波逸提

As explained in the preceding chapter, this term is most probably related to the verb pacinati, “to know,” and means “to be made known” or “to be confessed.” There are 92 rules in this category, divided into eight chapters of ten, and one of twelve. 如同上一章節所解釋的，這個術語很可能與動詞 pacinati （「知道」）有關，意思是「須被公開」或「須懺悔」。此類別中有 92 條戒條，分為八品各十條和一品十二條。
One: The Lie Chapter 第一 虛妄語品
1 一
A deliberate lie is to be confessed.
故意說謊，波逸提。
“Now at that time Hatthaka the Sakyan had been overthrown in debate. In discussions with adherents of other religions, he conceded points after having denied them, denied them after having conceded, evaded one question with another, told deliberate lies, made an appointment (for a debate) but then didn’t keep it. The adherents of other religions criticized and complained and spread it about….
「爾時，喝陀伽釋子已在辯論中被推翻。在與其他宗教信徒的討論中，他先否認後承認，先承認後否認，用一個問題迴避另一個問題，故意撒謊，約定（辯論）時間後又食言。其他宗教的信徒對此提出批評、抱怨並廣為傳播…
“The bhikkhus heard them… and having approached Hatthaka the Sakyan, asked him: ‘Is it true, friend Hatthaka, that in discussions with adherents of other religions, you conceded points after having denied them, denied them after having conceded, evaded one question with another, told deliberate lies, made an appointment (for a debate) but then didn’t keep it?’
「比丘們聽了這些話……便去見喝陀伽釋子，問他：『喝陀伽朋友，在與其他宗教信徒討論時，你先否認後承認，先承認後否認，用一個問題迴避另一個問題，故意撒謊，約定（辯論）時間卻不遵守，這是真的嗎？』
“‘Those adherents of other religions have to be beaten in some way or another. You can’t just give them the victory!’”
「『必須用某種方式擊敗那些其他宗教的信徒。你不能直接把勝利送給他們！』」
A deliberate lie is a statement or gesture made with the aim of misrepresenting the truth to someone else. The K/Commentary, summarizing the long “wheels” in the Vibhaṅga, states that a violation of this rule requires two factors: 故意說謊是為了向別人歪曲事實而做出的言論或動作。 K/《義註》總結了《經分別》中的長「輪」，指出違反此戒條需要兩個因素：
1) Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and 1）意圖：以歪曲事實為目的；和
2) Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to communicate based on that aim. 2）努力：為了達到這個目的，努力使另一個人了解自己想要傳達的訊息。
Intention 意圖
The aim to misrepresent the truth fulfills this factor regardless of what one’s motives are. Thus “white lies”—made with benevolent intentions (e.g., to a person whose state of mind is too weak to take the truth)—would fall under this rule, so a bhikkhu who wants to shield an emotionally weak person from harsh truths has to be very skillful in phrasing his statements. Also, outrageous lies meant as jokes—to amuse rather than to deceive—would fall under this rule as well, a point we will discuss further in the non-offense section. 無論動機是什麼，歪曲事實的目的都符合這個因素。因此，「善意的謊言」——出於善意而說的謊言（例如，對一個精神狀態太弱而無法接受真相的人說的謊言）——就屬於本戒條，所以，如果比丘想保護一個情感脆弱的人免受殘酷真相的傷害，他就必須非常巧妙地措辭。此外，出於玩笑目的（為了逗樂而不是欺騙）的離譜謊言也屬於本戒條的範疇，我們將在不犯部分進一步討論這一點。
Effort 努力
According to the Vibhaṅga, to misrepresent the truth means to say that one has seen X when one hasn’t, that one hasn’t seen X when one has, or that one has seen X clearly when one is in doubt about the matter. This pattern holds for the other senses—hearing, smell, taste, touch, and ideation—as well. Thus to repeat what one has heard, seen, etc., even if it actually is misinformation, does not count as a misrepresentation of the truth under this rule, as one is truthfully reporting what one has seen, etc. If, however, one says that one believes in such misinformation—when one actually doesn’t—one’s statement would count as a misrepresentation of the truth and so would fulfill this factor. 根據《經分別》，歪曲事實的意思是說，當他沒有看到X時，卻說他看到了它；當他看到了X時，卻說他沒有看到它；或者當他對該事有疑問時，卻說他清楚地看到了X。這種模式也適用於其他感官——聽覺、嗅覺、味覺、觸覺和思考。因此，重複自己所聽到、所看到等內容，即使它實際上是錯誤的信息，也不算本戒條下的歪曲事實，因為是在如實地報道自己所看到等等。然而，如果說自己相信這些錯誤訊息──而實際上自己並不相信──那麼他的話就算是歪曲了事實，因此就滿足了這個因素。
According to the Commentary, effort here covers falsehoods conveyed not only by speech but also by writing or gesture. As for falsehoods conveyed by silence: Mv.II.3.3 states that if, while listening to the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha, one remembers that one has an unconfessed offense and yet remains silent about it, that counts as a deliberate lie; Mv.II.3.7 then goes on to impose a dukkaṭa for this kind of lie, which suggests that remaining silent in a situation where silence conveys a false message does not fulfill this factor for the full offense here. 根據《義註》，這裡的努力不僅包括透過言語傳達的謊言，還包括透過寫作或示意動作傳達的謊言。至於透過沉默傳達的謊言：《大品》.二.3.3規定，如果在聆聽《波羅提木叉》時，想起自己有未懺悔的罪過，但卻保持沉默，那就算是故意撒謊；然後，《大品》.二.3.7繼續對這種謊言施加《突吉羅》，這表明在沉默傳達錯誤訊息的情況下保持沉默並不能滿足此處完全違犯的本因素。
Result is not a factor under this rule. Thus whether anyone understands the lie or is deceived by it is irrelevant to the offense. 根據本戒條，結果不是影響因素。因此，是否有人理解謊言或被謊言欺騙，與犯戒無關。
In cases where a particular lie would fall under another rule—such as Pr 4, Sg 8 or 9, Pc 13, 24, or 76—the penalties assigned by that rule take precedence over the ones assigned here. For instance, making a false but unspecific claim to a superior human state would entail a thullaccaya under Pr 4; falsely accusing another bhikkhu of a pārājika offense would entail a saṅghādisesa under Sg 8; falsely accusing him of a saṅghādisesa would entail a pācittiya under Pc 76; and falsely accusing him of a lesser offense would entail a dukkaṭa under that rule. 當特定謊言屬於另一條戒條時（例如《波羅夷》四、《僧殘》八或九、《波逸提》十三、二四或七六），該戒條指定的懲罰優先於此處指定的懲罰。例如，對上人法作出虛假但不明確的主張，將導致《波羅夷》四下的《偷蘭遮》；虛假地指控另一位比丘犯了《波羅夷》罪，將導致《僧殘》八下的《僧殘》；虛假地指控他犯《僧殘》，將導致《波逸提》七六下的《波逸提》；而根據該戒條，虛假地指控他犯下輕罪，將導致《突吉羅》。
The Vinaya-mukha argues that this rule should take precedence in cases where a particular lie would entail only a dukkaṭa under any of the other rules—as in the last example—but this contradicts the Vibhaṅga. 《戒律入口》認為，當某個謊言根據其他任何戒條只會導致《突吉羅》時（如最後一個例子），本戒條應該優先於其他任何戒條，但這與《經分別》相矛盾。
Non-offenses 不犯
A bhikkhu who misrepresents the truth unintentionally commits no offense under this rule. The Vibhaṅga gives two examples: speaking quickly and saying one thing while meaning another. Its word for “quickly”—davāya—can also mean “in fun,” but the Vibhaṅga itself, in a passage unusual for the non-offenses clauses, defines the term, limiting its meaning specifically to “hurriedly.” In doing so, it conforms to a famous passage from MN 61 where the Buddha shows an empty water dipper to Rāhula, his son, telling him that anyone who feels no shame at uttering a deliberate lie is as empty of the virtues of a contemplative as the dipper is empty of water, and then advises Rāhula to train himself: “I will not utter a deliberate lie, even for a laugh.” 根據本戒條，無意地歪曲事實的比丘並不犯戒。《經分別》舉了兩個例子：說話過快，以及說某件事但意思卻是另一件事。其中表示「快速」的單字 davāya 也可以表示「開玩笑」，但《經分別》本身在一段不常見於不犯條款的段落中對該術語進行了定義，將其含義明確限制為「匆忙地」。這樣做符合《中部》61經中的著名段落，佛陀向他的兒子羅睺羅展示了一個空水勺，告訴他，如果有人故意撒謊而毫無羞恥，那麼他就缺乏沙門的美德，就像水勺裡沒有水一樣，然後佛陀建議羅睺羅要自我訓練：「我不會故意撒謊，哪怕是為了開玩笑。」
The Commentary explains the Vibhaṅga’s two exemptions as follows: Speaking quickly means speaking before one has carefully considered the matter. Saying one thing while meaning another means making a slip of the tongue, either out of stupidity or carelessness. It also seconds the Vibhaṅga in not exempting inaccurate statements made in fun from a penalty under this rule. It illustrates this point with several stories that convey a sense of what passed for humor among the less scrupulous bhikkhus of its time. In the first, a novice asks a bhikkhu, “Have you seen my preceptor?” and the bhikkhu, teasing the novice, responds, “Your preceptor’s probably gone, yoked to a firewood-cart.” In the second story, a novice, hearing the yapping of hyenas, asks a bhikkhu, “What’s making that noise?” and the bhikkhu replies, “That’s the noise of those who are lifting the stuck-in-the-mud wheel of the carriage your mother’s going in.” In addition, the Commentary quotes a few statements that today would be classified as exaggeration or sarcasm, saying that these, too, are forbidden by this rule. 《義註》對《經分別》的兩項豁免作如下解釋：說話過快意味著在仔細考慮事情之前就說話。說某件事但意思卻是另一件事，意味著由於愚蠢或粗心而說錯話。它也同意《經分別》不免除因玩笑而做出的不準確言論的懲罰。它用幾個故事說明了這一點，這些故事傳達了當時不太嚴謹的比丘們所認為的幽默感。第一個是，一位沙彌問一位比丘：「你見過我的戒師嗎？」比丘就取笑沙彌，回答說：「你的戒師可能被駕到柴車上走了。」在第二個故事中，一位沙彌聽到鬣狗的吠叫聲，便問一位比丘：「是什麼發出了這種聲音？」比丘回答說：「那是那些抬起你母親所乘車輛陷在泥裡的車輪的人發出的聲音。」此外，《義註》也引用了一些在今天看來會被視為誇張或諷刺的言論，並表示這些言論也是本戒條所禁止的。
Whatever humor these jokes originally contained has been so dulled by time that the statements now seem obviously unworthy of a bhikkhu. A bhikkhu at present whose sense of humor tends toward misrepresentation and exaggeration would do well to develop a similar perspective on his own jokes. This is not to deny the value or potential wisdom of humor; simply to note that a bhikkhu’s sense of humor should be kept in service to his values, and that the most memorable wit is memorable precisely because it tells the straight truth. 這些笑話原本包含的任何幽默，已經隨著時間的流逝而變得如此暗淡，以至於這些話現在看起來顯然不適合比丘說。目前，如果一位比丘的幽默感傾向於扭曲和誇張，他最好對自己的笑話培養類似的看法。這並不是否認幽默的價值或潛在的智慧；只是要注意，比丘的幽默感應該服務於他的價值觀，最令人難忘的智慧之所以令人難忘，正是因為它說出了直截了當的事實。
As we noted above, a bhikkhu who speaks from mistaken assumptions—truthfully reporting any mistaken information he may have received or mistaken beliefs he may have thought up—does not come under this rule. 正如我們上面提到的，如果比丘基於錯誤的假設而講話——如實報告他可能收到的任何錯誤訊息或他可能想到的錯誤信念——則不犯本戒條。
Broken promises 違背承諾
Mv.III.14.1-14 imposes a dukkaṭa on the act of making a promise with pure intentions but later breaking it. Because the texts make no mention of any circumstances beyond one’s control that would exempt one from that penalty, a bhikkhu should be very careful of how he states his plans for the future. A special instance of breaking a promise—accepting an invitation to a meal but then not going—is treated, not under Mv.III.14.1-14, but under Pc 33. 《大品》.三.14.1-14對出於純潔意圖作出承諾但後來卻違背承諾的行為施加《突吉羅》。因為文獻中沒有提到任何超出個人控制範圍的情況可以免除這種懲罰，所以比丘應該對如何陳述他對未來的計劃非常小心。違背承諾的一個特殊例子——接受了用餐邀請但後來卻不去——不是在 《大品》.三.14.1-14中處理，而是在《波逸提》三三中處理。
Summary: The intentional effort to misrepresent the truth to another individual is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：故意向他人扭曲事實，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
2 二
An insult is to be confessed.
侮辱，波逸提。
An insult is a gesture or statement, written or spoken, made with the malicious intent of hurting another person’s feelings or of bringing him/her into disgrace. The Vibhaṅga analyzes the full offense under this rule in terms of three factors: 侮辱是一種書面或口頭的手勢或言論，目的是惡意傷害他人感情或使他人蒙羞。《經分別》從三個因素分析了本戒條下的完全違犯：
1) Effort: One insults a person directly to his face, touching on any one of the ten topics for abuse (akkosa-vatthu) listed below. 1）努力：當面侮辱某人，觸及下面列出的十個辱罵主題（akkosa-vatthu）中的任何一個。
2) Object: The person is a bhikkhu. 2）對象：該人是比丘。
3) Intention: One’s motive is to humiliate him. 3）意圖：動機是羞辱他。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga lists ten ways a verbal insult can be phrased: making remarks about the other person’s: 《經分別》列出了十種言語侮辱的表達方式：對他人進行以下的評論：
race, class, or nationality (You nigger! You bum! You Frenchman!);
種族、階級或國籍（你這個黑鬼！你這個流浪漢！你這個法國人！）；
name (You really are a Dick!);
名字（你真是個混蛋！）；
family or lineage (You bastard! You son of a bitch!);
家族或血統（你這個混蛋！你這個狗娘養的！）；
occupation (You pimp! You capitalist pig!);
職業（你這個皮條客！你這個資本主義豬！）；
craft (What would you expect from a guy who crochets?);
技藝（您對鉤針編織的人有什麼期望？）；
disease or handicap (Hey, Clubfoot! Spastic!);
疾病或殘障（嘿，馬蹄足！痙攣！）；
physical characteristics (Hey, Fatty! Beanpole! Shrimp! Hulk!);
身體特徵（嘿，胖子！瘦高個！蝦米！綠巨人！）；
defilements (You control freak! Fool! Queer! Breeder!);
褻瀆（你這個控制狂！傻瓜！同性戀！繁殖狂！）
offenses (You liar! You thief!); or
冒犯（你這個騙子！你這個小偷！）；或者
using an abusive form of address, such as, “You camel! You goat! You ass! You penis! You vagina!” (§) (All five of these come from the Vibhaṅga.)
用辱罵性的稱謂，如「你這隻駱駝！你這個山羊！你這個混蛋！你這個陰莖！你這個陰道！（§）（此五句皆出自《經分別》。）
(The category of “offense”—which literally means “falling”—contains an interesting sub-category, in that the noble attainment of stream-entry is, literally, “falling into the stream.” Thus an insult along the lines of, “Some stream-winner you are!” would also fit under this category as well.) （「冒犯」這個類別的字面意思是「墮落」，它包含一個有趣的子類別，即入流的聖成就，字面意思是「墮入果位」。因此，類似「你真是個果位獲得者！」這樣的侮辱也屬於這一類別。）
These ten topics are called the akkosa-vatthu—topics for abuse—and appear in the following training rule as well. 這十個主題被稱為 akkosa-vatthu（辱罵主題），也出現在以下學處中。
As the examples in the Vibhaṅga show, the remark that fulfills the factor of effort here must touch on one of these topics for abuse and must be made directly to the listener: “You are X.” It may be phrased either as sarcastic praise or as out-and-out abuse. The Commentary and Sub-commentary say that any insulting remark not listed in the Vibhaṅga would only be grounds for a dukkaṭa, but the Vibhaṅga defines the topics for abuse in such a general way that any term related to them in any way would fulfill this factor here. 正如《經分別》中的例子所示，這裡滿足努力因素的言論必須涉及這些辱罵主題之一，並且必須直接對聽者說：「你是 X 」。它既可以表現為諷刺性的讚揚，也可以表現為徹頭徹尾的辱罵。《義註》和《複註》說，任何未在《經分別》中列出的侮辱性言論都只能成為《突吉羅》的理由，但《經分別》對辱罵的主題進行了非常籠統的定義，以至於任何與它們相關的術語都可以滿足此處的這個因素。
Remarks made in an indirect or insinuating manner, though, would not fulfill this factor. Indirect remarks are when the speaker includes himself together with the target of his insult in his statement (“We’re all a bunch of fools”). Insinuating remarks are when he leaves it uncertain as to whom he is referring to (“There are camels among us”). Any remark of either of these sorts, if meant as an insult, entails a dukkaṭa regardless of whether the target is a bhikkhu or not. 然而，以間接或影射的方式發表的言論並不能滿足這一因素。間接言論是指說話者在言論中將自己與被侮辱的對象連結在一起（「我們都是一群傻瓜」）。影射言論是指當他不明確指出是誰時，（「我們中間有駱駝」）。任何上述言論，如果意在侮辱，無論對象是否為比丘，都會犯《突吉羅》。
All of the insults mentioned in the Vibhaṅga take the form of remarks about the person, whereas insults and verbal abuse at present often take the form of a command—Go to hell! F— off! etc.—and the question is whether these too would be covered by this rule. Viewed from the standpoint of intent, they fit under the general definition of an insult; but if for some reason they would not fit under this rule, they would in most cases be covered by Pc 54. 《經分別》中提到的所有侮辱都是對人的評價，而當今的侮辱和言語虐待常常以命令的形式出現－去死吧！滾！等等－問題是這些是否也包含在本戒條中。從意圖的角度來看，它們符合侮辱的一般定義；但如果由於某種原因它們不符合本戒條，則大多數情況下它們將符合《波逸提》五四。
Insulting remarks made about someone behind his/her back are dealt with under Pc 13. 在背後對某人發表的侮辱性言論將根據《波逸提》十三處理。
Object 對象
To insult a bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya; to insult an unordained person—according to the Commentary, this runs the gamut from bhikkhunīs to all other living beings—a dukkaṭa. 侮辱比丘犯《波逸提》；侮辱未受具足戒的人——根據《義註》，這適用於從比丘尼到所有其他生物——《突吉羅》。
Intention 意圖
The Vibhaṅga defines this factor as “desiring to jeer at, desiring to scoff at, desiring to make (him) abashed.” If, with no insult intended, a bhikkhu jokes about another person’s race, etc., he incurs a dubbhāsita, regardless of whether the person is lay or ordained, mentioned outright or insinuatingly, and regardless of whether he/she takes it as a joke or an insult. This is the only instance of this class of offense. 《經分別》將此因素定義為「想要嘲笑、想要嘲弄、想要讓（他）羞愧」。如果比丘開玩笑地談論別人的種族等，而無意冒犯，則無論此人是在家人還是出家人，是直接提及還是暗示，也無論他/她將其視為玩笑還是侮辱，他犯《惡說》（dubbhāsita）。這是此類犯戒的唯一例子。
The K/Commentary adds result as a fourth factor—the target of one’s insult knows, “He’s insulting me”—but there is no basis for this in either the Vibhaṅga or the Commentary. If one makes an insulting remark under one’s breath, not intending to be heard—or in a foreign language, not intending to be understood—the motive would be to let off steam, which would not qualify as the intention covered by this rule. If one truly wants to humiliate someone, one will make the necessary effort to make that person hear and understand one’s words. But if for some reason that person doesn’t hear or understand (a loud noise blots out one’s words, one uses a slang term that is new to one’s listener), there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to indicate that one would escape from the full penalty. K/《義註》加入了結果作為第四個因素，即被侮辱的人知道「他在侮辱我」——但在《經分別》和《義註》都沒有任何此依據。如果低聲說出侮辱性言論，而無意讓別人聽到，或用外語說出侮辱性言論，而無意讓別人理解，其動機可能是為了發洩，這不屬於本戒條所涵蓋的意圖。如果真正想羞辱某人，他就會盡一切努力讓那個人聽到並理解他的話。但如果由於某種原因，那個人沒有聽見或聽不懂（巨大的噪音遮住了話語，使用了聽眾不熟悉的俚語），《經分別》中沒有任何內容表明可以逃脫全部懲罰。
For this reason, whether the person addressed actually feels insulted by one’s remarks is irrelevant in determining the severity of the offense. If one makes a remark to a fellow bhikkhu, touching on one of the topics for abuse and meaning it as an insult, one incurs a pācittiya even if he takes it as a joke. If one means the remark as a joke, one incurs a dubbhāsita even if the other person feels insulted. 因此，聽者是否真的覺得被自己的言論侮辱，與判斷犯戒的嚴重程度無關。如果對一位比丘同儕發表言論，觸及辱罵主題之一，且意圖侮辱，那麼即使他只當做笑話，也會犯《波逸提》。如果言論意圖只是開玩笑，那麼即使另一方感覺受到了侮辱，犯《惡說》。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, a bhikkhu who mentions another person’s race, etc., commits no offense if he is “aiming at Dhamma, aiming at (the person’s) benefit (attha—this can also mean “the goal”), aiming at teaching.” The Commentary illustrates this with a bhikkhu saying to a member of the untouchable caste: “You are an untouchable. Don’t do any evil. Don’t be a person born into misfortune and going on to misfortune.” 根據《經分別》，如果比丘「旨在於法、旨在於（該人的）利益（attha——這也可以表示「目標」）、旨在於教導」，那麼當他提及他人的種族等時，並不構成犯戒。《義註》中以一位比丘對賤民種姓成員所說的話為例：「你是賤民。莫做惡事。不要做一個生來不幸、走向不幸的人。」
Another example would be of a teacher who uses insulting language to get the attention of a stubborn student so that the latter will bring his behavior in line with the Dhamma. This would entail no offense, but one should be very sure of the purity of one’s motives and of the beneficial effect of one’s words before using language of this sort. 另一個例子是，一位老師使用侮辱性的語言來引起頑固學生的注意，以便後者的行為符合法。這並不犯戒，但是在使用此類語言之前，我們應該非常確定自己動機的純潔性以及言語的有益效果。
Summary: An insult made with malicious intent to another bhikkhu is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：懷著惡意侮辱另一位比丘，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
3 三
Divisive tale-bearing among bhikkhus is to be confessed.
在比丘之間分裂性的搬弄是非，波逸提。
Divisive tale-bearing is described in the Vibhaṅga with a series of examples in the following form: X makes remarks about Y touching on his race, name, or any of the other ten akkosa-vatthu listed in the explanation to the preceding rule. Z, hearing these remarks, goes to tell someone else—either W or Y himself—in hopes of causing a rift between X and his listener or of winning favor with his listener in case there is already a rift between the two. For example: 《經分別》以下列形式舉了一系列例子來描述分裂性的搬弄是非： X 對 Y 的種族、姓名或在前一條戒條的解釋中列出的其他十個 akkosa-vatthu 發表言論。 Z 聽到這些言論後，便去告訴其他人（ W 或 Y 本人），希望能引起 X 和他的聽者之間的裂痕，或者在兩人之間已經有裂痕的情況下贏得聽者的好感。例如：
a) X calls Y a bastard behind his back. Z tells Y, in hopes of ingratiating himself with Y.
a）X 背地裡罵 Y 是混蛋。 Z 告訴 Y，希望能討好 Y。
b) X makes racist remarks about Y to his face. Z knows that W is a friend of Y and hates racists, and so tells W what X said, in hopes of causing a rift between W and X.
b）X 當面對 Y 發表種族主義言論。 Z 知道 W 是 Y 的朋友，並且討厭種族主義者，所以就把 X 說的話告訴了 W，希望藉此挑起 W 和 X 之間的裂痕。
Bhikkhu Z commits the full offense here when three factors are fulfilled: object, effort, and intent. 當滿足三個因素時，比丘 Z 就犯了全部罪行：對象、努力和意圖。
1) Object: Both Z’s listener and X are bhikkhus; X has made remarks about Y that qualify as a direct insult under the preceding rule—or, if he didn’t make them in Y’s presence, remarks that would have qualified as a direct insult had he done so. (Note that under case (b) above, Y would not have to be a bhikkhu for this factor to be fulfilled.)
1）對象： Z 的聽者和 X 都是比丘； X 對 Y 發表的言論根據前一條戒條可視為直接侮辱；或者，如果他沒有在 Y 面前發表這些言論，他真的這麼說了屬於直接侮辱的言論。（請注意，在上述情況 (b) 中，Y 不必是比丘即可滿足此因素。）
2) Effort: Z reports X’s remarks to his listener verbally or by gesture (as in writing a letter),
2）努力： Z 透過口頭或示意動作（如寫信）向他的聽者傳達 X 的言論，
3) Intent: with the intent of ingratiating himself with his listener, or of causing a rift between his listener and X.
3）意圖：意圖討好聽者，或造成聽者與 X 之間的裂痕。
The K/Commentary adds a fourth factor—Z’s listener understands what he is saying—but, as with the preceding rule, there is no basis for this in the Vibhaṅga. K/《義註》增加了第四個因素—— Z 的聽眾理解他在說什麼——但是，與前一條戒條一樣，在《經分別》中沒有這一點的依據。
Object 對象
If either X or Z’s listener—or both—are not bhikkhus, then the penalty for Z is a dukkaṭa. 如果 X 或 Z 的聽者（或兩者）不是比丘，那麼 Z 的懲罰就是《突吉羅》。
If X’s remarks qualified only as an indirect insult under the preceding rule—e.g., he said with reference to Y that, “There are camels among us”—then Z incurs a dukkaṭa if he reports them with the intent to ingratiate himself or cause a rift, regardless of whether his listener or X are bhikkhus or not. 如果 X 的言論根據前一條戒條僅屬於間接侮辱——例如，他對 Y 說，「我們之間有駱駝」——那麼如果 Z 以討好或製造裂痕為目的報道這些言論，無論聽者或 X 是否是比丘，犯《突吉羅》。
The Sub-commentary states that there is a dukkaṭa for bearing tales dealing with matters other than remarks about the ten akkosa-vatthu—i.e., telling Y about things said or done by X, to make X appear in a bad light in hopes of winning favor or causing a rift—although some cases of this sort would come under Pc 13. 《複註》指出，除了關於十種 akkosa-vatthu 的言論之外，其他事項的搬弄是非犯《突吉羅》—即，告訴 Y 有關 X 所說或所做的事情，使 X 看起來很糟糕，希望贏得好感或造成裂痕—雖然有些這種情況屬於《波逸提》十三。
Effort 努力
This rule is sometimes translated as dealing with slander—false tale-bearing—but as the examples in the Vibhaṅga show, it actually deals with true tale-bearing: X really does say insulting things about Y, and Z gives a true report. The Vinaya-mukha notes that if Z engages in false tale-bearing, then regardless of whether X and Z’s listener are bhikkhus, Z incurs the full penalty under Pc 1. 本戒條有時被翻譯為處理誹謗——虛假的搬弄是非——但正如《經分別》中的例子所示，它實際上處理的是真實的搬弄是非：X 確實說了關於 Y 的侮辱性的話，而 Z 給出了真實的報道。《戒律入口》指出，如果 Z 散佈虛假的搬弄是非，那麼無論 X 和 Z 的聽者是否是比丘，Z 完全違犯《波逸提》一。
Intent 意圖
To give a true report of such matters with motives other than those of winning favor or causing a rift entails no offense. Examples of this would include: 如果真實地報道這些事情並且不是為了贏得好感或製造裂痕，則並不構成犯戒。例如：
informing a senior bhikkhu when one bhikkhu has accused another of a serious offense, so that an inquiry can be made for the sake of harmony in the Community; or
當一個比丘指控另一個比丘犯有嚴重罪行時，要通知一位資深比丘，以便為了僧團的和合而進行調查；或者
telling a senior bhikkhu about a student of his who is making racist remarks, so that the senior bhikkhu can put a stop to it.
告訴一位資深比丘，他的一位弟子正在發表種族主義言論，以便這位資深比丘可以阻止這種行為。
Summary: Telling a bhikkhu about insulting remarks made by another bhikkhu—in hopes of winning favor or causing a rift—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：為了博取好感或製造裂痕，向一位比丘講述另一位比丘的侮辱性言論，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
4 四
Should any bhikkhu have an unordained person recite Dhamma line by line (with him), it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘讓未受具足戒的人（與他）逐行誦讀佛法，波逸提。
This is an offense with two factors: 這是有兩個因素的罪行：
1) Effort: One gets a student to recite Dhamma line-by-line with oneself (which, as we shall see below, means to train the student to be a skilled reciter of a Pali Dhamma text).
1）努力：讓弟子與自己一起一行一行地背誦佛法（正如我們將在下文中看到的，這意味著訓練弟子成為熟練的巴利語佛法誦讀者）。
2) Object: The student is neither a bhikkhu nor a bhikkhunī.
2）對象：弟子既不是比丘，也不是比丘尼。
Only the first factor needs explanation, and is best treated under two headings: Dhamma and reciting line-by-line. 只有第一個因素需要解釋，最好用兩個標題來處理：佛法和逐行背誦。
Dhamma 佛法
Dhamma the Vibhaṅga defines as “a saying made by the Buddha, his disciples, seers, or heavenly beings, connected with the teaching or connected with the goal.” The Commentary devotes a long discussion to these terms, coming to the conclusion that connected with the Dhamma refers to the Pali Canon—in Pali, not in translation—as agreed on in the first three councils, while connected with the goal (attha) refers to the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā, the most revered ancient commentary (only in its original Pali version, the Sub-commentary says). 《經分別》將佛法定義為「佛陀、其弟子、先知或天人所說的與教義或目標相關的話」。《義註》對這些術語進行了長討論，得出結論：與佛法相關指的是巴利《聖典》（巴利語，而非翻譯），正如前三次結集所達成的一致意見，而與目標（attha）相關指的是《Mahā Aṭṭhakathā》，即最受尊敬的古代註釋（《複註》稱僅限其原始巴利語版本）。
The ancient commentaries disagreed as to what other works would fit under this category, but Buddhaghosa’s conclusion seems to be that—in the Milinda Pañhā, for example—Ven. Nāgasena’s quotes of the Buddha’s words would count, but not his own formulations of the teaching, and the same principle holds for other texts quoting the Buddha’s words as well. The ancient commentaries are unanimous, though, in saying that Dhamma does not cover the Mahāyāna sūtras or any compositions (this would include translations) dealing with the Dhamma in languages other than Pali. 古代註釋對於哪些其他作品可以歸入這一類別意見不一，但佛音的結論似乎是——例如在《彌蘭王問經》中——龍軍尊者所引述的佛陀話語可以算在內，但他自己對教義的表述則不算數，同樣的原則也適用於引用佛陀話語的其他文獻。然而，古代註釋一致認為，佛法並不涵蓋大乘經典或任何巴利語以外的語言論述佛法的作品（這包括翻譯作品）。
This interpretation, identifying Dhamma with particular Pali texts, has caused no controversy in the context of this rule—although it seems unlikely that the compilers of the Vibhaṅga would have had the commentaries in mind when they said, “connected with the goal”—but it has met with disagreement in the context of Pc 7, and so we will discuss it in more detail there. 這種將佛法與特定的巴利文獻聯繫起來的解釋，在本戒條的脈絡下沒有引起任何爭議——儘管《經分別》的編纂者在說「與目標相關」時似乎不太可能想到註釋——但它確實在《波逸提》七的脈絡下遭到了反對，因此我們將在那裡更詳細地討論它。
Reciting line-by-line 逐行背誦
To make someone recite line by line means to train him/her by rote to be a skilled reciter of a text. 讓某人一行一行地背誦意味著透過死記硬背來訓練他/她成為文獻的熟練背誦者。
Bhikkhus in the days of the Buddha committed the teachings in the Canon to memory to preserve them from generation to generation. Although writing was in use at the time—mainly for keeping accounts—no one used it to record teachings either of the Buddha or of any other religious teacher. The Pali Canon was not written down until approximately 500 years after the Buddha’s passing away, after an invasion of Sri Lanka had threatened its survival. 佛陀時代的比丘們將《聖典》中的教義銘記於心，以便代代傳承。儘管當時已經使用文字（主要用於記帳），但沒有人用它來記錄佛陀或其他宗教導師的教義。直到佛陀圓寂約 500 年後，由於斯里蘭卡遭到入侵，巴利《聖典》的存亡受到威脅，才寫成文字成書。
The Vibhaṅga lists four ways in which a person might be trained to be a reciter of a text: 《經分別》列出了四種訓練一個人成為背誦者的方法：
1) The teacher and student recite in unison, i.e., beginning together and ending together.
1）師生同聲背誦，即一起開始，一起結束。
2) The teacher begins a line, the student joins in, and they end together.
2）老師開始某一行，學生加入，最後他們一起結束。
3) The teacher recites the beginning syllable of a line together with the student, who then completes it alone.
3）老師和學生一起背誦某一行的首個音節，然後學生獨自完成。
4) The teacher recites one line, and the student recites the next line alone.
4）老師背誦某一行，學生單獨背誦下一行。
At present, reciters of the Vedas still use these methods when practicing their texts. 目前，吠陀的背誦者在練習他們的文獻時仍會使用這些方法。
The origin story states that the Buddha forbade these methods of training unordained people because they caused the lay students to feel disrespect for the bhikkhus. The Vinaya-mukha explains this by noting that if a teacher made a slip of the tongue while teaching in this way, his students would look down on him for it. If this were the right explanation, though, the non-offense clauses would have listed “proper” ways of training novices and lay people to recite the Dhamma, but they don’t. 起源故事說，佛陀禁止這些訓練非受具足戒者的方法，因為它們導致在家學生對比丘感到不尊重。《戒律入口》對此的解釋是：如果老師以這種方式教學時口誤，他的學生就會因此看不起他。如果這是正確的解釋，那麼不犯條款就會列出訓練沙彌和俗人背誦佛法的「適當」方法，但它並未列出。
A more likely explanation is that at the time of the Buddha the duty of memorizing and reciting the texts was considered the province of the bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs. Although some lay people memorized discourses (Mv.III.5.9), and bhikkhus of course taught the Dhamma to lay people, there was apparently the feeling that to teach non-ordainees to become skilled reciters of the texts was not good for the relationship between bhikkhus and the unordained. There are three possible reasons for this: 更可能的解釋是，在佛陀時代，記憶和背誦經文被認為是比丘和比丘尼的職責。雖然有些在家眾會記憶經文（《大品》.三.5.9），而比丘當然也會向在家眾宣講佛法，但是顯然人們覺得，教導非受具足戒者成為熟練的文獻背誦者，不利於比丘與非受具足戒者之間的關係。可能的原因有三：
1) People may have felt that the bhikkhus were shirking their responsibilities by trying to pass their duty off onto others.
1）人們或許覺得比丘們試圖將自己的職責推給別人，從而逃避自己的責任。
2) Brahmans at the time were very strict in not allowing anyone outside their caste to memorize the Vedas, and their example may have led lay people to feel disrespect for bhikkhus who were not equally protective of their own tradition.
2）當時的婆羅門非常嚴格，不允許其種姓之外的任何人背誦吠陀，他們的例子可能導致俗人對那些沒有同樣保護自己傳統的比丘感到不尊重。
3) A bhikkhu acting as a tutor for a lay person wishing to memorize the Dhamma might, over time, come to be seen as the lay person’s hireling.
3）一位比丘擔任一位想要記憶佛法的俗人的導師，隨著時間的推移，可能會被視為這位俗人的僱工。
At present, the entire Canon is available in print, and even bhikkhus rarely commit it to memory, although they do frequently memorize parts of it, such as the Pāṭimokkha, the major discourses, and other passages chanted on ceremonial occasions. To train a lay person or novice to become skilled in reciting such teachings by rote would entail the full penalty under this rule. 目前，整部《聖典》均已印刷出版，即使是比丘也很少將其牢記在心，儘管他們經常會記住其中的部分內容，例如《波羅提木叉》、主要經文和其他在儀式場合朗誦的段落。根據本戒條，訓練一名俗人或沙彌熟練地背誦這些教義，將完全違犯本戒條。
Offenses are counted as follows: If teaching an unordained person to recite line-by-line, one incurs a pācittiya for each line; if teaching syllable-by-syllable, a pācittiya for each syllable. 犯戒的次數如下：若教未受具足戒者一行一行背誦，則每行犯一次《波逸提》；如果逐個音節地教學，則每個音節犯一次《波逸提》。
Intention is not a mitigating factor here. Thus if a bhikkhu is training a mixed group of bhikkhus and novices, he incurs a pācittiya even if his intention is to train only the bhikkhus in the group. 意圖在此不是一個減輕懲罰的因素。因此，如果一位比丘正在訓練一個由比丘和沙彌組成的混合團體，那麼即使他的意圖只是訓練該團體中的比丘，他也犯《波逸提》。
Perception is also not a mitigating factor. If the person being trained is unordained, the bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya if he perceives him as unordained, a pācittiya if he is in doubt about the matter, and a pācittiya if he perceives him as ordained. If the person is ordained, then the bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa if he perceives him as unordained and a dukkaṭa if he is in doubt about the matter. Only if the person is ordained and the bhikkhu perceives him as ordained is he not grounds for an offense. This pattern of six possibilities—three pācittiyas, two dukkaṭas, and one non-offense—is standard in many of the pācittiya rules where perception is not a mitigating factor. We will note other rules in this chapter where this pattern also applies, but explain it in detail only here. 感知也不是一個減輕懲罰因素。若受訓練者尚未受具足戒，且比丘認為該人尚未受具足戒，則犯《波逸提》；若比丘對此事有所懷疑，則犯《波逸提》；若比丘認為該人已受具足戒，則犯《波逸提》。如果該人已受具足戒，而比丘認為該人未受具足戒，則犯《突吉羅》；如果比丘對此事有所懷疑，則犯《突吉羅》。只有當該人已受具足戒，且比丘認為該人已受具足戒時，才不構成犯戒。此六種可能性的模式——三《波逸提》、兩《突吉羅》和一不犯——是許多《波逸提》戒條的標準，在這些戒條中，感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素。我們將在本章中指出此模式也適用的其他戒條，但僅在此詳細解釋。
Non-offenses 不犯
Because this rule is aimed at methods of teaching, the Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense “for one made to recite in unison.” This, says the Commentary, refers to a young bhikkhu who, in the process of learning a text, is told by his teacher to recite together with a novice who is also the teacher’s student. 因為本戒條針對的是教學方法，所以《經分別》規定「讓一個人齊聲朗誦」並無犯戒。《義註》說，這指的是一位年輕比丘在學習一部經文的過程中，被老師要求與另一位沙彌（也是老師的學生）一起背誦。
Also, according to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if a bhikkhu corrects an unordained person who has memorized most of a passage or who is reciting in a confused manner; or if a bhikkhu “rehearses” a passage in unison with unordained people. In the time of the Canon, this meant the practice of reciting a passage one had already memorized. At present, this would include the practice of bhikkhus reciting together with lay people who are reading from a text or reciting from memory—for example, during the evening chanting—and are not learning the text from the bhikkhus. The Commentary extends this allowance to include cases of bhikkhus learning a text from an unordained person, probably on the model of the Itivuttaka, which—according to its Commentary—the bhikkhus first learned from a servant woman who had memorized some of the Buddha’s teachings that the bhikkhus had overlooked. 此外，根據《經分別》的規定，如果比丘糾正一個沒有受具足戒的人，而該人已經記住了大部分經文，或者以混亂的方式誦讀，這並不構成犯戒；或比丘與未受具足戒的眾人一同「排練」一段經文。在《聖典》時代，這意味著背誦已經記住的段落的做法。目前，這包括比丘與正在閱讀經文或背誦記憶的俗人一起誦讀的做法（例如，在晚課誦經時），而不是從比丘那裡學習經文。《義註》將這種開緣擴展到包括比丘從未受具足戒者那裡學習經文的情況，可能是以《如是語經》為模型，根據《如是語經》的《義註》，比丘首先從一名女僕那裡學習，這名女僕記住了比丘們忽略的一些佛陀教義。
Summary: To train a novice or lay person to recite passages of Dhamma by rote is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：訓練沙彌或俗人死記硬背誦佛經，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
5 五
Should any bhikkhu lie down together (in the same dwelling) with an unordained person for more than two or three consecutive nights, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘與未受具足戒者（在同一住所）同寢超過連續兩三個夜晚，波逸提。
As the Vinaya-mukha comments, “The Buddha originally laid down the rule forbidding the act of sleeping in the same dwelling with an unordained person so that lay people would not see the unsightly attitudes a bhikkhu might assume while asleep. But then when novices came into being they were classed as unordained people and so had no place to stay. The Buddha therefore relaxed the rule, allowing bhikkhus to sleep in the same dwelling with an unordained person no more than three nights running, thus also opening the way for them to sleep in the same dwelling with ordinary lay men.” 正如《戒律入口》所說：「佛陀最初制定本戒條，禁止與未受具足戒的人同睡在同一住處，是為了讓俗人看不到比丘在睡覺時可能呈現的難看姿態。但當沙彌開始出現時，他們就被歸類為未受具足戒者，因此無處可居。因此，佛陀放寬了戒條，允許比丘與未受具足戒者同睡在同一住所，但不得超過三個連續夜晚，這也為比丘與普通俗人同睡在同一住所開闢了道路。」
The occasion for the first formulation of the rule was this: 本戒條首次制定的場合如下：
“Now at that time, lay men came to the monastery to hear the Dhamma. After the Dhamma had been taught, each of the elder bhikkhus went to his own dwelling, while the newer bhikkhus went to sleep right there in the assembly hall with the lay men—with muddled mindfulness, unalert, naked, mumbling, and snoring. The lay men criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can their reverences go to sleep with muddled mindfulness, unalert, naked, mumbling, and snoring?’”
「當時，很多俗人來到寺院聽法。教導完佛法之後，各位長老比丘各自回自己的住處，而新比丘則就在集會堂裡與俗人一起睡覺——失正念、毫無警覺、赤身裸體、喃喃自語、鼾聲不斷。俗人批評、抱怨並四處傳播：『大德怎麼能失正念、毫無警覺、赤身裸體、喃喃自語、打鼾地睡覺呢？』」
The occasion for the final formulation was this: 最終制定的場合如下：
“The bhikkhus said to Ven. Rāhula (who was a novice at the time), ‘There is a training rule laid down by the Blessed One that (a bhikkhu) should not lie down together with an unordained person. Find yourself a place to sleep.’ So Ven. Rāhula, not finding a place to sleep, went to sleep in the restroom. Then the Blessed One, getting up toward the end of the night, went to the restroom and on arriving cleared his throat. Ven. Rāhula cleared his throat.
「比丘們對羅睺羅尊者（當時是沙彌）說：『世尊有制定學處，即（比丘）不得與未受具足戒者同寢。自己找個地方睡覺。』羅睺羅尊者找不到地方睡覺，所以就到廁所睡覺。然後，世尊在夜晚將結束時起床，前往廁所，一到那兒就清了清喉嚨。羅睺羅尊者也清了清喉嚨。
“‘Who’s there?’
「『誰在那裡？』
“‘It’s me, venerable sir—Rāhula.’
「『是我羅睺羅，大德。』
“‘Why are you lying there?’ (§—reading nipanno’sīti with the Thai edition)
「『為什麼你躺在那裡？』（§—泰國版讀寫成 nipanno’sīti ）
“So Ven. Rāhula told him what had happened.”
「所以羅睺羅尊者就將所發生的事告訴他。」
There are two factors for the full offense here: 此處的完全違犯有兩個因素：
1) Object: an unordained person. 1）對象：未受具足戒者。
2) Effort: (a) lying down, (b) together in the same dwelling with the unordained person, (c) for four nights running. 2）努力：（a）躺下，（b）與未受具足戒者同一住處，（c）連續四夜。
Object 對象
The Vibhaṅga defines unordained person as anyone other than a bhikkhu. The Sub-commentary, citing the Three Gaṇṭhipadas, notes that this means males but not females, as there is another training rule, following immediately on this one, dealing specifically with females. According to the Commentary, unordained person includes not only human beings but also any animal large enough to have intercourse with. Again, the Sub-commentary would qualify this as “male animals” for the same reason. 《經分別》將未受具足戒者定義為比丘以外的任何人。《複註》引用了《Three Gaṇṭhipadas》，指出這指的是男性，而不是女性，因為緊接著本戒條還有另一條學處，專門針對女性。根據《義註》，未受具足戒者不僅包括人類，還包括任何大到可以進行性交的動物。再一次，由於同樣的原因，《複註》將其限定為「雄性動物」。
Perception as to whether the other person is ordained is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 對於對方是否已受具足戒的感知在此並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Lying down 躺下
To be lying down together with someone else means to be lying down at the same time as the other person is lying down within the area defined as a dwelling (see below). This factor is fulfilled whether the bhikkhu lies down when the other person is already lying there, or vice versa, or both lie down at the same time. Although there are other training rules where lying down is included under the term sitting, sitting is not included under the term lying down here. Whether the bhikkhu or the other person falls asleep is of no account. 與他人一起躺下意味著與他人在被定義為住處的區域內同時躺下（見下文）。無論比丘在另一個人已經躺下時躺下，或反之亦然，或兩人同時躺下，此因素均已滿足。雖然在其他學處中，躺下也包含在坐下一詞中，但這裡坐下並不包含在躺下一詞中。無論比丘還是其他人是否睡著了都無關緊要。
If both parties get up and then lie down again, the bhikkhu incurs another pācittiya. 若雙方都起身又再次躺下，則比丘將犯另一次《波逸提》。
Dwelling 住處
The Vibhaṅga defines the dwelling that can be grounds for a pācittiya here as a place fully roofed and fully walled, or mostly roofed and mostly walled. A place half-roofed and half-walled, it says, is grounds for a dukkaṭa, while a place (a) fully roofed but with no wall (e.g., an open pavilion), (b) fully walled but with no roof (e.g., a corral), or (c) less than half-roofed and less than half-walled, is not grounds for an offense. 《經分別》將構成《波逸提》罪的住所定義為完全覆蓋屋頂和完全覆蓋牆壁的地方，或大部分覆蓋屋頂和大部分覆蓋牆壁的地方。它稱，半覆蓋屋頂和半覆蓋牆壁的地方構成《突吉羅》罪，而 (a) 完全覆蓋屋頂但沒有牆壁的地方（例如，開放式亭子），(b) 完全覆蓋牆壁但沒有屋頂的地方（例如，畜欄），或 (c) 屋頂覆蓋少於一半和牆壁覆蓋少於一半的地方，不構成犯戒。
Buddhaghosa quotes the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā, the major ancient commentary, as filling in all the other possibilities: 佛音引述了主要的古代註釋《Mahā Aṭṭhakathā》，以補充所有其他可能性：
Grounds for a pācittiya:
構成《波逸提》罪：
a place— 該地方—
fully roofed and mostly walled, 完全覆蓋屋頂和大部分覆蓋牆壁，
fully roofed and half-walled, 完全覆蓋屋頂和半覆蓋牆壁，
mostly roofed and half-walled, 大部分覆蓋屋頂和半覆蓋牆壁，
mostly roofed and fully walled, 大部分覆蓋屋頂和完全覆蓋牆壁，
half-roofed and fully walled, or 半覆蓋屋頂和完全覆蓋牆壁，或者
half-roofed and mostly walled. 半覆蓋屋頂和大部分覆蓋牆壁。
Grounds for a dukkaṭa:
構成《突吉羅》罪：
a place— 該地方—
fully roofed and less than half-walled, 完全覆蓋屋頂和牆壁覆蓋少於一半，
mostly roofed and less than half-walled, 大部分覆蓋屋頂和牆壁覆蓋少於一半，
less than half-roofed and fully walled, or 屋頂覆蓋少於一半和完全覆蓋牆壁，或者
less than half-roofed and mostly walled. 屋頂覆蓋少於一半和大部分覆蓋牆壁。
Grounds for no offense:
不構成犯戒：
a place— 該地方—
half-roofed and less than half-walled, 半覆蓋屋頂和牆壁覆蓋少於一半，
less than half-roofed and half-walled, or 屋頂覆蓋少於一半和半覆蓋牆壁，或者
less than half-roofed and less than half-walled. 屋頂覆蓋少於一半和牆壁覆蓋少於一半。
The Commentary notes that tents would fit under the definition of “place” here, and it would seem that vehicles—caravans in the time of the Buddha; automobiles, trains, buses, and airplanes in ours—would fit here as well. 《義註》指出，帳篷符合這裡「住處」的定義，而且似乎交通工具——佛陀時代的大篷車；我們生活中的汽車、火車、巴士和飛機——在此處也同樣符合。
The same dwelling 同一住處
Unfortunately, the Vibhaṅga does not say how far the boundary of a “single dwelling” would extend. For example, would each separate room in a house count as a separate dwelling? Would the entire house? Would an entire apartment building be a single dwelling? The Commentary tries to remedy this omission by introducing the factor of “having a single common entrance” or “being part of the same enclosure.” (The Pali word it uses, ek’ūpacāra, has both meanings, and the Commentary makes use of both in its discussion.) 不幸的是，《經分別》並沒有說明「單一住處」的邊界延伸到多遠。例如，房屋中的每個獨立房間是否算是獨立住處？整個房子算是嗎？整棟公寓大樓會是單一住處嗎？《義註》試圖透過引入「擁有單一公共入口」或「屬於同一封閉區域」的因素來彌補這一遺漏。（其中所使用的巴利單字 ek’ūpacāra 兼具這兩種意義，《義註》在討論中也運用了這兩種意義。）
What it says is this: Even a seven-story palace or a building with 100 rooms would count as a single dwelling if all the rooms make use of a common entrance. If there are several buildings in a single enclosure, and one can go from one to another without stepping on outside ground, they would count as part of the same dwelling. If there is a building divided into units that are not connected by internal doorways, each unit having a separate entrance, the different units would count as separate dwellings. Locking or closing a door does not close off the doorway. Only if the door opening is bricked up or otherwise permanently sealed off does it no longer count as a doorway. 它所說的是這樣的：即使是七層宮殿或擁有 100 個房間的建築物，如果所有房間都使用一個公共入口，將算作單一住處。如果單一封閉區域內有多座建築物，並且可以從一棟建築物走到另一棟建築物而不需要踩踏外面的地面，那麼這些建築物將算作同一住處的一部分。如果一座建築物被分成多個單元，且這些單元之間沒有內部門口連接，每個單元都有單獨的入口，則不同的單元將被視為單獨的住處。鎖門或關門並不會關閉門口。只有當門口被磚頭砌起來或以其他方式永久封閉時，它才不再算作門口。
The Commentary admits that the “single entrance” factor is not mentioned in the Canon in connection with this rule but is borrowed from the idea of “single enclosure” in the Vibhaṅga to NP 2. It argues, though, that this factor is unavoidably bound up in the concept of “walled and roofed” and illustrates its point as follows: There is a two-room dwelling, composed of an antechamber through which one must pass to get to the inner chamber. A bhikkhu is sleeping in the inner chamber, and an unordained person in the antechamber. Now suppose that a stubborn Vinaya student maintains that if the door between the two rooms is closed, the bhikkhu is sleeping in a separate dwelling from the unordained person, while if the door is open, they are in the same dwelling. His teacher then asks him, “Why are they in the same dwelling if the door is open?” 《義註》承認，在與本戒條相關的《聖典》中沒有提到「單一入口」因素，而是借用了《捨墮》二的《經分別》的「單一封閉區域」的概念。不過，它認為這個因素不可避免地與「覆蓋牆壁和覆蓋屋頂」的概念緊密相連，並這樣說明其觀點：有一個兩房間的住宅，由一個前室組成，必須經過前廳才能到達內室。一位比丘在內室睡覺，一位未受具足戒的人在前室。現在假設一位頑固的戒律學生堅持認為，如果兩個房間之間的門關閉，比丘就與未受戒者睡在不同的住處，而如果門打開，他們就在同一個住處。他的老師問他：「如果門開著，為什麼他們會在同一個住處？」
“Because the two rooms share the same roof and walls.” 「因為這兩個房間共用一個屋頂和牆壁。」
“And if the door is closed, does that destroy the roof and walls they had in common?” 「如果門關上了，那是否會破壞他們共同的屋頂和牆壁？」
“No, of course not. But the enclosure in which the bhikkhu is sleeping is marked by the door.” 「不，當然不會。不過比丘睡覺的封閉區域有門作為標記。」
This, the Commentary says, shows that the notion of enclosure is part and parcel of the concept of dwelling, and that the stubborn student has defeated his own argument. Its reasoning here is probably more convincing in Pali than in English—because as we noted above, Pali uses the same word for enclosure and entrance—but even so the illustration does not carry much force when applied to such places as separate apartments in an apartment building and so leaves the issue unsettled as far as they are concerned. 《義註》說，這表明封閉區域的概念是住處概念的一部分，並且固執的學生已經打敗了他自己的論點。這裡的推論在巴利語中可能比在英語中更有說服力——因為正如我們上面提到的，巴利語使用同一個字來表示封閉區域和入口——但即使如此，當應用於公寓大樓中的獨立公寓等地方時，這個例子也沒有太大的說服力，因此就他們而言，問題仍未得到解決。
The Vinaya-mukha notes that the factor introduced by the Commentary has implications that go far beyond the original purpose of this rule—and of the following rule, in which the concept of “single dwelling” is even more important. It suggests borrowing an additional factor from NP 2: the factor of separate residences or zones of ownership (the Pali word kula carries both meanings). Thus in a large building composed of separate residences—such as an apartment building, a hotel, or a hospital with private rooms—it suggests that each separate residence count as a separate dwelling. 《戒律入口》指出，《義註》中引入的因素的含義遠遠超出了本戒條的最初目的，也超出了下一條戒條的最初目的，其中「單一住處」的概念更為重要。它建議從《捨墮》二借用一個附加因素：單獨住所或所有權區域的因素（巴利語 kula 兼具這兩種意義）。因此，在由單獨住所組成的大型建築物中（例如公寓大樓、飯店，或設有私人房間的醫院），它建議每個單獨住所都算作一個單獨住處。
Because the Canon gives no clear guidance on this point, the wise policy for an individual bhikkhu is to follow the views of the Community to which he belongs. 因為《聖典》在這一點上沒有給出明確的指導，所以對於比丘個人來說，明智之舉是遵循他所屬僧團的觀點。
Nights 夜晚
Nights here are counted by dawns. Thus if a bhikkhu is sleeping in the same dwelling with an unordained person but one of them gets up before dawn, that night does not count. If a bhikkhu has been lying down in the same dwelling with an unordained person for two nights running but then skips a night—for example, getting up before dawn at the end of the third night—the consecutive series is broken. (As discussed in Appendix I, before dawn here apparently means before dawnrise, i.e., before the beginning of civil twilight.) If he then lies down in the same dwelling with an unordained person the next night, the counting starts again from one. 這裡的夜晚是以黎明（明相）來計算的。因此，如果一位比丘與一位未受具足戒的人睡在同一住處，但其中一人在黎明（明相）前起床，那麼這個夜晚就不算數。如果一位比丘與一位未受具足戒者連續兩個晚上在同一個住處躺下，但隨後跳過一個晚上——例如，在第三天夜晚結束黎明（明相）前起床——連續的系列就被破壞。（如附錄一所述，這裡的黎明（明相）前顯然是指黎明昇起之前，即民用曙暮光開始之前。）如果他下一個夜晚與一個未受具足戒的人同一個住處躺下，則重新從一開始計數。
However, once he has been lying down in the same dwelling with an unordained person three nights running, then if after sundown on the fourth night he is lying down in the same dwelling in which a lay person is lying down—even if only for a moment—he incurs a pācittiya. 然而，一旦他已經連續三個夜晚與未受具足戒者在同一住處躺下，那麼如果在第四天夜晚日落之後，他在有在家眾躺著的同一住處躺下 —— 即使只是片刻 —— 他犯《波逸提》。
The Commentary interprets the phrase after sundown as meaning any time on the fourth day. In other words, there is no need to wait until the next dawn to count the fourth period of lying down together. As we noted above in the conclusion to the chapter on the saṅghādisesa rules, there was a tendency in the time of the Canon to call a 24-hour period of day and night a “night.” For the purpose of this rule and the following one, this period apparently begins at sundown. 《義註》將「日落之後」一詞解釋為第四天的任何時間。也就是說，不必等到下次黎明（明相），才算第四次一起躺下的週期。正如我們上文《僧殘》戒條篇章結論部分所指出的，在《聖典》時代，人們傾向於將 24 小時的白天和夜晚的週期稱為一個「夜晚」。就本戒條和下一條戒條的目的而言，這一週期顯然從日落時開始。
The Commentary also states that the unordained person need not be the same person each of the four nights, and the same principle holds true for the dwelling. In other words, if a bhikkhu lies down in a dwelling with novice X one night and then goes elsewhere and lies down in a dwelling with layman Y the next night and so on for four nights running, he commits an offense all the same. 《義註》也指出，未受具足戒者不必在四個夜晚都是同一個人，對於住處也適用同樣的原則。換句話說，如果一位比丘一個夜晚與沙彌 X 在一個住處裡躺下，然後下一個夜晚又到別處與俗人 Y 在一住處裡躺下，如此連續四天，他同樣犯了戒。
Perception and intention are not mitigating factors here. Thus a bhikkhu lying down in the same dwelling with a novice whom he thinks to be another bhikkhu commits an offense all the same, as does a bhikkhu who miscounts the nights and lies down in the same room with an unordained person for what he thinks is his third night when it is actually his fourth. 在這裡，感知和意圖並不是減輕懲罰的因素。因此，如果一位比丘與一位他認為是另一名比丘的沙彌在同一個住處躺下，那麼他同樣犯了戒；如果一個比丘算錯了夜晚的數量，與一個沒有受具足戒的人在同一個房間裡躺下，他以為那是他的第三個夜晚，而實際上是第四個夜晚，那麼他同樣犯了戒。
In fact, this is a training rule that one may break without ever realizing it. Suppose a novice comes to lie down in a room where a bhikkhu is sleeping, and then gets up to leave before the bhikkhu awakens. If he does this for four nights running, the bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya even though he may never have been aware of what the novice was doing. Rules like this are the reason why many bhikkhus make a practice of confessing offenses even when they are not consciously aware of having committed them. 事實上，這是一個可能在不知不覺中就違犯的學處。假設一位沙彌來到一位比丘睡覺的房間內躺下，然後在比丘醒來之前起身離開。如果他連續四晚都這樣做，該比丘就犯《波逸提》，儘管他可能根本不知道沙彌在做什麼。正是因為這樣的戒條，使得許多比丘即使在沒有意識到自己已犯下罪行的情況下，也會養成懺悔罪行的習慣。
Non-offenses 不犯
To recapitulate some of the points from the above discussion: To lie down with an unordained person in a dwelling that would qualify as grounds for a pācittiya or a dukkaṭa is no offense as long as one does it no more than three days running. If, after lying down in the same dwelling with an unordained person for two nights running, one gets up before dawn at the end of the third night, one may resume lying down in the same dwelling with an unordained person the next night. Also, there is no offense in lying down any number of consecutive nights with an unordained person in a dwelling that would not qualify as grounds for an offense. And, there is no offense if one of the parties is sitting while the other is lying down, or if both parties are sitting (although see Pc 44 & 45). 重述上述討論中的一些要點：與未受具足戒者躺下，在可構成《波逸提》或《突吉羅》的住處內，只要連續不超過三天，就不犯戒。如果在與未受具足戒者連續兩晚在同一住處躺下之後，第三個夜晚結束黎明前起床，則下一個夜晚可以繼續與未受具足戒者在同一住處躺下。此外，與未受具足戒者在不構成犯戒的住處無論連續幾晚躺下都不構成犯戒。並且，如果一方坐著而另一方躺著，或者雙方都坐著，則不構成犯戒（儘管參見《波逸提》四四和四五）。
The Vinaya-mukha comments that although this rule as it presently stands no longer fulfills its original purpose, bhikkhus should keep the original purpose in mind and avoid sleeping in the same place with an unordained person whenever possible. It would also be a wise policy to avoid sleeping out in a public park, on a public beach, in an unwalled pavilion, etc., in full view of the public, even though no offense would be involved. 《戒律入口》評論說，儘管本戒條現在已不再符合其原來的目的，但比丘們應該牢記原來的目的，儘可能避免與未受具足戒的人睡在同一個地方。避免露宿在公共公園、公共海灘、沒有圍牆的涼亭等等完全曝露在公眾視線下，也是明智之舉，儘管這並不構成犯戒。
It is also worth noting that this rule encourages bhikkhus to get up and meditate before dawn every day so that they can know for sure they haven’t committed the offense here. 另外值得注意的是，本戒條鼓勵比丘每天黎明（明相）前起床禪修，以便他們能確定自己沒有犯下此戒。
Summary: Lying down at the same time, in the same dwelling, with a novice or layman for more than three nights running is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：與沙彌或俗人超過連續三個夜晚在同一時間、同一住處躺下，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
6 六
Should any bhikkhu lie down together (in the same dwelling) with a woman, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘與女人（在同一住處）一起躺下，波逸提。
There are only two differences between this rule and the preceding one: 本戒條與前一條戒條只有兩點區別：
1) The factor of “object” here is fulfilled only by a female human being, “even one born that day, all the more an older one,” regardless of whether she is related to the bhikkhu. 1）此處「對象」因素僅由女性人類滿足，「即使是當天出生的，更何況年長的」，無論她是否與比丘有親屬關係。
2) The four-night clause under “effort” is dropped, which means that the bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya the instant he lies down in the same dwelling with her. 2）刪除「努力」之下的四個夜晚條款，這意味著比丘與她在同一住處躺下時，即犯《波逸提》。
Object 對象
The Vibhaṅga states that female yakkhas, petas, nāgas, devas, and animals—as well as paṇḍakas (people born neuter or castrated men)—are grounds for a dukkaṭa here. The Commentary qualifies this by saying that female animal means one with which it is possible to have intercourse, and the phrase, female yakkhas, petas, nāgas, and devas, includes only those who make themselves visible. 《經分別》指出，雌性的夜叉（yakkha）、餓鬼（peta）、龍（nāga）、天神（deva）和動物——以及黃門（paṇḍaka，生來就是中性者或被閹割的男性）——在此處則犯《突吉羅》。《義註》對此進行了限定，指出雌性動物是指可以與之性交的動物，而雌性夜叉、餓鬼、龍和天神這些詞組僅包括那些讓自己可被看見者。
Even if another man is present in the dwelling, it does not negate the offense. 即使住處內有另一名男子，也不免除犯戒。
Perception as to whether the other person is a woman is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 對於另一方是否為女性的感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Intention is also not a mitigating factor. Thus a bhikkhu lying down in the same dwelling with a woman commits an offense regardless of whether he realizes that she is there. 意圖也不是減輕懲罰的因素。因此，比丘如果與女人在同一住處內躺下，無論他是否意識到女人在那裡，都犯了戒。
The same principles regarding perception and intention also apply to paṇḍakas: A bhikkhu who lies down in the same room with a paṇḍaka whom he thinks to be an ordinary man commits a dukkaṭa; and the same is true for a bhikkhu lying down in a dwelling not knowing that a paṇḍaka is also lying down there. 同樣的關於感知和意圖的原則也適用於黃門：如果比丘與他認為是普通男人的黃門在同一個房間內躺下，犯《突吉羅》；同樣地，如果一個比丘躺在住處，而不知道有黃門也躺在那裡，也犯《突吉羅》。
Effort 努力
A single dwelling is defined as in the preceding rule. Thus a bhikkhu sleeping in the same house as his mother, even if they are in separate rooms and another man is present, commits an offense all the same. 單一住處的定義如前一戒條規定。因此，如果比丘與母親睡在同一間屋子裡，即使他們在不同的房間，且有另一個男人在場，也一樣犯了戒。
The primary point where this rule differs from the preceding one under the factor of effort is that a bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya the moment he is lying down in a dwelling at the same time a woman is lying there, with no need to count nights or dawns. This is expressed in the Vibhaṅga by saying, “If after sundown a bhikkhu is lying down when a woman is lying down, it is to be confessed.” 本戒條與前一戒條在努力因素下的主要不同點在於，當比丘在住處中躺下時，如果與一名女人同時躺下，則他即犯《波逸提》，無需計算夜晚或黎明（明相）。《經分別》中這樣表達，「如果日落之後，比丘躺下，而此時有女人也躺下，《波逸提》。」
The Sub-commentary interprets this as meaning that this rule applies only at night, but the non-offense clauses in the Vibhaṅga give no exemptions for daytime or “before sundown,” which suggests that the Sub-commentary’s interpretation is invalid. What the Vibhaṅga’s statement means is that there is no need to wait until dawnrise to count the period of lying down together. As we noted under the preceding rule, there was a tendency in the time of the Canon to call a 24-hour period of day and night a “night,” and for the purpose of these two rules, this period apparently begins at sundown. The Commentary, switching to our current practice of calling a 24-hour period a day, says, “In the preceding rule, the offense is on the fourth day. Here it is right from the first day.” 《複註》將此解釋為本戒條僅適用於夜間，但《經分別》中的不犯條款並未對白天或「日落之前」給予豁免，這表明《複註》的解釋無效。《經分別》的意思是，不必等到黎明（明相）才計算一起躺下的週期。正如我們在前一戒條中提到的，在《聖典》時代，人們傾向於將日夜 24 小時週期稱為一「夜」，而就這兩條戒條目的而言，這個週期顯然從日落開始。《義註》改用我們目前稱 24 小時週期為一天的做法，說：「在前一戒條中，犯戒發生在第四天。這裡是從第一天即犯。」
Thus, no matter what time of day or night a bhikkhu lies down in the same dwelling with a woman, he immediately incurs a pācittiya. 因此，無論白天或夜晚什麼時間，比丘如果與女人在同一住處躺下，他就會立即犯《波逸提》。
The purposes of this rule 本戒條的目的
Another difference between this rule and the preceding one is the obvious point that they have different purposes. As the origin story shows, this rule is to prevent situations that might tempt a bhikkhu to commit a serious offense, such as a Pr 1 or Sg 2. 本戒條與前一條戒條的另一個明顯區別是它們的目的不同。如起源故事所示，本戒條是為了防止可能誘使比丘犯下嚴重罪行（例如《波羅夷》一或《僧殘》二）的情況。
“Then the woman, having herself prepared a bed inside (her house) for Ven. Anuruddha, having put on her jewelry and scented herself with perfumes, went to him… and said, ‘Master, you are beautiful, good-looking, and appealing. I, too, am beautiful, good-looking, and appealing. It would be good if I were to be your wife.’
「然後，那位女人在（她的屋子）內為阿那律尊者準備了一張床，戴上珠寶，噴上香水，來到他面前……說道：『大德，您美麗、好看、有魅力。我也美麗、好看、有魅力。如果我能成為您的妻子就好了。』
“When she said this, Ven. Anuruddha remained silent. So a second time…. A third time she said to him, ‘Master, you are beautiful, good-looking, and appealing. I, too, am beautiful, good-looking, and appealing. It would be good if you would take me together with all my wealth.’
「當她說這些話時，阿那律尊者保持沉默。於是第二次……第三次她對他說：『大德，您美麗、好看、有魅力。我也美麗、好看、有魅力。如果您能帶我以及我所有的財富一起走，，那就太好了。』
“A third time, Ven. Anuruddha remained silent. So the woman, having slipped off her clothing, paraded up and down in front of him, stood, sat down, and then lay down in front of him. But Ven. Anuruddha, keeping control of his faculties, didn’t as much as glance at her or say even a word.
「第三次，阿那律尊者保持沉默。於是那位女人脫去衣服，在他面前走來走去，站著，坐下，然後躺在他面前。但阿奴律尊者保持對自己能力的控制，沒有看她一眼，甚至沒有說一句話。
“Then the thought occurred to her: ‘Isn’t it amazing! Isn’t it astounding! Many men send for me at a price of 100 or even 1,000 (a night), but this monk, even when I myself beg him, doesn’t want to take me together with all my wealth!’ So, putting her clothing back on and bowing her head at his feet, she said to him: ‘Venerable sir, a transgression has overcome me in that I was so foolish, so muddle-headed, so unskillful as to act in such a way. Please accept this confession of my transgression as such, for the sake of (my) restraint in the future.’”
「然後她想到：『這難道不奇怪！這難道不令人震驚！許多男人以（一晚） 100 甚至 1,000 的價格來找我，但這個沙門，即使我親自請求他，也不願意帶走我以及我所有的財富！』於是，她重新穿上衣服，在他的腳下低下頭，對他說：『大德，我犯了罪孽，因為我太愚昧、太糊塗、太不善，才會做出這樣的事。請接受我對此罪的懺悔，以便我將來能夠克制自己。』」
Ven. Anuruddha was very advanced in the practice and so was able to get through the situation with his mindfulness and precepts intact. Many a lesser bhikkhu, though, would have succumbed right from the woman’s first request, and so the Buddha formulated this rule for his protection. 阿那律尊者的修行非常精進，所以能夠憑藉著他的正念和戒行完整渡過難關。然而，許多修行較差的比丘在女人第一次要求時就會屈服，因此佛陀制定了本戒條來保護他。
This rule is also meant to prevent situations where suspicious people might think a bhikkhu has committed a serious offense even when he hasn’t. Like Caesar’s wife, a bhikkhu must not only be pure, he must look pure if he is to maintain his reputation. If a bhikkhu and a woman are seen going into a house together in the evening and leaving together the following morning, then even if they slept in separate rooms, suspicious neighbors—and very few neighbors aren’t suspicious of bhikkhus—would be quick to jump to conclusions. This is why no exemption is made for a bhikkhu who commits this offense unknowingly. Other people may know what is happening, and this is the sort of case where their opinion matters a great deal. For the same reason, the wise policy mentioned in the preceding rule applies even more forcefully here: A bhikkhu would be well-advised not to lie down with a woman in such places as parks, beaches, or unwalled pavilions even though in terms of the rules no offense would be involved. 本戒條也是為了防止這樣的情況出現：即使比丘沒有犯下嚴重罪行，懷疑者也可能認為他犯了嚴重罪行。像凱撒的妻子一樣，比丘如果想保持自己的名聲，不僅要純潔，而且看起來也必須純潔。如果比丘和女人被看到晚上一起進屋，第二天早上一起離開，那麼即使他們睡在不同的房間，多疑的鄰居——很少有鄰居不懷疑比丘——也會很快得出結論。這就是為什麼對於無意間犯下此罪的比丘不會給予豁免。其他人可能知道發生了什麼，這種情況下他們的意見就非常重要。基於同樣的原因，前一戒條中提到的明智之舉在這裡更加適用：建議比丘不要與女人在公園、海灘或沒有圍牆的亭子等地方躺下，即使從戒條上來說這並不構成犯戒。
There is some overlap between this rule and Pc 44 & 45, which deal with a bhikkhu sitting or lying down together in private with a woman (or women). Special cases covered by this rule not covered by those would include, for example, a bhikkhu and a woman lying down in separate rooms of the same dwelling; and a bhikkhu and a woman lying down in the same dwelling with another man present. Also, under those rules the questions of the bhikkhu’s state of mind and his awareness of the situation are important factors. Here they are of no consequence: Even a bhikkhu with the purest state of mind—or completely unknowingly—incurs a pācittiya when lying down together with a woman in the same dwelling. 本戒條與《波逸提》四四和四五有一些重疊，這兩條涉及比丘與一名（或多名）女人私下一起坐或躺下。本戒條所涵蓋而那些戒條不涵蓋的特殊情況包括，例如，比丘與女人在同一住處的不同房間裡躺下；一位比丘與一位女人在同一住處內躺下，而且還有另一位男人在場。此外，根據那些戒條，比丘的心態和對情況的認知的問題也是重要因素。在這裡，它們無關緊要：即使是一位心境最純淨的比丘——或完全不知道地——在同一個住處與一位女人一起躺下時，犯《波逸提》。
Non-offenses 不犯
The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense in lying down with a woman in a dwelling that under the preceding rule would not be grounds for an offense, i.e.: 《經分別》規定，在前一戒條下不構成犯戒的住處內與女性躺下並不犯戒，即：
fully roofed but with no walls (e.g., an open pavilion),
完全覆蓋屋頂但沒有牆壁（例如開放式涼亭），
fully walled but with no roof (e.g., a corral),
完全覆蓋牆壁但沒有屋頂（例如畜欄），
less than half-roofed and less than half-walled.
屋頂和牆壁覆蓋都少於一半。
The Commentary adds that these two dwellings would also not be grounds for an offense here: 《義註》也補充道，這兩種住處也不會成為犯戒的理由：
half-roofed and less than half-walled,
半覆蓋屋頂，而且牆壁覆蓋少於一半，
less than half-roofed and half-walled.
屋頂覆蓋少於一半，而且半覆蓋牆壁，
Still, as noted above, a bhikkhu would be well-advised to avoid such situations whenever possible, and to have another man present when not. 然而，如上所述，建議比丘最好盡可能避免這種情況，並在無法避免時請另一個男人在場。
Summary: Lying down at the same time in the same dwelling with a woman is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：與女人在同一住處同時躺下，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
7 七
Should any bhikkhu teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a woman, unless a knowledgeable man is present, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘向女人宣講超過五、六句佛法，除非有知識淵博的男子在場，波逸提。
“Then Ven. Udāyin, dressing early in the morning and taking his bowl and (outer) robe, went to visit a certain family. At that time the lady of the house was sitting in the main entrance, while the daughter-in-law was sitting in the door to the inner chamber. So Ven. Udāyin went to the lady of the house… and whispered Dhamma into her ear. The daughter-in-law thought, ‘Is this monk my mother-in-law’s lover, or is he being fresh with her?’ Then, having whispered Dhamma into the ear of the lady of the house, Ven. Udāyin went to the daughter-in-law… and whispered Dhamma into her ear. The lady of the house thought, ‘Is this monk my daughter-in-law’s lover, or is he being fresh with her?’ After whispering Dhamma into the daughter-in-law’s ear, Ven. Udāyin left. So the lady of the house said to the daughter-in-law, ‘Hey. What did that monk say to you?’
「爾時，優陀夷尊者一大早就穿好衣服，拿著缽和袈裟（外衣）去拜訪一戶人家。那時，女主人正坐在正門，兒媳正坐在內室門口。於是，優陀夷尊者來到女主人那裡……並在她耳邊低聲說了佛法。兒媳心裡想：『這位沙門是不是我婆婆的情人？還是他在對她調情？』於是，在女主人耳邊低聲說了佛法後，優陀夷尊者來到兒媳身邊...並在她耳邊低聲說了佛法。女主人想：『這位沙門是我兒媳的情人嗎？還是他在對她調情？』在媳婦耳邊低聲說了佛法後，優陀夷尊者離開了。於是女主人就對兒媳說：『嘿。那個沙門對你說了什麼？』
“‘He taught me Dhamma, ma’am. And what did he say to you?’
「『他教我佛法，夫人。他對你說了什麼？』
“‘He taught me Dhamma, too.’
「『他也教我佛法。』
“So they criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can Ven. Udāyin whisper Dhamma into women’s ears? Shouldn’t the Dhamma be taught openly and out loud?’”
「因此他們批評、抱怨並四處散播，『優陀夷尊者怎麼能在女人耳邊低聲說佛法呢？佛法難道不應該公開地大聲宣說嗎？』」
The two factors for the full offense here are: 此處完全違犯的兩個因素是：
1) Object: a female human being who knows what is and is not lewd, what is well-spoken and ill-spoken, and who has not asked one a question about the Dhamma. 1）對象：知道什麼是淫穢，什麼不是淫穢，什麼是善說，什麼是惡說，並且尚未請問有關佛法的問題的女性人類。
2) Effort: One teaches her more than six sentences of Dhamma without a knowledgeable man present—i.e., a male human being who also knows what is and is not lewd, what is well-spoken and ill-spoken. 2）努力：在沒有知識淵博男人在場的情況下，為她教授六句以上佛法。在場男人需要懂得什麼是淫穢，什麼是非淫穢，什麼是善說，什麼是惡說。
Object 對象
The word woman covers women as well: If a bhikkhu is with two or more women but without a knowledgeable man present, he may teach them no more than five or six sentences of Dhamma. Perception as to whether the person being taught is a woman or a man is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 女人一詞也涵蓋女人們：如果一位比丘與兩名或兩名以上的女人在一起，但沒有知識淵博的男子在場，則他只能為她們教授不超過五六句佛法。受教者是女性還是男性的感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
According to the Vibhaṅga, a female yakkha, a female peta, a paṇḍaka, or an animal (probably a nāga) in the form of a human woman are each grounds for a dukkaṭa here. 根據《經分別》，女性夜叉、女性餓鬼、黃門或化身為人類女性的動物（可能是龍）在此均犯《突吉羅》。
Effort 努力
This factor contains two sub-factors requiring explanation: “Dhamma” and “six sentences.” 此因素包含兩個需要解釋的子因素：「佛法」與「六句」。
Dhamma 佛法
Dhamma the Vibhaṅga defines in the same terms as under Pc 4: “a saying made by the Buddha, his disciples, seers, or heavenly beings, connected with the teaching, connected with the goal (attha).” 《經分別》對佛法的定義與《波逸提》四相同：「佛陀、其弟子、先知或天人所說的話，與教導相關，與目標（attha）相關。」
Precisely what this means is a point of controversy. The Commentary identifies “sayings made by the Buddha, his disciples, seers, or heavenly beings” with different parts of the Pali Canon—in Pali—and then treats “connected with the teaching, connected with the goal” as nouns, the first referring to the Canon, and the second to the ancient commentary named the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā. This last point is highly unlikely, as the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā did not yet exist when the Canon was being composed. 這究竟意味著什麼是一個爭論點。《義註》將「佛陀、其弟子、先知或天人所說的話」與巴利《聖典》的不同部分聯繫起來——用巴利語——然後將「與教導相關、與目標相關」視為名詞，前者指的是《聖典》，後者指的是名為《Mahā Aṭṭhakathā》的古代註釋。最後這一點極不可能，因為在編纂《聖典》時，《Mahā Aṭṭhakathā》尚未存在。
There are two alternatives to the Commentary’s interpretation: One follows the Commentary in treating “connected with the teaching, connected with the goal” as nouns, but interprets them as meaning any statement dealing with the Dhamma, no matter what language it is in, and regardless of whether it is quoted from a text. Thus, according to this interpretation, anything a bhikkhu would say about the Dhamma—quoted from the Canon, from a later text, or of his own invention—would count as Dhamma here. 《義註》的解讀有兩種替代解釋：一種是沿襲《義註》，將「與教導相關、與目標相關」視為名詞，但將其解讀為任何與佛法有關的陳述，無論使用何種語言，也無論是否引自文獻。因此，根據這種解釋，比丘所說的關於佛法的任何內容——無論是引自《聖典》、後來的文獻還是他自己的發明——在這裡都算是佛法。
The second interpretation regards “connected with the teaching, connected with the goal” as adjectives modifying “sayings made by the Buddha, his disciples, seers, or heavenly beings.” This makes more sense in terms of Pali syntax—the terms are in the masculine case, agreeing with the word dhammo, whereas they probably would have been in the neuter case had they been intended as nouns. This limits the meaning of Dhamma in this rule to passages from the Canon, but not necessarily in the Pali language. Translations from the Canon would also come under the rule, as there is a passage in the Cullavagga (V.33.1) where the Buddha allows bhikkhus to learn Dhamma each in his own language, thus showing, contrary to the Commentary, that Dhamma does not have to be in Pali to be Dhamma. 第二種解釋是，以「與教導相關、與目的相關」當作修飾「佛陀、其弟子、先知或天人所說的話」的形容詞。從巴利語法的角度來看，這更說得通——這些術語是陽性格，與 dhammo 一詞一致，而如果它們是用作名詞，則它們可能為中性格。這就將本戒條中佛法的意思限制為《聖典》中的段落，但不一定是巴利語。來自《聖典》的翻譯也算在本戒條，因為在《小品》（五.33.1）中有一段文字，佛陀允許比丘們用自己的語言學習佛法，因此與《義註》相反，這表明佛法不一定非要用巴利語才是佛法。
However, both interpretations have their adherents at present, and the question comes down to what one perceives to be the purpose of the rule. Adherents of the first interpretation say that the rule is designed to prevent the sort of suspicions that arise when a bhikkhu is talking at length alone with a woman, but this argument does not fit with the Buddha’s allowance for a bhikkhu to give a talk when a woman asks him for instruction. 然而，目前這兩種解釋都有其擁護者，問題歸結為認為本戒條的目的是什麼。支持第一種解釋的人說，本戒條是為了防止當比丘與女人單獨長時間交談時產生的那種懷疑，但是這種說法與佛陀允許比丘在女人向他尋求指導時給予開示的規定不符。
It is more likely that the rule is aimed at preventing a bhikkhu from using his knowledge of Dhamma as a come-on, a way of making himself attractive to a woman. As any man who teaches Dhamma soon learns, there are women who find such knowledge irresistible. To view the rule in this light makes either of the two interpretations tenable, so the wise policy is to adhere to the interpretation of the Community to which one belongs. 更可能的情況是，這條戒條旨在防止比丘利用他的佛法知識來吸引女性。任何教授佛法的男人很快就會發現，有些女人對於這種知識有著難以抗拒的吸引力。從這個角度來看這個戒條使得兩種解釋中的任何一種都是站得住腳的，因此明智之舉是遵循自己所屬僧團的解釋。
This rule applies to telephone conversations as well as to conversations in person, but because the Pv.I.5.7 notes that it deals only with the spoken word, it does not cover letters or other written communications. 本戒條適用於電話交談和面對面交談，但由於《附隨》.一.5.7指出它僅涉及口頭交談，因此不涵蓋信件或其他書面交流。
Six sentences 六句
As for the amount of Dhamma a bhikkhu may say to a woman or women without a knowledgeable man present, the Pali word for “sentence,” (vācā), can also mean “word,” but the Commentary states specifically that one vācā is approximately equal to a line of verse. The Sub-commentary goes on to say that the Commentary’s definition here applies to poetry, while one vācā of prose is equal to the conjugation of a verb, i.e., six words. In either case, six vācās would amount to six sentences. 至於在沒有知識淵博的男人在場的情況下，比丘可以對一位或多位女人說多少佛法，表示「句子」的巴利單字（vācā）也可以表示「單字」，但《義註》具體指出，一個 vācā 大約等於一行詩句。《複註》繼續說道，此處《義註》的定義適用於詩歌，而散文的一個 vācā 等於一個動詞的變位，即六個單字。無論哪種情況，六個 vācā 都等於六句話。
Offenses are counted as follows: If one is teaching the Dhamma line-by-line, one incurs a pācittiya for each line; if syllable-by-syllable, a pācittiya for each syllable. 犯戒的計算方式如下：如果正在逐行宣講佛法，則每行犯一次《波逸提》；如果是逐個音節的話，則每個音節一次《波逸提》。
Conversations on other topics 關於其他主題的對話
Strangely enough, neither the Vibhaṅga nor the Commentary makes mention of conversations with women that do not touch on the Dhamma. The Sub-commentary notes this, and in one of its rare stabs at humor concludes, “It’s perfectly all right to talk as much as you like about Tamils and that sort of thing.” 奇怪的是，《經分別》和《義註》都沒有提到與女性的不涉及佛法的對話。《複註》中提到了這一點，並在一次罕見的幽默嘗試中總結道：「你想怎麼談論泰米爾人或類似的事情，完全沒問題。」
Conversation that does not deal with the Dhamma, though, is termed “animal talk” (tiracchāna-kathā) in the Canon, and there are several passages (e.g., the Vibhaṅgas to Pc 21 & 85; Mv.V.6.3-4) that criticize group-of-six bhikkhus for engaging in animal talk: worldly talk about “kings, robbers, and ministers of state (politics); armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; also philosophical discussions of the past and future (this is how the Sub-commentary to Pc 85 explains ‘tales of diversity’), the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not.” The Sub-commentary notes, though, that to discuss any of these topics in a way to foster an understanding of the Dhamma—e.g., discussing the impermanence of worldly power—is not considered improper. 但是，與佛法無關的談話在《聖典》中被稱為「畜生論」（tiracchāna-kathā），有幾處段落（例如，《波逸提》二一和八五的《經分別》；《大品》.五.6.3-4）批評六群比丘從事畜生論：關於「國王、盜賊、和大臣（政治）；軍隊、怖畏、和戰爭；飲食；衣服、家具、花環、和香水；親屬；車輛；村莊、城鎮、城市、鄉村；女人和英雄；街上和井邊的閒言碎語；死者的故事；還有關於過去和未來的哲學討論（這就是《波逸提》八五的《複註》對「多樣性故事」的解釋），世界和海洋的創造，以及事物是否存在的談論。」然而，《複註》指出，以促進對佛法的理解的方式討論這些話題中的任何一個——例如，討論世俗權力的無常——並不被認為是不恰當的。
Although there is no specific penalty for indulging in such worldly talk, a bhikkhu who indulges in it with lay people, bhikkhus, or novices to the point where he becomes offensive to the Community may be subject to an act of censure, banishment, or suspension on the grounds of “unbecoming association with householders” or “verbal frivolity.” Furthermore, a bhikkhu sitting alone with a woman (or women) engaging in such talk would be subject to the conditions of Pc 44 or 45 and Ay 1 or 2. 雖然對於沉迷於此類世俗談話沒有具體的懲罰，但是如果比丘與俗人、比丘或沙彌沉迷於此類談話，以至於冒犯了僧團，則可能會因「與居士不當交往」或「言語輕浮」而受到呵責、驅出或舉罪。此外，如果一個比丘獨自與一名（或多名）女人坐在一起並進行此類談話，則將屬於《波逸提》四四或四五以及《不定》一或二的情況。
It is also worth noting in this regard that, unlike Pc 44 & 45 and Ay 1 & 2, this rule covers situations where either the bhikkhu or the woman, or both, are standing. In other words, if a bhikkhu and a woman are conversing while standing, he may teach her at most six sentences of Dhamma unless any of the non-offense clauses apply. 在這方面也值得注意的是，與《波逸提》四四和四五以及《不定》一和二不同，本戒條涵蓋了比丘或女人，或兩者皆站立的情況。換句話說，如果一位比丘和一位女人站著交談，他最多可以教她六句佛法，除非適用任何不犯條款。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if, after the bhikkhu teaches the woman six sentences of Dhamma, either he or she changes position—stands up, sits down, etc.—and he continues with six more sentences. This point was most likely included to indicate separate conversations. Once a bhikkhu has taught five or six sentences to a woman, he may teach her again when they meet again and is not condemned to silence for the rest of his life. 如果比丘教導了女人六句佛法之後，他或她改變姿勢——站起來、坐下等等——然後繼續另外六句話，並不犯戒。這一點很可能是為了表明不同的對話。一旦比丘向一位女人教導了五六句話，他可以在他們再次見面時再次教導她，而不會被判處終身沉默。
Another exemption is that a bhikkhu, after teaching six sentences of Dhamma to one woman, may turn and teach six more sentences to another without incurring a penalty. Thus the Commentary notes that a bhikkhu addressing an assembly of 100 women may teach them a total of 600 sentences of Dhamma if he aims each set of six at a different woman. 另一項豁免是，比丘在向一名女人教導了六句佛法之後，可以轉而向另一名女人教導另外六句，而不會受到懲罰。因此，《義註》指出，如果一位比丘對著 100 名女人的集會發表演說，如果他將每六句佛法針對不同的女人，那麼他總共可以向她們教導 600 句佛法。
A third exemption is that there is no penalty for a bhikkhu who is teaching Dhamma to someone else, and a woman happens to be listening in. 第三個豁免是，如果比丘正在向其他人教導佛法，而有一位女人恰好在聽，則不會受到懲罰。
Finally, as noted above, if a woman asks a bhikkhu a question, he may give her a talk even if no other man is present. This exemption is common to all the rules that deal with instructing women (see Pc 21 & 22), but precisely what it means is somewhat uncertain, as none of the texts define how teaching Dhamma (dhammaṁ deseti) differs from giving a talk (katheti), if they differ at all. The Commentary notes simply that in giving a talk one is not limited to six sentences; its example of a ‘talk’ is a recitation of the complete Dīgha Nikāya (!), which shows that, as far as the commentators are concerned, teaching Dhamma and giving a talk are essentially the same. Thus a bhikkhu may answer a woman’s question about Dhamma with a talk including as many sentences of Dhamma as he needs to make his point clear. 最後，如上所述，如果一個女人向比丘問一個問題，即使在場沒有其他男人，比丘也可以和她談話。這種豁免在所有涉及教導女性的戒條中都很常見（見《波逸提》二一和二二），但它的具體含義有些不確定，因為沒有任何文獻定義教導佛法（dhammaṁ deseti）與講說（katheti）有何不同，如果它們有任何區別的話。《義註》只是指出，講說不限於六句話；其「講說」的例子是朗誦完整的《長部》（！），這表明，就註釋者而言，教導佛法和講說本質上是一樣的。因此，比丘可以在講說用他所需盡可能多的佛法句子來回答女人關於佛法的問題，以闡明他的觀點。
This allowance is important in that it honors a woman’s desire to understand the Dhamma. A wise policy, though, would be to show restraint in such situations. The relationship of male teacher to female student has a long, well-known history of getting out of hand. Even if a bhikkhu is in control of himself in such conversations, passers-by—and the woman herself—can easily misconstrue his words and actions. So, wherever possible, he should go out of his way to guard himself against suspicion and misunderstandings in such cases by having a man present when talking alone with a woman, even though the special exemption is made. 這項開緣很重要，因為它尊重了女性理解佛法的願望。不過，在這種情況下，明智之舉是保持克制。男導師與女弟子之間的關係由來已久，眾所周知，這種關係很容易失控。即使比丘在這樣的談話中能夠控制自己，路人——包括女人自己——也很容易誤解他的話語和行為。因此，只要有可能，他應該盡量保護自己避免在這種情況下產生懷疑和誤解，在與女性單獨交談時最好有一位男性在場，即使有特殊豁免。
Summary: Teaching more than six sentences of Dhamma to a woman, except in response to a question, is a pācittiya offense unless a knowledgeable man is present. 摘要：除了是為了回答問題，否則向女性教導超過六句佛法，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，除非有知識淵博的男性在場。
* * *
8 八
Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘向未受具足戒的人報告（他自己的）上人法，如果這是事實，波逸提。
The factors for the full offense here are two: 此處完全違犯的因素有二：
1) Effort: One reports one’s actual attainment of a superior human state
1）努力：報告自己實際達到的上人法
2) Object: to an unordained person, i.e., any human being who is not a bhikkhu or bhikkhunī.
2）對象：非受具足戒者，即不是比丘或比丘尼的任何人。
The commentaries add an extra factor here—result—but this is based on the same misunderstanding that led them to add the same factor to Pr 4. See the explanation under “Understanding,” below. 註釋書在這裡添加了一個額外的因素——結果——但這是基於相同的誤解，導致他們在《波羅夷》四中添加了相同的因素。請參閱下面「理解」下的解釋。
Effort 努力
Effort is the only factor requiring explanation here. 努力是這裡唯一需要解釋的因素。
The meaning of superior human state is discussed at length under Pr 4. In brief, it covers (a) jhāna, (b) the cognitive powers that can arise as its result, and (c) the transcendent attainments. 《波羅夷》四詳細討論了上人法的意義。簡言之，它涵蓋（a）禪那，（b）由此結果而產生的感知能力，以及（c）出世間的成就。
Factual is not explained in the texts, but probably means factual from the bhikkhu’s own point of view. In other words, regardless of whether he has actually attained a superior human state, if he thinks he has and reports it to an unordained person, he commits an offense all the same. If he actually has attained such a state, e.g., jhāna, but thinks he hasn’t, and yet claims that he has—in other words, he is telling what he thinks to be a lie—he incurs a pārājika. 文獻中沒有解釋事實，但可能意味著從比丘自己的角度來看為事實。換句話說，不管他實際上是否已經達到上法，如果他認為自己已經達到，並向沒有受具足戒的人報告，那麼他就同樣犯了戒。如果他實際上已達到這種狀態，例如禪那，但認為自己還沒有，卻又聲稱自己已經達到——換句話說，他在說自認為是謊言的話——他就犯了《波羅夷》。
To report, says the Vibhaṅga, means to speak directly of one’s own attainments, as explained under Pr 4—i.e., to claim that the state is present in oneself or that one is present in the state. To speak indirectly of one’s own attainments—e.g., “The bhikkhu who lives in this dwelling enters jhāna at will”—entails a dukkaṭa. According to the Commentary, gestures fall under this rule as well. Thus, if a bhikkhu who has attained stream-entry nods when asked by a lay person if he has any noble attainments, his nod would fulfill the factor of effort here. As under Pr 4, the use of idioms to express a superior human attainment would fulfill the factor of effort as well. 《經分別》中說，報告的意思是直接談論自己的成就，如《波羅夷》四所解釋的，即聲稱這種狀態存在於自己身上或自己處於這種狀態中。間接地談論自己的成就——例如，「住在此住處的比丘隨意進入禪那」——犯《突吉羅》。根據《義註》，示意動作也屬於本戒條。因此，如果一位已證入流果的比丘在被俗人問及他是否有任何聖成就時點頭，他的點頭就滿足了這裡的努力因素。如《波羅夷》四所述，使用成語來表達上人法也會滿足努力因素。
The origin story to this rule deals with bhikkhus who, as a tactic for getting almsfood in a time of scarcity, had agreed to speak of one another’s superior human states to householders. This would seem to suggest that to speak of another bhikkhu’s actual attainment of superior human states with such motives in mind—e.g., hoping to get a share of the increased gains he might receive—should entail a penalty too, but none of the texts mention this point, so it is not an offense. Still, any bhikkhu who plans to act in such a way, on the grounds that whatever is not an offense is perfectly all right, should remember that the Buddha criticized the bhikkhus in the origin story in very strong terms. 本戒條的起源故事與比丘有關，作為在食物匱乏時獲取施捨食物的策略，他們同意向在家人講述彼此的上人法。這似乎意味著，如果心中以這樣的動機談論另一位比丘實際上達到了上人法——例如，希望獲得他可能得到的增加的收益的一部分——也應該受到懲罰，但沒有任何文獻提到這一點，所以這並不是一種犯戒。然而，任何比丘如果打算這樣做，理由是只要不構成犯戒，就完全沒問題，那麼他應該記住，佛陀非常嚴厲地批評了在起源故事中的比丘們。
Understanding 理解
The Vibhaṅga contains a series of situations in which understanding is a factor, paralleling a similar series given under Pr 4. In each of the situations, a bhikkhu means to claim one superior human state but ends up claiming another. None of the texts mention this point, but apparently in these cases the state intended has to be actually present within him, whereas the state mentioned by mistake does not. At any rate, if he realizes his slip of the tongue, he incurs a pācittiya; if not, a dukkaṭa. 《經分別》包含一系列以理解為因素的情況，與《波羅夷》四所舉的一系列類似情況相似。在每一種情況下，比丘都想宣稱一種上人法，但最終卻宣稱另一種。沒有任何文獻提到這一點，但顯然在這些情況下，預期的狀態必須實際存在於他身上，而錯誤提到的狀態卻不存在。無論如何，如果他意識到自己的口誤，犯《波逸提》；如果沒有意識到，犯《突吉羅》。
Unlike Pr 4, the bhikkhu’s understanding when he makes an indirect claim to a superior human state here is not an issue. He incurs a dukkaṭa whether he understands the implications of his statement or not. 與《波羅夷》四不同的是，當比丘在此間接聲稱上人法時，他的理解並不成問題。無論他是否理解自己言論的涵義，他都犯《突吉羅》。
Intention is not a factor under this rule. Thus, whether one has a skillful or an unskillful motive for mentioning one’s factual superior human attainments to an unordained person is irrelevant to the offense. 根據本戒條，意圖不是一個因素。因此，向未受具足戒的人提及自己事實的上人法時，其動機是否善或惡，與犯戒無關。
Non-offenses 不犯
The Vibhaṅga lists only two non-offense clauses: There is no offense in reporting one’s own superior human attainments to another bhikkhu or to a bhikkhunī, and there is no offense for the original instigators of the rule. The Commentary, noting the absence of the usual exemption for one who is insane, explains it as follows: A person who has attained any of the noble attainments can never become insane; a person who has attained jhāna can become insane only after his/her ability to attain jhāna has been lost. A bhikkhu in the latter category has no right to claim jhāna as a state “present in himself” and therefore does not deserve an exemption under this rule. This last point, however, conflicts with the Vibhaṅga, which includes claims stated in the past tense—for example, “I have attained the first jhāna”—as examples of legitimate claims. A more likely explanation for the lack of the blanket exemptions under this rule is that they are already exempted under Pr 4. 《經分別》只列出了兩條不犯條款：向另一位比丘或比丘尼報告自己上人法成就並不犯戒，並且最初犯本戒條的人也不犯戒。《義註》指出，精神失常者沒有一般的豁免，並解釋如下：達到任何聖成就的人永遠不會變得精神失常；已達到禪那的人只有在失去達到禪那的能力後才會變得精神失常。後一類的比丘無權聲稱禪那是「存在於他自己身上」的狀態，因此不值得根據本戒條獲得豁免。然而，最後一點與《經分別》相衝突，《經分別》包括以過去時態陳述的聲稱——例如「我已經達到初禪」——作為合法聲稱的例子。對於本戒條下缺乏全面豁免的更可能的解釋是，它們已經根據《波羅夷》四獲得豁免。
As for the first exemption, allowing a bhikkhu to claim his factual attainments to another bhikkhu or bhikkhunī, a series of stories in the Vinīta-vatthu to Pr 4 raises some points to bear in mind in such situations. A typical example—the stories differ only in minor details—is this: 至於第一項豁免，即允許比丘向另一位比丘或比丘尼聲稱其實際成就，《波羅夷》四的《Vinīta-vatthu》中的一系列故事提出了一些在這種情況下需要牢記的要點。一個典型的例子——這些故事只在細節上有所不同——是這樣的：
“Then Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, as he was descending Vulture Peak Mountain, smiled at a certain place. Ven. Lakkhaṇa said to him, ‘Friend Moggallāna, what is the reason, what is the cause for your smile?’
「爾時，摩訶目犍連尊者從靈鷲山下來時，對著某處微笑。勒佉㝹尊者對他說：『目犍連朋友，您微笑的因緣是什麼？』
“‘This is not the time, friend Lakkhaṇa, to answer this question. Ask me in the presence of the Blessed One.’
「『勒佉㝹朋友，現在不是回答這個問題的時候。在世尊面前問我。』
“So Ven. Lakkhaṇa and Ven. Mahā Moggallāna… went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, Ven. Lakkhaṇa said to Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, ‘Just now, friend Moggallāna… you smiled. What was the reason, what was the cause for your smile?’
「於是，勒佉㝹尊者和摩訶目犍連尊者……來到世尊面前，一到世尊面前，便向世尊頂禮，坐在一邊。當他們坐在那裡時，勒佉㝹尊者對摩訶目犍連尊者說：『剛才，目犍連朋友……你微笑了。你微笑的因緣是什麼？』
“‘Just now, my friend… I saw a man immersed head and all in a pit of excrement, feeding on excrement with both hands. The thought occurred to me, “Isn’t it amazing, isn’t it astounding, that there is a being even like this….”’
「『剛才，我的朋友……我看到一個男人頭和全身都浸在糞坑裡，用雙手吃著糞土。我突然想到，「難道這不令人驚奇，難道這不令人震驚，竟然還有這樣的生物……」』
“Bhikkhus criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘Ven. Moggallāna is boasting of a superior human state!’
「比丘們批評、抱怨並四處散播：『目犍連尊者誇耀上人法！』
“Then the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus, ‘Actually, bhikkhus, there are disciples of vision and knowledge who will know or see or bear witness like this. Once I myself saw that being but I didn’t disclose it. Had I disclosed it, others would not have believed me… and that would have been to their long-term pain and detriment. That being, bhikkhus, was once a corrupted brahman right in this very same Rājagaha. He, in the time of the Buddha Kassapa, having invited a Community of bhikkhus to a meal, having filled a trough with excrement and announcing the time, said, “Venerable sirs, eat from this and take with you as much as you like.” Having been boiled in hell as a result of that action for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, many hundreds of thousands of years, he is now—through the remainder of the result of that very same action—experiencing existence as an individual like this. Moggallāna spoke truly, bhikkhus. There is no offense for him.’”
「然後世尊對比丘們說：『比丘們，實際上，有知見的弟子會知道、看到或見證這樣的事。我曾經親眼看到那個眾生，但我沒有透露。如果我透露了，其他人不會相信我……那將給他們帶來長期的痛苦和損害。比丘們，那個人曾經就是這個王舍城裡的墮落婆羅門。在迦葉佛的時代，他邀請一群比丘僧團來吃飯，用糞盆裝滿糞便，然後宣佈時間說：「大德們，請吃這個，想拿多少就拿多少。」由於這一行為，他在地獄中被煎熬了很多年、幾百年、幾千年、幾十萬年，現在，他——透過該同一行為的剩餘果報——感受如是自體之存在。比丘們，目犍連言語真實。他沒有犯戒。』」
Ven. Moggallāna’s conduct here—waiting until he is in the presence of his teacher before relating his vision—has become a model for conduct among meditators, for as the bhikkhus’ reaction and the Buddha’s comments make clear, there are situations where the act of relating one’s visions, etc., even when allowed, will serve no positive purpose. 此處目犍連尊者的行為——等到他的老師面前才講述他的所見——已經成為禪修者行為的典範，因為正如比丘們的反應和佛陀的評論所表明的那樣，在某些情況下，講述自己所見的行為等等，即使被允許，也不會起到任何積極的作用。
Displaying psychic powers 展示神通
A related rule at Cv.V.8.2 states that to display psychic powers to lay people is a dukkaṭa. In the origin story leading up to that rule, the Buddha levels strong criticism at such an act: “Just as a woman might expose her vagina for a miserable wooden māsaka coin, so too have you displayed a superior human state, a wonder of psychic power, to lay people for the sake of a miserable wooden bowl.” 《小品》.五.8.2 中的相關戒條規定，向俗人展示神通力犯《突吉羅》。在制定該戒條的起源故事中，佛陀對這種行為提出了強烈的批評：「就像一個女人會為了一枚可憐的木製 māsaka 硬幣而暴露她的陰道一樣，你也為了一個可憐的木缽，向俗人展示了上人法，神通奇蹟。」
To display psychic powers to anyone who is not a lay person, though, is no offense. Thus, given the way these two rules are framed, one may not tell a novice of one’s powers but may levitate before his very eyes. 然而，向任何非俗人展示神通並不犯戒。因此，根據這兩條戒條的制定方式，不可告訴沙彌自己的能力，但可以在他眼前懸浮起來。
Summary: To tell an unordained person of one’s actual superior human attainments is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：告訴未受具足戒者自己實際的上人法，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
9 九
Should any bhikkhu report (another) bhikkhu’s serious offense to an unordained person—unless authorized by the bhikkhus—it is to be confessed.
若任何比丘向非受具足戒者告知（另一位）比丘的嚴重罪行 —— 除非得到比丘們的授權 —— 波逸提。
“At that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan had gotten into a quarrel with some group-of-six bhikkhus. Having committed an offense of intentional emission of semen, he asked the Community to grant him probation…. Now at that time a certain guild in Sāvatthī was presenting a meal to the Community. Ven. Upananda, being on probation, sat in the last seat in the meal hall. The group-of-six bhikkhus said to the lay people, ‘Friends, this Ven. Upananda the Sakyan, your esteemed dependent, emitted semen having attacked (himself) with the very same hand with which he is eating your gift of faith…. (This is why), being on probation, he is sitting in the last seat.’”
「爾時，釋迦族烏跋難陀尊者與六群比丘發生爭執。他犯了故意出精的罪，因此請求僧團給予別住……當時，舍衛城的某個行會正在為僧團提供一頓飯。處於別住中的烏跋難陀尊者坐在食堂的最後一個座位上。那六群比丘對居士們說：『各位朋友，這位釋迦族烏跋難陀尊者，您的尊貴眷屬，用吃您的信施的同一隻手攻擊（他自己），然後射精了……（這就是為什麼）處於別住中，他坐在最後一個座位上。
There are two factors for the full offense here: 此處的完全違犯有兩個因素：
1) Object: a serious offense committed by another bhikkhu. 1）對象：另一位比丘所犯下的嚴重罪行。
2) Effort: One reports it to an unordained person without having been authorized to do so by the Community. 2）努力：未經僧團授權，就向未受具足戒者告知。
Object 對象
The Vibhaṅga states that serious offense means any of the four pārājika or thirteen saṅghādisesa offenses, while Buddhaghosa reports the ancient commentaries as saying that it covers only the saṅghādisesas. His discussion of this point is interesting for the light it throws on the history of the texts: He presents two arguments for the commentaries’ position, effectively demolishes them, but then backs down and ends up siding with them. Why he does this is hard to say, although it may be that he himself disagreed with the ancient commentaries on this point but was forced to side with them by the elders of the Mahāvihāra who were responsible for putting the seal of approval on his work. 《經分別》說，嚴重罪行是指四種《波羅夷》罪或十三種《僧殘》罪中任何一種，而佛音引述古代註釋書說，嚴重罪行僅涵蓋《僧殘》。他對這一點的討論很有趣，因為它揭示了文獻的歷史：他為註釋書的立場提出了兩個論點，有效地駁斥了它們，但後來又退縮並最終站在了他們一邊。他為什麼這樣做很難說，雖然很可能他自己不同意古代對這一點的註釋，但被負責批准他的作品的大寺長老們強迫站在他們這邊。
At any rate, the details of the argument lie outside the scope of this guide. The Vinaya-mukha has already adopted Buddhaghosa’s arguments against the ancient commentaries here, and we will simply follow our usual policy of siding with the Vibhaṅga wherever the other texts depart from it. Serious offense means both the four pārājikas and the thirteen saṅghādisesas. 無論如何，爭論的細節超出了本指南的範圍。《戒律入口》已經採納了佛音的論點來反對這裡的古代註釋書，而我們將僅遵循我們一貫的政策，即在其他文獻與《經分別》相悖的地方站在《經分別》這一方。嚴重罪行是指四《波羅夷》和十三《僧殘》。
A bhikkhu’s non-serious offenses are grounds for a dukkaṭa. 比丘的非嚴重罪行則犯《突吉羅》。
Perception as to whether the bhikkhu’s offense is serious is not a mitigating factor. If it actually is serious, then whether one perceives it as serious, not serious, or doubtful, it is grounds for a pācittiya. If it actually is not serious, then regardless of how one perceives it, it is grounds for a dukkaṭa. In other words, the pattern set out under Pc 4 does not hold here. 對比丘的罪行是否嚴重的感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素。如果確實嚴重，那麼無論認為它嚴重、不嚴重，還是有疑問，都犯《波逸提》。如果實際上並不嚴重，那麼無論如何感知它，都犯《突吉羅》。換句話說，《波逸提》四所列出的模式在這裡並不成立。
An unordained person’s misbehavior—serious or not—is also grounds for a dukkaṭa. (§—BD translates the passage on which this last point is based as, “tells one who is not ordained of a transgression” when it should read, “tells of an unordained person’s transgression.”) According to the Commentary, serious misbehavior on the part of an unordained person means breaking any of the five precepts. Anything else would count as not serious. 未受具足戒者的不當行為──無論嚴重與否──也構成《突吉羅》。（§—《戒律書》將最後一點所依據的段落翻譯為「告訴未受具足戒者違犯」，而應讀為「告訴未受具足戒者的違犯」。）根據《義註》，未受具足戒者的嚴重不當行為意味著違犯五戒中的任何一條。其他任何事情都不算嚴重。
This dukkaṭa penalty for informing an unordained person about another unordained person’s transgressions of the precepts, though frequently overlooked in discussions of this rule, is important. It seems aimed at keeping bhikkhus from being gossips, so that novices and lay people may seek advice from a bhikkhu concerning the difficulties they have in observing the precepts without fear that he will spread the news to other unordained people as well. 告知未受具足戒者關於另一名未受具足戒者違反戒律會受到《突吉羅》懲罰，雖然在討論本戒條時經常被忽視，但卻是重要的。其目的似乎是為了防止比丘們說閒話，以便沙彌和俗人可以就他們在遵守戒律方面遇到的困難向比丘尋求建議，而不必擔心他也會把這個消息傳播給其他非受具足戒者。
This also helps preserve the good faith of donors: They can give their support to the bhikkhus without fear that the recipients of their support might be gossiping about their lapses in the practice behind their backs. If donors were to learn that a bhikkhu had been gossiping about them, they might become so disgusted as to withdraw their support from the religion as a whole. 這也有助於維護施主的信心：他們可以為比丘提供支持，而不必擔心接受支持的人會在背後議論他們修行上的失誤。如果施主得知比丘在說他們的閒話，他們可能會感到非常厭惡，以至於撤回對整個宗教的支持。
Effort 努力
Unordained person here means anyone who is not a bhikkhu or a bhikkhunī. 此處的未受具足戒者指的是除比丘或比丘尼之外的任何人。
To report an offense to an unordained person means to tell him/her both the action and the class of the offense. Thus, to say, “Ven. Upananda committed a saṅghādisesa by masturbating,” would fulfill the factor of effort here; while to say simply, “Ven. Upananda committed a saṅghādisesa,” or “Ven. Upananda masturbated,” would not, and would not even be grounds for a lesser offense. None of the texts discuss the question of whether the same principle would apply to the offenses of an unordained person. 向未受具足戒者告知犯戒意味著告訴他/她犯戒的行為和種類。因此，說「烏跋難陀尊者透過自慰犯了《僧殘》」，就滿足了這裡的努力因素；而僅說「烏跋難陀尊者犯了《僧殘》」或「烏跋難陀尊者自慰」則不算，甚至不能構成較輕的罪行。沒有任何文獻討論過同一原則是否適用於未受具足戒者的罪行的問題。
This allowance, which looks strange on the surface, was made apparently for such cases as when a lay person, seeing a senior bhikkhu sitting at the end of the line, might ask one of the other bhikkhus why. A bhikkhu would be well-advised, though, to examine his motives before making use of this allowance, for to take advantage of it to discredit a fellow bhikkhu would be to incur a dukkaṭa under Pc 13. Though the penalty is minor, little acts and minor offenses of this sort are often the ones most destructive to the harmony of the Community. 這種開緣表面上看起來很奇怪，顯然是為了應對這樣的情況：當一個俗人看到一位資深比丘坐在隊伍的末尾，可能會問另一個比丘為什麼。然而，比丘在利用這項開緣之前，最好先檢查一下自己的動機，因為利用它來使比丘同儕名譽受損，根據《波逸提》十三犯《突吉羅》。雖然懲罰很輕，但這種小行為和小過失往往對僧團的和諧最具破壞性。
None of the texts state that the person whose offense is being reported has to be mentioned explicitly to fulfill this factor. Thus, apparently, implicit references (“The bhikkhu who lives in that dwelling committed a saṅghādisesa by masturbating”) would fulfill the factor of effort here as well. 沒有任何文獻指出必須明確提及被報導的罪行的人才能滿足這一因素。因此，顯然，隱含的提及（「住在那住處的比丘透過自慰犯了《僧殘》」）在這裡也滿足了努力的因素。
The authorization 授權
The Vibhaṅga does not give any indication of when the Community should authorize a bhikkhu to tell unordained people about another bhikkhu’s serious offense. As the Vinaya-mukha sees it, the purpose of the training rule is to prevent bhikkhus from advertising one another’s faults among people outside the Community. However, there are cases, it says, where a bhikkhu may commit a serious offense and refuse to acknowledge it, as when committing a pārājika and yet continuing to assume the status of a bhikkhu, or committing a saṅghādisesa and refusing to go through the procedures for rehabilitation. Thus the Community in such cases is allowed to authorize one of its members to inform lay people, such as the bhikkhu’s supporters, as a way of exerting pressure on him to submit to his penalty. 《經分別》並未指示僧團何時應該授權比丘向未受具足戒者透露另一位比丘的嚴重罪行。從《戒律入口》的觀點來看，學處的目的是為了防止比丘們在僧團外的人面前宣揚彼此的過失。然而，它說，有些情況下比丘可能會犯下嚴重罪行，但拒絕承認，例如，犯了《波羅夷》，卻繼續假裝比丘的身份，或犯了《僧殘》，卻拒絕接受出罪恢復清淨的程序。因此，在這種情況下，僧團被允許授權其一名成員向俗人（如該比丘的支持者）通報，以此作為向比丘施加壓力，讓他接受懲罰的方式。
According to the Commentary, though, the authorization is to be used in cases where the Community feels that the act of informing the laity would help to convince a well-intentioned but weak-willed bhikkhu who repeatedly commits saṅghādisesa offenses—even if he willingly undergoes the period of penance—to mend his ways. 然而，根據《義註》，這項授權適用於以下情況：僧團認為，告知俗人的行動有助於說服善意但意志薄弱，一再犯下《僧殘》罪的比丘改過自新—即使他願意接受摩那埵。
Both interpretations fit with the Canon, although it should be borne in mind that using the authorization in line with the Vinaya-mukha’s rationale—to exert pressure on a bhikkhu who refuses to undergo a penalty—can often backfire, for the laity may simply think that the Community is jealous of the support they are giving to the bhikkhu they assume to be innocent of any wrong-doing. 這兩種解釋都符合《聖典》，但應該記住，根據《戒律入口》的理由使用授權——對拒絕接受懲罰的比丘施加壓力——往往會適得其反，因為俗人可能只是認為僧團嫉妒他們給予他們認為沒有做錯的無辜比丘的支持。
The Vibhaṅga also does not tell how to issue the authorization. The Commentary recommends using the form of an announcement (apalokana) stated three times and unanimously agreed to by the Community meeting within a single territory (see BMC2, Chapter 12). 《經分別》也沒有說明如何頒發授權。《義註》建議使用求聽（apalokana）的形式，該聽許在單一界場內的僧團會議上聲明三次並得到一致同意（參見《佛教比丘戒律 第二冊》第十二章）。
The Vibhaṅga does state, though, that when giving the authorization, the Community may limit it to families, to offenses, to both, or to neither. Limited to families means that the bhikkhu receiving the authorization may inform only certain specified families. Limited to offenses means that he may report only certain of the guilty bhikkhu’s offenses. A bhikkhu who oversteps the limits of his authorization incurs a pācittiya. 然而，《經分別》確實規定，在給予授權時，僧團可以將其限制於家庭，於犯戒，兩者都限制或兩者都不限制。限制於家庭，是指獲得授權的比丘只能通知某些特定的家庭。限制於犯戒意味著他只可告知有罪比丘的某些犯戒。比丘若超越其授權限制，犯《波逸提》。
Non-offenses 不犯
We have already covered the cases that the Vibhaṅga includes in the non-offense clauses. To recapitulate: There is no penalty— 我們已經討論過《經分別》中不犯條款所包括的情況。總結一下：沒有懲罰——
1) in telling an unordained person about another bhikkhu’s serious offense if one states the action but not the class of offense, or the class but not the action; or
1）向未受具足戒者講述另一位比丘的嚴重罪行時，如果只說了行為，沒有說罪行的種類，或者只說種類，沒有說行為；或者
2) in reporting another bhikkhu’s serious offense—action and class of offense—to an unordained person when one has been properly authorized to do so, as long as one does not overstep the bounds of one’s authorization.
2）在獲得適當授權的情況下，可以向非受具足戒者告知另一位比丘的嚴重罪行（包括罪行的行為和種類），只要不超越其授權範圍。
Summary: Telling an unordained person of another bhikkhu’s serious offense—unless one is authorized by the Community to do so—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：除非得到僧團的授權，否則向未受具足戒者告知另一名比丘的嚴重罪行，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
10 十
Should any bhikkhu dig soil or have it dug, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘挖土或令挖土，波逸提。
This is an offense with four factors: object, effort, perception, and intention. 這是一條具有四個因素的犯戒：對象、努力、感知，和意圖。
Object 對象
The Pali word for soil, paṭhavī, also means ground or earth. Thus the Vibhaṅga distinguishes which forms of earth are and are not classed as genuine soil: 表示土壤的巴利單字是 paṭhavī ，也有地面或大地的意思。因此，《經分別》辨別了哪些形式的土屬於真正名副其實的土（真土），哪些不屬於真正名副其實的土（真土）：
Pure loam, pure clay, whatever is mostly loam or clay with a lesser portion of rock, stones, potsherds, gravel, or sand mixed in, is classed as “genuine” (or “natural”) soil (jātā paṭhavī). 純壤土、純黏土，或主要是壤土或黏土並混入少量岩石、石頭、陶器碎片、礫石或沙子的任何物質，都被歸類為「真」（或「天然」）土（jātā paṭhavī）。
Whatever is pure rock, stones, potsherds, gravel, or sand, or any of these with a lesser portion of loam or clay mixed in, is earth classed as “ungenuine” (or “denatured”) soil (ajātā paṭhavī). Also, burnt clay or loam—according to the Commentary, this means soil that has been burnt in the course of firing a bowl, a pot, etc.—is not classed as genuine soil. As for heaps of loam or clay that have been dug up: If they have been rained on for less than four months, they are not classed as genuine soil; but if rained on for four months or more, they are. At present, irrigated soil would count as “rained on” as well. Also, the layer of fine dust that forms on the surface of dry soil as the result of wind erosion is not classed as genuine soil. 無論是純粹的岩石、石頭、陶器碎片、礫石或沙子，或是其中任何一種混入少量壤土或黏土的物質，都被歸類為「非真」（或「非天然」）土（ajātā paṭhavī）。此外，被燒過的黏土或壤土（根據《義註》，這是指在燒製碗、罐子等過程中燒過的土）不屬於真土。至於挖出的壤土或黏土堆：如果它們被雨淋的時間少於四個月，則它們不屬於真正的土壤；但如果被雨淋持續四個月或更長時間，它們就是真土。目前，灌溉的土壤也算是「被雨淋」。此外，由於風蝕而在乾燥土壤表面形成的一層細小的塵埃也不屬於真正的土壤。
The words for “genuine” and “not genuine”—jāta and ajāta—also mean “born” and “not born.” These terms are apparently related to the ancient Indian belief that soil is a form of one-facultied life (see below). The distinction between them seems based on an intuited idea that rock, sand, etc., were not alive, whereas clay and loam were naturally alive, although they would lose life when dug up and regain life when rained on for four months or more. 「真」與「非真」這兩個字——jata 和 ajāta——也表示「生」與「不生」。這些術語顯然與古印度信仰有關，即土壤是一種單能生命形式（見下文）。它們之間的差異似乎是基於一種直覺的想法，即岩石、沙子等沒有生命，而黏土和壤土是自然有生命的，儘管它們在被挖出時會失去生命，而在被雨淋四個月或更長時間後會恢復生命。
As the Commentary makes clear in discussing the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses, there is no penalty in digging earth not classed as genuine soil. Thus, for example, digging into a pile of newly dug-up loam or drawing diagrams in the dust on top of dry soil would not be an offense. 正如《義註》在討論《經分別》的不犯條款時所明確指出的，挖掘不屬於真正土壤的土地不會受到懲罰。因此，例如，挖掘一堆新挖出的壤土或在乾土上的灰塵中繪製圖表並不構成犯戒。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga says that the term digging also covers burning, e.g., firing pottery or lighting a fire on top of the soil; and breaking, e.g., making a furrow with a rake or a stick. Thus, using a stick to draw in the soil or driving in a stake or pulling one out in such a way as to disturb the surrounding soil would fulfill the factor of effort here. 《經分別》說，「挖掘」一詞也包括燃燒，例如燒製陶器或在土壤上點火；以及破壞，例如用耙子或棍子開溝。因此，使用一根棍子在土壤裡畫東西，或將一根木樁打入，或將一根木樁拔出以至於擾動周圍的土壤，即可滿足此處的努力因素。
The Vibhaṅga adds that if one gives a single command to dig, then no matter how much the person digs, the offense is a single pācittiya. 《經分別》又說，如果給予一次挖掘的命令，那麼無論該人挖掘了多少，都只犯一次《波逸提》。
Perception 感知
If one is in doubt as to whether soil is genuine, the penalty for digging it is a dukkaṭa regardless of whether it is or isn’t. If one perceives it as genuine soil when it actually isn’t, the penalty for digging it is also a dukkaṭa. If one does not perceive it as genuine soil, then whether it is or isn’t, digging it incurs no offense. 如果懷疑是否為真正的土壤，那麼挖掘它的懲罰就是《突吉羅》，無論是否為真正的土壤。如果以為那是真正的土壤，但實際上並非如此，那麼挖掘它的懲罰也是《突吉羅》。如果不認為它是真正的土壤，那麼無論它是不是真正的土壤，挖掘它都不犯戒。
Non-offenses 不犯
Because perception and intention are mitigating factors here, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who digs soil— 因為感知和意圖在這裡是減輕懲罰的因素，所以對於挖土的比丘來說，沒有犯戒—
unknowingly—e.g., digging into a pile of soil perceiving it to be sand; 不知道地—例如，挖了一堆土，以為那是沙子；
unthinkingly—e.g., absent-mindedly drawing in the dirt while talking with someone else; or 不假思索地—例如，與他人交談時心不在焉地在泥土上畫畫；或者
unintentionally—e.g., raking leaves, pulling a wheelbarrow through the mud, or digging in a pile of sand and accidentally digging into the soil underneath. 無意地—例如，耙樹葉、拉手推車穿過泥地、或在沙堆裡挖東西並意外挖到下面的土壤。
Also, there is no offense in asking for clay or soil, or in indicating a need for a hole in the ground, without expressly giving the command to dig. Examples in the Vibhaṅga: “Know this. Give this. Bring this. This is wanted. Make this allowable.” Present examples would include such statements as, “Please get me some clay to make a pot.” “We’re going to need a hole right here.” According to the Commentary, an explicit request that a reservoir or pit, etc., be dug also entails no penalty as long as one does not say precisely where to dig it. (“We’re going to have to drain the water from A to B, so dig the trench wherever you think it would do the job best.”) This sort of request or hint is termed kappiya-vohāra—“allowable expression,” or in plain English, “wording it right”—and often finds use in the context of rules where an express command would be an offense, but an indication of a desire or intent would not. 此外，在沒有明確命令挖掘的情況下，要求黏土或土壤，或表示需要一個洞在地面上，並不構成犯戒。《經分別》中的例子：「了解這個。給這個。帶來這個。這是想要的。使這個可允許。」目前的例子包括這樣的陳述：「請給我一些黏土來做一個罐子。」「我們在這裡需要一個洞。」根據《義註》，明確要求挖水庫或坑等，只要沒有明確說明在哪裡挖，也不會受到處罰。（「我們要把水從 A 排到 B，所以在你認為最合適的地方挖溝。」）這種請求或暗示被稱為 kappiya-vohāra—「允許的表達」，或用簡單的英語來說，「正確的措辭」—並且通常在戒條的脈絡下使用，在這種情況下，明確的命令是犯戒，而表示願望或意圖則不會。
The Commentary quotes the ancient commentaries as saying that if another person or animal has fallen into a pit, there is no penalty for digging the victim out. The same holds true if another person or animal is trapped by a fallen but still-living tree: The bhikkhu may cut the tree to free the victim without incurring a penalty under the following rule. 《義註》引述古代註釋書說：若他人或動物掉入坑中，將受害者挖出則不受懲罰。如果另一個人或動物被倒下但仍然活著的樹困住，情況也是如此：比丘可以砍伐樹木以釋放受害者，而不必根據下一條戒條受到懲罰。
Although the Commentary cannot find any justification in the Canon for these opinions, it states that they should be accepted because they are the unanimous judgment of the ancient commentaries. As we have noted before, Buddhaghosa does not always accept even the unanimous judgment of the ancient commentaries, but perhaps he felt that these were cases in which it would be better to err on the side of compassion rather than strictness. 儘管《義註》在《聖典》中找不到這些觀點的任何依據，但它表示應該接受這些觀點，因為它們是古代註釋書的一致判斷。正如我們之前所指出的，佛音並不總是接受古代註釋中的一致判斷，但也許他覺得，在這些情況下，寧可犯同情的錯誤，也不要過於嚴格。
However, the Commentary goes on to say that if a bhikkhu falls into a pit himself, he should not dig any earth that would be classed as genuine soil, even for the sake of his life. The same holds true if he is trapped by a fallen but still-living tree: He may not cut the tree even though his life is in danger. 然而，《義註》繼續說道，如果比丘自己掉進坑中，那麼即使是為了他自己的生命，他也不應該挖掘任何被視為真正土壤的地面。如果他被一棵倒下的但仍然活著的樹困住了，情況也是如此：即使他的生命處於危險之中，他也不可砍樹。
In line with Cv.V.32.1, which allows a bhikkhu to light a counter-fire to ward off an approaching wildfire, the Commentary to Pr 3 states that one may also dig a moat to ward off such a fire without incurring a penalty under this rule. 根據《小品》.五.32.1，允許比丘點燃逆火以抵禦接近的野火，《波羅夷》三的《義註》指出，也可以挖一條護城河來抵禦這種火災，而不會根據本戒條受到懲罰。
The reason for this rule, as indicated by the origin story, is that people in general at the time of the Buddha viewed soil as having a form of one-facultied life. The Jains, who were contemporaries of the Buddha, classed life into five categories according to the number of senses or faculties the living thing possessed. In the one-facultied category, where there is only the sense of touch, they included soil and vegetation. One scholar has suggested that the Jains here were simply systematizing an animist belief, predating their theories, that soil and plants had souls. At any rate, this sort of view was so widespread at the time that any potters who were meticulous in their precepts would take their clay only from termite nests and other piles of dug-up earth. The Ghaṭīkāra Sutta (MN 81) describes a potter—a non-returner in the dispensation of the Buddha Kassapa—who, even though he was a lay man, would take the earth for his pots only from collapsed embankments and the piles of dirt around rat holes so as to avoid injuring the soil. 起源故事表明，本戒條的原因在於，佛陀時代的人們普遍認為土壤具有單能生命形式。與佛陀同時代，耆那教徒根據生物所擁有的感官或能力的數量，將生命分為五類。在單能類別中，只有觸覺，包括土壤和植被。一位學者認為，耆那教徒只是系統化了一種早於他們的理論的萬物有靈論信仰，即土壤和植物具有靈魂。無論如何，這種觀點在當時非常普遍，任何恪守戒律的陶工只會從白蟻巢穴和其他挖出的土堆中取土。《伽提迦羅經》（《中部》81經）描述了一位陶工——迦葉佛教化時的不還者——儘管他只是個俗人，但他只從坍塌的堤壩和老鼠洞周圍的土堆中取土來做陶罐，以免損壞土壤。
Another consideration, carrying more weight at present, is that the act of digging soil risks killing or injuring whatever animals might be living there. 另一個目前更重要的考慮因素是，挖土的行為可能會有殺死或傷害生活在那裡的動物風險。
This rule, together with the following one, also effectively prevents bhikkhus from engaging in agriculture. 本戒條和下一條戒條也有效地阻止了比丘從事農業。
Summary: Digging soil or commanding that it be dug is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：挖土或命令挖土，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。