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。

(未完待續)