尼薩耆波逸提（《捨墮》）

Three: The Bowl Chapter 第三 缽品
21 二十一
An extra alms bowl may be kept ten days at most. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
多餘的缽最多可以保留十天。超過此限者，尼薩耆波逸提。
The offense under this rule involves two factors. 本戒條下的犯戒涉及兩個因素。
1) Object: an alms bowl fit to be determined for use. 1）對象：一個適合決意使用的缽。
2) Effort: One keeps it for more than ten days without determining it for use, placing it under shared ownership, abandoning it (giving or throwing it away); and without its being lost, destroyed, burnt, snatched away, or taken by someone else on trust within that time. 2）努力：保留十天以上而未決意使用、置於共享所有權之下、放棄（贈送或丟棄）；並且在此期間沒有丟失、毀壞、燒毀、搶走或被其他人基於信任拿走。
Alms bowls 缽
According to the Commentary, an alms bowl fit to be determined for use must be— 根據《義註》，適合決意使用的缽必須符合以下條件：
1) made of the proper material; 1）由適當的材料製成；
2) the proper size; 2）合適的尺寸；
3) fully paid for; 3）已全額付款；
4) properly fired; and 4）適當地燻燒；和
5) not damaged beyond repair. 5）未出現無法修復的損壞。
Material 材料
Cv.V.8.2 allows two kinds of alms bowls: made either of clay or of iron. Cv.V.9.1 forbids eleven: made either of wood, gold, silver, pearl, beryl, crystal, bronze, glass, tin, lead, or copper. Using the Great Standards, the Council of Elders in Thailand has recently decided that stainless steel bowls are allowable—because, after all, they are steel—but aluminum bowls not, because they share some of the dangers of tin. In the time of the Buddha, clay bowls were the more common. At present, iron and steel bowls are. 《小品》.五.8.2允許使用兩種缽：用黏土或鐵製成。《小品》.五.9.1禁止十一種：由木材、金、銀、珍珠、綠柱石、水晶、青銅、玻璃、錫、鉛或銅製成。根據《四大教示》，泰國長老會最近決定允許使用不鏽鋼缽——因為畢竟它們是鋼製的——但不允許使用鋁製缽，因為它們具有錫的一些危險。佛陀時代，黏土缽（陶缽）較為普遍。目前則是鐵缽和不鏽鋼缽。
Size 尺寸
The Vibhaṅga contains a discussion of three proper sizes for a bowl—the medium size containing twice the volume of the small, and the large twice the volume of the medium—but they are based on measurements that are not known with any precision at present. The author of the Vinaya-mukha reports having experimented with various sizes of bowls based on a passage in the story of Meṇḍaka in the Dhammapada Commentary. His conclusion: A small bowl is just a little larger than a human skull, and a medium bowl approximately 27 1/2 English inches (70 cm.) in circumference, or about 8.75 inches (22.5 cm.) in diameter. He did not try making a large bowl. Any size larger than the large size or smaller than the small is inappropriate; any size between them falls under this rule. 《經分別》討論了缽的三種適當尺寸——中號缽的體積是小號缽的兩倍，大號缽的體積是中號缽的兩倍——但它們所基於的測量結果目前還沒有已知的任何精確度。《戒律入口》的作者報告說，他根據《法句經》《義註》中 Meṇḍaka 故事的一個段落，嘗試了各種尺寸的缽。他的結論是：小缽只比人的頭骨大一點，中缽的周長約為 27 又 1/2 英寸（70 公分），直徑約為 8.75 英寸（22.5 公分）。他沒有嘗試做一個大缽。任何大於大號或小於小號的尺寸都是不合適的；它們之間的任何大小都屬於符合本戒條。
Fully paid for 已全額付款
According to the Commentary, if a bowl-maker makes a gift of a bowl, it counts as fully paid for. If a bowl has been delivered to a bhikkhu but has yet to be fully paid for, it may not be determined and does not come under this rule until paid for in full. 根據《義註》，如果制缽者製作了一個缽作為布施，則視為已全額付款。如果缽已交付給比丘但尚未全額付款，則在全額付款之前，它不可被決意，並且不屬於本戒條範疇。
Fired 燻燒
The Commentary states that a clay bowl must be fired twice before it can be determined, to make sure it is properly hardened; and an iron bowl five times, to prevent it from rusting. Because stainless steel does not rust it need not be fired, but a popular practice is to find some way to make it gray—either by painting it on the outside or firing the whole bowl with leaves that will give it a smoky color—so that it will not stand out. 《義註》指出，黏土缽（陶缽）必須燒製兩次才能決意，以確保其適當硬化；鐵缽五次，防止生鏽。因為不銹鋼不會生鏽，所以不需要燒製，但一種流行的做法是找到某種方法使其變灰色——若非在外面塗漆，不然就是用葉子燒製整個缽，使其呈現煙燻色——這樣它就不會顯眼突出。
Not damaged beyond repair 未出現無法修復的損壞
The Vibhaṅga to the following rule says that a bhikkhu may ask for a new bowl if his current bowl has five mends or more, the space for a mend (§) being two inches (fingerbreadths). The Commentary explains this first by saying that a bowl with five mends or more is damaged beyond repair, and thus loses its determination as a bowl. It then expands on the Vibhaṅga’s statements as follows: A clay bowl is damaged beyond repair if it has at least ten inches of cracks in it, the smallest of the cracks being at least two inches long. Cracks less than two inches long are said not to merit mending—this is the meaning of the Vibhaṅga’s phrase, “space for a mend”—and so do not count. As the K/Commentary notes, whether the cracks are actually mended is not an issue here. If a bowl has fewer cracks than that, they should be mended either with tin wire, sap (but for some reason not pure pine sap), or a mixture of sugar cane syrup and powdered stone. Other materials not to be used for repair are beeswax and sealing wax. If the total length of countable cracks equals ten inches or more, the bowl becomes a non-bowl, and the owner is entitled to ask for a new one. 下一條戒條的《經分別》指出，如果比丘目前的缽有五處修補或更多，則比丘可以要求一個新缽，而修補的空間（§）為兩英寸（指寬）。《義註》首先解釋說，缽修補五次以上，就已經損壞到無法修復的程度，從而失去了其決意為缽。然後，它對《經分別》的敘述進行了如下擴展：如果一個粘土缽（陶缽）上有至少十英寸的裂縫，其中最小的裂縫至少有兩英寸長，那麼它就被損壞到無法修復的程度。小於兩英寸長的裂縫據說不值得修補——這就是《經分別》的措辭「用來修補的空間」的含義——所以不算數。正如 K/《義註》所指出的，裂縫是否真正得到修補在此並不是問題。如果缽的裂縫比那少，則應使用錫絲、樹液（但由於某種原因不是純松樹液）或甘蔗糖漿和石粉的混合物來修補。其他不能用於修復的材料是蜂蠟和密封蠟。如果可數裂縫的總長度等於或超過十英寸，則該缽就不再是缽，主人有權要求換一個新的。
As for iron and steel bowls, a hole in the bowl large enough to let a millet grain pass through is enough to make the determination lapse, but not enough to make the bowl a non-bowl. The bhikkhu should plug the hole—or have a blacksmith plug it—with powdered metal or a tiny metal plug polished smooth with the surface of the bowl and then re-determine the bowl for use. 對於鐵缽、不銹鋼缽來說，缽上有一個足以讓一粒小米粒通過的孔，足以使決意失效，但不足以使該缽成為非缽。比丘應該用金屬粉末或與缽表面打磨光滑的小金屬塞塞住這個洞，或者請鐵匠塞住，然後重新決意缽來使用。
If the hole is small enough to be plugged in this way, then no matter how many such holes there are in the bowl they do not make it a non-bowl. The bhikkhu should mend it and continue using it. If, however, there is even one hole so large that the metal used to plug it cannot be polished smooth with the surface of the rest of the bowl, the tiny crevices in the patch will collect food. This makes it unfit for use, and the owner is entitled to ask for a new one to replace it. 如果這個洞夠小，可以用這種方式堵住，那麼無論缽裡有多少個這樣的洞，都不會使它成為一個非缽。比丘應該修補它並繼續使用它。然而，即使只有一個孔太大，以至於用於堵塞它的金屬無法與缽其餘部分的表面拋光光滑，修補片上的微小縫隙就會積聚食物。這將導致其不適合使用，所有者有權要求更換新的。
An extra alms bowl, according to the Vibhaṅga, is any that has not yet been determined for use or placed under shared ownership. Because a bhikkhu may have only one bowl determined for use at any one time, he should place any additional bowls he receives under shared ownership if he plans to keep them on hand. (The procedures for placing bowls under determination and shared ownership, and for rescinding their determination and shared ownership, are given in Appendices IV & V.) 根據《經分別》，額外的缽是指尚未決意使用或置於共享所有權之下的任何缽。因為比丘在任何時候只可以有一個缽決意使用，所以如果他打算將收到的任何額外的缽放在手邊，他應該將它們置於共享所有權之下。（將缽決意和置於共享所有權之下以及撤銷其決意和共享所有權的程序參見附錄四和五。）
Effort 努力
According to the Commentary, once a bowl belonging to a bhikkhu fulfills all the requirements for a determinable bowl, he is responsible for it even if he has not yet received it into his keeping—in other words, the countdown on the time span begins. For example, if a blacksmith promises to make him a bowl and to send word when it is finished, the bhikkhu is responsible for the bowl as soon as he hears word from the blacksmith’s messenger that the bowl is ready, even if he has yet to receive it. If the blacksmith, prior to making the bowl, promises to send it when it is done, then the bhikkhu is not responsible for it until the blacksmith’s messenger brings it to him. (All of this assumes that the bowl is already fully paid for.) 根據《義註》，一旦比丘擁有的缽滿足了可決意缽的所有要求，即使他還沒有收到它，他也要對它負責——換句話說，時間跨度開始倒數。例如，如果鐵匠答應為他製作一個缽，並在完成後通知他，一旦比丘聽到鐵匠的使者說缽已準備好，他就要對缽負責，即使他還沒有收到它。如果鐵匠在製作缽之前承諾完成後將其送出，那麼在鐵匠的使者將缽帶給比丘之前，比丘不對此負責。（所有這些都假設缽已經全額付款。）
However, all of this runs contrary to the principle given at Mv.V.13.13, in which the countdown for a robe’s time span (see NP 1) does not begin until the robe reaches one’s hand. It would seem that the same principle should apply here. 然而，所有這些都違背了《大品》.五.13.13中給出的原則，其中袈裟的時間跨度（參見《捨墮》一）的倒數計時直到袈裟到達手中時才開始。同樣的原則似乎也適用於此。
The Vibhaṅga states that if within ten days after receiving a new bowl a bhikkhu does not determine it for use, place it under shared ownership, abandon it (give it or throw it away); and if the bowl is not lost, snatched away, damaged beyond repair, or taken on trust, then on the tenth dawnrise after receiving it he incurs the full penalty under this rule. If he then uses the bowl without having forfeited it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. 《經分別》規定，如果比丘在收到新缽後十天內不決意它來使用，置於共享所有權之下，放棄它（給予或扔掉）；而且如果缽沒有遺失、被搶走、損壞到無法修復或被基於信任拿走，那麼在收到缽後的第十天黎明時，根據本戒條他將承擔全部懲罰。如果他隨後使用了缽而沒有捨出它，則懲罰是《突吉羅》。
Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if the bhikkhu thinks that ten days have not passed when they have, or if he thinks that the bowl is damaged beyond repair or placed under shared ownership, etc., when it isn’t, he incurs the penalty all the same. 在這裡，感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素。即使比丘認為十天還沒過，但實際上已經過十天了，或認為缽已損壞無法修復或置於共享所有權之下，但事實並非如此，他仍然會受到懲罰。
The Vibhaṅga also states that, in the case of an extra bowl 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. As under NP 1, this dukkaṭa is apparently for then using the bowl. 《經分別》還規定，多餘的缽沒有保存超過十天，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》。與《捨墮》一中一樣，這個《突吉羅》顯然是為了使用缽。
Forfeiture & confession 捨出 & 懺罪
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the bowl are the same as under NP 1. For the Pali formulae to use in forfeiting and returning the bowl, see Appendix VI. As with the rules concerning robe-cloth, the bowl must be returned to the offender after he has confessed his offense. Not to return it entails a dukkaṭa. Once the bowl is returned, the ten-day countdown starts all over again. 捨出、懺罪和返還缽的程序與《捨墮》一中的相同。捨出和歸還缽時使用的巴利語公式，請參閱附錄六。與有關袈裟布的戒條一樣，在犯戒者懺罪後，必須將缽歸還給犯戒者。不歸還它會犯《突吉羅》。一旦缽歸還後，十天倒數又重新開始。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if within ten days the bhikkhu determines the bowl for use, places it under shared ownership, or abandons it; or if the bowl is lost, destroyed, broken, or snatched away; or if someone else takes the bowl on trust. With regard to “destroyed” and “broken” here, the Commentary’s discussion indicates that these terms mean “damaged beyond repair,” as defined above. 若比丘在十天內決意使用該缽、將其置於共享所有權之下，或將其放棄，並不犯戒；或者如果缽遺失、毀壞、破損或被搶走；或者如果其他人基於信任拿走缽。關於這裡的「毀壞」和「破損」，《義註》的討論表明這些術語的意思是「損壞到無法修復』，如同上文所定義。
Summary: Keeping an alms bowl for more than ten days without determining it for use or placing it under shared ownership is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：保留缽十天以上，而未決意使用或置於共享所有權之下，是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
22 二十二
Should any bhikkhu with an alms bowl having fewer than five mends ask for another new bowl, it is to be forfeited and confessed. The bowl is to be forfeited by the bhikkhu to the company of bhikkhus. That company of bhikkhus’ final bowl should be presented to the bhikkhu, (saying,) “This, bhikkhu, is your bowl. It is to be kept until broken.” This is the proper course here.
如果任何比丘的缽少於五處修補，要求另一個新缽，尼薩耆波逸提。比丘應將缽捨出給比丘同伴。比丘同伴最後的缽應給比丘，（說：）「比丘，這是你的缽。必須保留它，直到損壞為止。」這於此是如法的。
“Now at that time a certain potter had invited the bhikkhus, saying, ‘If any of the masters needs a bowl, I will supply him with a bowl.’ So the bhikkhus, knowing no moderation, asked for many bowls. Those with small bowls asked for large ones. Those with large ones asked for small ones. (§) The potter, making many bowls for the bhikkhus, could not make other goods for sale. (As a result,) he could not support himself, and his wife and children suffered.”
「爾時，有一個陶匠邀請了比丘們，說：『如果哪位大德需要一個缽，我就供給他一個缽。』於是，比丘們毫無節制地要了很多缽。那些有小缽的人要求大缽。那些有大缽的要求小缽。（§）陶匠為比丘們製作了許多缽，無法製作其他物品來出售。（結果）他無法養活自己，他的妻子和孩子也受苦了。」
Here the full offense involves three factors: 這裡，完整的違犯涉及三個因素：
1) Effort: Before one’s alms bowl is beyond repair, one asks for 1）努力：在缽無法修復之前，要求
2) Object: a new almsbowl fit to be determined for use. 2）對象：一個適合決意使用的新缽。
3) Result: One obtains the bowl. 3）結果：獲得缽。
According to the Commentary, the phrase, a bowl “having fewer than five mends” refers to one that is not beyond repair, as explained under the preceding rule. Thus this rule allows a bhikkhu whose bowl is beyond repair to ask for a new one. 根據《義註》，該措辭，缽「少於五處修補」，是指未至不可修復的缽，如前述戒條所解釋。因此，本戒條允許比丘的缽為無法修復時可以要求換一個新的。
A bhikkhu whose bowl is not beyond repair incurs a dukkaṭa in asking for a new bowl, and a nissaggiya pācittiya in receiving it. 當比丘的缽沒有無法修復時，會因索取新缽而犯《突吉羅》，並在接受新缽時犯《捨墮》。
Forfeiture, confession, & bowl exchange 捨出、懺罪和交換缽
Once a bhikkhu has obtained a bowl in violation of this rule, he must forfeit it in the midst of the Community and confess the offense. (See Appendix VI for the Pali formulae used in forfeiture and confession.) He then receives the Community’s “final bowl” to use in place of the new one he has forfeited. 一旦比丘違反本戒條獲得了缽，他必須在僧團中捨出它並懺悔罪行。（請參閱附錄六，用於捨出和懺罪的巴利語公式。）然後，他收到僧團的「最後缽」來使用，以代替他捨出的新缽。
The Community’s final bowl is selected in the following way: Each bhikkhu coming to the meeting to witness the offender’s forfeiture and confession must bring the bowl he has determined for his own use. If a bhikkhu has an inferior bowl in his possession—either extra or placed under shared ownership—he is not to determine that bowl and take it to the meeting in hopes of getting a more valuable one in the exchange about to take place. To do so entails a dukkaṭa. 僧團的最後缽是按下列方式選出的：每一位來參加集會見證犯戒者捨出和懺罪的比丘必須攜帶他已決意供自己使用的缽。如果比丘擁有一個較差的缽——無論是額外的還是置於共享所有權之下——他都不能決意該缽並將其帶到集會上，希望在即將舉行的交換中得到一個更有價值的缽。這樣做犯《突吉羅》。
Once the bhikkhus have assembled, the offender forfeits his bowl and confesses the offense. The Community, following the pattern of a motion and one proclamation (ñatti-dutiya-kamma) given in Appendix VI, then chooses one of its members as bowl exchanger. As with all Community officials, the bowl exchanger must be free of the four types of bias: based on desire, based on aversion, based on delusion, based on fear. He must also know when a bowl is properly exchanged and when it’s not. His duty, once authorized, is to take the forfeited bowl and show it to the most senior bhikkhu, who is to choose whichever of the two bowls pleases him more—his own or the new one. If the new bowl is preferable to his own and yet he does not take it out of sympathy for the offender, he incurs a dukkaṭa. The K/Commentary and Sub-commentary add that if he does not prefer the new bowl, there is no offense in not taking it. The Commentary states that if he does prefer the new bowl but, out of a desire to develop the virtue of contentment with what he has, decides not to take it, there is also no offense. 一旦比丘們聚集在一起，犯戒者捨出他的缽並懺悔罪行。僧團按照附錄六中給出的一項動議和一項公告[譯註：一白與一羯磨] (ñatti-dutiya-kamma [譯註：白二羯磨]) 的模式，選擇其中一名成員作為缽交換者。與所有僧團執事一樣，缽交換者必須擺脫四種類型的偏見：基於貪、基於嗔、基於癡、基於恐懼。他還必須知道何時正確交換缽，何時不正確。一旦獲得授權，他的職責就是將被捨出的缽拿給戒臘最高的比丘看，後者要選擇兩個缽中他更喜歡的一個——他自己的缽或新的缽。如果新缽比他自己的缽更好，但他出於對犯戒者的同情而沒有拿走它，他犯《突吉羅》。 K/《義註》和《複註》補充說，如果他不喜歡新缽，不接受它並沒有犯戒。《義註》指出，如果他確實喜歡新缽，出於培養滿足於自己所擁有的美德的願望，決定不接受它，也沒有犯戒。
To continue with the Vibhaṅga: Once the most senior bhikkhu has taken his choice, the remaining bowl is then shown to the bhikkhu second in seniority, who repeats the process, and so on down the line to the most junior bhikkhu. The bowl exchanger then takes the bowl remaining from this last bhikkhu’s choice—the least desirable bowl belonging to that company of bhikkhus—and presents it to the offender, telling him to determine it for his use and to care for it as best he can until it is no longer useable. 繼續講《經分別》：一旦戒臘最高的比丘做出了選擇，剩下的缽就會呈給戒臘第二高的比丘，重複這個過程，依此類推，依次遞給戒臘最低的比丘。然後，缽交換者將最後一位比丘選擇的剩餘缽——屬於比丘同伴們最不合意的缽——交給犯戒者，告訴他決意來使用並盡其所能地照料它，直到它不可用為止。
If the offender treats it improperly—putting it in a place where it might get damaged, using it in the wrong sort of way (on both of these points, see BMC2, Chapter 3)—or tries to get rid of it (§), thinking, “How can this bowl be lost or destroyed or broken,” he incurs a dukkaṭa. 如果犯戒者對待它不當——將其放在可能損壞的地方，以錯誤的方式使用它（這兩點，請參閱《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第三章）——或試圖擺脫它（§），心想：「這個缽怎麼才會遺失、毀壞或破碎呢？」
Non-offenses 不犯
A bhikkhu whose bowl is not beyond repair incurs no penalty if he asks for a new bowl from relatives or from people who have invited him to ask, or if he gets a new bowl with his own resources. He is also allowed to ask for a bowl for the sake of another, which—following the Commentary to NP 6—would mean that Bhikkhu X may ask for a bowl for Y only if he asks from his own relatives or people who have invited him to ask for a bowl OR if he asks from Y’s relatives or people who have invited Y to ask. Asking for and receiving a bowl for Y from people other than these would entail the full offense. 比丘的缽尚未無法修復時，如果他向親戚或邀請他的人索取新缽，或者用自己的資源得到新缽，則不會受到懲罰。他也被允許為另一個人要一個缽，這——根據《捨墮》六的《義註》——意味著比丘 X 只有在向自己的親戚或邀請他的人索取時，或者向 Y 的親戚或邀請 Y 的人索取時，才可以為 Y 要一個缽。向這些人以外的人索取並為 Y 接受的缽將構成完全違犯。
Summary: Asking for and receiving a new alms bowl when one’s current bowl is not beyond repair is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：當現有的缽尚未無法修復時，索取並接受新的缽是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
23 二十三
There are these tonics to be taken by sick bhikkhus: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses. Having been received, they are to be used from storage seven days at most. Beyond that, they are to be forfeited and confessed.
生病的比丘可以服用以下補充品：酥油、新鮮奶油、油、蜂蜜、糖/糖蜜。收到後，最多可儲藏使用七天。超過此限者，尼薩耆波逸提。
The factors for a full offense here are two. 完全違犯的因素有二。
1) Object: any of the five tonics. 1）對象：五種補品中的任何一種。
2) Effort: One keeps the tonic past the seventh dawnrise after receiving it. 2）努力：在接受補品後將其保留到第七次黎明（明相）。
Object 對象
The five tonics mentioned in this rule form one of four classes of edibles grouped according to the time period within which they may be eaten after being received. The other three—food, juice drinks, and medicines—are discussed in detail at the beginning of the Food Chapter in the pācittiya rules. Here is the story of how the tonics came to be a special class: 本戒條中提到的五種補品屬於四類食品之一，根據收到後可以食用的時間段進行分組。其他三種——食物、果汁飲料和藥物——在《波逸提》戒條的食物品開頭詳細討論。以下是補品如何成為一類特殊類別的故事：
“Then as the Blessed One was alone in seclusion, this line of reasoning occurred to his mind: ‘At present the bhikkhus, afflicted by the autumn disease, bring up the conjey they have drunk and the meals they have eaten. Because of this they are thin, wretched, unattractive, and pale, their bodies covered with veins. What if I were to allow medicine for them that would be both medicine and agreed to be medicine by the world, and serve as food, yet would not be considered gross (substantial) food.’
「當世尊獨自隱居時，他心中生起這樣的推理：『現在，諸比丘，受秋病之苦，嘔吐出他們所喝的粥和所吃的飯菜。因此，他們瘦弱、可憐、毫無吸引力、臉色蒼白，全身佈滿青筋。如果我允許為他們提供藥物，這種藥物既是藥物，又被世人認為是藥物，又可以作為食物，但又不會被視為粗劣（大量）食物。」
“Then this thought occurred to him: ‘There are these five tonics—ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses—that are both medicine and agreed to be medicine by the world, and serve as food yet would not be considered gross food. What if I were now to allow the bhikkhus, having accepted them at the right time (from dawnrise to noon), to consume them at the right time’….
「然後他想到：『有這五種滋補品——酥油、新鮮奶油、油、蜂蜜、糖/糖蜜——既是藥物，又被世人認為是藥物，作為食物卻不會被認為是粗劣食物。如果我現在允許比丘們，在正確的時間（從黎明到中午）接受它們，在正確的時間食用，會怎麼樣」…。
“Now at that time bhikkhus, having accepted the five tonics at the right time, consumed them at the right time. Because of this they could not stomach even ordinary coarse foods, much less rich, greasy ones. As a result, afflicted both by the autumn disease and this loss of appetite for meals, they became even more thin and wretched…. So the Blessed One, with regard to this cause, having given a Dhamma talk, addressed the bhikkhus: ‘Bhikkhus, I allow that the five tonics, having been accepted, be consumed at the right time or the wrong time (from noon to dawnrise).’”—Mv.VI.1.2-5
「那時，諸比丘們，在適當的時候接受了五種補品，在適當的時候食用了它們。因此，他們連普通的粗糧都吃不了，更別說油膩的了。結果，在秋病和食慾不振的雙重折磨下，他們變得更加瘦弱……。為此，世尊在說法之後，對比丘們說：『比丘們，我允許接受之後，在正確的時間或錯誤的時間（從中午到黎明）服食五種補品。』」—《大品》.六.1.2-5
The Vibhaṅga defines the five tonics as follows: 《經分別》對五種補品的定義如下：
Ghee means strained, boiled butter oil made from the milk of any animal whose flesh is allowable for bhikkhus to eat (see the introduction to the Food Chapter in the pācittiya rules). 酥油是指任何允許比丘食用其肉的動物的奶製成的過濾煮沸的奶油（參見《波逸提》戒條中食物品的介紹）。
Fresh butter must be made from the milk of any animal whose flesh is allowable. None of the Vinaya texts go into detail on how fresh butter is made, but MN 126 describes the process as “having sprinkled curds in a pot, one twirls them with a churn.” Fresh butter of this sort is still made in India today by taking a small churn—looking like an orange with alternate sections removed, attached to a small stick—and twirling it in curds, all the while sprinkling them with water. The fresh butter—mostly milk fat—coagulates on the churn, and when the fresh butter is removed, what is left in the pot is diluted buttermilk. Fresh butter, unlike creamery butter made by churning cream, may be stored unrefrigerated in bottles for several days even in the heat of India without going rancid. 新鮮奶油必須由任何允許食用其肉的動物的奶製成。律藏文獻中沒有詳細介紹如何製作新鮮奶油，但《中部》126經將這一過程描述為「將凝乳撒在鍋中，然後用攪拌器旋轉它們」。如今，這種新鮮奶油在印度仍然是通過取一個小攪拌器（看起來像一個被去除了交替部分的橙子，連接到一根小棍子上）並將其與凝乳一起旋轉，同時在凝乳中撒上水來製作的。新鮮奶油（主要是乳脂）在攪拌器上凝固，當新鮮奶油被取出時，鍋中剩下的就是稀釋的酪乳。與攪拌奶油製成的乳清奶油不同，新鮮奶油即使在印度炎熱的天氣下也可以在不冷藏的情況下在瓶子中保存幾天而不會變質。
Arguing by the Great Standards, creamery butter would obviously come under fresh butter here. A more controversial topic is cheese. 按照《四大教示》，乳清奶油顯然屬於新鮮奶油。一個更有爭議的話題是起司。
In Mv.VI.34.21, the Buddha allows bhikkhus to consume five products of the cow: milk, curds, buttermilk, fresh butter, and ghee. Apparently, cheese—curds heated to evaporate their liquid content and then cured with or without mold—was unknown in those days, but there seems every reason, using the Great Standards, to include it under one of the five. The question is which one. Some have argued that it should come under fresh butter, but the argument for classifying it under curds seems stronger, as it is closer to curds in composition and is generally regarded as more of a substantial food. Different Communities, however, have differing opinions on this matter. 在《大品》.六.34.21中，佛陀允許比丘食用五種奶牛產品：牛奶、凝乳、酪乳、新鮮奶油和酥油。顯然，起司——加熱蒸發其液體成分的凝乳，然後在有或沒有黴菌的情況下固化——在當時還不為人所知，但使用《四大教示》，似乎有充分的理由將其納入此五種之一。問題是哪一個。有些人認為它應該歸類為新鮮奶油，但將其歸類為凝乳的論點似乎更強烈，因為它的成分更接近凝乳，並且通常被認為是更大量的食物。然而，不同的僧團對此問題有不同的看法。
Oil, according to the Vibhaṅga, includes sesame oil, mustard seed oil, “honey tree” oil, castor oil, and oil from tallow. The Commentary adds that oil made from any plants not listed in the Vibhaṅga carries a dukkaṭa if kept more than seven days, although it would seem preferable to use the Great Standards and simply apply the full offense under this rule to all plant oils that can be used as food; and to class as medicines (see BMC2, Chapter 5) any aromatic plant oils—such as tea-tree oil or peppermint oil—made from leaves or resins that qualify as medicines that can be kept for life. 油，根據《經分別》，包括芝麻油、芥菜籽油、「蜜樹」油、蓖麻油和動物脂油。《義註》補充說，由任何未列入《經分別》中的植物製成的油，如果保存超過七天，犯《突吉羅》，儘管使用《四大教示》似乎更合適，並且只需將本戒條下的完全違犯適用於所有可當食物使用的植物油；並將任何由可以作為可以終生保存藥物的葉子或樹脂製成的芳香植物油（例如茶樹油或薄荷油）歸類為藥物（參見《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第五章）。
Mv.VI.2.1 allows five kinds of tallow: bear, fish, alligator, pig, and donkey tallow. Because bear meat is one of the kinds normally unallowable for bhikkhus, the Sub-commentary interprets this list as meaning that oil from the tallow of any animal whose flesh is allowable—and from any animal whose flesh, if eaten, carries a dukkaṭa—is allowable here. Because human flesh, if eaten, carries a thullaccaya, oil from human fat is not allowed. 《大品》.六.2.1允許使用五種動物脂：熊脂、魚脂、鱷魚脂、豬脂和驢脂。因為熊肉是比丘通常不允許食用的種類之一，所以《複註》解釋了這個清單，意思是來自任何食用其肉是允許的動物的脂油——以及來自任何如果食用其肉犯《突吉羅》的動物——是這裡允許。因為如果食用人肉，犯《偷蘭遮》，因此不允許使用人類脂肪製成的油。
Mv.VI.2.1 adds that tallow of any allowable sort may be consumed as oil if received in the right time (before noon, according to the Commentary), rendered in the right time, and filtered in the right time. (The PTS and Thai editions of the Canon use the word saṁsaṭṭha here, which usually means “mixed together”; the Sri Lankan edition reads saṁsatta, or “hung together.” Whichever the reading, the Commentary states that the meaning here is “filtered,” which best fits the context.) According to Mv.VI.2.2, if the tallow has been received, rendered, or filtered after noon, the act of consuming the resulting oil carries a dukkaṭa for each of the three activities that took place after noon. For example, if the tallow was received before noon but rendered and filtered after noon, there are two dukkaṭas for consuming the resulting oil. 《大品》.六.2.1補充說，如果在正確的時間（根據《義註》，在中午之前）接受、在正確的時間提煉並在正確的時間過濾，任何允許種類的動物脂都可以作為油食用。（《聖典》的 PTS 和泰國版本在這裡使用 saṁsaṭṭha 這個詞，通常意味著「混合在一起」；斯里蘭卡版本讀作 saṁsatta ，「懸掛在一起」。無論哪種讀法，《義註》都指出這裡的含義是「過濾」，這最適合上下文。）根據《大品》.六.2.2，如果動物脂在中午之後被接受、提煉或過濾，那麼食用所得的油的行為就會為中午之後發生的三項活動中的每一項犯《突吉羅》。例如，如果在中午之前收到動物脂，但在中午之後提煉和過濾，則食用所得的油犯兩次《突吉羅》。
Whether the Great Standards can be used to include gelatin under the category of “oil” here is a controversial topic. The argument for including it is that, like oil from tallow, it is rendered from a part of an animal’s body that the Commentary would include under “flesh,” and—on its own—it does not serve as substantial food. Different Communities, however, have differing opinions on this matter. 是否可以依照《四大教示》將明膠納入「油」範疇，這是一個有爭議的議題。支持將其包括在內的論點是，就像來自動物脂中的油一樣，它是從動物身體的一部分提煉出來的，《義註》將其納入「肉」中，並且它本身並不能作為大量的食物。然而，不同的僧團對此問題有不同的看法。
Honey means the honey of bees, although the Commentary lists two species of bee—cirika, long and with wings, and tumbala, large, black and with hard wings—whose honey it says is very viscous and ranks as a medicine, not as one of the five tonics. 蜂蜜的意思是蜜蜂的蜂蜜，儘管《義註》列出了兩種蜜蜂—— cirika ，長且有翅膀，和 tumbala ，大，黑色，翅膀堅硬——它說它們的蜂蜜非常黏稠，可以作為藥物，而不是作為五種補品之一。
Sugar/molasses the Vibhaṅga defines simply as what is extracted from sugar cane. The Commentary interprets this as meaning not only sugar and molasses, but also fresh sugar cane juice, but this contradicts Mv.VI.35.6, which classes fresh sugar cane juice as a juice drink, not a tonic. The Commentary also says that sugar or molasses made from any fruit classed as a food—such as coconut or date palm—ranks as a food and not as a tonic, but it is hard to guess at its reasoning here, as sugar cane itself is also classed as a food. The Vinaya-mukha seems more correct in using the Great Standards to say that all forms of sugar and molasses, no matter what the source, would be included here. Thus maple syrup and beet-sugar would come under this rule. 糖/糖蜜，《經分別》僅將其定義為從甘蔗中提取的物質。《義註》將其解釋為不僅指糖和糖蜜，還指新鮮甘蔗汁，但這與《大品》.六.35.6相矛盾，後者將新鮮甘蔗汁歸類為果汁飲料，而不是補品。《義註》還說，由任何被歸類為食物的水果（例如椰子或椰棗）製成的糖或糖蜜都屬於食物，而不是補品，但很難猜測其原因，因為甘蔗本身就是也被歸類為食物。《戒律入口》似乎更正確地使用《四大教示》來說所有形式的糖和糖蜜，無論來源是什麼，都包括在這裡。因此，楓糖漿和甜菜糖算在本戒條之下。
The Vinaya-mukha—arguing from the parallel between sugar cane juice, which is a juice drink, and sugar, which is made by boiling sugar cane juice—maintains that boiled juice would fit under sugar here. This opinion, however, is not accepted in all Communities. 《戒律入口》——從甘蔗汁（一種果汁飲料）和糖（通過煮沸甘蔗汁製成）之間的相似性出發——認為煮沸的果汁可以算在此處的糖之下。然而，這項意見並未被所有僧團接受。
According to Mv.VI.16.1, even if the sugar has a little flour mixed in with it simply to make it firmer—as sometimes happens in sugar cubes and blocks of palm sugar—it is still classed as a tonic as long as it is still regarded simply as “sugar.” If the mixture is regarded as something else—candy, for instance—it counts as a food and may not be eaten after noon of the day on which it is received. 根據《大品》.六.16.1，即使糖中混有少量麵粉，只是為了使其更堅硬（有時會發生在方糖和棕櫚糖塊中），只要它仍然僅被視為「糖」，它仍然被歸類為補品。如果混合物被視為其他東西（例如糖果），則它被視為食物，並且在接受的當天中午之後不得食用。
Sugar substitutes that have no food value would apparently not be classed as a food or a tonic, and thus would come under the category of life-long medicines. 沒有食用價值的糖替代品顯然不會被歸類為食品或補品，因此將屬於終身藥物的範疇。
Proper use 適當使用
According to Mv.VI.40.3, any tonic received today may be eaten mixed with food or juice drinks received today, but not with food or juice drinks received on a later day. Thus, as the Commentary points out, tonics received in the morning may be eaten with food that morning; if received in the afternoon, they may not be eaten mixed with food at all. 根據《大品》.六.40.3，今天接受的任何補品可以與今天接受的食物或果汁飲料混合食用，但不能與稍後的日子接受的食物或果汁飲料混合食用。因此，正如《義註》所指出的，早上接受的補品可以與當天早上的食物一起吃；如果是下午接受的，則根本不可與食物混合食用。
Also, the Commentary to this rule says at one point that one may take the tonic at any time during those seven days regardless of whether one is ill. At another point, though—in line with the Vibhaṅga to Pc 37 & 38, which assigns a dukkaṭa for taking a tonic as food—it says that one may take the tonic after the morning of the day on which it is received only if one has a reason. This statement the Sub-commentary explains as meaning that any reason suffices—e.g., hunger, weakness—as long as one is not taking the tonic for nourishment as food. In other words, one may take enough to assuage one’s hunger, but not to fill oneself up. 此外，本戒條的《義註》中曾提到，在這七天內，無論是否生病，都可以隨時服用補品。然而，在另一點上，與《波逸提》三七和三八的《經分別》一致，它為服用補品作為食物指定了《突吉羅》，它說，只有在有理由的情況下，才可以在接受補品的當天早上之後服用補品。《複註》解釋這句話的意思是，任何原因都可以──例如飢餓、虛弱──只要不以服用補品滋補作為食物。換句話說，可以吃足夠的東西來緩解飢餓，但不能填飽自己。
Mv.VI.27, however, contains a special stipulation for the use of sugar. If one is ill, one may take it “as is” at any time during the seven days; if not, then after noon of the first day one may take it only if it is mixed with water. 然而，《大品》.六.27對糖的使用有特殊規定。如果生病了，可以在七天內的任何時間「照原樣」服用；如果沒有，那麼第一天中午之後，只有與水混合後才可以服用。
Effort 努力
If a bhikkhu keeps a tonic past the seventh dawnrise after it has been received—either by himself or another bhikkhu—he is to forfeit it and confess the nissaggiya pācittiya offense. Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if he thinks that seven days have not yet passed when they actually have—or thinks that the tonic is no longer in his possession when it actually is—he incurs the penalty all the same (§). 如果一位比丘在接受補品後，無論是他自己還是其他比丘，在第七次黎明（明相）之後仍保留補品，他將捨出該補品並懺悔《捨墮》罪。在這裡，感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素。即使他認為還沒有過去七天，但實際上七天已經過去了——或者認為補品已經不在他手中了，而實際上仍在——他仍然會受到懲罰（§）。
Offenses 犯戒
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the tonic are the same as under NP 1. The formula to use in forfeiting the tonic is given in Appendix VI. Once the bhikkhu receives the tonic in return, he may not use it to eat or to apply to his body, although he may use it for other external purposes, such as oil for a lamp, etc. Other bhikkhus may not eat the tonic either, but they may apply it to their bodies—for example, as oil to rub down their limbs. 捨出、懺罪和返還補品的程序與《捨墮》一中的相同。附錄六給出了捨出補品的公式。一旦比丘收到補藥作為回報，他就不能用它來吃或塗在身體上，儘管他可以將它用於其他外部用途，例如燈油等。其他比丘也不可吃該補品，但他們可將其塗在身體上——例如，作為油擦在四肢上。
The Vibhaṅga states that, in the case of a tonic that has not been kept more than seven days, if one perceives it to have been kept more than seven days or if one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. As under NP 1, this dukkaṭa is apparently for using the tonic. 《經分別》指出，對於未保存超過七天的補品，如果認為它已保存超過七天或有疑問，則懲罰為《突吉羅》。與《捨墮》一中一樣，這個《突吉羅》顯然是因為使用補品。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if within seven days the tonic gets lost, destroyed, burnt, snatched away, or taken on trust; or if the bhikkhu determines it for use, abandons it, or—having given it away to an unordained person, abandoning desire for it—he receives it in return and makes use of it (§). 根據《經分別》，如果補品在七天內遺失、毀壞、燒毀、被搶走或基於信任被拿走，並沒有犯戒；或者，如果比丘決意使用它，放棄它，或者—將它給予未受具足戒的人，放棄對它的渴望—他收到它作為回報並使用它（§）。
The Commentary contains an extended discussion of these last three points. 《義註》包含對最後三點的擴展討論。
1) Determining the tonic for use means that within the seven days the bhikkhu determines that he will use it not as an internal medicine, but only to apply to the outside of his body or for other external purposes instead. In this case, he may keep the tonic as long as he likes without penalty.
1）決意使用補品，是指比丘在七日內決意不將其用作內服藥，而只用於塗抹身體外部或作其他外用。在這種情況下，他可以隨心所欲地保留補品，而不會受到懲罰。
2) Unlike the other rules dealing with robe-cloth or bowls kept x number of days, the non-offense clauses here do not include exemptions for tonics placed under shared ownership, but the Commentary discusses abandons it as if it read “places it under shared ownership.” Its verdict: Any tonic placed under shared ownership may be kept for more than seven days without incurring a penalty as long as the owners do not divide up their shares, but after the seventh day they may not use it for internal purposes. The Sub-commentary adds that any tonic placed under shared ownership may not be used at all until the arrangement is rescinded.
2）與其他處理袈裟布或缽保存 x 天數的戒條不同，這裡的不犯條款不包括對共享所有權下的補品的豁免，但《義註》討論放棄它，就好像它讀作「將其置於共享所有權之下」。其判決：只要所有者不分割其份額，任何共享所有權下的補品都可以保留超過七天，而不會受到處罰，但在第七天之後，他們不得將其用於內用目的。《複註》補充說，在取消該安排之前，任何共享所有權下的補品都不得使用。
3) The Commentary reports a controversy between two Vinaya experts on the meaning of the last exemption in the list—i.e., “having given it away to an unordained person, abandoning possession of it in his mind, he receives it in return and makes use of it.” Ven. Mahā Sumanatthera states that the phrase, “if within seven days” applies here as well: If within seven days the bhikkhu gives the tonic to an unordained person, having abandoned possession of it in his mind, he may then keep it and consume it for another seven days if the unordained person happens to return it to him.
3）《義註》記述了兩位戒律專家之間關於列表中最後一項豁免的含義的爭議，即「將它給予未受具足戒的人，在心中放棄了對它的擁有，他收到它作為回報並使用它」。摩訶Sumanatthera尊者指出，該措辭「若在七日內」也適用於此：如果在七日內，比丘將補品給予一位未受具足戒的人，並在心中放棄了對它的擁有，如果未受具足戒的人碰巧將其歸還給他，那麼他可以保留它並繼續食用七天。
Ven. Mahā Padumatthera disagrees, saying that the exemption abandons it already covers such a case, and that the exemption here refers to the situation where a bhikkhu has kept a tonic past seven days, has forfeited it and received it in return, and then gives it up to an unordained person. If the unordained person then returns the tonic to him, he may use it to rub on his body. 摩訶Padumatthera尊者不同意，他說，放棄它的豁免已經涵蓋了這種情況，這裡的豁免是指比丘保留補品超過七天，已經捨出並收到它作為回報，然後給予一位未受具足戒的人的情況。如果未受具足戒者隨後將補品歸還給他，他可以用它來塗抹身體。
The K/Commentary agrees with the latter position, but this creates some problems, both textual and practical. To begin with, the phrase, “if within seven days,” modifies every one of the other non-offense clauses under this rule, and there is nothing to indicate that it does not modify this one, too. Second, every one of the other exemptions refers directly to ways of avoiding the full offense and not to ways of dealing with the forfeited article after it is returned, and again there is nothing to indicate that the last exemption breaks this pattern. K/《義註》同意後一種觀點，但這造成了一些問題，包括文字和實際問題。首先，「如果在七天之內」這句話修改了本戒條下的所有其他不犯條款，並且沒有任何跡象表明它不會修改這條。其次，其他每項豁免都直接提到了避免完全違犯的方式，而不是提到歸還捨出物品後的處理方式，而且沒有任何跡象表明最後一項豁免打破了這種模式。
On the practical side, if the exemption abandons it covers cases where a bhikkhu may give up the tonic to anyone at all and then receive it in return to use for another seven days, bhikkhus could spend their time trading hoards of tonics among themselves indefinitely, and the rule would become meaningless. But as the origin story shows, it was precisely to prevent them from amassing such hoards that the rule was formulated in the first place. 從實際角度來看，如果放棄它的豁免涵蓋了比丘可以將補品給予任何人，然後再收到補藥以供使用七天的情況，比丘們可以無限期地花時間在他們之間交易補品，那麼本戒條就變得毫無意義了。但正如起源故事所示，最初制定本戒條正是為了防止他們累積如此多的東西。
“Then Ven. Pilindavaccha went to the residence of King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha and, on arrival, sat down on a seat made ready. Then King Seniya Bimbisāra… went to Ven. Pilindavaccha and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Pilindavaccha addressed him: ‘For what reason, great king, has the monastery attendant’s family been imprisoned?’
「於是，畢陵伽婆蹉尊者來到摩揭陀斯尼耶頻毘娑羅王的住所，一到那裡，就在準備好的座位上坐下。然後，斯尼耶頻毘娑羅王… 去找畢陵伽婆蹉尊者，到達後，向他敬禮，然後坐在一旁。當他坐在那裡時，畢陵伽婆蹉尊者問他：『偉大的國王，寺院淨人一族因何被監禁？』
“‘Venerable sir, in the monastery attendant’s house was a garland of gold: beautiful, attractive, exquisite. There is no garland of gold like it even in our own harem, so from where did that poor man (get it)? It must have been taken by theft.’
「『尊者，寺院淨人一族有一串金花環：美麗、迷人、精巧。就連我們自己的後宮中都沒有這樣的金花環，那麼，那個可憐的男人是從哪裡得到它的呢？它肯定是被偷了。』
“Then Ven. Pilindavaccha willed that the palace of King Seniya Bimbisāra be gold. And it became made entirely of gold. ‘But from where did you get so much of this gold, great king?’
「時，畢陵伽婆蹉尊者用意念將斯尼耶頻毘娑羅王的宮殿變成黃金。它變成完全由黃金製成。『但是，偉大的國王，您從哪裡得到這麼多的黃金？』
“(Saying,) ‘I understand, venerable sir. This is simply the master’s psychic power’ (§—reading ayyass’ev’eso with the Thai edition of the Canon)’ he had the monastery attendant’s family released.
「（說）『我明白了，尊者。這只是大德的神通力』（§—泰國版《聖典》拼讀成 ayyass’ev’eso）』他釋放了寺院淨人一族。
“The people, saying, ‘A psychic wonder, a superior human feat, they say, was displayed to the king and his retinue by the master Pilindavaccha,’ were pleased and delighted. They presented Ven. Pilindavaccha with the five tonics: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and sugar.
「人們說：『據說，畢陵伽婆蹉大德向國王和他的隨從示現神通不可思議之過人法，』他們很開心高興。他們為畢陵伽婆蹉尊者持來五種補品：酥油、新鮮奶油、油、蜂蜜和糖。
“Now ordinarily Ven. Pilindavaccha was already a receiver of the five tonics (§), so he distributed his gains among his company, who came to live in abundance. They put away their gains, having filled pots and pitchers. They hung up their gains in windows, having filled water strainers and bags. These kept oozing and seeping, and their dwellings were crawling and creeping with rats. People, engaged in a tour of the dwellings and seeing this, criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘These Sakyan-son monks have inner storerooms like the king….’”
「現在畢陵伽婆蹉尊者已獲得五種補品（§），因此他將所得分配給他的隨從，使他們過得富足。他們把所得裝滿了罐子和水壺，然後存了起來。他們把所得裝滿濾水器和水袋，掛在窗戶上。這些地方不斷有液體滲出，他們的住處到處都是老鼠。人們在參觀住處時看到這種情況，便批評、抱怨並四處傳播：『這些沙門釋子與國王一樣擁有內部儲藏室……。』」
Thus it seems more likely that the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses should be interpreted like this: A bhikkhu is no longer held responsible for a tonic if he abandons it or gives it away—no matter to whom he gives it, or what his state of mind—but he may receive it in return and use it another seven days only if within the first seven days he has given it to an unordained person, having abandoned all possession of it in his mind. 因此，《經分別》的不犯條款似乎更有可能被這樣解釋：如果比丘放棄或贈送補品，他不再對補品負責——無論他給誰，或他的心理狀態如何——但他可以接受其歸還並再使用七天，只有當前提是，在前七天裡，他必須將其給予一個未受具足戒的人，並在心中放棄對它的所有權。
Summary: Keeping any of the five tonics—ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, or sugar/molasses—for more than seven days, unless one determines to use them only externally, is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：將酥油、新鮮奶油、油、蜂蜜或糖/糖蜜這五種補品中的任何一種保存超過七天，除非決意只外用，否則是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
24 二十四
When a month is left to the hot season, a bhikkhu may seek a rains-bathing cloth. When a half-month is left to the hot season, (the cloth) having been made, may be worn. If when more than a month is left to the hot season he should seek a rains-bathing cloth, (or) when more than a half-month is left to the hot season, (the cloth) having been made should be worn, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
當離炎熱季節還有一個月的時候，比丘可尋求一件雨浴衣。離炎熱季節還有半個月，（衣）做好了，可以穿了。如果距離炎熱季節還超過一個月，他尋求一件雨浴衣，（或）距離炎熱季節還超過半個月，（衣）已經做好了並穿上，尼薩耆波逸提。
Bhikkhus in the time of the Buddha commonly bathed in a river or lake. Passages in the Canon tell of some of the dangers involved: They had to watch over their robes to make sure they weren’t stolen or washed away by the river, and at the same time make sure they didn’t expose themselves. (SN 2:10 tells of a female deva who, seeing a young bhikkhu bathing, became smitten with the sight of him wearing only his lower robe. She appeared to him, suggesting that he leave the monkhood to take his fill of sensual pleasures before his youth had passed, but fortunately he was far enough in the practice to resist her advances.) A further danger during the rainy season was that the rivers would become swollen and their currents strong. During this time, then, bhikkhus would bathe in the rain. 佛陀時代的比丘通常在河流或湖泊中沐浴。《聖典》中的段落講述了其中涉及的一些危險：他們必須看管好自己的袈裟，確保它們不會被偷走或被河水沖走，同時確保他們不會暴露自己。（《相應部》2:10經講述了一位女天神看到一位年輕的比丘沐浴，被他只穿著下衣袈裟所吸引。她出現在他面前，建議他還俗，在他的青春已逝之前盡情享受感官愉悅，但幸運的是，他的修行已經足夠深入，可以抵抗她的追求。）雨季的另一個危險是河水上漲且水流湍急。在這段時間裡，比丘們會在雨中沐浴。
Rains-bathing cloth 雨浴衣
Mv.VIII.15.1-7 tells the story of a servant girl who went to a monastery and—seeing bhikkhus out bathing naked in the rain—concluded that there were no bhikkhus there, but only naked ascetics. She returned to tell her mistress, Lady Visākhā, who realized what was actually happening and made this the occasion to ask permission of the Buddha to provide rains-bathing cloths for the bhikkhus, because as she put it, “Nakedness is repulsive.” He granted her request, and at a later point (Mv.VIII.20.2) stated that a rains-bathing cloth could be determined for use during the four months of the rainy season—beginning with the day after the full moon in July, or the second if there are two—and that at the end of the four months it was to be placed under shared ownership. This training rule deals with the protocol for seeking and using such a cloth during the rains and the period immediately preceding them. 《大品》.八.15.1-7 講述了一個女僕去寺院的故事，她看到比丘們在雨中裸體沐浴，於是得出結論，那裡沒有比丘，只有裸體的苦行僧。她回去告訴了女主人，毘舍佉夫人，毘舍佉夫人意識到了事情的真相，並藉此機會向佛陀請求允許為比丘們提供雨浴衣，因為用她的話來說，「裸體是令人厭惡的」。他答應了她的請求，並在後來的某個時刻（《大品》.八.20.2）表示，可以在雨季的四個月內決意使用雨浴衣——從七月滿月後的次日開始，或者如果有兩個滿月的話，則是第二個滿月後的次日開始——並且在四個月結束後，將其置於共享所有權之下。本學處涉及在雨季和雨季之前尋求和使用這種衣物的行儀。
The protocol as sketched out in the Vibhaṅga—together with details from the Commentary in parentheses and my own comments in brackets—is as follows: During the first two weeks of the fourth lunar month of the hot season—[the lunar cycle ending with the full moon in July, or the first full moon if there are two]—a bhikkhu may seek a rains-bathing cloth and make it (if he gets enough material). (However, he may not yet use it or determine it for use because it may be determined for use only during the four months of the rainy season—[see Mv.VIII.20.2].) 《經分別》中概述的行儀——包括圓括號中的《義註》細節和方括號中我自己的評論——如下：在炎熱季節的第四個陰曆月的前兩週——[以七月滿月結束的月亮週期，或如果有兩個滿月，則為第一個滿月]——比丘可以尋求雨浴衣並製作它（如果他獲得足夠的材料）。（然而，他還不能使用它或決意使用它，因為它只可以在雨季的四個月內被決意使用——[見《大品》.八.20.2]。）
In seeking the cloth he may directly ask for it from relatives or people who have invited him to ask, or he may approach people who have provided rains-bathing cloths in the past and give them such hints as: “It is the time for material for a rains-bathing cloth,” or “People are giving material for a rains-bathing cloth.” As under NP 10, he may not say, “Give me material for a rains-bathing cloth,” or “Get me…” or “Exchange for me…” or “Buy me material for a rains-bathing cloth.” (If he asks directly from people who are not relatives or who have not invited him to ask, he incurs a dukkaṭa; if he then receives cloth from them, he incurs the full penalty under NP 6. If he gives hints to people who have never provided rains-bathing cloths in the past, he incurs a dukkaṭa [which the Commentary assigns on the general principle of breaking a duty].) 在尋求布料時，他可以直接向親戚或邀請他來詢問的人索取，或者他可以接近過去曾提供過雨浴衣服的人，並給他們這樣的暗示：「現在是需要雨浴衣材料的時候了」或「人們正在提供用於雨浴衣的材料」。根據《捨墮》十，他不得說「給我一件雨浴衣的材料」，或「給我拿來…」或「給我換來…」或「給我買一件雨浴衣的材料」。（如果他直接向非親屬或沒有邀請他來詢問的人索取，他犯《突吉羅》；如果他隨後從他們那裡接受布，他會遭受《捨墮》六規定的全部懲罰。如果他向過去從未提供過雨浴衣的人暗示，他犯《突吉羅》[《義註》中對違反義務的一般原則的規定]。
During the last two weeks of the fourth lunar month of the hot season he may now begin using his cloth (although he may not yet determine it for use). [This shows clearly that this rule is providing an exemption to NP 1, under which he otherwise would be forced to determine the cloth within ten days after receiving it.] (If he has not yet received enough material, he may continue seeking for more in the way described above and make himself a cloth when he receives enough.) 在炎熱季節的第四個陰曆月的最後兩週，他現在可以開始使用他的布料了（儘管他可能還沒有決意使用）。[這清楚地表明，本戒條為《捨墮》一提供了豁免，否則他將被迫在收到布料後十天內決意布料。]（如果他還沒有得到足夠的材料，他可以繼續按照上面描述的方式尋求更多的材料，當他得到足夠的材料時，他可以為自己做一件衣。）
(When the first day of the rainy season arrives, he may determine the cloth. If he does not yet have enough material to make his rains-bathing cloth, he may continue seeking it throughout the four months of the rains.) If he bathes naked in the rain when he has a cloth to use, he incurs a dukkaṭa. (However, he may bathe naked in a lake or river without penalty. If he has no cloth to use, he may also bathe naked in the rain.) （當雨季的第一天到來時，他可以決意布料。如果他還沒有足夠的材料來製作雨浴衣，他可以在四個月的雨季裡繼續尋求。）如果他有衣服可用，卻在雨中赤裸裸地洗澡，他犯《突吉羅》。（然而，他可以在湖泊或河流中裸浴而不受懲罰。如果他沒有衣服可用，他也可以在雨中裸浴。）
(At the end of the four months, he is to wash his cloth, place it under shared ownership, and put it aside if it is still usable. He may begin using it again the last two weeks of the last lunar month before the next rainy season and is to re-determine it for use on the day the rainy season officially begins.) （在四個月結束時，他要洗淨他的衣，將其置於共享所有權之下，如果還能用的話，就把它放在一邊。他可以在下一個雨季前最後一個陰曆月的最後兩週再次開始使用它，並在雨季正式開始之日重新決意使用之。）
Toward the end of his discussion of this rule, Buddhaghosa adds his own personal opinion on when a rains-bathing cloth should be determined for use if it is finished during the rains—on the grounds that the ancient commentaries do not discuss the issue—one of the few places where he overtly gives his own opinion anywhere in the Commentary. His verdict: If one receives enough material to finish the cloth within ten days, one should determine it within those ten days. If not, one may keep what material one has, undetermined and throughout the rainy season if need be, until one does obtain enough material and then determine the cloth on the day it is completed. 在討論本戒條的最後，佛音補充了他自己的觀點，關於如果雨季期間完成了雨浴衣，應該何時決意使用之——理由是古代註釋沒有討論這個問題——在《義註》中，他少數幾次公開發表自己的觀點。他的結論是：如果收到足夠的材料，可以在十天內完成衣物，那麼他就應該在這十天內做出決意。如果不夠，如有必要的話則可以在整個雨季保留現有的材料不做決意，直到獲得足夠的材料，然後在完成的那天決意衣物。
Offenses 犯戒
As the K/Commentary points out, this rule covers two separate offenses whose factors are somewhat different: the offense for seeking a rains-bathing cloth at the wrong time and the offense for using it at the wrong time. 正如 K/《義註》指出的那樣，本戒條涵蓋兩項不同的罪行，其因素略有不同：在錯誤的時間尋求雨浴衣的罪行和在錯誤的時間使用雨浴衣的罪行。
Seeking 尋求
The factors here are three: object, effort, and result. The bhikkhu is looking for material for a rains-bathing cloth, he makes hints to people during the time he is not allowed to make hints, and he receives the cloth. 這裡的因素有三：對象、努力、結果。比丘在尋找雨浴衣的材料，他在不允許暗示的時間向人們暗示，並得到了布料。
Using 使用
The factors here are two: object—he has a rains-bathing cloth—and effort—he has other robes to use, there are no dangers, and yet he wears the cloth during the period when he is not allowed to wear it. (The conditions here are based on the non-offenses clauses, which we will discuss below.) 這裡的因素有兩個：對象—他有一件雨浴衣—而努力—他有其他袈裟可用，也沒有危險，但他卻在禁止穿雨浴衣的期間裡穿著它。（這裡的條件是基於不犯條款，我們將在下面討論。）
In neither of these cases is perception a mitigating factor. Even if a bhikkhu thinks that the right time to hint for the cloth or to wear it has come when it actually hasn’t, he is not immune from an offense. 在這兩種情況下，感知都不是減輕懲罰的因素。即使比丘認為暗示衣物或穿戴衣物的正確時機已到，但實際上並未到，他仍不能免於犯戒。
A bhikkhu who has committed either of the two full offenses here is to forfeit the cloth and confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1. 比丘若完全違犯了此處所述的兩種罪行，則須捨出衣物並懺悔罪行。捨出、懺罪及歸還衣物的程序與《捨墮》一相同。
If a bhikkhu seeks or uses a rains-bathing cloth during the permitted times and yet believes that he is doing so outside of the permitted times, or if he is in doubt about the matter, he incurs a dukkaṭa. 如果比丘在允許的時間內尋求或使用雨浴衣，然而卻相信他是在允許的時間之外這樣做，或者如果他對此事有懷疑，他犯《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses 不犯
As the rule states, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who hints for a rains-bathing cloth within the last lunar month of the hot season, or for one who wears his rains-bathing cloth during the last two weeks of that month. 根據本戒條所述，在炎熱季節的最後一個陰曆月內暗示雨浴衣的比丘，或在該月的最後兩週內穿著雨浴衣的比丘，均不構成犯戒。
The Vibhaṅga then refers to a situation that occasionally happens under the lunar calendar: The four months of the hot season end, but the Rains-residence is delayed another lunar cycle because a thirteenth lunar month has been added at the end of the hot season or the beginning of the rainy season to bring the lunar year back into line with the solar year. In this case, it says that the rains-bathing cloth—having been sought for during the fourth month and worn during the last two weeks of the hot season—is to be washed and then put aside. When the proper season arrives, it may be brought out for use (§). 《經分別》接著提到了陰曆中偶爾發生的情況：四個月的炎熱季節結束了，但雨安居又推遲了一個陰曆週期，因為在炎熱季節結束或者雨季的開始時又增加了第十三個陰曆月，使得陰曆年與陽曆年重新保持一致。在這種情況下，它說，在炎熱季節的第四個月尋求並在最後兩週穿著的雨浴衣需要清洗然後放在一邊。當適當的季節到來時，就可以拿出來使用（§）。
The Commentary adds that there is no need to determine the cloth in this period until the day the Rains-residence officially starts, but it doesn’t say when the proper season for using it begins. Having made use of the two-week allowance for using the undetermined bathing cloth at the end of the hot season, is one granted another two-week allowance prior to the Rains-residence, or can one begin using it only when the Rains-residence begins? None of the texts say. It would make sense to allow the bhikkhu to begin using the cloth two weeks before the Rains-residence, but this is simply my own opinion. 《義註》補充道，直到雨安居正式開始的那一天為止，不需要決這段時期的衣物，但沒有說明使用它的適當季節從何時開始。在炎熱季節結束時，已經使用了兩週開緣的未決意浴衣，在雨安居之前，是否還獲得另外兩週的開緣，或者只能在雨安居時開始時才能開始使用？沒有任何文獻提及。允許比丘在雨安居前兩週開始使用衣物算是合理的，但這只是我個人的看法。
The Vibhaṅga then adds three more exemptions: There is no offense for a “snatched-away-robe” bhikkhu, a “destroyed-robe” bhikkhu, or when there are dangers. Strangely enough, the Commentary and the K/Commentary—although both were composed by Buddhaghosa—give conflicting interpretations of these exemptions. The Commentary interprets “robe” here as meaning rains-bathing cloth, and says that these exemptions apply to the dukkaṭa offense for bathing naked in the rain. A bhikkhu whose rains-bathing cloth has been snatched away or destroyed may bathe naked in the rain without incurring a penalty, as may a bhikkhu with an expensive bathing cloth who would rather bathe naked because of his fear of cloth thieves. 然後，《經分別》又增加了三種豁免：「被奪走袈裟」的比丘、「被毀壞袈裟」的比丘，或當有危險時，則不犯戒。奇怪的是，儘管《義註》和 K/《義註》都是由佛音編纂的，但對這些豁免的解釋卻相互矛盾。《義註》將這裡的「袈裟」解釋為雨浴衣，並表示這些豁免適用於在雨中裸浴的《突吉羅》罪。比丘的雨浴衣被搶走或毀壞，可以在雨中裸體沐浴而不受懲罰；如果比丘有一件昂貴的浴衣，但是由於害怕盜衣賊，他寧願裸體沐浴，那麼他也可以不受懲罰。
The K/Commentary, however, makes the Vibhaṅga’s exemptions refer also to the full offense. If a bhikkhu’s other robes have been snatched away or destroyed, he may wear his rains-bathing cloth out of season. The same holds true when, in the words of the K/Commentary, “naked thieves are plundering,” and a bhikkhu decides to wear his rains-bathing cloth out-of-season in order to protect either it or his other robes from being snatched away. 然而，K/《義註》使《經分別》的豁免也涉及完全違犯。如果比丘的其他袈裟被奪走或毀壞，他可以在非時季節穿著雨浴衣。同樣的情況也適用於，用 K/《義註》的話來說，「赤身裸體的盜賊正在掠奪」，而比丘決定在非時季節穿他的雨浴衣，以保護它或其他袈裟不被搶走。
Because the non-offense clauses usually apply primarily to the full offense, it seems appropriate to follow the K/Commentary here. 由於不犯條款通常主要適用於完全違犯，因此遵循此處的 K/《義註》似乎是適當的。
At present, much of this discussion is purely academic, inasmuch as most bhikkhus—if they use a bathing cloth—tend to determine it for use as a “requisite cloth” so as to avoid any possible offense under this rule. 目前，這方面的討論大多是純粹學術性的，因為大多數比丘——如果他們使用雨浴衣——傾向於將其決意為「必需布」，以避免本戒條下的任何可能罪行。
Summary: Seeking and receiving a rains-bathing cloth before the fourth month of the hot season is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：在炎熱季節的第四個月之前尋求並接受雨浴衣是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
Using a rains-bathing cloth before the last two weeks of the fourth month of the hot season is also a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 在炎熱季節第四個月的最後兩週之前使用雨浴衣也是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
25 二十五
Should any bhikkhu—having himself given robe-cloth to (another) bhikkhu and then being angered and displeased—snatch it back or have it snatched back, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果任何比丘將袈裟布給了（另一個）比丘，然後感到憤怒和不悅，將其奪回，或讓別人將其奪回，尼薩耆波逸提。
“At that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan said to his brother’s student, ‘Come, friend, let’s set out on a tour of the countryside.’
「爾時，釋迦族的優波難陀尊者對其兄弟的學生說：『朋友，走吧，我們去遊行諸方吧。』
“‘I can’t go, venerable sir. My robe is threadbare.’
「『我不能去，大德。我的袈裟已經破爛了。』
“‘Come, friend, I’ll give you a robe.’ And he gave him a robe. Then that bhikkhu heard, ‘The Blessed One, they say, is going to set out on a tour of the countryside.’ The thought occurred to him: ‘Now I won’t set out on a tour of the countryside with Ven. Upananda the Sakyan. I’ll set out on a tour of the countryside with the Blessed One.’
「『來吧，朋友，我給你一件袈裟。』於是他就給了他一件袈裟。然後那位比丘聽到說：『他們說，世尊要去遊行諸方。』他心裡想：『現在我不和釋迦族的優波難陀尊者去遊行諸方了。我要和世尊去遊行諸方。』
“Then Ven. Upananda said to him, ‘Come, friend, let’s set out on that tour of the countryside now.’
「然後，優波難陀尊者對他說：『來吧，朋友，我們現在就去遊行諸方吧。』
“‘I won’t set out on a tour of the countryside with you, venerable sir. I’ll set out on a tour of the countryside with the Blessed One.’
「『我不會和您去遊行諸方，大德。我要和世尊去遊行諸方。』
“‘But the robe I gave you, my friend, will set out on a tour of the countryside with me.’ And angered and displeased, he snatched the robe back.”
「『但是我給你的袈裟，我的朋友，會和我去遊行諸方。』他既生氣又不高興，把袈裟搶了回去。」
As the Commentary points out, this rule applies to cases where one perceives the robe-cloth as being rightfully one’s own even after having given it away, as when giving it on an implicit or explicit condition that the recipient does not later fulfill. Thus the act of snatching back here does not entail a pārājika. If, however, one has mentally abandoned ownership of the robe to the recipient and then for some reason snatches it back, the case would come under Pr 2. 正如《義註》所指出的，本戒條適用於這樣的情況：即使在將袈裟布贈予他人之後，仍認為袈裟布理應屬於自己，例如在贈予袈裟時附加了隱含或明確的條件，而接受者後來沒有履行該條件。因此，此處的奪回行為並不涉及《波羅夷》。然而，如果在心裡已經放棄了袈裟的所有權，將其交給了接受者，然後又因為某種原因把它奪了回來，這種情況就屬於《波羅夷》二的情況。
The factors for an offense here are three. 此處的犯戒因素有三。

(未完待續)