尼薩耆波逸提（《捨墮》）

Two: The Silk Chapter

第二蠶絲品

11	十一
Should any bhikkhu have a felt (blanket/rug) made of a mixture containing silk, it is to be forfeited and confessed.	如果任何比丘擁有由絲綢混合物製成的毛氈（毯子/地毯），尼薩耆波逸提。
Santhata, translated here as a felt blanket/rug, is a type of cloth described in the texts simply by its method of manufacture. Instead of being woven, it is made by strewing threads over a smooth surface, sprinkling them with a glue-like mixture made from boiled rice, using a roller to roll it smooth, and then repeating the process until the felt is thick and strong enough for one’s purposes. Although felt made like this has a number of uses, its major use in the time of the texts seems to have been as a small personal rug for sitting or lying down, or as a rough blanket for wearing around oneself when sick or cold. Blankets/rugs like this are still made and used in parts of India even today, and as the non-offense clauses to this and the following rules show, it is precisely to this type of blanket/rug that these rules apply.	Santhata，這裡翻譯為氈毯/地毯，是一種在文獻中僅通過其製造方法描述的布料。它不是編織的，而是通過將線撒在光滑的表面上，撒上由煮米製成的膠狀混合物，用滾筒將其滾平滑，然後重複該過程，直到毛氈足夠厚且堅固，為了自己的目的而使用。雖然這樣製成的毛氈有多種用途，但在文獻的年代，它的主要用途似乎是作為坐著或躺著的小個人地毯，或作為生病或寒冷時穿在身上的粗糙毯子。即使在今天，這樣的毯子/地毯仍在印度部分地區製造和使用，正如本戒條和以下戒條的不犯條款所示，這些戒條正是適用於這種類型的毯子/地毯。

(未完待續)

18	十八
Should any bhikkhu accept gold and silver, or have it accepted, or consent to its being deposited (near him), it is to be forfeited and confessed.	如果任何比丘接受金銀，或令接受金銀，或同意將其存放（在他附近），則該金銀將被捨出並懺悔。
As mentioned under NP 10, one of the purposes of this rule is to relieve a bhikkhu of the burden of ownership that comes as the result of accepting gifts of money or having them accepted in one’s name. The discourses contain passages, though, indicating other purposes for this rule as well:	正如《捨墮》十中所提到的，本戒條的目的之一是減輕比丘因接受金錢布施或令其以自己的名義接受而產生的所有權負擔。不過，經文中所包含的段落也顯示了本戒條的其他目的：
“For anyone for whom gold and silver are allowable, the five strings of sensuality are also allowable. For anyone for whom the five strings of sensuality are allowable, gold and silver are allowable (reading yassa pañca kāmaguṇā kappanti tassa-pi jātarūpa-rajataṁ kappati with the Thai edition). That you can unequivocally recognize as not the quality of a contemplative, not the quality of one of the Sakyan sons.”—SN 42:10	「凡金銀許可之人，五欲亦許可。凡五欲許可之人，金銀亦許可（泰文版讀作 yassa pañca kāmaguṇā kappanti tassa-pi jātarūpa-rajataṁ kappati）。你可以明確地識別這不是沙門法，也不是釋迦子法之一。」—《相應部》42:10經
“Bhikkhus, there are these four obscurations of the sun and moon, obscured by which the sun and moon don’t glow, don’t shine, don’t dazzle. Which four? Clouds… Fog…. Smoke and dust… Rāhu, the king of the asuras (believed to be the cause of an eclipse) is an obscuration, obscured by which the sun and moon don’t glow, don’t shine, don’t dazzle…. In the same way, there are four obscurations of contemplatives and brahmans, obscured by which some contemplatives and brahmans don’t glow, don’t shine, don’t dazzle. Which four? There are some contemplatives and brahmans who… do not refrain from drinking alcohol and fermented liquor… who do not refrain from sexual intercourse… who do not refrain from accepting gold and silver… who do not refrain from wrong livelihood…. Because of these obscurations, some brahmans and contemplatives… covered with darkness, slaves to craving, led on, swell the terrible charnel ground, grab at further becoming.”—AN 4:50	「諸比丘，日月有四種障蔽，日月不明亮、不光芒、不光輝。哪四種？雲……霧……煙塵……羅睺，阿修羅之王（據信是日食的原因）是遮蔽物，被它遮蔽，日月不明亮、不光芒、不光輝……。同樣地，沙門和婆羅門也有四種障蔽，有些沙門和婆羅門被這四種障蔽所遮蔽，不明亮、不光芒、不光輝。哪四種？有沙門、婆羅門……不遠離飲酒及發酵飲料……不遠離淫欲法……不遠離接受金銀……不遠離邪命……。由於這些障蔽，有些婆羅門和沙門…被黑暗所籠罩，成為貪愛的奴隸，被牽引，擴大了可怖的墳場，執取後有。」—《增支部》4:50經
Bhikkhus, in abandoning the use of money, make real their abandonment of worldly pursuits and show others by example that the struggle for wealth is not the true way to find happiness.	比丘們放棄使用金錢，就真正放棄了世俗的追求，並以身作則向他人表明，為財富而奮鬥並不是尋找幸福的真正方法。
The factors for an offense under this rule are two: object and effort. However, because “object” is defined in one way for the first two actions stated in the rule, and in another way for the third, it seems best to analyze this rule as covering two separate but related offenses.	根據本戒條，犯戒的因素有兩個：對象和努力。然而，由於「對象」以一種方式定義為戒條中規定的前兩種行為，而第三種行為則以另一種方式定義，因此似乎最好將本戒條分析為涵蓋兩種獨立但相關的犯戒。
In the first offense the factors are:	在第一種犯戒中，因素是：
1) Object: gold or silver.	1）對象：金或銀。
2) Effort: One accepts or gets someone else to accept it.	2）努力：接受或讓別人接受它。
In the second offense they are:	在第二種犯戒中，他們是：
1) Object: gold or silver intended for one.	1）對象：供使用的金或銀。
2) Effort: One consents to its being placed down next to one.	2）努力：同意將其放在旁邊。

Object	對象
The Vibhaṅga defines gold so as to include anything made of gold. Silver it defines to cover coins made of silver, copper, wood, or lac, or whatever is used as a currency. The Commentary adds such examples as bones, pieces of hide, fruit, and seeds of trees used as currency, whether they have been stamped with a figure or not. At present, the term would include coins and paper currency, as well as money orders and cashiers checks not made out to a specific payee, as these meet all three requirements of a currency: (1) They are a generally accepted medium of exchange; (2) they are of standard recognized value; and (3) they are presentable by any bearer. The following items, because they do not fulfill all three of these requirements, would not count as “silver” under this rule: money orders and cashier’s checks made out to a specific payee; personal checks and travelers’ checks; credit cards and debit cards; gift cards, phone cards, frequent flyer miles; food stamps; and promissory notes.	《經分別》對金的定義包括所有黃金製成的東西。它定義的「銀」包括由銀、銅、木頭、樹膠或任何用作貨幣的物質製成的硬幣。《義註》添加了用作貨幣的骨頭、獸皮碎片、水果和樹種等例子，無論它們是否帶有數字印記。目前，該術語包括硬幣和紙幣，以及未開給特定收款人的匯票和銀行本票，因為它們滿足貨幣的所有三個要求：（1）它們是普遍接受的交換媒介；（2）具有標準認可價值；（3）任何持有者均可出示。以下物品，因為不符合所有這三個要求，因此根據本戒條不能算作「銀」：開給特定收款人的匯票和銀行本票；個人支票和旅行支票；信用卡和金融卡；禮品卡、電話卡、飛行常客哩程；食品券；和期票（本票）。
Because the word silver here functionally means “money,” that is how I will translate it for the remainder of the discussion of this rule.	因為這裡的“銀”這個詞在功能上意味著“金錢”，所以我將在本戒條的其餘討論中對其進行翻譯。
The Vibhaṅga indicates that perception is not a mitigating factor in either offense. Thus if a bhikkhu receives gold or money, even if he perceives it as something else—as when accepting a closed envelope not knowing that it contains money, or consenting to a bolt of cloth’s being placed near him, unaware that money has been placed inside it—he commits the full offense all the same. The same holds true if he is in doubt about what the envelope or bolt of cloth contains. This may seem a harsh penalty for a bhikkhu acting in complete innocence, but we must remember that, having received the money even unknowingly, he is now in possession of it and must dispose of it in a proper way. The protocols under this rule give directions for precisely how to do that.	《經分別》指出，感知並不是這兩種犯戒的減輕因素。因此，如果比丘收到黃金或金錢，即使他將其視為其他東西，例如當他接受一個封閉的信封時，並不知道裡面裝有金錢，或者同意將一塊布匹放在他附近，但不知道裡面已經放入金錢了，他仍然完全違犯此戒。如果他對信封或布匹的內容有疑問，這同樣成立。對於一個完全無辜的比丘來說，這似乎是一個嚴厲的懲罰，但我們必須記住，即使在不知情的情況下收到了這筆錢，他現在也擁有了這筆錢，並且必須以適當的方式處置它。本戒條下的行儀給出了具體如何做到這一點的指示。
If a bhikkhu accepts or consents to the placing of something that is not gold or money and yet he perceives it to be gold or money or is in doubt about its status, he incurs a dukkaṭa.	如果比丘接受或同意放置非黃金或金錢的東西，但他認為它是黃金或金錢或對其狀態有疑問，他就會犯《突吉羅》。
Gold Buddha images and gold items given to Buddha images, relics, or stūpas are not mentioned in the texts in connection with this rule. Over the centuries the common practice has been not to regard them as fulfilling the factor of object here, probably because Buddha images, stūpas, and relics, strictly speaking, cannot be owned by anyone. Similarly with items given to a Buddha image, etc.: Technically, these belong to the image, etc., and not to the monastery in which it may be located. Thus, as long as a bhikkhu realizes that he cannot assume ownership of any of these things, he may handle them without incurring an offense under this rule.	文獻中沒有提到與此戒條相關的金佛像和供養佛像、舍利或塔的黃金物品。幾個世紀以來，普遍的做法是不認為它們滿足了這裡的對象因素，可能是因為嚴格來說，佛像、佛塔和舍利不能為任何人所擁有。與給予佛像等的物品類似：從技術上講，這些物品屬於佛像等，而不屬於它所在的寺院。因此，只要比丘意識到他不能擁有這些物品中的任何一件，他就可以處理它們，而不會觸犯本戒條。
As mentioned under NP 10, the Commentary derives from the Canon a list of items that it says carry a dukkaṭa when accepted by a bhikkhu. These include pearls and precious stones; 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. For convenience’s sake, we will refer to these items from here on as dukkaṭa objects (dukkaṭa-vatthu), or D.O. for short.	正如《捨墮》十中所提到的，《義註》源自《聖典》的一份物品列表，它說當比丘接受時會犯《突吉羅》。其中包括珍珠和寶石；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。為了方便起見，我們從這裡開始將這些物品稱為《突吉羅》物件(dukkaṭa-vatthu)，或縮寫成 D.O. 。

Effort	努力
This factor may be fulfilled by any of three actions: accepting gold or money, having it accepted, or consenting to its being deposited. As noted above, the factors of the offense differ among the three: In the first two, the question of whether the bhikkhu consents to the gold or money does not enter into the definition of the act, nor does the donor’s intention as to who the gold or money is for. Only in the third act is the bhikkhu’s consent required to fulfill the action, and only there is it required that the donor intend the gold or money for the bhikkhu himself.	這個因素可以透過以下三種行為中的任何一種來實現：接受黃金或金錢、讓其被接受，或同意將其存放。如上所述，這三種犯戒的因素有所不同：在前兩種情況下，比丘是否同意黃金或金錢的問題不屬於該行為的定義，布施者對於黃金或金錢是給誰的意圖也不屬於。只有在第三種行為中，才需要比丘同意才能完成該行動，並且只有在布施者打算將黃金或金錢送給比丘本人時才需要。
1) Accepting	1) 接受
According to the K/Commentary, this includes receiving gold or money offered as a gift or picking up gold or money left lying around ownerless. (As the non-offense clauses show, this factor does not cover cases where one picks up money left lying around the monastery or a house where one is visiting if one’s purpose is to keep it in safekeeping for the owner. See Pc 84.) According to the Commentary, a bhikkhu who accepts money wrapped up in a bolt of cloth would also commit an offense here, which shows that this act includes receiving or taking the money not only with one’s body, but also with items connected with the body. Thus accepting money in an envelope or having it placed in one’s shoulder bag as it hangs from one’s shoulder would fulfill this factor as well.	根據 K/《義註》，這包括接收作為布施提供的黃金或金錢，或拾取無主的黃金或金錢。（如不犯條款所示，此因素不包括以下情況：如果目的是為所有者妥善保管，撿起留在寺院或正在參觀的房屋周圍的錢的情況。參閱《波逸提》八四。）根據《義註》，比丘接受用布包裹的金錢也犯了本戒，這表明此行為不僅包括用自己的身體接受或拿走金錢，還包括用與身體相連的物品。因此，接受裝在信封裡的錢或把它放在掛在肩上的肩包裡也可以滿足此因素。
The K/Commentary adds the stipulation that in the taking there must be some movement of the gold or money from one place to another. It offers no explanation for this point, but it may refer to cases where the gold or money is forced on a bhikkhu. (Because the presence or absence of the bhikkhu’s consent does not enter into the definition of the act of accepting, this means that when gold or money is forced on him, the act has been accomplished.) A typical example where this stipulation is useful is when a bhikkhu is on alms round and a lay donor, against the bhikkhu’s protestations, places money in his bowl. The stipulation allows the bhikkhu simply to stand there until he gets the donor or someone else to remove the money, and he would be absolved of an offense under this rule.	K/《義註》增加了這樣的規定：在取得過程中，黃金或金錢必須有從一處到另一處的某種移動。它沒有對這一點作出解釋，但它可能指的是黃金或金錢被強加給比丘的情況。（因為比丘的同意與否並不屬於接受行為的定義，這意味著當黃金或金錢被強加給他時，該行為就已經完成了。）這一規定有用的典型例子是當一位比丘托缽時，一位在家人不顧比丘的抗議，將錢放入他的缽中。該規定允許比丘簡單地站在那裡，直到他讓施主或其他人取走錢，根據本戒條，他將被免除犯戒。
The commentaries add intention as an extra factor—the full offense is entailed only if the bhikkhu is taking the gold or money for his own sake—but there is no basis for this in the Vibhaṅga. The bhikkhu’s intention in accepting the money does not enter into the Vibhaṅga’s discussions of any of the three actions covered by this rule, the donor’s intent does not enter into the Vibhaṅga’s definition of this action, and the non-offense clauses do not allow for a bhikkhu to accept money for others, so the added factor seems unwarranted. Whether the bhikkhu accepts gold or money for himself or for others is thus not an issue here.	註釋書中加入了意圖作為一個額外的因素——只有當比丘為了自己的利益而獲取黃金或金錢時，才構成完全的犯戒——但在《經分別》中沒有這方面的依據。比丘接受金錢的意圖不屬於《經分別》對本戒條所涵蓋的三種行為中任何一種的討論，布施者的意圖不屬於《經分別》對此行為的定義，並且不犯條款不允許比丘為他人接受金錢，所以增加的因素似乎沒有根據。因此，比丘是否為自己或他人接受黃金或金錢在這裡並不是問題。

2) Having gold or money accepted	2) 讓黃金或金錢被接受
Having gold or money accepted, according to the K/Commentary, includes getting someone else to do any of the actions covered under accepting, as described above. Examples from the commentaries, which draw on the protocols under NP 10, include such things as telling the donor to give the money to a steward, telling the donor that so-and-so will take the money for him; telling the steward to take the money, to put it in a donation box, to “do what he thinks appropriate,” or any similar command.	根據 K/《義註》，接受黃金或金錢包括讓其他人執行接受所涵蓋的任何行動，如上所述。註釋書中的例子借鑒了《捨墮》十下的行儀，包括告訴布施者將錢交給淨人、告訴布施者某某會替他拿走這筆錢；告訴淨人拿走錢，將其放入捐款箱（功德箱），「做他認為合適的事情」，或任何類似的命令。
Anything that falls short of a command, though, would not fulfill this factor, as we have already seen under NP 10. Thus simply telling the donor that X is the bhikkhus’ steward—or that the monastery’s stewards have placed a donation box in such-and-such a place—would not be a factor for an offense here. Also, if the donor—over the bhikkhu’s protestations—leaves money, say, on a table as a gift for a bhikkhu, then if the bhikkhu tells his steward what the donor did and said, without telling the steward to do anything with the money—letting the steward figure things out on his/her own—this too would not entail a penalty. The Commentary’s discussion of stewards under the next point shows that while a bhikkhu who tells a volunteer steward to put such a donation in a donation box would incur a penalty, a bhikkhu who simply points out the donation box would not.	然而，任何不符合命令的事情都不會滿足這個因素，正如我們在《捨墮》十中已經看到的那樣。因此，僅僅告訴施主 X 是比丘的淨人──或是寺院的淨人在某處放置了一個捐款箱（功德箱）──在這裡並不會構成犯戒的因素。另外，如果施主不顧比丘的抗議，比如說，將錢留在桌上作為給比丘的布施，那麼如果比丘告訴他的淨人，施主做了什麼和說過什麼，但沒有告訴淨人如何處理這筆錢——讓淨人自己解決問題——這也不會帶來懲罰。《義註》在下一點中對淨人的討論表明，雖然比丘告訴志願者淨人將此類捐款放入捐款箱（功德箱）會受到處罰，但比丘只是指出捐款箱（功德箱）則不會受到處罰。
As with the act of accepting, the questions of the bhikkhu’s consent, his intent in accepting, and the donor’s intent in giving do not enter into the definition of this action.	與接受行為一樣，比丘的同意、接受的意圖以及布施者布施的意圖等問題不屬於該行為的定義。

3) Consenting to gold or money’s being deposited	3) 同意存放黃金或金錢
The Vibhaṅga defines this action as follows: “He (the donor), saying, ‘This is for the master,’ deposits it, and the bhikkhu consents (§).” According to the K/Commentary, depositing covers two sorts of situations:	《經分別》對此行為的定義如下：「他（布施者）說：『這是給大師的』，將其存入，比丘同意（§）。」根據 K/《義註》，存放分為兩種情況：
1) The donor places gold or money anywhere in the bhikkhu’s presence, and says, “This is for the master,” or	1) 布施者將黃金或金錢放在比丘面前的任何地方，並說：「這是給大師的」，或
2) The donor tells him, “I have some gold or money deposited in such-and-such a location. It’s yours.” (One of the implications of this second case is that any monastery with a donation box should make clear that money left in the box is being placed with the steward. Because NP 10 allows a donor to place gold or money intended for a bhikkhu’s needs with a steward, the act of placing money with such a person in a bhikkhu’s presence does not count as “depositing” here.)	2) 布施者告訴他：「我在某處存放了一些黃金或金錢。是你的。」（此第二個案例的含義之一是，任何設有捐款箱（功德箱）的寺院都應明確表示，箱中的錢存放在淨人那裡。因為《捨墮》十允許布施者將用於比丘需要的黃金或金錢存放在淨人處，當比丘在場的情況下向這樣的人放置金錢的行為在此不算作「存放」。
Consenting in either of these cases, says the Commentary, means that one does not refuse either in thought, word, or deed. Refusing in thought means thinking, “This is not proper for me.” Refusing in word means telling the donor that such a gift is not allowable. Refusing in deed means making a gesture to the same effect. If one refuses in any of these ways—e.g., one wants to accept the gold or money, but tells the donor that it is not allowable; or one says nothing, but simply reminds oneself that such gifts are not proper to accept—one avoids the penalty here.	《義註》說，在這兩種情況下，同意意味著一個人在思想、言語或行為（身口意）上都沒有拒絕。思想（意）上的拒絕意味著想：「這不適合我。」口頭（口）拒絕是指告訴布施者這樣的布施是不被允許的。行為（身）拒絕意味著做出同樣效果的示意動作。如果以任何一種方式拒絕——例如，想接受黃金或金錢，但告訴布施者這是不允許的；或是甚麼也沒說，只是提醒自己這樣的布施不適合接受──這樣就可以避免受到懲罰。
The question of whether it is best to express one’s refusal outwardly lies beyond the scope of the Vinaya and often depends on the situation. Ideally, one should inform the donor so that he/she will know enough not to present such gifts in the future, but there are cases where the donor is still new to the idea of rules and will simply be offended if the bhikkhu objects to what he/she means as a well-intentioned gesture. This is thus a matter where a bhikkhu should use his discretion.	是否最好從外表上表達拒絕的問題超出了戒律的範圍，而且往往取決於具體情況。理想情況下，應該告知布施者，以便他/她知道將來不要做此類布施，但在某些情況下，布施者對戒條的概念仍然很陌生，如果比丘反對他/她所表達的善意行動，布施者只會感到被冒犯。因此，這是比丘應該運用自己的判斷力的問題。
The Commentary contains a long discussion of what a bhikkhu should do if, after he refuses such a donation, the donor goes off leaving it there anyway. If someone else comes along and asks the bhikkhu, “What is this?”, the bhikkhu may tell him/her what he and the donor said, but may not ask him/her to do anything about it. If the person volunteers to put the gold or money into safekeeping, the bhikkhu may point out a safe place but may not tell him/her to put it there.	《義註》中有一個長篇大論的討論，如果比丘在拒絕這樣的布施後，布施者卻把它留在那裡，他應該怎麼做。如果其他人走過來問比丘：「這是什麼？」，比丘可以告訴他/她他和施主所說的話，但不能要求他/她對此做任何事情。如果此人自願將黃金或金錢保管起來，比丘可以指出一個安全的地方，但不能告訴他/她把它放在那裡。
Once the gold or money is in a safe place, one may point it out to other people—one’s steward, for instance—but may not tell anyone to take it. The Commentary gives directions for how to arrange an exchange with gold or money in such a case so as not to violate NP 19 & 20, but I will save that part of the discussion until we come to those rules.	一旦黃金或金錢到達安全的地方，可以將其指出給其他人（例如淨人），但不得告訴任何人拿走它。《義註》給出了在這種情況下如何安排黃金或金錢兌換的指示，以免違反《捨墮》一九和二十，但我將保留這部分討論，直到我們遇到這些戒條。
However, the Vibhaṅga’s definition of “depositing” gold or money for a bhikkhu indicates that the question of who the donor intends the money for does make a difference under this action, because the nature of the donor’s action is defined by what he or she says. If the donor means the money for the bhikkhu and the bhikkhu consents to its being placed nearby, that fulfills the factor here. This covers cases where the donor says, “This is for you,” or “This is for you to give to X.”	然而，《經分別》對為比丘「存放」黃金或金錢的定義表明，布施者打算將錢送給誰的問題在這一行為中確實產生了影響，因為布施者行為的性質是由他或她所說的來定義的。如果布施者的意思是給比丘錢，而比丘同意將錢放在附近，那就滿足了這裡的因素。這包括布施者說「這是給你的」或「這是讓你給 X 的」的情況。
In cases where the donor says, “This is for the Community,” or “This is for Bhikkhu Y,” and Bhikkhu X consents to its being placed down near him, the Commentary—drawing on the Great Standards—says that X incurs a dukkaṭa. It does not say, though, what should be done with the money, aside from stating that any bhikkhu who uses anything bought with it also incurs a dukkaṭa. Its discussion of the following rule, though, would seem to imply that it should be returned to the original donor.	如果布施者說：「這是給僧團」或「這是給比丘 Y」，並且比丘 X 同意將其放置在他附近，則《義註》根據《四大教示》說 X 會犯《突吉羅》。然而，它並沒有說應該用這些錢做什麼，只是說任何比丘使用用它購買的任何東西也會犯《突吉羅》。然而，它對以下戒條的討論似乎意味著它應該退還給最初的布施者。
If money for Bhikkhu Y is placed near Bhikkhu X in this way, and Y in turn consents to the donation, then Y would incur the full penalty here as well. The Commentary’s discussion under NP 10 indicates that if money for the Community is placed near Bhikkhu X, the Community is said to have consented to it only when all members of the Community unanimously consent to it. If one member refuses consent, he saves all the other members from committing an offense—except for X, who still has his dukkaṭa.	如果比丘 Y 的錢以這種方式放在比丘 X 附近，而 Y 又同意該布施，那麼 Y 也會在這裡遭受全額懲罰。《捨墮》十下的《義註》討論表明，如果僧團的資金放在 X 比丘附近，只有當僧團的所有成員一致同意時，才被認為是僧團同意的。如果一位成員拒絕同意，他會阻止所有其他成員犯戒——除了 X，他仍然犯《突吉羅》。
The Commentary here also says that a bhikkhu who consents to monetary donations “placed nearby” him for monastery buildings incurs a dukkaṭa as well. This refers to cases where the donor says, “This is for the Community to use in building such-and-such,” and places the money down next to the bhikkhu. As the Commentary itself says under NP 10, if the donor does not mention the name of the bhikkhu or the Community as custodians or recipients of the funds, the donations are not to be refused. Rather, they are to be left there and the steward told of what the donor said.	這裡的《義註》還說，一位比丘同意將金錢捐贈放在他「附近」來建造寺院建築，也會犯《突吉羅》。這是指布施者說：「這是供僧團用於建造某物的」，並將錢放在比丘旁邊。正如《義註》本身在《捨墮》十下所說，如果布施者沒有提及作為資金保管人或接受者的比丘或僧團的名稱，則布施不得被拒絕。相反，他們應該被留在那兒，告訴淨人布施者所說的話。

Forfeiture & confession	捨出 & 懺罪
A bhikkhu who commits either offense under this rule must forfeit the gold or money in the midst of a formal meeting of the Community before confessing the offense. The formulae and procedures for forfeiture and confession are given in Appendix VI. This is one of the few NP rules where the offender may not forfeit the item in question to an individual bhikkhu or to a group of less than four. Once he has forfeited the gold or money and confessed his offense, the Community may not return it to him, as there is no way a bhikkhu is allowed to possess these things.	犯下本戒條的比丘必須在懺罪之前在僧團的正式會議中捨出黃金或金錢。捨出和懺罪的公式和程序請見附錄六。這是為數不多的《捨墮》戒條之一，犯戒者不得將相關物品捨出給單一比丘或少於四人的團體。一旦他捨出了黃金或金錢並懺悔了自己的罪行，僧團不得將其歸還給他，因為比丘不能擁有這些東西。
If a lay person comes along after the gold or money has been forfeited, the bhikkhus may tell him, “Look at this.” If he asks, “What should be bought with this?”, the bhikkhus are not to tell him to buy anything (as that would violate NP 20), although they may tell him what in general is allowable for bhikkhus, such as the five tonics, as under NP 23, below. If he takes the gold or money and purchases any proper items, all the bhikkhus except the one who originally accepted the gold or money may make use of them. If the lay person does not volunteer to buy anything with the gold or money, the bhikkhus should tell him to get rid of it.	如果在黃金或金錢被捨出後，有居士出現，比丘們可以告訴他：「看看這個。」如果他問：「應該用這個買什麼？」，比丘們不要告訴他買任何東西（因為這會違反《捨墮》二十），儘管他們可以告訴他一般來說對比丘們而言什麼是允許的，例如五種補品（譯註：七日藥），如《捨墮》二三所示。如果他拿走黃金或金錢並且購買任何適當的物品，除最初接受黃金或金錢的比丘外，所有比丘都可以使用它們。如果居士不自願用黃金或金錢購買任何東西，比丘們應該告訴他要把它摒棄掉。
If he does not get rid of it, they are to choose one of the bhikkhus present as the “money-disposer,” by means of the transaction statement—a motion and one proclamation (ñatti-dutiya-kamma)—given in Appendix VI. The money-disposer must be free of the four forms of bias—based on desire, aversion, delusion, or fear—and must know when money is properly disposed of and when it is not. His duty is to throw the money away without taking note of where it falls. If he does take note, he incurs a dukkaṭa. The Commentary recommends that, “Closing his eyes, he should throw it into a river, over a cliff, or into a jungle thicket without paying attention to where it falls, disinterested as if it were a bodily secretion (gūthaka).”	如果他不摒棄它，他們將通過在附錄六中的羯磨聲明——一項動議和一份公告[譯註：一白與一羯磨]（ñatti-dutiya-kamma [譯註：白二羯磨]）——選擇在場的比丘之一作為「金錢處置者」。金錢處置者必須免於四種形式的偏見——基於欲望、嗔恨、愚癡、或恐懼——並且必須知道何時金錢被正確地處置，何時不正確。他的職責就是把錢丟掉，而不注意它落到哪裡。如果他確實注意到了，他犯《突吉羅》。《義註》建議：「閉上眼睛，將其扔進河裡、懸崖上或叢林中，而不注意它落到哪裡，漠不關心，就好像它是身體的分泌物（gūthaka）一樣。」
None of the texts mention what a bhikkhu is to do with dukkaṭa objects he has received, but as we shall see under the following rule, the Commentary would seem to suggest that he return them to their donors.	沒有任何文字提到比丘如何處理他收到的《突吉羅》物件，但正如我們將在以下戒條中看到的，《義註》似乎建議他將這些物品歸還給施主。

Non-offenses	不犯
As mentioned above, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who, finding gold or money lying around the monastery or in a house he is visiting, puts it away in safe keeping for the owner. This point is discussed in detail under Pc 84.	如上所述，比丘在寺院周圍或他所拜訪的房屋中發現黃金或金錢，為其所有者將其妥善保管，這並沒有犯戒。這一點在《波逸提》八四中有詳細討論。

Checks	支票
There is some controversy over the status of checks under this rule. In legal terms, a check is a notice to a bank to provide funds for the payee. Because banks are corporate individuals and not “places,” a check made out to a bhikkhu is thus equivalent to a notice from a donor to a steward to provide funds on the bhikkhu’s behalf. Because the funds in question do not change ownership until the recipient cashes the check, this strengthens the similarity to funds placed with a steward: The funds still belong to the donor until they are used, and the steward is responsible if they become lost in the meantime. Thus the simple act of receiving a check counts not as an act of receiving money but as an acknowledgement of the notice. In passing the notice to someone else, one is simply informing them of the donor’s arrangement. Only if a bhikkhu cashes a check or gives an order to someone else to do so does he commit an offense under this rule.	對於本戒條下的支票的地位存在一些爭議。從法律角度來說，支票是銀行向收款人提供資金的通知。因為銀行是法人個體而非「場所」，所以開給比丘的支票相當於布施者向淨人發出的代替比丘提供資金的通知。由於相關資金在收款人兌現支票之前不會改變所有權，因此這增強了存放與淨人的資金的相似性：資金在使用之前仍屬於布施者，如果資金在使用過程中丟失，則淨人負責。因此，僅接收支票的行為不算是接收金錢的行為，而是對通知的確認。將通知傳遞給其他人時，只是告知他們布施者的安排。只有當比丘兌現支票或命令其他人這樣做時，他才犯下本戒條。
A bhikkhu who uses a check as a means of barter commits an offense under NP 20. The most he is allowed to do when receiving a check is to hand it over to his steward—being careful not to say anything that would violate the etiquette of kappiya vohāra (“wording things right”) under this rule or NP 10, 19, & 20—and to let the steward make whatever arrangements he/she sees fit.	使用支票作為以物易物的比丘犯了《捨墮》二十罪。當他收到支票時，他最多可以做的就是將其交給他的淨人，注意不要說出任何違反本戒條或《捨墮》十、一九、二十規定的 kappiya vohāra （「措辭正確」）禮儀的內容——並讓淨人做出他/她認為合適的任何安排。

Summary: Accepting gold or money, having someone else accept it, or consenting to its being placed down as a gift for oneself is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.

摘要：接受黃金或金錢、讓別人接受它或同意將其作為布施送給自己都是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。

* * *

19	十九
Should any bhikkhu engage in various types of monetary exchange, it (the income) is to be forfeited and confessed.	如果任何比丘從事各種類型的金錢兌換，則其（收入）將被捨出並懺悔。
There are two factors for an offense here: object and effort.	這裡的犯戒有兩個因素：對象和努力。

Object	對象
The Vibhaṅga defines money in the same terms it uses to define gold and silver in the preceding rule: any type of gold, whether shaped into an ornament or not; and any coins or other items used as currency.	《經分別》對金錢的定義與前一個戒條中定義金銀的術語相同：任何類型的黃金，無論是否被製成裝飾品；以及任何硬幣或其他用作貨幣的物品。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga’s description of the kind of exchange covered by this rule differs from that given in the Commentary, so they are best discussed separately.	《經分別》對本戒條所涵蓋的兌換類型的描述與《義註》中的描述不同，因此最好將它們分開討論。

The Vibhaṅga’s interpretation	《經分別》的解釋
Monetary exchange refers primarily to the type of business and speculation a gold dealer would engage in—exchanging currency, trading gold ore for gold shaped into ornaments or vice versa, trading gold ore for gold ore, or gold ornaments for gold ornaments—but the Vibhaṅga’s discussion of the factor of perception shows that the factor of effort here includes any exchange in which the bhikkhu ends up with gold or money as a result of the exchange. Thus it would cover cases where a bhikkhu sells any kind of item—allowable or unallowable—for money.	金錢兌換主要是指黃金交易商從事的業務和投機買賣類型——兌換貨幣、用金礦石換黃金飾品，反之亦然、用金礦石換金礦石、或者用金飾品換金飾品——但《經分別》對感知因素的討論表明，這裡的努力因素包括比丘最終得到黃金或金錢作為交換結果的任何交換。因此，它涵蓋了比丘為了金錢而出售任何種類的物品——無論是允許的還是不允許的——的情況。
At first glance, this rule would seem redundant with the preceding rule against receiving money and the following rule against engaging in trade, but actually it closes a number of loopholes in those rules. In the preceding rule, a bhikkhu may point out a steward to a person who brings money intended for him; and in the following rule he can, if he words it right, propose a trade or tell a steward to arrange a trade for him. Thus, given just those two rules, it would be possible for a bhikkhu using “proper” procedures to have his steward engage in currency speculation and other money-making activities without committing an offense.	乍看之下，與前面的禁止接受金錢的戒條和後面的禁止從事貿易的戒條，本戒條似乎是多餘的，但實際上它彌補了這些戒條中的一些漏洞。在前條戒條中，比丘可以向為他帶來金錢的人指出一名淨人；在後面的戒條中，如果他表達正確，他可以提出交易或告訴淨人為他安排交易。因此，只有這兩條戒條，比丘就有可能使用「適當」的程序讓他的淨人從事貨幣投機買賣和其他賺錢活動而不犯戒。
This rule, though, includes no such exceptions for “wording things right (kappiya-vohāra),” and so closes those loopholes as far as this type of trading is concerned. As a result, a bhikkhu may not express a desire to his steward that he/she sell something belonging to him or take funds dedicated for his use and invest them for monetary return. If the bhikkhu is going abroad, he must leave it up to his steward to figure out that any funds donated for his use may have to be exchanged for foreign currency if they are going to serve any purpose.	不過，本戒條不包括「措辭正確（kappiya-vohāra）」的例外情況，因此就此類交易而言，堵住了這些漏洞。結果，比丘不能向他的淨人表達，讓他/她出售屬於他的東西，或拿專用於他的資金並投資以獲取金錢回報的願望。如果比丘要出國，他必須讓他的淨人自己弄清楚，供他使用的任何布施資金如果要發揮任何作用，可能必須兌換成外幣。
According to the K/Commentary, the item offered in exchange must be one’s own if the exchange is to fall under this rule, but the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses make no exemptions for a bhikkhu who engages in monetary exchange using items belonging to anyone else. Thus if a bhikkhu were to arrange a monetary exchange using goods belonging to his family, he would have to forfeit any proceeds from the exchange that they might offer to him.	根據 K/《義註》，如果交換符合本戒條，則提供的交換物品必須是自己的，但《經分別》的不犯條款對於使用屬於其他人的物品進行金錢兌換的比丘沒有豁免。因此，如果比丘要使用屬於他家人的物品進行金錢兌換，他將不得不放棄他們可能提供給他的任何兌換收益。
Perception is not a factor here. Thus, when receiving gold or money, even if he perceives it as something else or is in doubt about the matter, he would still be fulfilling the factor of effort. When receiving something other than gold or money, if he perceives it as gold or money or is in doubt about it, the penalty would be a dukkaṭa.	感知不是這裡的因素。因此，當他收到黃金或金錢時，即使他認為這是其他東西或對此有疑問，他仍然滿足了努力的因素。當收到黃金或金錢以外的東西時，如果他認為它是黃金或金錢或對此有疑問，則會受到《突吉羅》的懲罰。

The Commentary’s interpretation	《義註》的解釋
According to the Commentary, monetary exchange refers to any trade in which money is involved—whether as the item the bhikkhu brings into the trade, gets out of the trade, or both. Buddhaghosa states that this interpretation is based on a passage that is not in the Vibhaṅga but logically should be. The Sub-commentary supports him, explaining that if monetary exchange covers trades in which money forms one side of the trade, it shouldn’t matter which side of the trade it is on.	根據《義註》，金錢交換是指任何涉及金錢的交易——無論是比丘將物品帶入交易、帶出交易，或兩者兼而有之。佛音指出，這種解釋所依據的一段話不在《經分別》中，但邏輯上應該是。《複註》支持他，解釋說如果金錢交換涵蓋金錢構成交易一方的交易，那麼金錢屬於交易的哪一方並不重要。
This, however, contradicts a number of points in the Vibhaṅga. (1) Its table of the possible actions covered by this rule includes only cases where the outcome of the trade for the bhikkhu is money. As we noted in the Introduction, we have to trust that the Vibhaṅga arrangers knew what was and was not an offense under a certain rule, and that if they had meant the rule to cover more than the alternatives listed in the table they would have included them. (2) In the Vibhaṅga’s discussion of how the forfeiture is to be conducted, it consistently refers to the offender as the “one who purchased money” and to the bhikkhu who throws the forfeited object away as the “money-disposer.” (3) If monetary exchange covers cases where the bhikkhu uses money to buy allowable things, then the discussion of how a bhikkhu could get his steward to use money rightfully placed with the steward to buy such things would have been included under this rule; instead, it is included under the following rule. All of this seems to indicate that the Commentary is on shaky ground when it tries to force its interpretation on the Vibhaṅga here.	然而，這與《經分別》中的許多觀點相矛盾。（1）本戒條涵蓋的可能行動表格僅包括比丘交易的結果是金錢的情況。正如我們在引言中指出的，我們必須相信《經分別》編排者知道在特定戒條下什麼是犯戒，什麼不是犯戒，並且如果他們想讓該戒條涵蓋比表格中列出的替代方案更多的內容，他們就會包括他們。（2）《經分別》在討論如何進行捨出時，始終將犯戒者稱為「購買金錢的人」，並將扔掉捨出物品的比丘稱為「金錢處置者」。（3）如果金錢兌換涵蓋比丘用金錢購買允許的物品的情況，那麼比丘如何讓他的淨人使用正確存放在淨人那裡的金錢來購買這些物品的討論就包含在本戒條中；相反，它包含在下一個戒條中。所有這些似乎都表明，當《義註》試圖將其解釋強加於此處的《經分別》時，它的基礎是不穩固的。
Still, the Commentary’s interpretation is widely followed and fairly complex, so it will be good to discuss it in some detail.	儘管如此，《義註》的解釋仍被廣泛遵循並且相當複雜，因此最好對其進行一些詳細討論。
As under the preceding rule, the Commentary divides articles into three sorts:	如同上一個戒條，《義註》將物件分為三類：
nissaggiya objects (N.O.), i.e., articles such as gold and money, which entail a nissaggiya pācittiya when accepted;	《尼薩耆》物件（N.O.），即黃金和金錢等物品，在接受時犯《捨墮》；
dukkaṭa objects (D.O.), articles such as pearls, precious stones; uncooked grain, raw meat; women and girls, male and female slaves; goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, steeds, and mares; fields and property, any of which entail a dukkaṭa when accepted;	《突吉羅》物件（D.O.），珍珠、寶石等物品；未煮熟的穀物、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，其中任何一項在被接受時都會帶來《突吉羅》；
allowable objects (A.O.), articles that a bhikkhu may rightfully accept and possess.	允許物件（A.O.），比丘可以正當地接受和擁有的物品。
It then works out the following scheme to cover all possible trades involving these objects:	然後，它制定出以下方案來涵蓋所有涉及這些物件的可能的交易：

Using to buy results in

N.O. → N.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya

N.O. → D.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya

N.O. → A.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya

D.O. → N.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya

D.O. → D.O. a dukkaṭa*

D.O. → A.O. a dukkaṭa*

A.O. → N.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya

A.O. → D.O. a dukkaṭa*

A.O. → A.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya under NP 20

使用		去買	造成
《尼薩耆》物件	→	《尼薩耆》物件	《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）
《尼薩耆》物件	→	《突吉羅》物件	《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）
《尼薩耆》物件	→	允許物件	《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）
《突吉羅》物件	→	《尼薩耆》物件	《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）
《突吉羅》物件	→	《突吉羅》物件	《突吉羅》*
《突吉羅》物件	→	允許物件	《突吉羅》*
允許物件	→	《尼薩耆》物件	《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）
允許物件	→	《突吉羅》物件	《突吉羅》*
允許物件	→	允許物件	《捨墮》二十下《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）

The trades marked with asterisks point out one of the anomalies of the Commentary’s interpretation: Why trades involving D.O. should entail only a dukkaṭa, while A.O. → A.O. trades should entail a nissaggiya pācittiya is hard to fathom.	標有星號的交易指出了《義註》解釋的異常之一：為什麼涉及允許物件的交易會只犯《突吉羅》，而允許物件→允許物件交易會涉及《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）是很難理解的。
At any rate, to continue with the Commentary’s explanations: N.O. → A.O. trades cover two possible cases, depending on whether the money was obtained properly or improperly under the preceding rule. If improperly, the object bought with the money is unallowable for all bhikkhus. This holds whether the bhikkhu makes the purchase himself or a steward makes it for him. The only way the item can be made allowable is to have an equal sum of money returned to the original donor and the item returned to the person who sold it, and then arrange for a proper exchange as allowed under the following rule. (At first glance, it may seem strange for the Commentary to insist that the price of the A.O. be returned to the original donor of the N.O., as the bhikkhus are in no way in his/her debt; but this is probably the Commentary’s way of ensuring that if the seller returns the purchase price of the A.O. to the bhikkhus’ steward, it is not used to repurchase the A.O.)	無論如何，繼續《義註》的解釋：《尼薩耆》物件→ 允許物件交易涵蓋兩種可能的情況，取決於根據上一個戒條是否適當地或不適當地獲得金錢。如果不適當，用金錢購買的物品對於所有比丘來說都是不允許的。無論是比丘自己購買還是淨人為他購買，這都是成立的。使該物品獲得允許的唯一方法是將等額的錢退還給原始布施者，並將該物品退還給出售該物品的人，然後根據下一個戒條安排適當的交換。（乍看之下，《義註》堅持將允許物件的價格歸還給《尼薩耆》物件的原來布施者似乎很奇怪，因為比丘們絕不欠他/她的債；但這可能是《義註》的方式，以確保如果賣方將允許物件的購買價格退還給比丘的淨人，則該金額不會用於重新購買該允許物件）
If, however, a bhikkhu engages in a N.O. → A.O. trade using money obtained properly under the preceding rule, the item bought is unallowable only for him, but allowable for other bhikkhus once he has forfeited it. If N.O. → A.O. exchanges really were covered by this rule, though, this would contradict the Vibhaṅga, which insists that the item obtained as a result of this rule either has to be given to a lay person or thrown away. Thus it seems better to follow the Vibhaṅga in treating cases of this sort under the following rule.	然而，如果比丘從事《尼薩耆》物件→ 允許物件交易，使用根據上一個戒條適當地獲得的金錢時，所購買的物品僅對他來說是不允許的，但一旦他捨出了該物品，其他比丘就可以使用。儘管，如果《尼薩耆》物件→ 允許物件交換確實被本戒條涵蓋，但這與《經分別》相矛盾，《經分別》堅持認為，由於本戒條而獲得的物品要麼必須給予居士，要麼被扔掉。因此，在對待此類案例時，最好遵循下一個戒條的《經分別》。
The Commentary makes no mention of what should be done with items resulting from trades that carry a dukkaṭa here, but its discussion of how to “undo” a trade so as to make the item allowable suggests the following scheme:	《義註》中沒有提及應該如何處理帶有《突吉羅》的交易所產生的物品，但它對如何「還原」交易以使該物品被允許的討論建議了以下方案：
For a D.O → D.O. trade: Return the object bought to the person who sold it, return the original object to the donor, and confess the offense.	對於《突吉羅》物件→《突吉羅》物件交易：將購買的物品歸還給出售者，將原來的物品歸還給布施者，並懺悔罪行。
For a D.O. → A.O. trade: Return the object bought to the person who sold it, return the original object to the donor, and confess the offense. If one wants to, one may then approach the person who sold the allowable object and arrange a proper trade in accordance with the following rule.	對於《突吉羅》物件→允許物件交易：將購買的物品歸還給出售者，將原來的物品歸還給布施者，並懺悔罪行。如果願意，可以聯繫出售允許物品的人，並根據下一個戒條安排適當的交易。
For an A.O. → D.O. trade: Return the object bought to the person who sold it and confess the offense.	對於允許物件→《突吉羅》物件交易：將購買的物品歸還給出售者並懺悔罪行。
As an intellectual exercise, the Commentary considers the question of a trade that results in an A.O. that can never be made allowable, and comes up with the following scenario: A bhikkhu takes money improperly obtained under the preceding rule, uses it to get iron mined, smelted, and made into a bowl. Because there is no way to undo these transactions—the iron can never be returned to its state as ore—there is no way any bhikkhu may ever properly make use of the iron no matter what is done with it.	作為一項智力練習，《義註》考慮了導致永遠不能被獲得允許的允許物件的交易問題，並提出了以下情況：一位比丘拿了根據上一個戒條不適當獲得的金錢，用它來開採、熔煉鐵，並製成缽。因為沒有辦法還原這些處置——鐵永遠無法恢復到礦石狀態——所以任何比丘都無法適當地使用該鐵，無論用它做了什麼。
As mentioned above, the Commentary’s explanations here contradict the Vibhaṅga on a number of points, and contain several anomalies as well. It seems preferable to treat a number of cases it mentions here—N.O. → D.O., N.O. → A.O., D.O. → D.O., D.O. → A.O., A.O. → D.O., or in other words, any trade resulting in an allowable or a dukkaṭa object—under the following rule instead.	如上所述，《義註》在此的解釋在許多方面與《經分別》相矛盾，也包含一些異常之處。似乎最好按照下一個戒條來處理在此提到的一些情況——《尼薩耆》物件→《突吉羅》物件、《尼薩耆》物件→允許物件、《突吉羅》物件→《突吉羅》物件，《突吉羅》物件→允許物件，允許物件→《突吉羅》物件，或者換句話說，任何導致允許物件或《突吉羅》物件的交易。

Forfeiture & confession	捨出 & 懺罪
When a bhikkhu has obtained gold or money in violation of this rule he is to forfeit it in the midst of a formal meeting of the Community, following the procedures explained under the preceding rule. The Pali formulae for forfeiture and confession are in Appendix VI.	當比丘違反本戒條而獲得黃金或金錢時，他應在僧團正式會議期間，按照前一條戒條解釋的程序，將其捨出。巴利文的捨出與懺悔罪行公式請見附錄六。

Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses contain nothing but the blanket exemptions mentioned under Pr 1.	《經分別》的不犯條款只包含《波羅夷》一中提到的總括性豁免。

Summary: Obtaining gold or money through trade is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.

摘要：透過貿易獲取黃金或金錢是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。

* * *

20	二十
Should any bhikkhu engage in various types of trade, it (the article obtained) is to be forfeited and confessed.	如果任何比丘從事各種類型的貿易，那麼它（獲得的物品）將被捨出並懺悔。
“Now at that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan had become accomplished at making robes. Having made an outer robe of cloak-scraps, having dyed it well and stitched it nicely, he wore it. A certain wanderer, wearing a very expensive cloak, went to him and on arrival said to him, ‘Your outer robe is beautiful, my friend. Give it to me in exchange for this cloak.’	「爾時，釋迦族優波難陀在製作袈裟方面頗有造詣。他用外衣布片做了一件僧伽梨，染好，縫好，就穿上了。有一個遊行者，穿著一件非常昂貴的外衣，來到他那裡，到達後對他說：『我的朋友，你的僧伽梨很漂亮。把它給我來換取這件外衣。』
“‘Do you know (what you’re doing), my friend?’	「『你知道（你在做什麼）嗎，我的朋友？』
“‘Yes, I know.’	「『是的，我知道。』
“‘Okay, then.’ And he gave him the robe.	「『那麼，好吧。』然後他把袈裟給了他。
“Then the wanderer went to the wanderers’ park wearing the outer robe. The other wanderers said to him, ‘Your outer robe is beautiful, friend. Where did you get it?’	「然後，遊行者穿著僧伽梨去了遊行者公園。其餘的遊行者對他說：『朋友，你的僧伽梨很漂亮。你在哪裡得到它？』
“‘I got it in exchange for my cloak.’	「『我用我的外衣換取了它。』
“‘But how long will this outer robe last you? That cloak of yours was better.’	「『但是這件僧伽梨能讓你穿多久呢？你的那件外衣比較好。』
“So the wanderer, thinking, ‘It’s true what the wanderers said. How long will this outer robe last me? That cloak of mine was better,’ went to Ven. Upananda the Sakyan and on arrival said, ‘Here is your outer robe, my friend. Give me my cloak.’	「所以，遊行者心想：『遊行者所說的是真的。這件僧伽梨能穿多久？我的那件外衣比較好。』至釋迦族優波難陀處，到達後說：『這是你的僧伽梨，我的朋友。把我的外衣給我。』
“‘But didn’t I ask you, “Do you know (what you’re doing)?” I won’t give it to you.’	「『但我不是問過你，「你知道（你在做什麼）嗎？」我不會給你的。』
“So the wanderer criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘Even a householder will give to another householder who regrets (a trade). How can one who has gone forth not give (the same courtesy) to one who has gone forth?’”	「於是遊行者批評並抱怨，散播說：『即使是一個居士，也會給另一個後悔（交易）的居士。出家人怎麼能不給出家人（同樣的禮遇）呢？』」
As we noted under NP 10, one of the purposes of this rule is to relieve bhikkhus of the responsibilities that come with making trades—the responsibility of having to get a fair price for one’s goods and at the same time offering a fair deal to the person receiving them.	正如我們在《捨墮》十中所指出的，本戒條的目的之一是解除比丘們進行交易的責任——必須為自己的商品獲得公平的價格，同時向收受者提供公平的交易。
The factors for an offense here are two: object and effort.	這裡的犯戒因素有兩個：對象和努力。

Object	對象
The Vibhaṅga defines various types of trade as covering deals involving the four requisites, “even a lump of powder, tooth wood, or unwoven thread”—these being its standard examples of objects with the least possible material value. The Commentary interprets this definition as limiting this rule to deals involving nothing but allowable objects (A.O. → A.O.), but there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to suggest that this is necessarily so. The emphasis in the Vibhaṅga seems to be that this rule covers even allowable objects of the least possible value, and all the more so more valuable and restricted objects. In fact, as the Vibhaṅga explicitly limits the preceding rule to trades that result in money for the bhikkhu (N.O. → N.O.; D.O. → N.O.; A.O. → N.O.), it seems best to interpret this rule as covering all types of trade not covered in that rule:	《經分別》將各種類型的貿易定義為涵蓋涉及四種必需品的交易，「甚至是一塊粉末、牙木或未編織的線」——這些是其物質價值最低的物品的標準範例。《義註》將此定義解釋為限制本戒條僅涉及允許物件的交易（允許物件→允許物件），但《經分別》中沒有任何內容表明這必然如此。《經分別》中的重點似乎是，本戒條甚至涵蓋了價值最低的允許物件，更有價值和受限制的物件就更是如此。事實上，由於《經分別》明確地將前一條戒條限制為為比丘帶來金錢的交易（《尼薩耆》物件→《尼薩耆》物件；《突吉羅》物件→《尼薩耆》物件；允許物件→《尼薩耆》物件），似乎最好將本戒條解釋為涵蓋在該戒條所有未涵蓋的交易類型。
N.O. → D.O.; N.O. → A.O.;	《尼薩耆》物件→《突吉羅》物件; 《尼薩耆》物件→允許物件;
D.O. → D.O.; D.O. → A.O.;	《突吉羅》物件→《突吉羅》物件; 《突吉羅》物件→允許物件;
A.O. → D.O.; and A.O. → A.O.	允許物件→《突吉羅》物件; 以及允許物件→允許物件
The Vibhaṅga, in its description of what constitutes a trade, makes reference to “one’s own” object going to the hand of the other, and the other’s object going to one’s own hand. From this, the K/Commentary deduces that the object given in trade has to be one’s own personal possession. This deduction, however, is mistaken for several reasons: (1) The Vibhaṅga’s protocols under NP 10 do not allow one to tell a steward to use the funds placed in his care to buy or barter for anything, and yet these funds do not belong to the bhikkhu. (2) The Vibhaṅga’s protocols for disposing of money under NP 18 & 19 do not allow a bhikkhu to tell a lay person to buy anything with the money forfeited by the offender under those rules, and again this money does not belong to the bhikkhu. (3) The non-offense clauses to this rule make no exemptions for a bhikkhu who trades using goods belonging to someone else. Thus it would appear that the phrase, “one’s own” goods, in the Vibhaṅga’s description of a trade, is defined simply in opposition to the phrase, “the other person’s” goods prior to the trade. In other words, it would cover anything that starts out on one’s side before the trade, whether those items are one’s own personal possessions or another person’s possessions that have been placed in deposit for one’s use (such as funds placed with a steward) or in one’s keeping (such as monastery funds placed under the supervision of a monastery official).	《經分別》在描述貿易的組成時，提到了「自己的」物品到達另一個人的手中，以及另一個人的物品到達自己的手中。由此，K/《義註》推論出交易中所給予的物品必須是自己的個人財產。然而，這種推論是錯誤的，原因如下：（1）《捨墮》十下的《經分別》行儀不允許告訴淨人使用放在他照料下的資金來購買或交換任何東西，甚至這些資金不屬於至比丘。（2）根據《捨墮》一八和一九的《經分別》規定的金錢處置行儀不允許比丘告訴在家人用犯戒者根據那些戒條捨出的錢來購買任何東西，而且這筆錢也不屬於比丘。（3）本戒條的不犯條款對於使用屬於他人的貨物進行交易的比丘沒有豁免。因此，在《經分別》對貿易的描述中，在交易之前，此用語「自己的」貨物的定義似乎與「他人的」貨物的用語相對立。換句話說，它涵蓋交易前，某一方開始的任何物品，無論那些物品是自己的個人財產，還是他人存放供自己使用的財產（例如存放在淨人處的資金）或由某人保管（例如由寺院執事監督的寺院資金）。

Effort	努力
Engaging in trade, according to the Vibhaṅga, involves two steps:	根據《經分別》的說法，從事貿易涉及兩個步驟：
1) The bhikkhu proposes an exchange, saying, “Give this for that,” or “Take this for that,” or “Exchange this for that,” or “Purchase this with that.” Because the non-offense clauses make no exemption for exchanges conducted by gesture, any gesture—including a written message or sign language—that clearly makes this proposal would fulfill this step.	1）比丘提議交換，說：「以這個換那個」，或者「拿這個換那個」，或者「用這個換那個」，或者「用那個買這個」。因為不犯條款並沒有豁免透過示意動作進行的交流，任何明確提出這項建議的示意動作（包括書面訊息或手語）都將完成這一步驟。
2) The goods exchange hands, the bhikkhu’s goods ending up with the other person, and the other person’s goods ending up with the bhikkhu.	2）物品交換，比丘的物品歸於他人，他人的物品歸於比丘。
The first step entails a dukkaṭa; both steps together, a nissaggiya pācittiya. Perception is not a mitigating factor here: If a bhikkhu manages an exchange in a way that he thinks avoids a penalty under this rule but in fact doesn’t (see below), he commits the full offense all the same. If, on the other hand, he manages an exchange in such a way that would avoid a penalty under this rule but he thinks that it falls under the rule or else is in doubt about the matter, he incurs a dukkaṭa.	第一步犯《突吉羅》；兩個步驟都完成，則犯《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）。在這裡，感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素：如果比丘以一種他認為可以避免根據本戒條受到懲罰的方式管理交易，但實際上卻沒有（見下文），那麼他仍然完違犯本戒條。另一方面，如果他以避免根據本戒條受到懲罰的方式管理交易，但他認為該交易屬於本戒條的範圍，或者對此事有疑問，那麼他犯《突吉羅》。

Forfeiture & confession	捨出 & 懺罪
Once a bhikkhu has received an article from a trade, he is to forfeit it either to an individual bhikkhu, to a group of two or three, or to a full Community of four or more. Only then may he confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and the return of the article are the same as under NP 1. The Pali formula for forfeiture is in Appendix VI.	一旦比丘從交易中收到一件物品，他就應將其捨出給單一比丘、二人或三人的團體，或四人以上的完整僧團。只有這樣他才能懺悔罪行。捨出、懺罪及歸還物品的程序與《捨墮》一相同。巴利語捨出公式見附錄六。
The Vibhaṅga makes no mention of what the bhikkhu may and may not do with the article after receiving it in return, and so it appears that he may keep it as he likes. However, if an individual bhikkhu has used nissaggiya or dukkaṭa objects in a trade, he might—as a wise policy—want to prevent any suspicions that he is trying to “launder” them, and so he may take a page from the Commentary to the preceding rule as his own personal protocol, as follows:	《經分別》沒有提及比丘在收到歸還後可以或不可以對物品做什麼，因此看來他可以隨心所欲地保留它。然而，如果某個比丘在交易中使用了《尼薩耆》或《突吉羅》物件，他可能——作為明智之舉——想要防止任何人懷疑他試圖「洗錢」它們，因此他可以從《義註》中抄取一頁上一條戒條作為他自己的個人行儀，如下：
If the exchange was N.O. → D.O., he should return the D.O. to its seller. If the N.O. was properly obtained under NP 18 (e.g., it was placed with a steward), there is nothing further to be done. If not, the bhikkhu should confess the offense for violating that rule. (If the seller offers to refund the purchase price, the bhikkhu should not accept it. If he does, he must forfeit it in the midst of the Community. If he doesn’t accept it, he should simply confess the pācittiya offense for originally accepting the N.O.)	如果交換是《尼薩耆》物件→《突吉羅》物件，他應該歸還《突吉羅》物件給其賣家。如果《尼薩耆》物件已根據《捨墮》一八適當地獲得（例如，它放在淨人處），無需再做任何事情。如果沒有，比丘應該懺悔違反該戒條的罪行。（如果賣家提出退還貨款，比丘不應接受。如果他接受了，他必須在僧團中捨出它。如果他不接受，他僅應懺悔最初犯下接受的《尼薩耆》物件的《波逸提》罪。）
If the exchange was N.O. → A.O., then if the N.O. was obtained in violation of NP 18, no bhikkhu may make use of the A.O. unless it is returned to the seller, the price of the article is turned over to the original donor of the money, and the A.O. is then repurchased in a way that does not violate this rule. (Again, if the seller refunds the purchase price, the bhikkhu should not accept it. If he does, he must forfeit it in the midst of the Community. If he doesn’t accept it, he should simply confess the pācittiya offense for originally accepting the N.O.)	如果交換是《尼薩耆》物件→允許物件，那麼如果《尼薩耆》物件是在違反《捨墮》一八的情況下獲得的，任何比丘都不得使用該允許物件，除非將其退還給賣家，物品貨款轉交給資金的原來布施者，並且該允許物件之後以不違反本戒條的方式購回。（再次強調，如果賣家退還貨款，比丘不應該接受。如果他接受了，他必須在僧團中捨出它。如果他不接受，他僅應懺悔最初犯下接受的《尼薩耆》物件的《波逸提》罪。）
If the N.O. in this case was properly obtained, then the purchased article is allowable for other bhikkhus but not for the offender. (This case covers the instances mentioned under NP 10 where a bhikkhu tells his steward to purchase an article with the fund placed in the steward’s trust for the bhikkhu’s needs. Some might object that if the N.O. was properly obtained it should be treated as A.O., but we must remember that a bhikkhu who orders his steward to use money to buy an object is assuming ownership of the money, which goes against the spirit of NP 10 & 18 and the protocol of having a steward in the first place.)	如果《尼薩耆》物件在這種情況下是正當地獲得的，那麼購買的物品可以給其他比丘使用，但不能給犯戒者使用。（這個案例涵蓋了《捨墮》十中提到的情況，其中比丘告訴他的淨人，用淨人信託中的資金購買物品，以滿足比丘的需要。有些人可能會反對，如果《尼薩耆》物件是正當地獲得的，那麼它應該被視為允許物件，但我們必須記住，比丘命令他的淨人用錢購買物品，就等於假定了該錢的所有權，這違背了《捨墮》十和一八的精神，也違背了首先要有淨人的行儀。
If the exchange was D.O. → D.O., the bhikkhu should return the purchased article to the seller and the original article (if the seller returns it to him) to the original donor.	如果交換是《突吉羅》物件→《突吉羅》物件，比丘應將購買的物品歸還給賣家，並將原來的物品（如果賣家將其歸還給他）歸還給最初的布施者。
If the exchange was D.O. → A.O., the purchased article is not allowable for any bhikkhu unless it is returned to the seller, the D.O. is returned to the original donor, and the A.O. is then repurchased in a way that does not violate this rule.	如果交換是《突吉羅》物件→允許物件，購買的物品不允許任何比丘使用，除非該物品被退還給賣家，《突吉羅》物件被歸還給最初的布施者，並且允許物件之後以不違反本戒條的方式回購。
If the exchange was A.O. → D.O., the bhikkhu should return the purchased article to the seller.	如果交換是允許物件→《突吉羅》物件，比丘應將購買的物品退還給賣家。
If the exchange was A.O. → A.O., the bhikkhu may make use of the article as he likes.	如果交換是允許物件→允許物件，比丘可以隨心所欲地使用該物品。
If the exchange was wages in payment for services rendered, the Commentary notes that there is no way the bhikkhu can rightfully get the payment back, so he should simply confess a pācittiya offense.	如果交換是為了支付所提供的服務而支付的工資，《義註》指出，比丘不可能合法地收回付款，因此他僅應懺悔《波逸提》罪。
All of these protocols derived from the Commentary are optional, however, for—as noted above—the Vibhaṅga places no restrictions on what the bhikkhu may or may not do with the article after having forfeited it and received it in return.	所有這些源自《義註》的行儀都是非強制的，然而，正如上面所指出的，《經分別》並沒有限制比丘在捨出物品並收到歸還後可以或不可以對物品做什麼。

Non-offenses	不犯
In the origin story to NP 5, the Buddha allows bhikkhus to trade allowable articles with other bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, female trainees, and male or female novices. The present rule thus covers trades made only with people who are not one’s co-religionists.	在《捨墮》五的起源故事中，佛陀允許比丘與其他比丘、比丘尼、式叉摩那以及沙彌或沙彌尼進行允許物件的交易。因此，現行戒條僅適用於與非同一宗教徒進行的交易。
As for trades with people who are not one’s co-religionists, the Vibhaṅga here adds that a bhikkhu commits no offense—	至於與非同一宗教徒的人進行交易，《經分別》在此補充說，比丘並無犯戒——
if he asks the price of an object;	如果他問物品的價格；
if he tells a steward;	如果他告訴淨人；
if he tells the seller, “I have this. I have need of such-and-such,” and then lets the seller arrange the exchange as he/she sees fit. This last point may seem like mere hair splitting, but we must remember that if a trade is arranged in this way, the bhikkhu is absolved from any responsibility for the fairness of the deal, which seems to be the whole point of the rule.	如果他告訴賣家：「我有這個。我需要某某」，然後讓賣家按照他/她認為合適的方式安排交換。最後一點可能看起來只是吹毛求疵，但我們必須記住，如果交易以這種方式安排，比丘就免除了對交易公平性的任何責任，這似乎是戒條的全部要點。
The Commentary, in discussing these exemptions, raises the following points:	《義註》在討論這些豁免時提出了以下幾點：
1) A bhikkhu who tries to avoid the technicalities of what is defined as engaging in trading by saying simply, “Give this. Take that,” may do so only with his parents. Otherwise, telling a lay person to take one’s belongings as his/her own is to “bring a gift of faith (saddhā-deyya) to waste”—i.e., to misuse the donations that lay supporters, out of faith, have sacrificed for the bhikkhu’s use (see Mv.VIII.22.1; BMC2, Chapter 10). On the other hand, telling an unrelated lay person to give something is a form of begging, which carries a dukkaṭa unless the lay person is related or has invited one to ask in the first place. (From this we may deduce that bhikkhus should not bargain after having asked the price of goods or services—e.g., a taxi fare—even in situations where bargaining is the norm.)	1）比丘試圖透過僅僅說：「給這個。拿那個」，來避免參與交易的技術細節，只可對他的父母這樣做。否則，告訴在家人將自己的財物據為己有，就是「浪費信施（saddhā-deyya）」，即濫用在家人出於信仰犧牲而為比丘使用的捐款。（見《大品》.八.22.1；《佛教修道準則第二冊》第十章）。另一方面，告訴非親戚的在家人給予東西是一種乞討的形式，除非該居士有親戚關係或一開始就邀請自己提出請求，否則就會犯《突吉羅》。（由此我們可以推斷，即使在討價還價是常態的情況下，比丘在詢問商品或服務的價格（例如計程車費）後也不應該討價還價。）
2) Under the previous rule, the Commentary mentioned that a bhikkhu engaging in an otherwise allowable trade for profit incurs a dukkaṭa. Here it says that if a bhikkhu, proposing a trade by wording it right (kappiya-vohāra), deceives the seller as to the value of his goods, he is to be treated under Pr 2. However, as the Vibhaṅga to Pr 2 indicates, goods received through deceit are to be treated not under that rule but under Pc 1.	2）根據先前的戒條，《義註》提到，比丘從事其他允許的獲利貿易會犯《突吉羅》。這裡它說，如果一個比丘以正確的措辭（kappiya-vohāra）提出交易，在其貨物的價值上欺騙賣家，他將根據《波羅夷》二來處理。然而，正如《波羅夷》二的《經分別》所指出的那樣，透過欺騙收到的貨物不應根據該戒條處理，而應根據《波逸提》一來處理。
3) In the case of “telling a steward,” both the Commentary and K/Commentary deem it allowable to tell the steward, “Having gotten that with this, give it (to me).” This, however, is a clear violation of the protocols set forth by the Vibhaṅga under NP 10, according to which a bhikkhu is not allowed to speak in the imperative, giving the command, “Give,” to a steward, much less a command to barter or buy. Instead, he is allowed to speak only in the declarative: “I have need of such-and-such,” or “I want such-and-such.” Declarative statements of this sort would thus appear to be the only statements allowed under this non-offense clause as well.	3）在「告訴淨人」的情況下，《義註》和 K/《義註》都認為可以告訴淨人，「用這個得到了那個，把它（給我）。」然而，這明顯違反了《經分別》在《捨墮》十下制定的行儀，根據該行儀，比丘不得以命令方式說話，向淨人發出「給予」的命令，更不用說以物易物或購買的命令。相反地，他只能用陳述句說話：「我需要某某」或「我想要某某」。因此，此類聲明性陳述似乎也是本不犯條款下唯一允許的陳述。
4) If a bhikkhu goes with his steward to a store and sees that the steward is getting a bad deal, he may simply tell the steward, “Don’t take it.”	4）如果比丘和他的淨人去一家商店，發現淨人的交易很糟糕，他可以坦白地告訴淨人：「不要拿。」
5) The Commentary to NP 10 describes how a bhikkhu may make a purchase when his steward has left funds in safe-keeping on the bhikkhu’s premises but is not present to arrange a trade when, say, a bowl-seller comes along. The bhikkhu may tell the seller, “I want this bowl, and there are funds of equal value here, but there is no steward to make them allowable.” If the seller volunteers to make them allowable, the bhikkhu may show him where they are but may not tell him how much to take. If the seller takes too much, the bhikkhu may cancel the sale by saying, “I don’t want your bowl after all.”	5）《捨墮》十的《義註》描述了當比丘的淨人將資金留在比丘的處所保管，卻沒有在場安排交易時，比丘可以如何進行購買，例如說，當賣缽的人出現時。比丘可以告訴賣家：「我想要這個缽，這裡有等值的資金，但沒有淨人使它們成為允許的。」如果賣家自願使它們成為允許的，比丘可以告訴他它們在哪裡，但不可告訴他要拿多少。如果賣家拿走太多，比丘可以取消買賣，說：「我還是不要你的缽。」
In general it is not a wise policy to have funds left for safe-keeping on one’s premises—a Community allowing this exposes itself to the dangers of robbery and assault—but the Commentary here seems less interested in describing ideal behavior than in simply drawing the line between what is and is not an offense.	一般來說，將資金留在自己的處所保管不是一個明智之舉——一個允許這樣做的僧團會讓自己面臨搶劫和襲擊的危險——但這裡的《義註》似乎對描述理想行為不太感興趣，而僅僅只是區分什麼是犯戒和什麼不是犯戒。

Special cases	特別案例
1) The Bhikkhunīs’ NP rules 4-10 show that if a lay donor gives money to a storeowner to pay for whatever a bhikkhunī will request from the store, the bhikkhunī may avail herself of the arrangement. If the donor stipulates that this arrangement applies only to certain items, or to items worth a certain amount, she may request only what falls under the stipulation: This is the point of the rules. In effect, what this is doing is making the storeowner her steward. Such an arrangement would thus also seem allowable for bhikkhus as long as they word their requests to the storeowner properly, as advised under NP 10.	1）比丘尼的《捨墮》戒條四-十表明，如果在家布施者給店主錢以支付比丘尼向商店提出的任何要求，比丘尼可以利用這種安排。如果布施者規定這種安排只適用於某些物品，或價值一定金額的物品，她只可以要求符合規定的物品：這是戒條的要點。實際上，這樣做是讓店主成為她的淨人。因此，這樣的安排對比丘來說似乎也是被允許的，只要他們按照《捨墮》十的建議，用適當的措辭向店主表達他們的要求。
2) As mentioned under NP 18, checks, credit cards, debit cards, and traveler’s checks do not count as gold or money. However, any trade arranged with them would come under this rule.	2）如《捨墮》一八所述，支票、信用卡、金融卡和旅行支票不算黃金或金錢。然而，用他們安排的任何交易都將受到本戒條的約束。
In cases where an actual physical item is handed over to the seller in the course of such a trade, the trade is accomplished in the physical exchange, with no need to wait for funds to enter the seller’s account for the offense to be incurred. This is because “object” under this rule can be fulfilled by an item of the least inherent monetary value.	如果在交易過程中將實體物品移交給賣方，交易是在實體交易所完成的，無需等待資金進入賣方帳戶即可算犯戒。這是因為本戒條下的「對象」可以透過內在貨幣價值最低的物品來實現。
For instance, if a bhikkhu hands a check to a seller—or tells his steward to hand it over—in exchange for goods or services in the manner specified by this rule, he would commit the full offense the moment the check and goods change hands.	例如，如果比丘將一張支票交給賣家，或告訴他的淨人將其交給賣家，以按照本戒條所述的方式換取貨物或服務，那麼在支票和貨物易手的那一刻，他就完全違犯本戒。
Similarly with credit cards: The offense is committed when the bhikkhu hands the signed credit card receipt—or has it handed—to the seller and receives goods or services in return. The receipt is an acknowledgement of the goods or services received from the seller, which in the context of the cardholder’s agreement with the credit card company is his promise to repay the loan he is taking out with the company. This promise is what the bhikkhu is trading with the seller, who will then use it to draw funds from the company’s account.	信用卡也類似：當比丘將簽署的信用卡收據（或令其）交給賣方並收到商品或服務作為回報時，即構成犯戒。收據是對從賣方收到的商品或服務的確認，在持卡人與信用卡公司達成協議的背景下，收據是持卡人償還向該公司借出的貸款的承諾。這個承諾就是比丘與賣家交易的東西，然後賣家將用它從公司的帳戶中提取資金。
If, however, no physical item is handed over to the seller, the trade is not accomplished until funds enter the seller’s account. An example would be a debit card: The full offense is committed only when, after pushing the personal identification number (PIN)—which is his order to the bank to pay the seller—the bhikkhu receives goods and services from the seller, and funds are transferred to the seller’s account from his.	但是，如果沒有將實物移交給賣方，則在資金進入賣方帳戶之前交易不會完成。簽帳金融卡（debit card）就是這樣的例子：只有當比丘輸入個人識別碼（PIN）（這是他命令銀行付款給賣方）後，比丘從賣方收到商品和服務，以及資金從他的帳戶轉入賣家的帳戶時，才構成完整犯戒。

Summary: Engaging in trade with anyone except one’s co-religionists is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.

摘要：與同一宗教徒以外的任何人進行交易都是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。