不定

This term means “indefinite.” The rules in this section do not assign definite or fixed penalties, but instead give procedures by which the Community may pass judgment when a bhikkhu in uncertain circumstances is accused of having committed an offense. There are two training rules here.

這個字的意思是「不定」。本節的戒條並沒有指定明確或固定的懲罰，而是給出了當比丘在不確定的情況下被指控犯戒時，僧團可以做出判決的程序。這裡有兩條學處。

1	一
Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman on a seat secluded enough to lend itself (to sexual intercourse), so that a female lay follower whose word can be trusted, having seen (them), might describe it as constituting any of three cases—entailing defeat, communal meetings, or confession—then the bhikkhu, acknowledging having sat (there), may be dealt with in line with any of the three cases—entailing defeat, communal meetings, or confession—or he may be dealt with in line with whichever case the female lay follower whose word can be trusted described. This case is indefinite.	如果任何比丘與一名女人私密地單獨坐在足夠（進行性交的）僻靜座位上，以至於一位言詞可信的優婆夷，在見過（他們）之後，可能會描述它構成了以下三種情況任何一種——《波羅夷》、《僧殘》、或《波逸提》——比丘承認坐了（那裡），可以按照三種情況——《波羅夷》、《僧殘》、或《波逸提》——中的任何一種來處理，或者依言詞可信的優婆夷所說來予以處理之。此情況不定。
Woman here means a female human being, “even one born that very day, all the more an older one.” To sit also includes lying down. Whether the bhikkhu sits down when the woman is already seated, or the woman sits down when he is already seated, or both sit down at the same time, makes no difference here.	這裡的「女人」是指女性人類，「即使是當天出生的，更不用說更年長的」。坐也包括躺著。無論比丘在女人已經坐下時坐下，還是當他已經坐下時，女人坐下，或者兩者同時坐下，在這裡都沒有區別。
Private means private to the eye and private to the ear. Two people are sitting in a place private to the eye when no one else is near enough to see if they wink, raise their eyebrows, or nod (§). They are in a place private to the ear when no one else is near enough to hear what they say in a normal voice (§). A secluded seat is one behind a wall, a closed door, a large bush, or anything at all that would afford them enough privacy to engage in sexual intercourse.	私密意味著視線私密、聞聲私密。兩個人坐在一個視線私密的地方，沒有其他人離得足夠近，可以看到他們是否眨眼、揚眉或點頭（§）。當沒有其他人離得夠近，無法聽清楚他們以正常聲音說話時，他們就處於一個聞聲私密的地方（§）。僻靜的座位是指牆後、一扇緊閉的門、一大片灌木叢或任何能為他們提供足夠隱私以進行性交的地方。
For a bhikkhu to sit in such a place with a woman can be in itself a breach of Pc 44 (see the explanations for that rule) and affords the opportunity for breaking Pr 1 and Sg 1, 2, 3, & 4 as well—which is why this case is called indefinite.	對於比丘來說，與女人坐在這樣的地方，本身就違反了《波逸提》四四（參見該戒條的解釋），也提供了違反《波羅夷》一和《僧殘》一、二、三和四的機會——這就是為什麼這種情況稱為不定。
If a trustworthy female lay follower happens to see a bhikkhu with a woman in such circumstances, she may inform the Community and charge him on the basis of what she has seen. Female lay follower here means one who has taken refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha. Trustworthy means that she is at least a stream-winner. Even if she is not a stream-winner, the Community may choose to investigate the case anyway; but if she is, they have to. The texts do not discuss cases in which a man is making the charge but, given the low legal status of women in the Buddha’s time, it seems reasonable to infer that if a woman’s word was given such weight, the same would hold true for a man’s. In other words, if he is a stream-winner, the Community has to investigate the case. If he isn’t, they are free to handle the case or not, as they see fit.	如果一位值得信賴的優婆夷碰巧看到一位比丘與一名女人處於這種情況，她可以通知僧團，並根據她所看到的情況向他提出指控。這裡的優婆夷是指已經皈依佛、法、僧的人。值得信賴意味著她至少是一位入流者。即使她不是入流者，僧團也可選擇調查此案；但如果她是，他們就必須這麼做。這些文獻沒有討論男性提出指控的案例，但鑑於佛陀時代女性的法律地位較低，似乎可以合理地推斷，如果女性的話受到如此重視，那麼同樣的情況也適用於男性。換句話說，如果他是入流者，僧團就必須調查此案。如果他不是，他們可以按照他們認為合適的方式自由處理或不處理此案。
The wording of the rule suggests that once the matter is investigated and the bhikkhu in question has stated his side of the story, the bhikkhus are free to judge the case either in line with what he admits to having done or in line with the trustworthy female lay follower’s charge. In other words, if his admission and her charge are at variance, they may decide which side seems to be telling the truth and impose a penalty—or no penalty—on the bhikkhu as they see fit.	本戒條的措辭表明，一旦事件得到調查並且有關比丘陳述了他的說法，比丘們可以自由地根據他承認的行為或根據值得信賴的優婆夷來判斷案件。換句話說，如果他的承認和她的指控不一致，他們可以決定哪一方似乎說的是實話，並根據他們認為合適的方式對比丘施加懲罰——或不施加懲罰。
The Vibhaṅga, however, states that they may deal with him only in line with what he admits to having done. The Commentary offers no explanation for this point aside from saying that in uncertain cases things are not always as they seem, citing as example the story of an arahant who was wrongly charged by another bhikkhu of having broken Pc 44.	然而，《經分別》規定，他們只能根據他承認的行為來處理他。《義註》對此沒有提供任何解釋，只是說，在不確定的情況下，事情並不總是像看上去的那樣，並引用了一位阿羅漢的故事作為例子，他被另一位比丘錯誤地指控違反了《波逸提》四四。
Actually, the Vibhaṅga in departing from the wording of the rule is simply following the general guidelines given in As 4 and the Khandhakas for handling accusations. Apparently what happened was that this rule and the following one were formulated early on. Then As 4—the principle of imposing an offense on a bhikkhu only in line with what he admits to having done—was formulated. This left a conflict. Which was to take precedence: these Ay rules, or As 4? Later still, when the general guidelines were formulated for dealing with accusations, some group-of-six bhikkhus abused the system to impose penalties on innocent bhikkhus they didn’t like (Mv.IX.3.1), so the Buddha formulated a number of checks to prevent the system from working against the innocent. One of those checks, in effect, was to give precedence to As 4, a decision that the Vibhaṅga is following here.	事實上，《經分別》偏離戒條的措辭只是遵循《滅諍》四和《犍度》中給出的處理指控的一般準則。顯然，本戒條和下一條戒條是很早就制定的。然後制定了《滅諍》四——僅根據比丘承認的行為來對他施加罪行的原則。這就留下了衝突。哪個優先：這些《不定》戒條，還是《滅諍》四？再後來，當制定處理指控的一般準則時，一些六群比丘濫用這一制度，對他們不喜歡的無辜比丘施加懲罰（《大品》.九.3.1），因此佛陀制定了一些檢查以防止系統對無辜者起作用。實際上，其中一項檢查是優先考慮《滅諍》四，這是《經分別》在此遵循的決定。
We will cover the guidelines in detail under the adhikaraṇa-samatha rules in Chapter 11, but here we may note a few of their more important features.	我們將在第十一章中詳細介紹滅諍戒條下的指南，但在這裡我們可以注意到它們的一些更重要的特徵。
If Bhikkhu X wants to charge Bhikkhu Y with an offense, he must first meet privately with Y, as explained under Sg 8. If the issue cannot be settled privately in this way, then it has to go to a formal meeting of the Community. Once the case reaches this stage, one of only three verdicts can settle it: that the accused is innocent, that he was insane at the time he committed the offense (and so absolved of guilt), or that he is not only guilty as charged but—for having dragged out his confession to this point—also deserves a further-punishment transaction (Cv.IV.14.27-29), which is the same as a censure transaction (Cv.IV.11-12).	如果比丘 X 想要指控比丘 Y 犯戒，他必須先與 Y 私下會面，如《僧殘》八所述。如果問題不能以這種方式私下解決，則必須提交僧團正式會議。一旦案件到達此階段，只有三個判決之一可以解決這個問題：被指控者無罪，他在犯戒時精神錯亂（因此無罪），或者他不僅有罪，而且，由於他的坦承拖延到了這個地步，他還應該受到罪處所(覓罪相)羯磨（《小品》.四.14.27-29），這與訶責羯磨（《小品》.四.11-12）相同。
When the Community meets, both the accused and the accuser must be present, and both must agree to the case’s being heard by that particular group. (If the original accuser is a lay person, one of the bhikkhus is to take up the charge.) The accused is then asked to state his version of the story and is to be dealt with in accordance with what he admits to having done (Mv.IX.6.1-4). Cv.IV.14.29 shows that the other bhikkhus are not to take his first statement at face value. They should press and cross-examine him until they are all satisfied that he is telling the truth, and only then may they pass one of the three verdicts mentioned above.	當僧團開會時，被指控者和指控者都必須出席，並且雙方都必須同意該案件由該特定群體審理。（如果原告是在家人，則由一名比丘承擔指控。）然後，被指控者被要求陳述他的故事版本，並根據他承認的行為進行處理（《大品》.九.6.1-4）。《小品》.四.14.29顯示其他比丘不要相信他的最先陳述的表面價值。他們應該對他進行追問和盤問，直到他們都確信他說的是實話，然後才能通過上述三個判決之一。
If necessary, they should be prepared to spend many hours in the meeting to arrive at a unanimous decision, for if they cannot come to a unanimous agreement, the case has to be left as unsettled, which is a very bad question mark to leave hovering over the communal life. The Commentary to Sg 8 suggests that if one side or the other seems unreasonably stubborn, the senior bhikkhus should lead the group in long periods of chanting to wear down the stubborn side.	如果有必要，他們應該準備好在會議上花很多時間來達成一致決定，因為如果他們不能達成一致意見，案件就只能懸而未決，在僧團生活中留下一個非常糟糕的問號。《僧殘》八的《義註》建議，如果一方或另一方看起來不合理地頑固，資深比丘應該帶領團體長時間念誦，以磨滅頑固的一方。
If, in the course of the interrogation, Y admits to an action that constitutes an offense but he refuses to see it as an offense (Mv.IX.1.3; Cv.XI.1.10), the case is not settled. However, this much of an admission allows the Community, if it sees fit, to suspend him from the Saṅgha at large (see BMC2, Chapter 20) until he sees the error of his ways and is willing to undergo the penalty for the offense.	如果在審訊過程中，Y 承認構成犯戒的行為，但他拒絕將其視為犯戒（《大品》.九.1.3；《小品》.十一.1.10），則案件未結案。然而，如此多的承認允許僧團在認為合適的情況下在整個僧伽中舉罪他（參見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第二十章），直到他看到自己的錯誤並願意接受犯戒的懲罰。
If, as a result of the formal meeting, the Community reaches a verdict that is later discovered to be wrong—the accused got away with a plea of innocence when actually guilty, or admitted guilt simply to end the interrogation when actually innocent—the Cullavagga allows the Community to reopen the case and reach a new verdict (Cv.IV.8). If a bhikkhu—learning that a fellow bhikkhu actually was guilty and yet got away with a verdict of innocence—then helps conceal the truth, he is guilty of an offense under Pc 64.	如果僧團正式會議的結果做出的裁決後來被發現是錯誤的——被指控者在實際上有罪時辯稱無罪而逃脫懲罰，或者在實際上無罪時承認有罪只是為了結束審訊——《小品》允許僧團重新審理案件並做出新的裁決（《小品》.四.8）。如果一位比丘——得知一位比丘同儕實際上有罪，但卻被判無罪——然後幫助隱瞞真相，那麼他就犯了《波逸提》六四的罪行。
Obviously, the main thrust of these guidelines is to prevent an innocent bhikkhu from being unfairly penalized. As for the opposite case—a guilty bhikkhu getting away with no penalty—we should remember that the laws of kamma guarantee that in the long run he is not getting away with anything at all.	顯然，這些指導方針的主要目的是防止無辜的比丘受到不公平的懲罰。至於相反的情況——有罪的比丘逃脫不受懲罰——我們應該記住，業的法則保證從長遠來看，他根本不會逃脫任何懲罰。
These guidelines supersede both aniyata rules except in one important detail: Ordinarily—except on Invitation days (see BMC2, Chapter 16)—if one bhikkhu brings a charge against another either in private or in a formal meeting, he first has to ask leave of the accused, and the accused has the right to deny him leave. However, if the charge is brought by a trustworthy lay follower, then these rules indicate that there is no need to ask or grant leave. One of the bhikkhus must take up the charge, and the accused must respond to it. The fact that the issue has already spread into the lay community means that the Community of bhikkhus must act.	這些指導方針取代了此兩條《不定》戒條，除了一個重要的細節：通常，除了自恣日（見《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十六章）之外，如果一個比丘在私下或在正式會議上對另一個比丘提出指控，他首先必須請求被指控者的許可，被指控者有權拒絕許可。然而，如果指控是由值得信賴的在家弟子提出的，那麼這些戒條表明不需要請求或批准許可。其中一名比丘必須接受指控，而被指控者必須對此做出回應。事實上，這個問題已經蔓延到在家眾，這意味著比丘僧團必須採取行動。
In addition to this point, these rules serve two other important functions:	除了這一點之外，這些戒條還有另外兩個重要功能：
1) They remind the bhikkhus that the Buddha at one point was willing to let the bhikkhus give more weight to the word of a female lay follower than to that of the accused bhikkhu. This in itself, considering the general position of women in Indian society at the time, is remarkable.	1）他們提醒比丘們，佛陀曾經一度願意讓比丘們更重視女性在家弟子的話，而不是被指控的比丘的話。考慮到當時印度社會女性的普遍地位，這本身就很了不起。
2) As we will see under Pc 44, it is possible under some circumstances—depending on the bhikkhu’s state of mind—to sit alone with a woman in a secluded place without incurring a penalty. Still, a bhikkhu should not blithely take advantage of the exemptions under that rule, for even if his motives are pure, his actions may not appear pure to anyone who comes along and sees him there. These rules serve to remind such a bhikkhu that he could easily be subject to a charge that would lead to a formal meeting of the Community. Even if he were to be declared innocent, the meeting would waste a great deal of time both for himself and for the Community. And in some people’s minds—given the Vibhaṅga’s general rule that he is innocent until proven guilty—there would remain the belief that he was actually guilty and got off with no penalty simply from lack of hard evidence. A bhikkhu would thus be wise to avoid such situations altogether, remembering what Lady Visākhā told Ven. Udāyin in the origin story to this rule:	2）正如我們將在《波逸提》四四中看到的，在某些情況下——取決於比丘的心態——與女人單獨坐在僻靜的地方而不受懲罰是可能的。然而，比丘不應該輕率地利用該戒條下的豁免，因為即使他的動機是純潔的，他的行為對於任何走過並在那裡看到他的人來說可能顯得不純潔。這些戒條旨在提醒這樣的比丘，他很容易受到指控，導致僧團召開正式會議。即使他被宣布無罪，這次會議也會對他本人和僧團浪費大量時間。在某些人的心目中，考慮到《經分別》的一般戒條，即在被證明有罪之前他是無辜的，人們仍然相信他實際上有罪，並且僅僅因為缺乏確鑿的證據而沒有受到任何懲罰。因此，比丘應該明智地完全避免這種情況，記住毘舍佉鹿子母在本戒條的起源故事中告訴優陀夷尊者的話：
“It is unfitting, venerable sir, and improper, for the master to sit in private, alone with a woman…. Even though the master may not be aiming at that act, cynical people are hard to convince.”	「大德，大師與一個女人單獨坐在一起，是不合適的，也是不恰當的……。縱然大師並非有意為之，但憤世嫉俗的人卻很難信服。」
Summary: When a trustworthy female lay follower accuses a bhikkhu of having committed a pārājika, saṅghādisesa, or pācittiya offense while sitting alone with a woman in a private, secluded place, the Community should investigate the charge and deal with the bhikkhu in accordance with whatever he admits to having done.	摘要：當一位值得信賴的優婆夷指控一名比丘在私密、僻靜的地方與一名女人單獨坐時犯下《波羅夷》、《僧殘》或《波逸提》罪時，僧團應調查該指控，並根據比丘所承認的行為來處理該比丘。

* * *

2	二
In case a seat is not sufficiently secluded to lend itself (to sexual intercourse) but sufficiently so to address lewd words to a woman, should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman on such a seat, so that a female lay follower whose word can be trusted, having seen (them), might describe it as constituting either of two cases—entailing communal meetings or confession—then the bhikkhu, acknowledging having sat (there), may be dealt with in line with either of the two cases—entailing communal meetings or confession—or he may be dealt with in line with whichever case the female lay follower whose word can be trusted described. This case too is indefinite.	如果某個座位不夠僻靜，不足以供其（性交）使用，但足以對婦女說出淫穢的話，如果任何比丘單獨與一名女人坐在這樣的座位上，以至於一位言詞可信的優婆夷，見過（他們），可能將其描述為構成兩種情況中的一種——《僧殘》或《波逸提》——然後比丘承認坐過（那裡），可以根據兩種情況中的一種來處理——《僧殘》或《波逸提》——或者依言詞可信的優婆夷所說來予以處理之。此情況也是不定。
This rule differs from the preceding one mainly in the type of seat it describes—private to the eye and private to the ear, but not secluded. Examples would be an open-air meeting hall or a place out in the open in sight of other people but far enough away from them so that they could not see one wink, etc., or hear what one is saying in a normal voice. Such a place, although inconvenient for committing Pr 1, Sg 1 & 2, or Pc 44, would be convenient for committing Sg 3 & 4 or Pc 45. As a result, the term woman under this rule is defined as under those rules: one experienced enough to know what is properly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd.	本戒條與前一條戒條的不同之處主要在於它所描述的座位類型——視線私密，聞聲私密，但並不僻靜。例如，露天會議廳或其他人可以看到的露天場所，但距離他們足夠遠，以至於他們看不到眨眼等，也聽不到別人用正常聲音說話。這樣的地方雖然不方便犯《波羅夷》一、《僧殘》一及二、或《波逸提》四四，但方便於犯《僧殘》三及四、或《波逸提》四五。因此，本戒條下的「女人」一詞如同那些戒條被定義為：一個有足夠經驗的人，知道什麼是適當的和不適當的言詞，什麼是淫穢和不淫穢。
Otherwise, all explanations for this rule are the same as for the preceding rule.	此外，本戒條的所有解釋與前一條戒條相同。
Summary: When a trustworthy female lay follower accuses a bhikkhu of having committed a saṅghādisesa or pācittiya offense while sitting alone with a woman in an unsecluded but private place, the Community should investigate the charge and deal with the bhikkhu in accordance with whatever he admits to having done.	摘要：當一位值得信賴的優婆夷指控一位比丘在不僻靜但私密的地方與一名女人單獨坐在一起時，犯下《僧殘》或《波逸提》罪行，僧團應該調查該指控，並根據比丘所承認的行為來處理該比丘。