尼薩耆波逸提（《捨墮》）

The term nissaggiya, used in connection with training rules, means “entailing forfeiture.” Used in connection with articles, it means “to be forfeited.” Pācittiya is a word of uncertain etymology. The Parivāra gives a didactic derivation—that it means letting skillful qualities fall away (patati) with a deluded mind (citta)—but the term is more likely related to the verb pacinati (pp. pacita), which means to discern, distinguish, or know. nissaggiya 一詞與學處一起使用，意思是「導致捨出」。與物品一起使用時，它的意思是「被捨出」。 Pācittiya 是一個字源不確定的字。《附隨》給了一個說教性的推導－它意味著讓善巧的品質隨著迷惑的心（citta）而消失（patati）－但這個術語更可能與動詞 pacinati （過去分詞 pacita ）相關，意思是辨別、區分、或知道。
Each of the rules in this category involves an item that a bhikkhu has acquired or used wrongly, and that he must forfeit before he may “make the offense known”—confess it—to a fellow bhikkhu, a group of bhikkhus, or to the Community as a whole. This confession is what clears him of the offense. In most cases, the forfeiture is symbolic. After his confession, the offender receives the item in return so that, as a donor’s gift, it does not go to waste. Even under the three rules requiring that the offender give up the item for good, the forfeiture protocols allow for the Community to benefit from the item, again as a way of preserving the donor’s faith. 此類別中的每條戒條都涉及比丘錯誤獲得或使用的物品，並且他必須捨出該物品，然後才能向一位同儕比丘、一群比丘或向整個僧團「坦白罪行」——懺悔之。此坦白懺悔使他洗清了罪行。在大多數情況下，捨出是象徵性的。犯戒者懺悔後，會收到該物品作為回報，這樣，作為施主的布施，它就不會被浪費。即使根據要求犯戒者永久放棄該物品的三項戒條，捨出行儀也允許僧團從該物品中受益，這也是維護施主信心的一種方式。
There are thirty rules in this category, divided into three chapters (vagga) of ten rules each. 此類別有三十條戒條，分為三品（vagga），每品十條。
One: The Robe-cloth Chapter 第一 衣品
1 一
When a bhikkhu has finished his robe and the frame is dismantled (his kaṭhina privileges are ended), he is to keep extra robe-cloth ten days at most. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
當比丘完成他的袈裟並且框架被拆除時（他的功德衣方便利益結束），他最多可以保留額外的袈裟布十天。超過此者，尼薩耆波逸提。
The origin story for this rule is retold as part of a longer narrative in the Mahāvagga (VIII.13.4-8). Because the context provided by the longer narrative is what makes it interesting, that is the version translated here. 本戒條的起源故事 作為《大品》中較長敘述的一部分被重述（八.13.4-8）。因為較長的敘述提供的上下文使它變得有趣，所以這就是這裡翻譯的版本。
“(The Buddha addresses the bhikkhus:) ‘As I was traveling on the road from Rājagaha to Vesālī, I saw many bhikkhus coming along loaded down with robe-cloth, having made a mattress of robe-cloth on their heads and a mattress of robe-cloth on their backs/shoulders and a mattress of robe-cloth on their hips. Seeing them, I thought, “All too quickly have these worthless men been spun around into abundance in terms of robe-cloth. What if I were to tie off a boundary, to set a limit on robe-cloth for the bhikkhus?”
「（佛陀對比丘們說：）『當我從王舍城到毘舍離的路上，我看到許多比丘帶著袈裟走過來，他們的頭上疊衣，背部/肩膀上束衣，腰間束衣。看到他們，我想：「這些無用的人過速墮衣奢侈。如果我劃定界限，為比丘的袈裟布設定限制，會怎麼樣？」
“‘Now at that time, during the cold winter middle-eight nights (the four nights on either side of the full moon in February, the coldest time of the year in northern India) when snow was falling, I sat in the open air wearing one robe and was not cold. Toward the end of the first watch I became cold. I put on a second robe and was not cold. Toward the end of the middle watch I became cold. I put on a third robe and was not cold. Toward the end of the final watch, as dawn rose and the night smiled, I became cold. I put on a fourth robe and was not cold. The thought occurred to me, “Those in this doctrine and discipline who are sons of respectable families—sensitive to cold and afraid of the cold—even they are able to get by with three robes. Suppose I were to tie off a boundary, to set a limit on robe-cloth for the bhikkhus and were to allow three robes.” Bhikkhus, I allow you three robes: a double-layer outer robe, a single-thickness upper robe, and a single-thickness lower robe (thus, four layers of cloth).’
「當時，在寒冷的冬季中八夜（二月滿月前後的四個晚上，印度北部一年中最冷的時間），下著雪，我坐在露天穿著一件袈裟，並不冷。初夜快結束時，我感到冷。我穿上了第二件袈裟，而不感到冷。中夜快結束時，我感到冷。我穿上了第三件袈裟，而不感到冷。後夜快結束時，黎明昇起，夜色明，我感到冷。我穿上第四件袈裟，就不冷了。我心裡想：「此法與律中，彼諸族姓子，對寒冷敏感、怕冷，連三件袈裟也能過。假設我要劃定界限，為比丘的袈裟設限制，並允許穿三件袈裟。諸比丘，我允許你們三件袈裟：雙層外衣、單層上衣、單層下衣（即四層布）。」
“Now at that time extra robe-cloth accrued to Ven. Ānanda, and he wanted to give it to Ven. Sāriputta, but Ven. Sāriputta was at Sāketa. He thought, ‘… Now what line of conduct should I follow?’ He told this matter to the Blessed One, (who said,) ‘But how long is it, Ānanda, before Sāriputta will come here?’
「當時，阿難尊者獲得了額外的袈裟布，他想把它送給舍利弗尊者，但是舍利弗尊者在娑竭陀。他想：『…現在我應該遵循什麼行為準則？』他把這件事告訴世尊，（世尊說：）『但是，阿難，舍利弗要多久才能來到這裡呢？』
“‘Nine days or ten.’
「『九天或十天。』
“Then the Blessed One… addressed the bhikkhus, ‘I allow that extra robe-cloth to be kept at most ten days.’
「然後世尊……對比丘們說：『我允許那件額外的袈裟布最多保留十天。』
“Now at that time extra robe-cloth accrued to the bhikkhus. They thought, ‘Now what line of conduct should we follow?’ They told this matter to the Blessed One, (who said,) ‘I allow that extra robe-cloth be placed under shared ownership.’”
「那時，比丘們獲得了額外的袈裟。他們想，『現在我們應該遵循什麼行為準則？』他們把這件事告訴了世尊，（世尊說）『我允許將額外的袈裟布置於共享所有權之下。』」
The offense under this rule involves two factors. 本戒條下的違犯涉及兩個因素。
1) Object: a piece of extra robe-cloth, i.e., a piece of cloth suitable to be made into a robe or other cloth requisite, measuring at least four by eight inches (fingerbreadths), that has not been formally determined for use or placed under shared ownership. This category includes finished requisites as well as simple pieces of cloth, but does not include robe-cloth belonging to the Community. 1）對象：一塊額外的袈裟布，即一塊適合製成袈裟或其他布料必需品的布料，尺寸至少為四乘八英寸（指寬），尚未正式決意使用或置於共享所有權之下。此類別包括成品必需品以及單純的布料，但不包括屬於僧團的袈裟布。
2) Effort: One keeps it for more than ten days (except during the allowed period) without determining it for use, placing it under shared ownership, abandoning it (giving or throwing it away); and without the cloth’s being lost, destroyed, burnt, snatched away, or taken by someone else on trust within that time. 2）努力：儲存十天以上（允許期限內除外）而未決意使用、置於共享所有權之下、放棄（贈送或丟棄）；在此期間，布料沒有丟失、毀壞、燒毀、被搶走或被其他信任的人拿走。
Object 對象
According to Mv.VIII.3.1, six kinds of cloth are suitable for making into cloth requisites: linen, cotton, silk, wool, jute (§), or hemp (§). The Sub-commentary adds that cloth made of any mixture of hemp with any of the other types of thread would be allowed under “hemp.” Applying the Great Standards, nylon, rayon, and other synthetic fibers would count as suitable as well. Unsuitable materials—such as cloth made of hair, horse-hair, grass, bark, wood-shavings, or antelope hide (and by extension, leather)—do not come under this rule. (For a full list of unsuitable materials, see Mv.VIII.28—BMC2, Chapter 2.) Mv.VIII.29 gives a list of colors—such as black, blue, and crimson—and patterns that are not suitable for robes but that, according to the Commentary, are suitable for things like bed sheets or for linings (inside layers?) in double-layer robes (see BMC2, Chapter 2). Pieces of cloth dyed these colors or printed with these patterns would come under this rule. 根據《大品》.八.3.1，六種布料適合製作布料必需品：麻布、棉花、絲綢、綿、黃麻（§）或火麻（§）。《複註》補充說，由火麻與任何其他類型的線的任何混合物製成的布料都可以算在「火麻」的允許下。應用《四大教示》，尼龍、人造絲和其他合成纖維也算適合。不適合的材料——例如由頭髮、馬毛、草、樹皮、刨花或羚羊皮（以及延伸而來的皮革）製成的布料——不屬於本戒條的範圍。（有關不適合材料的完整列表，請參閱《大品》.八.28 — 《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第二章。）《大品》.八.29列出了不適合袈裟的顏色（例如黑色、藍色和深紅色）和圖案，但根據《義註》，它適合床單或雙層袈裟的襯裡（內層？）（參見《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第二章）。染有這些顏色或印有這些圖案的布料會受本戒條管轄。
Mv.VIII.21.1 states that if a bhikkhu receives a piece of suitable cloth measuring four by eight fingerbreadths or more but does not yet plan to use it, he may place it under shared ownership (vikappana) until he has need for it. Once he decides to make use of the cloth, he must rescind the shared ownership (see Pc 59) before making it into a finished requisite (if it isn’t already). Once it is finished, he may then determine it for use (adhiṭṭhāna) or place it under shared ownership again, depending on the nature of the article: 《大品》.八.21.1規定，如果比丘收到一塊四乘八指寬或更大的適合的布，但尚未計劃使用它，他可以將其置於共享所有權（vikappana）之下，直到他需要為止。一旦他決定使用這塊布料，他必須在將其製成成品必需品（如果還沒有）之前取消共享所有權（參見《波逸提》五九）。完成後，他可以決意使用它（adhiṭṭhāna）或再次將其置於共享所有權之下，具體取決於物品的性質：
Each of the three basic robes, handkerchiefs, bed sheets, and the sitting cloth are to be determined, and may not be placed under shared ownership.
三衣中任何一件、手帕、床單、坐布必須決意，不得置於共享所有權之下。
A rains-bathing cloth (see NP 24) may be determined for the four months of the rainy season and is to be placed under shared ownership for the remainder of the year.
雨浴衣（參見《捨墮》二四）可以在雨季四個月內的決意，並在一年中的剩餘時間內置於共享所有權之下。
Other items of cloth may be determined as “requisite cloths.”
其他布料可以被決意為「必需布」。
(The procedures for determining and placing under shared ownership are given in Appendices IV & V.) （決意以及置於共享所有權的程序請參閱附錄四和五。）
Any cloth made of any of the suitable materials and of the requisite size counts as an extra cloth if— 由任何適合材料製成且具有所需尺寸的任何布料，如果滿足以下條件，則視為額外布料：
it has not been determined for use or placed under shared ownership,
尚未決意使用或置於共享所有權之下，
it has been improperly determined or placed under shared ownership, or
它被不正確地決意或置於共享所有權之下，或
its determination or shared ownership has lapsed.
其決意或共享所有權已失效。
Many of the cases in which determination and shared ownership lapse also exempt the cloth from this rule: e.g., the owner disrobes or dies, he gives the cloth away, it gets snatched away, destroyed (bitten by things such as termites, says the Commentary), burnt, lost, or someone else takes it on trust. There are a few cases, however, where determination and shared ownership lapse and the cloth does fall under this rule. They are— 許多決意和共享所有權失效的情況也使布料不受本戒條的約束：例如，所有者還俗或死亡，他將布料送人，布料被搶走，毀壞（《義註》說，被白蟻等東西咬）、燒毀、遺失或被其他人基於信任拿走。然而，在少數情況下，決意和共享所有權失效，布料確實屬於本戒條的範圍。他們是——
Under shared ownership: The first owner takes the cloth on trust, or the second owner formally rescinds the shared ownership. 在共享所有權下：第一個所有者基於信任拿到布料，或第二個所有者正式撤銷共享所有權。
Under determination: The owner rescinds the determination, or (if the cloth has been determined as one of the three basic robes) the cloth develops a hole. This latter case comes in the Commentary, which gives precise standards for deciding what kind of hole does and does not make the determination of the robe lapse: 在決意之下：擁有者撤銷決意，或（如果該布料已被決意為三衣之一）布料出現破洞。後一種情況出現在《義註》中，它給出了確定什麼樣的洞使或不使袈裟失效的精確標準：
1) Size. The hole has to be a full break (through both layers of cloth, if in the outer robe) at least the size of the nail on one’s little finger. If one or more threads remain across the hole, then the hole makes the determination lapse only if either of the two “halves” divided by the thread(s) is the requisite size.
1）尺寸。洞必須是一個完整的破洞（如果是在僧伽黎，則要穿過兩層布），至少要達到小指指甲的大小。如果一個或多個線仍然穿過該洞，則僅當被線劃分的兩個「半部」中的任何一個達到所需尺寸時，該洞才會使決意失效。
2) Location. On an upper robe or outer robe, the hole has to be at least one span (25 cm.) from the longer side and eight fingerbreadths from the shorter; on a lower robe, at least one span from the longer side and four fingerbreadths from the shorter. Any hole closer to the edge of the robe than these measurements does not make the determination lapse.
2）位置。在郁多羅僧或僧伽黎上，該洞距離較長邊至少一跨（25公分），距離較短邊至少八指寬；在安陀會上，距離較長邊至少一跨，距離較短邊至少四指寬。任何比這些測量值更靠近袈裟邊緣的洞都不會導致決意失效。
Because of these stipulations, the Commentary notes that if one is patching a worn spot—not a hole as defined above—more than the maximum distance away from the edge of one’s robe, the determination lapses if one cuts out the worn spot before applying the patch, but not if one applies the patch before cutting out the worn spot. If the determination lapses, it is an easy matter to re-determine the robe, but one must be mindful to do it within the time span allotted by this rule. 由於這些規定，《義註》指出，如果正在修補磨損的地方（不是上面定義的洞），超過距離袈裟邊緣的最大距離，並且在縫上補丁之前剪掉磨損的地方，則該決意失效。但如果在剪掉磨損的地方之前縫上補丁，則不會。如果決意失效，重新決意袈裟是一件容易的事情，但必須注意在本戒條規定的時間內進行。
Effort 努力
According to the Vibhaṅga, if one keeps a piece of extra robe-cloth past the eleventh dawnrise (except when the robe-season privileges are in effect), one commits the full offense under this rule. The Commentary explains this by saying that the dawnrise at the morning of the day on which one receives the cloth, or lets its determination/shared ownership lapse, counts as the first dawn. Thus the eleventh dawnrise would actually be the tenth dawnrise after one receives, etc., the cloth. 根據《經分別》的規定，如果在第十一個黎明[明相]過後後保留一塊額外的袈裟布（除了當袈裟季節特權[方便利益]有效時），那麼就完全違犯了本戒條。《義註》解釋說，在收到布料，或使其決意/共享所有權失效的那天早晨的黎明[明相]，算作第一個黎明[明相]。因此，第十一次黎明[明相]實際上是在收到布等等之後的第十次黎明[明相]。
Because neither the Canon nor the Commentary gives a precise definition of dawn or dawnrise, their exact meaning is a controversial point. The clearest definition of dawnrise—and the one that seems most consistent with the Canon’s use of the term—is in a sub-commentary called the Vinayālaṅkāra, which states that at dawnrise “a red band in the eastern direction and a whiteness in the remaining directions, due to the diffusion of sunlight, can be discerned.” In modern terminology, this corresponds to the onset of civil twilight. This is the definition followed in this book. Further, dawnrise is apparently the moment at which dawn begins, although this is a controversial point. For further discussion, see Appendix I. 因為《聖典》和《義註》都沒有給出黎明或黎明升起的精確定義，所以它們的確切含義是一個有爭議的點。黎明升起最清晰的定義——而且該定義似乎與《聖典》對該術語的使用最一致——出現在名為《律莊嚴》的複註中，其中指出黎明升起時「由於陽光的擴散，可以看出東邊有一條紅色帶，其餘方向則有一條白色帶」。用現代術語來說，這對應於民用曙暮光的開始。這就是本書所遵循的定義。此外，黎明升起顯然是黎明開始的時刻，儘管這是一個有爭議的點。進一步討論請參閱附錄一。
Mv.V.13.13 states that if one is informed of a gift of robe-cloth, the counting of the time span does not begin until the cloth has reached one’s hand. The Commentary to that passage insists that this means either when physically coming to one’s possession or when one is informed by the donors that the robe-cloth is with so-and-so or when one is informed by another to the same effect. However, this interpretation seems to directly contradict the passage it is commenting on, which expressly says, “There is no counting of the time span as long as it has not come to his hand”—“his” in this case meaning the bhikkhu’s. 《大品》.五.13.13規定，如果某人被告知一件袈裟布的布施，則直到布料到達某人的手時，才開始計算時間跨度。這段落的《義註》堅持認為，這意味著若非當某人實際到手擁有時，不然就是當某人被布施者告知袈裟布與某某人在一起時，或者當某人被另一個人告知同樣的效果時。然而，這種解釋似乎與它所註解的段落直接矛盾，該段落明確表示：「只要它沒有到達他的手中，就不計算時間跨度」——這裡的「他的」指的是比丘的。
Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if one miscounts the days or perceives a robe to be determined when it actually is not, one is not immune from the offense. The robe is to be forfeited and the offense confessed. 在這裡，感知並不是減輕處罰的因素。即使算錯了日數，或認為一件袈裟已被決意，而實際上並非如此，也不能倖免於犯戒。袈裟需被捨出，罪行需被懺悔。
If, before it has been forfeited, one uses a robe or piece of robe-cloth that deserves to be forfeited under this rule, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. This is one of only six nissaggiya pācittiya rules where the Vibhaṅga mentions this penalty—the others are NP 2, 3, 21, 28, & 29—but the K/Commentary extends the principle to all nissaggiya pācittiya rules: To use an unforfeited item that deserves to be forfeited incurs a dukkaṭa in every case. (We should add, though, that the use of gold or money acquired in defiance of NP 18 or 19 would carry a nissaggiya pācittiya if used in defiance of NP 19 or 20.) 如果在被捨出之前，使用了根據本戒條應被沒收的袈裟或袈裟布，則懲罰為《突吉羅》。這是《經分別》中僅有的提到了這種懲罰的六條《捨墮》戒條之一——其他的是《捨墮》二、三、二一、二八和二九——但K/《義註》將該原則擴展到所有《捨墮》戒條：使用應該被捨出但未捨出的物品在任何情況下，都會犯《突吉羅》。（不過，我們應該補充一點，如果使用違反《捨墮》一八或一九的規定而獲得的黃金或金錢，則如果用於違反《捨墮》一九或二十的規定，則將帶來《捨墮》。）
The Vibhaṅga also states that, in the case of an extra robe that has not been kept more than ten days, if one perceives it to have been kept more than ten days or if one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. This can be interpreted in one of two ways: There is a dukkaṭa simply in continuing to keep the robe, or a dukkaṭa in using it. The Commentary opts for the second interpretation. 《經分別》還規定，一件額外的袈裟在沒有保存超過十天的情形下，如果認為它已經保存了超過十天或有疑問，則懲罰是《突吉羅》。這可以用以下兩種方式之一來解釋：繼續保留袈裟是《突吉羅》，或者使用它是《突吉羅》。《義註》選擇了第二種解釋。
Robe-season privileges 袈裟季節方便利益
The fourth lunar month of the rainy season—beginning the day after the first full moon in October and lasting to dawnrise of the day following the next full moon—is termed the robe season, a period traditionally devoted to robe-making. In the early days, when most bhikkhus spent the cold and hot seasons wandering, and stayed put in one place only during the Rains-residence, this would have been the ideal period for them to prepare robes for their wandering, and for lay people who had come to know the bhikkhus during the Rains-residence to show their gratitude and respect for them by presenting them with gifts of cloth for this purpose. 陰曆雨季的第四個月的——從十月第一個滿月後的第二天開始，一直持續到下一個滿月日的次日黎明升起——被稱為袈裟季節，這是傳統上專門製作袈裟的時期。早期，大多數比丘在寒熱季節都在遊方，只有在雨安居期間才待在一個地方，此時正是他們為遊方準備袈裟的理想時期，而對於雨安居期間認識比丘的在家人為了表達對比丘的感激和尊敬，為此目的向比丘布施布料。。
During this robe season, five of the training rules—NP 1 & 3; Pc 32, 33, & 46—are relaxed to make it more convenient for the bhikkhus to make robes. Also, any cloth accruing to a particular monastery during this period may be shared only among the bhikkhus who spent the Rains-residence there, and not with any incoming visitors. 在這個袈裟季節，有五個學處－《捨墮》一 以及 三；《波逸提》三二、三三、四六－被放寬規定，以便比丘們更方便地製作袈裟。此外，在此期間，特定寺院獲得的任何布料只能與在那裡度過雨安居的比丘們分享，而不能與任何到來的訪客分享。
Under certain circumstances (see BMC2, Chapter 17) bhikkhus who have spent the Rains-residence are also entitled to participate in a kaṭhina ceremony in which they receive a gift of cloth from lay people, bestow it on one of their members, and then as a group make it into a robe before dawnrise of the following day. (Kaṭhina means frame, and refers to the frame over which the robe-cloth is stretched while sewing it, much like the frame used in America to make a quilt.) After participating in this ceremony, the bhikkhus may extend their robe season for an additional four lunar months, up to the dawn after the full-moon day that ends the cold season in late February or early-to-mid March (called Phagguna in Pali). During this period they may also take advantage of the additional privilege of not having to observe NP 2. However, a bhikkhu’s kaṭhina privileges may be rescinded—and his robe season ended—earlier than that for either of two reasons: 在某些情況下（參見《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第十七章），度過雨安居的比丘也有權參加功德衣[kaṭhina]儀式，在儀式中，他們從在家人那裡接受布料的布施，將其贈予其中一位成員，然後在第二天黎明升起前，群體將其製成袈裟。（ Kaṭhina 的意思是框架，指的是縫製袈裟布時將其拉伸的框架，很像美國用來製作被子的框架。）參加此儀式後，比丘們可以將他們的袈裟季節延長額外四個陰曆月，直到二月底或三月初至中旬，寒冷季節結束的滿月日之後的黎明（巴利語稱為Phagguna）。在此期間，他們還可以利用不必遵守《捨墮》二的額外方便利益[特權]。然而，比丘的功德衣方便利益可能會在此之前被取消——並且他的袈裟季節結束，出於以下兩個原因之一：
1) He participates in a meeting in which all the bhikkhus in the monastery, as a Community transaction, voluntarily relinquish their kaṭhina privileges. (This act is discussed under bhikkhunīs’ Pc 30—see BMC2, Chapter 17 and Appendix I.)
1）他參加了一次僧團羯磨會議，寺院裡的所有比丘自願放棄他們的功德衣方便利益。（此行為在比丘尼的《波逸提》三十中討論——參見《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第十七章和附錄一。）
2) He comes to the end both of his constraint with regard to the monastery (āvāsa-palibodha) and of his constraint with regard to making a robe (cīvara-palibodha). (See Mv.VII.1.7; Mv.VII.2 & Pv.XIV.6.)
2）他結束了對寺院（āvāsa-palibodha）的約束和對製作袈裟（cīvara-palibodha）的約束。（參見《大品》.七.1.7；《大品》.七.2和《附隨》.十四.6。）
a) A constraint with regard to a monastery ends when either of the following things happens:
a）當下列任一情況發生時，對寺院的約束結束：
—One leaves the monastery without intending to return.
—離開寺院，不打算再回來。
—One has left the monastery, planning to return, but learns that the bhikkhus in the monastery have formally decided to relinquish their kaṭhina privileges.
—離開寺院，打算返回，卻得知寺院的比丘們已正式決定放棄他們的功德衣方便利益。
b) A constraint with regard to making a robe ends when any of the following occurs:
b）當下列任一情況發生時，對製作袈裟的約束結束：
—One finishes making one’s robe(s).
—完成了製作自己的袈裟。
—One decides not to make a robe.
—決定不製作袈裟。
—One’s robe-cloth gets lost, snatched away, or destroyed.
—袈裟布遺失、被搶走或被毀壞。
—One expects to obtain robe-cloth, but—after not obtaining it as expected—one abandons one’s expectation.
—期望得到袈裟布，但—在未如期望得到之後—放棄期望。
Only if Point 1 happens, or both Points 2a and 2b happen, do one’s kaṭhina privileges lapse before the dawn after the full moon day marking the end of the cold season. 只有當第 1 點發生，或第 2a 點和第 2b 點同時發生時，功德衣方便利益才會在標誌著寒冷季節結束的滿月日後的黎明之前失效。
During the robe season, one may keep an extra piece of robe-cloth for more than ten days without committing an offense under this rule. Once these privileges lapse, though, one must determine the cloth, place it under shared ownership, or abandon it within ten days. If one fails to do so by the eleventh dawnrise after the privileges lapse, the cloth is to be forfeited and the offense confessed. 在袈裟季節期間，得多留一件袈裟十日以上，不犯本戒條規定。然而，一旦這些方便利益失效，就必須決意這塊布料，將其置於共享所有權之下，或在十天內將其放棄。如果在方便利益失效後的第十一個黎明升起之前未能這樣做，那麼布料將被捨出，並且罪行將被懺悔。
Forfeiture & confession 捨出 & 懺罪
To be absolved of the offense under this rule, one must first forfeit the robe-cloth kept more than ten days and then confess the offense. This may be done in the presence of one other bhikkhu, a group of two or three, or a Community of four or more. After confessing the offense, one receives the robe-cloth in return. This is the pattern followed under all the nissaggiya pācittiya rules except for the few in which forfeiture must be done in the presence of a full Community and under which the article may not be returned to the offender. (We will note these rules as we come to them.) 欲免除本戒條的罪行，須先捨出十日以上的袈裟布，然後懺悔罪行。這可以在另一位比丘在場的情況下進行，也可以是兩比丘或三比丘的團體，或是四比丘或更多比丘的僧團。懺悔罪行後，會收到袈裟布作為回報。這是所有《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）戒條所遵循的模式，除了少數戒條外，捨出必須在全體僧團在場的情況下進行，並且物品不得返還給犯戒者。（當我們遇到這些戒條時，我們會談到它們。）
The Pali formulae to use in forfeiture, confession, and return of the article for this and all the following rules are given in Appendix VI. We should note, though, that according to the Commentary one may conduct these procedures in any language at all. 附錄六中給出了本戒條以及以下所有戒條用於捨出、懺罪和歸還物品的巴利語公式。但我們應該注意到，根據《義註》，可以用任何語言執行這些程序。
In this and every other rule under which the article may be returned to the offender, it must be returned to him. According to the Vibhaṅga, a bhikkhu who receives the article being forfeited without returning it incurs a dukkaṭa. The Commentary qualifies this by saying that this penalty applies only to the bhikkhu who assumes that, in receiving an article being forfeited in this way, it is his to take as he likes. For the bhikkhu who knows that it is not his to take, the offense is to be treated under Pr 2, with the penalty determined by the value of the article. In passing this judgment, the Commentary is treating the act of accepting the forfeited article as a species of accepting an object placed in safekeeping. However, it has neglected to note that the act of forfeiture is worded in such a way that the offender is actually giving up ownership of the cloth; because the cloth then has no owner, it would not fulfill the factors for an offense under Pr 2. Thus it seems preferable to stick with the Vibhaṅga in saying that, in all cases, a bhikkhu who does not return the article being forfeited incurs a dukkaṭa. 在本戒條以及所有其他可以將物品退還給犯戒者的戒條中，必須將其退還給他。根據《經分別》，比丘收到被捨出的物品而沒有歸還，犯《突吉羅》。《義註》對此進行了限定，說這種懲罰只適用於比丘認為在收到以這種方式捨出的物品時，該物是他的可以隨心所欲地拿走。對於知道該物品不屬於他的比丘，該犯戒應根據《波羅夷》二處理，並根據該物品的價值確定懲罰。在作出這項判決時，《義註》將接受捨出物品的行為視為接受保管物品的一種行為。然而，它忽略了捨出行為的措辭方式，即犯戒者實際上放棄了布料的所有權；因為布料沒有主人，所以它不符合《波羅夷》二下的犯戒因素。因此，似乎最好堅持《經分別》的說法，即在所有情況下，不歸還被捨出物品的比丘犯《突吉羅》。
A bhikkhu who has received the robe-cloth in return after forfeiting it and confessing the offense may use it again without penalty, unless he keeps it as a piece of extra robe-cloth beyond ten more dawns. Thus the wise policy is to determine the cloth or place it under shared ownership immediately after receiving it in return. 比丘在捨出袈裟布並懺悔罪行後收到歸還，可以再次使用它而不受懲罰，除非他將其作為額外的袈裟布保留超過十個黎明。因此，明智之舉是在收到歸還後立即決意布料或將其置於共享所有權之下。
Non-offenses 不犯
In addition to the allowance to keep extra robe-cloth more than ten days during the robe season, the Vibhaṅga says that there is no offense if within ten days the cloth is determined, placed under shared ownership, lost, snatched away, destroyed, burnt, taken by someone else on trust, thrown away, or given away. 除了在袈裟季節保留額外袈裟布超過十天的開緣外，《經分別》說，如果在十天內，布料被決意、置於共享所有權之下、遺失、被搶走、毀壞、燒毀，被其他人基於信任拿走、丟棄或被給予出去，則沒有犯戒。
In connection with this last point, the Commentary discusses proper and improper ways of giving things away. The article counts as having been properly given if one says, “I give this to you,” or “I give this to so-and-so,” or “Take this, it’s yours,” but not if one says things like, “Make this yours,” or “May this be yours.” Apparently, if one simply hands the article over without saying anything to show that one is transferring ownership, it again does not count. As we noted above, perception is not a mitigating factor under this rule. If one gives extra robe-cloth away in an improper manner, then even though one may assume that the cloth has been given away it still counts as one’s own extra robe-cloth under this rule. 關於最後一點，《義註》討論了適當和不適當的給予東西的方式。如果有人說「我把這個給你」或「我把這個給某某人」或「拿著這個，它是你的」，那麼該物品就被認為是適當地給出的，但如果有人說這樣的話：「讓它成為你的」或「願這是你的」，則不算是適當地給予的。顯然，如果只是僅僅交出該物品，而沒有說什麼來表明正在轉讓所有權，那麼它就不算數。正如我們上面所指出的，根據本戒條，感知不是減輕懲罰的因素。如果以不適當的方式贈送額外的袈裟布，那麼即使也許認為該布已經被給予出去，但根據本戒條，它仍然算作自己的額外袈裟布。
Current practice 目前做法
As the origin story shows, the purpose of this rule was to prevent bhikkhus from having more than one set of the three robes at any one time. With the passage of time, though, gifts of cloth to the Community became more numerous, and the need for stringency in this matter became less and less felt. Exactly when spare robes became accepted is not recorded, although a passage in the pupil’s duties to his preceptor (Mv.I.25.9) shows that the practice of having a spare lower robe was already current when that part of the Canon was compiled (see Appendix X). Mv.VII.1 also mentions a group of wilderness dwelling bhikkhus who were “wearers of the three robes,” as if this were a special distinguishing characteristic. A number of passages in the Canon—including SN 16:8 and Thag&16:7—mention the practice of using only one set of three robes as special, and the Visuddhimagga (5th century C.E.) classes this practice as one of the thirteen optional dhutaṅga (ascetic) practices. 正如起源故事所示，本戒條的目的是防止比丘們在任何時候擁有多於一套三衣。然而，隨著時間的推移，向僧團布施的布料變得越來越多，越來越感覺不到在這件事上嚴格執行的必要性。備用袈裟被接受的確切時間沒有記錄，儘管弟子對其戒師的義務（《大品》.一.25.9）中的一段話表明，在編纂《聖典》的該部分時，擁有備用下衣的做法已經存在（參見附錄十）。《大品》.七.1也提到一群住在林野的比丘，他們「著三衣」，好像這是一個特殊的顯著特徵。《聖典》中的許多段落（包括《相應部》16:8經和《長老偈》&16:7）都提到僅使用一套三衣的修行是特殊的，《清淨道論》（公元五世紀）將這種修行歸為十三種可選的頭陀（dhutaṅga）行之一。
As we will see below, Pc 92 suggests that in the early days the under, upper, and outer robes were all nearly the same size, so there would have been no difficulty in washing one robe and using the other two while the first one dried. Later, when the compilers of the ancient commentaries greatly enlarged the size of the upper and outer robes after deciding that the Buddha was of superhuman height, getting by with just one set of three robes became less convenient. Thus many teachers at present suggest that even a frugal bhikkhu, when staying in monasteries, should use one spare lower robe or a spare lower and upper robe—so that he will have no trouble keeping his robes clean and presenting an acceptable appearance at all times—and save the three-robe dhutaṅga practice for when he is alone in the wilderness. 正如我們將在下面看到的，《波逸提》九二表明，在早期，下衣、上衣和外衣的尺寸幾乎相同，因此清洗一件袈裟並當其乾燥時使用另外兩件是沒有困難的。後來，當古代註釋書的編纂者認為佛陀具有超人的高度後，大大增加了上衣和外衣的尺寸，僅一套三衣就變得不太方便了。因此，目前許多導師建議，即使是節儉的比丘，在寺院居住時，也應該使用一件備用的下衣，或者一件備用的下衣和上衣—這樣他就可以毫無困難地保持袈裟清潔，並在任何時候都呈現出可接受的外觀—並將三衣頭陀行保留到他獨自在林野時。
At any rate, because only one set of three robes may be determined as such, spare robes—once they became generally accepted—were determined as “requisite cloths.” This point may be inferred from the Commentary’s explanation of this rule, and the Sub-commentary’s explanation of NP 7. The Commentary even contains a discussion of the views of various elders as to whether a bhikkhu who wishes to avoid the special rules surrounding the use of the three robes (such as the following rule) may determine his basic set as requisite cloths as well. The majority opinion—with only one dissenting voice—was Yes, although at present many Communities do not agree with this opinion. 無論如何，由於只有一套三件袈裟可以被決意為這樣，所以備用袈裟一旦被普遍接受，就被決意為「必需布」。這一點可以從《義註》對本戒條的解釋以及《複註》對《捨墮》七的解釋中推斷出來。《義註》甚至包含了對不同長老的觀點的討論，關於希望避免有關使用三衣的特殊戒條（例如接下來的戒條）的比丘是否也可以將他的基本三衣決意為必需布。大多數意見（只有一個反對聲音）是「可以」，儘管目前許多僧團不同意這一意見。
The Sub-commentary suggests an alternative way of dealing with spare robes: placing them under shared ownership and—because none of the three robes may be placed under shared ownership—calling them simply “cloth” (cīvara). This, however, plays havoc with Pc 59 and the general purpose of shared ownership in the Canon as a way of keeping cloth that is not being used. Thus the previous method—determining spare robes as requisite cloth—seems preferable. 《複註》提出了另一種處理備用袈裟的方法：將它們置於共享所有權之下，並且——因為這三衣都不能置於共享所有權之下——僅稱它們為「布料」（cīvara）。然而，這對《波逸提》五九和《聖典》中共享所有權的一般用途（作為保留不使用的布料的一種方式）造成了嚴重混亂。因此，先前的方法——將備用袈裟決意為必需布——似乎更可取。
In any event, ever since spare robes have been accepted, the effect of this rule has been mainly to deter a bhikkhu from hoarding up robe-cloth in secret and from letting a hole in any of his basic set of three robes go unmended for more than ten days. Nevertheless, the spirit of the rule makes it incumbent on each bhikkhu to keep his cloth requisites to a minimum. 無論如何，自從備用袈裟被接受以來，本戒條的作用主要是阻止比丘秘密囤積袈裟布，以及防止他的基本三衣中的任何一件出現破洞超過十天而不修補。然而，本戒條的精神使得每個比丘有責任將自己的布料必需品保持在最低限度。
Summary: Keeping a piece of robe-cloth for more than ten days without determining it for use or placing it under shared ownership—except when the robe-season privileges are in effect—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：將一塊袈裟布保存十天以上，而沒有決意使用或將其置於共享所有權之下（除非袈裟季節方便利益仍有效），是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
2 二
When a bhikkhu has finished his robe and the frame is dismantled (his kaṭhina privileges are ended): If he dwells apart from (any of) his three robes even for one night—unless authorized by the bhikkhus—it is to be forfeited and confessed.
當比丘完成他的袈裟並且框架被拆除時（他的功德衣方便利益結束）：如果他與他的（任何一件）三衣分開居住，即使是一晚—除非得到比丘們的授權—尼薩耆波逸提。
In the origin story here, a number of bhikkhus went off on tour, leaving their outer robes with their friends at the monastery. Eventually the robes became moldy, and the bhikkhus at the monastery were burdened with having to sun them to get rid of the mold. The Buddha thus formulated this rule so that bhikkhus would be responsible for looking after their own robes. 在起源故事的中，一些比丘外出旅行，把外衣留給了在寺院的朋友。最終，袈裟發霉了，在寺院的比丘們不得不將它們曬乾以除去黴菌。佛陀因此制定了本戒條，好讓比丘們負責照顧自己的袈裟。
The offense here consists of two factors: object and effort. 這裡的違犯由兩個因素組成：對象和努力。
Object: 對象：
Any one of the robes that a bhikkhu has determined as his basic set of three—the antaravāsaka (lower robe), uttarāsaṅga (upper robe), and saṅghāṭi (outer robe). This rule thus does not apply to spare robes or other cloth requisites. 比丘決意為基本三衣中的任何一件— 安陀會 antaravāsaka （下衣）、 郁多羅僧 uttarāsaṅga （上衣）和 僧伽黎 saṅghāṭi （外衣）。因此，本戒條不適用於備用袈裟或其他布料必需品。
Effort: 努力：
Greeting dawnrise at a place outside of the zone in which any of one’s robes are located, except when the exemptions mentioned in the rule are in effect. 在任何袈裟所在區域之外的地方迎接黎明升起[明相]，除非戒條中提到的豁免生效。
Dawnrise, as stated under the preceding rule, corresponds to the onset of civil twilight. In Thailand, this point is often measured in a practical way by looking at the palm of one’s hand as it is held out at full arm’s length: Dawnrise is the point in time when the major lines of the hand are visible by natural light. On a bright moonlit night, dawnrise is measured by looking at the foliage of trees: Dawnrise is the point when one can detect the green in the color of the leaves. For further discussion of some of the controversies surrounding dawn and dawnrise, see Appendix I. 黎明升起[明相]，如前一條戒條所述，對應於民用曙暮光的開始。在泰國，這一點通常是透過觀察伸出全臂長度時的手掌來實際測量的：黎明升起是在自然光下可以看到手部主要線條的時間點。在明亮的月光之夜，黎明升起的出現是透過觀察樹葉來衡量的：黎明升起是人們可以看到樹葉顏色呈現綠色的時刻。有關黎明和黎明升起的一些爭議的進一步討論，請參閱附錄一。
Zones 區域
This is the most complex facet of this rule. The zone where a bhikkhu must be at dawnrise depends on the type of location where his robes are placed, whether the property around the location is enclosed, and—if it is enclosed—whether it belongs to one or more than one kula. 這是本戒條最複雜的方面。比丘在黎明升起[明相]時必須所處的區域取決於他放置袈裟的地點類型、該地點周圍的所有物是否被封閉，以及——如果是封閉的——它是否屬於一個或多個 kula 。
“Enclosed,” according to the Commentary, means surrounded with a wall, a fence, or a moat. The Sub-commentary adds that a river or lake would also qualify as a type of enclosure, under the term moat. 根據《義註》，「封閉」是指被牆、柵欄或護城河包圍。《複註》補充說，河流或湖泊也符合護城河一詞下的一種封閉類型。
The term kula normally means clan or family, but in the context of this rule it has different meanings for the different types of locations. According to the Commentary, a village is single-kula if ruled by a single ruler, and multi-kula if ruled by a council—as in the case of Vesālī and Kusinārā during the time of the Buddha. (In the time of the Canon and Commentary, rulers were assumed to “own” or have the right to “consume” the territories they ruled.) At present, towns governed under a social contract—such as a town charter—would count as multi-kula even if the highest authority in the government is invested in a single individual. kula 一詞通常指氏族或家庭，但在本戒條的上下文中，它對於不同類型的地點具有不同的含義。根據《義註》，如果一個村莊由單一統治者統治，則為單kula；如果由議會統治，則為多kula—就像佛陀時代的毗舍離和拘尸那羅的情況一樣。 （在《聖典》和《義註》時代，統治者被認為「擁有」或有權「消費」他們統治的領土。）目前，根據社會契約（例如城鎮憲章）管理的城鎮算是多kula，即使政府的最高權力集中在一個人身上。
A building, a vehicle or a piece of land is single-kula if it belongs to one family, and multi-kula if it belongs to more than one (as in an apartment house). 若一棟建築物、一輛車或一塊土地屬於一個家庭，則為單kula；如果屬於多個家庭（如公寓），則為多kula。
According to the Sub-commentary, a monastery is single-kula if the people who initiated it belong to one kula—of either type, apparently—and multi-kula if they belong to several. 根據《複註》，如果發起寺院的人屬於一個kula（顯然是任何一種類型），則該寺院是單kula；如果他們屬於多個kula，則該寺院是多kula。
In some of the cases, the Vibhaṅga states that one should greet dawnrise within a particular area “or not more than a hatthapāsa (1.25 meter) away.” Unfortunately, it does not explicitly state what the hatthapāsa is measured from—the robes or the area—so there are different opinions as to what this passage means. The Commentary’s position is that in cases where the Vibhaṅga says that if the robes are kept in a certain area, one should either stay in that area or not more than a hatthapāsa away, the hatthapāsa is measured from the outside boundary of the area. For instance, if the robes are kept in a house in an unenclosed village, one is allowed to greet dawnrise anywhere in the house or in an area one hatthapāsa around the house. (This would allow for a bhikkhu to go outside to relieve himself at dawn without having to carry along his full set of robes.) However, in cases where the Vibhaṅga does not mention that one should stay in a certain area, and instead says simply that one should not be more than a hatthapāsa away—as in an unenclosed field or under a multi-kula tree—the hatthapāsa is measured from the robes themselves. 在某些情況下，《經分別》規定，應該在特定區域內「或不超過一個伸手所及 hatthapāsa （1.25 公尺）遠」迎接黎明。不幸的是，它沒有明確說明伸手所及 hatthapāsa 是從袈裟或區域來測量的，因此對於這段落的含義有不同的看法。《義註》的立場是，在《經分別》說如果袈裟存放在某個區域的情況下，那麼若非留在該區域，不然就是遠離該區域不超過一個伸手所及，該伸手所及是從該區域的外部邊界開始測量的。例如，如果袈裟存放在一個未封閉村莊的房子裡，那麼就可以在房子的任何地方或房子周圍一個伸手所及的區域迎接黎明。（這將允許比丘在黎明時外出解手，而不必攜帶全套袈裟。）然而，如果《經分別》沒有提及應該留在某個區域的情況下，而是僅僅說距離不得超過一個伸手所及—例如在一片未封閉的田野中或一棵多kula樹下—該伸手所及是從袈裟本身開始測量的。
Some have objected to the Commentary’s position as inconsistent and serving no purpose, and have proposed instead that the hatthapāsa be measured from the robes in every case. This, however, leads to redundancies: If, for instance, the robes are kept in a room and one is allowed (1) to stay in the room or (2) to be no further than a hatthapāsa from the robes, then either (2) negates (1)—in other words, one must stay within a hatthapāsa of the robes and not go elsewhere in the room—or else (1) makes (2) superfluous: One may stay anywhere in the room, without worrying about precisely where in the room the robes are located. In contrast, the Commentary’s position not only avoids these redundancies but also actually serves a purpose. In addition to the convenience mentioned above, there is another convenience in a multi-kula dwelling or a larger multi-kula building: If there is a small bathroom next to the room where the robes are kept, one may use the bathroom at dawn without having to take one’s robes into the bathroom. For these reasons, we will stick to the Commentary’s interpretation here. 有些人反對《義註》的立場，認為其不一致且沒有任何作用，並建議在任何情況下都應從袈裟來測量伸手所及。然而，這會導致冗餘：例如，如果將袈裟放在一個房間裡，被允許（1）留在房間裡或（2）距離袈裟不超過一個伸手所及，那麼若非（2）否定（1）—換句話說，必須留在距離袈裟一個伸手可及內，而不能去房間的其他地方—否則（1）就使（2）變得冗餘：可以留在房間的任何地方，而不必擔心袈裟在房間裡的確切位置。相較之下，《義註》的立場不僅避免了這些冗餘，而且實際上也達到了目的。除了上述的便利性之外，在多kula住所或較大的多kula建築物中還有另一個便利：如果存放袈裟的房間旁邊有一個小浴室，那麼可以在黎明時使用浴室，而無需帶袈裟進入浴室。出於這些原因，我們在這裡將堅守《義註》的解釋。
1. A village:
一、村莊：
a. Enclosed and single-kula: Having kept the robes within the enclosure, greet dawnrise in the enclosure. (The Vibhaṅga actually says, “in the village,” but as the Commentary to Mv.II.12.3 notes, when a village is enclosed, everything in the enclosure counts as “village,” and that is the most sensible interpretation for the Vibhaṅga’s statement here. This is the pattern followed throughout all cases of “enclosed and single-kula.”)
a. 封閉且單kula：將袈裟存放在封閉區域內，在封閉區域內迎接黎明升起。（《經分別》實際上說「在村莊裡」，但正如《大品》.二.12.3的《義註》所指出的，當一個村莊被圍起來時，封閉區域內的所有東西都算作「村莊」，這是對《經分別》此處的陳述最明智的解釋。這是所有「封閉且單kula」情況中所遵循的模式。
b. Enclosed and multi-kula: Greet dawnrise in the house where the robes are kept, in the public meeting hall, at the town gate, or one hatthapāsa around any of these places (§). If the robes are kept within a hatthapāsa of the path going to the public meeting hall, greet dawnrise in the public meeting hall, at the town gate, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two. If the robes are kept in the public meeting hall, greet dawnrise in the public meeting hall, at the town gate, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two.
b. 封閉且多kula：在存放袈裟的房子、公共會議廳、城門，或這些地方周圍的一個伸手可及處（§）迎接黎明升起。如果袈裟存放在通往公共會議廳的道路的一個伸手可及處之內，在公共會議廳、城門，或兩者中任何一處周圍的一個伸手可及處的區域內迎接黎明升起。如果袈裟存放在公共會議廳，則在公共會議廳、城門，或兩者中任何一處周圍的一個伸手可及處的區域內迎接黎明升起。
c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise in the house where the robes are kept or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§). (See 2 & 3 below for further details.)
c. 未封閉：在存放袈裟的房子裡或在它周圍的一個伸手可及處（§）的區域內迎接黎明升起。（更多詳情請參閱下面的 2 和 3。）
2. A dwelling with a yard:
二、有院子的住處：
a. Enclosed and single-kula: Having kept the robes within the enclosure, greet dawnrise within the enclosure.
a. 封閉且單kula：將袈裟存放在封閉區域內，在封閉區域內迎接黎明升起。
b. Enclosed and multi-kula: Greet dawnrise in the room where the robes are kept, at the entrance to the enclosure, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two (§).
b. 封閉且多kula：在存放袈裟的房間、封閉區域入口處，或在兩者之任一處周圍的一個伸手可及處（§）的區域內迎接黎明升起。
c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise in the room where the robes are kept, or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§).
c. 未封閉：在存放袈裟的房間內，或在其周圍的一個伸手可及處（§）的區域內迎接黎明升起。
3. A monastic dwelling (vihāra—according to the Sub-commentary, this includes entire monasteries):
三、寺院住所（vihāra—根據《複註》，這包括整個寺院）：
a. Enclosed and single-kula: Having kept the robes within the enclosure, greet dawnrise within the enclosure.
a. 封閉且單kula：將袈裟存放在封閉區域內，在封閉區域內迎接黎明升起。
b. Enclosed and multi-kula: Greet dawnrise in the dwelling where the robes are kept, at the entrance to the enclosure, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two (§).
b. 封閉且多kula：在存放袈裟的住所、封閉區域入口處，或在兩者之任一處周圍的一個伸手可及處（§）的區域內迎接黎明升起。
c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise in the dwelling where the robes are kept or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§).
c. 未封閉：在存放袈裟的住所內，或在其周圍的一個伸手可及處（§）的區域內迎接黎明升起。
4. A field, orchard, garden (park), or threshing floor:
四、田地、果園、花園（公園）、打穀場：
a. Enclosed and single-kula: Having kept the robes within the enclosure, greet dawnrise within the enclosure.
a. 封閉且單kula：將袈裟存放在封閉區域內，在封閉區域內迎接黎明升起。
b. Enclosed and multi-kula (e.g., many fields, etc., within a single enclosure): Having kept the robes within the enclosure, greet dawnrise in the enclosure, at the entrance to the field, etc., where the robe is kept, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either (§).
b. 封閉且多kula（例如，許多田地等，在單一封閉區域內）：將袈裟存放在封閉區域內，在封閉區域、田地入口等存放袈裟的地方，或在兩者之任一處周圍的一個伸手可及處（§）的區域內迎接黎明升起。
c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise within one hatthapāsa of the robes.
c. 未封閉：距離袈裟一個伸手可及處接黎明升起。
5. Buildings with no yard (such as a fortress or city apartment block):
五、沒有庭院的建築物（例如堡壘或城市公寓大樓）：
a. Single-kula: Having kept the robes within the building, greet dawnrise within the building.
a. 單kula：將袈裟存放在建築物內，在建築物內迎接黎明升起。
b. Multi-kula: Greet dawnrise within the room where the robes are kept, at the entrance (to the building), or in the area one hatthapāsa around either (§).
b. 多kula：在存放袈裟的房間內，在（建築物）入口，或在兩者之任一處周圍的一個伸手可及處（§）的區域內迎接黎明升起。
6. A boat (and by extension, other vehicles):
六、船（以及推而廣之，其他交通工具）：
a. Single-kula: Having kept the robes within the vehicle, greet dawnrise within the vehicle.
a. 單kula：將袈裟存放在交通工具內，在交通工具內迎接黎明升起。
b. Multi-kula (as in a commercial airplane or bus): Greet dawnrise in the room where the robes are kept or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§). (For this reason, a bhikkhu traveling in an airplane overnight should wear his complete set of robes or have it with him in his cabin baggage, rather than in his checked baggage.) The Thai edition of the Canon, unlike the others, adds that one may also greet dawnrise at the entrance to the boat or in the area one hatthapāsa around it.
b. 多kula（如在商用飛機或巴士內）：在存放袈裟的房間內，或其周圍的一個伸手可及處的區域內迎接黎明升起（§）。（因此，搭飛機過夜的比丘應該穿著整套袈裟，或者將其帶在隨身行李中，而不是放在托運行李中。）與其他版本不同，泰國版的《聖典》補充道：也可以在船的入口處或船周圍的一個伸手可及處的區域內迎接黎明升起。
7. A caravan (according to the Sub-commentary, this includes groups traveling by foot as well as by cart; group hiking trips would thus be included here):
七、房車（根據《複註》，這包括步行和乘車旅行的團體；因此此處包括團體徒步旅行）：
a. Single-kula: Having kept the robes within the caravan, greet dawnrise anywhere up to seven abbhantaras (98 meters) in front of or behind the caravan, and up to one abbhantara (14 meters) to either side.
a. 單kula：將袈裟留在房車內，在房車前後最多七個 abbhantara （98 公尺）以及兩側最多一個 abbhantara （14 公尺）的任何地方迎接黎明升起。
b. Multi-kula: Having kept the robes within the caravan, greet dawnrise within one hatthapāsa of the caravan.
b. 多kula：將袈裟留在房車內，在房車的一個伸手可及處內迎接黎明升起。
8. At the foot of a tree:
八、在樹下：
a. Single-kula: Having kept the robes within the area shaded by the tree at noon, greet dawnrise within that area. According to the Commentary, this doesn’t include spots where sunlight leaks through gaps in the foliage, but many Communities regard this stipulation as excessive.
a. 單kula：將袈裟留在中午時分樹蔭下的區域內，在該區域內迎接黎明升起。根據《義註》，這不包括陽光從樹葉縫隙洩漏的地方，但許多僧團認為這項規定太過度。
b. Multi-kula (e.g., a tree on the boundary between two pieces of land): Greet dawnrise within one hatthapāsa of the robes.
b. 多kula（例如，兩塊土地邊界上的一棵樹）：在袈裟的一個伸手可及處內迎接黎明升起。
9. In the open air (according to the Vibhaṅga, this means a wilderness area where there are no villages; the Commentary adds that this includes dense forests and uninhabited islands):
九、在露天（根據《經分別》的說法，這代表沒有村莊的荒野地區；《義註》補充說，這包括茂密的森林和無人居住的島嶼）：
  • Greet dawnrise within a seven-abbhantara (98 meter) radius of the robes. (Some have argued that this allowance should apply only when one is staying outside of a dwelling in the wilderness; as for a hut in the wilderness, they say, the zone under (3) should apply. The problem with this interpretation is what it would mean in practice: If a bhikkhu keeping his robes in a wilderness hut wanted to greet dawnrise in the open air, he would have to take his robes out of the hut. Then he would be free to wander 98 meters away from them. This would actually expose the robes to more dangers than if they were left in the hut. Thus it seems preferable to stick with the Vibhaṅga’s definition for this zone: any wilderness area where there are no villages.)
  • 在袈裟半徑七個 abbhantara （98 公尺）內迎接黎明升起。（有些人認為，這項開緣只應適用於住在荒野中的住處外的情況；至於荒野中的小屋，他們說，應適用第（3）項下的區域。這種解釋的問題在於它在實踐中意思是什麼：如果一個比丘將袈裟放在荒野小屋裡，想要在露天迎接黎明升起，他就必須將袈裟帶出小屋。然後他就可以自由地在距離袈裟 98 公尺的地方徘徊了。這實際上會讓袈裟比留在小屋裡面臨更多的危險。因此，似乎最好堅持《經分別》對這個區域的定義：任何沒有村莊的荒野地區。）
Exemptions 豁免
1) As with the preceding rule, this rule is not in force when the kaṭhina privileges are in effect. However—unlike the preceding rule—it is in force during the first month after the Rains-residence unless one has participated in a kaṭhina. 1）與前一戒條一樣，當功德衣方便利益有效時，本戒條不生效。然而，與前一戒條不同的是，除非參加過功德衣，否則它在雨安居後的第一個月內有效。
2) In the origin story to this rule, the Buddha gives permission for a Community of bhikkhus to authorize an ill bhikkhu to be separated from his robes at dawnrise throughout the course of his illness without penalty. (The procedure and transaction statement for this authorization are given in Appendix VIII.) 2）在本戒條的起源故事中，佛陀允許比丘僧團授權生病的比丘在他患病期間在黎明升起時與袈裟分開，而不受懲罰。（本授權的程序和羯磨文請見附錄八。）
The Commentary discusses how long this authorization lasts, and concludes that once the bhikkhu has recovered he should make every reasonable effort to get back to his robes as soon as possible without jeopardizing his health. The authorization then automatically subsides, with no further transaction being required to rescind it. If his illness returns, the authorization is automatically reinstated. 《義註》討論了這種授權的持續時間，並得出結論，一旦比丘康復，他應該盡一切合理努力盡快回到他的袈裟，而不危及他的健康。然後授權會自動消退，無需進一步的羯磨即可取消之。如果他的病情復發，授權將自動恢復。
3) In Mv.II.12.1-3, the Buddha directs the bhikkhus to declare a sīmā—or territory in which Community transactions are enacted—as a ticīvara-avippavāsa, which means that if a bhikkhu’s robes are anywhere within the territory, he may greet dawnrise at any other part of that territory without committing an offense under this rule. In the early days, when such a territory might cover many monasteries (the maximum allowable size is 3x3 yojanas, approximately 48x48 kilometers), this was a definite convenience for bhikkhus who had to leave their monastery to join in Community meetings at another monastery in the same territory. Because it was possible for such territories to include villages and homes as well, the Buddha added the extra stipulation that robes left in the houses of lay people lying in such a territory were not covered by this exemption. For further details, see BMC2, Chapter 13. 3）在《大品》.二.12.1-3中，佛陀指示比丘們宣告 sīmā —進行僧團羯磨之界—為 ticīvara-avippavāsa ，這意味著如果比丘的袈裟位於該界內的任何地方，他可在該界的任何其他地方迎接黎明升起，而不犯本戒條所訂的罪行。在早期，當這樣的界可能涵蓋許多寺院時（允許的最大面積為 3x3 由旬，大約 48x48 公里），這對於必須離開寺院前往同一界內另一寺院參加僧團會議的比丘來說絕對是一個方便。因為這些界也可能包括村莊和住家，所以佛陀添加了額外的規定，即留在此類界內的居士家中的袈裟不屬於這項豁免範圍。有關更多詳細信息，請參閱《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第十三章。
At present the custom is to designate much smaller areas as territories—usually only a fraction of the land in one monastery—and although these can also be designated as ticīvara-avippavāsa, this arrangement in such cases is not the great convenience it is in the larger territories. 目前的習俗是將較小的區域指定為界——通常只是一座寺院土地的一小部分——雖然這些也可以指定為 ticīvara-avippavāsa ，但在這種情況下，這種安排並不像在較大的界內中那樣方便。
Forfeiture & confession 捨出 & 懺罪
If a bhikkhu greets dawnrise outside of the zone where any one of his three determined robes is placed—except when the exemptions are in effect—the robe is to be forfeited and the offense confessed. Perception and intention are not mitigating factors here. If he thinks that he is in the same zone when he actually isn’t, if he thinks the robe is not determined when it actually is, or if he means to be in the same zone when circumstances prevent him, he incurs the penalty all the same. If he then uses the robe before forfeiting it and confessing the offense, he incurs a dukkaṭa. 如果比丘在放置決意的三衣中任何一件的區域外迎接黎明升起——除非豁免生效——該袈裟將被捨出並懺罪。在這裡，感知和意圖並不是減輕懲罰的因素。如果他認為自己在同一個區域，但實際上並不在同一個區域，如果他認為袈裟沒被決意但實際上已決意的，或者如果他在情況不允許的情況下仍打算在同一個區域，那麼他將受到所有懲罰相同。如果他在捨出並懺罪之前使用了袈裟，他就犯《突吉羅》。
The Vibhaṅga adds that, with regard to a robe that hasn’t been apart from one, if one perceives it to have been apart or one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. The Commentary does not explain these statements, but from the parallel situations under NP 1 it would seem that the dukkaṭa here is for using the robe. 《經分別》補充說，對於一件尚未分開的袈裟，如果認為它已經分開或有懷疑，則懲罰是《突吉羅》。《義註》沒有解釋這些陳述，但從《捨墮》一下的類似情況來看，這裡的《突吉羅》似乎是因為使用了袈裟。
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe are the same as in the preceding rule. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiture, see Appendix VI. Once the robe has been forfeited, its determination lapses, so when the bhikkhu receives it in return he must re-determine it for use or give it away within ten days so as not to commit an offense under the preceding rule. 捨出、懺罪、返還袈裟的程序，與前一戒條相同。有關捨出中使用的巴利公式，請參閱附錄六。一旦袈裟被捨出，它的決意就失效了，所以當比丘收到它時，他必須在十天內重新決意它以供使用或放棄它，以免犯前一戒條的罪行。
Non-offenses 不犯
In addition to the above-mentioned exemptions, there is no offense if, before dawn, the robe is lost, destroyed, burnt, or snatched away; if someone else takes it on trust; or if the bhikkhu gives it away or rescinds its determination. Because of this last allowance, the Commentary recommends that if a bhikkhu realizes he will not be able to get back to his robe before dawn, he should rescind the robe’s determination before dawnrise so as to avoid an offense, and then re-determine the robe after dawnrise has passed. 除上述豁免外，天亮前，袈裟遺失、被破壞、被燒毀或被搶走者，不犯；如果其他人基於信任拿走它，不犯；或如果比丘放棄或撤銷其決意，不犯。由於這最後的開緣，《義註》建議，如果比丘意識到他無法在黎明前回到他的袈裟處，他應該在黎明升起前撤銷袈裟的決意，以避免犯戒，然後在黎明升起過後重新決意袈裟。
A note on Thai practice 泰國做法注意事項
The author of the Vinaya-mukha missed the Sub-commentary’s discussion of monastic residences under this rule and so came to the conclusion that none of the texts discuss the question of zones in a monastery. As a result, he formulated his own system, treating each separate monastic dwelling as a lay dwelling with a yard. Furthermore, he neglected to discuss the question of what counts as single-kula and multi-kula in such a dwelling. In the absence of any other standard, Thai bhikkhus have come to view a dwelling of two or more bhikkhus, in which the bhikkhus come from different families, as a multi-kula dwelling. If the bhikkhus live in separate rooms, then the room where the robes are placed, plus a radius of one hatthapāsa around it, is the bhikkhu’s zone. If two or more bhikkhus are spending the night in a single room, each bhikkhu must greet dawnrise within one hatthapāsa of his robes. 《戒律入口》的作者錯過了《複註》對本戒條下寺院住所的討論，因此得出的結論是，沒有任何文獻討論寺院區域的問題。於是，他制定了自己的制度，將每一個單獨的寺院住所視為有院子的俗家。此外，他忽略了討論在這樣的住所中什麼算是單kula和多kula的問題。在沒有其他標準的情況下，泰國比丘們開始將來自不同家庭的兩個或兩個以上比丘的住所視為多kula住所。如果比丘住在不同的房間，那麼放置袈裟的房間，加上周圍一個伸手可及處的半徑，就是該比丘的區域。如果兩個或兩個以上的比丘在單一個房間裡過夜，每個比丘必須在他的袈裟的一個伸手可及處內迎接黎明升起。
Although there is no basis in the Canon or commentaries for this practice, it is so widely accepted in Thailand that the wise policy for anyone spending the night in the same dwelling or the same room with a Thai bhikkhu is to be aware of it and abide by it, to avoid the useless controversies that can arise over minor matters like this. 雖然這種做法在《聖典》或註釋書中沒有依據，但它在泰國被廣泛接受，因此對於任何與泰國比丘在同一住處或同一房間過夜的人來說，明智之舉是意識到這一點並遵守之，以避免因此類小事而引起的無用爭議。
Summary: Being in a separate zone from any of one’s three robes at dawnrise—except when one’s kaṭhina privileges are in effect or one has received formal authorization from the Community—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：黎明升起時分，與三衣中的任何一件處於不同的區域——除非功德衣方便利益有效或已獲得僧團的正式授權——是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
3 三
When a bhikkhu has finished his robe and the frame is dismantled (his kathina privileges are ended): Should out-of-season robe-cloth accrue to him, he may accept it if he so desires. Having accepted it, he is to make it up immediately (into a cloth requisite). If it should not be enough (§), he may lay it aside for a month at most when he has an expectation for filling the lack. If he should keep it beyond that, even when he has an expectation (for further cloth), it is to be forfeited and confessed.
當比丘完成他的袈裟並且框架被拆除時（他的功德衣方便利益結束）：如果他得到了非時的袈裟布，如果他願意的話，他可以接受。他接受了之後，應立即將其做成（成為布料必需品）。如果不夠（§），當他期望填補不足時，他最多可以將其擱置一個月。如果他保留的超出了這個範圍，即使他有（更多布料）的期望，尼薩耆波逸提。
There are two factors for an offense here. 這裡的犯戒有兩個因素。
1) Object: (a) out-of-season robe-cloth, made of any of the proper six kinds of material, in pieces measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths; 1）對象： （a）非時的袈裟布，由六種適當材料中的任何一種製成，尺寸至少為四乘八指寬；
(b) the cloth is not enough to make the cloth requisite one has in mind, but one expects to receive more. （b）布料不足以製做成心中要的布料必需品，但期望收到更多。
2) Effort: One keeps the cloth for more than 30 days, except when the kaṭhina privileges are in effect. 2）努力：將布料保留超過 30 天，除非當功德衣方便利益生效。
Object 對象
The Vibhaṅga defines in-season robe-cloth as any robe-cloth accruing to a bhikkhu—either from the Community, from a group, from relatives, from friends, from cast-off cloth, or from his own resources—during the first month after the Rains-residence if he has not yet participated in a kaṭhina, or during the time when his kaṭhina privileges are in effect if he has. Thus out-of-season cloth is any cloth accruing to him at any other time. However, the Vibhaṅga also notes that cloth accruing to a bhikkhu during the one-month or five-month robe season can count as out-of-season cloth if the donors dedicate it to that purpose. There are two reasons why they might want to do so. 《經分別》將當季袈裟布定義為比丘獲得的任何袈裟布料——無論是來自僧團、團體、親戚、朋友、廢棄的布料，還是他自己的資源——如果他還沒有參加過功德衣，則在雨安居後的第一個月內，或者如果他參加過，則在其功德衣方便利益生效期間。因此，非時的袈裟布是指他在任何其他時間獲得的任何布料。然而，《經分別》也指出，如果施主將其專門用於該目的，比丘在一個月或五個月的袈裟季節期間獲得的布料可以算是非時的袈裟布。他們想要這樣做有兩個原因。
1) Given the way “extra robe-cloth” is defined under NP 1, a gift of in-season robe-cloth can be kept—if it is neither determined nor placed under shared ownership—for ten days after the robe season ends. However, if the cloth is not enough to make into a robe, it cannot be kept—if neither determined nor placed under shared ownership—for the month allowed by this rule. However, as the K/Commentary to NP 24 notes, a gift of out-of-season cloth can be kept for the extra month under this rule. Thus if the donors want to provide the recipient(s) with that extra amount of time—which would be especially useful if they give the cloth toward the end of the robe season—they can dedicate the cloth given in-season as out-of-season cloth. 1）鑑於《捨墮》一中「額外袈裟布料」的定義方式，當季袈裟布料的布施可以在袈裟季節結束後保留十天（如果既沒有決意也沒有置於共享所有權之下）。然而，如果布料不足以製作成袈裟，則在本戒條允許的月份內，如果既沒有決意也沒有置於共享所有權之下，則不能保留它。然而，正如《捨墮》二四的 K/《義註》所指出的，根據本戒條，非時的布料的布施可以保留額外的一個月。因此，如果施主想為接受者（們）提供額外的時間（如果他們在袈裟季節結束時提供布料，這將特別有用），他們可以將當季給予的布料供養為非時的布料。
2) According to Mv.VIII.24-25, in-season cloth given to a Community may be shared among only the bhikkhus who spent the Rains-residence in that particular Community, and not among any visiting bhikkhus. The bhikkhunīs’ NP 2 tells of a case where well-behaved but shabbily dressed bhikkhunīs visited a Community of bhikkhunīs when the robe-season privileges were in effect; lay donors, wishing to help them, gave cloth to the Community with the stipulation that it be treated as out-of-season robe-cloth so that the visiting bhikkhunīs would also have a share. 2）根據《大品》.八.24-25，給予某個僧團的當季布料只能由在該特定僧團中度過雨安居的比丘分享，而不是與任何來訪的比丘分享。比丘尼的《捨墮》二講述了一個案例，在袈裟季節方便利益生效期間，行為端正但衣著破舊的比丘尼拜訪了比丘尼社團；在家布施者希望幫助他們，向僧團捐贈布料，並規定將其視為非時的袈裟布料，以便來訪的比丘尼也能分享。
Out-of-season cloth, if it is enough to make the cloth requisite one has in mind, is treated as extra robe-cloth under NP 1: During the period outside of the robe season it can be kept for at most ten days. If, however, it is not enough, and one expects to get further cloth from any source—again, from the Community, from a group, from relatives, from friends, from cast-off cloth, or from one’s own resources—it may be kept for up to 30 days with no need to be determined or placed under shared ownership. 非時的布料，如果足以製作成心中要的布料必需品，則被視為《捨墮》一下的額外袈裟布料：在袈裟季節之外的時期內，最多可以保留十天。然而，如果這還不夠，而且期望從任何來源獲得更多布料——同樣，從僧團、從團體、從親戚、從朋友、從廢棄的布料，或從自己的資源——它可能最多保留三十天，無需決意或置於共享所有權之下。
The further cloth, when received, has a life span of ten days, as under NP 1, and one must finish making one’s requisite within the time period determined by whichever cloth has the shorter life span. Thus, if one obtains the expected cloth during the first 20 days, the requisite must be made within ten days, this being the life span of the second cloth. If one obtains it after the 21st day, the requisite must be made before the original 30 days are up. 收到後的另一塊布料的使用壽命為十天，如《捨墮》一所示，並且必須在由壽命較短的布料決定的時間內完成必需品的製作。因此，如果在前二十天內獲得了預期的布料，則必須在十天內製作必需品，這就是第二塊布料的壽命。如果在第二十一天之後獲得，則必須在原來的三十天結束之前製作成必需品。
If the second cloth turns out to be of different quality from the first, one is under no compulsion to put the two cloths together to make up the requisite if one does not want to, and may continue waiting for further cloth, if one has further expectation of cloth, as long as the life span of the first cloth allows. The Commentary recommends that if the second cloth is of poorer quality than the first, one may determine it as requisite cloth; if the second cloth is of better quality, one may determine the first cloth as requisite cloth and start a new 30-day countdown from the day of receiving the second cloth. 如果第二塊布的品質與第一塊布的品質不同，如果不願意，則沒有強迫將兩塊布放在一起來製作成必需品，並且可以繼續等待更多的布（如果有期望更多的布），只要第一塊布料的壽命允許。《義註》建議，如果第二塊布的品質比第一塊布的品質差，則可以將其決意為必需布；如果第二塊布的品質更好，則可以將第一塊布決意為必需布，並從收到第二塊布之日起開始新的三十天倒數計時。
Effort 努力
Days are counted by dawns. If, by the 30th dawnrise after one receives the original cloth, one has not determined it, placed it under shared ownership, or abandoned it, it is to be forfeited and the offense confessed. The Sub-commentary adds that if at any time after the first ten days have elapsed one abandons any expectation for further cloth, one must determine the original cloth, place it under shared ownership, or abandon it before the following dawnrise. Otherwise, one commits an offense under NP 1. 日子是按黎明計算的。若在收到原始布料後第30天黎明升起時未決意、置其於共享所有權之下、或放棄，則需捨出並懺罪。《複註》補充說，如果在前十天過去後的任何時候，放棄了對更多布料的任何期望，則必須決意原始布料，將其置於共享所有權之下，或者在下一個黎明升起之前將其放棄。否則，即構成《捨墮》一下的犯戒。
As noted under NP 1, Mv.V.13.13 states that if one is informed of a gift of robe-cloth, the counting of the time span does not begin until the cloth has reached one’s hand. 正如《捨墮》一中所指出的，《大品》.五.13.13規定，如果被告知一件袈裟布的布施，則直到布料到達該人的手裡時才開始計算時間跨度。
As in the preceding rules, perception is not a mitigating factor. If one miscounts the dawns or thinks the cloth is properly determined, etc., when in fact it isn’t, there is an offense all the same. The Vibhaṅga states that, with regard to a robe that has not been kept beyond the allowable time, if one perceives it to have been kept beyond that time or if one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. As under the preceding rules, this penalty apparently applies to using the robe. 正如前面的戒條一樣，感知不是減輕處罰的因素。如果錯誤地計算了黎明，或者認為布料是正確被決意的，等等，而事實上並非如此，這仍然是犯戒。《經分別》規定，對於一件沒有超過允許時間保存的袈裟，如果認為它的保存時間超過了該時間，或者如果對此有疑問，則懲罰是《突吉羅》。與前述戒條一樣，這種懲罰顯然適用於使用袈裟。
As for out-of-season cloth received shortly before the beginning of the robe season, the countdown would begin when it is received, would be suspended throughout the robe season, and would resume at the robe season’s end. 對於在袈裟季節開始前不久收到的非時布料，倒數計時將從收到時開始，在整個袈裟季節期間暫停，並在袈裟季節結束時恢復計時。
However, as with many of the above issues, this situation rarely comes up in practice, as it is a simple enough matter to determine the original cloth as requisite cloth or place it under shared ownership until one has enough cloth to make one’s requisite, remove it from those arrangements to make the requisite, and so avoid having to worry about this rule at all. 然而，與上述許多問題一樣，這種情況在實踐中很少出現，因為決意原始布料為必需布或將其置於共享所有權之下是一件足夠簡單的事情，直到有足夠的布料來製作自己的必需品，從這些安排中移除它來製作必需品為止，因此根本不必擔心本戒條。
Forfeiture & confession 捨出 & 懺罪
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth, see Appendix VI. Once the cloth is received in return and is now enough for the requisite one has in mind, it is classed as extra robe-cloth under NP 1. If not, the 30-day countdown starts all over again. 捨出、懺罪、返還布料的程序同前述戒條。關於捨出布料時所使用的巴利語公式，請參閱附錄六。一旦收到返還的布料並且現在足以製成心中所需的必需品，它就會被歸類為《捨墮》一下的額外袈裟布料。如果不足，30 天倒數將重新開始。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if, before the 30 days are up, the original cloth is lost, destroyed, burnt, or snatched away; if someone else takes it on trust; or if the owner determines it for use, places it under shared ownership, or abandons it. And, as stated above, this rule does not apply when the robe-season privileges are in effect. 若在 30 天結束前，原始布料遺失、毀損、燒毀，或被搶走，並不構成犯戒；如果其他人基於信任拿走它；或者如果所有者決意它來使用、將其置於共享所有權之下，或放棄它。並且，如上所述，當袈裟季節方便利益生效時，本戒條不適用。
Summary: Keeping out-of-season robe-cloth for more than 30 days when it is not enough to make a requisite and one has expectation for more—except when the robe-season privileges are in effect—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：在不足以製成必需品且期望獲得更多的情況下，將非時的袈裟布料保留超過 30 天（除非袈裟季節方便利益有效時），是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
4 四
Should any bhikkhu have a used robe washed, dyed, or beaten by a bhikkhunī unrelated to him, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果任何比丘用過的袈裟被非親戚的比丘尼清洗、染色或搥打，尼薩耆波逸提。
The origin story here is one of the classics of Vinaya literature, although it is hard to say which is more memorable—the dry, matter-of-fact style with which the narrative relates the improbable events, or the reaction of the bhikkhunīs when they hear what has happened. 這裡的起源故事是戒律文獻的經典之一，雖然很難說哪一個更令人難忘—是用枯燥乏味的、實事求是的敘述方式講述不可能發生的事件，還是比丘尼當聽到發生什麼事時的反應。
“Now at that time Ven. Udāyin’s wife had gone forth among the bhikkhunīs. She often went to his place, and he often went to hers. One day he went to her place for a meal-donation. Dressing (§) early in the morning, taking his bowl and (outer) robe, he went to her and on arrival sat down in front of her, exposing his penis. She sat down in front of him, exposing her vagina. He, impassioned, stared at her vagina. Semen was released from his penis (§). He said to her, ‘Go and fetch some water, sister. I’ll wash my lower robe.’
「爾時，優陀夷尊者的妻子出家於比丘尼之中。她常去他那裡，他也常去她那裡。有一天，他去她的地方給食。一大早就穿好衣服（§），拿著缽和（外）衣，他去她那裡，到達後坐在她面前，露出他的陰莖。她在他面前坐下，露出自己的陰道。他熱情地盯著她的陰道。精液從他的陰莖泄出來（§）。他對她說：『妹，取水來。我要洗我的下衣。』
“‘Give it here, master. I’ll wash it.’
「『把它放這裡，大德。我來洗它。』
“Then she took some of the semen (§) in her mouth and inserted some of it in her vagina. With that, she conceived a child.
「然後她將一些精液（§）放入口中，並將其中一些精液插入陰道。就這樣，她懷了一個孩子。
“The bhikkhunīs said, ‘This bhikkhunī has been practicing unchastity. She’s pregnant.’
「比丘尼們說：『這位比丘尼一直在行非梵行。她懷孕了。』
“‘It’s not that I’ve been practicing unchastity.’ And she told them what had happened. The bhikkhunīs criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can this Master Udāyin get a bhikkhunī to wash his used robe?’”
「『並不是我一直在行非梵行。』她告訴她們發生了什麼事。比丘尼們批評、抱怨、散佈：『這位優陀夷大德怎麼能讓比丘尼來洗他用過的袈裟呢？』
There are three factors for an offense here: object, effort, and result. 這裡的犯戒有三個因素：對象、努力和結果。
Object: 對象：
A used robe. Robe, here, according to the Commentary, means any robe that has been dyed and properly marked (see Pc 58). This is its way of saying that the robe must be a finished cloth requisite of the type suitable for wearing, but need not be determined as one of one’s basic three robes. In other words, it could also be as yet undetermined, or a spare robe determined as a requisite cloth. 一件用過的袈裟。根據《義註》，此處的袈裟是指任何經過染色並適當地標記的袈裟（參見《波逸提》五八）。這是說，袈裟必須是適合穿著的成品布料必需品，但不必決意為基本三衣之一。換句話說，它也可能尚未決意，或者一件備用袈裟被決意為必需布。
Used, according to the Vibhaṅga, means worn around the body at least once. According to the Commentary, it can mean used in other ways—e.g., rolled up as a pillow or worn draped over the shoulder or head—as well. 根據《經分別》的說法，用過意味著至少在身體上穿著一次。根據《義註》，它也可以意味著以其他方式使用，例如捲起來作為枕頭或披在肩膀或頭上。
The Vibhaṅga adds that sitting cloths and bed sheets are grounds for a dukkaṭa; other requisites, grounds for no offense. 《經分別》補充說，坐布和床單則犯《突吉羅》；其他必需品，不犯。
Effort 努力
One tells an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash, dye, or beat the robe. 吩咐一位非親戚比丘尼清洗、染色或捶打袈裟。
A bhikkhunī, here, means one who has received the double ordination, first in the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and secondly in the Bhikkhu Saṅgha (see BMC2, Chapter 23). A bhikkhunī who has received only her first ordination is grounds for a dukkaṭa. Female trainees and female novices are not grounds for an offense. 此處，比丘尼是指已二部受戒的人，首先在比丘尼僧團受戒，其次在比丘僧團受戒（見《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第二十三章）。只受第一部戒的比丘尼則犯《突吉羅》。式叉摩那和沙彌尼則不犯。
Unrelated is explained by the Vibhaṅga as meaning unrelated back through seven grandfathers, either on the father’s or the mother’s side. The Commentary explains further that this means seven generations counted back starting from one’s grandfather. Thus all descendants of one’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers are counted as one’s relatives. In-laws, however, are not. This definition of unrelated applies wherever the Vibhaṅga mentions the word. At the time of the Buddha, perceived ties of kinship extended more widely than they do today, and a bhikkhu at present would be well advised to regard as his relatives only those blood-relations with whom ties of kinship are actually felt. 《經分別》將非親戚解釋為非繫屬追溯到七代，無論是父親那邊還是母親那邊。《義註》進一步解釋說，這意味著從祖父開始計算七代。因此，曾曾曾曾曾曾曾祖父的所有後裔都被算作親戚。然而，姻親卻不是。此非親戚的定義適用於《經分別》中提到該字的任何地方。在佛陀時代，人們所感知到的親屬關係比今天更廣泛，現在的比丘最好只將那些真正感受到親屬關係的血親視為他的親戚。
Perception is not an issue here. If a bhikkhu perceives a bhikkhunī as related when in fact she isn’t, he is subject to the full penalty all the same. If he perceives a related bhikkhunī as unrelated, or if he is in doubt as to whether she is related, he incurs a dukkaṭa in getting her to wash, etc., a robe. 感知在這裡無關。如果比丘認為比丘尼有親屬關係，而事實上她沒有親屬關係，那麼他仍然要受到全額懲罰。如果他認為一位有血緣關係的比丘尼沒有血緣關係，或懷疑她是否有血緣關係，他就會因為讓她洗袈裟等而犯《突吉羅》。
Telling, according to the Commentary, includes gesturing as well. Thus if a bhikkhunī is washing her robes, and a bhikkhu throws his used robe down next to her, that would fulfill the factor here. 吩咐，根據《義註》，也包括示意動作。因此，如果一位比丘尼正在清洗她的袈裟，而一位比丘將他用過的袈裟扔到她旁邊，那就滿足了這裡的因素。
Result 結果
The bhikkhunī washes, dyes, or beats the robe as requested. 比丘尼依要求清洗、染色或捶打袈裟。
Offenses 犯戒
A bhikkhu who tells an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash, etc., his used robe incurs a dukkaṭa in the telling. (For every effort she then makes toward washing it, the Commentary adds, he incurs an extra dukkaṭa, but there is no basis for this opinion in the Vibhaṅga.) If he tells her to wash it, then when the robe is washed it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. If he tells her to dye it, then when the robe is dyed it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. If he tells her to beat it, then when she has beaten the robe at least once with a stick or her hand, it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The bhikkhu incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya and a dukkaṭa if he gets her to do two of the three actions mentioned in the rule—e.g., washing and dyeing the robe; and a nissaggiya pācittiya and two dukkaṭas if he gets her to do all three. 比丘吩咐非親戚比丘尼洗滌等，他用過的袈裟會在吩咐時招致《突吉羅》。（《義註》補充道，對於她隨後為清洗它所做的每一次努力，他都會招致額外的《突吉羅》，但這種觀點在《經分別》中沒有任何基礎。）如果他告訴她清洗它，那麼當袈裟被清洗時，它需被捨出並懺悔《捨墮》罪。如果他告訴她要染色，那麼當袈裟被染色時，它需被捨出並懺悔《捨墮》罪。如果他告訴她要搥打它，那麼當她用棍子或她的手至少打過一次袈裟時，它需被捨出並懺悔《捨墮》罪。如果比丘讓比丘尼做戒條中提到的三種行為中的兩種，例如洗滌和染色袈裟，他就會招致一次《捨墮》和一次《突吉羅》。如果他讓她做所有這三件事的話，一次《捨墮》和兩次《突吉羅》。
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe are the same as under the preceding rules. Once the robe is returned, it counts as an extra robe-cloth under NP 1. 捨出、懺罪、歸還袈裟的程序，如同前述戒條。一旦袈裟被歸還，它就被視為《捨墮》一之下的額外袈裟布料。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if the bhikkhunī is related to the bhikkhu, if an unrelated bhikkhunī washes the robe unasked, if an unrelated bhikkhunī helps a related bhikkhunī wash it, if the robe has not yet been used, if one gets an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash another type of requisite (aside from a robe, a sitting cloth, or a bed sheet), or if one gets an unrelated female trainee or female novice to wash a used robe. 如果比丘尼與該比丘有親屬關係，如果一個無血緣關係的比丘尼未經要求就洗了袈裟，如果一個無血緣關係的比丘尼幫助有血緣關係的比丘尼洗了它，如果袈裟還沒有被使用過，如果讓一個沒有血緣關係的比丘尼清洗另一種必需品（除了袈裟、坐布或床單）或找一個無血緣關係的式叉摩那或沙彌尼來洗一件用過的袈裟，這並沒有犯戒。
The Commentary discusses the case of a bhikkhu who gives a used robe to a female trainee to wash: She takes it, becomes ordained as a bhikkhunī in the meantime, and then washes it. The verdict: He incurs the full penalty under this rule. For the fun of it, the Commentary then discusses the case of a bhikkhu who gives his used robe to a lay man to wash. The lay man undergoes a spontaneous sex change and becomes a bhikkhunī before washing the robe, and again, the bhikkhu incurs the full penalty. What lesson is intended here is hard to say. 《義註》討論了一位比丘將一件用過的袈裟交給式叉摩那清洗的案例：她接受了它，同時受戒為比丘尼，然後清洗它。判決：根據本戒條，他將受到全額懲罰。為了好玩，《義註》接著討論了一位比丘將他用過的袈裟交給一位在家男居士清洗的案例。在家男居士在洗袈裟之前經歷自發性的變性並成為比丘尼，而同樣地，比丘遭受全額懲罰。很難說這裡的教訓到底是什麼。
Summary: Getting an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash, dye, or beat a robe that has been used at least once is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：讓非親戚比丘尼清洗、染色或搥打至少使用過一次的袈裟是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
5 五
Should any bhikkhu accept robe-cloth from the hand of a bhikkhunī unrelated to him—except in exchange—it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果任何比丘從非親戚比丘尼手中接受袈裟布—除非作為交換—尼薩耆波逸提。
The reason behind this rule is expressed by a single sentence in the origin story: ‘It’s hard for us women to come by things.’ In the original version of the rule, the Buddha made no allowance for accepting robe-cloth in exchange, but this point was later added at the request of the bhikkhunīs. They had tried to exchange robe-cloth with the bhikkhus, who refused because of the rule as it stood at that time, and this upset the bhikkhunīs. As the Commentary explains, their poverty was what made them complain, ‘If the Masters are not on familiar terms with us even to this extent, how are we supposed to keep going?’ 本戒條背後的原因可以用起源故事中的一句話來表達：「我們女人很難得到東西。」在最初版本的戒條中，佛陀不允許接受袈裟作為交換，但這一點是後來應比丘尼的要求而加上去的。她們試圖與比丘們交換袈裟，但比丘們因為當時的規定而拒絕了，這讓比丘尼們很不高興。正如《義註》所解釋的那樣，她們的貧困使她們抱怨，「如果大德與我們的關係不熟悉到這種程度，我們該如何繼續前進？」
The offense under this rule is composed of two factors: object and effort. 本戒條下的犯戒由兩個因素組成：對象和努力。
Object: 對象：
Any piece of robe-cloth of the six suitable kinds, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. Other requisites are not grounds for an offense. 任何六種適合的袈裟布，尺寸至少為四乘八指寬。其他必需品不犯戒。
Effort 努力
The bhikkhu receives such cloth from an unrelated bhikkhunī and does not give her anything in exchange. 比丘從一位非親戚的比丘尼那裡得到這樣的布料，但沒有給她任何東西作為交換。
Unrelated bhikkhunī here is defined in the same terms as under the preceding rule: a bhikkhunī who has received the double ordination and is not related to the bhikkhu back through their great x 7 grandfathers. A bhikkhunī who has received only her first ordination, from the bhikkhunīs, is grounds for a dukkaṭa. Female trainees and female novices are not grounds for an offense. 此處非親戚比丘尼的定義與前一條戒條中的術語相同：已二部受戒的比丘尼，與該比丘的七代曾祖父沒有血緣關係。從比丘尼們那裡已一部受戒的比丘尼，犯《突吉羅》。式叉摩那和沙彌尼則不犯。
Perception here is not a mitigating factor: According to the Vibhaṅga, even if a bhikkhu perceives an unrelated bhikkhunī as related he is still subject to the penalty. If he perceives a related bhikkhunī as unrelated or if he is in doubt about whether she is related, he incurs a dukkaṭa in receiving a robe from her. 此處感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素：根據《經分別》，即使比丘認為一位非親戚比丘尼有親屬關係，他仍然會受到懲罰。如果他認為一位親戚比丘尼沒有血緣關係，或者懷疑她是否有血緣關係，他從她那裡接受袈裟時就會犯《突吉羅》。
The Commentary adds that even if one does not know that the robe comes from a bhikkhunī—as when many donors place robes in a pile for a bhikkhu, and one of the donors, unbeknownst to him, is a bhikkhunī—this factor is fulfilled all the same. If a bhikkhunī gives robe-cloth to someone else to present to a bhikkhu, though, the bhikkhu commits no offense in accepting it. 《義註》補充說，即使不知道袈裟來自比丘尼——就像許多布施者將袈裟堆成一堆送給比丘，而其中一位布施者在他不知情的情況下是比丘尼——仍然滿足了此一因素。然而，如果比丘尼將袈裟交給別人，讓其送給比丘，比丘接受它並沒有犯戒。
The Commentary also states that receiving need not be hand-to-hand. If a bhikkhunī simply places robe-cloth near a bhikkhu as her way of giving it to him and he accepts it as given, this factor is fulfilled. 《義註》也指出，接收不一定是手對手。如果比丘尼只是將袈裟布放在比丘附近作為布施給比丘的方式，而比丘接受它作為布施，那麼這個因素就滿足了。
As for the item given in exchange for the cloth, the Vibhaṅga states that it can be worth much more than the cloth or much less. Buddhaghosa quotes the Mahā Paccarī, one of the ancient commentaries, as saying that even if, in return for the cloth, the bhikkhu gives the bhikkhunī a piece of yellow myrobalan—a medicinal fruit, one of the cheapest things imaginable in India—he escapes the penalty under this rule. 至於用布料換取的物品，《經分別》指出，它的價值可能比布料高得多，也可能比布料低很多。佛音引用古代註釋書之一《Mahā Paccarī》的話說，即使比丘為了換取布，給比丘尼一塊黃色的訶子——一種藥用水果，是印度能想像到的最便宜的東西之一——他也逃脫了本戒條的處罰。
Offenses 犯戒
In making an effort to receive robe-cloth from an unrelated bhikkhunī without offering anything in return, a bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa. Once he has obtained the cloth, he must forfeit it and confess the nissaggiya pācittiya offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under the preceding rules. 當比丘試圖從非親戚比丘尼那裡接受袈裟布而不提供任何回報時，比丘犯《突吉羅》。一旦他獲得了布料，他就必須捨出它並懺悔《捨墮》罪。捨出、懺罪、返還布料的程序同前述戒條。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense: 沒有犯戒：
if the bhikkhunī is related; 如果比丘尼有親屬關係；
if the bhikkhunī is not related but the bhikkhu gives her something in exchange; 如果比丘尼沒有親屬關係，但比丘給她某物作為交換；
if the bhikkhu takes the cloth on trust; 如果比丘基於信任拿走布料；
if he borrows the cloth; 如果他借布料；
if he accepts a non-cloth requisite; or 如果他接受非布料必需品；或者
if he accepts robe-cloth from a female trainee or female novice. 如果他接受式叉摩那或沙彌尼的袈裟布。
Exchange 交換
The origin story to this rule is where the Buddha explicitly gives permission for bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, female trainees, male novices, and female novices to trade items with one another. NP 20 forbids bhikkhus from trading items with lay people and people ordained in other religions. 本戒條的起源故事，佛陀明確地允許比丘、比丘尼、式叉摩那、沙彌和沙彌尼互相交易物品。《捨墮》二十禁止比丘與俗人和其他宗教出家的人進行物品交易。
Summary: Accepting robe-cloth from an unrelated bhikkhunī without giving her anything in exchange is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：接受非親戚比丘尼的袈裟布而不給她任何東西作為交換，是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
6 六
Should any bhikkhu ask for robe-cloth from a man or woman householder unrelated to him, except at the proper occasion, it is to be forfeited and confessed. Here the proper occasion is this: The bhikkhu’s robe has been snatched away or destroyed. This is the proper occasion here.
如果任何比丘向非親戚男女居士索取袈裟布，除非在適當的場合，尼薩耆波逸提。此處適當的場合是：比丘的袈裟被搶走或毀壞。這是這裡的適當場合。
“Now at that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan was accomplished in giving Dhamma talks. A certain financier’s son went to him and, on arrival, bowed down to him and sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Upananda the Sakyan instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged him with a Dhamma talk. Then the financier’s son… 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?’
「爾時，優波難陀尊者釋迦子在說法方面頗有成就。一位金融家的兒子走到他面前，一到就向他敬禮，坐在一邊。當他坐在那裡時，優波難陀尊者釋迦子以佛法開示教導、督促、喚醒和鼓勵他。然後金融家的兒子……對他說：『大德，請告訴我，我能為您提供您需要的東西：袈裟布？缽食？住處？病資具藥物？』
“‘If you want to give me something, friend, then give me one of those cloths (you are wearing).’
「『如果你想給我一些東西，朋友，那就給我一件（你穿的）衣服。』
“‘I’m the son of a good family, venerable sir. How can I go about wearing one cloth? Wait till I go home. After going home, I will send you one of these cloths or a more beautiful one.’
「『大德，我是一位良家子。我怎能只穿一件衣服呢？等我回家吧。回家後，我會給你送一件這樣的衣服，或者一件更漂亮的衣服。』
“A second time… A third time, Ven. Upananda said to him, ‘If you want to give me something, friend, then give me one of those cloths.’
「第二次……第三次，優波難陀尊者對他說：『朋友，如果你想給我什麼東西，就給我其中一件衣服吧。』
“‘I’m the son of a good family, venerable sir. How can I go about wearing one cloth? Wait till I go home. After going home, I will send you one of these cloths or a more beautiful one.’
「『大德，我是一位良家子。我怎能只穿一件衣服呢？等我回家吧。回家後，我會給你送一件這樣的衣服，或者一件更漂亮的衣服。』
“‘What’s with this offer without wanting to give, friend, in that having made the offer you don’t give?’
「『朋友，提出了不想給予的邀請，但不想給予的這個邀請是怎麼回事？』
“So the financier’s son, being pressured by Ven. Upananda, left having given him one cloth. People seeing him said to him, ‘Why, master, are you going around wearing only one cloth?’
「所以金融家的兒子，受到了優波難陀尊者的壓力，給了他一件衣服就離開了。人們看見他就問他：『賢者，你為什麼只穿一件衣服到處走？』
“He told them what had happened. So the people criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘They’re arrogant, these Sakyan-son monks, and malcontent. It’s no simple matter to make a reasonable offer to them. How can they, after being made a reasonable offer by the financier’s son, take his cloth?’”
「他告訴他們發生了什麼事。於是人們批評、抱怨、傳播：『這些釋迦子僧人傲慢，不滿。向他們提出合理的邀請並不是一件簡單的事。在金融家的兒子提出合理的邀請後，他們怎麼能拿走他的衣服呢？』」
The factors for an offense here are three. 這裡的犯戒因素有三。
1) Object: a piece of any of the six suitable kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. 1）對象：六種合適的袈裟布料中的任何一種，尺寸至少為四乘八指寬。
2) Effort: One asks, except at the proper time, for such cloth from a lay person who is not related back through one’s great x 7 grandfathers. Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if one perceives the lay person to be related when in fact he/she isn’t, that fulfills the factor here. 2）努力：除非在適當的場合之外，向一位與自己的七代祖父沒有血緣關係的在家人索取這樣的布料。在這裡，感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素。即使認為在家人有血緣關係，但實際上他/她沒有血緣關係，這也滿足了這裡的因素。
3) Result: One obtains the cloth. 3）結果：獲得布料。
The proper occasions 適當的場合
Snatched away, according to the Vibhaṅga, refers to a robe snatched by anyone at all, even a king. This would cover cases not only where the robe has been stolen but also where it has been confiscated by a government official. Destroyed means burnt, carried away by water, eaten by such things as rats or termites, or worn out by use—although the Sub-commentary adds here that worn out by use means worn to the point where the robe can no longer offer proper covering for the body. 根據《經分別》的說法，被搶走是指被任何人，甚至國王，搶走的袈裟。這不僅涵蓋袈裟被盜的情況，還包括袈裟被政府官員沒收的情況。毀壞是指被燒毀、被水沖走、被老鼠或白蟻之類的東西吃掉，或者因使用而磨損——儘管《複註》在這裡補充說，因使用而磨損是指磨損到袈裟不再能提供適當遮蓋身體的程度。
If all of a bhikkhu’s robes are snatched away or destroyed, the Vibhaṅga says that he is not to “come” naked, which apparently means that he should not approach other people while naked. To do so incurs a dukkaṭa (as opposed to the thullaccaya Mv.VIII.28.1 imposes on a bhikkhu who chooses to go about naked when he has robes to wear). If a bhikkhu with no cloth to cover his body happens on an unoccupied Saṅgha residence, he is permitted to take any cloth he finds there—robes, sheets, mats, pillow cases, or whatever—to wear as a makeshift robe as long as he has the intention of returning it when he obtains a proper robe. Otherwise he should make a covering of grass and leaves. 如果比丘的所有袈裟都被搶走或毀壞，《經分別》說他不應該赤身裸體『來』，這顯然意味著他不應該赤身裸體接近其他人。這樣做犯《突吉羅》（與《大品》.八.28.1中相反，當比丘有袈裟時，他選擇赤身裸體，犯《偷蘭遮》）。如果比丘沒有衣服遮蓋自己的身體，碰巧在無人居住的僧伽住處，他可以拿走那裡找到的任何衣服——袈裟、床單、墊子、枕頭套或任何東西——作為臨時袈裟穿著，只要當他獲得一件合適的袈裟時，他打算歸還它。否則他應該用草和樹葉覆蓋。
The Commentary adds several points here: 《義註》在此補充了幾點：
1) If one picks leaves or cuts grass to make a covering for oneself under these circumstances, one is exempt from the penalty for damaging plant life under Pc 11. In other words, the allowance here takes precedence over the prohibition in that rule, rather than vice versa. (The Vibhaṅga does not clearly state which takes precedence over which.) Other bhikkhus are also exempt from that penalty if they pick grass and leaves to help make a covering for a bhikkhu whose robes have been snatched away or destroyed.
1）如果在這種情況下採摘樹葉或割草為自己做遮蓋物，則可以免除《波逸提》十一規定的破壞植物生命的懲罰。換句話說，這裡的開緣優先於該戒條中的禁止，而不是反之亦然。（《經分別》並沒有明確說明哪個比哪個優先。）其他比丘如果摘草和樹葉來幫助袈裟被搶走或毀壞的比丘做遮蔽物，也可以免受該懲罰。
2) If, after getting one’s makeshift robe from an unoccupied Saṅgha residence, one has to go a great distance before getting a proper robe, one may leave the makeshift robe with any convenient monastery as property of the Saṅgha.
2）如果從無人居住的僧伽住處獲得臨時袈裟後，必須走很遠的距離才能獲得合適的袈裟，則可以將臨時袈裟留在任何方便的寺院，作為僧團的財產。
3) If, under these circumstances, one asks lay people for cloth and receives cloth of a type or color that normally is not allowed, there is no offense in wearing it until one can obtain suitable cloth.
3）在這種情況下，如果向在家人要衣服，卻收到了通常不允許的類型或顏色的衣服，那麼在獲得合適的衣服之前，穿著它並沒有犯戒。
4) If one’s robes have been taken on trust by another bhikkhu or novice, they count as “snatched away” for the purpose of this and the following rule.
4）如果袈裟基於信任被另一位比丘或沙彌拿走，就本戒條和以下戒條而言，它們被視為「被搶走」。
The following rule adds extra stipulations on how much cloth one may ask for in circumstances like this. 以下戒條在這種情況下可以要求多少布料添加了額外的規定。
Offenses 犯戒
The act of asking for robe-cloth from an unrelated lay person not at the proper time entails a dukkaṭa. The cloth, once obtained, is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under the preceding rules. The Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth is given in Appendix VI. 在適當的場合向非親戚居士索取袈裟布的行為犯《突吉羅》。布料一旦獲得，將被捨出，並懺悔《捨墮》罪。捨出、懺罪、返還布料的程序同前述戒條。附錄六給出了用於捨出布料的巴利語公式。
If one perceives a related householder as unrelated, or if one is in doubt about whether he/she is related, one incurs a dukkaṭa in asking for and receiving a robe from him/her. 如果認為一位有親屬關係的居士沒有親屬關係，或者懷疑他/她是否有親屬關係，那麼向他/她索要及接受一件袈裟時，各犯一次《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if— 根據《經分別》，如果符合以下條件，則不犯戒—
one asks at the right time,
在適當的時候要求，
one asks from one’s relations,
向自己的親戚要求，
one asks from people who have invited one to ask for cloth,
向已邀請自己的人索取布料，
one obtains cloth through one’s own resources, or
透過自己的資源獲得布料，或者
one asks for the sake of another. (None of the texts state specifically whether another here includes only other bhikkhus, or bhikkhunīs and novices as well. We will assume that all co-religionists are covered under this exemption.)
為了另一個人而要求。（沒有任何文獻具體說明這裡的另一個是否只包括其他比丘，或者也包括比丘尼和沙彌。我們假設所有同宗教者都包含在這項豁免範圍內。）
The Commentary explains that this last point means two things: One may ask for cloth for the sake of another (co-religionist) (1) from one’s own relations or from people who have invited one to ask for cloth or (2) from the relatives of that (co-religionist) or from people who have invited him/her to ask. This point applies for all rules where one is allowed to ask for the sake of another. 《義註》解釋說，最後一點意味著兩件事：可以為了另一個人（同宗教者）索取布料（1）從自己的親戚或邀請自己索要布料的人，或者（2）從該人（同宗教者）的親戚或邀請他/她要求的人。這一點適用於所有允許為另一個人請求的戒條。
On the surface, it would seem that the allowance to ask for another should mean that one should also be allowed to ask from anyone for the sake of another bhikkhu whose robe has been snatched away or destroyed. However, the origin story to the following rule shows why this is not so: Lay donors can be extremely generous when they learn that a bhikkhu’s robes have been snatched away or destroyed, and it is important to place limits on how much cloth can be requested, and on how many bhikkhus can do the requesting, so as not to take unfair advantage of that generosity. 從表面上看，允許為了另一個比丘要求似乎意味著，也應該允許為了另一位袈裟被搶走或毀壞的比丘而向任何人請求。然而，以下戒條的起源故事表明了為什麼事實並非如此：當在家布施者得知比丘的袈裟被搶走或毀壞時，他們可能會非常慷慨，並且重要的是對可以請求的布料數量進行限制，以及有多少比丘可以提出請求，以免不公平地利用這種慷慨。
As for obtaining cloth through one’s own resources, the Sub-commentary notes that one should be careful to do it in such a way as not to commit an offense under NP 20. Again, this applies to all rules that contain this exemption. 至於透過自己的資源獲得布料，《複註》指出，應該小心行事，以免觸犯《捨墮》二十下的罪行。同樣，這適用於包含此豁免的所有戒條。
Summary: Asking for and receiving robe-cloth from an unrelated lay person, except when one’s robes have been snatched away or destroyed, is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：向非親戚的在家人索取和接受袈裟，除非他的袈裟被搶走或毀壞，是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
7 七
If that unrelated man or woman householder presents the bhikkhu with many robes (pieces of robe-cloth), he is to accept at most (enough for) an upper and a lower robe. If he accepts more than that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果那位非親戚的男居士或女居士向比丘獻上許多袈裟（袈裟布），他最多接受（足夠）一件上衣和一件下衣。如果他接受的超過該數量，尼薩耆波逸提。
This rule is a continuation of the preceding one, dealing with the protocol in asking for robe-cloth when one’s robes have been snatched away or destroyed. The origin story is as follows: 本戒條是前一條戒條的延續，處理當袈裟被搶走或毀壞時索要袈裟的行儀（禮節）。故事的起源是這樣的：
“At that time some group-of-six bhikkhus, having approached bhikkhus whose robes had been snatched away, said, ‘Friends, the Blessed One has allowed those whose robes are snatched away or destroyed to ask an unrelated man or woman householder for robe-cloth. Ask for robe-cloth, friends.’
「爾時，有六群比丘，接近袈裟被搶走的比丘，說道：『諸位朋友，世尊允許那些袈裟被搶走或毀壞的比丘，向非親戚的男女居士索要袈裟布。朋友們，索要袈裟布。』
“‘Never mind, friends. We have already received (enough) robe-cloth.’
「『沒關係，朋友們。我們已經收到了（足夠的）袈裟布。』
“‘We are asking for your sake, friends’ (§—reading āyasmantānaṁ atthāya with the Thai and Sri Lankan editions of the Canon).
「『朋友們，我們為你們索要』（§—在泰文版和斯里蘭卡版的《聖典》拼讀為 āyasmantānaṁ atthāya ）。
“‘Then go ahead and ask.’
「『那就去問吧。』
“So the group-of-six bhikkhus, having approached unrelated householders, said, ‘Bhikkhus have come whose robes were snatched away. Give robe-cloth for them.’ And they asked for a lot of robe-cloth. Then a certain man, sitting in a meeting hall, said to another man, ’Master, bhikkhus have come whose robes were snatched away. I gave robe-cloth for them.’
「於是，六群比丘來到非親戚的在家人面前，說：『袈裟被搶走的比丘們來了。給他們袈裟布。』並且他們要了很多袈裟布。那時，有一個人坐在集會處裡，對另一個人說：『賢者，袈裟被搶走的比丘們來了。我給了他們袈裟布。』
“And he said, ‘I gave, too.’
「他說，『我也給了。』
“And another said, ‘I gave, too.’
「另一位說，『我也給了。』
“So they criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks, not knowing moderation, ask for a lot of robe-cloth? Will the Sakyan-son monks deal in the cloth business? Or will they set up a shop?’”
「於是他們批評、抱怨、散播：『這些沙門釋子不知節制，怎麼能要那麼多袈裟布呢？沙門釋子將做布料生意嗎？或者他們會開一家商店嗎？』」
Protocol 行儀
The Vibhaṅga states that when a bhikkhu’s robes are snatched away or destroyed, the amount of cloth he may ask for and accept from an unrelated householder who has not previously invited him to ask for cloth depends on the number of robes snatched away or destroyed. If three, he may ask for and accept only enough for two. If two, he may ask for and accept only enough for one. If one, he should not ask for any cloth at all. 《經分別》規定，當比丘的袈裟被搶走或毀壞時，他可以向先前未曾邀請他索要布料的非親戚居士索要和接受布匹的數量，取決於被搶走或毀壞的袈裟的數量。如果是三件，他可以要求並只接受足夠兩件的份量。如果是兩件，他以要求並只接受足夠一件的量。如果是一件，他根本不該索取任何布料。
The K/Commentary mentions that these stipulations apply only when robes from one’s determined set of three are snatched away or destroyed. The way it phrases this restriction suggests that if one’s spare robes are snatched away or destroyed, one has no right to ask for robe-cloth at all. The Sub-commentary, though, interprets this restriction not as a restriction but as an allowance opening a loophole so that if one loses any of one’s spare robes, one may ask for as much cloth as one likes. It then accuses the K/Commentary of contradicting the Canon and Commentary, and of ignoring the purpose of the rule, which is to teach moderation and fewness of wants. Its conclusion: The protocol applies when any of one’s robes are snatched away or destroyed—whether undetermined, determined as the basic set of three, or determined as requisite cloths. K/《義註》提到，這些規定僅適用於決意的三衣被搶走或毀壞的情況。這種限制的措辭方式表明，如果備用袈裟被搶走或毀壞，那麼他根本沒有權利索要袈裟布。然而，《複註》將這一限制解釋為不是一種限制，而是一種開緣，打開了一個漏洞，這樣如果丟失了任何一件備用袈裟，想要求多少布料都可以。然後，它指責K/《義註》與《聖典》和《義註》相矛盾，並忽略了本戒條的目的，即教導節制和少欲。結論是：當任何一件袈裟被搶走或毀壞時，本行儀都適用——無論是未決意的、決意為基本三衣，還是決意為必需布。
If, however, we recall that originally each bhikkhu had only one set of three robes, and that the allowance in the preceding rule was to relieve the hardship of having little or nothing to wear, we can agree with the K/Commentary’s interpretation: that the allowance in the preceding rule applies only when robes from one’s basic set of three are snatched away or destroyed, and that this is the case we are concerned with here. If one’s spare robes get snatched away or destroyed, one may not make use of the allowance to ask for robe-cloth at all. 然而，如果我們記得最初每個比丘只有一套三衣 ，而前述戒條中的開緣是為了減輕幾乎沒有或沒有衣服可穿的困難，我們就可以同意K/《義註》的解釋：前述戒條中的開緣僅適用於基本的三衣被搶走或毀壞時，這就是我們這裡關注的情況。如果備用袈裟被搶走或毀壞，根本不可以用這個開緣來索取袈裟布。
The Vibhaṅga states further that if the householder presents one with a great deal of cloth, with the invitation to take as much as one likes, one should take only enough cloth to make the allowable number of robes. The non-offense clauses add that one may take excess cloth if one promises to return the excess when one has finished making one’s robe(s). And if the donor tells one to keep the excess, one may do so without penalty. 《經分別》進一步指出，如果居士贈送大量布料，並邀請拿取任意數量的布料，則應該只拿足夠製作允許袈裟數量的布料。不犯條款還補充說，如果承諾在完成袈裟製作後歸還多餘的布料，則可以拿走多餘的布料。如果布施者告訴說保留多餘的部分，則可以這樣做而不會受到懲罰。
The factors of the offense for overstepping the bounds of this protocol are three. 違反本行儀規定的犯戒行為的要素有三。
1) Object: any piece of the six kinds of suitable robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. 1）對象：六種合適的袈裟布中的任何一件，尺寸至少為四乘八指寬。
2) Effort: One asks for more than the allowable amount of robe-cloth from an unrelated householder who has not previously made an invitation to ask. Perception is not a mitigating factor here: Even if one perceives the householder to be related when in fact he/she isn’t—or feels that he/she would be happy to offer the excess cloth even though he/she has given no previous invitation to ask—this factor is fulfilled all the same. 2）努力：向一位沒有親屬關係的居士索取超過允許數量的袈裟布，而該居士以前沒有提出過邀請詢問。在這裡，感知不是一個減輕懲罰的因素：即使認為居士有親戚關係，但實際上他/她沒有，或者感覺他/她很樂意提供多餘的布料，即使他/她以前沒有提出過邀請詢問——這個因素仍然得到滿足。
3) Result: One obtains the excess robe-cloth. 3）結果：獲得過量的袈裟布。
The offenses here are as follows: a dukkaṭa for asking in the way that fulfills the factor of effort, and a nissaggiya pācittiya when all three factors are fulfilled. The procedures to follow in forfeiture, confession, and receiving the cloth in return are the same as under the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth, see Appendix VI. 這裡的犯戒如下：以滿足努力因素的方式索取，犯《突吉羅》，以及當所有三個因素都滿足時，犯《捨墮》。捨出、懺罪、返還布料時所遵循的程序，與前述戒條相同。關於捨出布料時所使用的巴利語公式，請參閱附錄六。
If one perceives a related householder as unrelated, or if one is in doubt about whether he/she is related, one incurs a dukkaṭa in asking for and obtaining excess robe-cloth from him/her. 如果認為一位有親屬關係的居士沒有親屬關係，或懷疑他/她是否有親屬關係，那麼向他/她索取及獲得過量的袈裟布時，各犯一次《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses 不犯
In addition to the two cases mentioned above—one takes excess cloth with the promise to return the excess when one has finished one’s robe(s), and the donors tell one to keep the excess—there is no offense in taking excess cloth if: 除了上述兩種情況——拿走過量的布，並承諾在完成袈裟後歸還過量的部分，布施者告訴說保留過量的部分——在以下情況下，拿過量的布並沒有犯戒：
the donors are offering cloth for reasons other than that one’s robes were snatched away or destroyed (e.g., they are impressed with one’s learning, says the Commentary);
布施者提供布料的原因並非是袈裟被搶走或毀壞（例如，《義註》說，他們對某人的學識印象深刻）；
one is asking from one’s relatives or people who have previously made one an invitation to ask for cloth (before one’s robes were snatched away or destroyed, says the Sub-commentary);
向自己的親戚或以前提出邀請詢問的人索取布料（《複註》說，在袈裟被搶走或毀壞之前）；
or one obtains the cloth by means of one’s own resources.
或以自己的資源獲得布料。
The Commentary calls attention to the fact that the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses make no mention of asking for the sake of another. It then draws the conclusion, based on the fact that the rule was formulated in response to bhikkhus’ requesting excess cloth for the sake of others, that in the circumstances mentioned in this rule, one may not ask for excess cloth for the sake of others. The Sub-commentary takes issue with this, and presents three arguments for its case, with the third argument being the most compelling: If asking for another’s sake is not allowable here, it should also not be allowable in the preceding rule. However, the Sub-commentary misses the point of the origin story, which is that lay donors can be especially generous when they learn that a bhikkhu’s robes have been snatched away or lost. If all other bhikkhus could request cloth for his sake, there is no limit to the amount of cloth they could request, and this would be an unfair exploitation of the donors’ generosity. 《義註》提醒注意這樣一個事實，即《經分別》的不犯條款沒有提及為他人而請求。基於本戒條是針對比丘為他人索取多餘布匹而制定的事實，得出結論：在本戒條所述的情況下，不得為他人索取多餘布匹。《複註》對此提出了異議，並提出了三個論點，其中第三個論點最引人注目：如果這裡不允許為他人請求，那麼在前面的戒條中也應該不允許。然而，《複註》忽略了起源故事的要點，即當在家布施者得知比丘的袈裟被搶走或丟失時，他們會特別慷慨。如果所有其他比丘都可以為他索取布匹，那麼他們可以索取布匹的數量就沒有限制，這將是對布施者慷慨行為的不公平剝削。
Summary: Asking for and receiving excess robe-cloth from unrelated lay people when one’s robes have been snatched away or destroyed is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：當袈裟被搶走或毀壞時，向非親戚的在家人索要並接受多餘的袈裟布料，是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
8 八
In case a man or woman householder unrelated (to the bhikkhu) prepares a robe fund for the sake of a bhikkhu, thinking, “Having purchased a robe with this robe fund, I will clothe the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe”: If the bhikkhu, not previously invited, approaching (the householder) should make a stipulation with regard to the robe, saying, “It would be good indeed, sir, if you clothed me (with a robe), having purchased a robe of such-and-such a sort with this robe fund”—out of a desire for something fine—it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果（與比丘）非親戚的男女居士為比丘準備袈裟資金，心想：「用此袈裟資金購買了袈裟後，我將給名叫某某的比丘穿上袈裟。」：如果比丘，未經事先邀請，來（居士）對袈裟作出規定，說道：「先生，如果您用這個袈裟資金，購買了一件這樣或那樣袈裟，給我穿上（袈裟），那就太好了。」出於對美好事物的渴望，尼薩耆波逸提。
“Now at that time a certain householder said to his wife, ‘I will clothe Master Upananda with a robe.’ A certain bhikkhu on his alms round overheard the man saying this. So he went to Ven. Upananda the Sakyan and on arrival said to him, ‘You have a lot of merit, friend Upananda. In that place over there a certain man said to his wife, ‘I will clothe Master Upananda with a robe.’
「爾時，有一位居士對他的妻子說：『我要給優波難陀大德穿上袈裟。』有一位正在托缽的比丘無意中聽到那人這樣說。於是他就去找釋迦子優波難陀尊者，抵達後對他說：『朋友優波難陀，你有很多功德。在那裡，有一個人對他的妻子說：『我要給優波難陀大德穿上袈裟。』
“‘He’s my supporter, my friend.’
「『他是我的支持者（檀越），我的朋友。』
“So Ven. Upananda the Sakyan went to the man and on arrival said to him, ‘My friend, is it true that you want to clothe me with a robe?’
「所以釋迦子優波難陀尊者來到那人那裡，一到就對他說：『我的朋友，你真的想給我穿袈裟嗎？』
“‘Now, wasn’t I just thinking, “I will clothe Master Upananda with a robe”?’
「『現在，我不是在想：「我要給優波難陀大德穿上袈裟」嗎？』
“‘Well, if you want to clothe me with a robe, clothe me with a robe like this. What use is it to me to be clothed with a robe I won’t use?’
「『好吧，如果你想給我穿上一件袈裟，就給我穿上這樣的一件袈裟吧。穿一件我不會用的袈裟對我來說有什麼用呢？』
“So the man criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘They’re arrogant, these Sakyan-son monks, and malcontent. It’s no simple matter to clothe them with a robe. How can this Master Upananda, without having first been invited by me, make a stipulation concerning a robe?’”
「於是，那個人批評、抱怨並傳播：『這些沙門釋迦子很傲慢，而且不知足。給他們穿上袈裟可不是一件簡單的事。這位優波難陀大德，未經我事先邀請，怎能對袈裟做出規定呢？』
The situation covered by this rule is this: An unrelated lay person has put aside resources for purchasing robe-cloth to present to a bhikkhu but without yet asking the bhikkhu what kind of cloth he wants. The factors for the offense here are four. 本戒條所涵蓋的情況是這樣的：一個非親戚的居士已經撥出資源購買袈裟布來供養比丘，但還沒有詢問比丘他想要什麼樣的布。這裡的犯戒因素有四個。
Object 對象
The Vibhaṅga here does not specify a minimum size for the cloth, nor does it list the types of thread from which the cloth has to be made. Because the primary focus of its discussion is on the price of the cloth, the size and type of cloth are apparently irrelevant. Any piece of cloth of any type, no matter how small, would fulfill this factor. 此處《經分別》沒有指定布料的最小尺寸，也沒有列出製作布料的線的類型。因為討論的主要焦點是布料的價格，所以布料的尺寸和類型顯然無關緊要。任何類型的任何一塊布，無論多小，都可以滿足這個因素。
The texts also do not mention whether funds for other requisites would be grounds for a lesser offense or no offense under this rule, although given the spirit of the rule it would be a wise policy for a bhikkhu not to make stipulations, when uninvited, to a lay person who has prepared funds for purchasing any kind of requisite for his use. 文獻也沒有提及用於其他必需品的資金是否會成為本戒條下較輕犯戒或不犯戒的理由，儘管考慮到本戒條的精神，對於比丘來說，明智之舉是，在未經邀請的情況下，不要對已準備好資金購買任何必需品供他使用的在家人作出規定。
Intention 意圖
One wants to get a better piece of cloth than the lay person is planning to buy. The Vibhaṅga defines better as “better quality, higher price.” The Commentary, for some reason, limits better to “higher price,” but there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to support this. 想要得到一塊比在家人打算購買的更好的布。《經分別》將更好的定義為「更好的品質，更高的價格」。由於某種原因，《義註》將更好的限制為「更高的價格」，但《經分別》中沒有任何內容可以支持這一點。
Effort 努力
One requests the unrelated lay person to improve the cloth. Example statements in the Vibhaṅga are: “Make it long, make it broad, make it tightly-woven, make it soft.” As in the previous rules, perception is not a factor here. Even if one perceives the lay person to be related when he/she actually isn’t, that would fulfill the factor here all the same. 請求非親戚在家人改進布料。《經分別》中的範例語句是：「使其長，使其寬，使其緊密編織，使其柔軟。」與之前的戒條一樣，感知在這裡不是一個因素。即使認為在家人有血緣關係，而他/她實際上沒有血緣關係，那仍然會滿足這裡的因素。
Result 結果
One obtains the long, broad, etc., cloth that the householder bought in line with one’s request. The way the Vibhaṅga defines this factor suggests that whether the lay person actually spends more on the cloth than he/she actually planned is not an issue here. 獲得居士依照自己的要求購買的長的、寬的等布料。《經分別》定義這個因素的方式表明，在家人實際上在布料上花費的錢是否比他/她實際計劃的多，在這裡是無關的。
Offenses 犯戒
When the donor buys the cloth in line with one’s request, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. When one obtains the cloth it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The procedures to follow in forfeiture, confession, and receiving the cloth in return are the same as in the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth, see Appendix VI. 當布施者依照要求購買布料時，懲罰是《突吉羅》。當獲得這塊布時，該布料須被捨出，並懺悔《捨墮》罪。捨出、懺罪、返還布料所遵循之程序，與前述戒條相同。關於捨出布料時所使用的巴利語公式，請參閱附錄六。
If one perceives a related householder as unrelated, or if one is in doubt about whether he/she is related, one incurs a dukkaṭa in making a request and receiving cloth from him/her in the manner forbidden by this rule. 如果認為一個有親屬關係的居士沒有親屬關係，或者如果懷疑他/她是否有親屬關係，那麼以本戒條禁止的方式提出請求並從他/她那裡接受布料，犯《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if: 根據《經分別》，如果滿足以下條件之一，則不犯戒：
the lay person is a relative or has invited one to ask for cloth; 在家人是親戚或已經提出邀請索取布料；
one asks for another’s sake; 為另一個人要求；
one is getting the robe with one’s own resources; or 以自己的資源獲得袈裟；或者
one gets the lay person, who originally wanted to purchase a more expensive piece of cloth, to purchase a less expensive one. 讓原本想要購買更昂貴的布料的在家人購買比較不昂貴的布料。
The Commentary adds that there is also no offense if one’s request to improve the cloth results in a cloth equal in price to the cloth the lay person had in mind—but, as noted above, the Vibhaṅga does not support the Commentary here. 《義註》補充說，如果要求改進布料，結果得到的布料與在家人心目中的布料價格相同，也沒有犯戒——但是，如上所述，《經分別》不支持這裡的《義註》。
The Vibhaṅga’s Word-commentary to this rule also indicates that there would be no offense if, after one has asked for a better piece of cloth, the lay person ignores the request, buying and presenting the cloth he/she originally had in mind. 《經分別》對本戒條的單字註釋也表明，如果要求一件更好的布料後，在家人不理睬這個要求，購買並供養他/她最初心目中的布料，也不犯戒。
Summary: When a lay person who is not a relative is planning to get robe-cloth for one but has yet to ask one what kind of cloth one wants: Receiving the cloth after making a request that would improve it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：當非親戚的在家計劃為自己獲取袈裟布時，但尚未詢問自己想要哪種布料時：在提出改善布料的請求後收到布料，是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
9 九
In case two householders—men or women— unrelated (to the bhikkhu) prepare separate robe funds for the sake of a bhikkhu, thinking, “Having purchased separate robes with these separate robe funds of ours, we will clothe the bhikkhu named so-and-so with robes”: If the bhikkhu, not previously invited, approaching (them) should make a stipulation with regard to the robe, saying, “It would be good indeed, sirs, if you clothed me (with a robe), having purchased a robe of such-and-such a sort with these separate robe funds, the two (funds) together for one (robe)”—out of a desire for something fine—it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果兩位（與比丘）沒有血緣關係的居士——男性或女性——為比丘準備了不同的袈裟資金，心想：「用我們這些不同的袈裟資金購買了不同的袈裟後，我們將給名叫某某的比丘穿上衣服。」：如果比丘在未事先邀請的情況下接近（他們），對袈裟作出規定，說道：「先生們，如果您用這些不同的袈裟資金，這兩個（資金）合在一起為一件（袈裟），購買了某某類型的袈裟，給我穿上（袈裟），那就太好了。」——出於對美好事物的渴望——尼薩耆波逸提。
Explanations for this training rule are the same as those for the preceding one, the only difference being in the factor of effort: One asks the two donors to put their funds together to purchase one piece of cloth. The question of whether the request would raise the amount of money they would have to spend is not an issue here. A piece of cloth equal in price to the original two pieces would still fulfill the factor of effort here. However, the Vibhaṅga says that if one gets the donors to provide a piece of cloth less expensive than they had originally planned, there is no offense. 本學處的解釋與前一條相同，唯一的區別在於努力因素：要求兩位布施者將他們的資金放在一起購買一塊布料。該要求是否會增加他們必須花費的資金的問題在此處無關。一塊布的價格與原來的兩塊布相同，在這裡仍然會滿足努力因素。然而，《經分別》表示，如果讓布施者提供比他們最初計劃的價格較不昂貴的布，並沒有犯戒。
The Commentary adds that, under the conditions mentioned here, making requests of three or more people to combine their robe funds into one is also covered by this rule. 《義註》補充說，在此提到的條件下，提出三人或三人以上將其袈裟資金合併為一筆的請求也適用於本戒條。
Summary: When two or more lay people who are not one’s relatives are planning to get separate pieces of robe-cloth for one but have yet to ask one what kind of cloth one wants: Receiving cloth from them after asking them to pool their funds to get one piece of cloth—out of a desire for something fine—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：當兩位或兩位以上非親戚的居士計劃為自己獲取不同件袈裟布時，但尚未詢問自己想要哪種布時：請他們集資來獲取單一件布料後，從他們那裡收到布料—出於對美好事物的渴望—是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
10 十
In case a king, a royal official, a brahman, or a householder sends a robe fund for the sake of a bhikkhu via a messenger, (saying,) “Having purchased a robe with this robe fund, clothe the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe”: If the messenger, approaching the bhikkhu, should say, “This is a robe fund being delivered for the sake of the venerable one. May the venerable one accept this robe fund,” then the bhikkhu is to tell the messenger: “We do not accept robe funds, my friend. We accept robes (robe-cloth) as are proper according to season.”
若國王、王官、婆羅門、居士透過使者為比丘送衣資，（說：）「用此衣資購買衣後，送衣給某某比丘披著」：如果使者接近比丘時如此說：「這是為尊者而交付的衣資。願尊者接受此衣資。」然後，比丘要告訴使者：「我們不接受衣資，我的朋友。我們接受根據季節合適的衣（衣布料）。」
If the messenger should say to the bhikkhu, “Does the venerable one have a steward?” then, bhikkhus, if the bhikkhu desires a robe, he may indicate a steward—either a monastery attendant or a lay follower—(saying,) “That, my friend, is the bhikkhus’ steward.”
若使者對比丘如此說：「尊者有淨人嗎？」那麼，比丘們，如果比丘想要一件衣，他可以指示一位淨人——或者是寺院侍者，或者是在家人——（說：）「我的朋友，那是比丘的淨人。」
If the messenger, having instructed the steward and going to the bhikkhu, should say, “I have instructed the steward the venerable one indicated. May the venerable one go (to him) and he will clothe you with a robe in season,” then the bhikkhu, desiring a robe and approaching the steward, may prompt and remind him two or three times, “I have need of a robe.” Should (the steward) produce the robe after being prompted and reminded two or three times, that is good.
如果使者在交代了淨人之後，前往比丘那裡，如此說：「我已經交代了尊者所指示的淨人。願尊者前往，他會在適當的時候送衣給您披著。」然後，比丘想要衣，就到淨人那裡，可以催促、提醒他兩三遍：「我需要衣。」如果在兩、三次催促、提醒時獲得該衣，這實在很好。
If he should not produce the robe, (the bhikkhu) should stand in silence four times, five times, six times at most for that purpose. Should (the steward) produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has stood in silence for that purpose four, five, six times at most, that is good.
如果沒有獲得，那麼（比丘）就應該默立四次、五次、至多六次。如果（淨人）在（比丘）為此目的而默立四次、五次、至多六次之後，獲得該衣，這實在很好
If he should not produce the robe (at that point), should he then produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has endeavored further than that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
假如沒有獲得衣（此時），如果在（比丘）更努力之後獲得衣，尼薩耆波逸提。
If he should not produce (the robe), then the bhikkhu himself should go to the place from which the robe fund was brought, or a messenger should be sent (to say), “The robe fund that you, venerable sirs, sent for the sake of the bhikkhu has given no benefit to the bhikkhu at all. May you be united with what is yours. May what is yours not be lost.” This is the proper course here.
如果沒有獲得（衣），那麼比丘就應該親自到衣資帶來的地方，或者派一個使者（說）：「尊敬的先生們，你們曾指定為比丘所送去的衣資根本沒有給比丘帶來任何利益。願屬於你的回歸於你。願屬於你的不失去。這於此是如法的。
The protocols surrounding gifts of money and their proper use are quite complex—much more complex than even this long training rule would indicate—and require a detailed explanation. What follows is an attempt to make them clear. If it seems long and involved, remember that the purpose of the protocols is to free bhikkhus from the even more bothersome worries and complexities that come with participating in buying, selling, and monetary matters in general. 圍繞金錢贈禮及其正確使用的行儀相當複雜——甚至比這個冗長的學處所表明的還要複雜得多——並且需要詳細的解釋。接下來是試著讓它們變得清晰。如果它看起來又長又複雜，請記住，這些行儀的目的是讓比丘擺脫參與一般買賣和貨幣事務所帶來的更麻煩的擔憂和複雜性。
This rule is one of four nissaggiya pācittiya rules covering a bhikkhu’s proper relationship to money. The others are NP 18, 19, & 20. Although they sometimes seem to be splitting hairs, they focus precisely on the two acts involving money that are most burdensome to a sensitive mind: In the act of accepting money, or having it accepted in one’s name, one is accepting all the cares, responsibilities, and dangers that come with its ownership; in the act of arranging a trade, one is accepting responsibility for the fairness of the trade—that it undervalues neither the generosity of the person who donated the money nor the goods or services of the person receiving the money in exchange. 本戒條是四個涉及比丘與金錢的適當關係的《尼薩耆波逸提》戒條之一。其他的是《捨墮》一八、一九和二十。儘管他們有時似乎在吹毛求疵，但他們恰恰聚焦於對敏銳的心來說最繁重的兩種涉及金錢的行為：在接受金錢或以個人名義接受金錢的行為中，也接受了所有的擔心和責任，以及其所有權所帶來的危險；在安排交易的行為中，也接受了對交易公平性的責任——既不低估捐贈金錢者的慷慨，也不低估接受金錢作為交換的人的商品或服務。
Thus to protect a bhikkhu from these mental burdens, this rule sets up protocols so that lay donors may have the convenience of dedicating amounts of money and other valuables to provide for a bhikkhu’s needs, and so that the bhikkhu may benefit from such gifts without having to bear the responsibilities of ownership or of having to arrange fair trades. 因此，為了保護比丘免受這些精神負擔，本戒條制定了行儀，以便在家布施者可以方便地奉獻大量的金錢和其他貴重物品來滿足比丘的需要，這樣比丘就可以從這些贈禮中受益，而無需承擔所有權責任或必須安排公平交易。
If a bhikkhu follows the protocols recommended here, the money placed with the steward still belongs to the donor, and the responsibility for making a fair trade lies with the steward. The bhikkhu’s only responsibility is to inform the original donor if, after a reasonable number of promptings, the steward entrusted with the money does not provide him with the requisite the donor had in mind, and then let the donor look after the matter if he/she cares to. 如果比丘遵循這裡推薦的行儀，放在淨人那裡的錢仍然屬於施主，而公平交易的責任則由淨人承擔。比丘的唯一責任是，如果經過合理次數的提示後，受託金錢的淨人沒有向他提供施主心目中的必需品，則通知原始施主，然後讓施主處理此事，如果他/她在乎。
Although the rule itself mentions only funds for robe-cloth intended for individual bhikkhus, we should note from the outset that the Commentary uses the Great Standards to extend it to cover all funds—composed of money, jewels, commodities, land, livestock, or other valuables that bhikkhus are not allowed to accept—not only for an individual bhikkhu’s robe-cloth but also for any type of requisite. And it further extrapolates from this rule to cover funds for Communities and groups of bhikkhus, as well as impersonal funds for such things as buildings and—in the modern world—the printing of books. 雖然戒條本身只提到了供個別比丘使用的衣資，但我們從一開始就應該注意，《義註》使用《四大教示》將其擴展到涵蓋所有資金，包括金錢、珠寶、商品、土地、牲畜或其他比丘不准接受的貴重物品－不僅是比丘個人的衣，也包括任何類型的必需品。它進一步從本戒條推斷出涵蓋僧團和比丘團體的資金，以及用於比如建築物和（在現代世界）書籍印刷等項目的非個人資金。
The money rules & allowances: an overview 金錢戒及開緣：概述
NP 18 forbids a bhikkhu from accepting gifts of money, from getting others to accept them, and from consenting to gifts of money meant for him being placed down next to him. NP 19 & 20 forbid him from engaging in buying, selling, or bartering, regardless of whether it involves money. Mv.VI.34.21, however, contains the following allowance, called the Meṇḍaka Allowance, after the donor who inspired it: 《捨墮》一八禁止比丘接受金錢贈禮，禁止讓他人接受金錢贈禮，以及禁止同意將本應為他準備的金錢贈禮放在他旁邊。《捨墮》一九和二十禁止他從事買賣或以物易物，無論是否涉及金錢。 然而，《大品》.六.34.21包含以下開緣，稱為 Meṇḍaka 開緣，以發起它的施主的名字命名：
“There are people of conviction and confidence, bhikkhus, who place gold in the hand of stewards, (saying,) ‘With this, give the master whatever is allowable.’ I allow you, bhikkhus, to accept whatever is allowable coming from that. But in no way at all do I say that gold or silver is to be accepted or sought for.”
「比丘們，有一些有信念和信心的人，他們把黃金放在淨人的手中，（說）『用這個，給尊者任何允許的東西。』我允許你們，比丘們，接受來自那裡的任何允許的東西。但我絕不是說金銀應該被接受或尋求。」
Even given this allowance, though, it is important that the bhikkhu, in his dealings with the steward, does not say or do anything that would transgress NP 18-20. At the same time, it is important that he not abuse the steward’s services. Otherwise the steward will never want to perform this service for bhikkhus again. This is the main point of the origin story to this rule: 然而，即使給予了這種開緣，比丘在與淨人打交道時，不要說或做任何違反《捨墮》一八至二十的事情，這一點很重要。同時，重要的是他不能濫用淨人的服務。否則，淨人將永遠不想再為比丘做這服務。這是本戒條起源故事的要點：
“Then Ven. Upananda the Sakyan approached the lay follower (his steward) and on arrival said, ‘My friend, I have need of a robe.’
「時，釋迦族優波難陀尊者來到優婆塞（他的淨人）處，抵達後說道：『我的朋友，我需要一件衣。』
“‘Wait for the rest of today, venerable sir. Today there is a town meeting, and the town has made an agreement that whoever comes late is fined 50 (kahāpaṇas).’
「『大德，請等待今天剩下的時間。今天有鎮會議，鎮裡達成了協議，誰遲到，罰款50（kahāpaṇa）。』
“‘Friend, give me the robe this very day!’ (Saying this,) he grabbed hold of him by the belt. So the lay follower, being pressured by Ven. Upananda the Sakyan, purchased a robe for him and came late. The people said to the lay follower, ‘Why, master, have you come late? You’ve lost 50!’ So he told them what had happened. They criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘They’re arrogant, these Sakyan-son monks, and malcontent. It’s no simple matter even to render them a service. How can Upananda the Sakyan, being told by a layman, “Wait for the rest of today, venerable sir,” not wait?’”
「『朋友，今天就把衣給我吧！』（這麼說）他抓住了他的腰帶。因此，優婆塞受到了釋迦族優波難陀尊者的壓力，為他買了一件衣，但遲到了。人們對優婆塞說：『大德，你怎麼來晚了？你已經損失了 50 塊！』所以他告訴他們發生的事情。他們批評、抱怨、傳播：『這些釋迦子僧人太傲慢了，而且不知足。即使是為他們提供服務也不是一件簡單的事。釋迦族優波難陀在優婆塞的勸告下，「尊者，請稍等今日」，怎不能等呢？』」
Stewards 淨人
According to the Commentary, there are three types of steward with whom money might be placed: (1) indicated by the bhikkhu, (2) indicated by the donor or his/her messenger, and (3) indicated by neither. 根據《義註》，可以放置金錢的淨人有三類：（1）由比丘指定，（2）由施主或其使者指定，以及（3）兩者都沒有指定。
1) Indicated by the bhikkhu covers two sorts of cases: 1) 比丘指定涵蓋兩種情況：
a) The donor asks the bhikkhu who his steward is, and the bhikkhu points him/her out, as mentioned in the training rule. a) 施主詢問比丘誰是他的淨人，比丘指出他/她，如學處所述。
b) The donor, knowing that a particular lay person has volunteered to act as a steward or is on familiar terms with the bhikkhu, gives the money to the lay person and informs the bhikkhu—or has someone else inform him—either before or after the fact. b) 施主知道某個在家人自願擔任淨人或與比丘關係熟悉時，將錢交給該在家人，並在之前或之後通知該比丘——或讓其他人通知他。
2) Indicated by the donor covers cases where the donor chooses one of his/her own friends or employees to act as the steward for that particular gift, and informs the bhikkhu—or has someone else inform him—either before or after the fact. 2）由施主指定，包括施主選擇他/她自己的一位朋友或僱員作為該特定布施的淨人，並在事前或事後通知比丘－或讓其他人通知他的情況。
3) Indicated by neither covers two separate cases: 3) 兩者都沒有指定涵蓋兩種不同的情況：
a) The donor asks the bhikkhu who his steward is, and the bhikkhu says that he has none. Another person happens to overhear the conversation and volunteers—in the presence of both—to act as the steward for that particular gift. a) 施主問比丘誰是他的淨人，比丘說他沒有。另一個人碰巧無意中聽到了談話，並在兩人都在場的情況下自願擔任該特定布施的淨人。
b) The donor gives the gift to the lay person who is normally the bhikkhu’s steward or is on familiar terms with the bhikkhu, but does not inform the bhikkhu or have him informed of the fact. b) 施主將該布施給在家人，通常是比丘的淨人或與比丘關係熟悉的人，但沒有通知比丘或讓他知道這一事實。
According to the Commentary, this training rule covers only cases of the first sort—the steward is indicated by the bhikkhu—but not of the other two. This, however, is a controversial point. To understand the controversy, though, we will first have to discuss the protocols for accepting funds and obtaining requisites from stewards as set forth in this rule. Then we will revisit this issue in the section, “range of application,” below. 根據《義註》，本學處只涵蓋第一種情況──淨人由比丘指定──而不包括其他兩種情況。然而，這是一個有爭議的觀點。不過，為了理解這項爭議，我們首先必須討論本戒條中規定的接受資金和從淨人那裡獲取必需品的行儀。然後我們將在下面的「適用範圍」部分中重新討論這個議題。
The protocol in accepting 接受的行儀
The Vibhaṅga gives the following guidelines: 《經分別》給出了以下指導方針：
If donors offer money, they are to be told that bhikkhus do not accept money. 如果布施者提供金錢，他們應該被告知比丘不接受金錢。
If they ask who the bhikkhus’ steward is, one may point out any lay person at all, saying, “That’s the steward.” One is not to say, “Give it to him/her,” or “He/she will keep (the money),” for that would be to accept ownership and responsibility for the money, and thus be an infraction of the rule against accepting money. Also, one is not to say, “He/she will buy (the requisite),” or “He/she will get it in exchange,” for even this much would be an infraction of the rule against trading. 如果他們問誰是比丘的淨人，可以指著任何一個在家人說：「那就是淨人。」 不要說「把錢給他/她」或「他/她會保管（錢）」，因為那樣就等於接受了錢的所有權和責任，從而違反禁止接受金錢的戒條。此外，也不能說「他/她會購買（必需品）」或「他/她會得到它作為交換」，因為即使是這樣也將違反禁止交易的戒條。
The K/Commentary adds that if the donor asks, “To whom should I give this?” or “Who will keep this?” one is not to point anyone out. It doesn’t say what one may do in such a situation, although a wise policy would be to broach the topic of stewards so that the donor will ask a question to which one may give an allowable answer. K/《義註》補充說，如果布施者問：「我應該把這個給誰？」或「誰會保管這個？」不要指出任何人。它沒有說明在這種情況下可以做什麼，儘管明智之舉是提出淨人的話題，以便布施者提出一個可以給出允許答案的問題。
The protocol in obtaining requisites from the fund 從資金取得必需品的行儀
The rule states that a bhikkhu may give his steward up to three verbal and six silent promptings in order to get a requisite from the fund. The Vibhaṅga works out an arrangement whereby he may exchange two silent promptings for one verbal prompting, which leads the Commentary to lay out the following scheme: A bhikkhu may make up to— 戒條規定，比丘可以向他的淨人發出最多三次口頭提示和六次無聲提示，以便從資金中獲得必需品。《經分別》制定了一種安排，使他可以將兩次無聲提示改為一次口頭提示，這導致《義註》提出以下方案：比丘可以做到——
6 verbal & 0 silent promptings 6次 口頭 及 0次 無聲提示
5 verbal & 2 silent promptings 5次 口頭 及 2次 無聲提示
4 verbal & 4 silent promptings 4次 口頭 及 4次 無聲提示
3 verbal & 6 silent promptings 3次 口頭 及 6次 無聲提示
2 verbal & 8 silent promptings 2次 口頭 及 8次 無聲提示
1 verbal & 10 silent promptings, or 1次 口頭 及 10次 無聲提示，或
0 verbal & 12 silent promptings 0次 口頭 及 12次 無聲提示
The Vibhaṅga adds that when giving a verbal prompting, one may say only, “I need a robe (or whatever the requisite may be),” or statements to that effect. One may not say, “Give me a robe,” “Get me a robe,” “Buy me a robe,” or “Get a robe in exchange for me,” for these last two statements in particular would incur a penalty under NP 20. 《經分別》補充說，當給予口頭提示時，只能說：「我需要一件衣（或任何必要的東西）」，或類似的陳述。不能說，「給我一件衣」，「拿給我一件衣」，「買給我一件衣」，或者「交換一件衣給我」，因為最後兩種說法尤其會招致《捨墮》二十的懲罰。
According to the Commentary, promptings are counted not by the number of visits to the steward but by the number of times the bhikkhu states his need/desire for the requisite. Thus if, in one visit, he states his need for a robe three times, that counts as three verbal promptings. 根據《義註》，提示不是根據拜訪淨人的次數來計算的，而是根據比丘陳述他對必需品的需要/渴望的次數來計算的。因此，如果他在一次拜訪中三次表示需要一件衣，那就算是三次口頭提示。
As for silent promptings—or “standings”—the bhikkhu merely stands in the steward’s presence. If the steward asks, “What have you come for?’ the bhikkhu should say, “You know,” or “You should know.” 至於無聲提示——或「站立」——比丘只是站在淨人面前。如果淨人問：「你來做什麼？」比丘應該說：「你知道」或「你應該知道」。
The Vibhaṅga also notes that during the period when a bhikkhu has yet to receive the requisite, he should not accept an invitation to sit down at the steward’s place, to accept alms, or to teach Dhamma there. If he does any of these things, that cuts back his number of allowed standings. The Sub-commentary raises the question as to what precisely this means: When a bhikkhu does several of these actions in one visit, does each action take away one standing, or is just that one visit struck from his allowed number of standings? After a long discussion, it sides with the decision in the Three Gaṇṭhipadas: Each time a bhikkhu sits, receives alms, or teaches one sentence of Dhamma (see Pc 7) under these circumstances, even in one visit, he cuts down his allowed number of standings by one. 《經分別》也指出，在比丘尚未領受必需品期間，他不應接受坐在淨人處的邀請、接受施捨，或在那裡教導佛法。如果他做了任何這些事情，就會減少他允許的站立次數。《複註》提出了一個問題，即這到底意味著什麼：當比丘在一次拜訪中做了數個這樣的行為時，是否每一個行為都會減少一個站立，或者只是那一次拜訪從他允許的站立次數中減去？經過冗長的討論，它支持《Three Gaṇṭhipada》中的決定：每當比丘在這種情況下坐著、接受施捨，或教導一句佛法（參見《波逸提》七）時，即使是一次拜訪，他也會在允許的站立次數中減去一次。
The Vibhaṅga states that if one obtains the requisite after making the allowable number of verbal and silent promptings—or fewer—there is no offense. If one does not obtain the requisite after the maximum allowable number of promptings, one should inform the original donor and then leave the issue up to him/her. If the donor, being informed, then makes arrangements to get the requisite for the bhikkhu, there is no offense. 《經分別》指出，如果在進行了允許次數的口頭和無聲提示（或更少）後獲得了必需的東西，那麼就沒有犯戒。如果在最大允許次數的提示後仍未獲得必需品，則應通知原始施主，然後將問題留給他/她。如果施主得知情況後，作出安排，為比丘取得必需品，這並沒有犯戒。
The Commentary adds that not to inform the donor here entails a dukkaṭa on the grounds that one is neglecting a duty. This statement, however, should be qualified to apply only in cases where one knows which donor gave which fund to which steward. If a single fund administered by a steward contains donations from many donors, one is unlikely to be in a position to inform all the donors if the steward does not respond to one’s request. In such cases one should be duty bound to inform only one of the donors. 《義註》補充說，不通知施主會犯《突吉羅》，理由是疏忽了職責。然而，這個說法僅適用於知道哪位施主向哪位淨人提供哪項資金的情況。如果淨人管理的單一資金包含許多施主的捐款，如果淨人不回應請求，則不太可能通知所有施主。在這種情況下，有義務只通知其中一位施主。
Range of application 適用範圍
As mentioned above, the Commentary maintains that this rule applies only in the first of the three cases listed there: The steward has been indicated by the bhikkhu. As for the second case—the steward has been indicated by the donor—it maintains that one may make any number of promptings without committing an offense. If the article is not forthcoming, one may get another lay person to handle the issue (although one should be careful to phrase one’s request to this lay person so as not to transgress the rules against accepting money or trading). If the article is not forthcoming, one is not duty-bound to inform the original donor. Although there is nothing in the Canon to contradict any of these points, there is nothing to confirm them, either. Simple etiquette would suggest that one not harass the steward excessively and that one should inform the donor if the article is not forthcoming, so as to let the donor decide what, if anything, should be done. Thus it would make sense, using the Great Standards, to apply this rule even in cases of this sort. 如上所述，《義註》認為本戒條僅適用於所列三種情況中的第一種：淨人已由比丘指定。至於第二種情況──淨人已由施主指定──它認為可以做出任意次數的提示而不構成犯戒。如果沒有提供物品，可以找另一位居士來處理這個議題（儘管應該小心地向這位居士表達自己的請求，以免違反禁止接受金錢或交易的戒條）。如果沒有提供物品，則沒有義務通知原始施主。儘管《聖典》中沒有任何內容與這些觀點相矛盾，但也沒有任何內容可以證實它們。簡單的建議禮節是，不要過度騷擾淨人，如果沒有提供物品，應該通知施主，以便讓施主決定應該做什麼（如果有的話）。因此，即使在這種情況下，使用《四大教示》來適用本戒條也是有意義的。
As for the third case, in which the steward is not indicated either by the donor or by a bhikkhu, the Commentary says that, as far as that fund is concerned, the steward should be treated as a person who is not related and has not made an invitation to ask. In other words, one may not make any requests of the steward at all unless he/she happens to invite one to make a request. The Commentary gives no reasons for these positions, and they are hard to infer. In the first of the two instances under this sub-category—the volunteer temporary steward—the Commentary depicts the steward as volunteering in the presence of both the bhikkhu and the donor, and this would seem to place the steward under some obligation to both. Thus the bhikkhu would seem to have the right to make a reasonable number of promptings; and the donor, the right to know if the article is not forthcoming. 至於第三種情況，即施主或比丘均未指明淨人的情況，《義註》指出，就該資金而言，淨人應被視為無親屬關係且與尚未發出詢問邀請的人。換句話說，除非淨人碰巧邀請提出請求，否則根本不能向淨人提出任何要求。《義註》沒有給出這些立場的理由，很難推論。在這個子類別下的兩個例子中的第一個——志願臨時淨人——《義註》中將淨人描述為同時在比丘和施主面前做志願者，這似乎使淨人對雙方都負有某種義務。因此，比丘似乎有權做出合理次數的提示；而施主，則有權知道該物品是否被提供。
As for the second of the two instances—the donor gives the gift to the bhikkhu’s normal steward but does not inform the bhikkhu or have him informed—the steward can either inform the bhikkhu or not. If he/she chooses to inform the bhikkhu, then according to the Commentary the bhikkhu would have the right to make any number of promptings, as the steward now counts as having given an invitation. Thus the steward would not be protected by the protocol under this rule, which doesn’t seem proper. If, however, the steward chooses not to inform the bhikkhu, there are two further possibilities: Either the bhikkhu never learns of the arrangement, in which case the issue is moot; or else he learns through a third party, in which case the bhikkhu would seem to have the right to ask the steward if the third party’s report is true. If the steward lies and says No, then that’s the steward’s kamma. If the steward truthfully reports Yes, then it would seem reasonable to apply the protocol under this rule. 至於這兩種情況中的第二種情況──施主將布施給比丘的正常淨人，但沒有通知比丘或讓他被通知──淨人可以通知比丘，也可以不通知。如果他/她選擇通知比丘，那麼根據《義註》，比丘將有權做出任意次數的提示，因為淨人現在被視為已發出邀請。因此，根據本戒條，淨人將不受行儀的保護，這似乎不合適。然而，如果淨人選擇不通知比丘，則還有兩種可能性：要麼比丘永遠不知道這一安排，在這種情況下，這議題就沒有意義了；否則，他透過第三者得知，在這種情況下，比丘似乎有權詢問淨人第三者的報告是否屬實。如果淨人撒謊並說「否」，那麼這就是淨人的業力。如果淨人如實報告「是」，那麼適用本戒條下的行儀似乎是合理的。
Thus, given these considerations, there would seem to be little reason to limit the protocols under this rule to cases where the steward is indicated by the bhikkhu, and stronger reason, using the Great Standards, to apply the protocols to all three cases: where the steward is indicated by the bhikkhu, by the donor, or by neither. 因此，鑑於這些考慮，似乎沒有什麼理由將本戒條下的行儀限制於比丘指定淨人的情況，並且更有理由使用《四大教示》將行儀適用於所有三種情況：淨人由比丘、施主指定，或兩者都沒有指定。
As we will note under NP 18, a bank can serve as a steward for a bhikkhu. However, because of the protocols surrounding a bhikkhu’s relationship to his steward, he may not sign a check—which is an order to pay money to the order of the payee—even if the check draws on an account set up in his name. Nor may he present the bank with a withdrawal statement to remove money from the account. 正如我們將在《捨墮》一八中指出的，銀行可以充當比丘的淨人。然而，由於比丘與淨人關係的行儀，即使支票是從以他的名義開設的帳戶中提取的，他不能簽署支票（這是按照收款人的指示付款的命令）。他也不得向銀行提供提款聲明以從帳戶中提取資金。
The factors of an offense 犯戒因素
The factors of an offense here are three. 在此處犯戒因素有三個。
1) Object: a fund for the purchase of robe-cloth left with a steward. As noted above, the Commentary extends this factor to cover any fund set aside for one’s own requisites. 1）對象：留給淨人購買衣的資金。如上所述，《義註》將這一因素擴展到涵蓋為自己的必需品預留的任何資金。
2) Effort: One makes an excessive number of promptings. 2）努力：做出過度的提示。
3) Result: One obtains the requested requisite. 3）結果：獲得所要求的必需品。
There is a dukkaṭa for the excessive promptings. The requisite, when obtained, is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and receiving the requisite in return are the same as under the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiture, see Appendix VI. 過度的提示犯《突吉羅》。當必需品被獲得時，將被捨出並懺悔《尼薩耆波逸提》罪。捨出、懺悔、和領回必需品的程序，與前項戒條相同。有關捨出裡使用的巴利文公式，請參閱附錄六。
If one has not given excessive promptings but perceives that one has, or is in doubt about the matter, the penalty for accepting the requisite is a dukkaṭa. 如果沒有給予過度的提示，但認為自己已經過度提示，或對此事有疑問，那麼接受必需品的懲罰是《突吉羅》。
Other funds 其他資金
The Commentary includes a long discussion of how this rule applies to funds other than those intended for an individual bhikkhu’s requisites, such as funds for Community or group requisites, building funds, etc. (book-printing funds would come under here). Some have suggested that because this rule applies only to funds for one’s own use, the Commentary has erred in discussing other funds in this context, and that they should instead be discussed under Pc 84, the rule dealing with valuables that lay people have left behind in the monastery. However, because the Canon does not discuss such funds at all, they must be treated under the Great Standards, which means that they must be treated in line with the rule(s) that cover situations bearing the greatest similarity to them. The protocols under Pc 84 deal with the issue of how to return lost articles safely to an owner who did not intend them as a gift and still claims ownership of them; the protocols here deal with how to get the money to a steward and how to get the steward to provide what is needed with the money. Because these latter issues are the ones most relevant to the proper management of these other funds, there seems every reason to agree with the Commentary’s discussing them under this rule. 《義註》中對本戒條如何適用於除用於個別比丘必需品的資金之外的其他資金進行了長篇討論，例如僧團或團體必需品的資金、建築資金等（書籍印刷資金將歸入此處）。有些人建議，由於本戒條僅適用於自用資金，因此《義註》在這種脈絡下討論其他資金是錯誤的，而應該在《波逸提》八四下討論它們，該戒條涉及居士留下的貴重物品在寺院裡。然而，由於《聖典》根本沒討論此類基金，因此必須根據《四大教示》來處理它們，這意味著必須按照涵蓋與它們最相似的情況的戒條來處理它們。《波逸提》八四下的行儀處理如何將遺失的物品安全歸還給不打算將其作為贈禮且仍聲稱擁有這些物品的所有者的議題；這裡的行儀涉及如何將錢交給淨人以及如何讓淨人用錢提供所需的東西。因為後面這些議題與這些其他資金的妥善管理最相關，所以似乎有充分的理由同意《義註》在本戒條下對它們進行討論。
A few of the more relevant cases in the Commentary’s discussion: 《義註》討論中一些更相關的案例：
Monetary funds for Saṅgha or group requisites 僧伽或團體必需品的貨幣資金
If a donor comes with a gift of money and says that it is being offered to the Saṅgha or to a group for whatever purpose, one should follow the protocol for accepting as under this rule. For instance, if the donor says, “I’m giving this to the Saṅgha for you to make use of the four requisites,” one may not accept it in any of the three ways covered by NP 18. (For details, see the discussion under that rule.) There is also a dukkaṭa, says the Sub-commentary, for every bhikkhu who uses any article bought with the money. 如果施主帶著金錢贈禮前來，並表示出於任何目的將其捐贈給僧團或某個團體，則應遵循本戒條下的接受行儀。例如，如果施主說：「我將這個給僧團，讓你使用四種必需品」，那麼不可以《捨墮》一八所涵蓋的三種方式中的任何一種來接受它。（有關詳細信息，請參閱該戒條下的討論。）《複註》說，對於每一個使用任何用金錢購買的物品的比丘，還犯《突吉羅》。
If, however, the donor says, “The money will be with your steward” or “with my people” or “with me: All you need to do is make use of the four requisites,” then there is no offense in accepting and making use of this arrangement. The etiquette to follow in obtaining requisites depends on who the money is left with: If the bhikkhus’ steward, follow the protocol under this rule; if the donor’s workers, one may make any number of promptings; if the donor, follow the guidelines under Pc 47. (In the first two cases here, the Commentary is following its decision, discussed above, that the protocols to be followed with the donor’s workers are different from those to be followed with one’s own steward. In light of our above discussion, however, both cases would come under the protocols stipulated by this rule.) 然而，如果施主說：「這筆錢將在你的淨人那裡」或「在我的人那裡」或「在我那裡：你所需要做的就是利用這四種必需品」，那麼接受並利用此安排並沒有犯戒之處。取得必需品時所遵循的規範取決於錢留給誰：如果是比丘的淨人，則遵循本戒條下的行儀；如果是施主的員工，可以做出任意次數的提示；如果是施主，遵循《波逸提》四七下的準則。（在這裡的前兩個情形中，《義註》遵循上面討論的決定，即施主的員工應遵循的行儀與自己的淨人應遵循的行儀不同。然而，根據我們上面的討論，兩種情況將受到本戒條規定的行儀的管轄。）
Non-monetary funds for Saṅgha or group requisites 僧伽或團體必需品的非貨幣資金
DN 2 contains a list of other articles that a bhikkhu consummate in virtue does not receive. The Commentary—perhaps in light of the general rule against misbehavior (Cv.V.36)—imposes a dukkaṭa on the act of receiving any of them. These articles include uncooked grain and raw meat; women and girls; male and female slaves; goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, steeds, and mares; fields and property. Extrapolating from the Vibhaṅga to Pc 84, which forbids bhikkhus from picking up pearls and precious stones except in certain circumstances—and which does not allow such items to be taken on trust, borrowed, or picked up with the perception that they have been thrown away—the Commentary also assigns a dukkaṭa for receiving these items. These two lists of objects will surface again under NP 18 & 19; for ease of reference, we will call them dukkaṭa objects. 《長部》2經包含了戒德圓滿的比丘不接受的其他物品列表。《義註》－也許是根據反對不當行為的一般戒條（《小品》.五.36）－對接受其中任何一項的行為則犯《突吉羅》。這些物品包括未煮熟的穀物和生肉；女人和女孩；男性和女性奴隸；山羊和綿羊、家禽和豬、大象、牛、馬和母馬；土地和財產。從《波逸提》八四的《經分別》來推斷，該戒條禁止比丘拾取珍珠和寶石，除非在某些情況下，並且不允許以信託方式取走此類物品、借用、或以察覺到它們已被丟棄拾取這些物品。《義註》也指稱接收這些物品犯《突吉羅》。這兩個物件列表將在《捨墮》一八和一九下再次出現；為了方便參考，我們將它們稱為《突吉羅》物件。
If a donor wants to make a gift of such things to the Saṅgha, the Commentary says, the question of whether they may be accepted depends on how the donation is phrased. If the donor says, “I’m giving this to the Saṅgha,” for whatever the purpose, the gift may not be accepted. As in the previous case, there is a dukkaṭa for whoever receives it and also for whoever uses an article obtained from proceeds coming from the gift. 《義註》說，如果施主想向僧伽贈送此類物品，是否可以接受的問題取決於捐贈的措詞。如果施主說：「我要把這個給僧團」，無論出於何種目的，該贈禮都不可被接受。就像前面的情況一樣，無論誰收到它，也無論誰使用從贈禮收益中獲得的物品，都會犯一次《突吉羅》。
If the donor says, “This is for the purpose of the four requisites,” or “Accept whatever is allowable coming from this,” without mentioning the Saṅgha or any bhikkhu as custodians or recipients of the unallowable object, the arrangement may be accepted without penalty. For instance, if a donor wants to present a herd of cows, saying, “These are for the purpose of milk products for the Saṅgha,” this is an acceptable arrangement: Cows are not acceptable for bhikkhus to receive, whereas milk products are. But if the donor says, “I am giving these cows to the Saṅgha to provide milk products for the Saṅgha,” then it is not. 如果施主說：「這是為了四種必需品的目的」，或者「接受由此而來的一切允許的東西」，而沒有提及僧伽或任何比丘作為不允許的物品的保管人或接受者，則可以接受安排，而不犯戒。例如，如果施主想要供養一群牛，並說：「這些是為了給僧團提供乳製品」，這是一個可以接受的安排：比丘不能接受乳牛，但可以接受乳製品。但如果施主施主說：「我將這些乳牛送給僧團，為僧團提供乳製品」，那就不可接受。
If a donor proposes to give pigs, chickens, or other animals used only for their meat to the Saṅgha, the bhikkhus are to say, “We can’t accept gifts like this, but we will be glad to set them free for you.” 如果施主提議將豬、雞或其他僅供食用的動物送給僧團，比丘們要說：「我們不能接受這樣的贈禮，但我們很樂意為你將它們放生。」
If, after setting up an allowable arrangement, the donor asks the bhikkhus to appoint a steward to look after it, they may. If not, they are to do nothing about the arrangement at all. 如果在允許的安排成立之後，施主要求比丘指定一名淨人來管理，他們可以。如果沒有，他們就不對該安排採取任何行動。
How the proceeds from such arrangements are to be used depends on what they are: If money, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, “Use this money to buy such-and-such,” no bhikkhu may make use of what is bought with the money. If the proceeds are commodities, such as unhusked rice, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, “Use this rice to trade for such-and-such,” the bhikkhu who makes the order may not use whatever is obtained from the trade, but other bhikkhus may without incurring a penalty. If the proceeds are allowable goods, such as fruit, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, “Use this fruit to trade for such-and-such,” the Commentary says that any bhikkhu may use what is obtained from the trade. 如何使用這些安排的收益取決於它們是什麼：如果是錢，並且比丘告訴淨人：「用這筆錢購買某物」，則沒有比丘可以使用用錢購買的東西。如果收益是商品，例如未去殼的大米，而比丘告訴淨人：「用此大米來交易某物」，下令的比丘不得使用從交易中獲得的任何東西，但其他的比丘們則可以使用而不會受到懲罰。如果收益是允許的商品，例如水果，而比丘告訴淨人：「用這種水果來交易某物」，《義註》說任何比丘都可以使用從交易中獲得的東西。
Apparently the Commentary views this arrangement as acceptable because of its interpretation that NP 20 applies only to cases where the bhikkhu tells a steward to conduct a trade with the bhikkhu’s own personal resources. However, as we will note in the discussion of that rule, this interpretation seems mistaken, and the rule applies to any funds for which a bhikkhu assumes responsibility. This means that, in the context of this last arrangement, the bhikkhu who orders the steward would have to forfeit the proceeds of the trade, but all bhikkhus could use them after the forfeiture. 顯然，《義註》認為這種安排是可以接受的，因為它解釋說《捨墮》二十僅適用於比丘告訴淨人用比丘自己的個人資源進行交易的情況。然而，正如我們將在討論該戒條時注意到的那樣，這種解釋似乎是錯誤的，並且該戒條適用於比丘承擔責任的任何資金。這意味著，在最後安排的脈絡中，命令淨人的比丘必須捨出交易收益，但所有比丘在捨出後都可以使用它們。
Impersonal funds 非個人資金
If a donor comes with money or any other unallowable gift and says, “I’m giving this to the Saṅgha for the meditation hall (or any other impersonal purpose, such as a book fund or a general building fund),” the gift may not be accepted. But if the donor says, “I am giving this to (or for) the meditation hall,” without mentioning any individual bhikkhu, group of bhikkhus, or the Saṅgha as custodians or recipients of the gift, then this arrangement is not to be refused, and the monastery steward is to be informed of what the donor said. 如果施主攜帶金錢或任何其他不允許的布施，並說：「我將其送給僧團，用於禪堂（或任何其他非個人目的，例如圖書資金或一般建築資金）」，該布施不可被接受。但如果施主說：「我將把這個布施給（或為了）禪堂」，而沒有提及任何個別比丘、比丘團體或僧團作為布施的保管人或接受者，那麼這種安排就不能被拒絕，並將施主所說的話告知寺院淨人。
In the context of NP 18, this means that the bhikkhus are not to take the money directly, or to get anyone else to take it, but may consent to its being placed next to them, as it is not meant as a gift for them. 在《捨墮》一八的脈絡下，這意味著比丘們不能直接拿走金錢，或者讓其他人拿走它，但可以同意將其放在他們旁邊，因為這並不意味著作為給他們的布施。
Many monasteries have donation boxes, and there is a question as to whether the bhikkhus may tell a donor in this case to put the money in the box. The Commentary to NP 18 states that when a donation has been placed down for a bhikkhu—over his protests—and someone aside from the donor offers to put it in a safe place, the bhikkhu may point out a safe place to put the money but may not tell him/her to put it there, as that would imply that he is accepting responsibility for the money. If this stipulation also applies to funds given “to a building,” then the bhikkhus should be able to say to the donor of such funds, “The donation box is over there,” but not, “Put it there.” 許多寺院都有捐款箱（功德箱），有一個問題是，在這種情況下，比丘們是否可以告訴施主把錢放進箱裡。《捨墮》一八的《義註》指出，當給比丘的捐贈被放下時—不顧他（比丘）的抗議—而施主以外的其他人提出將其放在安全的地方時，比丘可以指出一個安全的地方來放置這筆錢，但不可以告訴他/她把錢放在那裡，因為這意味著他接受對這筆錢的責任。如果這個規定也適用於給予「建築物」的資金，那麼比丘們應該能夠對此類資金的施主說：「捐款箱（功德箱）在那邊」，而不是「把它放在那裡」。
After the donor has placed the money, the bhikkhus may then tell the monastery steward what the donor said, but are not to tell him/her to take the money, as this would violate NP 18. They are also to follow the protocol in this rule when telling the steward of their need for building materials, wages for the workers, and other necessities that come up in the course of the building’s construction or maintenance. 施主放置金錢後，比丘們可以告訴寺院淨人施主所說的話，但不要告訴他/她拿走這筆錢，因為這會違反《捨墮》一八。當告訴淨人他們對建築材料、工人工資以及建築物建造或維護過程中出現的其他必需品的需求時，他們也應遵循本戒條中的行儀。
The Commentary mentions two other acceptable arrangements: 《義註》中提到了另外兩種可接受的安排：
1) The donor places the money with the workmen and tells the bhikkhus that their only responsibility is to check on whether the work is being done poorly or well. 1）施主把錢交給工人，並告訴比丘們，他們唯一的責任是檢查工作做得好還是不好。
2) The donor says that the money will be kept with him/her or with his/her employees and that the bhikkhus’ only responsibility is to inform them of whom the money is to be given to. 2）施主說，這筆錢將由他/她或他/她的僱員保管，比丘們唯一的責任是告知他們這筆錢將給誰。
This second arrangement, however, essentially makes the bhikkhu responsible for arranging a trade: He is telling the donor or his/her employees who deserves to be paid in exchange for goods or labor, which again would be a violation of NP 20. At most, a bhikkhu may tell the donor, etc., how much work the laborers did or what construction materials were delivered to the site, and leave it up to the donor, etc., to figure out who deserves to be paid how much. Also, if a checking account is set up for impersonal purposes such as the construction and upkeep of monastery buildings, a bhikkhu may not sign a check drawing on the account. 然而，第二種安排本質上是讓比丘負責安排交易：他告訴施主或他/她的僱員誰應該得到報酬以換取貨物或勞動力，這又違反了《捨墮》二十。比丘最多可以告訴施主等，工人做了多少工作，或運到工地的建築材料是什麼，然後讓施主等決定誰應該得到多少報酬。此外，如果支票帳戶是為了非個人目的而設立的，例如建造和維護寺院建築，比丘不可在該帳戶上簽署支票。
The Commentary says that because the steward in arrangements (1) and (2) is indicated by the donor, the bhikkhus may make as many requests as they like—i.e., in the first case, telling the workers what to do; in the second case, telling the steward or donor who is to be paid—but as we noted above, there seems no reason to follow the Commentary in making this allowance. 《義註》說，由於安排（1）和（2）中的淨人是由施主指定的，所以比丘們可以提出任意次數的請求——即在第一種情況下，告訴工人該做什麼；在第二種情況下，告訴淨人或施主誰應該得到報酬——但正如我們上面指出的，似乎沒有理由遵循《義註》來提供這種開緣。
In addition to building funds, it would seem that any charitable fund for schools, hospitals, etc.—such as some wealthy monasteries have—would come under the category of impersonal funds, as long as the fund is not for requisites for the Saṅgha, either as a group or individually. 除了建築資金之外，任何為學校、醫院等等設立的慈善資金——例如一些富裕的寺院所有——似乎都屬於非個人資金的範疇，只要該資金不是用於僧伽的必需品，無論是作為一個團體還是個人。
Fund management 資金管理
The Commentary states that if a Community fund has been set up for a particular requisite, it should as a general principle be used to buy only that requisite. If, however, the Community has enough of one kind of lahubhaṇḍa—goods that may be shared among the bhikkhus—but not enough of another, the fund for the first kind may be diverted to the second kind by an apalokana-kamma: a Community transaction in which the motion is phrased in one’s own words and unanimously accepted. 《義註》指出，如果為特定必需品設立了僧團資金，則作為一般原則，該資金應僅用於購買該必需品。然而，如果僧團有足夠的一種 lahubhaṇḍa（可以在比丘之間共享的物品），但沒有足夠的另一種，第一種的資金可以通過 apalokana-kamma 轉移到第二種：動議（白文、提案文）是用自己的話表達並獲得一致接受的僧團羯磨。
Funds for lodgings and furniture, though, because they are garubhaṇḍa (heavy or expensive goods that may not be shared among the bhikkhus), may not be diverted to lahubhaṇḍa at all. But if Saṅgha furniture is going unused and is in danger of deteriorating before it gets used, the Community may arrange to have it exchanged—using the procedure allowed under NP 20, and making sure not to let it go for less than its full value—and then use the proceeds for lahubhaṇḍa. The Commentary adds that proceeds of this sort should be used “frugally, just enough to keep life going.” In other words, if the Community is not in straitened circumstances, the proceeds should not be used for lahubhaṇḍa at all, and instead should be reserved for garubhaṇḍa as the need arises. If, however, the Community is suffering from such catastrophes as disease or famine, they may allow the proceeds to be used for lahubhaṇḍa as needed, but not to splurge on anything excessive. 然而，用於住宿和家具的資金，因為它們是 garubhaṇḍa（不能在比丘之間共享的重或昂貴物品），不可轉移到 lahubhaṇḍa。但是，如果僧團家具閒置並且在使用之前有損壞的危險，僧團可以安排交換它——使用《捨墮》二十中允許的程序，並確保不以低於其全部價值的價格出售——然後將所得收益用於 lahubhaṇḍa。《義註》補充說，此類收益應該「節儉地使用，僅足以維持生活」。換句話說，如果僧團沒有陷入困境，收益根本不應該用於 lahubhaṇḍa，而應該在需要出現時保留給 garubhaṇḍa。然而，如果僧團正遭受疾病或飢荒等災難，他們可以允許將收益用於需要時的 lahubhaṇḍa，但不要過度揮霍。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if: 若符合以下條件，則不構成犯戒：
the steward gives the item after the bhikkhu has given the allowable number of promptings or less; or 淨人在比丘給予允許次數或更少的提示後，給予物品；或者
if the donors(s) give the item after they have been informed that the steward has not given the item after having been prompted the allowable number of times. 如果施主（們）在被告知淨人在經過允許的次數提示後仍未提供物品後，才提供物品。
Note that the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses do not make an exemption for relatives or people who have invited one to ask. This means that even when the donor(s) or the steward or both are related to the bhikkhu or have given him an invitation to ask, he must follow the protocol under this rule. 請注意，《經分別》的不犯條款並不免除親戚或邀請詢問的人。這意味著，即使施主或淨人或兩者，與比丘有親屬關係或已邀請他詢問，他也必須遵守本戒條下的行儀。
Summary: When a fund for one’s individual use has been set up with a steward, obtaining an article from the fund as a result of having prompted the steward more than the allowable number of times is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：當供個人使用的資金已與淨人一起設立時，由於提示淨人超過允許次數而從該資金獲取物品是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。