跑，以為它們是比丘。」
There are three factors for a full offense under this rule.	根據本戒條，構成完全違犯需要三個因素。
Effort: One completes, or gets someone else to complete, through begging for its materials,	努力：透過乞求材料來完成或讓別人完成，
Object: a hut that exceeds the standard mentioned in the rule or whose site has not been designated by the Community.	對象：超出戒條規定標準或未經僧團指定地點的小屋。
Intention: One intends the hut for one’s own use.	意圖：打算將小屋供自己使用。
We will discuss these factors in reverse order.	我們將以相反的順序討論這些因素。

Intention	意圖
The Canon repeatedly refers to two arrangements for the ownership of dwellings used by bhikkhus: They belong either to the Community or to an individual (or group of individuals). From the point of view of Community governance, the prior arrangement is preferable, for the Community can then allot the dwelling as it sees fit (see BMC2, Chapter 18). Also, a number of the rules governing the care and use of huts—such as Pc 15, 16, & 17—apply only to dwellings belonging to the Community.	《聖典》一再提到比丘所使用的住處的所有權有兩種安排：它們要麼屬於僧團，要麼屬於個人（或個人團體）。從僧團治理的角度來看，事先安排是更可取的，因為僧團可以根據需要分配住處（參見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十八章）。此外，許多管理小屋維護和使用的戒條（例如《波逸提》十五、十六和十七）僅適用於屬於僧團的住處。
The Vibhaṅga to this rule defines destined for himself as “for his own use.” On the surface this could mean that one plans to use the hut after handing ownership over to the Community, but the Commentary states that this is not so. To dedicate something for one’s own use, it says, is to claim ownership over it: In this case, one regards the dwelling as “mine.” The Commentary’s position is supported by the protocols followed by the lodging bestower and lodging assignor (see BMC2, Chapter 18) in allotting dwellings belonging to the Community: Outside of the Rains-residence, a bhikkhu could be moved from a Community dwelling at any time; during the Rains-residence, the bhikkhu who built a particular dwelling might find himself unable to stay there because many bhikkhus with more seniority or more pressing needs had decided to spend the Rains in that location. Thus if a bhikkhu planned the dwelling for his own use, he would not want it to be subject to the protocols governing Community dwellings.	本戒條的《經分別》將為自己建造定義為「供他自己使用」。從表面上看，這可能意味著計劃在將所有權移交給僧團後使用小屋，但《義註》指出事實並非如此。它說，將某物奉獻給自己使用，就是聲稱對其擁有所有權：在這種情況下，將住處視為「我的」。《義註》的立場得到了住宿贈予者和住宿分配者在分配屬於僧團的住處時所遵循的行儀（參見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十八章）的支持：在雨安居之外，比丘可以隨時從僧團住處搬走；在雨安居期間，建造特定住處的比丘可能會發現自己無法住在那裡，因為許多戒臘較高或有更迫切需要的比丘決定在該地點度過雨安居。因此，如果比丘計劃將住處供自己使用，他不希望它受到管理僧團住處的行儀的約束。
The Commentary’s interpretation thus suggests that this rule and the following one were intended to discourage bhikkhus from maintaining ownership over the huts they build, for as the non-offense clauses state, the stipulations in this rule do not apply to huts built for the use of others. As the Commentary notes, this exemption applies both to huts built for other people—such as one’s preceptor or mentor—or for the Community. This would open a loophole for one to build a hut for another bhikkhu and for him to claim ownership over it independently of the Community, all without following the stipulations under the rules, but apparently the compilers of the Vibhaṅga did not regard the act of building a hut as a gift for another bhikkhu as something they had the right to forbid.	因此，《義註》的解釋表明，本戒條和以下一條戒條的目的是阻礙比丘保留對其所建造的小屋的所有權，因為正如不犯條款所規定的那樣，本戒條中的規定不適用於為其他人使用而建造的小屋。正如《義註》所指出的，這項豁免適用於為其他人（例如戒師或導師）或為僧團建造的小屋。這將打開一個漏洞，讓某人為另一位比丘建造一間小屋，並讓他獨立於僧團而聲稱擁有它的所有權，所有這些都沒有遵守戒條的規定，但顯然，《經分別》的編纂者並沒有考慮建造一間小屋作為禮物送給另一位比丘的行為，因為他們有權禁止這樣做。

Object	對象
This factor is divided into two main sub-factors: the hut and the procedures that need to be followed to get the Community’s permission for its construction.	此因素分為兩個主要子因素：小屋和獲得僧團許可建造小屋所需遵循的程序。
The hut. The Vibhaṅga defines a hut as “plastered inside, outside, or both.” It also states that this rule does not apply to a leṇa, a guhā, or to a grass hut. A leṇa, according to the Commentary, is a cave. A guhā it doesn’t define, except to say that guhās may be built out of wood, stone, or earth. And as for a grass hut, the Commentary says that this refers to any building with a grass roof, which means that even a dwelling with plastered walls but a grass roof would not count as a hut under this rule (although a hut whose roof has been plastered and then covered with grass would count as a hut here).	小屋。《經分別》將小屋定義為「內部、外部或兩者都塗有灰泥」。它還指出，本戒條不適用於 leṇa 、 guhā 或草屋。根據《義註》， leṇa 是一個洞穴。它沒有定義 guhā ，只是說 guhā 可以用木材、石頭或泥土來建造。至於草屋，《義註》中說，這是指任何有草屋頂的建築物，這意味著即使是抹灰牆但有草屋頂的住處，在本戒條下也不能算作小屋（雖然屋頂被抹灰然後覆蓋草的小屋在這裡也算是小屋）。
The Commentary goes on to stipulate that the plastering mentioned in the Vibhaṅga refers to a plastered roof, that the plaster must be either clay or white lime (plastering with cow dung or mud doesn’t count, although cement would probably come under “white lime” here), and that the plastering on the inside or outside of the roof must be contiguous with the plastering on the inside or outside of the walls. Thus if the builder leaves a gap in the plastering around the top of the wall so that the plastering of the roof and the plastering of the walls don’t touch at any point, the building doesn’t qualify as a hut and so doesn’t come under the rule.	《義註》接著規定，《經分別》中所提到的抹灰指的是抹灰的屋頂，抹灰必須是粘土或白石灰（用牛糞或泥土抹灰不算，儘管水泥可能屬於此處的「白石灰」），且屋頂內側或外側的抹灰必須與牆壁內側或外側的抹灰互相連接。因此，如果建築者在牆頂周圍的抹灰中留下了一個間隙，使得屋頂的抹灰和牆壁的抹灰在任何一點都不會接觸，那麼該建築就不符合小屋的資格，因此不受戒條約束。
The Sub-commentary treats the question raised by the Commentary’s emphasis on the plastering of the roof: Does this mean that a dwelling with a plastered roof but unplastered walls would also count as a hut? Arguing from the Commentary’s many references to making the roof-plastering contiguous with the wall-plastering, the Sub-commentary concludes that the answer is No: Both the roof and the walls must be plastered.	《複註》處理了《義註》中強調屋頂抹灰所提出的問題：這是否意味著屋頂抹灰但牆壁未抹灰的住處也算是小屋？根據《義註》中多次提及使屋頂抹灰與牆壁抹灰互相連接，《複註》得出的結論是答案是否定的：屋頂和牆壁都必須抹灰。
The commentaries’ stipulations on these points may seem like attempts to create gaping loopholes in the rule, but there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to prove them wrong. Perhaps in those days only buildings that were fully plastered, roof and all, were considered to be finished, permanent structures, while everything else was considered makeshift and temporary and thus not worth the fuss and bother of the procedures we will discuss below.	註釋對這些要點的規定可能看起來像是試圖在戒條中製造巨大的漏洞，但《經分別》中沒有任何內容可以證明它們是錯的。也許在那些時日裡，只有完全抹灰的建築物，包括屋頂和所有東西，才被認為是完成的、永久性的結構，而其他一切都被認為是臨時湊合的，因此不值得我們在下面討論的程序中大驚小怪和麻煩。
At another point in its discussions, the Commentary adds that any building three sugata spans wide or less is not big enough to move a bed around in and so does not count as a hut under this rule. The Commentary itself defines a sugata span as three times the span of a normal person, which would put it at approximately 75 cm. More recent calculations based on the fact that the Buddha was not abnormally tall set the sugata span at 25 cm.	在討論的另一點上，《義註》補充說，任何寬度為三善至張手或更小的建築物都不足以移動一張床，因此根據本戒條不算作小屋。《義註》本身將善至張手定義為正常人張手的三倍，即大約 75 公分。根據佛陀身高並無異常的事實，最近的計算將善至張手設定為 25 公分。
The maximum size of the hut, as the rule states, is no more than twelve spans long and seven spans wide, or approximately 3 x 1.75 meters. For some reason the Vibhaṅga states that the length of the hut is measured from the outside (excluding the plastering, says the Commentary), while the width is measured from the inside. Neither of these measurements may be exceeded even by the breadth of a hair. Thus a hut measuring ten by eight spans, even though it has less floor area than a twelve-by-seven-span hut, would exceed the standard width and so would be a violation of this rule.	依戒條，小屋的最大尺寸不得超過長十二張手、寬七張手，即約 3 x 1.75 公尺。由於某種原因，《經分別》規定，小屋的長度是從外部測量的（《義註》中說，不包括抹灰），而寬度是從內部測量的。即使是一根頭髮絲的寬度也不能超過這些尺寸。因此，一個十張手乘以八張手的小屋，即使其建築面積比十二張手乘以七張手的小屋小，也會超出標準寬度，因此會違反本戒條。
The procedures. If, for his own use, a bhikkhu is planning to build a hut as defined in this rule, he must choose a site, clear it, and ask for a Community to inspect and approve it before he can go ahead with the actual construction.	程序。如果比丘打算按照本戒條建造一間小屋供自己使用，他必須選擇一個地點，清理它，並請求僧團檢查和批准，然後才能繼續實際建造。
—The site must be free of disturbances and have adequate space.	—場地必須不受干擾並有合適的空間。
The Vibhaṅga gives a long list of “disturbances,” which for ease of understanding we can divide into three categories: A site free of disturbances is (1) not the abode of such creatures as termites, ants, or rats who might do harm to the building. (2) It is not the abode of those—such as snakes, scorpions, tigers, lions, elephants, or bears—who might do harm to its inhabitant. The Commentary states that the Vibhaṅga’s purpose in forbidding a bhikkhu from building on a site where termites and other small animals have their home is to show compassion to these and other small creatures like them by not destroying their nests. As for the stipulation against building where snakes and other dangerous animals live, this also extends, it says, to the areas where they regularly forage for food.	《經分別》列出了一長串「干擾」清單，為了便於理解，我們可以將其分為三類：沒有干擾的場所是（1）不是白蟻、螞蟻或老鼠等可能對建築物造成損害的生物的住所。（2）它不是蛇、蝎子、老虎、獅子、大象或熊等可能傷害其居住者的動物的住所。《義註》指出，《經分別》禁止比丘在白蟻和其他小動物棲息的地方建造房屋的目的是為了表達對白蟻和其他小動物的慈悲，不破壞它們的巢穴。至於禁止在蛇等危險動物居住的地方建造建築的規定，也適用於蛇等危險動物經常覓食的區域。
(3) The site is not near any places that will disturb the bhikkhu’s peace and quiet. Examples given in the Vibhaṅga are: fields, orchards, places of execution, cemeteries, pleasure groves, royal property, elephant stables, horse stables, prisons, taverns, slaughterhouses, highways, crossroads, public rest-houses, and meeting places.	（3）該地點不靠近任何會擾亂比丘安寧的地方。《經分別》中所舉的例子有：田野、果園、刑場、墓園、遊園、皇家地產、象厩、馬廄、監獄、酒館、屠宰場、高速公路、十字路口、公共休息室和聚會場所。
Adequate space means that there is enough room on the site for a yoked wagon or a man carrying a ladder to go around the proposed hut. The question arises as to whether this means that all trees within that radius of the hut must be cut down or simply that there must be enough land around the hut so that if the trees were not there it would be possible to go around the hut in the ways mentioned. The Sub-commentary states that the stipulation for adequate space is so that the hut will not be built on the edge of a precipice or next to a cliff wall, and the Vinaya-mukha notes that the Vibhaṅga here is following the Laws of Manu (an ancient Indian legal text) in ensuring that the dwelling not be built right against someone else’s property. Both of these statements suggest that there is no need to cut the trees down.	合適的空間意味著場地上有足夠的空間供一輛有軛的馬車或一個攜帶梯子的人在擬建造的小屋周圍行走。問題是，這是否意味著小屋半徑內的所有樹木都必須被砍伐，或者只是小屋周圍必須有足夠的土地，這樣如果沒有樹木，就可以在小屋周圍以提到的方式行走。《複註》指出，對合適空間的規定如是，以至於小屋不能建在懸崖邊緣或懸崖壁旁邊，而《戒律入口》指出，這裡的《經分別》遵循《摩奴法典》（古印度法律文本），以確保住處不會侵犯他人的財產。這兩種說法都顯示沒有必要砍伐樹木。
The Vinaya-mukha deduces further from the Vibhaṅga’s discussion that the procedures for getting the site approved are concerned basically with laying claim to unclaimed land and thus don’t need to be followed in locations where the Community already owns the land, such as in a monastery; if a bhikkhu in such Communities wishes to build a hut for his own use on monastery land, he need only get the approval of the abbot. Nothing in the ancient texts, however, supports this opinion.	《戒律入口》從《經分別》的討論中進一步推斷，獲得場地批准的程序基本上涉及對無人認領的土地提出主張，因此不需要在僧團已經擁有土地的地方遵循，例如在寺院裡；如果這樣的僧團的比丘想在寺院土地上建造一間小屋供自己使用，他只需得到住持的批准即可。然而，古代文獻中並沒有任何內容支持這種觀點。
—Clearing the site. Before notifying the local Community, the bhikkhu must get the site cleared—so says the Vibhaṅga, and the Commentary adds that he should get it leveled as well. In both cases, he should arrange to have this done in such a way that does not violate Pc 10 & 11. If one is planning to build the hut on monastery grounds, the wise policy would be to obtain permission from the abbot before clearing the site. Again, the question arises as to whether clearing the site means cutting down the trees on the spot where one proposes building the hut. In the origin story to the following rule, Ven. Channa caused an uproar by cutting down a venerated tree on a site where he planned to build, which led the Buddha to formulate the rule that the Community must inspect and approve the site to prevent uproars of this sort. This suggests that clearing the site here means clearing the underbrush so that the presence or absence of termites, etc., can be clearly determined. Only after the Community has approved the site should the necessary trees be cut down.	——清理場地。在通知當地僧團之前，比丘必須清理該場地——《經分別》如是說，《義註》補充說他也應該把它夷為平地。在這兩種情況下，他都應該以不違反《波逸提》十和十一的方式進行安排。如果計劃在寺院場地上建造小屋，明智的做法是在清理場地之前獲得住持的許可。再次出現的問題是，清理場地是否意味著砍伐提議建造小屋的地點的樹木。在下一條戒條的起源故事中，闡陀尊者在他計劃建造的地方砍倒了一棵受人尊敬的樹木，引起了軒然大波，這導致佛陀制定了戒條，要求僧團必須檢查並批准該地點，以防止此類騷亂。這表明這裡的清理場地意味著清理灌木叢，以便可以清楚地確定白蟻等的存在與否。只有在僧團批准該地點後，才能砍伐必要的樹木。
—Getting the site inspected. The bhikkhu then goes to the Community and formally asks them to inspect the site. (The Pali passages for this and the remaining formal requests and proclamations are in the Vibhaṅga.) If all the members of the Community are able to go and inspect the site, they should all go. If not, the Community should select some of its members to go and inspect the site in its stead. The Vibhaṅga says that these inspectors should know what does and does not constitute a disturbance and adequate space, and requires that they be chosen by a formal motion with one proclamation. The Commentary says that they may also be chosen by a simple announcement (apalokana), but this opinion violates the principle set forth in Mv.IX.3.3 that if a shorter form is used for a transaction requiring a longer form, the transaction is invalid. Thus the Commentary’s opinion here cannot stand.	——檢查場地。然後，比丘前往僧團並正式要求他們檢查場地。（關於這一點的巴利段落以及其餘的正式請求和羯磨文都在《經分別》中。）如果僧團的所有成員都能夠去檢查該地點，他們都應該去。如果不能，僧團應選擇一些成員代替其前往現場檢查。《經分別》說，這些檢查員應該知道什麼構成干擾、什麼不構成干擾以及合適的空間，並要求通過正式的一白和一羯磨（白二羯磨）來挑選他們。《義註》說，也可以透過簡單的求聽（apalokana）來挑選他們，但這種意見違反了《大品》.九.3.3中規定的原則，即如果需要較長形式的羯磨使用較短的形式，則該羯磨無效。因此，《義註》的觀點不能成立。
The inspectors then visit the site. If they find any disturbances or see that the site has inadequate space, they should tell the bhikkhu not to build there. If the site passes inspection, though, they should return and inform the Community that the site is free of disturbances and has adequate space.	檢查員隨後前往場地。如果他們發現任何干擾或發現該地點沒有合適的空間，他們應該告訴比丘不要在那裡建造。不過，如果該地點通過檢查，他們應該返回並通知僧團該地點沒有受到干擾並且有合適的空間。
—Getting the site approved. The bhikkhu returns to the Community and formally asks it to approve the site. The transaction statement involves a motion and one proclamation. Once this has passed, the bhikkhu may start construction.	——獲得場地批准。比丘返回僧團並正式請求僧團批准該地點。羯磨文涉及一白和一羯磨（白二羯磨）。一旦通過，比丘就可以開始建造了。
Offenses. The Vibhaṅga allots the penalties related to the factor of object—a hut without a sponsor, for one’s own use, built without regard for the stipulations in this rule—as follows:	罪行。《經分別》指派與對象因素相關的懲罰—沒有資助者，自用，不考慮本戒條的規定而建造的小屋—如下：
an oversized hut—a saṅghādisesa;	超過尺寸的小屋—《僧殘》；
a hut on an unapproved site—a saṅghādisesa;	未批准場所的小屋—《僧殘》；
a hut on a site without adequate space—a dukkaṭa;	沒有合適空間的場所的小屋—《突吉羅》；
a hut on a site with disturbances—a dukkaṭa.	有干擾的場所的小屋—《突吉羅》；
These penalties are additive. Thus, for example, an oversized hut on an unapproved site would entail a double saṅghādisesa.	這些懲罰是累加的。因此，例如，在未經批准的場所建造一座超過尺寸小屋將犯兩次《僧殘》。
The wording of the training rule, though, suggests that building a hut without a sponsor, for one’s own use, on a site with disturbances and without adequate space would entail a saṅghādisesa; but the Sub-commentary says—without offering explanation—that to read the rule in this way is to misinterpret it. Because the penalty for a multiple saṅghādisesa is the same as that for a single one, there is only one case where this would make an appreciable difference: a hut of the proper size, built on an approved site that has disturbances or does not have adequate space. This is a case of a Community transaction improperly performed: Either the bhikkhus inspecting the site were incompetent, or the disturbances were not immediately apparent. Because the usual penalty for improperly performing a Community transaction is a dukkaṭa (Mv.II.16.4), this may be why the Vibhaṅga allots penalties as it does. As we noted in the Introduction, in cases where the Vibhaṅga is explaining the training rules that deal with Community transactions, it sometimes has to deviate from the wording of the rules to bring them in line with the general pattern for such transactions, a pattern that was apparently formulated after the rules and came to take precedence over them.	不過，學處的措辭表明，在沒有資助者的情況下，在有干擾且沒有合適空間的場所建造自用的小屋犯一次《僧殘》；但《複註》說——沒有提供解釋——以這種方式解讀本戒條是對它的誤解。由於對多次《僧殘》的懲罰與對單次《僧殘》的懲罰相同，因此只有一種情況會產生明顯的區別：一間大小合適的小屋，建在經批准的場地上，但有干擾或沒有合適的空間。這是一個僧團羯磨執行不當的案例：要麼是檢查現場的比丘無能，要麼是干擾沒有立即顯現出來。因為不當執行僧團羯磨的通常懲罰是《突吉羅》（《大品》.二.16.4），這可能是《經分別》如此分配懲罰的原因。正如我們在引言中指出的，在《經分別》解釋處理僧團羯磨的學處的情況下，有時必須偏離戒條的措辭，以使它們符合此類羯磨的一般模式，這種模式顯然是在戒條之後製定的，並且優先於戒條。
Usually, if a Community transaction has been improperly performed, it is invalid and unfit to stand even if the bhikkhus involved think that they are following the proper procedure. In other words, in the case just mentioned, the site would strictly speaking not count as approved, and the hut would involve a saṅghādisesa. However, the Vibhaṅga seems to be making a special exemption here in assigning only a dukkaṭa, perhaps so as not to punish unduly a bhikkhu who went to all the trouble to follow, as best he and his fellow bhikkhus knew how, the proper procedures prior to building his hut.	通常，如果僧團羯磨執行不當，即使相關比丘認為自己遵循了正確的程序，該羯磨也是無效且不適合成立的。換句話說，在剛才提到的情況下，嚴格來說，該地點不算被批准，而小屋將涉及《僧殘》。然而，《經分別》似乎在這裡做出了特殊的豁免，只指定了《突吉羅》，也許是為了不過度懲罰比丘，因為他和他的比丘同儕們都知道如何不辭辛勞地遵循建造小屋之前的正確程序。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga allots the derived penalties related to the factor of effort under this rule as follows: If the hut is such that when finished it will entail a saṅghādisesa or two, each act in its construction entails a dukkaṭa, until the next to the last act, which entails a thullaccaya.	《經分別》分配了與本戒條下的努力因素相關的衍生懲罰，如下：如果小屋在完成後將犯一次或兩次《僧殘》，則其建造中的每個行為都犯《突吉羅》，直到最後一個行為的前一個行為，犯《偷蘭遮》。
If a bhikkhu, intending it for his own use, completes a hut that others have started, he is still bound by the stipulations given in this rule. In other words, the offenses here do not apply only to the original initiator of the hut’s construction.	如果比丘打算自用，而完成了別人已經開始建造的小屋，他仍然受本戒條的約束。換句話說，這裡的犯戒不僅適用於小屋建造的原始發起人。
The Commentary mentions a special case in which two bhikkhus, building a hut for their own use but not to the stipulations under this rule, complete it without having decided which part of the hut will go to which bhikkhu. Because of their indecision, the Commentary states that neither of them incurs the full offense until he has laid claim to his part of the hut.	《義註》提到一個特殊的例子，兩個比丘建造了一座自用的小屋，但不符合本戒條的規定，在沒有決定小屋的哪一部分歸哪位比丘的情況下完成了。由於他們尚未決定，《義註》指出，在他聲稱擁有自己的小屋部分之前，他們都不會完全違犯。
Getting others to build the hut. The Vibhaṅga states that if, instead of building the hut himself, a bhikkhu tells others, “Build this hut for me,” he must inform them of the four stipulations mentioned in this rule. If he neglects to inform them, and they finish the hut in such a way that it does not meet any or all of the stipulations, he incurs all the relevant offenses for the stipulations that he neglected to mention and that the builders violated. For example: He tells them to build a hut of the right size, but neglects to tell them to have the site approved. They build it to the right size, the site is without disturbances and has adequate space but is not approved, and he incurs a saṅghādisesa. Offenses in cases like this apply whether he gets them to start the hut’s construction or gets them to complete a hut that he has started.	讓其他人建造小屋。《經分別》規定，如果比丘不是自己建造小屋，而是告訴別人：「為我建造這座小屋」，他必須告知他們本戒條中提到的四項規定。如果他疏忽通知他們，而他們以不符合任何或全部規定的方式完成小屋，他將因他疏忽提及和建造者違反的規定而承擔所有相關違犯。例如：他告訴他們建造一個大小合適的小屋，但沒有告訴他們讓場地被批准。他們把它建得大小合適，場地沒有干擾，有合適的空間，但沒有得到批准，他犯《僧殘》。無論他讓他們開始建造小屋還是讓他們完成他已經開始建造的小屋，這種情況下的犯戒都適用。
If, while the builders are still building the hut, he hears of what they are doing, he must either go himself or send a messenger to tell them of the stipulations he neglected to mention. If he does neither, he incurs a dukkaṭa, and when the hut is finished he incurs all the relevant offenses for the stipulations that he neglected to mention and that the builders violated.	如果在建造者還在建造小屋的時候，他聽到了他們正在做的事情，他必須要麼親自去，要麼派一個使者告訴他們他沒有提到的規定。如果他兩者都不做，他犯《突吉羅》，當小屋完工後，他會因他忽略提及而建造者違反的規定而招致所有相關的違犯。
If, while the hut is still unfinished, he returns to the site and discovers that the stipulations he neglected to mention are being violated, he must either have the hut torn down (to the ground, says the Commentary) and have it rebuilt in line with the stipulations, give it to another bhikkhu or the Community, or face the full penalty—when the hut is finished—for each of the stipulations that he neglected to mention and that the builders violated.	如果在小屋尚未完工時，他回到場地，發現他忽略提及的規定遭到違反，他必須要麼將小屋拆掉（《義註》說是夷為平地），按規定重建它，交給另一個比丘或僧團，要不然當小屋完成時，就因他忽略提及和建造者違反的每一項規定而面臨全額懲罰。
If the bhikkhu originally mentions the proper stipulations but later learns that the builders are ignoring them, he must go himself or send a messenger to reiterate the stipulations. Not to do so incurs a dukkaṭa. If, having been reminded of the stipulations, the builders still ignore them, the bhikkhu incurs no penalty; but they—if they are bhikkhus—incur a dukkaṭa for each of the three criteria regarding the site that they disobey. As for the standard measurement, they are not bound by it as they are building the hut for another’s use.	如果比丘最初提到了正確的規定，但後來得知建造者忽視了這些規定，他必須親自去或派使者重申這些規定。不這樣做就犯《突吉羅》。如果建築者在被提醒注意這些規定後仍然忽視它們，比丘不會受到懲罰；但是，如果他們是比丘，他們就會因違反有關該場地的三個標準中的每一個而犯《突吉羅》。至於標準尺寸，他們不受它的約束，因為他們建造的小屋是供別人使用的。

Begging	乞討
The Vibhaṅga to this rule does not go into any great detail on the issue of begging for construction materials. However, the Commentary contains a long discussion of what a bhikkhu may and may not beg for when building any kind of building, even those not covered by this rule. Because the Commentary’s discussion here is not based on the Canon, not all Communities regard these points as binding. Still, many of its suggestions merit serious consideration. Its main points are these:	本戒條的《經分別》並沒有詳細討論乞討建築材料的問題。然而，《義註》包含了關於比丘在建造任何類型的建築物時可以乞討什麼和不可以乞討什麼的長篇討論，即使是那些不在本戒條範圍內的建築物。由於此處《義註》的討論並非基於《聖典》，因此並非所有僧團都認為這些要點具有約束力。儘管如此，其中的許多建議仍值得認真考慮。其要點如下：
A bhikkhu may ask for people to give labor in any situation (although this point seems to conflict with the spirit of the origin story to this rule). Thus he may ask stone masons to carry stone posts to his construction site, or carpenters to carry boards there. If, after he has asked them to help with the labor, they volunteer to donate the materials as well, he may accept them without penalty. Otherwise, he has to reimburse them for the materials.	比丘在任何情況下都可以要求人們給予勞力（儘管這一點似乎與本戒條的起源故事的精神相衝突）。因此，他可以請石匠將石柱搬到他的建築工地，或請木匠將木板搬到那裡。如果他要求他們幫忙做工後，他們也自願捐贈材料，他可以接受，不受懲罰。否則的話，他就得給他們補償材料費。
As for tools, vehicles, and other things he will use in the process of construction, he may ask only to borrow them from other people and may not ask for them outright (except when asking from relatives or those who have made an offer). If the tools get damaged, he is responsible for getting them repaired before returning them to the owner. (This opinion, however, seems based on the Commentary’s concept of bhaṇḍadeyya, which we have already rejected under Pr 2.) The only things he needn’t return to the owner are light articles (lahubhaṇḍa), which the Sub-commentary identifies as things like reeds, rushes, grass, and clay—i.e., things having little or no monetary value at all.	對於施工過程中使用的工具、車輛等物品，只能向他人借用，不得直接索取（向親戚或提出邀請者索取的除外）。如果工具損壞，他有責任修理好，然後再歸還給所有者。（然而，這個觀點似乎是基於《義註》的 bhaṇḍadeyya 概念，我們已經在《波羅夷》二中拒絕了這個概念。）他唯一不需要歸還給所有者的東西是輕物品（lahubhaṇḍa），《複註》將其定為像蘆葦、燈芯草、草和黏土這樣的東西，即幾乎沒有或根本沒有貨幣價值的東西。
This means that unless a bhikkhu is going to build his dwelling out of reeds, etc., or out of thrown-away scraps, he may not ask people in general for any of the materials that will actually go into the dwelling. Keep in mind that these rules were made during a period when wilderness was still plentiful, and solid building materials such as timber and stones were free for the taking. At present, unless a bhikkhu has access to unclaimed wilderness of this sort, to unclaimed garbage, or has enough funds on deposit with his steward (see NP 10) to cover the cost of materials, his only recourse if he wants a solid structure is either to rammed earth or to hinting.	這意味著，除非比丘要用蘆葦等，或用廢棄的廢料來建造他的住所，否則他不能向一般人索取任何實際用於建造住所的材料。請記住，這些規則是在林野仍然充足、木材和石頭等固體建築材料可以免費取得的時期制定的。目前，除非比丘能夠有權使用此類無人認領的荒野，無人認領的垃圾，或者在他的淨人處存有足夠的資金（參見《捨墮》十）來支付材料費用，否則如果他想要一個堅固的結構，他唯一的辦法就是要夯土，不然就要暗示。
The Commentary notes that while hinting is not allowed with regard to food or cloth, it is allowed with regard to construction materials (although again, this point seems to conflict with the spirit of the origin story). One example it gives is asking, “Do you think this is a good place to build a hut? An ordination hall?” Another example is staking out a construction site in hope that someone will ask, “What are you planning to do here?” If people get the hint and offer the materials, the bhikkhu may accept them. If they don’t, he may not ask directly for any materials except the “light articles” mentioned above.	《義註》指出，雖然在食物或衣服方面不允許暗示，但在建築材料方面卻允許暗示（儘管這一點似乎與起源故事的精神相衝突）。它給出的一個例子是問：「你認為這是建造小屋的好地方嗎？戒堂？」另一個例子是在一個建築工地上立樁標出界線，希望有人會問：「你打算在這裡做什麼？」如果人們得到暗示並提供材料，比丘可以接受。如果沒有，除了上述的「輕物品」之外，他不得直接要求任何材料。
From this it should be obvious that even in cases not covered by this rule—i.e., the dwelling he is building doesn’t qualify as a “hut,” or he is building something for other people to use—a bhikkhu engaged in construction work should not be burdensome to the laity. This is an important point, as the Buddha illustrated in a story he told to the bhikkhus at Āḷavī. A certain bhikkhu had once come to him with a complaint, and he reports the conversation as follows:	由此可見，即使在本戒條未涵蓋的情況下，即他正在建造的住處不符合「小屋」的資格，或者他正在建造供其他人使用時，從事建築工作的比丘不應成為俗人的負擔。這是很重要的一點，正如佛陀在他向 Āḷavī 的比丘們講述故事中所說明的那樣。有一次，有一位比丘來向他抱怨，他將談話的內容記述如下：
“‘Venerable sir, there is a large stand of forest on the slopes of the Himalayas, and not far from it is a broad, low-lying marsh. A great flock of birds, after feeding all day in the marsh, goes to roost in the forest at nightfall. That is why I have come to see the Blessed One—because I am annoyed by the noise of that flock of birds.’	「『大德，喜馬拉雅山的山坡上有一大片森林，不遠處有一片廣闊的低窪沼澤。一大群鳥兒在沼澤地裡覓食了一整天後，在夜幕降臨時到森林裡棲息。這就是我來見世尊的原因──因為我對那群鳥的噪音感到惱火。』
“‘Bhikkhu, do you want those birds not to come there?’	「『比丘，你不想那些鳥兒到那裡去嗎？』
“‘Yes, venerable sir, I want them not to come there.’	「『是的，大德，我希望他們不要來這裡。』
“‘Then in that case, go back there, enter the stand of forest, and in the first watch of the night make this announcement three times: “Listen to me, good birds. I want a feather from everyone roosting in this forest. Each of you give me one feather.” In the second watch…. In the third watch of the night make this announcement three times: “Listen to me, good birds. I want a feather from everyone roosting in this forest. Each of you give me one feather”…. (The bhikkhu did as he was told.) Then the flock of birds, thinking, ‘The bhikkhu asks for a feather, the bhikkhu wants a feather,’ left the forest. And after they were gone, they never again returned. Bhikkhus, begging is unpleasant, hinting is unpleasant even to these common animals—how much more so to human beings?”	「『那麼，既然如此，你就回到那裡，進入林中，在初夜的時候，宣告三遍：『聽我說，好鳥兒們。我想要棲息在這片森林裡的每隻鳥的一根羽毛。你們每隻給我一根羽毛。在中夜......到後夜，宣告三次：「好鳥兒們，聽我說。我想要棲息在這片森林裡的每隻鳥的一根羽毛。你們每隻給我一根羽毛」… （比丘照他所吩咐的去做。）然後，群鳥心想：『比丘要一根羽毛，比丘要一根羽毛。』而他們離開之後，就再也沒有回來過。比丘們，乞討是不愉快的，暗示甚至對這些普通動物來說也是不愉快的，何況對人類呢？」

Non-offenses

不犯

The Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses mention, in addition to the usual exemptions, that there is no offense “in a leṇa, in a guhā, in a grass hut, in (a dwelling) for another’s use, or in anything other than a dwelling.” The Commentary explains that no offense here means that these cases are not subject to any of the four stipulations given in this rule. With regard to “another’s use,” it says that this could mean a dwelling that will belong to another individual—such as one’s preceptor or mentor—or to the Community. As for the last case, it explains that if a bhikkhu is building, e.g., a meeting hall, he is not bound by this rule, but if he plans to lay claim to it and use it as his dwelling as well, he is.

除一般的豁免外，《經分別》的不犯條款還提到，「在leṇa（山窟）、guhā（洞穴）、草屋、供他人使用的（住處）或住處除外的任何東西」均不構成犯戒。《義註》解釋說，此處不犯意思是這些情況不受本戒條中四項規定中任何一項的約束。關於「他人使用」，它說這意味著屬於另一個人（例如戒師或教授師）或僧團的住處。至於最後一個例子，它解釋說，如果一個比丘正在建造，例如一個會議廳，他就不受本戒條的約束，但如果他打算聲稱擁有它並把它用作他的住所，他就受本戒條的約束。

Further restrictions and allowances	進一步的限制和開緣
Further restrictions and allowances concerning the construction of dwellings are discussed under Pc 19 and in BMC2, Chapters 6 and 18.	有關住處建設的進一步限制和開緣在《波逸提》十九和《佛教修道準則第二冊》第六章和第十八章中討論。
Summary: Building a plastered hut—or having it built—without a sponsor, destined for one’s own use, without having obtained the Community’s approval, is a saṅghādisesa offense. Building a plastered hut—or having it built—without a sponsor, destined for one’s own use, exceeding the standard measurements, is also a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在沒有資助者的情況下建造或讓人建造一座灰泥小屋，供自己使用，未經僧團批准，是《僧殘》罪。在沒有資助者的情況下建造或讓人建造一座灰泥小屋，供自己使用，超過標準尺寸，也是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

7	七
When a bhikkhu is having a large dwelling built—having a sponsor and destined for himself—he is to assemble bhikkhus to designate the site. The site the bhikkhus designate should be without disturbances and with adequate space. If the bhikkhu should have a large dwelling built on a site with disturbances and without adequate space, or if he should not assemble the bhikkhus to designate the site, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	當比丘要建造一座大住處時——有資助者並為自己而造——他要召集比丘們來指定地點。比丘們指定的地點應該沒有干擾並且有合適的空間。如果比丘在有干擾且沒有合適空間的地點建造一座大住處，或者如果他不召集比丘來指定地點，僧殘。
The Vibhaṅga defines dwelling here with the same terms it uses for hut in the preceding rule. All explanations for this rule may be inferred from those above, the only difference being that, as the dwelling here has a sponsor, no begging is involved in its construction and so there is no need to limit its size.	《經分別》對這裡的住處的定義與前面戒條中對小屋使用的術語相同。對本戒條的所有解釋都可以從上面的內容中推斷出來，唯一的區別是，這裡的住處有資助者，建造過程中不涉及乞討，因此不需要限制其尺寸。
None of the texts define sponsor aside from the Vibhaṅga’s statement that the sponsor can be a man or a woman, a householder or one gone forth. The Pali term for “sponsor” here, sāmika, can also mean “owner,” and this has led some to suggest that this rule covers only those cases where the donor maintains ownership over the dwelling even after the bhikkhu has finished it. This, however, would create a serious gap in the rules. Suppose a donor offers to provide all the materials for a bhikkhu to build himself a large hut and to hand ownership of the hut over to the bhikkhu when it is finished as well. This is an extremely common case, and yet it would not be covered by the preceding rule, for that rule deals only with instances where the bhikkhu has to beg for his materials. If sāmika under this rule were confined to the restrictive sense of “owner” given above, the case would not be covered by this rule, either.	除了《經分別》陳述資助者可以是男人或女人、居士或出家人之外，沒有任何文字定義資助者。這裡的巴利語「資助者」一詞， sāmika ，也可以指「所有者」，這導致一些人認為，本戒條只適用於那些即使在比丘完工後，施主仍保留住處所有權的情況。然而，這將在戒條中造成嚴重漏洞。假設一位布施者願意為一位比丘提供所有材料，讓他自己建造一座大小屋，並在完工後將小屋的所有權移交給比丘。這是一個極其常見的情況，但它不會被前面的戒條涵蓋，因為該戒條只涉及比丘必須乞討材料的情況。如果本戒條下的 sāmika 僅限於上述「所有者」的限制性含義，則該情況也不會受到本戒條的管轄。
There is evidence in the Canon, though, that the word sāmika can have another meaning aside from “owner.” The non-offense clauses to NP 10 use the word sāmika to describe a person who creates a robe-fund for a bhikkhu but does not retain ownership of the robe once it has been given to the bhikkhu, and it seems reasonable to use the word in the same sense under this rule as well. Thus a sponsor here would be anyone—man or woman, ordained or not—who underwrites the cost of building a hut in such a way that the bhikkhu does not have to beg for his materials. Thus if a bhikkhu building a hut for his own use draws entirely on funds deposited with his steward for all materials and labor, the case would come under this rule as well.	不過，《聖典》中有證據表明，除了「所有者」之外， sāmika 一詞還可以有其他意義。《捨墮》十的不犯條款使用 sāmika 一詞來描述為比丘創建袈裟資金但一旦將袈裟交給比丘後並不保留其所有權的人，在本戒條下使用具有同樣意義的該詞似乎也是合理的。因此，這裡的資助者可以是任何人——男人或女人，受具足戒與否——承擔建造小屋費用的人，這樣比丘就不必乞討他的材料。因此，如果比丘建造一間小屋供自己使用，其所有材料和勞力都完全由其存放在淨人的資金支付，則該情況也將受此戒條管轄。
Given the way the Commentary defines destined for oneself, if the sponsor maintained ownership of the finished hut, the case would not fall under this rule. If a sponsor is building a dwelling to give to a bhikkhu, and the bhikkhu is not involved in any way in building it or getting it built, this rule does not apply.	考慮到《義註》對為自己而造的定義，如果資助者保留了已完工小屋的所有權，則該情況將不屬於本戒條的範圍。如果資助者正在建造一所住處供給一位比丘，而該比丘沒有以任何方式參與建造或令其被建造，則本戒條不適用。
Summary: Building a hut with a sponsor—or having it built—destined for one’s own use, without having obtained the Community’s approval, is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在未獲得僧團批准的情況下，有資助者建造小屋——或者讓人建造小屋——供自己使用，是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

8	八
Should any bhikkhu—corrupt, aversive, disgruntled—charge a bhikkhu with an unfounded case entailing defeat, (thinking), “Perhaps I may bring about his fall from this celibate life,” then regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, if the issue is unfounded and the bhikkhu confesses his aversion, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果任何比丘——惡意、瞋恨、不滿——以毫無根據的事由指控比丘犯波羅夷，（想）「也許我可以導致他從這梵行生活中退墮」，那麼無論他是否稍後受到盤問，如果事由沒有根據並且比丘承認他的瞋恨，僧殘。
“Now at that time a householder who served fine food gave food to the Community on a regular basis, four bhikkhus every day…. (One day) he happened to go on some business to the monastery. He went to Ven. Dabba Mallaputta and on arrival bowed down to him and sat to one side…. Ven. Dabba Mallaputta roused… him with a Dhamma talk. Then the householder with fine food… said to Dabba Mallaputta, ‘To whom, venerable sir, is tomorrow’s meal in our house assigned?’	「爾時，一位提供精美食物的居士定期向僧團提供食物，每天有四位比丘… （有一天）他碰巧去寺院辦事。他去找沓婆摩羅子尊者，抵達後向他頂禮並坐在一邊…沓婆摩羅子尊者用佛法開示激勵了……他。然後，有美味食物的居士……對沓婆摩羅子說：『大德，我們家裡明天的飯菜是分配給誰的？』
“‘…To (the) followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja (§), householder.’ [Mettiya and Bhummaja were among the leaders of the group-of-six bhikkhus—so called because the group had six ringleaders—a faction notorious for its shameless behavior, and instigators of many of the situations that compelled the Buddha to formulate training rules.]	「『…居士，分配給慈和地（§）的弟子。』[慈和地是六群比丘的領導人之一——如此稱呼是因為該群有六名頭目——這個派別因其無恥的行為，以及許多情況的發起者迫使佛陀制定學處。]
“This upset the householder with fine food. Thinking, ‘How can these evil bhikkhus eat in our house?’ he returned home and ordered his female slave, ‘Hey. Those who are coming for a meal tomorrow: Prepare a seat for them in the gatehouse and serve them unhusked rice porridge with pickle brine.’	「這讓有美味食物的居士感到不悅。他心想：『這些惡比丘怎麼能在我們家裡吃飯呢？』他回到家裡，吩咐他的女婢：『嘿。明天來吃飯的人，在門房裡為他們預備座位，給與屑米飯添加酸粥。』
“‘As you say, master,’ the female slave answered….	「『如您所說，主人。』女婢回答道…
“Then the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja said to one another, ‘Yesterday we were assigned a meal at the house of the householder with fine food. Tomorrow, attending with his wives and children, he will serve us. Some will offer rice, some will offer curry, some oil, and some condiments.’ Because of their joy, they didn’t sleep as much that night as they had hoped.	「然後，慈和地的弟子互相說道：『昨天，我們被安排去有美食的居士家裡用餐。明天，他將帶著妻子和孩子出席，為我們服務。有人會提供米飯，有人會提供咖哩、一些油和一些調味品。』由於高興，他們那天晚上並沒有像他們希望的那樣睡得多。
“Early the next morning… they went to the home of the householder with fine food. The female slave saw them coming from afar. On seeing them, and having prepared them a seat in the gatehouse, she said to them, ‘Have a seat, honored sirs.’	「第二天一早……他們來到了有美食的居士家。女婢遠遠就看到他們過來了。看見他們後，就在門房給他們安排了座位，對他們說：『大德，請坐。』
“The thought occurred to the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja, ‘No doubt the food isn’t ready yet, which is why we’re being made to sit in the gatehouse.’	「慈和地的弟子心想，『毫無疑問，食物還沒有準備好，這就是我們坐在門房裡的原因。』
“Then the female slave presented them with unhusked rice porridge with pickle brine and said, ‘Eat, honored sirs.’	“然後，女婢給他們端上屑米飯添加酸粥，說道：『大德，吃吧。』
“‘Sister, we’re the ones here for the regular meal.’	「『姐妹，我們是來這裡受常施食的。』
“‘I know you’re the ones here for the regular meal. But yesterday the householder ordered me, “Hey. Those who are coming for a meal tomorrow: Prepare a seat for them in the gatehouse and serve them unhusked rice porridge with pickle brine.” So eat, honored sirs.’	「『我知道你們是來這裡受常施食的。但昨天，我家主人命令我說：「嘿。明天來吃飯的人，在門房裡給他們預備座位，給他們吃屑米飯添加酸粥。所以請吃飯吧，大德。』
“Then the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja said to one another, ‘Yesterday the householder with fine food went to the monastery and met with Dabba Mallaputta. No doubt Dabba Mallaputta turned him against us.’ Because of their disappointment, they didn’t eat as much as they had hoped.	「然後，慈和地的弟子彼此說道：『昨天，那位擁有美味食物的居士去了寺院，並會見了沓婆摩羅子。毫無疑問，沓婆摩羅子讓他背叛了我們。』由於失望，他們沒有吃到他們希望的那麼多。
“Then… they returned to the monastery and, putting away their robes and bowls, went outside the monastery gatehouse and sat with their outer robes holding up their knees (§)—silent, abashed, their shoulders drooping, their heads down, brooding, at a loss for words.	「然後……他們回到寺院，收起袈裟和缽，到寺院門房外，蹲坐於僧伽梨衣（§）——沉默、羞愧、垂肩、低頭、憂鬱，無言以對。
“Then Mettiyā Bhikkhunī approached them… and said to them, ‘I salute you, masters.’ But when she had said this, they didn’t respond. A second time… A third time she said, ‘I salute you, masters.’ And a third time they didn’t respond.	「然後，慈比丘尼走近他們……並對他們說：『我頂禮大德。』但是當她說出這句話時，他們沒有回應。第二次……第三次她說：『我頂禮大德。』第三次他們沒有回應。
“‘Have I offended you, masters? Why don’t you respond to me?’	「『我冒犯大德了嗎？為什麼不回應我？』
“‘Because you, sister, look on impassively while Dabba Mallaputta treats us like dirt.’	「『因為，姐妹，你冷漠地看著沓婆摩羅子對待我們就像對待泥土一樣。』
“‘What can I do?’	「『我能做些什麼？』
“‘If you want, you could get the Blessed One to expel Dabba Mallaputta right this very day.’	「『如果你願意，你可以在今天就讓世尊驅逐沓婆摩羅子。』
“‘What can I do? How could I do that?’	「『我能做些什麼？我能怎麼做呢？』
“‘Come, sister. Go to the Blessed One and say this: “It is unfitting, venerable sir, and improper. The quarter without dread, without harm, without danger, is (now) the quarter with dread, with harm, with danger. From where there was a calm, there is (now) a storm-wind. The water, as it were, is ablaze. I have been raped by Master Dabba Mallaputta.”’	「『來吧，姐妹。去向世尊說：「大德，這是不合適的，也是不恰當的。沒有恐懼、沒有傷害、沒有危險的地區，（現在）是有恐懼、有傷害、危險的地區。原本風平浪靜的地方，現在卻刮起了狂風。水就像在燃燒一樣。我被大德沓婆摩羅子強暴了。』
“‘As you say, masters.’ (And she went to carry out their bidding.)”	「『就如您所說，大德。』（她去執行他們的命令。）」
This is just the heart of the origin story to this rule, which is one of the longest and most controversial accounts in the Vinaya. After Mettiyā Bhikkhunī made her charge, the Buddha convened a meeting of the Saṅgha to question Ven. Dabba Mallaputta. The latter, who had attained arahantship at the age of seven, responded truthfully that he could not call to mind ever having indulged in sexual intercourse even in a dream, much less when awake. The Buddha then told the Saṅgha to expel Mettiyā Bhikkhunī and to interrogate (§) her instigators, after which he returned to his quarters. When the bhikkhus had expelled her, the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja told them, “Friends, don’t expel Mettiyā Bhikkhunī. She hasn’t done anything wrong. She was instigated by us, who were upset, dissatisfied, and wanted to see him fall.”	這只是本戒條起源故事的核心，也是戒律中最長、最具爭議的記載之一。慈比丘尼提出指控後，佛陀召集僧伽會議質問沓婆摩羅子尊者。後者七歲時證得阿羅漢果，他如實回答說，即使在夢中，他也無法回憶起曾經沉迷於性交的經歷，更不用說在醒時了。然後，佛陀吩咐僧團驅逐慈比丘尼，並審問（§）她的煽動者，然後他返回自己的住處。當比丘們驅逐她時，慈和地的弟子告訴他們：「朋友們，不要驅逐慈比丘尼。她沒有做錯任何事。她是被我們慫恿的，我們心煩意亂，不滿，想看他退墮。」
“‘You mean you were charging Ven. Dabba Mallaputta with an unfounded case entailing defeat?’	「『你們的意思是你們以毫無根據的波羅夷案件指控沓婆摩羅子尊者？』
“‘Yes, friends.’	「『是的，朋友們。』
“So the bhikkhus criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja charge Ven. Dabba Mallaputta with an unfounded case entailing defeat?’”	「因此，比丘們批評、抱怨並散佈這樣的言論：『慈和地的弟子怎麼能以毫無根據的波羅夷案件指控沓婆摩羅子尊者？』」
In the centuries after the Canon was composed, however, many people have criticized and complained more about the Buddha’s treatment of Mettiyā Bhikkhunī. According to the Commentary, her expulsion was one of the controversial points dividing the bhikkhus in the Abhayagiri Vihāra from those in the Mahāvihāra in the old Sri Lankan capital of Anurādhapura. Even modern scholars have objected to the Buddha’s treatment of Mettiyā Bhikkhunī and interpret this passage as a “monkish gloss,” as if the Buddha himself were not a monk, and the entire Canon not the work of monks and nuns. The Commentary maintains that the Buddha acted as he did because he knew if he treated her less harshly, the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja would never have volunteered the information that they had put her up to making the charge in the first place, and the truth would never have come out. This would have led some people to remain secretly convinced of Ven. Dabba Mallaputta’s guilt and—because he was an arahant—would have been for their long-term detriment and harm.	然而，在《聖典》形成後的幾個世紀裡，許多人對佛陀對待慈比丘尼的方式提出了更多的批評和抱怨。根據《義註》，她的驅逐是在斯里蘭卡舊首都阿努拉德普勒的無畏山寺比丘與大寺比丘之間分裂的爭議點之一。甚至現代學者也反對佛陀對慈比丘尼的處理，並將這段經文解釋為「僧人的註釋」，彷彿佛陀本人不是僧人，整部《聖典》也不是僧人和尼姑的作品。《義註》認為，佛陀這樣做是因為他知道，如果他對待她不那麼嚴厲，慈和地的弟子就永遠不會自願提供他們一開始就讓她提出指控的信息，事實永遠不會出來。這會導致一些人仍然暗中相信沓婆摩羅子尊者的罪行——因為他是阿羅漢——會對他們造成長久的危害和傷害。
At any rate, what concerns us here is that at some point after this rule was formulated, the Buddha put the Saṅgha in charge of judging accusations of this sort and gave them a definite pattern to follow to ensure that their judgments would be as fair and accurate as possible. Because the Vibhaṅga and Commentary to this rule are based on this pattern, we will discuss the pattern first before dealing with the special case—unfounded charges—covered by this rule.	無論如何，我們在這裡關心的是，在本戒條制定後的某個時刻，佛陀讓僧團負責判斷此類指控，並給了他們一個明確的模式可遵循，以確保他們的判斷是盡可能地公平和正確。由於本戒條的《經分別》和《義註》都是基於此模式，因此我們將首先討論該模式，然後再處理本戒條所涵蓋的特殊情況——毫無根據的指控。

Admonition	敎誡
As the Buddha states in Sg 12, one of the ways bhikkhus may hope for growth in his teachings is through mutual admonition and mutual rehabilitation. If a bhikkhu commits an offense, he is responsible for informing his fellow bhikkhus so that they may help him through whatever procedures the offense may entail. Human nature being what it is, there are bound to be bhikkhus who neglect this responsibility, in which case the responsibility falls to the offender’s fellow bhikkhus who know of the matter to admonish him in private, if possible, or—if he is stubborn—to make a formal charge in a meeting of the Community.	正如佛陀在《僧殘》十二中所說，比丘們希望在他的教義中成長的方法之一是透過相互教誡和相互恢復清淨。如果比丘犯了戒，他有責任通知他的比丘同儕，以便他們可以通過該罪可能需要的任何程序來幫助他。人性就是這樣，必然會有比丘忽視這一責任，在這種情況下，責任就落在了犯戒者的比丘同儕身上，他們知道此事，如果可能的話，私下教誡他，或者——如果他很頑固的話－在僧團會議上提出正式指控。
The pattern here is this: Before admonishing the bhikkhu, one must first make sure that one is qualified to admonish him. According to Cv.IX.5.1-2, this means knowing that:	這裡的模式是這樣的：在教誡比丘之前，首先必須確定自己有資格教誡比丘。根據《小品》.九.5.1-2，這意味著知道：
1) One is pure in bodily conduct.	1）身行清淨。
2) One is pure in verbal conduct.	2）語行清淨。
3) One is motivated by good will, not vindictiveness.	3）動機是出於善意，而不是出於報復。
4) One is learned in the Dhamma.	4）通達佛法。
5) One knows both Pāṭimokkhas (the one for the bhikkhus and the one for the bhikkhunīs) in detail.	5）詳細了解兩部波羅提木叉（比丘和比丘尼）。
Furthermore, one determines that:	此外，還確定：
1) I will speak at the right time and not at the wrong time.	1）我會在正確的時候說話，不在錯誤的時候說話。
2) I will speak about what is factual and not what is unfactual.	2）我會說事實，而不是非事實。
3) I will speak gently and not harshly.	3）我會柔軟地說，不粗暴地說。
4) I will speak what is connected with the goal (attha) and not what is unconnected with the goal (this can also mean: what is connected with the case and not what is unconnected with the case).	4）我會說與目標（attha）相關的內容，而不是與目標無關的內容（這也可以意味著：與具體情況相關的內容，而不是與具體情況無關的內容）。
5) I will speak from a mind of good will and not from inner aversion.	5）我會出於慈心而不是瞋心的而說。
Cv.IX.5.7 and Pv.XV.5.3 add that one should keep five qualities in mind: compassion, solicitude for the other’s welfare, sympathy, a desire to see him rehabilitated, and esteem for the Vinaya.	《小品》.九.5.7和《附隨》.十五.5.3補充說，應該牢記五種特質：慈悲、關心他人的福祉、同情、渴望看到他改過自新，以及尊重戒律。
If one feels unqualified in terms of these standards yet believes that another bhikkhu has committed an offense for which he has not made amends, one should find another bhikkhu who is qualified to handle the charge and inform him. Not to inform anyone in cases like this is to incur a pācittiya or a derived offense under Pc 64, except in the extenuating circumstances discussed under that rule.	如果覺得自己不符合這些標準，但又相信另一位比丘犯了戒，而他還沒有改正，那麼應該找到另一位有資格處理指控的比丘，並通知他。在此類情況下，不通知任何人將構成《波逸提》六四中的《波逸提》罪或衍生違犯，除了該戒條中討論的情有可原的情況。
The next step, if one is qualified to make the charge, is to look for a proper time and place to talk with the other party—for example, when he is not likely to get embarrassed or upset—and then to ask his leave, i.e., to ask permission to speak with him: “Let the venerable one give me leave. I want to speak with you—Karotu āyasmā okāsaṁ. Ahan-taṁ vattukāmo.” To accuse him of an offense without asking leave is to incur a dukkaṭa (Mv.II.16.1).	如果有資格提出指控，下一步就是尋找適當的時間和地點與對方交談——例如，當他不太可能感到尷尬或不安時——然後請求他的許可，即，請求允許與他交談：「請尊者給予我許可。我想和你說話－Karotu āyasmā okāsaṁ. Ahan-taṁ vattukāmo.。」未經許可就指控他有罪，犯《突吉羅》（《大品》.二.16.1）。
As for the other party, he may give leave, or not, depending on his assessment of the individual asking for leave, for it is possible that someone might ask for leave without any real grounds, simply to be abusive. (This interpretation follows the Burmese edition on the relevant passage, Mv.II.16.3. In other editions, the same passage says that one is allowed to make another bhikkhu give leave after having assessed him. However, in the context of the allowance—some group-of-six bhikkhus ask leave of bhikkhus they know are pure—there seems no need to allow a bhikkhu to reflect on whether the person he plans to accuse might be pure. That is one of the accuser’s duties, as enforced by the present rule along with the following rule, Pc 76, and another passage in Mv.II.16.3. As for the case of asking leave of someone who might prove abusive, that is already covered in Mv.II.16.2, which says that even after another bhikkhu has given leave, one should assess him before leveling a charge against him. Thus, in context, the Burmese reading makes more sense: Having been asked to give leave, one is allowed to assess the person making the request before giving him leave to speak. If we did not follow the Burmese reading here, there would be no allowance in the Vibhaṅga or the Khandhakas not to give leave to an abusive accuser.) A bhikkhu who asks for leave with no grounds—i.e., he has not seen the other party commit the offense, has heard no reliable report to that effect, and has no reason to suspect anything to that effect—incurs a dukkaṭa (Mv.II.16.3).	至於對方，可以允許，也可以不允許，這取決於他對請求允許者的評估，因為有可能有人會無緣無故請求允許，只是為了施虐。（這一解釋遵循緬甸版本的相關段落，《大品》.二.16.3。在其他版本中，同一段落說，可以在對另一位比丘進行評估後，再請求給予允許。然而，就開緣的脈絡中——某六群比丘請求他們知道清淨的比丘們的允許——似乎沒有必要讓比丘思考他打算指控的人是否清淨，這是指控者的職責之一，由本戒條以及之後的《波逸提》七六戒條，和《大品》.二.16.3中的另一段落強制執行。至於向可能施虐的人請求許可的情況，這已在《大品》.二.16.2中涵蓋，其中說，即使在另一位比丘給予許可之後，也應該在對他提出指控之前對其進行評估。因此，就上下文而言，緬甸的解讀更合理：在被要求給予許可後，可以在允許他發言之前對提出請求的人進行評估。如果我們不遵循這裡的緬甸的解讀，那麼《經分別》或《犍度》就不會允許不給予施虐的指控者許可。）比丘無緣無故請求允許──即，他沒有看到對方犯戒，也沒有聽過可靠的舉報，也沒有理由懷疑任何與此有關的事情──犯《突吉羅》（《大品》.二.16.3）。
Pv.XV.4.7 gives further support to the Burmese reading here by suggesting that one should not give leave to a bhikkhu who:	《附隨》.十五.4.7 進一步支持緬甸的解讀，建議不應給予以下比丘許可：
1) is unconscientious,	1）無恥，
2) is ignorant,	2）愚癡，
3) is not in regular standing (e.g., he is undergoing penance for a saṅghādisesa offense or has been placed under a disciplinary transaction),	3）沒有正常地位（例如，他正在因《僧殘》罪而接受摩那埵或已受到治罪羯磨），
4) speaks intent on creating a disturbance, or	4）說話意圖製造騷亂，或
5) is not intent on rehabilitating the bhikkhu he is accusing.	5）無意為他所指控的比丘恢復清淨。
Pv.XV.5.4 suggests further that one should not give leave to a bhikkhu who:	《附隨》.十五.5.4 進一步建議，不應給予以下比丘許可：
1) is not pure in bodily conduct,	1）身行不清淨，
2) is not pure in verbal conduct,	2）語行不清淨，
3) is not pure in his livelihood,	3）活命不清淨，
4) is incompetent and inexperienced, or	4）無能力且缺乏經驗，或
5) is unable to give a consistent line of reasoning when questioned.	5）在被詢問時無法給予一致的論據。
If the bhikkhu is not unqualified in any of these ways, though, one should willingly give him leave to speak. Cv.IX.5.7 says that, when being admonished or accused, one should keep two qualities in mind: truth and staying unprovoked. The Pāṭimokkha also contains a number of rules imposing penalties on behaving improperly when one is being admonished formally or informally: Sg 12 for being difficult to admonish in general, Pc 12 for being evasive or refusing to answer when being formally questioned (see below), Pc 54 for being disrespectful to one’s accuser or to the rule one is being accused of breaking, and Pc 71 for finding excuses for not following a particular training rule.	然而，如果比丘在上述任何一方面都沒有資格的話，應該願意允許他發言。《小品》.九.5.7 說，當受到教誡或指控時，應牢記兩個特質：真實和無忿怒。《波羅提木叉》也包含許多對在正式或非正式教誡時行為不當的處罰戒條：《僧殘》十二是在一般情況下難以教誡，《波逸提》十二是在正式詢問時迴避或拒絕回答（見下文），《波逸提》五四是不尊重指控者或被指控違反的戒條，《波逸提》七一是為不遵守特定學處找藉口。
If both sides act in good faith and without prejudice, accusations of this sort are easy to settle on an informal basis. If an accusation can’t be settled informally, it should be taken to a meeting of the Community so that the group as a whole may pass judgment. The procedures for this sort of formal meeting will be discussed under the aniyata and adhikaraṇa-samatha rules. If the issue is to be brought up at a Community meeting for the uposatha, there are extra procedures to be followed, which are discussed in BMC2, Chapter 15. If the issue is to be brought up at the Invitation at the end of the Rains, the procedures to be followed are discussed in BMC2, Chapter 16.	如果雙方本著善意且不帶偏見行事，此類指控很容易在非正式基礎上解決。如果指控無法以非正式方式解決，則應提交僧團會議，以便整個團體做出判斷。此類正式會議的程序將根據《不定》和《滅諍》戒條進行討論。如果要在布薩的僧團會議上提出這個問題，則需要遵循額外的程序，這些程序在《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十五章中討論。如果要在雨安居結束時在自恣時提出該問題，則應遵循的程序將在《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十六章中討論。

Abuse of the system	濫用系統
As shown in the origin story to this rule, a bhikkhu making a charge against another bhikkhu might be acting out of a grudge and simply making up the charge. This rule and the following one cover cases where the made-up charge is that the other bhikkhu has committed a pārājika. Pc 76 covers cases where the made-up charge is that he has broken a less serious rule.	正如本戒條的起源故事所示，一位比丘對另一位比丘提出指控，可能是出於怨恨而只是編造指控。本戒條和接下來的戒條涵蓋了捏造指控另一位比丘犯了《波羅夷》罪的情況。《波逸提》七六涵蓋了捏造指控他違反了不太嚴重的戒條的案件。
The full offense under this rule involves four factors.	本戒條下的完整違犯涉及四個因素。
1) Object: The other bhikkhu is regarded as ordained.	1）對象：另一位被視為受戒的比丘。
2) Perception: One perceives him to be innocent of the offense one is charging him with.	2）感知：知道他沒有犯下所指控的罪行。
3) Intention: One wants to see him expelled from the Saṅgha.	3）意圖：希望看到他被逐出僧團。
4) Effort: One makes an unfounded charge in his presence that he is guilty of a pārājika offense.	4）努力：當著他的面毫無根據地指控他犯《波羅夷》罪。

Object	對象
The definition of this factor—the other bhikkhu is regarded as ordained—may sound strange, but it comes from the K/Commentary, which apparently extended the principle expressed in the factor of perception, explained below, that if one perceives the bhikkhu as innocent of the charge one is making, the fact of whether he is actually innocent is irrelevant to the offense under this rule. In the same way, the K/Commentary seems to be reasoning, if one perceives the bhikkhu to be a bhikkhu, the fact of whether he is actually a bhikkhu is irrelevant to this offense. The K/Commentary makes this point for a reason: In normal cases the object of this rule will be an innocent bhikkhu, but there may be cases where a bhikkhu has actually committed a pārājika offense that no one knows about; instead of disrobing, he acts as if he were still a bhikkhu, and everyone else assumes that he still is. Yet even a “bhikkhu” of this sort would fulfill this factor as far as this rule is concerned.	這個因素的定義——另一位比丘被認為是受戒的——可能聽起來很奇怪，但它來自K/《義註》，它顯然擴展了感知因素中表達的原則，如下所述，如果認為被指控的比丘是無罪的，他是否實際上是無辜的這一事實與本戒條下的犯戒無關。同樣地，K/《義註》似乎在推理，如果認為該比丘是一位比丘，那麼他實際上是否是比丘這一事實與此罪行無關。K/《義註》提出這一點是有原因的：在正常情況下，本戒條的對象是無辜的比丘，但也可能有比丘實際上犯了無人知曉的《波羅夷》罪的情況；他沒有還俗，而是表現得好像他仍然是比丘，而其他人都認為他仍然是比丘。然而，就本戒條而言，即使是這樣的「比丘」也能滿足這個因素。
For example, Bhikkhu X steals some of the monastery funds, but no one knows about it, and he continues to act as if he were a bhikkhu. Bhikkhu Y later develops a grudge against him and makes an unfounded charge that he has had sexual intercourse with one of the monastery supporters. Even though X is not really a bhikkhu, the fact that people in general assume him to be one means that he fulfills this factor.	例如，X比丘偷走了一些寺院資金，但沒有人知道，他繼續表現得像比丘一樣。Y比丘後來對他懷恨在心，並毫無根據地指控他與一名寺院支持者發生性關係。儘管 X 並不是真正的比丘，但人們普遍認為他是比丘這一事實就意味著他滿足了這一因素。

Perception	感知
If one perceives the bhikkhu one is charging with a pārājika offense to be innocent of the offense, that is enough to fulfill this factor regardless of whether the accused is actually innocent or not. To make an accusation based on the assumption or suspicion that the accused is not innocent entails no offense.	如果認為被指控犯下《波羅夷》罪的比丘是無辜的，那麼就足以滿足這一因素，無論被告是否實際上是無辜的。基於被告非無辜的假設或懷疑而提出指控並不構成犯戒。

Intention	意圖
The wording of the training rule suggests that this factor would have to be fulfilled by impulse—aversion—together with motive—desiring the other bhikkhu’s expulsion—but the Vibhaṅga consistently conflates these two sub-factors under motive. Thus all that is needed to fulfill this factor is the desire to see the other bhikkhu expelled. If one’s motive is simply to insult him, the Vibhaṅga says that one’s actions would come under Pc 2. If one’s motive is both to see him expelled and to insult him, one incurs both a saṅghādisesa and a pācittiya. The texts do not explicitly mention this point, but it would appear that if one has a strange sense of humor and is making the false charge as a joke with no intention of being insulting or taken seriously, one’s actions would come under Pc 1.	學處的措詞表明，這個因素必須透過衝動（瞋恨）和動機（渴望驅逐另一位比丘）來滿足，但《經分別》始終將這兩個子因素合併在動機之下。因此，要滿足這個因素，所需要的只是渴望看到另一位比丘被驅逐。如果動機只是為了侮辱他，《經分別》說，該行為算在《波逸提》二之下。如果動機既是為了看到他被驅逐又是為了侮辱他，那麼就會同時犯《僧殘》和《波逸提》。文本中沒有明確提及這一點，但似乎如果有一種奇怪的幽默感，並將虛假指控當作一個笑話，無意侮辱或認真對待，那麼該行為算在《波逸提》一之下。
According to the Vibhaṅga, confessing one’s aversion simply means admitting that the charge was empty or false. Thus the level of malice impelling one’s desire to see the other bhikkhu expelled need not be severe: If one wants to see him expelled just for the fun of it, that would fulfill the factor of intention here.	根據《經分別》的說法，承認自己的厭惡僅僅意味著承認指控是空洞的或錯誤的。因此，促使希望看到另一位比丘被驅逐的惡意程度不必太嚴重：如果只是為了好玩而想看到他被驅逐，那就滿足了這裡的意圖因素。

Effort	努力
The act covered by this rule is that of making an unfounded charge of a pārājika in the accused’s presence. Whether one makes the charge oneself or gets someone else to make it, the penalty is the same. If that “someone else” is a bhikkhu and knows the charge is unfounded, he too incurs the full penalty.	本戒條所涵蓋的行為是在被告在場的情況下提出毫無根據的《波羅夷》罪的指控。無論是自己提出指控或委託他人提出指控，懲罰都是一樣的。如果那個「他人」是比丘並且知道指控毫無根據，他也會受到全額懲罰。
The Vibhaṅga defines an unfounded charge as one having no basis in what has been seen, heard, or suspected. In other words, the accuser has not seen the accused committing the offense in question, nor has he heard anything reliable to that effect, nor is there anything in the accused’s behavior to give rise to any honest suspicion.	《經分別》將毫無根據的指控定義為沒有根據所看到、聽到或懷疑的事實的指控。換句話說，指控者沒有看到被指控者犯下相關罪行，也沒有聽到任何可靠的訊息，被指控者的行為也沒有任何值得懷疑的地方。
Seeing and hearing, according to the Commentary, also include the powers of clairvoyance and clairaudience one may have developed through meditation. Thus if one charges X with having committed a pārājika offense on the basis of what one has seen clairvoyantly, this would not be an unfounded charge, although one should be careful to make clear from the very beginning what kind of seeing the charge is based on.	根據《義註》，看到和聽到也包括透過禪修發展的天眼和天耳的能力。因此，如果根據自己的天眼所見而指控 X 犯《波羅夷》罪，那麼這不是一項毫無根據的指控，儘管應該從一開始就小心地表達清楚該指控是基於哪種看到。
The Vibhaṅga adds that if there is some basis in fact, but one changes the status of the evidence, the penalty is the same. Changing the status means, e.g., saying that one saw something when in actuality one simply heard about it or suspected it, or that one saw it clearly when in actuality one saw it indistinctly.	《經分別》補充說，如果有一定的事實依據，但改變了證據的狀態，懲罰是一樣的。改變狀態意味著，例如，說看到了某物，而實際上只是聽說或懷疑它，或者說清楚地看到了它，而實際上是模糊地看到了它。
An example from the Commentary: Bhikkhu X goes into a grove to relieve himself. Ms. Y goes into the same grove to get something there. One sees them leaving the grove at approximately the same time—which could count as grounds for suspicion—but one then accuses Bhikkhu X, saying that one actually saw him having sex with Ms. Y. This would count as an unfounded charge. Another example: In the dark of the night, one sees a man stealing something from the monastery storehouse. He looks vaguely like Bhikkhu Z, but one can’t be sure. Still, one firms up one’s accusation by saying that one definitely saw Z steal the item. Again, this would count as an unfounded charge.	《義註》中的例子：比丘 X 到小樹林解手。 Y 女士進入同一個小樹林去拿東西。看到他們大約在同一時間離開樹林——這可以算作懷疑的理由——但隨後指責比丘 X，說實際上看到他與 Y 女士發生性關係。這算是毫無根據的指控。又如：夜深人靜時，見一人在寺庫中偷東西。他看起來有點像 Z 比丘，但無法確定。儘管如此，還是證實了自己的指控，說確實看到了 Z 偷了這件物品。同樣，這算是毫無根據的指控。
The Commentary states that for an unfounded charge to count under this rule, it must state explicitly (a) the precise act the accused supposedly committed (e.g., having sexual intercourse, getting a woman to have an abortion) or (b) that the accused is guilty of a pārājika, or (c) that the accused is no longer a true bhikkhu. If one simply says or does something that might imply that the accused is no longer a bhikkhu—e.g., refusing to show him respect in line with his seniority—that does not yet count as a charge.	《義註》指出，要根據本戒條提出毫無根據的指控，必須明確說明 (a) 被指控者據稱犯下的具體行為（例如，發生性交、讓婦女墮胎）或 (b) 被指控者犯有《波羅夷》罪，或 (c) 被指控者不再是真正的比丘。如果只是說或做了一些可能暗示被指控者不再是比丘的事情——例如，拒絕根據他的戒臘向他表示尊重——那還不算是一項指控。
The Commentary adds that charging a bhikkhu with having committed an equivalent or derived pārājika, as discussed in the conclusion to the preceding chapter, would fulfill this factor as well. For instance, if one makes an unfounded charge accusing Bhikkhu A of having killed his father before his ordination, that would constitute a full offense here. The Vibhaṅga makes no mention of these equivalent pārājikas under this rule, but the Great Standards can be used to justify their inclusion here.	《義註》補充說，指控比丘犯了同等或衍生的《波羅夷》罪（如上一章結論中所討論的那樣）也可以滿足這一因素。例如，如果毫無根據地指控比丘 A 在受具足戒前殺害了他的父親，那麼這裡就構成了完全違犯。《經分別》沒有提及本戒條下的這些同等的《波羅夷》罪，但是《四大教示》可以用來證明它們包含在這裡是合理的。
All of the charges given as examples in the Vibhaṅga are expressed directly to the accused—“I saw you commit a pārājika offense,” “I heard you commit a pārājika offense”—and the Commentary concludes from this that the full offense occurs only when one makes the charge in the accused’s presence, in line with the pattern for admonition discussed above. To make an unfounded charge behind the accused’s back, it states, incurs a dukkaṭa.	《經分別》中作為例子給出的所有指控都是直接向被指控者表達的——「我看到你犯了《波羅夷》罪」，「我聽說你犯了《波羅夷》罪」——《義註》由此得出結論，只有當被指控者在場的情況下提出指控時，才會構成完整違犯，這符合上述教誡的模式。它指出，在被指控者背後提出毫無根據的指控，犯《突吉羅》。
There is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to indicate that the Commentary is wrong here, aside from the consideration that—because the charge is unfounded—it could entail a pācittiya for deliberate lying. Some people, however, have objected to the Commentary’s position here, saying that a dukkaṭa or even a pācittiya is a very light penalty for backhanded character assassination. Nevertheless, we should remember that the correct procedures for making an accusation require that an earnest charge be made in the presence of the accused. If a bhikkhu spreads gossip about another bhikkhu, accusing him of having committed a pārājika, he should be asked whether he has taken up the matter with the accused. If he hasn’t, he should be told to speak to the accused before he speaks to anyone else. If he says that he doesn’t feel qualified or that he fears the accused will retaliate, he should be told to take the matter up with the bhikkhus who will be responsible for calling a meeting of the Community. If he refuses to do that, he shouldn’t be listened to.	《經分別》中沒有任何內容表明《義註》在這裡是錯誤的，除了考慮到——因為指控是沒有根據的——它可能會因故意撒謊而犯《波逸提》罪。然而，有些人反對《義註》在此的立場，稱《突吉羅》甚至《波逸提》對於隱含的人格謀殺來說是一種非常輕微的懲罰。然而，我們應該記住，提出指控的正確程序要求在被指控者在場的情況下提出認真的指控。如果一位比丘散佈關於另一位比丘的流言蜚語，指控他犯了《波羅夷》罪，應該詢問他是否已與被指控者討論此事。如果他沒有，應該告訴他在與其他人交談之前先與被指控者交談。如果他說他覺得自己沒有資格，或者擔心被指控者會報復，那麼他應該被告知向負責召開僧團會議的比丘們提出此事。如果他拒絕這樣做，就不應該聽取他的意見。
For some reason, the Commentary maintains that a charge made in writing does not count, although a charge made by gesture—e.g., pointing at the accused when one is asked who committed the pārājika—does. Perhaps in those days written charges were regarded as too cowardly to take seriously.	出於某種原因，《義註》認為，以書面形式提出的指控不算數，但透過手勢提出的指控（例如，當被問及誰犯了《波羅夷》時指著被指控者）則算在內。也許在當時，書面指控被認為太懦弱而無法認真對待。
The rule seems to require that the accuser confess that he was acting out of depraved impulses, although the Vibhaṅga states that this means simply that he admits the charge was a lie. The Commentary states further that here the rule is showing the point where the rest of the Community knows that the bhikkhu making the charge is guilty of a saṅghādisesa: He actually committed the offense when he made the charge.	本戒條似乎要求原指控者承認他的行為是出於墮落的衝動，儘管《經分別》指出這僅意味著他承認指控是謊言。《義註》進一步指出，這裡的戒條表明，僧團的其他成員都知道提出指控的比丘犯了《僧殘》罪：實際上他在提出指控時犯了戒。
The K/Commentary adds “result” as a further factor to the offense under this rule, saying that the accused must immediately understand the charge—but nothing in the Vibhaṅga supports this added factor.	K/《義註》將「結果」加入為本戒條下犯戒的進一步因素，表示被指控者必須立即理解指控，但《經分別》中沒有任何內容支持此附加因素。
Whether anyone actually believes the charge is not a factor here.	是否有人真正相信該指控並不是這裡的因素。

Non-offenses	不犯
If one understands the accused to be guilty of a pārājika and accuses him honestly on the basis of what one has seen, heard, or suspected, then—regardless of whether he is guilty or not—one has not committed an offense. Even in a case such as this, though, one incurs a dukkaṭa if making the charge without asking leave of the accused, and a pācittiya if making the charge so as to insult him.	如果理解被指控者犯有《波羅夷》罪，並根據自己的所見、所聞或所懷疑的情況誠實地指控他，那麼無論他是否有罪，都沒有犯戒。然而，即使在這樣的情況下，如果未經被指控者許可而提出指控，就會犯《突吉羅》；如果提出指控是為了侮辱他，則會犯《波逸提》。
Summary: Making an unfounded charge to a bhikkhu that he has committed a pārājika offense, in hopes of having him disrobed, is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：：毫無根據地指控比丘犯了《波羅夷》罪，希望讓他還俗，是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

9	九
Should any bhikkhu—corrupt, aversive, disgruntled—using as a mere ploy an aspect of an issue that pertains otherwise, charge a bhikkhu with a case entailing defeat, (thinking), “Perhaps I may bring about his fall from this celibate life,” then regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, if the issue pertains otherwise, an aspect used as a mere ploy, and the bhikkhu confesses his aversion, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果任何比丘——惡意、瞋恨、不滿——取其他事情的部分類似之處，指控比丘犯波羅夷，（想）「也許我可以導致他從這梵行生活中退墮」，那麼無論他是否稍後受到盤問，如果取其他事情的部分類似之處，而且比丘承認了他的瞋恨，僧殘。
“At that time the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja, descending from Vulture Peak Mountain, saw a billy-goat copulating with a nanny-goat. Seeing them, they said, ‘Look here, friends, let’s name this billy goat Dabba Mallaputta, and this nanny goat Mettiyā Bhikkhunī. Then we’ll phrase it like this: “Before, my friends, we accused Dabba Mallaputta on the basis of what we had heard, but now we have seen him with our very own eyes fornicating with Mettiyā Bhikkhunī!”’”	「爾時，慈和地的弟子從耆闍崛山下來，看到一隻公山羊與一隻母山羊交配。看到他們，他們說：『看這裡，朋友們，我們把這隻公山羊命名為沓婆摩羅子，把這隻母山羊命名為慈比丘尼。然後我們會這樣表述：「朋友們，以前我們根據所聽到的情況指控沓婆摩羅子，但現在我們親眼看到他與慈比丘尼私通！」』」
Some grudges die hard. This rule is almost identical with the preceding one and involves the same factors except for one of the sub-factors under “Effort”: “Unfounded charge” here becomes “a charge based on an issue (adhikaraṇa) that pertains otherwise.” The phrase sounds strange, but the origin story gives a perfect example of what it means.	有些恩怨難消。本戒條幾乎與前一條相同，涉及相同的因素，除了「努力」下的一個子因素：「毫無根據的指控」在這裡變成「基於與此相關的問題（adhikaraṇa）的指控」。這個表達方式聽起來很奇怪，但起源故事完美地說明了它的意義。
The precise difference between the two rules is this: With an unfounded charge, one has neither seen, heard, nor suspected that an offense has been committed; or if one has, one changes the status of the evidence—e.g., one states something one has suspected as if one has heard it, or something one has heard as if one has seen it. In a charge based on an issue that pertains otherwise, one has seen an action that would be an offense if committed by a bhikkhu, and one does not change the status of the evidence, but one distorts the facts of the case.	這兩條戒條的具體區別在於：無根據的指控，指的是既沒有看到、聽到、也沒有懷疑過的犯戒行為；或者，如果有的話，就改變證據的狀態——例如，陳述一個人懷疑的事情，就好像有人聽過一樣，或者陳述一個人聽過的事情，就像有人看到過一樣。在基於與此相關的問題的指控中，看到了如果由比丘實施的話將構成犯戒的行為，並且不改變證據的狀態，但歪曲該情況的事實。
The Vibhaṅga lists ten factors that can be used as a ploy in distorting the facts this way. They are: birth (caste), name, clan (family name), physical characteristics, offenses, bowl, robe, preceptor, mentor, lodging. Given the way in which the Vibhaṅga illustrates these factors in action, they fall into two classes: (1) offenses and (2) the remaining nine factors.	《經分別》列出了十個因素，可以用作以這種方式扭曲事實的手段。它們是：出身（種姓）、名字、宗族（姓）、身體特徵、犯戒、鉢、袈裟、戒師、導師、住處。鑑於《經分別》在行動中闡述這些因素的方式，它們分為兩類：（1）犯戒和（2）其餘九個因素。
1) An example of using an offense as a ploy: One sees Bhikkhu Y actually committing an offense. Although one perceives it as a lesser offense, one magnifies the charge to a pārājika. For instance, one sees him get into an argument with Bhikkhu Z and in a fit of anger give Z a blow to the head. Z goes unconscious, falls to the floor, and suffers a severe concussion resulting in death. Because Y’s intention was simply to hurt him, not to kill him, he incurs only a pācittiya. If one realizes the nature of Y’s intention and the fact that the penalty is a pācittiya, and yet accuses him of having committed a pārājika, one would incur a saṅghādisesa under this rule. For ease of remembrance, this use of a ploy can be called “same person, different offense.”	1）以犯戒作為手段的例子：看到比丘 Y 實際上犯了戒。儘管認為這是一種較輕的犯戒，但卻將這種指控放大到了《波羅夷》。例如，看到他與比丘 Z 發生爭執，一怒之下就打了 Z 的頭部。 Z 失去知覺，摔倒在地，並遭受嚴重腦震盪導致死亡。因為 Y 的意圖只是傷害他，而不是殺死他，所以他只犯《波逸提》。如果知道到 Y 的意圖的本質以及懲罰是《波逸提》的事實，但仍指控他犯了《波羅夷》，那麼根據本戒條，就會犯《僧殘》。為了便於記憶，這種手法的使用可以稱為「同人異罪」。
2) An example of using any of the other nine factors as a ploy: X, who may or may not be a bhikkhu, has something in common with Bhikkhu Y—they are both tall, short, dark, fair, share the same name, are students of the same preceptor, live in the same dwelling, use similar looking bowls or robes, etc. One sees X committing an action that, if he were a bhikkhu, would amount to a pārājika offense; on the basis of the similarity between the two, one claims to have seen Bhikkhu Y committing a pārājika. For instance, X and Y are both very tall. Late at night one sees X—knowing that it is X—stealing tools from the monastery storeroom. One has a grudge against Y and so accuses him of being the thief, saying, “I saw this big tall guy stealing the tools, and he looked just like you. It must have been you.” For ease of remembrance, this use of a ploy can be called “same offense, different person.”	2）使用其他九個因素中的任何一個作為手段的例子：X，可以是也可以不是比丘，與比丘 Y 有一些共同點——他們都高、矮、黑、白，有相同的名字，是同一位戒師的弟子，住在同一住處，使用外觀相似的缽或袈裟等。如果 X 是比丘的話，看到了他做出某種行為，相當於犯了《波羅夷》罪；基於兩者之間的相似性，聲稱曾見過比丘 Y 犯下《波羅夷》罪。例如， X 和 Y 都很高。深夜，看到 X ——知道是 X ——從寺院儲藏室偷工具。對 Y 有怨恨，就指責他是小偷，說：「我看到大高個子偷工具，他長得跟你一模一樣。一定是你。」為了便於記憶，這種手段的使用可以稱為「同罪異人」。
None of the texts mention the scenario of a double ploy—i.e., “different person, different offense”—but from the way the Vibhaṅga defines an issue that pertains otherwise, a double ploy would fit the definition as well. In other words, if—having seen X engage in lustful contact with a woman—one then accuses Bhikkhu Y, who shares the same family name with X, of engaging in sexual intercourse with the woman, the case would apparently come under this rule.	沒有任何文本提到雙重手段的場景，即「異人異罪」，但從《經分別》定義與此相關的問題的方式來看，雙重手段也符合此定義。換言之，如果看到 X 與女性發生淫穢的接觸，然後指控與 X 同姓的比丘 Y 與該女性發生性關係，那麼該情況顯然會算在本戒條之下。
A case that would not come under this rule is one based on seeing or hearing Y commit an action that bears some resemblance to an offense but is actually not. For instance, one overhears him teaching Vinaya to some new bhikkhus and quoting, by way of illustration, a few of the statements that would count as claims of superior human states. Because this does not constitute an offense, there is no issue (adhikaraṇa) pertaining otherwise that can be used as a ploy. In shorthand terms, this would count as “same person, no offense.” If, realizing the context, one later accuses him of having violated Pr 4, the accusation would count as an unfounded charge and so would come under the preceding rule.	不屬於本戒條的情況是基於看到或聽到 Y 實施與犯戒有些相似但實際上並非犯戒的行為。例如，無意中聽到他向一些新比丘教授戒律，並以舉例的方式引用了一些可以視為上人法主張的陳述。因為這並不構成犯戒，所以不存在可以用作手段的與此相關的問題（adhikaraṇa）。簡而言之，這將被視為「同人無罪」。如果了解此來龍去脈，後來指控他違反了《波羅夷》四，則該指控將被視為毫無根據的指控，因此將算在前一戒條之下。
The remaining explanations for this rule are exactly the same as those for the preceding rule, except that in the non-offense clauses the Vibhaṅga states that if one makes a charge—or gets someone else to make a charge—against the accused based on what one actually perceives, there is no offense even if the issue turns out to pertain otherwise. For instance, from the examples already given: One sees X stealing tools in the dark and, because of his resemblance to Y, actually thinks Y is the thief. One sees Y give a fatal blow to Z and actually thinks that Y’s intention was to kill Z. In either of these cases, if one then accuses Y of a pārājika offense, one incurs no penalty regardless of how the case comes out, although—as under the preceding rule—one should be careful to ask Y’s leave before making the charge and to have no intention of insulting him.	本戒條的其餘解釋與前一條戒條的解釋完全相同，除了在不犯條款中，《經分別》規定，如果根據自己的實際看法對被指控者提出指控（或讓其他人提出指控），即使事實證明問題並非如此，也沒有犯戒。例如，從已經給出的例子來看：看到 X 在黑暗中偷工具，並且由於他與 Y 相似，竟然認為 Y 是小偷。看到 Y 對 Z 給予致命一擊，竟然認為 Y 的意圖是殺死 Z。在這兩種情況中的任何一種情況下，如果指控 Y 犯有《波羅夷》罪，則無論情況結果如何，都不會受到處罰，儘管——與前面的戒條一樣，在提出指控之前，應該小心地徵求 Y 的許可，並且不要有意侮辱他。
Summary: Distorting the evidence while accusing a bhikkhu of having committed a pārājika offense, in hopes of having him disrobed, is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：扭曲證據，指控比丘犯了波羅夷罪，以期讓他還俗，是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

十

Should any bhikkhu agitate for a schism in a united Community, or should he persist in taking up an issue conducive to schism, the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: “Do not, venerable sir, agitate for a schism in a united Community or persist in taking up an issue conducive to schism. Let the venerable one be reconciled with the Community, for a united Community, on courteous terms, without dispute, with a common recitation, dwells in peace.”

And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times for the sake of relinquishing that. If while being rebuked up to three times he relinquishes that, that is good. If he does not relinquish (that), it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

如果任何比丘在和合僧團中鼓動分裂，或者他堅持提出導致分裂之事，比丘們應這樣告誡他：「尊者，不要在一個和合僧團中鼓動分裂，或者堅持提出導致分裂之事。願尊者與僧團和解，因為僧團團結，以禮相待，無爭，共同誦[戒]，安住。」

若該比丘受諸比丘如此告誡後，仍堅持如前，諸比丘應訶責他至多三遍，使他捨棄。如果被訶責至三次時，他就捨棄了，那很好。如果他不捨棄，僧殘。

Schism	破和合僧
A schism is a serious division in the Community—so serious that, if achieved in a dishonest way, it ranks with matricide, patricide, killing an arahant, and maliciously shedding the Tathāgata’s blood as one of the five most heinous crimes a person can commit (AN 5:129).	破和合僧是僧團中的嚴重分裂，嚴重到如果以不誠實的方式實現，它會與弒母、弒父、殺阿羅漢、惡意出如來血一樣，列為一個人可以犯下的五種最令人髮指的罪行（五逆罪、五無間業）之一（《增支部》5:129經）。
To qualify as a schism, the division has to meet five criteria:	要成為破和合僧，該分裂必須滿足五個標準：
1) The Community is originally united, which means that it is composed of bhikkhus of common affiliation living in the same territory.	1）僧團原本是和合的，是指由居住在同一界、共同羯磨的比丘所組成。
2) It contains at least nine bhikkhus.	2）至少有九位比丘。
3) It becomes involved in a dispute over any of eighteen grounds for a creating a schism. In other words, one of the sides advocates any of the following positions, explaining:	3）涉及十八項分裂理由中任何一項的爭議。換句話說，其中一方主張以下任一立場，說：
Dhamma as not-Dhamma;	法為非法；
not-Dhamma as Dhamma;	非法為法；
Vinaya as not-Vinaya;	律為非律；
not-Vinaya as Vinaya;	非律為律；
what was not spoken by the Buddha as having been spoken by him;	非佛說為佛說；
what was spoken by the Buddha as not;	佛說為非佛說；
what was not regularly practiced by him as having been regularly practiced by him;	非如來常所行法為如來常所行法；
what was regularly practiced by him as not;	如來常所行法為非如來常所行法；
what was not formulated by him as having been formulated by him;	非如來制定者為如來制定者；
what was formulated by him as not;	如來制定者為非如來制定者；
an offense as a non-offense;	犯為非犯；
a non-offense as an offense;	非犯為犯；
a heavy offense as a light offense;	重罪為輕罪；
a light offense as heavy;	輕罪為重罪；
an offense leaving a remainder (i.e., not a pārājika) as an offense leaving no remainder (§);	有餘罪（即，不是《波羅夷》）為無餘罪（§）；
an offense leaving no remainder as an offense leaving a remainder (§);	無餘罪為有餘罪（§）；
a serious offense as not serious; or	粗罪為非粗；或者
a not-serious offense as serious.	非粗罪為粗。
4) There are at least four bhikkhus on either side.	4）雙方之任何一方至少有四位比丘。
5) The dispute reaches the point where the two sides conduct separate Pāṭimokkha recitations, Invitation ceremonies, or other Community transactions within the same territory.	5）爭議達到雙方在同一界內分別進行誦《波羅提木叉》、自恣儀式、或其他僧團羯磨的程度。
The Canon tells of two schisms during the time of the Buddha, one involving the bhikkhus in the city of Kosambī, reported in Mv.X; and the other, Devadatta’s schism, reported in Cv.VII. The two schisms began from different motives, with both sides in Kosambī thinking that they were following the Dhamma and Vinaya, whereas Devadatta knew that he was not. The two schisms were also accomplished in different ways—unilaterally in the Kosambī case, bilaterally in Devadatta’s—and resolved in different ways as well, with a full reconciliation in the Kosambī case and only a partial one in Devadatta’s. As we will see below, the different patterns followed in these two schisms led to different patterns in the rules dealing with the topic of schism as a whole.	《聖典》講述了佛陀時代的兩次分裂，一次涉及憍賞彌城的比丘們，這在《大品》.十中有所記載；另一次是提婆達多的分裂，在《小品》.七中有記載。兩次分裂是出於不同的動機，憍賞彌雙方都認為自己在遵循法與律，而提婆達多知道自己並未遵循。這兩次分裂也以不同的方式完成——在憍賞彌案中是單邊的，在提婆達多案中是雙邊的——並且以不同的方式解決，在憍賞彌案中是完全和解，而在提婆達多案中只是部分和解。正如我們將在下面看到的，這兩次分裂所遵循的不同模式導致了處理整個分裂主題的戒條的不同模式。
Schism is the result of a dispute, but not all disputes—even when prolonged—will lead to schism. An example is the dispute that led to the Second Council (Cv.XII). Even though it was bitterly fought, there was never a point when either faction thought of splitting off and conducting communal business separately in the same territory. Still, even minor disputes can be potentially schismatic. At the same time, as we will see below, it is possible to act in a divisive way prior to a dispute without yet broaching the questions around which a dispute could develop. This rule and the following one are designed to nip both sorts of behavior in the bud before they can become schismatic. Once a dispute has become a major issue, these rules cannot be used, for at that point the procedures given in Cv.IV.14.16-26—explained in Chapter 11—should be followed. Questions of how to behave once a schism has occurred and how it can be ended are discussed in BMC2, Chapter 21.	分裂是爭議的結果，但並非所有爭議——即使是曠日持久的——都會導致分裂。一個例子是導致第二次結集（《小品》.十二）的爭議。儘管爭吵很激烈，但任何一個派系都沒有想過分裂，在同一界裡分別進行公共事務。儘管如此，即使是很小的爭議也可能導致分裂。同時，正如我們將在下面看到的，在爭議發生之前，有可能以分裂的方式行事，而尚未提出可能引發爭議的問題。本戒條和下一條戒條旨在將這兩種行為消滅在萌芽狀態，以免它們導致分裂。一旦爭議成為重大問題，就不能使用這些戒條，因為此時應遵循《小品》.四.14.16-26中給出的程序（第十一章中進行了解釋）。《佛教修道準則第二冊》第二十一章討論了分裂發生後如何行事以及如何結束分裂的問題。

The roots of schism	破和合僧的根源
According to Cv.IV.14.4, the act of taking a position in a dispute can be rooted either in unskillful mind states (covetous, corrupt, or confused) or in skillful ones (not covetous, not corrupt, not confused). Given the false nature of the grounds for a schism, the mind state of a bhikkhu agitating for schism must be unskillful. However, it is crucial to determine the way in which his impulses and motivations are unskillful, for this question determines his personal fate and the prospects for whether the schism can be successfully resolved.	根據《小品》.四.14.4，在爭端中採取立場的行為可以源自於不善的心境（貪、瞋或癡）或善的心境（無貪、無瞋、無癡）。鑑於破和合僧理由的虛假性質，煽動破和合僧的比丘的心境一定是不善的。但關鍵是要確定他的衝動和動機是如何不善的，因為這個問題決定了他個人的命運以及破和合僧能否成功解決的前景。
Cv.VII.5.3 and Cv.VII.5.5-6 explain that a bhikkhu who accomplishes a schism in the following way is automatically consigned to hell for an eon. The Commentary to Mv.I.67 adds that as soon as the schism is accomplished he is no longer a bhikkhu and is to be expelled from the Saṅgha.	《小品》.七.5.3和《小品》.七.5.5-6解釋說，以下列方式完成破和合僧的比丘會自動入地獄一劫。《大品》.一.67 的《義註》補充說，一旦破和合僧完成，他就不再是比丘，並且將被逐出僧團。
1) The Community, of common affiliation and living in the same territory, is united around a correct understanding of the Dhamma and Vinaya.	1）具有共同羯磨和生活在同一界的僧團，圍繞著對法與律的正確理解而團結在一起。
2) The bhikkhu agitates for a schism, advocating any of the 18 grounds for creating a schism.	2）比丘煽動破和合僧，主張 18 種破和合僧理由中的任何一個。
3) He views his explanations or the act of a schism as not-Dhamma—i.e., he knows that what he is doing is contrary to the Dhamma—or he is doubtful about the matter.	3）他認為他的解釋或破和合僧行為是非法——也就是說，他知道他所做的事情是與法相違背的——或者他對此事表示懷疑。
4) Nevertheless, he misrepresents his views and actions, claiming that they are Dhamma.	4）然而，他扭曲了自己的觀點和行為，聲稱它們是正法。
If, however, a bhikkhu advocates any of the 18 grounds for creating a schism with the understanding that he is advocating the Dhamma and that the schism would be in line with the Dhamma, then even if he accomplishes a schism he is still a bhikkhu, he is not automatically consigned to hell, and there is the possibility that he can be reconciled with the Community and the schism resolved.	然而，如果一位比丘主張造成破和合僧的十八個理由中的任何一個，認為他是在提倡正法，並且認為破和合僧將符合正法，那麼即使他完成了破和合僧，他仍然是比丘，他不會自動墮入地獄，他有可能與僧團和解並解決破和合僧。

Strategies for schism	破和合僧策劃
The Cullavagga presents two patterns by which a schism may happen. The first pattern, derived from Devadatta’s schism and given in Cv.VII.5.1, states that schism occurs when a disagreement over the Dhamma, the Vinaya, or the Teacher’s instruction is put to a vote in a Community of at least nine bhikkhus with at least four on either side of the split. It further adds that all the bhikkhus involved must be bhikkhus of regular standing in affiliation with the group as a whole (e.g., they are not already of a separate affiliation, they haven’t been suspended from the Community), and they are living in the same territory (see BMC2, Chapter 13).	《小品》提出了兩種可能發生破和合僧的模式。第一種模式源自於提婆達多的分裂，並在《小品》.七.5.1中給出，指出當對法、律、或師教的分歧在至少九名比丘組成的僧團中進行投票時，其中分裂雙方至少有四名比丘，破和合僧就會發生。它還進一步補充說，所有涉及的比丘必須是與整個團體有共住的正規地位比丘（例如，他們沒有別住，他們沒有被從僧團中舉罪），並且他們居住在同一界內（參見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十三章）。
If any of these qualifications is lacking—the issue goes to a vote in a Community of less than nine bhikkhus, one side or the other gains less than four adherents, or the bhikkhus involved are not of regular standing, are not of common affiliation, or are not in the same territory—the efforts at schism count as a crack (rāji) in the Community, but not as a full split (bheda).	如果缺乏任何這些資格——爭論在少於九名比丘的僧團中進行投票，一方或另一方獲得少於四名追隨者，或所涉及的比丘沒有正規地位，沒有共住，或不在同一界內－破和合僧的努力算是僧團中的裂縫 (rāji) ，但不算完全分裂 (bheda) 。
A second pattern—which describes the Kosambī schism but is given in Cv.VII.5.2 (as well as in AN 10:35 & AN 10:37)—lists two steps by which a group becomes schismatic:	第二種模式——描述了憍賞彌的破和合僧，但在《小品》.七.5.2（以及《增支部》10:35經和《增支部》10:37經）中給出——列出了一個團體分裂的兩個步驟：
1) The members of the group advocate one or more of the 18 grounds for creating schism.	1）該團體的成員主張 18 條導致破和合僧理由中的一項或多項。
2) On the basis of any of these 18 points, they draw themselves apart, performing a separate Pāṭimokkha recitation, a separate Invitation, (or) a separate Community transaction.	2）根據這 18 點中的任何一點，他們將自己分開，進行個別的誦《波羅提木叉》，個別的自恣，（或）個別的僧伽羯磨。
The Parivāra (XV.10.9), trying to collate these two patterns into one, lists five ways in which a schism can take place: discussion, announcement, vote, transaction, and recitation. The Commentary interprets the five ways as four steps in a single process (with the last two ways counting as alternative forms of a single step):	《附隨》（十五.10.9）試圖將這兩種模式整合為一種，列出了破和合僧可能發生的五種方式：討論、公告、投票、羯磨和背誦。《義註》將這五種方式解釋為單一過程中的四個步驟（最後兩種方式算作單一步驟的替代形式）：
1) Discussion. A bhikkhu aiming at schism advocates any of the 18 positions listed above.	1）討論。一位旨在分裂的比丘主張上述 18 種立場中的任何一種。
2) Announcement. He announces that he is splitting off from the Community and asks other bhikkhus to take sides.	2）公告。他宣布他將脫離僧團並要求其他比丘選邊站。
3) Vote. The issue goes to a vote in a Community of at least nine bhikkhus, with at least four on either side.	3）投票。這個爭論需要在至少九名比丘組成的僧團中進行投票，雙方至少各有四名比丘。
4) Transaction or recitation. The bhikkhus who side with the schismatic split from the others and recite the Pāṭimokkha or perform another Community transaction separately.	4）羯磨或背誦。站在分裂一邊的比丘們從其他人中分裂出來，個別誦《波羅提木叉》或進行另一次僧伽羯磨。
According to the Commentary, the actual schism has not taken place until step 4, when the schismatic group conducts communal business separately within the same territory as the group from which it has split. This is in accordance with Cv.VII.5.2 but conflicts with Cv.VII.5.1, so the Commentary explains that if the vote is taken in a split-off meeting of the Community, steps 3 and 4 happen simultaneously, and the schism has been accomplished. Otherwise, if the vote is taken outside of the territory, the schism is not finalized until the split-off faction conducts Community transactions separately within the same territory as the other faction (Pv.VI.2 & XV.10.10).	根據《義註》，真正的破和合僧直到第四步才發生，此時分裂團體在與其分裂的團體同一界內分別進行公共事務。這符合《小品》.七.5.2，但與《小品》.七.5.1衝突，因此《義註》解釋說，如果在僧團的分裂會議中進行投票，則步驟 3 和 4 同時發生，並且破和合僧已完成。否則，如果投票是在界外進行的，則直到分裂的派別與另一派別在同一界內分別進行僧團羯磨後，破和合僧才最終確定（《附隨》.六.2及十五.10.10）。
However, it’s possible that the compilers of the Cullavagga intentionally listed two patterns for a schism because there are two ways in which it can happen: bilaterally and unilaterally. In a bilateral schism, the schismatic group meets with the group from which it is splitting and asks everyone to take sides. This is the pattern presented in Cv.VII.5.1. In a unilateral schism, the schismatic group meets on its own, announces that it has separated from the other bhikkhus in the same territory, and conducts Community transactions separately from them. This is the pattern presented in Cv.VII.5.2.	然而，《小品》的編撰者可能故意列出了兩種破和合僧模式，因為破和合僧有兩種可能發生的方式：雙邊和單邊。在雙邊破和合僧中，分裂團體與它分裂的團體開會，並要求每個人都選邊站。這是《小品》.七.5.1中呈現的模式。在單邊破和合僧中，分裂團體自行集會，宣布與同一界的其他比丘分離，並與他們分別進行僧團羯磨。這是《小品》.七.5.2中呈現的模式。
The Vinaya-mukha, in trying to make the case that not all the canonical Vinaya reflects the Buddha’s intent, focuses on these detailed descriptions of schism as a case in point, arguing that they actually encourage schism by providing precise instructions for how to go about it. This, it says, is not the sort of thing an enlightened teacher would teach. This argument, however, misses the point of the descriptions. They are meant to provide well-meaning bhikkhus with a clear template so that they can recognize an attempt at schism when they see it.	《戒律入口》試圖證明並非所有經典戒律都反映了佛陀的意圖，重點關注這些對破和合僧的詳細描述作為例證，認為它們透過提供如何進行的精確指示實際上鼓勵了破和合僧。它說，這不是一位開悟的老師會教的東西。然而，這種論點並沒有抓到描述的要點。它們的目的是為善意的比丘提供一個清楚的範本，以便他們在看到破和合僧企圖時能夠識別出來。

The factors for an offense	構成犯戒的因素
The K/Commentary analyzes the factors for an offense under this rule as one—effort—dividing it into several sub-factors. However, it also classifies this rule as sacittaka, which means that either perception or intention must play a role in the offense. Because the Vibhaṅga explicitly rules out perception as a factor, that leaves intention. The Sub-Commentary says that “intention” here refers to the offending bhikkhu’s intention not to relinquish his behavior after being rebuked by the Community. However, the Vibhaṅga’s definition of one of the first sub-factors of effort—agitating for a schism—includes intention as an integral part of the effort. Because the alternative sub-factor—persisting in taking up an issue conducive to schism—does not include intention in its definition, this rule is best explained as covering two separate but related offenses with different factors. (See Sg 2, NP 18, and NP 24 for other instances of this sort.)	K/《義註》將本戒條下的犯戒因素分析為一個——努力——並將其分為幾個子因素。然而，它也將本戒條歸類為 sacittaka ，這意味著感知或意圖必須在犯戒中發揮作用。因為《經分別》明確排除了感知作為一個因素，所以只剩下意圖。《複註》說，這裡的「意圖」指的是犯戒的比丘在受到僧團斥責後仍不放棄其行為的意圖。然而，《經分別》對努力的第一個子因素之一的定義——煽動破和合僧——將意圖作為努力的一個組成部分。因為替代的子因素——堅持提出導致破和合僧的爭論——在其定義中不包括意圖，所以本戒條最好解釋為涵蓋具有不同因素的兩個獨立但相關的犯戒。（有關此類的其他實例，請參閱《僧殘》二、《捨墮》十八和《捨墮》二四。）
In the first offense, the factors are two.	在第一個犯戒中，因素有二。
1) Intention: Acting with the thought, “How might these be divided, how might they be separated, how might they become a faction?”	1）意圖：以「如何分裂，如何分離，如何成為派別？」的想法來行動。
2) Effort: a) one agitates for a schism in a united Community—i.e., one of common affiliation in a single territory—	2）努力： a）在一個和合僧團中煽動破和合僧－即在同一界內共住的僧團－
b) even when rebuked three times in a properly performed Community transaction.	b）即使在正確執行的僧團羯磨中受到三次斥責。
In the second offense, there is only one factor, divided into two sub-factors.	第二個犯戒只有一個因素，分為兩個子因素。
1) Effort: a) One persists in taking up an issue conducive to schism in a united Community—i.e., one of common affiliation in a single territory—	1）努力： a）堅持在和合僧團中提出導致破和合僧的爭論——即，在同一界內共住的僧團——
b) even when rebuked three times in a properly performed Community transaction.	b）即使在正確執行的僧團羯磨中受到三次斥責。

Effort	努力
According to the Vibhaṅga, to agitate for a schism is to search for a partisan following or to bind together a group, with the above intention. To persist in taking up an issue conducive to schism is to take a stance on any of the 18 positions mentioned above. The two types of effort may overlap—a bhikkhu attempting to split off a schismatic faction could do so based on any of the 18 positions—but not necessarily. A bhikkhu might try to create a faction in other ways—for example, by arranging special meals exclusively for his friends (see Pc 32). A stubborn bhikkhu might refuse to abandon a position conducive to schism even if he is not yet aiming at schism. In fact, the use of this rule is most effective before the two activities have overlapped. Once a bhikkhu has succeeded in binding together a group around any of the 18 grounds for schism, the Community will have trouble achieving unanimity in rebuking him, for his group will be free to protest the transaction.	根據《經分別》的說法，煽動破和合僧就是為了達到上述目的而尋找黨派追隨者或將一個團體綁在一起。堅持提出導致破和合僧的爭論就是對上述 18 個立場中的任何一個採取立場。這兩種類型的努力可能會重疊——試圖分裂分離派系的比丘可以基於 18 種立場中的任何一種來這樣做——但非一定如此。比丘可能會嘗試以其他方式建立一個派系－例如，專門為他的朋友安排特別的膳食（請參閱《波逸提》三二）。固執的比丘可能會拒絕放棄導致破和合僧的立場，即使他的目標還不是破和合僧。事實上，最有效使用本戒條是在兩項活動重疊之前。一旦比丘成功地圍繞 18 個破和合僧理由中的任何一個將一個團體綁在一起，僧團將很難達成一致譴責他，因為他的團體將可以自由地抗議這一羯磨。
Note that, unlike the definition of united Community in Cv.VII.5.3, the Vibhaṅga’s definition of a united Community here does not specify that it has to be united around a correct understanding of the Dhamma and Vinaya. This means, in the case of the first offense, that if a bhikkhu tries to create a partisan following by explaining Vinaya as Vinaya in a Community whose practice has gone astray, the Community could still legitimately rebuke him. If he did not abandon his behavior, he would incur the full offense. This further means that if one wants to establish a return to the genuine Dhamma and Vinaya in such a Community, one should aim at converting the entire Community and not just a clique. If the Community judges one’s efforts to be divisive, one can either search for help from other Communities, as explained in Chapter 11 and exemplified in the story of the Second Council, or simply leave the Community in search of a more conducive location to practice. If other bhikkhus in the Community, approving of one’s views, come to the new location of their own accord, well and good. Nevertheless, this rule indicates that one’s aim in expounding the Dhamma and Vinaya should never be to create a faction. Instead, it should be to convince all who are sincere to join in the pursuit of correct practice. Thus when leaving one’s original Community, one should do so in as amicable a way as possible so as not to alienate those whom one should be aiming to win over to one’s views.	請注意，與《小品》.七.5.3中的和合僧的定義不同，這裡的《經分別》對和合僧的定義並沒有指定它必須圍繞對法和律的正確理解而和合。這意味著，在第一個犯戒的情況下，如果一位比丘試圖在一個修行已誤入歧途的僧團中藉由說律為律來製造黨派追隨者，僧團仍然可以合法地譴責他。如果他不放棄自己的行為，他將完全違犯。這進一步意味著，如果想在這樣一個僧團中回歸真正的法與律，就應該以改變整個僧團而不僅僅是一個小集團為目標。如果該僧團認為該努力會造成分裂，那麼可以向其他僧團尋求幫助，如第十一章中所解釋的和第二次結集的故事中所例證的那樣，或者乾脆離開僧團去尋找一個更有利的實踐地點。如果僧團中的其他比丘都贊同自己的觀點，自願來到新的住所，那就很好。然而，本戒條表明，弘揚法與律的目的絕不應該是為了製造派別。相反，它應該說服所有真誠的人加入追求正確修行的行列。因此，當離開原來的僧團時，應該以盡可能友好的方式這樣做，以免疏遠那些應該爭取支持自己觀點的人。

Procedure	程序
The Vibhaṅga states that if the bhikkhus see or hear of a bhikkhu who has begun agitating for a schism or persists in taking up an issue conducive to schism in a united Community, it is their duty to reprimand him three times. Otherwise, if he goes unreprimanded, he is free to continue with his efforts as he likes without incurring a penalty. If they neglect this duty, they each incur a dukkaṭa. The Commentary adds that this dukkaṭa applies to every bhikkhu within a half-yojana (five-mile/eight-kilometer) radius who learns of the instigator’s efforts. Furthermore, it says that one may fulfill one’s duty here only by going to him in person, and not by sending a letter or a messenger. (According to the Sub-commentary, any bhikkhu within the half-yojana radius who is ill or otherwise unable to go reprimand the instigator is not subject to this penalty.) As for any bhikkhu outside the half-yojana radius, even though he may not be subject to the penalty, the Commentary states that he should still regard it as his duty if he is able to go reprimand the instigator as well.	《經分別》規定，如果比丘們看到或聽到某個比丘開始煽動破和合僧，或堅持在一個和合僧團中堅持提出導致破和合僧的爭論，他們就有責任斥責他三次。否則，如果他沒有受到斥責，他可以繼續隨心所欲地努力，而不會受到懲罰。如果他們疏忽了這項職責，他們每個人都會犯《突吉羅》。《義註》補充說，此《突吉羅》適用於半由旬（五英里/八公里）半徑內的每一位了解煽動者行為的比丘。而且，它說，此處只能親自找他來履行自己的職責，而不是透過寫信或使者。（根據《複註》，半由旬範圍內的比丘，若有病或因其他原因無法前去斥責煽動者，不受此懲罰。）至於半由旬範圍之外的比丘，即使他可以不受到懲罰，《義註》說，如果他也能去斥責煽動者，他仍然應該認為這是他的職責。
If the attempt takes place during the Rains-residence, the Mahāvagga allows bhikkhus at other locations to cut short their stay at those locations and to come help end the attempt (Mv.III.11.6-9). It also allows a bhikkhu who has tried to prevent a schism, and yet sees that his efforts are likely to fail, to leave that Community even during the Rains-residence if he does not wish to be present for the turmoil that may follow (Mv.III.11.5).	如果該嘗試發生在雨安居期間，《大品》允許在其他地方的比丘縮短在那些地點的停留時間，並前來幫助結束該嘗試（《大品》.三.11.6-9）。它還允許一個試圖阻止破和合僧但看到他的努力可能會失敗的比丘，即使在雨居期間，如果他不希望參與隨後可能發生的騷亂，也可以離開該僧團（《大品》.三.11.5）。
If, after being reprimanded three times, the instigator abandons his efforts—i.e., stops agitating for a schism or abandons his position with regard to the 18 issues conducive to a schism—he incurs no penalty and nothing further need be done.	如果煽動者在受到三次斥責後放棄努力，即停止煽動破和合僧或放棄對 18 個導致破和合僧的爭論的立場，則不會受到任何懲罰，也無需再採取任何行動。
If he is still recalcitrant, though, he incurs a dukkaṭa. The next step is to take him into the midst of a formal meeting of the Community (seizing him by the hands and feet if necessary, says the Commentary) and admonish him formally three more times. If he abandons his efforts before the end of the third admonition, well and good. If not, he incurs another dukkaṭa. The next step is to recite a formal rebuke by mandate of the Community, using a formula of one motion and three proclamations (see Appendix VIII). If the instigator remains obstinate, he incurs an additional dukkaṭa at the end of the motion, a thullaccaya at the end of each of the first two proclamations, and the full saṅghādisesa at the end of the third. Once he commits the full offense, the penalties he incurred in the preliminary stages are nullified.	然而，如果他仍然頑抗，他就犯《突吉羅》。下一步是帶他參加僧團的正式會議（《義註》說，如有必要，抓住他的手腳），並正式教誡他三次。如果他在第三次教誡結束之前放棄努力，那很好。如果沒有，他就犯另一次《突吉羅》。下一步是根據僧團的授權，使用一白三羯磨（白四羯磨）的形式進行正式訶責（見附錄八）。如果煽動者仍然固執，他會在白文結束時犯額外一次《突吉羅》，在前兩次羯磨文每次結束時犯一次《偷蘭遮》，並在第三次羯磨文結束時完全違犯《僧殘》。一旦他完全違犯，他在初步階段受到的懲罰就無效。

Perception	感知
The Vibhaṅga states that if the rebuke transaction is carried out properly—i.e., the bhikkhu really is looking for a faction or taking up an issue conducive to schism, and the various other formal requirements for a valid transaction are fulfilled—then if he does not abandon his efforts, he incurs the full saṅghādisesa regardless of whether he perceives the transaction to be proper, improper, or doubtful. If the transaction is improperly carried out, then regardless of how he perceives its validity, he incurs a dukkaṭa for not abandoning his efforts (§).	《經分別》指出，如果訶責羯磨正確地執行，即比丘確實在尋找一個派別或提出導致破和合僧的爭論，並且滿足了有效羯磨的各種其他正式要求，那麼如果他不放棄他的努力，無論他認為羯磨是正確的、不正確的還是可疑的，他都會完全違犯《僧殘》。如果羯磨執行不當，那麼無論他如何看待其有效性，他都會因不放棄努力而犯《突吉羅》（§）。
The fact that the bhikkhu is not free from an offense in the latter case is important: There are several other, similar points in the Vinaya—such as the Buddha’s advice to the Dhamma-expert in the controversy at Kosambī (Mv.X.1.8)—where for the sake of the harmony of the Community in cases that threaten to be divisive, the Buddha advises bhikkhus to abandon controversial behavior and to yield to the mandate of the Community even if it seems unjust.	在後一種情況下，比丘並非免於犯戒，這一事實很重要：戒律中還有其他幾個類似的要點——例如佛陀在憍賞彌爭論中對佛法專家的建議（《大品》.十.1.8）——為了在可能造成分裂的情況下維持僧團和諧，佛陀建議比丘們放棄有爭議的行為，並服從僧團的命令，即使這看起來不公正。

Non-offenses	不犯
The non-offense clauses, in addition to the usual exemptions, state that there is no offense if the bhikkhu is not reprimanded or if he gives up his efforts (prior to the end of the third reprimand).	除通常的豁免外，不犯條款規定，如果比丘沒有受到訓斥或放棄努力（在第三次訓斥結束之前），則不構成犯戒。

Further steps	更進一步步驟
If the bhikkhu is so stubborn that he refuses to abandon his schismatic efforts even through the third rebuke, he will probably not acknowledge that the Community has acted properly, in which case he will not admit that he has incurred a saṅghādisesa offense or that he has to make amends for it. This gives the Community clear grounds, if it sees fit, for suspending him then and there (see BMC2, Chapter 20). In fact, this may have been the original intention behind the protocols outlined in this and the remaining three saṅghādisesa rules: to give the Community a clear opportunity to test how stubborn a divisive or recalcitrant bhikkhu is and to end his affiliation with them if he proves this stubborn. For this reason, a Community planning to impose any of these rules on one of its members should be prepared to recite the transaction statement for suspension against him as well.	如果比丘如此頑固，即使經過第三次訶責，他也拒絕放棄他的分裂努力，他可能不會承認僧團的行為是正確的，在這種情況下，他不會承認他犯了《僧殘》罪，或者他必須賠罪。這為僧團提供了明確的理由，如果它認為合適的話，可以當場舉罪之（見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第二十章）。事實上，這可能是本戒條和剩餘三項《僧殘》戒條中所概述的協議背後的初衷：給僧團一個明確的機會來測試一個分裂或頑固的比丘有多麼頑固，如果他證明了這一點，就結束與他共住。因此，計劃對其一名成員實施任何這些戒條的僧團也應準備好背誦針對該成員的舉罪羯磨文。
Once the offender’s affiliation with the Community is ended, he may not accost—go up to talk to—any member of the Community at all. Technically speaking, the fact that he is no longer in affiliation means that he can cause no more than a crack, rather than a full split, in the Saṅgha. This, of course, may not end his schismatic efforts, but the fact that the Community met to deal with his case should be enough to alert well-meaning bhikkhus that he is following a wrong course of action, and this should help unite the Community against his efforts. If they deem it necessary—to keep the laity from being swayed by his arguments—they may authorize one or more of their members to inform the lay community that the schismatic has committed this offense (see Pc 9) and explain why. If, unrepentant, he leaves to go elsewhere, they may send word to any Community he tries to join. Of course, if it turns out that the schismatic was actually in the right in his explanation of the Dhamma and Vinaya, the efforts of the original Community will call unflattering attention to its own behavior. This means that a Community is well advised to reflect on its own practice before bringing this rule to bear.	一旦犯戒者與僧團不共住，他就不得與僧團的任何成員搭話——上前交談。從技術上講，他不再共住的事實意味著他只能在僧伽中造成裂縫，而不是完全破和合僧。當然，這可能不會結束他的分裂努力，但僧團開會處理他的案件這一事實應該足以提醒善意的比丘，他正在採取錯誤的行動方針，這應該有助於團結僧團反對他的努力。如果他們認為有必要——為了防止居士被他的論點所動搖——他們可以授權一名或多名成員通知居士團體，分裂者犯下了這一罪行（見《波逸提》九）並解釋原因。如果他不悔改，離開去其他地方，他們可以向他試圖加入的任何僧團發送訊息。當然，如果事實證明分裂者對法與律的解釋實際上是正確的，那麼原本僧團的努力將引起對其自身行為的不當關注。這意味著，建議僧團在實施此戒條之前反思自己的做法。
All of this shows why schism is regarded so seriously: As the Buddha states in the second discourse on future dangers (AN 5:78), it is difficult to find time to practice when the Community is embroiled in controversy this way.	這一切都顯示了為什麼破和合僧被如此嚴肅地對待：正如佛陀在關於未來危險的第二次開示中所說的那樣（《增支部》5:78經），當僧團捲入這樣的爭議時，很難找到時間去修行。
Summary: To persist—after the third proclamation of a formal rebuke in the Community—in trying to form a schismatic group or in taking up a position that can lead to schism is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在僧團中第三次正式訶責之後，繼續試圖形成分裂團體或採取可能導致分裂的立場是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

11	十一
Should bhikkhus—one, two, or three—who are followers and partisans of that bhikkhu, say, “Do not, venerable sirs, admonish that bhikkhu in any way. He is an exponent of the Dhamma. He is an exponent of the Vinaya. He acts with our consent and approval. He knows, he speaks for us, and that is pleasing to us,” the bhikkhus are to admonish them thus: “Do not say that, venerable sirs. That bhikkhu is not an exponent of the Dhamma and he is not an exponent of the Vinaya. Do not, venerable sirs, approve of a schism in the Community. Let the venerable ones’ (minds) be reconciled with the Community, for a united Community, on courteous terms, without dispute, with a common recitation, dwells in peace.” And should those bhikkhus, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke them up to three times for the sake of relinquishing that. If while being rebuked up to three times they relinquish that, that is good. If they do not relinquish (that), it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果比丘——一位、兩位或三位——是該比丘的追隨者和擁護者，說：「尊者，不要以任何方式勸誡該比丘。他是法說者。他是律說者。他的行為是經過我們的同意和批准的。他知道，他為我們說話，這令我們高興。」比丘們應如此勸誡他們：「那個比丘不是法說者，也不是律說者。尊者，不要贊成僧團的分裂。願諸尊者（心）與僧團和解，僧團和合，以禮相待，無爭執，共同念誦，安住。」若那些比丘受比丘們如此勸誡，仍堅持如前，比丘們應訶責他們至多三遍，使其放棄。如果當被訶責到三次就放棄了，那很好。如果他們不放棄，僧殘。
If the schismatic mentioned in the preceding rule begins to attract adherents, they are to be treated under this rule—and quickly, before the schismatic gains a fourth adherent. The reasons are these:	如果前一戒條中提到的破和合僧者開始吸引追隨者，他們將根據本戒條處理——而且很快，在破和合僧者獲得第四個追隨者之前。原因如下：
1) One Community cannot impose a penalty on another Community (four or more bhikkhus) in any one transaction (Mv.IX.2).	1）一個僧團不能在任一羯磨中對另一個僧團（四名或更多比丘）施加懲罰（《大品》.九.2）。
2) Penalties of this sort may be imposed only with the unanimous agreement of all the bhikkhus present in the meeting. If there is a fourth adherent present in the meeting, his protest can invalidate the rebuke.	2）此類懲罰只有在所有出席會議的比丘一致同意的情況下才可以實施。如果會議中有第四位追隨者出席，他的抗議可以使訶責無效。
3) As the Sub-commentary points out, once the adherents of a potential schismatic have reached four, they are in a position to go ahead with the schism even if he is observing penance under the preceding rule.	3）正如《複註》所指出的，一旦潛在破和合僧者的追隨者達到四人，即使他正在按照前一戒條進行摩那埵，他們也可以繼續破和合僧。
The procedures for dealing with these partisans—reprimanding them in private, admonishing and rebuking them in the midst of the Community—are the same as under the preceding rule. The formula for the rebuke is given in Appendix VIII.	處理這些擁護者的程序──私下訓斥他們，在僧團中勸誡和訶責他們──與前一戒條相同。附錄八給了訶責的公式。
As noted under the preceding rule, the procedures to follow once the schismatics have succeeded in creating a schism are discussed in BMC2, Chapter 21.	如前一戒條所述，一旦破和合僧者成功製造破和合僧，應遵循的程序將在《佛教修道準則第二冊》第二十一章中討論。
Summary: To persist—after the third proclamation of a formal rebuke in the Community—in supporting a potential schismatic is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在僧團中第三次正式訶責羯磨文之後，繼續支持潛在的破和合僧者是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

12	十二
In case a bhikkhu is by nature difficult to admonish—who, when being legitimately admonished by the bhikkhus with reference to the training rules included in the (Pāṭimokkha) recitation, makes himself unadmonishable, (saying,) “Do not, venerable ones, say anything to me, good or bad; and I won’t say anything to the venerable ones, good or bad. Refrain, venerable ones, from admonishing me”—the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: “Let the venerable one not make himself unadmonishable. Let the venerable one make himself admonishable. Let the venerable one admonish the bhikkhus in accordance with what is right, and the bhikkhus will admonish the venerable one in accordance with what is right; for it is thus that the Blessed One’s following is nurtured: through mutual admonition, through mutual rehabilitation.” And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times for the sake of relinquishing that. If while being rebuked up to three times he relinquishes that, that is good. If he does not relinquish (that), it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果比丘生來難以勸誡，當比丘們根據（《波羅提木叉》）念誦中所包含的學處合法地勸誡他時，他使自己不可勸誡，（說：）「諸位尊者，不要對我說任何事情，無論好壞；我不會對尊者們說什麼，無論好壞。諸位尊者，請不要勸誡我」－比丘們應這樣勸誡他：「請尊者不要讓自己不受勸誡。請尊者讓自己接受勸誡吧。請尊者如法地勸誡比丘，比丘們就會如法地勸誡尊者。因為世尊的追隨者就是這樣培養的：透過相互勸誡，透過相互出罪。若該比丘受比丘們如此勸誡，仍堅持如前，比丘們應訶責他至多三遍，使其放棄。如果當被訶責到三次就放棄了，那很好。如果他不放棄，僧殘。
If a bhikkhu breaks any of the rules of the Vinaya without undergoing the penalties they entail, the other bhikkhus have the duty of admonishing him, as explained under Sg 8. If he is difficult to admonish, he is subject to additional penalties: under Pc 12 if he is evasive or uncooperative while being admonished, under Pc 54 if he shows disrespect, and under Pc 71 if he tries to excuse himself from training in the rule in question. If he becomes so difficult to admonish that he will accept criticism from no one at all, he is to be treated under this rule.	如果比丘違反了戒律中的任何規定而沒有受到相應的懲罰，則其他比丘有義務教誡他，如《僧殘》八所述。若他難以教誡，他將受到額外懲罰：如果他被教誡時迴避或不合作，則按《波逸提》十二規定；如果他表現出不尊重，則按《波逸提》五四規定；如果他試圖藉口不接受有關戒條的培訓，則按《波逸提》七一規定。如果他變得如此難以教誡，以至於他根本不接受任何人的批評，那麼他就應該受到本戒條的處理。
The Commentary defines difficult to admonish as “impossible to speak to” and adds that a bhikkhu difficult to admonish is one who cannot stand being criticized or who does not mend his ways after his faults are pointed out to him. It quotes from the Anumāna Sutta (MN 15) a list of traits, any one of which makes a bhikkhu difficult to admonish: He has evil desires; exalts himself and degrades others; is easily angered; because of this he harbors ill will, holds a grudge, utters angry words; accused, he throws a tantrum (literally, “explodes”); accused, he is insulting; accused, he returns the accusation; he evades back and forth; he does not respond; he is mean and spiteful; jealous and possessive; scheming and deceitful; stubborn and proud; attached to his own views, obstinate, unable to let them go.	《義註》將難以教誡定義為「無法與之交談」，並補充說，難以教誡的比丘是指不能忍受批評或被指出過錯後仍不改正的比丘。它引用了《反思經》（《中部》15經）中的一系列特徵，其中任何一個都使比丘難以教誡：他有邪惡的欲望；抬高自己，貶低別人；容易生氣；因此，他懷有惡意，懷恨在心，說出瞋恨的話。被指控時，他會發脾氣（字面意思是「爆炸」）；被指控時，他是侮辱性的；被指控時，他指控回去；他來回躲避；他沒有回應；他很卑鄙、充滿惡意；嫉妒和占有欲強；詭計多端、詭詐多端；固執而驕傲；執著於自己的觀點，固執己見，無法放下。
A fair number of these traits are exemplified by Ven. Channa—according to tradition, the Buddha’s horseman on the night of the great Going Forth—in the origin stories to Pc 12, 54, and 71, and especially in the origin story to this rule.	闡陀尊者體現了其中相當多的特徵——根據傳統，是佛陀在偉大出家之夜的騎手——出現在《波逸提》十二、五四和七一的起源故事中，尤其是本戒條的起源故事中。
“You think you are to admonish me? It is I who should admonish you! The Buddha is mine, the Dhamma is mine, it was by my young master that the Dhamma was realized. Just as a great wind when blowing would gather up grass, sticks, leaves, and rubbish, or a mountain-born river would gather up water weeds and scum, so you, in going forth, have been gathered up from various names, various clans, various ancestries, various families. You think you are to admonish me? It is I who should admonish you!”	「你以為你是來教誡我的嗎？該教誡你的應該是我！佛是我的，法是我的，法是由我少師證悟的。就如大風吹來，會聚起草木、樹葉、垃圾，山中的河流會聚起水草和浮渣，你們出家，是來自不同的名字、不同的宗族、不同的血統、不同的家庭被聚集起來的。你以為你是來教誡我的？是我該教誡你的！
The procedures to follow when a bhikkhu is difficult to admonish—reprimanding him in private, admonishing and rebuking him in a formal meeting of the Community—are the same as under Sg 10, beginning with the fact that a bhikkhu who, hearing that Bhikkhu X is being difficult to admonish, incurs a dukkaṭa if he does not reprimand him. The question of perception and the non-offenses are also the same as under that rule. The formula for the rebuke is given in Appendix VIII.	當比丘難以教誡時，應遵循的程序——私下訓斥他，在僧團的正式會議上教誡和訶責他——與《僧殘》十中的相同，首先是一個比丘聽到比丘 X 很難教誡，如果不訓斥他，就會犯《突吉羅》。感知和不犯的問題也與該戒條下的相同。附錄八給了訶責的公式。
If the bhikkhu difficult to admonish carries on as before, even after incurring the full penalty under this rule, the Community may perform a banishment transaction (pabbājanīya-kamma) against him for speaking in dispraise of the Community (Cv.I.13—see BMC2, Chapter 20). If he refuses to see that he has committed this saṅghādisesa offense or to undergo the penalty, the Community may exclude him from participating in the Pāṭimokkha and Invitation ceremonies (Mv.IV.16.2; Cv.IX.2—see BMC2, Chapters 15 and 16) or suspend him from the entire Saṅgha (Cv.I.26; Cv.I.31—see BMC2, Chapter 20).	如果難以教誡的比丘繼續像以前一樣，即使在根據本戒條受到全額懲罰之後，僧團可以對他進行驅出羯磨（pabbājanīya-kamma），因為他發表了誹謗僧團的言論（《小品》.一.13-見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第二十章）。如果他拒絕承認自己犯了《僧殘》罪行或接受懲罰，僧團可以禁止他參加《波羅提木叉》和自恣儀式（《大品》.四.16.2；《小品》.九.2 — 參見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十五章和第十六章）或暫停他在整個僧伽中的資格（《小品》.一.26；《小品》.一.31——見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第二十章）。
Summary: To persist—after the third proclamation of a formal rebuke in the Community—in being difficult to admonish is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在僧團中第三次正式訶責羯磨文之後，仍堅持難以教誡是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

13	十三
In case a bhikkhu living in dependence on a certain village or town is a corrupter of families, a man of depraved conduct—whose depraved conduct is both seen and heard about, and the families he has corrupted are both seen and heard about—the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: “You, venerable sir, are a corrupter of families, a man of depraved conduct. Your depraved conduct is both seen and heard about, and the families you have corrupted are both seen and heard about. Leave this monastery, venerable sir. Enough of your staying here.” And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, say about the bhikkhus, “The bhikkhus are biased through desire, biased through aversion, biased through delusion, biased through fear, in that for this sort of offense they banish some and do not banish others,” the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: “Do not say that, venerable sir. The bhikkhus are not biased through desire, are not biased through aversion, are not biased through delusion, are not biased through fear. You, venerable sir, are a corrupter of families, a man of depraved conduct. Your depraved conduct is both seen and heard about, and the families you have corrupted are both seen and heard about. Leave this monastery, venerable sir. Enough of your staying here.” And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times for the sake of relinquishing that. If while being rebuked up to three times he relinquishes that, that is good. If he does not relinquish (that), it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果依附於某個村莊或城鎮而生活的比丘，是一個污家者，一個惡行者——他的惡行是被看見和被聽到的，而他所污的諸家也是被看見和聽見的－－比丘們應如此勸告那個比丘：「尊者，你是污家者，惡行者。你的惡行是有目共睹的，你所污的諸家也是有目共睹的。離開這座寺院，尊者。你在這裡待夠了。」若該比丘受諸比丘如此訓誡，對諸比丘說：「諸比丘是隨欲者，隨瞋者，隨痴者，隨怖者。對同樣的罪，驅出一些人，而不驅出一些人。」諸比丘應如此勸告那個比丘：「尊者，請不要這樣說。諸比丘不是隨欲者，不是隨瞋者，不是隨痴者，不是隨怖者。尊者，你是污家者、惡行者。你的惡行是被看見和被聽到的，你所污的諸家也是被看見和聽見的。離開這座寺院，尊者。你在這裡待夠了。」若該比丘受諸比丘如此勸誡，仍堅持如前，諸比丘應訶責他至多三遍，使其放棄。如果當被訶責到三次就放棄了，那很好。如果他不放棄，僧殘。
A corrupter of families is a bhikkhu who—behaving in a demeaning, frivolous, or subservient way—succeeds in ingratiating himself to lay people to the point where they withdraw their support from bhikkhus who are earnest in the practice and give it to those who are more ingratiating instead. This is illustrated in the origin story of this rule, in which the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu (leaders of one faction of the group of six) had thoroughly corrupted the lay people at Kīṭāgiri.	污家者是指比丘以貶低、輕浮或恭順的方式行事，成功地討好在家人，以致他們撤回對熱心修行的比丘的支持，轉而給予那些更討好的比丘。本戒條的起源故事說明了這一點，其中馬師和滿宿（六群中的一個派系的領導人）的追隨者徹底腐蝕了雞咤山邑的俗人。
“Now at that time a certain bhikkhu, having finished his Rains-residence among the people of Kāsi and on his way to Sāvatthī to see the Blessed One, arrived at Kīṭāgiri. Dressing (§) early in the morning, taking his bowl and (outer) robe, he entered Kīṭāgiri for alms: gracious in the way he approached and departed, looked forward and behind, drew in and stretched out (his arm); his eyes downcast, his every movement consummate. People seeing him said, ‘Who is this weakest of weaklings, this dullest of dullards, this most snobbish of snobs? Who, if this one approached (§), would even give him alms? Our masters, the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu, are compliant, genial, pleasing in conversation. They are the first to smile, saying, “Come, you are welcome.” They are not snobbish. They are approachable. They are the first to speak. They are the ones to whom alms should be given.’”	「爾時，有一位比丘，結束了在迦尸人民中的雨安居，在前往舍衛城去見世尊的路上，到達了雞咤山邑。清晨，他穿好衣服（§），帶著缽和（外）袈裟，進入雞咤山邑托缽：他的接近和離開、向前和向後、收縮和伸出（他的手臂）的方式都整齊端莊；他的目光低垂，他的每一個動作都完美無缺。人們看到他說：『這個最弱的弱者、這個最遲鈍的笨蛋、這個最勢利的勢利者是誰？如果這個人接近（§），誰還會給他施捨缽食呢？我們的尊者，馬師和滿宿的追隨者，個性溫順、和藹可親、談話愉快。他們最先微笑著說：「來吧，不客氣。」他們並不勢利。他們平易近人。他們是最先發言的。他們才是應該施捨缽食的人。』」
The Vibhaṅga lists the ways of corrupting a family as giving gifts of flowers, fruit, etc., practicing medicine, and delivering messages—although the Commentary qualifies this by saying there is no harm in delivering messages related to religious activities, such as inviting bhikkhus to a meal or to deliver a sermon, or in conveying a lay person’s respects to a senior bhikkhu.	《經分別》列出了污家的方式，包括送花、水果等禮物、行醫以及傳遞信息——儘管《義註》對此進行了限定，稱傳遞與宗教活動有關的訊息，例如邀請比丘吃飯或講經，或向年長比丘表達在家人的敬意，並沒有什麼害處。
Depraved conduct the Vibhaṅga defines merely as growing flowers and making them into garlands, but this, the Commentary says, is a shorthand reference to the long list of bad habits mentioned in the origin story, which includes such things as presenting garlands to women, eating from the same dish with them, sharing a blanket with them; eating at the wrong time, drinking intoxicants; wearing garlands, using perfumes and cosmetics; dancing, singing, playing musical instruments, directing musical performances (§); playing games, performing stunts; learning archery, swordsmanship, and horsemanship; boxing and wrestling. (For the full list, see BMC2, Chapter 10.) Any one of these actions taken in isolation carries only a minor penalty—a dukkaṭa or a pācittiya (see Cv.V.36)—but if indulged in habitually to the point where its bad influence becomes “seen and heard about,” i.e., common knowledge, it can become grounds for the offender’s fellow bhikkhus to banish him from their particular Community until he mends his ways.	《經分別》將惡行僅僅定義為種植鮮花並將其製成花環，但《義註》說，這是對起源故事中提到的一長串壞習慣的速記，其中包括像向女人贈送花環、和他們吃同一道菜、與他們共用一條毯子；在錯誤的時間進食、飲酒；戴花環、使用香水和化妝品；跳舞、唱歌、演奏樂器、指揮音樂表演 (§)；玩遊戲、表演特技；學習射箭、劍術、馬術；拳擊和摔角。（完整列表，請參見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十章。）單獨採取的任何一項行為都只會帶來輕微的懲罰——《突吉羅》或《波逸提》（參見《小品》.五.36）——但如果習慣性地沉迷到當它的不良影響變得「被看到和聽到」這樣的程度，即眾所周知時，它可以成為犯戒者的比丘同儕將他驅逐出他們的特定僧團的理由，直到他改過自新。
The Cullavagga, in a section that begins with the same origin story as the one for this rule (Cv.I.13-16), treats the banishment transaction in full detail, saying that a Community of bhikkhus, if it sees fit, has the authority to perform a banishment transaction against a bhikkhu with any of the following qualities:	《小品》在以與本戒條（《小品》.一.13-16）相同的起源故事開頭的部分中，詳細討論了驅出羯磨，稱比丘僧團如果認為合適，可以對具有下列特點之一的比丘進行驅出羯磨的權力：
1) He is a maker of strife, disputes, quarrels, and issues in the Community.	1）他是僧團中衝突、爭端、爭吵和問題的製造者。
2) He is inexperienced, incompetent, and indiscriminately full of offenses (§).	2）他缺乏經驗，無能，並且任意地充滿犯戒（§）。
3) He lives in unbecoming association with householders.	3）他與居士生活在不恰當的交往中。
4) He is defective in his virtue, conduct, or views.	4）他的戒行、行為或觀點有缺陷。
5) He speaks in dispraise of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha.	5）他誹謗佛、法、僧。
6) He is frivolous in word, deed, or both.	6）他在言語、行為或兩者上都很輕率。
7) He misbehaves in word, deed, or both.	7）他在言語、行為或兩者上都有不當。
8) He is vindictive in word, deed, or both.	8）他在言語、行為或兩者上都懷有報復心理。
9) He practices wrong modes of livelihood.	9）他行邪命。
This last category includes such practices as:	最後一類包括以下做法：
a) running messages and errands for kings, ministers of state, householders, etc. A modern example would be participating in political campaigns.	a）為國王、國務大臣、戶主等傳遞訊息和辦事。一個現代的例子是參加政治競選。
b) scheming, talking, hinting, belittling others for the sake of material gain, pursuing gain with gain (giving items of small value in hopes of receiving items of larger value in return, making investments in hopes of profit, offering material incentives to those who make donations). (For a full discussion of these practices, see Visuddhimagga I.61-82.)	b）為了物質利益而算計、言談、暗示、貶低他人、以利取利（給予小價值的物品，希望得到大價值的回報、進行投資以獲利、對捐贈者給予物質獎勵）。（有關這些修行的完整討論，請參閱《清淨道論》一.61-82。）
c) Practicing worldly arts, e.g., medicine, fortune telling, astrology, exorcism, reciting charms, casting spells, performing ceremonies to counteract the influence of the stars, determining propitious sites, setting auspicious dates (for weddings, etc.), interpreting oracles, auguries, or dreams, or—in the words of the Vibhaṅga to the the bhikkhunīs’ Pc 49 & 50—engaging in any art that is “external and unconnected with the goal.” The Cullavagga (V.33.2) imposes a dukkaṭa on studying and teaching worldly arts or hedonist doctrines (lokāyata). (For extensive lists of worldly arts, see the passage from DN 2 quoted in BMC2, Chapter 10. For the connection between lokāyata and hedonism (e.g., the Kāma Sūtra), see Warder, Outline of Indian Philosophy, pp. 38-39.)	c）從事世俗技藝，例如醫學、算命、占星、驅魔、念咒、施咒、舉行儀式以抵消星象的影響、確定吉利地點、設定吉日（婚禮等）、解釋神諭、占卜、夢境，或者——用《經分別》對比丘尼的《波逸提》四九和五十的話來說——從事任何「外在的、與目標無關的」技藝。《小品》（五.33.2）對學習和教授世俗技藝或享樂主義教義（lokāyata）施加了《突吉羅》。（有關世俗技藝的詳細列表，請參閱《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十章中引用的《長部》2經中的段落。有關 lokāyata 與享樂主義（例如《欲經》）之間的聯繫，請參閱渥德爾，《印度哲學大綱》，第38-39頁。
A bhikkhu banished for indulging in any of these activities is duty-bound to undergo the observances listed in Cv.I.15 (see BMC2, Chapter 20) and to mend his ways so that the Community will revoke the banishment transaction.	因沉迷於任何這些活動而被驅出的比丘有義務遵守《小品》.一.15中列出的正行（見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第二十章）並改正自己的行為，以便僧團撤銷驅出羯磨。
Two of those duties are that he not criticize the act of banishment or those who performed it. If he does not observe either of those two, he is subject to this rule. The procedure to follow in dealing with him—reprimanding him in private, admonishing and rebuking him in a formal meeting of the Community—is the same as under Sg 10, beginning with the fact that a bhikkhu who, hearing that Bhikkhu X is criticizing the act of banishment, incurs a dukkaṭa if he does not reprimand X. The question of perception and the non-offenses are also the same as under that rule. The formula for the rebuke is given in Appendix VIII. As with the preceding three rules, if the offender does not respond to the rebuke or recognize that he has a saṅghādisesa offense for which he must make amends, the Community would then have grounds to suspend him as well.	其中兩項職責是他不得批評驅出行為或執行該行為的人。如果他不遵守這兩條規則中的任何一條，他就受本戒條的約束。處理他所遵循的程序——私下斥責他，在僧團的正式會議上教誡和訶責他——與《僧殘》十中的相同，首先是一位比丘聽到比丘 X 批評驅出行為，如果他不斥責 X ，就會犯《突吉羅》。感知和不犯問題也與該戒條下的相同。附錄八給了訶責的公式。與前三條戒條一樣，如果犯戒者沒有對訶責作出回應，或者沒有認識到他有必須改正的《僧殘》罪，那麼僧團也有理由舉罪他。
Summary: To persist—after the third proclamation of a formal rebuke in the Community—in criticizing a banishment transaction performed against oneself is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在僧團中第三次正式訶責羯磨文之後，仍堅持批評針對自己進行的驅出羯磨是《僧殘》罪。

* * *

A bhikkhu who commits any one of these thirteen saṅghādisesa offenses is duty-bound to inform a fellow bhikkhu and to ask a Community of at least four bhikkhus to impose a six-day period of penance (mānatta) on him. (The Canon says, literally, a six-night period: At the time of the Buddha, the lunar calendar was in use and, just as we using the solar calendar count the passage of days, they counted the passage of nights; a 24-hour period, which is a day for us, would be a night for them, as in the Bhaddekaratta Sutta (MN 131), where the Buddha explicitly says that a person who spends a day and night in earnest practice has had an “auspicious night.”)

犯了這十三種《僧殘》罪行中的任何一種的比丘，有義務通知一位同儕比丘，並要求至少由四名比丘組成的僧團對其實施六天的贖罪(摩那埵)（mānatta）。（《聖典》中，字面意思是六夜：在佛陀時代，使用陰曆，就像我們用陽曆計算白天的流逝一樣，他們計算夜晚的流逝；一個24小時的週期，對我們來說是一天，對他們來說就是一夜，正如在《一夜賢者經》（《中部》131經）中，佛陀明確表示，一個人花上一天一夜的時間認真修行，就獲得了「吉祥之夜」。

Penance	贖罪(摩那埵)
Penance does not begin immediately, but only at the convenience of the Community giving it. During his period of penance, the offender is partially stripped of seniority and must observe 94 restrictions (Cv.II.5-6), discussed in detail in BMC2, Chapter 19. The four most important are:	摩那埵不會立即開始，而是在僧團方便時才開始。在摩那埵期間，犯戒者將被部分剝奪戒臘，並且必須遵守 94 條限制（《小品》.二.5-6），詳細討論見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十九章。最重要的四個是：
1) He must not live under the same roof as a regular bhikkhu.	1）他不得與正規比丘住在同一屋簷下。
2) He must live in a monastery with at least four regular bhikkhus.	2）他必須居住在至少有四名正規比丘的寺院裡。
3) If he goes anyplace outside the monastery, he must be accompanied by four full-fledged bhikkhus unless (a) he is going to escape dangers or (b) he is going to another place where there are regular bhikkhus of the same affiliation and he can reach it in one day’s time.	3）如果他去寺院以外的任何地方，他必須有四名正式比丘陪同，除非 (a) 他要逃離危險，或 (b) 他要去另一個有共同羯磨的正規比丘的地方，並且他一天之內就能到達。
4) Every day he must inform all the bhikkhus in the monastery of the fact that he is observing penance and the precise offense for which the penance was imposed. If visiting bhikkhus come to the monastery, he must inform them as well; if he goes to another monastery, he must inform all the bhikkhus there, too.	4）每天他必須告知寺院裡的所有比丘他正在遵行摩那埵的事實以及實施摩那埵的具體罪行。如果來訪的比丘來到寺院，他也必須通知他們；如果他去另一座寺院，他也必須通知那裡的所有比丘。
If, on any day of his penance, the bhikkhu neglects to observe any of these four restrictions, that day does not count toward the total of six. In addition, he incurs a dukkaṭa each time he fails to observe any of the 94 restrictions.	如果比丘在摩那埵的任何一天忽略遵守這四種限制中的任何一種，那麼這一天不會計入六天的總數中。此外，每當他不遵守 94 條限制中的任何一條時，他犯《突吉羅》。
Once the bhikkhu has completed his penance, he may ask a Community of at least 20 bhikkhus to give him rehabilitation. Once rehabilitated, he returns to his previous state as a regular bhikkhu in good standing.	一旦比丘完成了他的摩那埵，他可以要求至少有 20 名比丘組成的僧團幫助他出罪清淨。一旦出罪清淨，他就會恢復到以前的狀態，成為一個信譽良好的正規比丘。

Probation	別住(波利婆沙)
If a bhikkhu who commits a saṅghādisesa offense conceals it from his fellow bhikkhus past dawnrise of the day following the offense, he must observe an additional period of probation (parivāsa) for the same number of days as he concealed the offense. Only after he has completed his probation may he then ask for the six-day period of penance.	如果比丘犯了《僧殘》罪，在犯戒當天黎明時分過後對同儕比丘隱瞞此事，他必須行與他隱瞞犯戒相同天數的額外別住(波利婆沙)（parivāsa）。只有在別住結束後，他才可以請求六天的摩那埵。
The Commentary to Cv.III sets the factors of concealment at ten, which may be arranged in five pairs as follows:	《小品》.三的《義註》將隱藏因素設為十種，可排列為五對如下：
1) He has committed a saṅghādisesa offense and perceives it as an offense (i.e., this factor is fulfilled even if he thinks it is a lesser offense).	1）他犯了《僧殘》罪，並將其視為罪行（即，即使他認為這是較輕的罪行，也滿足了此因素）。
2) He has not been suspended and perceives that he has not been suspended. (If a bhikkhu has been suspended, he cannot accost other bhikkhus, and thus he cannot tell them until after his suspension has been lifted.)	2）他沒有被舉罪並且認為他沒有被舉罪。（如果一位比丘被舉罪，他就不能與其他比丘搭話，因此在他的舉罪解除之前他不能告訴他們。）
3) There are no obstacles (e.g., a flood, a forest fire, dangerous animals) and he perceives that there are none.	3）沒有障礙（例如洪水、森林火災、危險動物），而且他認為沒有障礙。
4) He is able to inform another bhikkhu (i.e., a fellow bhikkhu suitable to be informed lives in a place that may be reached in that day, one is not too weak or ill to go, etc.) and he perceives that he is able. (According to Cv.III.34.2, going insane after committing the offense (!) would count as “not being able to inform another bhikkhu.”) A bhikkhu suitable to be informed means one who is—	4）他能夠告知另一位比丘（即，一位適合被告知的同儕比丘住在當天可以到達的地方，沒有太虛弱或病得不能去，等等），並且他認為他能告知。（根據《小品》.三.34.2，犯戒後發狂（！）將被視為「無法通知其他比丘。」）適合被告知的比丘是指：
a) of common affiliation,	a）共同羯磨，
b) in good standing (e.g., not undergoing penance, probation, or suspension himself), and	b）信譽良好（例如，本人沒有行摩那埵、別住或被舉罪），且
c) not on uncongenial terms with the offender.	c）並未與犯戒者有不友好的的關係。
If any of these factors are lacking, there is no penalty for not informing another bhikkhu that day. For instance, the following cases do not count as concealment:	如果缺少其中任何一個因素，當天沒有通知其他比丘不會受到懲罰。例如，下列情形不屬於隱瞞行為：
A bhikkhu does not suspect that he has committed an offense and realizes only much later, after reading or hearing about the rules in more detail, that he has incurred a saṅghādisesa.	比丘並不懷疑自己犯了戒，直到很久以後，在閱讀或聽到更詳細關於該戒條之後，才意識到他已經犯了《僧殘》。
A bhikkhu lives alone in a forest and commits a saṅghādisesa in the middle of the night. Afraid of the snakes or other wild animals he might encounter in the dark, he waits until daylight before going to inform a fellow bhikkhu.	一位比丘獨自住在森林裡，並在半夜犯了《僧殘》。由於害怕在黑暗中遇到蛇或其他野生動物，他等到天亮才去通知同儕比丘。
A bhikkhu lives alone in a forest, but the only other bhikkhu within one day’s traveling time is a personal enemy who, if he is informed, will use this as an opportunity to smear the offender’s name, so the offender travels another day or two before reaching a congenial bhikkhu whom he informs.	一位比丘獨自住在森林裡，但在一天的旅行時間內，唯一的另一位比丘是一個仇敵，如果他被告知，他會利用這個機會來抹黑犯戒者的名字，所以犯戒者旅行了一兩天去通知一位友好的比丘。
A bhikkhu intends to tell another bhikkhu before dawn but falls asleep and either wakes up too late or else wakes up in time but remembers his offense only after dawnrise has past.	一位比丘打算在黎明前告訴另一位比丘，但他睡著了，若非醒得太晚，就是及時醒來，但直到黎明過去才記起他的罪行。
Once all of the first eight factors are complete, though, one must inform another bhikkhu before dawn of the next day or else incur a dukkaṭa and undergo the penalty for concealment.	然而，一旦前八個因素全部完備後，必須在第二天黎明之前通知另一位比丘，否則會犯《突吉羅》並受到隱瞞罪行的懲罰。
A bhikkhu who commits a lesser offense that he thinks is a saṅghādisesa and then conceals it, incurs a dukkaṭa (Cv.III.34.1).	比丘犯下較輕的罪行，但他認為是《僧殘》，然後隱瞞它，犯《突吉羅》（《小品》.三.34.1）。
The restrictions for a bhikkhu undergoing probation—and the other possible steps in the rehabilitation process—are similar to those for one undergoing penance and are discussed in detail in BMC2, Chapter 19.	對接受別住的比丘的限制——以及出罪清淨過程中其他可能的步驟——與對接受摩那埵的比丘的限制相似，並在《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十九章中詳細討論。
Saṅghādisesas are classified as heavy offenses (garukāpatti), both because of the seriousness of the offenses themselves and because the procedures of penance, probation, and rehabilitation are burdensome by design, not only for the offender but also for the Community of bhikkhus in which he lives—a fact intended to act as added deterrent to anyone who feels tempted to transgress.	《僧殘》被列為重罪（garukāpatti），既因為罪行本身的嚴重性，也因為摩那埵、別住和出罪清淨的程序在設計上是繁重的，不僅對犯戒者來說，而且對他所在的比丘僧團來說也是如此——這一事實意圖對任何想要犯戒的人起到額外的威懾作用。。