波逸提

Four: The Food Chapter	第四食物品
Many of the rules in this chapter classify food into two groups: bhojana/bhojaniya (consumables) and khādaniya (chewables). Scholars usually translate the two as “softer food” and “harder food,” although the hardness or softness of a particular food has little to do with the category it belongs to. A translation closer to the essence of each category would be “staple food” and “non-staple food.” The distinction between the two is important, for it is often the deciding factor between what is and is not an offense. Note, however, that the term staple here covers only what was considered staple in the time of the Buddha. Bread, pasta, and potatoes, which are staples in the West, were not always staples in India at that time and so do not always fit into this category.	本章中的許多戒條將食物分為兩類：bhojana/bhojaniya（噉食）和khādaniya（嚼食）。學者通常將兩者翻譯為「較軟的食物」和「較硬的食物」，儘管特定食物的軟硬程度與其所屬類別關係不大。更貼近每個類別本質的翻譯是「主食」和「副食」。兩者之間的差異至關重要，因為它往往是決定什麼是犯戒，什麼不是犯戒的因素。但請注意，此處的「主食」一詞僅涵蓋佛陀時代被認為是主食的食物。麵包、義大利麵和馬鈴薯在西方是主食，但在當時的印度並非一直都是主食，因此並不總是屬於這一類別。
Staple foods	主食（噉食）
Staple foods are consistently defined as five sorts of foods, although the precise definitions of the first two are a matter of controversy.	主食一致地被定義為五種食物，儘管前兩種食物的精確定義存在爭議。
1) Cooked grains: The Commentary to Pc 35 defines this as seven types of cooked grain, but there is disagreement on the identity of some of the seven. They are sāḷi (BD translates this as rice; the Thais, wheat); vīhi (BD again has rice, and the Thais agree); yava (BD has barley; the Thais, glutinous rice); godhūma (BD has wheat; the Thais, tares); kaṅgu (both BD and the Thais identify this as millet or sorghum); varaka (BD doesn’t identify this beyond saying that it is a bean; the Thais are probably right in identifying it as Job’s tears); and kudrūsaka (the Commentary defines this term as covering all forms of grain coming from grass—rye would be an example in the West). Whatever the precise definitions of these terms, though, we could argue from the Great Standards that any grain cooked as a staple—including corn (maize) and oats—would fit into this category.	1）煮熟的穀物：《波逸提》三五的《義註》將其定義為七種煮熟的穀物，但對於其中某些穀物的定義存在分歧。它們是 sāḷi （《戒律書》將其譯為米，泰國人譯為小麥）； vīhi （《戒律書》仍將其譯為米，泰國人也同意）； yava （《戒律書》將其譯為大麥，泰國人譯為糯米）； godhūma （《戒律書》將其譯為小麥，泰國佛教徒譯為稗子）； kaṅgu （《戒律書》和泰國人均將其譯為小米或高粱）； varaka （《戒律書》僅說其為豆類之外沒有確認，泰國人將其譯為薏米，這可能是正確的）；以及 kudrūsaka （《義註》將其定義為涵蓋所有來自草類的穀物——在西方，黑麥是一個例子）。然而，無論這些術語的確切定義是什麼，我們都可以從《四大教示》中論證，任何作為主食烹飪的穀物——包括玉米和燕麥——都屬於這一類。
2) Kummāsa: The Commentary describes this as a staple confection made out of yava but doesn’t give any further details aside from saying that if the kummāsa is made out of any of the other grains or mung beans, it doesn’t count as a staple food. References to kummāsa in the Canon show that it was a very common staple that could form a rudimentary meal in and of itself and would spoil if left overnight.	2）Kummāsa：《義註》將其描述為一種用 yava 製成的主食甜點，但除了指出如果 kummāsa 是用其他穀物或綠豆製成的，則不算主食之外，沒有提供更多細節。《聖典》中對 kummāsa 的引用表明，它是一種非常常見的主食，本身就可以作為一頓簡陋的飯菜，如果放置過夜就會變質。
3) Sattu: any of the seven types of grain dried or roasted and pounded into meal.	3）Sattu：七種穀物中的任何一種，經過乾燥或烘烤後搗成粉。
4) Fish: the flesh of any animal living in the water.	4）魚：任何生活在水裡的動物的肉。
5) Meat: the flesh of any animal living on land, except for that which is unallowable. Because the Commentary, in discussing unallowable meat, uses the word meat to cover all parts of an animal’s body, the same convention would apply to allowable meat (and to fish) as well. Thus it covers the liver, kidneys, eggs, etc., of any animal whose flesh is allowable.	5）肉類：指任何陸地動物的肉，但禁止食用的除外。由於《義註》在討論禁止食用的肉類時，使用「肉」一詞來指稱動物身體的所有部位，因此同樣的慣例也適用於允許食用的肉類（以及魚類）。因此，它涵蓋了任何允許食用的動物的肝臟、腎臟、蛋類等。
The Mahāvagga (Mv.VI.23.9-15) forbids ten kinds of flesh: that of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas. To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other unallowable types, a dukkaṭa. Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too noble to be used as food. The other types of meat were forbidden either on grounds that they were repulsive (“People criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome, disgusting’”) or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion’s flesh, went into the jungle; the lions there, instead of criticizing or complaining, attacked them).	《大品》（《大品》.六.23.9-15）禁食十種肉：人肉、象肉、馬肉、狗肉、蛇肉、獅肉、虎肉、豹肉、熊肉和鬣狗肉。食用人肉犯《偷蘭遮》；食用任何其他不被允許食用的肉則犯《突吉羅》。人肉、馬肉和象肉被認為過於尊貴，不宜食用。其他肉類被禁止食用，要麼是因為它們令人討厭（「人們批評、抱怨並四處傳播：『這些沙門釋迦子怎麼能吃狗肉？狗令人厭惡，令人作嘔』」），要麼是因為它們危險（比丘們，聞起來有獅子肉的味道，進入叢林；那裡的獅子沒有批評或抱怨，而攻擊了他們）。
The Commentary adds three comments here: (a) These prohibitions cover not only the meat of these animals but also their blood, bones, skin, and hide (the layer of tissue just under the skin—see AN 4:113). (b) The prohibition against dog flesh does not include wild dogs, such as wolves and foxes, (but many teachers—including the Thai translator of the Commentary—question this point). The flesh of a half-dog half-wolf mixture, however, would be forbidden. (c) The prohibition against snake flesh covers the flesh of all long, footless beings. Thus eels would not be allowed. (Many Communities question this last point as well.)	《義註》在此補充了三點評論： (a) 這些禁令不僅涵蓋這些動物的肉，還涵蓋它們的血、骨、皮和獸皮（皮下組織層－參見《增支部》4:113經）。 (b) 禁止食用狗肉的規定並不包括狼和狐狸等野狗（但許多導師——包括《義註》的泰文譯者——對此表示質疑）。然而，半狗半狼混血的肉是被禁止的。 (c) 禁止食用蛇肉的規定涵蓋所有長而無足的生物的肉。因此，鰻魚是不允許的。（許多僧團也對最後一點表示質疑。）
Mv.VI.23.9 also states that if a bhikkhu is uncertain as to the identity of any meat presented to him, he incurs a dukkaṭa if he doesn’t ask the donor what it is before eating it. The Commentary interprets this as meaning that if, on reflection, one recognizes what kind of meat it is, one needn’t ask the donor about the identity of the meat. If one doesn’t recognize it, one must ask. If one mistakenly identifies an unallowable sort of meat as allowable and then goes ahead and consumes it under that mistaken assumption, there is no offense.	《大品》.六.23.9 也規定，如果比丘不確定提供給自己的肉是什麼，並且在食用前沒有詢問施主，犯《突吉羅》。《義註》對此的解釋是，如果經過深思熟慮後，認出了是什麼肉，就無需詢問施主是什麼肉。如果認不出，就必須詢問。如果比丘錯誤地將不允許的肉認定為可允許的肉，並基於這種錯誤的認知繼續食用，則不構成犯戒。
Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed by non-human beings. Thus, in more ordinary circumstances, one may not eat raw fish or meat even if of an allowable kind. This would include such things as steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, raw eggs, and caviar. Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the purpose of feeding bhikkhus (Mv.VI.31.14).	根據《大品》.六.10.2，只有當非人附身時，才允許食用生肉和血。因此，在更普遍的情況下，即使是允許的生魚或生肉，也不得食用。這包括韃靼牛排、生魚片、帶殼牡蠣、生蛋和魚子醬。此外，如果比丘看到、聽到或懷疑動物是專門為了供養比丘而宰殺的，即使是允許的熟魚或熟肉，也是不允許食用的（《大品》.六.31.14）。

Non-staple foods	副食（嚼食）
Non-staple foods are defined according to context:	副食根據上下文定義：
a) in Pc 35-38: every edible aside from staple foods, juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines (see below);	a）在《波逸提》三五至三八中：除主食、果汁飲料、五種補品和藥物以外的所有可食用物（見下文）；
b) in Pc 40: every edible aside from staple foods, water, and toothwood;	b）在《波逸提》四十中：除主食、水和齒木以外的所有可食用物；
c) in Pc 41 (also the bhikkhunīs’ Pc 44 & 54): every edible aside from staple foods, the five tonics, juice drinks, medicine, and conjey.	c）在《波逸提》四一中（也在比丘尼《波逸提》四四和五四）：除主食、五種補品、果汁飲料、藥物和粥之外的所有可食用物。
The Commentary to Pc 37 lists the following items as non-staple foods: flour and confections made of flour (cakes, bread and pasta made without eggs would be classed here); also, roots, tubers (this would include potatoes), lotus roots, sprouts, stems, bark, leaves, flowers, fruits, nuts, seed-meal, seeds, and resins that are made into food. Any of these items ordinarily used as medicines, though, would not be classed as a non-staple food.	《波逸提》三七的《義註》將以下物品列為副食：麵粉和麵粉製成的甜點（不含雞蛋的蛋糕、麵包和義大利麵也歸入此類）；此外，根、塊莖（包括馬鈴薯）、蓮藕、芽、莖、樹皮、葉子、花、果實、堅果、種子粉、種子以及製成食物的樹脂。然而，任何這些通常用作藥物之物均不屬於副食。
The Commentary also acknowledges that some societies use roots, tubers, confections made out of flour, etc., as staple foods, but it nowhere suggests that the definition of staple food be altered to fit the society in which one is living. However—because eggs come under meat—any bread, pastries, noodles, and pasta made with eggs are staple foods. Thus in the West we are left with a somewhat zigzag line separating what are and are not staple foods for the purposes of the rules: Meal pounded from grain is a staple; flour ground from grain is not. Bread made with oat meal, corn meal, wheat germ, etc., would thus be a staple; bread made without any grain meal or eggs would not. The same holds true for pastries, noodles, and pasta.	《義註》也承認有些社會使用根莖類植物、麵粉製成的甜點等作為主食，但並未暗示應根據個人所處的社會環境改變主食的定義。然而，由於雞蛋屬於肉類，任何用雞蛋製成的麵包、糕點、麵條和義大利麵都屬於主食。因此，在西方，就戒條而言，主食和副食的劃分存在一條略顯曲折的界線：穀物搗碎的粗糧是主食；穀物磨成的麵粉則不是。因此，用燕麥粉、玉米粉、小麥胚芽等製成的麵包是主食；不含穀物粉或雞蛋的麵包則不是主食。糕點、麵條和義大利麵也是如此。
This means that it would be possible for a donor to provide bhikkhus with a full, strictly vegetarian meal that would include absolutely no staple foods. A wise policy in such a case, though, would be to treat the meal as if it did contain staple foods with reference to the rules (Pc 33 & 35) that aim at saving face for the donor.	這意味著，布施者可以為比丘提供一頓完整的、純素食的餐食，其中完全不含任何主食。然而，在這種情況下，明智的做法是，參照《波逸提》三三和三五的戒條，將這頓餐食視為如同包含主食，以維護布施者的面子。
Conjey, the watery rice porridge or gruel commonly drunk before alms round in the time of the Buddha, is classed differently according to context. If it is so thick that it cannot be drunk and must be eaten with a spoon, it is regarded as a staple food at Mv.VI.25.7 and under Pc 33. “Drinking conjey” is classed as a non-staple food under Pc 35-38 & 40, whereas it is considered neither a staple nor a non-staple food under Pc 41. The Commentary notes, though, that if drinking conjey has bits of meat or fish “larger than lettuce seeds” floating in it, it is a staple food.	粥（conjey）是佛陀時代托缽前常喝的一種含水米粥，根據上下文有不同的分類。如果它太濃稠，無法直接飲用，必須用湯匙食用，則在《大品》.六.25.7和《波逸提》三三中被視為主食。「飲用粥」在《波逸提》三五至三八和四十中被歸類為副食，而在《波逸提》四一中，它既不被視為主食，也不被視為副食。然而，《義註》指出，如果飲用粥中漂浮著「比生菜種子還大」的肉碎或魚碎，它就是主食。
Mv.VI.34.21 contains an allowance for the five products of the cow: milk, curds, buttermilk, butter, and ghee. The Commentary mentions that each of these five may be taken separately—i.e., the allowance does not mean that all five must be taken together. Milk and curds are classed as “finer staple foods” under Pc 39, but in other contexts they fit under the definition of non-staple food. All other dairy products—except for fresh butter and ghee when used as tonics (see NP 23)—are non-staple foods.	《大品》.六.34.21 規定了五種牛製品的開緣：牛奶、凝乳、酪乳、奶油和酥油。《義註》中提到，這五種產品的任一種可以單獨食用——也就是說，開緣並不意味著必須同時食用所有五種。在《波逸提》三九下，牛奶和凝乳被歸類為「精細主食」，但在其他上下文脈絡之下，它們符合副食的定義。所有其他乳製品——除了用作補品的新鮮奶油和酥油（參見《捨墮》二三）——都屬於副食。
One of the ten disputed points that led to the convening of the Second Council was the issue of whether thin sour milk—milk that has passed the state of being milk but not yet arrived at the state of being buttermilk—would count inside or outside the general category of staple/non-staple food under Pc 35. The decision of the Council was that it was inside the category, and thus a bhikkhu who has turned down an offer of further food would commit the offense under that rule if he later in the morning consumed thin sour milk that was not left over.	導致第二次結集的十個爭議點之一是稀酸奶（已經過了牛奶狀態但還未達到酪乳狀態的牛奶）是否應在《波逸提》三五之下算在主食/副食的一般類別之內或之外的問題。結集的決議是，它屬於這一類別，因此，如果一位比丘拒絕了進一步的食物供養，並且之後的早上喝了非剩餘的稀酸奶，他將根據該戒條而犯戒。
In addition to staple and non-staple foods, the Vibhaṅga to the rules in this chapter mentions three other classes of edibles: juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines.	除了主食和副食之外，本品的戒條的《經分別》還提到了其他三類食用物：果汁飲料、五種補品和藥物。

Juice drinks	果汁飲料
Juice drinks include the freshly squeezed juice of sugar cane, water lily root, all fruits except grain, all leaves except cooked greens, and all flowers except licorice (Mv.VI.35.6). The way the allowance for juice drinks is phrased—fruits, leaves, and flowers are mentioned as a class, whereas canes and roots are not—suggests that the Great Standards should not be used to extend the allowance for sugar cane juice and water lily root juice to include the juice from other canes or roots.	果汁飲料包括鮮榨甘蔗汁、睡蓮根汁、除穀物外的所有水果、除煮熟的綠葉蔬菜外的所有葉子以及除甘草外的所有花卉（《大品》.六.35.6）。果汁飲料的開緣的表述方式——水果、葉子和花卉以類別方式被提及，而藤蔓和根莖則不是——表明不應用《四大教示》將甘蔗汁和睡蓮根汁的開緣擴大到其他藤蔓或根莖的汁液。
According to the Commentary, the juice must be strained and may be warmed by sunlight but not heated over a fire. What category boiled juice would fit under, the Commentary does not say. As we noted under NP 23, the Vinaya-mukha—arguing from the parallel between sugar cane juice, which is a juice drink, and sugar, which is made by boiling sugar cane juice—maintains that boiled juice would fit under sugar in the five tonics. This opinion, however, is not accepted in all Communities. In those that do accept it, pasteurized juice, juice concentrates, and juice made from concentrate would come under sugar.	根據《義註》，果汁必須過濾，可以用陽光加熱，但不能用火加熱。《義註》沒有說明煮過的果汁應歸入哪一類。正如我們在《捨墮》二三中指出的，《戒律入口》——以甘蔗汁（一種果汁飲料）和糖（由煮沸甘蔗汁製成）之間的相似性為論辯——認為煮過的果汁應歸入五種補品中的糖。然而，並非所有僧團都接受這種觀點。在接受這種觀點的僧團中，巴氏殺菌果汁、果汁濃縮液和從濃縮液製成的果汁都被歸類在糖。
In discussing the Great Standards, the Commentary says that grain is a “great fruit,” and thus the juice of any one of nine large fruits—palmyra fruit, coconut, jackfruit, breadfruit, bottle gourd, white gourd, muskmelon, watermelon, and squash—would fall under the same class as the juice of grain: i.e., as a non-staple food and not a juice drink. From this judgment, many Communities infer that the juice of any large fruit, such as pineapple or grapefruit, would also be classed as a non-staple food. However, not all Communities follow the Commentary on this point, as the allowance for juice-drinks states specifically that the juice of all fruits is allowed except for that of grain.	在討論《四大教示》時，《義註》指出穀物是一種「大水果」，因此九種大型水果——棕櫚果、椰子、菠蘿蜜、麵包果、葫蘆、冬瓜、甜瓜、西瓜和南瓜——的任何一種果汁都與穀物汁液屬於同一類別：即歸類為副食而非果汁飲料。基於這個判斷，許多僧團推論，任何大型水果的果汁，例如鳳梨或柚子，也應歸類為副食。然而，並非所有僧團都認同《義註》的這一觀點，因為果汁飲料的開緣明確規定，除穀物汁液外，所有水果的果汁均允許。
According to the Commentary, allowable leaf-juice drinks include juice squeezed from leaves that are considered food—such as lettuce, spinach, or beet greens—as well as from leaves that are classed as medicines. Health drinks such as wheat grass juice would thus be allowable. Leaf-juice may be mixed with cold water and/or warmed in the sunlight. The prohibition against consuming the juice from cooked vegetables in the afternoon covers all cooked leaves that are considered food, as well as any medicinal leaves cooked in liquids that are classed as food, such as milk. Medicinal leaves cooked in pure water retain their classification as lifetime medicines.	根據《義註》，允許的葉汁飲料包括從被視為食物的葉子（例如生菜、菠菜或甜菜葉）以及被歸類為藥物的葉子榨出的汁。因此，例如小麥草汁等健康飲品是允許的。葉汁可以用冷水混合和/或在陽光下加熱。禁止在下午飲用煮熟的蔬菜汁的規定涵蓋所有被視為食物的煮熟葉子，以及任何在被歸類為食物的液體（例如牛奶）中煮熟的藥用葉子。用純水煮熟的藥用葉子仍保留其終身藥物的分類。
The Commentary’s discussion of flower juice drinks allowable and unallowable for the afternoon shows that licorice flower juice was used to make alcohol, which is why the Canon doesn’t include it as allowable in this class. The Commentary extends this prohibition to cover any kind of flower juice prepared in such a way that it will become alcoholic. The Commentary goes on to say, though, that licorice flower juice and other flower juices not prepared so that they will become toddy are allowable in the morning.	《義註》討論了下午允許和不允許的花汁飲料，顯示甘草花汁曾被用來釀酒，因此《聖典》並未將其列入允許的此類飲品。《義註》將這項禁令擴展至涵蓋任何經過調製後會變成酒精的花汁。不過，《義註》繼續指出，甘草花汁和其他未經調製成棕櫚酒的花汁在早上是允許的。
The Commentary notes further that if a bhikkhu himself makes any of the juice drinks, he may consume it only before noon. If the juice is made by a non-bhikkhu and formally offered before noon, one may “also” drink it with food before noon—the “also” here implying that the original allowance, that one may drink it without food after noon and before dawnrise, still holds. If the juice is made by a non-bhikkhu and formally offered after noon, one may drink it without food until the following dawnrise. The allowance for mango juice drink covers juice made either from ripe or from unripe mangoes. To make unripe mango juice, it recommends that the mango be cut or broken into small pieces, placed in water, heated in sunlight, and then strained, adding honey, sugar, and/or camphor as desired. Juice made from Bassia pierrei must be diluted with water, as the undiluted juice of this fruit is too thick.	《義註》進一步指出，如果比丘自己做任何果汁飲料，他只能在中午前飲用。如果果汁是由非比丘製作並在中午之前正式地供養，則比丘「也」可以在中午之前與食物一起飲用——這裡的「也」意味著原來的開緣仍然有效，即可以在中午之後和黎明之前不帶食物地飲用。如果果汁是由非比丘製作並在中午之後正式地供養，則比丘可以在第二天黎明之前不帶食物地飲用。芒果汁飲料的允許範圍涵蓋成熟或未成熟芒果製成的果汁。要製作未成熟芒果汁，建議將芒果切成或掰成小塊，放入水中，在陽光下加熱，然後過濾，並根據需要添加蜂蜜、糖和/或樟腦。用芒果椴樹（Bassia pierrei）製成的果汁必須用水稀釋，因為這種水果的未稀釋果汁太濃稠。

The five tonics	五種補品
The five tonics are discussed in detail under NP 23.	《捨墮》二三詳細討論了這五種補品。
Medicines	藥物
According to the Mahāvagga (VI.3.1-8), any items in the six following categories that, by themselves, are not used as staple or non-staple food are medicines: roots, astringent decoctions, leaves, fruits, resins, and salts. For example, under fruits: Oranges and apples are not medicines, but pepper, nutmeg, and cardamom are. Most modern medicines would fit under the category of salts. Using the Great Standards, we can say that any edible that is used as a medicine but does not fit under the categories of staple or non-staple food, juice drinks, or the five tonics, would fit here. (For a full discussion of medicines, see BMC2, Chapter 5.)	根據《大品》（六.3.1-8），以下六類中任何本身不作為主食或副食的物品都是藥物：根、澀湯劑、葉、果實、樹脂和鹽。例如，在水果中：柳橙和蘋果不是藥物，但胡椒、肉荳蔻和小荳蔻是。大多數現代藥物都屬於鹽類。使用《四大教示》，我們可以說，任何用作藥物，但不屬於主食或副食、果汁飲料或五種補品類別的可食用物都屬於此。（有關藥物的完整討論，請參閱《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第五章。）

Keeping and consuming	存放及食用
Each of the four basic classes of edibles—food, juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines—has its “life span,” the period during which it may be kept and consumed. Food may be kept and consumed until noon of the day it is received; juice drinks, until dawnrise of the following day; the five tonics, until dawnrise of the seventh day after they are received; and medicines, for the remainder of one’s life.	食物、果汁飲料、五種補品和藥物這四大類基本可食用物，每一種都有其「有效期」，即可以保存和食用的期限。食物可以保存和食用直到接受後當天的中午；果汁飲料，直到第二天黎明；五種補品，直到接受後第七天黎明；藥物可以終生保存和食用。
Mixed foods	混合食物
Edibles made from mixed ingredients that have different life spans—e.g., salted beef, honeyed cough syrup, sugared orange juice—have the same life span as the ingredient with the shortest life span. Thus salted beef is treated as beef, honeyed cough syrup as honey, and sugared orange juice as orange juice (Mv.VI.40.3). According to the Commentary, mixing here means thorough intermingling. Thus, it says, if fruit juice has a whole, unhusked coconut floating in it, the coconut may be removed, and the juice is all right to drink until the following dawnrise. If butter is placed on top of rice porridge, the part of the butter that hasn’t melted into the rice may be kept and eaten for seven days. If items with different life spans are all presented at the same time, they maintain their separate life spans as long as they don’t interpenetrate one another. Not all Communities, however, follow the Commentary on this point.	由混合不同有效期限的食物成份製成的可食用物 —— 例如鹹牛肉、蜂蜜止咳糖漿、加糖柳橙汁 —— 具有與有效期最短的食物成份相同的有效期。因此，鹹牛肉被視為牛肉，蜂蜜止咳糖漿被視為蜂蜜，加糖柳橙汁被視為柳橙汁（《大品》.六.40.3）。根據《義註》，這裡的混合意味著徹底混合。因此，它說，如果果汁中漂浮著一個完整的未去殼的椰子，則可以將椰子取出，果汁可以喝到第二天黎明。如果將奶油放在米粥上，那麼沒有融入米飯的部分的奶油可以保存和食用七天。如果同時存在具有不同有效期的物品，只要它們不相互滲透，它們就會保持各自的有效期。然而，並非所有僧團都在這一點上遵循《義註》。
Mv.VI.40.3, the passage underlying these rulings, can be translated as follows (replacing the formal terms for categories of food with the primary examples of each category):	《大品》.六.40.3，這些裁決所依據的段落，可以翻譯如下（用每個類別的主要例子替換食品類別的正式術語）：
“Juice-mixed-with-food, when received that day, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. A tonic-mixed-with-food, when received that day, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. Medicine-mixed-with-food, when received that day, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. A tonic-mixed-with-juice, when received that day, is allowable through the watches of the night and not allowable when the watches of the night have past. Medicine-mixed-with-juice, when received that day, is allowable through the watches of the night and not allowable when the watches of the night have past. Medicine-mixed-with-a-tonic, when received, is allowable for seven days and not allowable when seven days have past.”	「當天接受的果汁混合食物在正時允許，非時則不允許。當天接受的補品混合食物在正時允許，非時則不允許。當天接受的藥物混合食物在正時允許，非時則不允許。當天接受的補品混合果汁在夜間是允許的，過了夜間則不允許。當天接受的藥物混合果汁在夜間是允許的，過了夜間則不允許。接受的藥物混合補品在七天內是允許的，過了七天則不允許。」
Translated in this way, the passage covers foods that are already mixed when presented to a bhikkhu. One of the general issues that led to the convening of the Second Council, however, concerned how to treat cases where foods received separately are then mixed by a bhikkhu. The specific issue presented to the Council was that of bhikkhus who kept a horn filled with salt so that they could add salt to bland foods. The Council’s verdict was that in doing so, the bhikkhus incurred a pācittiya under Pc 38. The Vibhaṅga to that rule, however, gives a dukkaṭa for using, as food, life-long medicine that has been stored overnight, and salt is a life-long medicine. Thus the elders at the Council seem to have reasoned that if the salt has been mixed in with food, the mixture as a whole counts as food accepted when the first ingredient (the salt) was accepted: thus the pācittiya, rather than the dukkaṭa, under Pc 38. This principle is nowhere expressly stated in the texts, but is in some places taught as an oral tradition.	如此翻譯，這段文字涵蓋了呈獻給比丘時已被混合的食物。然而，促成第二次結集的整體議題之一，是關於如何處理食物被分別地接受後再由比丘進行混合的情況。提交給結集的具體議題是，比丘持有裝滿鹽的角，以便將鹽添加到清淡的食物中。結集的裁決是，根據《波逸提》三八，比丘這樣做犯《波逸提》。然而，該戒條的《經分別》規定，使用儲存過夜且作為食物的終身藥物犯《突吉羅》，而鹽正是終身藥物。因此，結集的長老們似乎推斷，如果鹽已被混入食物中，則當第一種成份（鹽）被接受時，整個混合物算作已被接受的食物：因此，根據《波逸提》三八，這是《波逸提》，而不是《突吉羅》。這項原則在經文中沒有明確說明，但在某些地方作為口頭傳統進行教授。
The Commentary, in treating the issue of foods mixed by a bhikkhu, translates Mv.VI.40.3 as follows:	在處理比丘混合食物的問題時，《義註》將《大品》.六.40.3 翻譯如下：
“Juice received that day, when mixed with food, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. A tonic received that day, when mixed with food, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. Medicine received that day, when mixed with food, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. A tonic received that day, when mixed with juice, is allowable through the watches of the night and not allowable when the watches of the night have past. Medicine received that day, when mixed with juice, is allowable through the watches of the night and not allowable when the watches of the night have past. Medicine received, when mixed with a tonic, is allowable for seven days and not allowable when seven days have past.”	「當天接受的果汁，如果與食物混合，在正時允許，非時則不允許。當天接受的補品，如果與食物混合，在正時允許，非時則不允許。當天接受的藥物，如果與食物混合，在正時允許，非時則不允許。當天接受的補品，如果與果汁混合，在夜間是允許的，過了夜間就不允許。當天接受的藥物，如果與果汁混合，在夜間是允許的，過了夜間就不允許。接受的藥物，如果與補品混合，在七天內是允許的，過了七天就不允許。」
The question the Commentary then raises is, “Why is the word ‘that day’ (tadahu) omitted from the last case?” Its answer is that there is no limit on when the medicine has to be received for it to be properly mixed with a tonic received today. In other words, it could have been received any number of days before the tonic was received. If it is mixed with the tonic on the first day of the tonic’s life span, the mixture as a whole has a seven-day life span. If mixed with the tonic on the second day of the tonic’s life, the mixture has a six-day life span, and so forth. The Commentary’s translation of this passage may strain standard Pali syntax, but it is grammatically correct and is the only way of deriving from Mv.VI.40.3 a general principle to cover the issue of foods received separately that are then mixed by a bhikkhu. Thus the principle has been generally accepted that tonics and medicines, such as sugar and salt, received today may be eaten mixed with food or juice drinks received today, but not with food or juice drinks received on a later day. Medicine, such as salt, tea, or cocoa, received at any time may be eaten mixed with any of the five tonics on any day of the tonic’s life span.	《義註》接下來提出的問題是：「為什麼在最後一種情況下省略了『當天』（tadahu）這個詞？」答案是，沒有限制何時接受藥物以便將其與今天接受的補品適當地混合。換句話說，它可以是在接受補品之前的任何天接受的。如果它在補品的有效期的第一天與補品混合，則混合物作為一個整體擁有七天的有效期。如果在補品有效期的第二天與補品混合，則混合物擁有六天的有效期，依此類推。《義註》對這段話的翻譯可能不符合標準巴利句法，但在語法上是正確的，並且是從《大品》.六.40.3 中得出涵蓋比丘分開接受然後混合食物問題的一般原則的唯一方法。因此，普遍接受的原則是：今天接受的補品和藥物（例如糖和鹽）可以與今天收到的食物或果汁飲料混合食用，但不能與之後的日期裡接受的食物或果汁飲料混合食用。任何時間接受的藥物（例如鹽、茶或可可）都可以與五種補品中的任何一種在補品有效期內的任何一天混合食用。

* * *

31	三十一
A bhikkhu who is not ill may eat one meal at a public alms center. Should he eat more than that, it is to be confessed.	無病的比丘可以在公共施捨處吃一餐。若食用超過此者，波逸提。
“Now at that time a certain guild had prepared food at a public alms center not far from Sāvatthī. Some group-of-six bhikkhus, dressing early in the morning, taking their bowls and (outer) robes, entered Sāvatthī for alms but, after not getting any almsfood, went to the public alms center. The people there said, ‘At long last your reverences have come,’ and respectfully waited on them. Then on the second day… the third day, the group-of-six bhikkhus… entered Sāvatthī for alms but, after not getting any almsfood went to the public alms center and ate. The thought occurred to them, ‘What’s the use of our going back to the monastery? (§) Tomorrow we’ll have to come right back here.’	「爾時，某行會在離舍衛城不遠的公共施捨處準備食物。六群比丘在清晨穿戴整齊，帶著缽和（外）衣，進入舍衛城托缽，但沒有得到任何食物，於是就去了公共施捨處。那裡的人說：『尊者們終於來了！』並恭敬地侍奉他們。然後第二天……第三天，六群比丘……進入舍衛城托缽，但沒有得到任何食物，於是就去了公共施捨處吃飯。他們心裡想：『我們回寺院還有什麼用呢？（§）明天我們還是必須回來這裡。』
“So staying on and on right there, they ate the food of the public alms center. The members of other religions fled the place. People criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks stay on and on, eating the food of the public alms center? The food at the public alms center isn’t prepared just for them; it’s prepared for absolutely everybody.’”	「於是他們就一直待在那裡，吃著公共施捨處的食物。外道紛紛逃離該地。人們批評抱怨，四處散播：『這些沙門釋子怎麼能一直待在那裡，吃著公共施捨處的食物？公共施捨處的食物不是只為他們準備的，而是為所有人準備的。』」
A public alms center is a place—in a building, under the shade of a tree, or in the open air—where all comers are offered as much food as they want, free of charge. Soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless, if run in this way, would fit under this rule. A meal is defined as one that includes any of the five staple foods. Not ill in this rule is defined as being able to leave the alms center.	公共施捨處是一個地方——在建築物內、樹蔭下或露天——所有來者都可以免費獲得任意數量的食物。施粥所和無家可歸者收容所如果以這種方式運營，也符合此戒條。一餐的定義是包含五種主食中的任何一種。本戒條中「無病」的定義是能離開施捨處。
The origin story seems to indicate that this rule is directed against staying on and eating day after day in the alms center. The Commentary, though, maintains that it forbids eating in the center two days running, without making any mention of whether the bhikkhu stays on at the center or not. To eat one day in a center belonging to one family (or group) and the next day in a center belonging to another group, it says, entails no penalty. However, if—after one’s first meal there—a center has to close down for a period of time for lack of food and then later reopens, one should not eat there the first day of its reopening.	起源故事似乎表明，這條戒條是針對天天待在施捨處並進食的行為。然而，《義註》卻堅持禁止比丘連續兩天在施捨處進食，但並未提及比丘是否連續待在托缽中心。《義註》說，一天在一個家族（或團體）的施捨處進食，第二天又在另一個團體的施捨處進食，則不會受到懲罰。然而，如果在施捨處進食後，由於食物短缺而不得不關閉一段時間，之後又重新開放，則不應在重新開放的第一天在那裡進食。
According to the Vibhaṅga, a bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa for accepting, with the intention of eating it, any food that falls under the conditions specified by this rule, and a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats.	根據《經分別》，比丘若接受並意圖食用符合此戒條所指定條件的任何食物，犯《突吉羅》，而每吃一口犯一次《波逸提》。
Perception as to whether one is actually ill is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4.)	對於是否真的生病的感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。

Non-offenses	不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense in taking a meal on the second day—	根據《經分別》，第二天用餐並無犯戒——
if one is invited by the proprietors;	如果受到所有人的邀請；
if one is ill;	如果生病；
if the food is specifically intended for bhikkhus (§); or	若食物是專供比丘食用的（§）；或
if the center determines the amount of food the recipients may take, rather than allowing them to take as much as they want (§). The reason for this allowance is that if the owners of the center were unhappy with having a bhikkhu eat there, they could give him very little or nothing at all.	如果施處決定受助者可以取食的量，而不是讓他們想取多少就取多少（§）。此項開緣的原因是，如果施處的主人不樂意讓比丘在那裡吃飯，他們可以給他很少的食物，或者什麼都不給。
The Vibhaṅga also states that, “everything aside from the five staple foods is a non-offense.” None of the texts discuss this point, but this apparently refers both to the first and to the subsequent meal. In other words, if a bhikkhu consumed no staple foods at his first meal, then there would be no penalty in accepting and eating any of the five staple foods in the subsequent meal. But if he did consume any staple foods at his first meal, then at the subsequent meal he would have to refrain from eating staple foods if he wanted to avoid an offense.	《經分別》也說：「除五種主食之外，任何食物皆不犯。」沒有任何文獻討論這一點，但這顯然指第一餐和下一餐。換句話說，如果比丘在第一餐中不食用任何主食，那麼在下一餐中接受並食用任何五種主食都不會受到懲罰。但如果他在第一餐中食用了任何主食，那麼在下一餐中，如果他想避免犯戒，他必須不要吃主食。
Also, there is no offense in taking a second meal when “coming or going,” which in the context of the origin story seems to mean that one may take a second meal if one simply leaves the center and then comes back. The Commentary, though, interprets this phrase as meaning “coming or going on a journey,” and even here it says a meal should not be taken from the center two days running unless there are dangers, such as floods or robbers, that prevent one from continuing on one’s way.	此外，「來或去」時吃第二餐也不犯戒。在起源故事的脈絡中，這似乎意味著只要離開施處再回來，就可以吃第二餐。然而，《義註》將這句話解釋為「來或去旅行」，甚至在這裡它說，除非遇到洪水或盜賊等危險，無法繼續前行，否則不應連續兩天在施處用餐。
Summary: Eating food obtained from the same public alms center two days running—without leaving in the interim—unless one is too ill to leave the center, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：連續兩天吃從同一公共施捨處獲得的食物（中途不離開），是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，除非病得太重而無法離開施處。

* * *

32	三十二
A group meal, except at the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: a time of illness, a time of giving cloth, a time of making robes, a time of going on a journey, a time of embarking on a boat, a great occasion, a time when the meal is supplied by monks. These are the proper occasions here.	除非在適當的場合，結眾食者，波逸提。此處適當的場合包括：生病時、施衣時、做袈裟時、旅行時、乘船時、盛大場合、沙門提供的餐食時。以上是此處的適當場合。 [譯註：「結眾食」古漢譯為「別眾食」]
This is a rule dating from Devadatta’s efforts to create a schism in the Saṅgha.	這是提婆達多試圖分裂僧團時所製定的一條戒條。
“Now at that time Devadatta, his gain and offerings diminished, ate his meals with his following having asked and asked for them among households. (Here the Commentary elaborates: ‘Thinking, “Don’t let my group fall apart,” he provided for his following by eating his meals among households together with his following, having asked for them thus: “You give food to one bhikkhu. You give food to two.”’) People criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks eat their meals having asked and asked for them among households? Who isn’t fond of well-prepared things? Who doesn’t like sweet things?’”	「爾時，提婆達多的利養減少，他與他的追隨者一起吃飯，在各家各戶間反覆詢問。。（此處《義註》詳細說明：『心想：「不要讓我的團體解散。」他透過與追隨者一起在各家各戶間用餐來滿足追隨者的需求，並如此要求他們：「你給一位比丘食物。你給兩位比丘食物。」』）人們紛紛批評、抱怨，並四處散播：「這些沙門釋子怎麼能在各家各戶間反覆詢問並用餐呢？誰不喜歡精心烹製物？誰不喜歡甜物？』」
Group meals	結眾食
The Vibhaṅga defines a group meal as one consisting of any of the five types of staple foods to which four or more bhikkhus are invited. Pv.VI.2 adds that this rule covers any group meal that the donor offers at his/her own initiative, as well as any that results from a bhikkhu’s requesting it.	《經分別》將結眾食定義為四位或以上比丘被邀請享用任何五種主食。《附隨》.六.2 補充道，此戒條適用於布施者主動提供，以及應比丘請求而提供的結眾食。
In the early days of the Buddha’s career, donors who wished to invite bhikkhus to their homes for a meal would invite an entire Community. Later, as Communities grew in size and there were times of scarcity in which donors were unable to invite entire Communities (Cv.VI.21.1), the Buddha allowed:	在佛陀早期的生涯中，布施者若想邀請比丘到家中用餐，通常會邀請整個僧團。後來，隨著僧團規模擴大，物資匱乏的時期，布施者有時無法邀請整個僧團（《小品》.六.21.1），佛陀允許：
1) designated meals, at which a certain number of bhikkhus were to be served. The donors would ask the Community official in charge of meal distribution—the meal designator (bhattuddesaka)—to designate so-and-so many bhikkhus “from the Community” to receive their meals. Bhikkhus would be sent on a rotating basis to these meals as they occurred.	1）指定食[譯註：古漢譯為「僧次請食」]，供養一定數量的比丘。布施者會要求僧團負責餐食分配的執事－餐食指定者（bhattuddesaka）－「從僧團中」指定某某多少的比丘來接受餐食。當有這些餐食時，比丘們會輪流被派去接受這些餐食。
2) invitational meals, to which specific bhikkhus were invited;	2）邀請食[譯註：古漢譯為「別請食」]，邀請特定的比丘參加；
3) lottery meals, for which the bhikkhus receiving the meals were to be chosen by lot; and	3）抽籤食[譯註：古漢譯為「行籌食」]，以抽籤決定接受餐食的比丘；和
4) periodic meals, i.e., meals offered at regular intervals, such as every day or every uposatha day, to which bhikkhus were to be sent on a rotating basis, as with designated meals. The meal designator was to supervise the drawing of lots and keep track of the various rotating schedules. (The explanations of these various types of meal come partly from the Commentary. For a fuller explanation, see Appendix III.)	4）週期食[譯註：古漢譯為「常請食」]，即定期供養的餐食，例如每天或每個布薩日供養的餐食，比丘們會輪流受供，就像指定食一樣。餐食指定者負責監督抽籤，並追蹤各種輪流時間表。（關於這些不同類型餐食的解釋部分來自《義註》。更詳細的解釋，請參閱附錄三。）
The non-offense clauses to this rule state that in addition to the exceptions mentioned in the rule, which we will discuss below, this rule does not apply to lottery meals or periodic meals. The Commentary concludes from this—and on the surface it seems reasonable enough—that the rule thus applies to meals to which the entire Community is invited and to invitational meals. (Buddhaghosa reports that there was disagreement among Vinaya authorities as to whether it applies to designated meals—more on this point below.)	本戒條的不犯條款規定，除了戒條中提到的例外情況（我們將在下文討論）外，這條戒條不適用於抽籤食或週期食。《義註》由此得出結論——表面上看來似乎很有道理——這條戒條因此適用於邀請整個僧團參加的餐食以及邀請食。（佛音報告說，律藏的權威人士對於這條戒條是否適用於指定食存在分歧——下文將對此進行更詳細的闡述。）
The Commentary’s conclusion, though, creates a problem when lay people want to invite Communities of more than three bhikkhus to their homes for a meal. Perhaps this problem is what induced the Commentary to interpret the Vibhaṅga’s definition of a group meal as meaning one in which the invitations specifically mention the word meal or food, or the type of meal or food to be served. (“Come to my house for breakfast tomorrow.” “I know you don’t often get a chance to eat Indian food, so I’m inviting you all over for chappatties and curry.”) This interpretation has led to the custom of phrasing invitations to eat “in the morning” or to eat “before noon,” so that groups of four or more bhikkhus may be invited without breaking this rule.	然而，《義註》的結論卻帶來了一個問題：當在家眾想邀請超過三位比丘的僧團到家中用餐時，就會出現問題。或許正是這個問題促使《義註》將《經分別》對「結眾食」的定義解讀為，邀請中明確提到「餐」或「食物」一詞，或具體提供餐食或食物種類。（「明天來我家吃早餐。」「我知道你們不常有機會吃印度菜，所以我邀請你們全部來吃印度薄餅和咖哩。」）這種解讀導致了邀請措辭中出現「早上」吃或「中午之前」吃的習慣，這樣，邀請四位或四位以上的比丘團體也不會違反這條戒條。
The Buddha’s purposes for establishing this rule, though, are listed at Cv.VII.3.13 as follows: “For the restraint of evil-minded individuals, for the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, so that those with evil desires will not split the Community by (forming) a faction, and out of compassion for families.”	然而，佛陀在《小品》.七.3.13 中列出了制定這條戒條的目的：「為了約束心懷惡意的人，為了品行端正比丘的樂住，為使心懷惡欲的人不至於透過（組成）派系而分裂僧團，也為了哀愍俗家。」
The Commentary’s definition of group meal accomplishes none of these purposes: The custom of phrasing invitations to avoid the word meal or food does nothing to restrain evil-minded individuals, etc., and it actually creates trouble for lay people who do not know the custom, a point well-illustrated by the Commentary itself in an entertaining section on how to deal with a person whose invitation contains the word meal. After getting the run-around from the meal designator—who apparently was not allowed to tell him in any straightforward way how to phrase his invitation and so gave him a long series of hints—the poor man returns to his friends and makes a cryptic statement that the A/Sub-commentary translates as: “There are a lot of words that have to be spoken in this business of making an invitation. What’s the use of them all?”	《義註》對結眾食的定義完全沒有達到上述目的：邀請中避免使用「餐」或「食物」等字眼的習慣，無助於約束心懷不軌之人等等，反而給不懂此習俗的俗人帶來了麻煩。《義註》中有一節關於如何應對邀請中包含「餐」一詞的妙趣橫生的論述，很好地說明了這一點。在被餐食指定者兜圈子之後——餐食指定者顯然不允許直接告訴他該如何措辭邀請，於是給了他一長串的提示——這位可憐的人回到朋友身邊，說了費解的陳述， A/《複註》中將之翻譯為：「在發出邀請這件事上，有很多話要說。說了這麼多有什麼用呢？」
Two other arguments against the Commentary’s interpretation are:	反對《義註》解釋的另外兩個論點是：
1) The Vibhaṅga’s definition of invited in this rule is repeated word-for-word under Pc 33 & 46. If the factor of mentioning “food” or “meal,” etc., is necessary for there to be an offense under this rule, it would have to be necessary under those rules as well, a proposal that makes no sense in their context and that no one has ever suggested.	1）本戒條中《經分別》對「被邀請」的定義與《波逸提》三三和四六的定義完全一致。如果提及「食物」或「餐」等等的因素對於本戒條下的犯戒是必要的，那麼在那些戒條下，提及「食物」或「餐」等等的因素也是必要的，這種提議在那些戒條的上下文中是沒有意義的，而且從來沒有人提出過這種建議。
2) In the origin stories of two of the reformulations of the rule, bhikkhus refuse invitations on the grounds that they would break the rule against a group meal, and yet the invitations make no mention of “food” or “meal.”	2）在兩次重新制定戒條的起源故事中，比丘們以違反結眾食的戒條為由拒絕邀請，但邀請中並未提及「食物」或「餐」。

An alternative interpretation	另一種解釋
To find an alternative to the Commentary’s explanation, we have to go back to the origin stories leading to the reformulations of the rule, where we find an interesting point: The invitations rejected by scrupulous bhikkhus on the grounds that they would break the rule all deal with “invitational” meals. In one of them, a naked ascetic invites a group of bhikkhus to an invitational meal and is rejected on the grounds that it would constitute a group meal. He then goes to the Buddha and—after complaining that he should not be subjected to such treatment—rephrases the invitation, this time inviting the entire Community. This suggests that he felt an invitation of this sort would not constitute a group meal.	為了找到與《義註》不同的解釋，我們必須追溯導致戒條被重新制定的起源故事，在那裡我們發現了一個有趣的點：那些被嚴謹的比丘們以違反戒戒為由拒絕的邀請，都與「邀請」食[譯註：古漢譯為「別請食」]有關。其中一則故事中，一位裸體苦行僧[譯註：古漢譯為「裸形外道」]邀請一群比丘參加邀請食，卻被拒絕，理由是這會構成結眾食。他隨後來到佛陀面前，在抱怨自己不應遭受這種待遇之後，重新措辭了邀請，這次邀請的是整個僧團。這表明，他認為這種邀請不構成結眾食。
His reasoning has its grounds in the Vinaya itself: Throughout the Vibhaṅga and Khandhakas, the word group is used to refer to any set of bhikkhus not forming a complete Community and yet acting as an independent unit. This may be why the category of Community meal was not mentioned in the non-offense clauses: The arrangers of the Vibhaṅga may have felt that no mention was necessary, in that the term group meal automatically excluded Community meals.	他的推論在戒律中自有其依據：在《經分別》和《犍度》中，「結眾」一詞被用來指任何未組成完整僧團，但仍作為獨立單位行動的比丘群體。這或許就是為什麼在不犯條款中沒有提及僧團食這個類別的原因：《經分別》的編纂者可能認為沒有必要提及，因為「結眾」一詞自動排除了僧團食。
Similar considerations suggest that designated meals may also be exempted from this rule even though they are not mentioned in the non-offense clauses. Invitations to such meals were customarily worded as requests for so-and-so many bhikkhus “from the Community,” and thus—as a type of Community meal—they would by definition not be invitations to a “group” meal.	類似的考慮表明，即使不犯條款中未提及指定食[譯註：古漢譯為「僧次請食」]，也可不受此戒條約束。此類餐食的邀請習慣措詞為「來自僧團」的某某多少比丘的請求，因此，作為一種僧團食，它們從定義上來說並非「結眾」食的邀請。
Because invitations to lottery meals and periodic meals did not customarily make reference to the Community, the Vibhaṅga arrangers did have to make mention of those types of meals in order to exempt them.	由於抽籤食[譯註：古漢譯為「行籌食」]和週期食的邀請通常不會提及僧團，因此《經分別》的編纂者必須提及這些類型的餐食才能免除它們。
We are left with a rule that applies exclusively to invitations to specific groups—not Communities—of four or more bhikkhus regardless of whether the invitation mentions the word “food” or “meal.”	我們剩下的戒條只適用於對四名或四名以上比丘的特定群體（而非僧團）的邀請，無論邀請中是否提到「食物」或「餐」一詞。
The rule in this form has the virtue of fulfilling the express purposes mentioned for it in Cv.VII.3.13: It would prevent evil-minded bhikkhus and lay people from trying to exert influence over specific groups in the Community by arranging meals especially for them; and in the same way, it would prevent people with evil desires from creating a split in the Community. (Because the smallest faction that can create a split in the Community is four bhikkhus, the maximum number allowed at a group meal is three.)	這種形式的戒條，其優點在於能夠實現《小品》.七.3.13 中明確提及的目的：它可以防止心懷惡欲的比丘和在家眾，試圖透過專門為僧團中的特定群體安排餐食來對他們施加影響；同樣，它也可以防止心懷惡欲的人在僧團中製造分裂。（由於能夠造成僧團分裂的最小派系是四位比丘，因此結眾食允許的最大人數是三人。）
The rule in this form would also contribute to the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus in that invitations to meals would not be preempted by factions; and it would protect lay families from being prey to the maneuverings of bhikkhus who would pressure them repeatedly into providing meals as part of their strategy to create and maintain such factions. (Anyone who has lived in a traditional Buddhist country knows only too well the influence of sweet-talking bhikkhus over unsuspecting or low-minded lay people. This sort of thing neither started nor ended with Devadatta.)	這種形式的戒條也能讓品行端正的比丘們感到樂住，因為用餐邀請不會被派系搶先；它還能保護在家人免受比丘們的計謀的侵害。比丘們會反覆施壓，要求他們提供餐食，以此作為製造和維持派系的策略之一。（任何在傳統佛教國家生活過的人都深知甜言蜜語的比丘們對毫無戒心或心境低下的在家人的影響。提婆達多既不是這種事的開端，也不是終結。）
Because Community meals and designated meals would not form an opening for such machinations, there would be no reason to limit them to groups of three if lay people want to invite groups larger than that. One objection to exempting Community meals from this rule is that a meal for the entire Community would be more burdensome than a meal for a smaller group, but that is what designated meals are for. A donor willing and able to provide a meal for an entire Community is welcome but not required to do so. A donor willing but not able may simply ask to provide a meal for x-number of bhikkhus from the Community, leaving it up to the meal designator to designate which bhikkhus will go for the meal, with no danger of creating a faction.	因為僧團食和指定食不會為此類陰謀提供機會，所以如果在家眾想邀請比三人更多的團體，沒有理由將其限制在三人以內。有人反對將僧團食排除在這條戒條之外，因為為整個僧團提供一餐比為一小群人提供一餐更有負擔，但指定食就是為了滿足這一需求。願意且有能力為整個僧團供餐的布施者歡迎但不強制要求這樣做。願意但無力提供的布施者可以直接要求為僧團中的x位比丘供餐，由餐食指定者指定哪些比丘來享用這餐，這樣就不會有分裂的危險。
Thus the point at issue is not whether the invitation makes mention of food or meals, but whether it specifies the individual bhikkhus to be invited. If it specifies more than three individual bhikkhus—either naming them outright or saying such things as “Ven. X and four of his friends,” or “The five of you,” etc.—the meal would count as a group meal.	因此，問題的關鍵不在於邀請中是否提及食物或餐，而在於是否指定受邀的比丘。如果邀請指定三位以上的比丘——無論是直接點名，還是諸如「X尊者和他的四位朋友」或「你們五位」之類的說法——那麼這餐就算是結眾食。
Perception as to whether food actually constitutes a group meal is not a mitigating factor (see Pc 4).	對於食物是否真正構成結眾食的感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga states that, aside from the allowable times, there is a dukkaṭa for accepting—with the thought of eating it—food that would qualify as a group meal, and a pācittiya for every mouthful eaten. Whether the bhikkhus accepting the food actually eat together is not an issue. If they receive their food at the same invitation to a group meal but then split up and eat it separately, they still incur the full penalty.	《經分別》指出，除了允許的時間外，接受符合結眾食條件的食物（並想著要吃它）犯《突吉羅》，而每吃一口都犯一次《波逸提》。接受食物的比丘們是否真的一起用餐並不重要。如果他們在同一個結眾食的邀請中接受食物，但隨後分開用餐，仍然會受到全額懲罰。
Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga defines the proper occasions mentioned in the rule—during which bhikkhus may eat a group meal without committing an offense—as follows:	《經分別》對戒條中提到的適當場合（比丘們可以在這些場合吃結眾食而不會犯戒）定義如下：
A time of giving cloth is the “robe season.”	施衣時是「袈裟季節」。
A time of making robes is any time the bhikkhus are making robes.	製作袈裟時是指比丘們製作袈裟的任何時候。
A time of journeying is any time the bhikkhus are about to go, are going, or have just returned from a journey of at least half a yojana (about five miles, or eight kilometers).	旅行時是指比丘們即將出發、正在出發或剛結束至少半由旬（約五英里或八公里）的旅程歸來的任何時候。
A time of embarking on a boat is any time the bhikkhus are about to embark, are embarking, or are disembarking from a boat. No minimum distance for the boat journey is specified.	乘船時是指比丘們即將登船、正在登船或下船的任何時候。船程的最短距離沒有規定。
A time of illness is, in its minimal terms, a time when the bhikkhus’ feet are split (and they cannot go for alms).	生病時，簡單來說，就是比丘的腳裂開（無法去托缽）的時候。
A great occasion is one in which there are so many bhikkhus in proportion to the donors giving alms that three bhikkhus going for alms can obtain enough food to support themselves, but not enough to support a fourth.	盛大場合是指，與施捨布施者數量相當的比丘數量，以致三名去托缽的比丘可以獲得足夠的食物來養活自己，但不足以養活第四名比丘。
A meal supplied by monks is one provided by a person who has taken on the state of religious wanderer. This the Commentary explains as meaning not only those ordained in other religions, but also one’s own co-religionists (bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, and novices) as well; the Vibhaṅga’s definition of “one who has taken on the state of religious wanderer” under Pc 41 suggests that the Commentary is correct. This exemption, as its origin story makes clear, was formulated to promote good relations between bhikkhus and members of other religions, but it also means that a bhikkhu, from his own resources, can provide food for a group of his friends without incurring an offense. Although this exemption could thus open the door for wealthy bhikkhus to attract factions, as long as they are not getting their funds from lay donors, they would be placing no burden on the laity, which seems to be the most important of the purposes for this rule.	沙門提供的餐食是指處於宗教流浪者狀態的人所提供餐食。《義註》解釋說，這不僅指在其他宗教中出家的人，也指自己的同教信徒（比丘、比丘尼和沙彌）；《波逸提》四一中《經分別》對「處於宗教流浪者狀態的人」的定義表明，《義註》是正確的。這項豁免，正如其起源故事所清楚表明的那樣，是為了促進比丘與其他宗教信徒之間的良好關係而制定的，但它也意味著比丘可以用自己的資源為一群朋友提供食物而不會犯戒。雖然這項豁免可能會為富有的比丘吸引派系打開方便之門，但只要他們的資金不來自在家施主，他們就不會給在家眾帶來負擔，這似乎是這條戒條最重要的目的。
Aside from the proper occasions, there is no offense—	除適當場合外，以下也不犯戒——
if groups of three or less eat a meal to which they have been specifically invited;	如果三人或三人以下的團體吃了一頓具體指名邀請的餐食；
if the meal to which a group of four or more is invited does not include any of the five staple foods; or	如果邀請四人或四人以上的團體的餐食不包括五種主食中的任何一種；或者
if bhikkhus, having walked separately for alms, eat assembled as a group.	如果比丘們分別托缽後，聚集在一起吃飯。
No mention is made of whether bhikkhus can go for alms in groups of four or more, as is the custom at present in the rural areas of many Buddhist countries. From the various stories of bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs on alms round that appear in the Canon, it seems that the custom was for them to go individually. Pc 42 mentions bhikkhus going for alms as a pair, but the Vibhaṅga notes that they might receive less food that way than when going individually. Apparently, going as a group would not have made much sense in their cultural context.	書中沒有提及比丘是否可以像許多佛教國家的鄉村地區一樣，以四人或四人以上的團體形式托缽。從《聖典》中出現的比丘和比丘尼托缽的各種故事來看，當時的習俗似乎是他們單獨前往。《波逸提》四二提到比丘們成對地托缽，但《經分別》指出，這樣他們得到的食物可能比單獨前往要少。顯然，在他們的文化背景下，集體托缽不太合理。
As mentioned above, the Vibhaṅga also states that there is no offense for groups of any number eating periodic meals or lottery meals; and as we have already stated, our interpretation would explicitly extend this exemption to cover Community and designated meals as well.	如上所述，《經分別》還規定，任何人數的團體吃週期食或抽籤食均不構成犯戒；並且正如我們已經指出的，我們的解釋將明確擴展此豁免，以涵蓋僧團食和指定食。
Summary: Eating a meal to which four or more individual bhikkhus have been specifically invited—except on special occasions—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：除特殊場合外，享用有四位或四位以上比丘具體指名邀請的餐食，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

33	三十三
An out-of-turn meal, except at the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: a time of illness, a time of giving cloth, a time of making robes. These are the proper occasions here.	除適當場合外，輾轉食者，波逸提。此處適當場合為：生病時、施衣時、做衣時。此為適當場合。
“Now at that time a meal-series of exquisite meals had been arranged in Vesālī. The thought occurred to a certain poor laborer: ‘The way these people respectfully present meals suggests that it’s not a minor thing at all. What if I were to present a meal?’ So he went to his supervisor (§) and said, ‘Young master, I want to present a meal for the Community of bhikkhus with the Buddha at its head. Please give me my wage.’ Now that supervisor also had faith and confidence in the Buddha, so he gave the laborer more than his wage.	「爾時，毘舍離安排了一系列供養精美的食物。一位貧窮的勞工心想：『這些人恭敬地供養食物的方式，表明這絕非小事。如果我供養一餐呢？』於是他去找他的主管（§），說：『少爺，我想為以佛陀為首的比丘僧團供養一頓飯。請把我的工錢給我。』這位主管也對佛陀有信心，所以他給了勞工比工錢更多的錢。
“Then the laborer went to the Blessed One, bowed down to him, sat down to one side, and said, ‘Venerable sir, may the Blessed One together with the Community of bhikkhus acquiesce to a meal with me tomorrow.’	「於是，勞工來到世尊面前，向他頂禮，坐在一邊，說道：『大德，願世尊及比丘僧團同意明天受我請食。』
“‘You should know, friend, that the Community of bhikkhus is large.’	「『朋友，你應該知道，比丘僧團很大。』
“‘Let it be large, venerable sir. I have prepared plenty of jujube fruits. The masters (§) will fill themselves even with the jujube hash.’	「『讓它大吧，大德。我準備了很多棗子。就連棗泥，大師們（§）也會吃得飽飽的。』
“So the Blessed One acquiesced by becoming silent…. The bhikkhus heard, ‘…The masters will fill themselves even with the jujube hash,’ so right before the time of the meal they went for alms and ate. People heard, ‘They say that the poor laborer has invited the Community of bhikkhus with the Buddha at its head,’ so they took a great deal of staple and non-staple foods to the laborer…. (When the time came for the meal) the Blessed One went to the poor laborer’s house… and sat on a seat made ready, together with the Community of bhikkhus. Then the poor laborer served the bhikkhus in the meal-hall. The bhikkhus said, ‘Give just a little, friend. Give just a little.’	「於是世尊默然應允……比丘們聞言，『……大師們連棗泥都能吃飽。』於是，就在用餐前，他們便去托缽並吃了。人們聽說，『據說貧窮的勞工邀請了以佛陀為首的比丘僧團。』於是，他們便帶了許多主食和副食給貧窮勞工……（用餐時間到了）世尊來到貧窮勞工的家……與比丘僧團一同坐在準備好的座位上。然後，貧苦勞窮在食堂招待比丘們。比丘們說道，『只給一點，朋友。只給一點。』
“‘Don’t take so little, venerable sirs, thinking that I’m just a poor laborer. I’ve prepared plenty of staple and non-staple food. Take as much as you want.’	「『大德們，別以為我只是個貧窮的勞工，就拿那麼少。我已備好充足的主食和副食，想拿多少就拿多少。』
“‘That’s not the reason why we’re taking so little, friend. It’s simply that we went for alms and ate just before the time for the meal: That’s why we’re taking so little.‘	「『朋友，這不是我們拿得這麼少的原因。只是因為我們去托缽，而且在用餐之前就吃了：那才是我們拿得這麼少的原因。』
“So the poor laborer criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘How can their reverences eat elsewhere when they were invited by me? Am I not capable of giving them as much as they want?’”	於是，這個貧窮的勞工便批評、抱怨，並四處傳播：『既然我邀請了諸大德，諸大德又怎麼能到別處去吃飯呢？難道我不能滿足他們的需要嗎？』」
Object	對象
The term out-of-turn meal covers two sorts of situations: A bhikkhu has been invited to a meal consisting of any of the five staple foods but then either (1) goes elsewhere and eats another meal consisting of any of the five staple foods at the same time as the meal to which he was originally invited; or (2) eats a staple food prior to going to the meal, as in the origin story.	輾轉食這個術語涵蓋兩種情況：比丘被邀請參加一頓包含任何五種主食的餐食，但隨後（1）去了其他地方，在原先被邀請進餐食的同時吃了另一頓包含任何五種主食的餐食；或（2）在去用餐之前吃了主食，就像起源故事中提到的那樣。
Perception as to whether food actually constitutes an out-of-turn meal is not a mitigating factor (see Pc 4).	對於食物是否真正構成輾轉食的感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga states that there is a dukkaṭa for accepting—with the thought of eating it—food that will constitute an out-of-turn meal, and a pācittiya for every mouthful eaten.	《經分別》指出，接受構成輾轉食的食物—帶著想吃它的念頭—犯《突吉羅》，而吃的每一口都犯一次《波逸提》。
Proper times	適時
The special occasions when one may accept and eat an out-of-turn meal are defined as follows:	可以接受和食用輾轉食的特殊場合定義如下：
A time of illness is when one is unable to eat enough at one sitting and so has to eat two or more times in a morning.	生病的時候，一坐不能吃足夠，所以早上必須吃兩次或兩次以上。
The times of giving cloth and making robes are defined as in the preceding rule. The reason for exempting them is that in the days of the Buddha, cloth and thread were hard to come by, and donors who wanted to offer them usually did so in conjunction with a meal. If these exemptions were not made, a bhikkhu making a robe, having already been invited to one meal, could not go to another meal beforehand to receive the cloth or thread offered there.	布施布料和製作袈裟的時候定義如上一條戒條。之所以免除這些時候，是因為在佛陀時代，布料和線材不易取得，而想要供養的施主通常會搭配餐食進行供養。如果沒有這些豁免，製作袈裟的比丘在受邀參加一頓餐食後，就不能提前前往另一餐食在那裡接受供養的布料和線材。
There is reason to believe that these three exemptions apply to out-of-turn meals of the type mentioned in the origin story: i.e., a bhikkhu is allowed in these cases to go to another meal before attending the meal to which he was originally invited.	有理由相信，這三項豁免適用於起源故事中提到的輾轉食的類型：即，在這些情況下，比丘被允許在出席最先邀請他參加的餐食之前去參加另一頓餐食。
Sharing invitations	分享邀請
As for the sort of out-of-turn meal where a bhikkhu invited to one meal goes to another meal instead, the Buddha in a story ancillary to this rule gives permission to share invitations: If a bhikkhu has received an invitation, he may give it to another bhikkhu or novice by saying, “I give my expectation of a meal to so-and-so.” He is then allowed to eat elsewhere.	至於被邀請去用一頓餐的比丘卻去了另一頓餐的該類輾轉食，佛陀在與此戒條附屬的一個故事中允許分享邀請：如果一位比丘收到了邀請，他可以將其給予另一個比丘或沙彌，說：「我把我的用餐期望給予某某。」然後，他就被允許在其他地方吃了。
The Commentary regards the act of sharing as a mere formality: One may even make the statement outside of the other bhikkhu’s presence without his knowing anything about it. This, though, is very unlikely to satisfy the original donor. The wise policy in this case would be to make the statement in the presence of the other bhikkhu—“I give my expectation of a meal to you”—making reasonably sure that he is willing and able to go.	《義註》認為分享邀請的行為只是例行公事：甚至可以在另一位比丘不在場的情況下，在對方不知情的情況下做出這樣的聲明。然而，這不太可能讓原來的布施者感到滿意。在這種情況下，明智之舉是當著另一位比丘的面做出聲明—「我把我的餐食期望給你」—並合理地確保他願意並且能夠前往。
The Vinaya-mukha adds, though, that if the donors of the meal have specifically invited one to a meal—i.e., one is going to an invitational meal rather than a designated meal (see Pc 32)—it would be bad manners to share the invitation without making an agreement with the donors first.	然而，《戒律入口》也補充道，如果施主們特別邀請某人去用餐—即某人要去邀請食[譯註：古漢譯為「別請食」]而不是指定食[譯註：古漢譯為「僧次請食」]（參閱《波逸提》三二）—在沒有先與施主們達成協議的情況下分享邀請是不禮貌的。

Non-offenses	不犯
In addition to mentioning the “proper times” during which one may eat an out-of-turn meal, the non-offense clauses state that there is no penalty for a bhikkhu who, on receiving an invitation, states, “I will go for alms.” This statement the Commentary explains as a refusal, and interprets the allowance as meaning that if a bhikkhu refuses an invitation, he is still allowed to eat another meal at the time for which the invitation was made. If the Vibhaṅga arrangers did mean this statement to be a refusal, though, it is probably for the sake of those bhikkhus who hold to the dhutaṅga vow of going for alms and not accepting invitations. If a bhikkhu who does not hold to such a vow refuses an invitation for a time for which he has no prior commitment, it is considered very bad manners. And if he were later to accept an invitation for a meal served at the same time as the meal he earlier refused, it would be extremely bad manners.	除了提到可以吃輾轉食的「適時」外，不犯條款還規定，如果比丘在收到邀請時說「我要去托缽」則沒有懲罰。《義註》將此語句解釋為拒絕，並將這項開緣解釋為，如果比丘拒絕邀請，他仍然被允許在邀請的時間用另一餐。如果《經分別》的編纂者確實將此聲明代表為拒絕，那麼，這可能是為了那些持守頭陀行誓言、去托缽而不接受邀請的比丘們。如果一位沒有持守此誓言的比丘拒絕在他沒有事先承諾的時間的邀請，則會被認為很不禮貌。而且如果他後來接受了與他之前拒絕的餐食同時提供的用餐邀請，那將是極其地不禮貌。
An alternative explanation for the statement, “I will go for alms,” is that there is no offense if the bhikkhu lets the donor know beforehand that he will go for alms before the meal: He can have his alms meal first and then go to receive the meal offered by the donor. This would make room for the custom common in village monasteries throughout Theravādin countries, where invitations are usually for the late-morning meal, and bhikkhus are expected to have an early-morning alms meal before that. (If this interpretation does not hold, most village bhikkhus would then probably claim a perpetual “time of illness” as their exemption from this rule.)	「我要去托缽」這句話的另一種解釋是，如果比丘事先告知施主他將在餐食之前去托缽，則並無犯戒：他可以先吃托缽所得之食，然後再去接受施主供養餐食。這可以解釋上座部佛教國家村莊寺院中常見的習俗：通常邀請享用上午晚些時候的餐食，而比丘則應該在那之前享用一頓清晨的托缽所得之食。（如果這種解釋不成立，那麼大多數村莊比丘可能會聲稱自己有一段不斷重複的「生病時」，以此作為此戒條的豁免。）
Meals that do not include any of the five staple foods are also exempted from this rule. Thus if one is invited to a meal and takes a snack of milk, drinking conjey, fruit, etc., beforehand, this would not constitute an offense—although to be in keeping with the spirit of the rule, one should not take so much as to spoil one’s appetite for the meal.	不含五種主食的餐食也不受此戒條約束。因此，如果受邀請赴餐食，並在之前吃點牛奶、喝稀粥、水果等零食，則不構成犯戒——不過，為了符合此戒條的精神，不應吃太多，以免影響用餐時的胃口。
There is no offense if, when invited to more than one meal on the same day, one goes to them in the order in which one received the invitations (but see Pc 35); if one puts the food from the various invitations together in one’s bowl and eats them at the same time; or, if invited by an entire village, one goes to eat anywhere in the village.	如果在同一天收到多份餐食邀請，並按照收到邀請的順序前往就餐（但參見《波逸提》三五），則不構成犯戒；如果將接收的各個邀請的食物一起放在缽裡，同時吃掉；或者，如果收到全村人的邀請，去村裡任何地方吃飯。
The Commentary, in discussing this point, mentions a situation that often occurs where there are very few bhikkhus in proportion to the number of donors: A bhikkhu has been invited to a meal but, before he leaves the monastery to go to the meal, another group of donors arrives with food to place in his bowl; or after he arrives at the home of the original donor, another group of donors arrives with still more food. According to the Commentary he may accept the food of these various donors as long as he is careful—when he finally eats—to take his first mouthful from the food offered by the original donor.	《義註》在討論這一點時提到了一種常見的情況，即比丘的數量相對於施主的數量來說非常少：一位比丘受邀赴餐食，但在他離開寺院去赴餐之前，另一群施主帶著食物來到並放入他的缽中；或者在他到達最先的施主家後，又有一群施主帶著更多的食物到來。根據《義註》，他可以接受這些施主的食物，只要當他在最終進食時小心地在第一口食物時吃掉最先的施主供養的食物即可。
The non-offense clauses also state that periodic meals and lottery meals do not count as out-of-turn meals under this rule, but the Vibhaṅga offers no explanation as to why. The Commentary to Cullavagga VI.21 shows that the custom was for many families to prepare such meals on the same day. This exemption would thus seem to provide for the situation where there are fewer bhikkhus than there are families preparing these meals. One bhikkhu would be allowed to accept more than one meal so that no family’s meal would go without a recipient.	不犯條款也規定，週期食[譯註：古漢譯為「常請食」]和抽籤食[譯註：古漢譯為「行籌食」]不算在本戒條下的輾轉食，但《經分別》並未解釋原因。《小品》.六.21 的《義註》顯示，許多家庭習慣於同一天準備此類餐食。因此，這項豁免似乎是為了應對比丘人數少於準備此類餐食的家庭數的情況。一位比丘被允許接受多餐食，這樣每個家庭的餐食都會有接受者。
Mv.VI.25.7 implies that if the donor of the meal provides a pre-meal snack of thick conjey—or by extension any other staple food—there would be no offense in eating it. And the Commentary notes that if the donor gives explicit permission to eat another meal before the one he/she is providing, there would be no offense in doing so.	《大品》.六.25.7 暗示，如果該餐的施主在餐前提供一頓濃稠的小吃粥——或者推而廣之的任何其他主食——食用它並不犯戒。《義註》指出，如果施主明確允許在他/她提供餐食之前吃另一餐，那麼這樣做不犯戒。
Summary: Eating a meal before going to another meal to which one was invited, or accepting an invitation to one meal and eating elsewhere instead, is a pācittiya offense except when one is ill or during the time of giving cloth or making robes.	摘要：在去參加被邀請的另一餐之前就用過一餐，或者接受一頓餐食的邀請卻在其他地方用餐，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，除非是在生病時，或者是在施衣或做衣期間。

* * *

34	三十四
In case a bhikkhu arriving at a family residence is presented with cakes or cooked grain-meal, he may accept two or three bowlfuls if he so desires. If he should accept more than that, it is to be confessed. Having accepted the two-or-three bowlfuls and having taken them from there, he is to share them among the bhikkhus. This is the proper course here.	如果比丘到達一個家庭住處，被呈上糕點或煮熟的穀物粉，如果他想要的話，他可以接受兩、三缽。如果他接受超過此者，波逸提。他接受兩、三缽後，從那裡拿走，並與比丘們分享。這是正確的做法（如法）。
The purpose of this rule is to prevent bhikkhus from abusing a donor’s generosity and good faith.	此戒條的目的是為了防止比丘濫用施主的慷慨和善信。
The origin story deals with two separate cases. In the first, a woman named Kāṇā is about to return to her husband’s house after visiting her parents. Her mother, thinking, “How can one go empty-handed?” bakes some cakes. A bhikkhu comes, and the mother—being a faithful lay follower—presents him with the cakes and then bakes some more to replace them. The bhikkhu, meanwhile, has informed another bhikkhu that cakes are baking at Kāṇā’s house, so the second bhikkhu goes and receives the second batch of cakes. This process keeps up until Kāṇā’s husband tires of waiting for her and takes another woman for his wife. The Commentary notes, reasonably enough, that Kāṇā developed a long-term grudge against Buddhism as a result of this incident.	起源故事涉及兩個獨立的案例。第一個案例中，一位名叫伽若的女子探望父母後，正準備返回夫家。她的母親心想：「怎麼空手而歸？」於是烤了一些糕點。一位比丘來了，這位母親——一位虔誠的在家弟子——將糕點呈給了比丘，然後又烤了一些來代替。同時，這位比丘告訴另一位比丘伽若家正在烤糕點，於是第二位比丘去取了第二批糕點。這個過程一直持續到伽若的丈夫厭倦了等待，另娶他人為妻。《義註》指出，夠合理地，伽若因此事而對佛教產生了長期的怨恨。
In the second case, a man is preparing provisions for a journey by caravan. A similar series of events takes place, and he eventually ends up tagging along behind the caravan and getting robbed. People criticize and complain as usual, and spread it about, “How can these Sakyan-son monks accept food without knowing moderation?”	第二個案例中，一名男子正在為商隊準備食物。一連串類似的事件發生了，最後他尾隨商隊而被搶劫。人們照例批評抱怨，並四處傳播：「這些沙門釋迦子怎麼能接受食物不講節制呢？」
There are two factors for the full offense here.	這裡的完全違犯有兩個因素。
1) Effort: Receiving more than three bowlfuls	1）努力：接受超過三缽
2) Object: of cakes or cooked grain-meal (sattu).	2）對象：糕點或煮熟的穀物粉（sattu）。
Effort	努力
Receiving, here, is defined in the context of an invitation to take as much as one likes. Perception as to whether one has taken more than three bowlfuls is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	此處的「接受」是指邀請隨意取用。是否取了超過三缽的感知，在此並不構成減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Object	對象
In the context of this rule, the Vibhaṅga defines cakes to cover anything prepared as a present, and cooked grain-meal (sattu) to cover anything prepared as provisions for a journey. Thus we will use the terms presents and provisions for the remainder of this explanation. The word journey here refers to journeys that the donors are planning to take themselves. This rule thus does not cover gifts of food that donors have prepared to give to a bhikkhu for a journey he is planning to take.	在本戒條的脈絡中，《經分別》將糕點定義為任何作為禮物而準備的東西，將煮熟的穀物粉（sattu）定義為任何作為旅程食物供應而準備的東西。因此，我們將在此解釋的其餘部分使用「禮物」和「食物供應」這兩個術語。這裡的「旅程」一詞指的是施主計劃自行前往的旅程。因此，本戒條不涵蓋施主為比丘他自己計畫前往的旅程所準備的食物布施。
The Vinaya-mukha, using the Great Standards, infers from the Vibhaṅga’s definitions for presents and provisions that any food prepared in large quantities for sale or for a party, banquet, or reception, etc., should be covered by this rule as well.	《戒律入口》運用《四大教示》，從《經分別》對禮物和食物供應的定義中推斷，為銷售或聚會、宴會或招待會等而大量準備的任何食物也應涵蓋在此戒條之下。
Protocol	行儀
If a bhikkhu has accepted two or three bowlfuls of such items, then on his return from there he should tell every bhikkhu he sees, “I accepted two or three bowlfuls over there. Don’t you accept anything there.” He incurs a dukkaṭa if, seeing a bhikkhu, he does not tell him, while there is a dukkaṭa for the other bhikkhu if, having been told, he accepts anything at the place in question. According to the Commentary, if the first bhikkhu accepts two bowlfuls, he should tell the second bhikkhu to accept no more than one, and all other bhikkhus he meets that they should not accept anything. If he accepts only one bowlful, he should follow a similar process so that, all-in-all, the bhikkhus accept a total of no more than three.	如果一個比丘已經接受了兩、三缽這樣的食物，那麼他從那裡回來時應該告訴他所見到的每一位比丘：「我在那裡接受了兩、三缽。你們在那裡不要接受任何東西。」如果他見到一位比丘而不告訴他，他犯《突吉羅》；而另一位比丘在被告知之後，在該地方接受任何東西，也犯《突吉羅》。根據《義註》，如果第一位比丘接受了兩缽，他應該告訴第二位比丘不要接受超過一缽，並告訴所有其他遇到的比丘不應接受任何東西。如果他只接受一缽，他也應該遵循類似的過程，以便總的來說，比丘們接受的總數不超過三缽。
The Commentary states further that a bhikkhu receiving two or three bowlfuls may keep one bowlful and do as he likes with it, but must share the remainder among an entire Community, i.e., not just among his friends. A bhikkhu receiving only one bowlful may do with it as he likes .	《義註》進一步指出，接受兩、三缽的比丘，可以保留一缽，隨意支配，但必須將剩餘的分給整個僧團，即，不僅限於他的朋友。只接受一缽的比丘，可以隨意支配。
Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense in taking more than three bowlfuls of items not intended as presents or provisions, of items left over from preparing presents or provisions, or of provisions remaining when plans for a journey have been abandoned. As explained above, the Vinaya-mukha would include items prepared for sale or for parties, etc., under the word provisions here.	《經分別》規定，取超過三缽，非做為禮物或食物供應的東西、準備禮物或食物供應後剩餘的東西，以及放棄旅行計劃後剩餘的食物供應，均不構成犯戒。如上所述，《戒律入口》中的「食物供應」一詞涵蓋了為出售或宴會等準備的東西。
The Vibhaṅga also says that there is no penalty in accepting more than three bowlfuls from relatives or from those who have offered an invitation. Here the Commentary states that if such people give more than three bowlfuls outright, one may accept them without penalty, but if they tell one to take as much as one likes from items prepared as presents or provisions, the proper course is to take only two or three bowlfuls.	《分別論》也說，接受親屬或已提出邀請者超過三缽，不受任何懲罰。《義註》在此指出，如果這些人直接給予超過三缽，可以接受，不受任何懲罰；但如果他們告知隨意取用被準備作為禮物或食物供應的東西，則正確的做法是只取兩、三缽。
The Vibhaṅga further says that there is no offense in having more than three bowlfuls of presents or provisions purchased with one’s own resources, and that there is no offense in taking extra for the sake of another. Neither the Commentary nor Sub-commentary discusses this last point, but the only way it can make sense in the context of this rule is if it refers to cases where the bhikkhu takes extra for the sake of another not on his own initiative, but because the donor asks him to.	《經分別》進一步指出，用自己的資源令人購買超過三缽的禮物或食物供應並不犯戒，為他人多取也不犯戒。《義註》和《複註》均未討論這最後一點，但只有在比丘並非主動為他人多取，而應施主要求的情況下，它才在本條戒條的語境下說得通。
Summary: Accepting more than three bowlfuls of food that the donors prepared for their own use as presents or as provisions for a journey is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：布施者為他們自己準備作為禮物或作為旅行供應的食物，接受超過三缽，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

35	三十五
Should any bhikkhu, having eaten and turned down an offer (of further food), chew or consume staple or non-staple food that is not leftover, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘已經吃了，並拒絕了（進一步的食物）供養，而咀嚼或食用了非剩餘的主食或副食，波逸提。
“Now at that time a certain brahman, having invited bhikkhus, fed them. The bhikkhus, having eaten and turned down an offer of further food, went to their relatives’ families. Some ate there; some left having received alms.	「爾時，一位婆羅門邀請比丘們，並為他們提供食物。比丘們吃飽後，拒絕了更進一步的食物供養，前往親戚家。有的在那裡用餐，有的接受缽食後離開。
“Then the brahman said to his neighbors, ‘Masters, the bhikkhus have been satisfied by me. Come and I will satisfy you as well.’	「隨後，婆羅門對鄰居們說：『諸賢，我已經讓各位比丘們吃飽了。來吧，我也讓你們吃飽。』
“They said, ‘Master, how will you satisfy us? Even those you invited came to our homes. Some ate there; some left having received alms.’	「他們說：『賢者，您要怎麼讓我們飽餐一頓呢？連您邀請的人也來到我們家。有的在那裡吃了飯，有的接受缽食後離開。』
“So the brahman criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can their reverences, having eaten in my home, eat elsewhere? Am I not capable of giving as much as they want?’”	「於是婆羅門便批評、抱怨，並四處散播此事：『諸大德既然在我家吃過飯，怎麼還能到別處去吃呢？難道我不能滿足他們的需要嗎？』」
When a donor invited bhikkhus for a meal, the custom in the time of the Buddha was for him/her to offer food to the bhikkhus repeatedly while they ate, and to stop only when the supplies of food were exhausted or the bhikkhus refused any further offers. (This custom is still widespread in Sri Lanka and Burma.) Thus it was often a matter of pride among donors that their supplies were not easily exhausted and that they could continue offering food until the bhikkhus were completely satisfied and could eat no more. Now, where there is pride there is bound to be wounded pride: A donor could easily feel insulted if bhikkhus refused further offers of food, finished their meal, and then went to eat someplace else.	佛陀時代的習俗是，當布施者邀請比丘們用餐時，布施者會在比丘們用餐時反覆供養食物給比丘們，直到食物耗盡或比丘們拒絕更進一步供養時才停止。（這項習俗在斯里蘭卡和緬甸至今仍盛行。）因此，這往往是布施者的驕傲，因為他們的供養不容易耗盡，而且他們可以繼續供養食物，直到比丘們完全吃飽，再也吃不下為止。然而，哪裡有自尊心，哪裡的自尊心就必然受到傷害：如果比丘們拒絕更進一步供養食物，用完餐後又去其他地方吃東西，布施者很容易感到被冒犯。
As the origin story shows, this rule is designed to protect generous donors from being insulted by the bhikkhus in this way. It is also designed to protect bhikkhus from being forced to go hungry by stingy or impoverished donors. If the donor stops offering food before the bhikkhus have refused further offers—or if what he/she offers is not substantial food at all (see the discussion under Pc 8 for an historic case of this sort)—the bhikkhus, after finishing their meal, are free to accept food elsewhere that morning if they are still hungry.	正如起源故事所示，這條戒條旨在保護慷慨的布施者免受比丘的這種侮辱。它同時也保護比丘不被吝嗇或貧困的布施者逼得挨餓。如果布施者在比丘拒絕進一步供養之前停止供養食物，或者他/她供養的食物根本不是大量的（參見《波逸提》八中關於此類歷史案例的討論），比丘們在用餐結束後，如果仍然感到飢餓，當天早上可以自由地在其他地方接受食物。
There are two factors for an offense here.	此處的犯戒有兩個因素。
1) Object: staple or non-staple food that is not leftover.	1）對象：非剩餘的主食或副食。
2) Effort: One eats the food after having eaten and turned down an offer of further food.	2）努力：吃過並拒絕更進一步的食物供養後，吃了食物。
Before explaining these factors, we must first explain the situation of having eaten and turned down an offer of further food.	在解釋這些因素之前，我們必須先解釋一下吃過並拒絕更進一步食物供養的情況。

Having eaten	吃過
Having eaten (bhuttāvin), according to the Vibhaṅga, means having eaten any of the five staple foods, “even as much as a blade of grass.” On the surface, this could mean one of two things: having taken one’s first bite of a meal or having finished a meal—even the smallest possible one. The Commentary adopts the first interpretation, but in doing so creates two problems:	根據《經分別》，「吃過」（bhuttāvin）的意思是吃過五種主食中的任何一種，「哪怕只是一小片草」。表面上，這可能意味著兩種情況之一：用餐吃過第一口或用餐完畢——哪怕是一小口。《義註》採用了第一種解讀，但這樣做卻帶來了兩個問題：
1) If having eaten means having taken one’s first bite of a meal, then the word serves no purpose in the rule, because the first factor of “having turned down an offer of further food” is “the bhikkhu is eating,” and as the Commentary itself notes, if one is eating then one has already taken one’s first bite of the meal. It concludes that the word having eaten, both in the rule and in the Vibhaṅga, is completely superfluous.	1）如果「吃過」的意思是用餐吃過第一口，那麼這個詞在戒條中就毫無意義，因為「已拒絕了更進一步的食物供養」的第一個因素是「比丘正在吃」，而正如《義註》本身所指出的，如果一個人正在吃，那麼該人已經用餐吃過第一口。它得出結論，「吃過」這個詞，無論在戒條中或在《經分別》中，都是完全多餘的。
2) A more practical problem coming from the Commentary’s interpretation is that if one turns down an offer of extra food when one already has more than enough food in one’s bowl but has yet to finish one’s meal, one cannot continue eating. The Commentary tries to get around this predicament by introducing an additional factor: As long as one does not move from the spot on which one is sitting, one may continue eating. This, though, creates further problems: Suppose a bhikkhu has turned down an offer of further food but has yet to finish his meal. If there is then some compelling reason for him to move from the spot on which he is sitting—for example, the donor spills a pot of hot soup, or ants come crawling into his robes—then he cannot finish his meal even if the donor begs him to continue eating.	2）《義註》的解讀引發了一個更實際的問題是，如果缽裡已經有足夠多的食物但還沒吃完，而拒絕了額外的食物供養，那就不能繼續吃。《義註》試圖透過引入一個額外的因素來解決這個困境：只要不離開所坐的位置，就可以繼續吃飯。然而，這又帶來了進一步的問題：假設一位比丘拒絕了更進一步的食物供養但還沒用完餐。如果有某種令人信服的理由迫使他離開所坐的位置——例如，布施者打翻了一鍋熱湯，或者螞蟻爬進了他的袈裟——那麼即使布施者懇求他繼續吃飯，他也不能用完餐。
The Sub-commentary gets around the first problem by interpreting having eaten as “having finished a meal,” which fits better with the origin story and with the linguistic usage of the Canon itself. (The word bhuttāvin also appears in MN 91, Cv.VIII.4.6, and Cv.VIII.11.5, where it clearly and consistently means “having finished a meal.” The Canon uses a separate term, asana, for one who is in the process of eating a meal without yet having finished it.) The author of the Sub-commentary doesn’t realize, though, that in adopting this interpretation he is also eliminating the need for the Commentary’s extra factor concerning moving from one’s spot. If the factor is unnecessary and has no basis in the Canon, there seems no reason to adopt it. Thus the Commentary’s factor, and not the wording of the rule, is what is superfluous. So we can say that having eaten means having finished one’s meal, and that the question of having moved from one’s spot doesn’t enter into the rule.	《複註》透過將「吃過」解釋為「用餐完畢」來規避第一個問題，這更符合起源故事和《聖典》本身的語言用法。（ bhuttāvin 一詞也出現在《中部》91經、《小品》.八.4.6 和《小品》.八.11.5 中，在這些經文中，它明確且一致地表示「用餐完畢」。《聖典》使用了一個單獨的術語 asana 來指正在用餐但尚未完畢的人。）然而，《複註》的作者沒有意識到，透過採用這種解釋，他也消除了《義註》中關於從位置移動的額外因素的需要。如果這個因素是不必要的，而且在《聖典》中沒有依據，那麼似乎也沒有理由採用它。因此，多餘的是《義註》中的因素，而不是戒條的措辭。所以我們可以說，「吃過」意味著已經用餐完畢，而是否離開位置的問題並不在戒條之內。
As the Commentary itself notes when discussing the term asana, the point where one finishes eating is determined in one of two ways:	正如《義註》本身在討論 asana 該術語時所指出的，用餐完畢的時間點是透過以下兩種方式之一來決定的：
a) There is no food left in one’s bowl, hand, or mouth; or	a）缽裡、手裡或嘴裡沒有食物；或者
b) one decides that one has had enough for that particular meal.	b）決定自己已經吃飽了那餐。
Thus, as long as the bhikkhu has not yet finished the donor’s meal, he is free to turn down, accept, and eat food as he likes. In other words, if he turns down an offer of further food, he may continue eating what is left in his bowl. If he initially turns down an offer of further food but then gives in and accepts it after being pressured by the donor, he may eat what he accepts without penalty. Or if he feels, for example, that he has enough vegetables but would like more rice, he may turn down an offer of vegetables yet accept and eat an offer of rice that follows it.	因此，只要比丘尚未吃完施主的供養，他就可以自由地隨意拒絕、接受和食用食物。換句話說，如果他拒絕了施主提供的更多食物，他可以繼續吃缽裡剩下的食物。如果他最初拒絕了施主提供的更多食物，但在施主的催促下屈服並接受了，他可以繼續吃他接受的食物而不受懲罰。或者，例如，如果他覺得蔬菜已經足夠，但想要更多的米飯，他可以拒絕蔬菜的供養，但接受並食用隨後供養的米飯。
But once he no longer has any food in his bowl, hand, or mouth, or has decided that he has had enough for that particular meal, he fulfills the factor of “having eaten” under this rule. If he turned down an offer of further food before finishing the meal, he may not for the remainder of the day eat any staple or non-staple foods that are not leftovers.	但一旦他的缽裡、手裡或嘴裡沒有食物，或者他決定該餐已經吃飽了，他就滿足了這條戒條下「吃過」的因素。如果他在用完餐之前拒絕了更進一步食物的供養，那麼在當天剩餘的時間裡，他不得吃任何非剩餘的主食或副食。

Turning down an offer of further food	拒絕更進一步的食物供養
The Vibhaṅga defines this as an act with five factors:	《經分別》將此定義為具有五個因素的行為：
1) The bhikkhu is eating.	1）比丘正在吃。
2) There is further staple food.	2）還有更多的主食。
3) The donor is standing within hatthapāsa (1.25 meters) of the bhikkhu.	3）布施者站在比丘伸手可及（ hatthapāsa 1.25 公尺）以內。
4) He/she offers the food.	4）他/她供養食物。
5) The bhikkhu turns it down.	5）比丘拒絕了。
The Commentary adds that if the bhikkhu has finished eating before the further food is offered, factor (1) is not fulfilled, so if he turns down the food he does not fall under the terms of this rule. Similarly, if the food in factor (2) is not a staple food—e.g., if it is fruit, chocolates, or cheese—or if it is staple food of a sort unallowable for a bhikkhu to eat—e.g., it has been offered as a result of a bhikkhu’s claiming a superior human state or corrupting a family (see Sg 13), or it is made of human flesh or snake meat, etc.—the factor is not fulfilled. Because none of the texts specify that the donor under factor (3) must be unordained, a bhikkhu offering food to a fellow bhikkhu would apparently fulfill this factor as well. Thus this rule would apply not only to meals offered by lay donors, but also to food handed out by bhikkhus and novices in a monastery.	《義註》補充道，如果比丘在更進一步供養食物之前已經吃完，則不滿足因素（1），因此如果他拒絕食物，則不屬於本戒條的範疇。同樣，如果因素（2）中的食物不是主食（例如，水果、巧克力或奶酪），或者屬於比丘禁食的主食—例如，由於比丘自稱上人法或污家而被供養的（參見《僧殘》十三），或者食物由人肉或蛇肉製成等—則不滿足該因素。由於沒有任何文獻明確規定因素（3）中的布施者必須是未出家者，因此，比丘向比丘同儕供養食物顯然也滿足本因素。因此，這條戒條不僅適用於在家布施者所供養的食物，也適用於寺院中比丘和沙彌所分發的食物。
Factor (5) is fulfilled by any refusal made by word or gesture.	因素（5）透過任何言語或示意動作表示拒絕來滿足。
Cv.VI.10.1 states that when a senior bhikkhu makes a junior bhikkhu get up from his seat before the latter has finished his meal, the senior bhikkhu counts as having turned down an offer of further food (§). In other words, when the senior bhikkhu then finishes his own meal, he comes under the purview of this rule as well.	《小品》.六.10.1 規定，當一位資深比丘讓一位資淺比丘在用餐完畢前從座位起身，則該資深比丘視為拒絕了更進一步的食物供養（§）。換句話說，當該資深比丘隨後也用餐完畢，他也受此戒條約束。

Staple & non-staple food	主食和副食
Staple food, here, follows the standard definition. Non-staple food, in the context of this rule, covers all edibles except for the five staple foods, juice drinks, the five tonics, medicines, and water.	這裡的主食是依照標準定義，副食則是指除五種主食、果汁飲料、五種補藥、藥物、水以外的所有可食用物。
Leftover food is of two sorts: (1) leftover from a sick bhikkhu’s meal and (2) formally “made” leftover by a bhikkhu who is not sick. In the latter case, the formal act has seven factors:	剩餘食物有兩種：（1）生病比丘用餐後剩下的；（2）由非生病比丘正式地「被製成」的剩餘食物。在後一種情況下，正式行為包含七個因素：
1) The food is allowable.	1）食物是被允許的。
2) It has been formally received by any bhikkhu except Bhikkhu Y.	2）除 Y 比丘外，它已經被任何比丘正式地接受。
3) Bhikkhu X lifts it up in the presence of Bhikkhu Y.	3）比丘 X 在比丘 Y 面前舉起了它。
4) Bhikkhu Y is within hatthapāsa of X.	4）比丘 Y 在 X 的伸手可及（hatthapāsa）之處。
5) Bhikkhu Y has finished his meal.	5）比丘 Y 已用完餐。
6) Bhikkhu Y has not yet gotten up from the seat where he has finished his meal and turned down an offer of further food; and	6）比丘 Y 用完餐後還沒有從座位上起身，並且拒絕了更進一步的食物供養；並且
7) he says, “All that is enough (in Pali: Alam’etaṁ sabbaṁ).”	7）他說：「所有那些就足夠了（巴利語： Alam’etaṁ sabbaṁ ）。」
The Commentary notes under step (3) that X may either offer the food to Y or simply lift it up, even slightly. It goes on to say that any bhikkhu except Bhikkhu Y may eat the food formally made leftover in this way.	《義註》在第（3）步指出， X 可以將食物供養給 Y ，或僅僅舉起來，即使只有一點點。《義註》接著指出，除比丘 Y 外，任何比丘都可以吃以這種方式製成的剩餘食物。
Both of these allowances for leftover food are designed to prevent food’s going to waste. The first needs no explanation; the second would be useful for preventing waste in cases such as these: (a) X has turned down an offer of further food but cannot finish the food in his bowl; after getting Y to make it leftover, X can take the food back to the monastery and finish it there later. (b) All the bhikkhus except X have finished eating after turning down an offer of further food. Friends of the donors arrive late with large quantities of food they want to present to the bhikkhus; after X receives the food from them and gets Y to make it leftover, all the bhikkhus except Y may partake of it.	這兩種允許剩餘食物的開緣都是為了防止食物浪費。第一種無需解釋，第二種則適用於防止下列情況下的浪費：（a）X 拒絕了更進一步的食物供養，但吃不完缽裡的食物；在讓 Y 把食物剩下後，X 可以將食物帶回寺院，稍後在那裡吃完。（b）除了 X 之外，所有比丘在拒絕了更進一步的食物供養後都用餐完畢了。布施者的朋友遲到了，帶著大量食物想要供養比丘；在 X 從他們那裡接受食物並讓 Y 把食物剩下後，除了 Y 之外的所有比丘都可以享用。
Effort	努力
If a bhikkhu who, having eaten and turned down an offer of further food, is presented with staple or non-staple food that is not leftover—e.g., a snack of milk or ice cream—he incurs a dukkaṭa if he accepts it with the thought of eating it, and a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats.	如果一個比丘吃過後，拒絕了更進一步的食物供養，然後被供養非剩餘的主食或副食—例如，牛奶或冰淇淋零食—如果他帶著吃它的想法接受它，他犯《突吉羅》，而他吃的每一口都犯一次《波逸提》。
According to the Vibhaṅga, perception as to whether the food is actually leftover is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	根據《經分別》，對於食物是否真的剩餘的感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense—	並不犯戒——
if a bhikkhu accepts the food and takes it for the sake of another,	如果比丘為了他人而接受且拿取食物，
if he accepts and eats leftover food, or	如果他接受並吃剩餘的食物，或者
if, having a reason, he later in the day accepts and consumes juice drinks, any of the five tonics, or medicine. According to the Commentary, having a reason means, in the case of juice drinks, being thirsty; and in the case of the tonics and medicine, suffering from an illness that they are meant to assuage. (As we have noted under NP 23, these illnesses include hunger and fatigue as well as medical disorders.) In other words, a bhikkhu under the circumstances covered by this rule may not take these items as food. The Vibhaṅga penalizes him with a dukkaṭa if he accepts them with the idea of taking them as food, and a further dukkaṭa for every mouthful he eats.	如果比丘在當天晚些時候，出於某種原因，接受並食用果汁飲料、五種補品中的任何一種，或藥物。根據《義註》，出於某種原因，就果汁飲料而言，是指口渴；就補品和藥物而言，是指患有它們用來緩解的疾病。（正如我們已在《捨墮》二三中指出的，這些疾病包括飢餓、疲勞以及醫學上的疾病。）換句話說，在這條戒條所涵蓋的情況下，比丘不得將這些物品當作食物。如果他以將其當作食物的想法接受它們，《經分別》以《突吉羅》懲罰他，並且他吃的每一口都將受到一次額外的《突吉羅》。
According to the Mahāvagga (VI.18.4, VI.19.2, VI.20.4), this rule was relaxed during times of famine so that a bhikkhu who had eaten and turned down an offer of further food could later in the day consume food that was not leftover:	根據《大品》（六.18.4 、六.19.2 、六.20.4 ）記載，飢荒時期這條戒條被放寬，這樣，已經吃過並拒絕了更進一步食物供養的比丘可以在當天晚些時候食用非剩餘的食物：
if it was accepted before he went to his meal,	如果在他去用餐之前就被接受了，
if it is brought back from a place where a meal has been offered, or	如果是從餐食被供養的地方帶回來的，或者
if it has been taken from a wilderness area or a pond. The texts offer no explanation for this last stipulation. Perhaps, during famines, these were places where people would commonly forage for food.	如果是從林野或池塘取來的。文獻中並沒有對最後這一項做出解釋。或許，在飢荒時期，這些地方是人們通常尋找食物的地方。
These famine allowances were later rescinded (Mv.VI.32.2) without any provision for invoking them again if a similar crisis—such as the collapse of modern civilization—were to arise. Thus, they were part of the Buddha’s repertoire but not of the Community’s after his parinibbāna.	這些飢荒開緣後來被廢除（《大品》.六.32.2 ），並且沒有規定在類似危機（例如現代文明崩潰）發生時可以再次援引。因此，它們是佛陀的保留曲目，但在他般涅槃後，不再是僧團的。
Summary: Eating staple or non-staple food that is not leftover, after having earlier in the day finished a meal during which one turned down an offer to eat further staple food, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：在當天早些時候用完一餐並在用餐時拒絕吃更多主食的供養之後，吃非剩餘的主食或副食，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

36	三十六
Should any bhikkhu, knowingly and wishing to find fault, present staple or non-staple food he has brought to a bhikkhu who has eaten and turned down an offer (of further food), saying, “Here, bhikkhu, chew or consume this”—when it has been eaten, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘明知地，想要找過錯，將自己帶來的主食或副食給已經吃過而且拒絕了（更進一步的食物）供養的比丘，說，「比丘，咀嚼或食用這個」——當它被吃掉後，波逸提。
“Now at that time two bhikkhus were traveling through the Kosalan districts on their way to Sāvatthī. One of them indulged in bad habits; the second one said, ‘Don’t do that sort of thing, my friend. It isn’t proper.’ The first one developed a grudge. Eventually, they arrived at Sāvatthī.	「爾時，有兩位比丘，途經拘薩羅地區，前往舍衛城。其中一位比丘沉溺於惡習；另一位比丘說：『我的朋友，別做這種事。這不合適。』第一位比丘起了怨恨。最終，他們到達了舍衛城。
“Now at that time one of the guilds in Sāvatthī presented a Community meal. The second bhikkhu finished his meal, having turned down an offer of further food. The bhikkhu with the grudge, having gone to his relatives and bringing back almsfood, went to the second bhikkhu and on arrival said to him, ‘Here, friend, have some of this.’	「爾時，舍衛城的一個行會供養了僧團餐食。第二位比丘用餐完畢，拒絕了更進一步的食物供養。心懷怨恨的比丘去親戚家帶回了缽食，然後去見第二個比丘，到達後對他說：『這裡，朋友，吃些這個。』
“‘No thanks, my friend. I’m full.’	「『不用了謝謝，朋友，我已經吃飽了。』
“‘Really, this is delicious almsfood. Have some.’	「『真的，這是美味的缽食。吃一些吧。』
“So the second bhikkhu, being pressured by the first, ate the almsfood. Then the bhikkhu with the grudge said to him, ‘You think I’m the one to be reprimanded when you eat food that isn’t leftover, after finishing your meal and turning down an offer of further food?’	「於是，第二位比丘在第一位比丘的壓力下，吃了缽食。這時，心懷怨恨的比丘對他說：『你用餐完畢後，拒絕了更進一步的食物供養，卻吃了非剩餘食物，你以為我應該受到責備嗎？』
“‘Shouldn’t you have told me?’	「『你不該告訴我嗎？』
“‘Shouldn’t you have asked?’”	「『你不該問嗎？』」
This rule covers cases in which one bhikkhu, knowingly and wishing to find fault, offers food to another bhikkhu in order to trick him into committing an offense under the preceding rule. The full offense here requires a full set of five factors.	本戒條涵蓋的情況是，一位比丘明知地，想要找過錯，向另一位比丘供養食物，以誘使他犯前一條戒條的罪。本戒條的完全違犯需要滿足全部五個條件。
1) Object: staple or non-staple food that one perceives not to be leftover.	1）對象：認為是非剩餘的主食或副食。
2) Effort: One gives the food to a bhikkhu who has eaten and turned down an offer of further food, as under the preceding rule.	2）努力：如前一條戒條所述，將食物給已吃過並拒絕更進一步食物供養的比丘。
3) Perception: One knows that he has eaten and turned down an offer of further food.	3）感知：知道他已經吃過，並拒絕了更進一步的食物供養。
4) Intention: One wishes to find fault with him.	4）意圖：想要找他的過錯。
5) Result: He finishes a meal that includes that food.	5）結果：他完成了包含該食物的用餐。
Only four of these factors—object, perception, intention, and result—require further explanation.	其中只有四個因素—對象、感知、意圖和結果—需要進一步解釋。
Object	對象
Staple food and non-staple food here are defined as under the preceding rule. Whether the food is actually leftover is not a factor in determining the offense here. The important point lies in the perception: As long as one assumes the food to be not leftover, one is subject to a penalty if the other bhikkhu accepts it. If one assumes the food to be leftover, one’s actions would not fit under this rule.	此處的主食和副食的定義與前一條戒條一致。食物是否真的是剩餘的，並非決定此處犯戒的因素。關鍵在於感知：只要認為食物不是剩餘的，如果其他比丘接受了，他就會受到懲罰。如果認為食物是剩餘的，那麼他的行為就不符合此戒條。
Perception	感知
If one is in doubt as to whether a bhikkhu has eaten and turned down an offer of further food, he is grounds for a dukkaṭa regardless of whether he has. If one thinks that he has eaten and turned down an offer of further food when he actually hasn’t, he is grounds for a dukkaṭa. If one thinks that he has not eaten and turned down an offer of further food, then regardless of whether he has or hasn’t, he is not grounds for an offense.	如果懷疑比丘是否已經吃過，並拒絕了更進一步的食物供養，無論他是否如此，都構成《突吉羅》。如果認為他已經吃過，並拒絕了更進一步的食物供養，而實際上他並沒有，則構成《突吉羅》。如果認為他沒有吃過並拒絕了更進一步的食物供養，無論他是否如此，都不構成犯戒。
Intention	意圖
Wishing to find fault, according to the Vibhaṅga, means planning either to charge, interrogate, counter-charge, or counter-interrogate the bhikkhu (these are steps in a formal accusation), or simply to make him abashed after one has succeeded in tricking him into breaking the preceding rule.	根據《經分別》，想要找過錯意味著計劃指控、審問、反指控或反審問比丘（這些是正式指控的步驟），或者僅僅是在成功誘使他違反前一條戒條後讓他感到羞愧。
Effort & result	努力與結果
Bhikkhu X, in giving food to Bhikkhu Y “knowingly and wishing to find fault,” incurs a dukkaṭa when he brings the food to Y, another dukkaṭa when Y accepts the food with the thought of eating it, a further dukkaṭa for every mouthful Y eats of the food, and a pācittiya when Y has stopped eating from it. If X then tries to make Y feel abashed, he is to be treated under Pc 2 as well. As for Y, the Commentary states that he should be treated under the preceding rule. Because perception is not a factor there, this means that Y is not exempt from an offense even though X has deliberately misled him as to the status of the food he is eating. (Some have misread one of the “wheels” of offenses listed in the Vibhaṅga to this rule as applying to Y, but because they conflict with the offenses the Vibhaṅga to the preceding rule allots to Y for eating under a misperception, that reading cannot stand. Thus the Commentary seems right in stating that all the offenses mentioned in the Vibhaṅga to this rule apply to X.) This means further that both bhikkhus in the origin story were right: The bhikkhu with a grudge should have told the second bhikkhu, while the second bhikkhu should have asked.	比丘 X 「明知地且想要找過錯」給比丘 Y 食物，當他把食物帶給 Y 時，他犯《突吉羅》；當 Y 帶著吃它的念頭接受食物時，犯另一次《突吉羅》；當 Y 每吃一口食物，另一次《突吉羅》；當 Y 停止進食時，他犯《波逸提》。如果 X 試圖讓 Y 感到羞愧，他也應依照《波逸提》二處理。至於 Y ，《義註》指出他應依照前一條戒條處理。因為感知不是其中的因素，這意味著即使 X 故意誤導他所吃食物的性質，Y 也不能免於犯戒。（有些人誤讀了本戒條的《經分別》中列出的犯戒「輪子」之一，認為它適用於 Y，但是因為它們與前一條戒條的《經分別》中對因誤解食用而犯戒相衝突，所以這種解讀站不住腳。因此，《義註》似乎正確地指出，本戒條的《經分別》中提到的所有罪行適用於 X。）這進一步意味著起源故事中的兩個比丘都是正確的：心懷怨恨的比丘應該告訴第二個比丘，而第二個比丘應該詢問。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense—	不犯—
if one gives leftover food for the other bhikkhu to eat;	如果把剩餘的食物給另一個比丘吃；
if one gives him food for the sake of another; or	如果為了另一個人而給他食物；或者
if one gives him juice drinks, any of the five tonics, or medicines when he has a reason to take them.	如果給他果汁飲料、五種補品的任何一種、或藥物，當他有理由時食用之。
In the case of the second exemption—one gives him food for the sake of another—none of the texts mention the point, but it would seem to hold only in cases where the other bhikkhu is ill or has not eaten and turned down an offer of further food.	對於第二種豁免，即為了另一個人而給他食物，沒有任何文獻提到這一點，但它似乎只在另一位比丘生病或還未吃過並拒絕更進一步食物供養的情況下才成立。
None of the texts make any mention of a bhikkhu trying to trick another bhikkhu into committing an offense under any rule other than Pc 35; and apparently, a bhikkhu who tricks a fellow bhikkhu into committing an offense under Pc 35 with no desire to blame or shame him, but simply for the perverse satisfaction of seeing him commit the offense, would incur no penalty under this or any other rule. There is no escaping the fact, though, that such actions carry their own inherent penalty in terms of one’s spiritual maturity. This is one of those cases where a wise policy is to look past the particulars of the rule to the general principle underlying it: that one should not deliberately trick another person into breaking a rule or vow that he or she has pledged to uphold.	除《波逸提》三五外，所有文獻均未提及比丘試圖誘使另一位比丘犯其他戒條；顯然，如果比丘誘使比丘同儕犯《波逸提》三五規定的罪行，並且無意責備或羞辱他，而僅僅是為了從觀看他犯戒中獲得變態的滿足感，那麼根據本戒條或任何其他戒條，他都不會受到懲罰。然而，無可否認的是，此類行為會因個人的精神成熟度而承擔其固有的懲罰。在這種情況下，明智之舉是忽略戒條的細節，而關注其背後的一般原則：不應故意誘使他人違反他或她承諾遵守的戒條或誓言。
Summary: Deliberately tricking another bhikkhu into breaking the preceding rule, in hopes of finding fault with him, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：故意誘使另一位比丘違反前一條戒條，希望找他的過錯，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

37	三十七
Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘在非時咀嚼或食用主食或副食，波逸提。
Object	對象
Staple food here follows the standard definition given in the preface to this chapter. Non-staple food refers to all edibles except for the five staple foods, juice drinks, the five tonics, medicines, and water.	這裡的主食，遵循本章前言的標準定義。副食，指除了五種主食、果汁飲料、五種補品、藥物、及水以外的一切可食用物。
The wrong time	非時
The Vibhaṅga defines the wrong time as from noon until dawnrise of the following day. (See Appendix I for a discussion of how dawnrise is defined.) Noon is reckoned as the moment the sun reaches its zenith, rather than by the clock—in other words, by local rather than standard or daylight-savings time. Thus, for example, a bhikkhu who is offered food while traveling in an airplane should check the position of the sun in order to determine whether he may accept and eat it. Some have argued that one may eat after noon if one has begun one’s meal before noon, but the Commentary says explicitly that this is not the case.	《經分別》將非時定義為從正午到隔天黎明升起。（有關黎明升起的定義討論，請參閱附錄一。）正午是以太陽到達天頂的時刻來計算的，而不是以時鐘來計算——換句話說，是以當地時間而不是標準時間或夏令時間來計算的。因此，例如，在飛機上旅行時，被供養食物的比丘，應該檢查太陽的位置，以確定是否可以接受並食用。有人認為，如果在正午之前開始用餐，那麼他可以在正午之後吃，但《義註》明確指出並非如此。
Perception as to whether one is eating at the wrong time or the right time is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	對於是否在非時或正確的時間進食的感知在這裡並不是一個減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。

Effort	努力
The verbs chew and consume in the Pali of this rule are the verbs normally paired, respectively, with non-staple and staple foods. They both mean “to eat,” but the question arises as to whether eating means going down the throat or entering the mouth. This becomes an issue, for instance, when a bhikkhu has a piece of food stuck in his teeth from his morning meal and swallows it after noon.	本戒條的巴利語動詞「咀嚼」和「食用」通常分別與副食和主食搭配使用。它們都表示「吃」，但問題是，「吃」是指吞下喉嚨還是進入嘴裡。這會變成問題，例如，當一位比丘早上用餐時，牙齒上卡著一塊食物，正午之後才把它吞下去時。
The Commentary generally defines eating as going down the throat, but a passage from the Cullavagga (V.25) suggests otherwise. In it, the Buddha allows a ruminator who brings up food to his mouth at the “wrong time” to swallow it, and ends with the statement: “But food that has been brought out from the mouth should not be taken back in. Whoever should take it in is to be dealt with according to the rule (i.e., this rule and the following one).” This suggests, then, that eating is technically defined as “taking into the mouth.”	《義註》通常將「吃」定義為吞下喉嚨，但《小品》（五.25）中的一個段落卻提出了相反的觀點。佛陀允許在「非時」將食物送入口中的反芻者將其吞嚥，並在結尾說道：「但從口中吐出的食物不應再吞回。但凡吞回者，應按戒條（即本戒條和下一條戒條）處置。」由此可見，從嚴格意義上來說，「吃」的定義是「送入口中」。

Offenses	犯戒
The Vibhaṅga says that a bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa when, intending to eat it, he accepts staple or non-staple food. The question is, is the dukkaṭa only for accepting the food in the wrong time, or is it also for accepting food in the right time, intending to eat it in the wrong time? The Vibhaṅga doesn’t answer the question, but the Commentary does, saying that the dukkaṭa is for accepting the food in the wrong time. The Vibhaṅga goes on to say that if the bhikkhu eats staple or non-staple food at the wrong time he incurs a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats. As for juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicine, there is a dukkaṭa for accepting them at the wrong time to be used as food, and another dukkaṭa for eating them at the wrong time as food.	《經分別》說，比丘在想吃時，接受主食或副食，犯《突吉羅》。問題是，《突吉羅》只是因為在非時接受食物，或者是在正確的時間接受食物，卻想在非時吃？《經分別》沒有回答這個問題，但《義註》回答了，說《突吉羅》是因為在非時接受食物。《經分別》繼續說，如果比丘在非時吃主食或副食，他每吃一口都犯一次《波逸提》。至於果汁飲料、五種補品和藥物，在非時接受它們作為食物犯《突吉羅》，在非時將它們作為食物食用犯另一次《突吉羅》。
No exception is granted to an ill bhikkhu, because there are a number of edibles an ill bhikkhu may consume at the wrong time without involving an offense: juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines. Also, there is an allowance in Mv.VI.14.7 for a bhikkhu who has taken a purgative to take strained meat broth, strained rice broth, or strained green gram (mung bean) broth at any time of the day. Using the Great Standards, we may say that a bhikkhu who has a similar illness or worse may take these broths at any time; and some have argued that other bean broths—such as strained broth made from boiled soybeans—would fit under the category of green gram broth as well. However, unlike the case with the five tonics, mere hunger or fatigue would not seem to count as sufficient reasons for taking any of these substances in the wrong time.	生病的比丘也不例外，因為生病的比丘可以在非時食用許多可食用物而不會構成犯戒：果汁飲料、五種補品和藥物。此外，《大品》.六.14.7 允許服用瀉藥的比丘在一天中的任何時間服用過濾後的肉湯、過濾後的米湯或過濾後的綠豆湯。使用《四大教示》，我們可以說患有類似疾病或更嚴重疾病的比丘可以在任何時間服用這些湯；有些人認為其他豆湯——例如煮熟黃豆過濾後製成的湯——也可以歸入綠豆湯的範疇。但是，與五種補品的情況不同，僅僅是飢餓或疲勞似乎不足以成為在非時服用這些物質的理由。
A substance termed loṇasovīraka (or loṇasocīraka) is allowed (Mv.VI.16.3) to be taken in the wrong time as a medicine for ill bhikkhus and, when mixed with water, as a beverage for bhikkhus who are not ill. No one makes it anymore, but the recipe for it in the Commentary to Pr 3 bears some resemblance to the recipe for miso (fermented soybean paste). Some have argued, using the Great Standards, that the special allowance for this substance should extend to miso as well, but this is a controversial point. As far as I have been able to ascertain, miso is not used to cure diseases in adults even in China, which would be the place to look for its use as a medicine. However, even if the allowance does apply to miso, taking miso broth as food in the wrong time would entail a dukkaṭa.	一種名為 loṇasovīraka （或 loṇasocīraka ）的物質被允許（《大品》.六.16.3 ）在非時作為生病比丘的藥物服用，或者與水混合後作為無病比丘的飲料。現在沒有人做這種東西了，但是《波羅夷》三的《義註》中它的配方與味噌（發酵豆醬）的配方有些相似。有些人，使用《四大教示》，主張這種物質的特殊開緣也應該擴及味噌，但這是一個有爭議的觀點。據我所知，即使在中國，味噌也不用於治療成人的疾病，而中國是尋找其作為藥物使用的地方。但是，即使此開緣也適用於味噌，在非時服用味噌湯作為食物也會犯《突吉羅》。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense if, having a reason, one consumes juice drinks, any of the five tonics, or medicine after noon or before dawnrise.	如有理由，在午後或黎明升起前飲用果汁飲料、五種補品中的任何一種或藥物，則並無犯戒。
Summary: Eating staple or non-staple food in the period from noon till the next dawnrise is a pācittiya offense.	，摘要：從中午到第二天黎明升起之前，吃主食或副食都是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

38	三十八
Should any bhikkhu chew or consume stored-up staple or non-staple food, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘咀嚼或食用儲存的主食或副食，波逸提。
This is one of the few rules where the original instigator was an arahant: Ven. Beḷaṭṭhasīsa, Ven. Ānanda’s preceptor and formerly the head of the 1,000 ascetics who attained Awakening on hearing the Fire Sermon (SN 35:28). The origin story here reports that he made a practice of keeping leftover rice from his alms round, drying it, and then moistening it to eat on a later day. As a result, he only rarely had to go out for alms. Even though he was doing this out of frugality rather than greed, the Buddha still rebuked him. The story doesn’t give the precise reasons for the rebuke. Perhaps it was because the Buddha saw that such behavior would open the way for bhikkhus to avoid going on alms round, thus depriving themselves of the excellent opportunity that alms-going provides for reflecting on their dependency on others and on the human condition in general; and depriving the laity of the benefits that come from daily contact with the bhikkhus and the opportunity to practice generosity of the most basic sort every day. Although frugality may be a virtue, there are times when other considerations supercede it.	這是少數最初犯戒者是阿羅漢的戒條之一：毘拉陀施沙尊者，阿難尊者的戒師，曾是聽聞《燃燒經》而覺醒的一千名苦行者的領袖（《相應部》35:28經）。這裡的起源故事報導說，他習慣將托缽剩下的米飯留著，曬乾，然後弄濕以便之後的日子吃。結果，他很少出去托缽。儘管他這樣做是出於節儉而不是貪欲，但佛陀仍然訶責了他。故事沒有給出訶責的具體原因。也許是因為佛陀認為這種行為會讓比丘們逃避托缽，從而剝奪了托缽提供的反思對他人的依賴和人類普遍狀況的絕佳機會；剝奪了在家人與比丘們日常接觸所帶來的利益，以及每天實踐最基本布施的機會。雖然節儉可能是一種美德，但有時其他考慮會取代它。
Another possible reason for this rule is expressed in AN 5:80: “In the course of the future there will be bhikkhus who will live entangled with monastery attendants and novices. As they are entangled with monastery attendants and novices, they can be expected to live intent on many kinds of stored-up consumables and on making blatant signs (identifying their) land and crops.” The Buddha showed great foresight in seeing this as a danger. Over the centuries, whenever bhikkhus have lived in Communities where vast stores of food were kept—such as the great Buddhist universities in India—they have tended to grow lax in their practice, and a gulf of misunderstanding and suspicion has come to separate them from the laity.	這條戒條的另一個可能原因在《增支部》5:80經中有所闡述：「在未來，將有比丘與寺院侍者和沙彌糾纏不清。由於他們與寺院侍者和沙彌糾纏不清，可以預見，他們將熱衷於各種囤積的消耗品，並製作明顯的標誌（來表明他們的）土地和農作物。」佛陀很有遠見，體認到了這是一種危險。幾個世紀以來，每當比丘生活在儲存大量食物的僧團——例如印度的大型佛教大學——他們的修行就會變得懈怠，誤解和猜疑的鴻溝也逐漸將他們與在家人隔開。

Object	對象
Staple food here, as usual, follows the standard definition given in the preface to this chapter. Non-staple food here includes all edibles except for the five staples, juice drinks, the five tonics, medicine, and water.	這裡的主食，一如既往地遵循本章前言的標準定義。這裡的副食，則包括除了五種主食、果汁飲料、五種補品、藥物、水之外的所有可食用物。
Stored-up means formally accepted by a bhikkhu (see Pc 40, below) on one day and eaten on the next or a later day. The boundary between one day and the next is dawnrise.	儲藏的意思是比丘在某一天正式接受（參見下文《波逸提》四十），並在第二天或之後的日子食用。一天與另一天的分界線是黎明升起。
Perception as to whether food has been stored up is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	對於食物是否被儲存起來的感知並不是這裡的減輕懲罰因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
The story of the Second Council (Cv.XII.2.8) shows that this rule also forbids storing such medicines as salt (or pepper, vinegar, etc.) to add to any bland food one might receive on a later day. (See the discussion preceding Pc 31 for more details on this subject.)	第二次結集（《小品》.十二.2.8 ）的故事表明，這條戒條還禁止儲存諸如鹽（或胡椒、醋等）之類的藥物，以便日後添加到任何清淡的食物中。（有關此主題的更多細節，請參閱之前《波逸提》三一的討論。）
The Commentary contains an allowance of its own, saying that, “If a bhikkhu without desire (for the food) abandons it to a novice, and the novice, having stored it (overnight) gives it (again), that is all allowable. If, however, he has received it himself and has not abandoned it, it is not proper on the second day.” This allowance raises two main questions, the first being how to interpret it. Some, focusing on the second sentence to the exclusion of the first, have noticed that it makes no mention of the presence or absence of any desire for the food, and so have interpreted it as meaning that the issue of desire is totally irrelevant: If one has not given the food to a non-bhikkhu, it is not allowable; if one has given it away, it is. This interpretation, however, ignores the point that if the presence or absence of desire for the food were irrelevant, the first sentence would not have mentioned it. Both the Old and New K/Sub-commentaries note this point, and say the abandoning in the second sentence means “abandoning without desire.” In other words, the Commentary’s allowance is meant to apply only in cases where one has abandoned both the food and any desire to receive it back.	《義註》包含一項它自己的開緣，說：「若比丘（對食物）無欲望，捨棄給沙彌，沙彌將它儲存（過夜）後（再）行給予之，則那皆允許。然而，若他自己接受而未捨棄之，則次日不宜。」這項開緣引發了兩個主要問題，第一是如何解讀它。有些人只關注第二句而忽略第一句，發現第二句並未提及對食物是否有欲望，因此將其解讀為與欲望的問題完全無關：若未將食物給予非比丘，則它是不允許的；若已將其贈與出去，則它是允許的。然而，這種解讀忽略了一點：若對食物是否有欲望無關，則第一句話就不會提及。新舊 K/《複註》均指出了這一點，並解釋第二句中的捨棄是「無欲望地捨棄」。換句話說，《義註》的開緣僅適用於既捨棄了食物，又捨棄了任何想要重新獲得食物的欲望的情況。
This, however, begs the second question, which is what justification the Commentary has for making the allowance. There is no basis for it in the Vibhaṅga’s definition of “stored-up,” nor is there anything else in the Vibhaṅga to this rule from which the Great Standards could be used to support the allowance. The Commentary is apparently importing one of the non-offense clauses from NP 23 to this rule, but that is a misapplication of the Great Standards. The Vibhaṅga for one rule cannot be used to rewrite the Vibhaṅga for another; otherwise there would be no end to the rewriting of the rules. Had the compilers meant for the principle under NP 23 to be applied here, they could have done so themselves. For these reasons, there seem to be no grounds for accepting the allowance as valid. Thus, if one abandons food received today then, regardless of whether one has abandoned desire for it, if one accepts it again on a later day and eats it, one commits the full offense under this rule all the same. For further analysis of this point, see the article, Stored-up Food: A Discussion of Pācittaya 38.	但這又引出了第二個問題，就是《義註》有何依據允許這種做法。《經分別》對「儲存」的定義中沒有這種依據，《經分別》中也沒有任何其他內容可以用《四大教示》來支持這項開緣。《義註》顯然是將《捨墮》二三中的一條不犯條款引入這條戒條中，但這是對《四大教示》的誤用。某一條戒條的《經分別》不能用來重寫另一條戒條的《經分別》，否則戒條的重寫將永無止境。如果編纂者有意將《捨墮》二三中的原則應用於此，他們自己就可以這樣做。因此，似乎沒有理由認為接受這項開緣是有效的。因此，如果捨棄今天接受的食物，那麼無論是否已經捨棄了對該食物的欲望，如果在之後的某一天再次接受並食用，仍然會完全違犯此戒條。關於這一點的進一步分析，請參閱文章儲存食物：《波逸提》三八的討論（英文）。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga says that there is a dukkaṭa “if one accepts/takes it, thinking, ‘I will eat it.’” The question has arisen as to whether “it” here means food that has already been stored up or food that one is planning to store up. The Commentary, noting that the intention “I will store it up” is not mentioned, adopts the first interpretation: “It” here means food already stored up. The Vibhaṅga adds that there is a pācittiya for every mouthful one eats.	《經分別》說，「如果接受/拿起它，並想著『我要吃它』」，犯《突吉羅》。此處疑問就產生，這裡的「它」是指已經儲存的食物，還是計畫儲存的食物。《義註》注意到「我要儲存它」的意圖沒有被提到，因此採用了第一種解釋：這裡的「它」是指已經儲存的食物。《經分別》補充說，每吃一口犯一次《波逸提》。
Perception is not a factor here. Thus, a bhikkhu who eats stored-up food commits an offense regardless of whether he perceives it as stored-up. This means—	感知並非此處的因素。因此，比丘食用儲存的食物，無論他是否感知到它是儲存的，都會犯戒。這意味著：
1) If Bhikkhu X receives the food on one day and lets someone else put it away, and Bhikkhu Y eats it on a later day, Y commits an offense all the same, regardless of whether he knows that the food was stored-up.	1）如果比丘 X 在某一天接受食物並讓其他人將其收起來，而比丘 Y 在之後的某一天吃了它，那麼無論 Y 是否知道食物被儲存起來，都同樣犯了戒。
2) One should be careful that there are no traces of any edible received yesterday on a utensil from which one will eat food today. The protocols a student should follow with regard to his preceptor (upajjhāya-vatta) (Mv.I.25.9) show that the custom in the Buddha’s time was to rinse out one’s bowl before going for alms. The Commentary suggests a method for making sure that one’s bowl is clean: Run a finger along the inside of the bowl while it is dry. If there is enough food residue or dust in the bowl for the finger to make a mark in it, clean the bowl again before use.	2）應注意，今天用來吃飯的器皿上不應殘留昨天接受的任何可食用物的殘渣。弟子對戒師應遵循的行儀（upajjhāya-vatta）（《大品》.一.25.9 ）表明，佛陀時代的習俗是在托缽前沖洗乾淨缽。《義註》提出了一種確保缽乾淨的方法：用手指在缽內壁乾燥時劃一劃。如果缽內食物殘渣或灰塵足夠多，足以用手指留下痕跡，則應在使用前再次清洗。
3) In a monastery where there are lay and novice attendants, it is important that they be fully informed of the need to make sure that leftovers from the bhikkhus’ meals not be served to the bhikkhus again on a later day. If donors come with a large pot of food, intending for it to be eaten over a period of several days, the amount of food that the bhikkhus would eat in one day can be placed in a separate vessel and offered to them, while the remainder can be stored in a proper place for later use.	3）在有在家和沙彌侍者的寺院裡，務必讓他們充分了解，確保比丘們用餐後剩餘物不會在日後再次提供給比丘們。如果施主帶著一大鍋食物前來，打算分幾天吃完，可以將比丘們一天的食量放在一個單獨的容器裡供養給他們，剩餘的食物則存放在合適的地方以備日後使用。

Derived offenses	衍生違犯
If a bhikkhu accepts or takes, for the sake of food, a juice drink, a tonic, or medicine that has been stored overnight, there is a dukkaṭa in the taking, and another dukkaṭa for every mouthful he eats. The Commentary, though, asserts that when a bhikkhu takes, not for food but simply to assuage his thirst, a juice drink stored overnight, he incurs a pācittiya with every swallow.	如果比丘為了食物而接受或服用隔夜儲存的果汁飲料、補品或藥物，則服用時犯一次《突吉羅》，而每吃一口犯另一次《突吉羅》。然而，《義註》卻聲稱，如果比丘不是為了食物而僅僅為了解渴而服用隔夜儲存的果汁飲料，則他每吞嚥一口犯一次《波逸提》。
It seems strange that drinking the juice simply as juice would entail a stronger penalty than taking it as food. As there is no basis anywhere in the Canon for the Commentary’s assertion, there seems no reason to adopt it. Mv.VI.40.3 states clearly that juice drinks, taken for any reason, are allowable at any time on the day they are accepted, but not after dawnrise of the following day. No specific penalty is given for taking them on the following day, but inferring from the Vibhaṅga to this rule we can use the Great Standards to say that the penalty would be a dukkaṭa.	奇怪的是，光是把果汁當果汁喝，比把它當食物喝，懲罰更重。由於《聖典》中沒有任何證據支持《義註》的斷言，因此似乎沒有理由採納它。《大品》.六.40.3 明確規定，無論出於何種原因，果汁飲料都可以在被接受當天的任何時間飲用，但第二天黎明之後則不行。第二天飲用果汁並沒有具體的懲罰，但根據這條戒條的《經分別》推斷，我們可以用《四大教示》來說該懲罰是《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense in the mere act of storing food. A bhikkhu going on a journey with an unordained person may thus carry the latter’s food—while the latter carries the bhikkhu’s food—without committing an offense.	僅僅儲存食物本身並不犯戒。一位比丘與一位未受具足戒者同行，因此可以攜帶後者的食物，而後者也攜帶比丘的食物，這並不構成犯戒。
There is also no offense in telling an unordained person to store food that has not been formally received. For example, if donors simply leave food at a bhikkhu’s residence without formally presenting it, the bhikkhu may tell a novice or lay person to take it and put it away for a later day. If the food is then presented to the bhikkhu on a later day, he may eat it that day without penalty.	告訴未受具足戒者儲存未被正式接受的食物也不構成犯戒。例如，如果布施者只是將食物留在比丘的住處而未正式呈上，比丘可以指示沙彌或在家眾將食物取走並存放起來，留待日後享用。如果日後有人將食物呈上給比丘，比丘當天可以享用，而不受任何處罰。
However, Mv.VI.33.2 states that food may be stored indoors in a monastery only in a building designated for the purpose (this would include the dwelling of anyone who is not a bhikkhu—see BMC2, Chapter 7). To eat food stored indoors anywhere else in the monastery, even if it has not been formally accepted on a previous day, would incur a dukkaṭa under Mv.VI.32.2. A bhikkhu may, however, store medicines or the five tonics anywhere in the monastery without penalty.	然而，《大品》.六.33.2 規定，食物只能在寺院內指定為該目的室內儲存（這包括任何非比丘的住所－參見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第七章）。食用在寺院其他地方室內儲存的食物，即使之前的日子未經正式接受，根據《大品》.六.33.2 會犯《突吉羅》。然而，比丘可以在寺院的任何地方儲存藥物或五種補品，而不會受到懲罰。
If a bhikkhu accepts, sets aside, and then eats any of the four kinds of edibles all within their permitted time periods—e.g., he receives bread in the morning, sets it aside, and then eats it before that noon; or receives honey today, sets it aside, and takes it as a tonic tomorrow—there is no offense.	如果比丘在允許的時間內接受、放在一旁，然後吃四種可食用物中的任何一種—例如，他在早上接受麵包，將其放在一旁，然後在中午之前吃掉它；或者今天收到蜂蜜，將其放在一旁，並在明天將其作為補品服用—則沒有犯戒。
This rule makes no exceptions for a bhikkhu who is ill. The Buddha once suspended it during famine but then later reinstated it in such a way that there is no provision for suspending it ever again (Mv.VI.17-20.	本戒條即使比丘生病也不例外。佛陀曾在饑荒時期暫停了本戒條，但後來又恢復了本戒條，並且規定以後不再暫停（《大品》.六.17-20 ）。
Summary: Eating food that a bhikkhu—oneself or another—formally received on a previous day is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：吃比丘（自己或他人）日前正式接受的食物，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

39	三十九
There are these finer staple foods: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses, fish, meat, milk, and curds. Should any bhikkhu who is not ill, having requested finer staple foods such as these for his own sake, then consume them, it is to be confessed.	有以下較精緻的主食：酥油、鮮奶油、油、蜂蜜、糖/糖蜜、魚、肉、奶和凝乳。任何無病的比丘，為自己乞求這些較精緻的主食並食用，波逸提。
There are three factors for an offense here: object, effort, and result.	這裡的犯戒構成因素有三個：對象、努力、結果。
Object	對象
The Vibhaṅga defines finer staple foods as any of the nine foods mentioned in the rule, either on their own or mixed with other foods. Thus milk and milk-mixed-with-cereal would both be finer staple foods. The ancient commentators, though, must have objected to including some of these items under the category of staple food (bhojana), so we have the Commentary defining “finer staple foods” as any of the substances mentioned in the rule mixed with any one of the seven types of grain. Thus, it would say, milk with cereal would be a finer staple food, but milk on its own would not.	《經分別》將「較精緻的主食」定義為戒條中提到的九種食物，單獨食用或與其他食物混合食用均是。因此，牛奶和牛奶與穀物混合食用都是為較精緻的主食。然而，古代註釋家肯定反對將其中一些食物歸入主食（bhojana）的範疇，因此《義註》將「較精緻的主食」定義為戒條中提到的任何物質與七種穀物中的一種混合。因此，它認為牛奶與穀物混合是較精緻的主食，而牛奶本身則不是。
As we have seen, though, the Vibhaṅga defines its terms to fit the situation covered by each particular rule and is not always consistent from one rule to another. Thus, as the Vibhaṅga is not at fault for being inconsistent here, there is no reason to follow the Commentary in deviating from it. The rule means what it says: It covers each of the foods mentioned in it, whether pure or mixed with other ingredients.	然而，正如我們所見，《經分別》的定義是根據每條特定戒條所涵蓋的情況，並且各戒條之間並不總是一致的。因此，既然《經分別》在此前後不一致並無過錯，也沒有理由遵循《義註》而偏離它。這條戒條的含義就在於它所言：它涵蓋了其中提到的每一種食物，無論是單獨還是與其他食材混合。
The first five of these finer staple foods are discussed in detail under NP 23. Fish and meat are discussed in the preface to this chapter. Milk and curds here refers to milk and curds from animals whose flesh is allowable. The Sub-commentary, in discussing this point, maintains that tiger’s milk, bear’s milk, etc., are not unallowable, simply that they would not come under this rule. This is an interesting idea, but was included probably just to wake up sleepy students in the back of the room.	較精緻的主食中前五種在《捨墮》二三中詳細討論。魚和肉在本章的前言中討論。這裡的奶和凝乳指的是那些允許食用其肉的動物的奶和凝乳。在討論這一點時，《複註》認為虎奶、熊奶等並非不允許食用，只是它們不受本戒條約束。這是一個有趣的想法，但包含進來可能只是為了喚醒教室後面昏昏欲睡的學生。
According to the Commentary, any food other than these nine finer staple foods is grounds for a dukkaṭa under Sk 37.	根據《義註》，這九種較精緻的主食之外的任何食物都構成《應學》三七之下的《突吉羅》。
None of the texts mention the issue, but this rule apparently refers only to finer staple foods that have been offered in response to one’s request—either from the person to whom the request was directed or from another person who has learned of the request. If one has made a request for any of these foods but then receives the food from someone who knows nothing of the request, that food would apparently not fulfill this factor of the offense.	任何文獻均未提及此事，但這條戒條似乎僅指應自己請求而提供的較精緻的主食——無論是來自被請求者本人，還是來自知曉該請求的其他人。如果請求了這些食物，卻從對請求毫不知情的人那裡得到了食物，那麼這些食物顯然不滿足構成犯戒的此因素。
Another issue not discussed in any of the texts is what to do if the people who received the request or knew of it continue to offer food of the sort requested. Is one forbidden for life from ever accepting that sort of food from them again? One suggestion for resolving this issue would be to borrow a page from the Commentary’s treatment of a revoked banishment-transaction (see Sg 13). This would mean that if—after the original offering of food—those who know of the request continue offering that sort of food, one must tell them that one may not accept the food because of the penalty it would entail. If, without further prompting, they say that they are offering the food not because of the request but because of their own independent desire to offer it, one may accept it and consume it.	另一個在任何文獻中都沒有討論的問題是，如果收到請求或知曉請求的人繼續提供所請求的該種食物，該怎麼辦？是否終身禁止再次接受他們提供的該種食物？解決這個問題的一個建議是藉用《義註》中關於撤銷驅出羯磨的處理（見《僧殘》十三）。這意味著，如果在最初提供食物之後，那些知曉請求的人繼續提供該種食物，必須告訴他們，由於可能帶來的懲罰，因此不能接受食物。如果他們無需進一步提示就說他們提供食物不是因為請求，而是出於他們自己的意願，那麼可以接受並食用。

Effort & Result	努力及結果
A bhikkhu who is not ill, requesting any of the finer staple foods for his own use, incurs a dukkaṭa for every request he makes, a dukkaṭa for accepting the food with the intention of eating it, and a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats.	一位無病的比丘，為自己使用請求任何較精細的主食，他每次請求都會招致一次《突吉羅》，以吃它的意圖接受食物也會招致《突吉羅》，他吃的每一口都會招致一次《波逸提》。
Not ill means that one is able to fare comfortably without these foods. None of the texts go into detail on this point, but ill probably means something more than simply being hungry, for there is a separate allowance under Sk 37 for a bhikkhu who is hungry to ask for rice and bean curry, which was the basic diet of the day, and the Commentary extends the allowance to cover all foods not covered by this rule. Here ill probably refers to any form of fatigue, weakness, or malnutrition that comes specifically from lacking any of the foods mentioned in the rule.	「無病」指的是即使沒有這些食物也能過得舒服。所有文獻都沒有詳細闡述這一點，但「生病」的含義可能遠不止飢餓，因為《應學》三七中有一項單獨的開緣，飢餓的比丘可以要求米飯和豆咖哩，這是當時的基本飲食。《義註》也將此開緣擴及所有未包含在這條戒條中的食物。這裡的「生病」可能指的是任何形式的疲勞、虛弱或營養不良，具體來說，是由於缺乏該戒條中提到的任何食物而引起的。
Perception as to whether one is actually ill is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	對於是否真的生病的感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
The Commentary adds that if a bhikkhu asks for one kind of finer staple food but receives another kind instead, he incurs the dukkaṭa for asking, but no penalty for accepting and eating what he gets. It also notes that when a bhikkhu asks a lay person for any of the finer staple foods, and the lay person makes a donation of money to the bhikkhu’s steward to buy that food, then once the food is bought it comes under this rule all the same.	《義註》補充道，如果比丘請求一種較精緻的主食，卻收到另一種，他會因請求而犯《突吉羅》，但接受並食用他所得到的食物則不會受到懲罰。《義註》還指出，如果比丘向居士請求任何較精緻的主食，而居士向比丘的淨人布施金錢以購買該食物，那麼一旦食物被購買，也同樣適用此戒條。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense:	不犯戒：
in asking for food—any kind of food—when one is ill, and then eating it, even if one has recovered in the meantime (§);	當生病時，要求食物－任何種類的食物－然後吃掉它，即使在此同時已經康復（§）；
in eating food that has been requested for the sake of an ill bhikkhu and is leftover after his meal;	吃為生病的比丘請求的食物，並且是他用餐後剩下的食物；
in asking from relatives;	從親戚要求；
in asking from those who have offered an invitation to ask;	從那些提供要求邀請的人要求；
in asking for the sake of another person; or	為他人要求；或
in asking that food be bought with one’s own resources.	用自己的資源要求購買的食物。
Also, according to the Meṇḍaka Allowance (Mv.VI.34.21), a bhikkhu going on a journey through a wilderness area where almsfood is difficult to obtain may search for provisions of husked rice, kidney beans, green gram (mung beans), salt, sugar, oil, and ghee for the journey. The Commentary says, though, that he should first wait for spontaneous offerings of these provisions from people who learn of his plans for the journey. If these aren’t forthcoming, he should ask from his relatives or from those who have given him an invitation to ask. Or he may see what he gets on his alms round. (This last alternative apparently applies to the salt, sugar, oil, and ghee; people ordinarily would not be giving uncooked rice, beans, or green gram for alms.) Only when these avenues fail should he ask from people who are unrelated to him and have not given an invitation to ask. Furthermore, he should ask for no more than the journey will require.	此外，根據 Meṇḍaka 開緣（《大品》.六.34.21），比丘在穿越難以取得缽食的林野地區的旅程時，可以尋找糙米、腰豆、綠豆、鹽、糖、油和酥油等食物供應旅程。然而，《義註》指出，他應該先等待知曉其行程計畫的人自發性供養這些食物。如果沒有得到，他應該向親戚或給予他要求邀請的人要求。或者，他可以看看托缽所得。（最後一種選擇顯然適用於鹽、糖、油和酥油；人們通常不會在托缽時給予生米、豆子或綠豆。）只有當這些途徑都失敗時，他才應該向與他無關且未給予他要求邀請的人要求。此外，他所要求的食物不應超過旅程所需。
None of the texts mention any permission for the bhikkhu, after he has searched for the provisions, to store them longer than usual or to cook them in any way. Apparently, they expect him to arrange for an unordained person—or people—to accept the provisions and be responsible for their storage and preparation while on the road.	任何文獻都沒有提及允許比丘在尋找食物後，將其存放比通常更長的時間，或以任何方式烹調。顯然，他們希望比丘安排一位或多位未受具足戒者接受食物供應，並負責旅途中的儲存和準備。
Summary: Eating finer staple foods, after having asked for them for one’s own sake—except when ill—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：為自己要求更精緻的主食並食用之（除非生病），是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

40	四十
Should any bhikkhu take into his mouth an edible that has not been given—except for water and tooth-cleaning sticks (§)—it is to be confessed.	若任何比丘將未給予的可食用物放入口中 —— 除了水和齒木（§） —— 波逸提。
“Now at that time a certain bhikkhu, living entirely off of what was thrown away (§), was staying in a cemetery. Not wanting to receive gifts from people, he himself took the offerings for dead ancestors—left in cemeteries, under trees, and on thresholds—and ate them. People criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can this bhikkhu himself take our offerings for our dead ancestors and eat them? He’s robust, this bhikkhu. He’s strong. Perhaps he feeds on human flesh.’”	「爾時，有一位比丘，完全靠丟棄物（§）生活，住在墓地裡。他不願接受人們的布施，他自己拿走死去祖先的供品——無論是留在墓地裡、樹下還是門檻上——並吃掉它們。人們批評、抱怨，並四處散播此事：『這位比丘他自己怎麼能拿走我們死去祖先的供品並吃掉它們？這位比丘，他身體強健。他力氣很大。或許他吃人肉。』」
There are two factors for the full offense here: object and effort.	這裡的完整違犯有兩個因素：對象和努力。
Object	對象
An edible is whatever is fit to eat, and includes all four classes of food and medicine: staple and non-staple foods, juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicine. As the rule notes, however, there are two exceptions:	凡是適合食用的，都屬於可食用物，包括四類食物和藥物：主食、副食、果汁飲料、五大補品和藥物。然而，正如戒條所述，有兩個例外：
1) Water, according to the Commentary, includes ice, hailstones, and snow as well. Whether such things as boiled water, bottled water, and man-made ice should also come under this exception is a controversial point. Because the texts offer no specific guidance here, this is an area where the wise policy is to follow the dictates of one’s Community.	1）水，根據《義註》，也包括冰、冰雹和雪。白開水、瓶裝水和人造冰是否也應屬於此例外，這是一個有爭議的問題。由於文獻中沒有提供具體的指導，因此明智的做法是遵循各自僧團的規定。
2) Tooth-cleaning sticks, as used in the time of the Buddha, were semi-edible. They were sticks of soft wood, like balsam, cut four to eight fingerbreadths long, chewed until they were reduced to fiber and spat out. People in India still use tooth-cleaning sticks of this sort even today.	2）齒木，佛陀時代使用時是半可食用的。它們是由類似香脂的軟木棒製成，切成四到八指寬，咀嚼至纖維化後吐出。印度人至今仍在使用這種齒木。
Here again there is a controversy as to whether toothpaste comes under this exception as well. On the one hand it fits in with the pattern for tooth-cleaning sticks—it is semi-edible and not intended to be swallowed—but on the other hand it contains substances, such as mineral salts, that the Canon classes as medicines (Mv.VI.8) and that are meant to have medicinal value for the teeth and gums. This second consideration would seem to override the first, as it is a question of following what is explicitly laid out in the Canon, rather than of applying the Great Standards. Thus the wise policy would seem to be to regard toothpaste as a medicine that has to be formally given before it can be used, and not as coming under this exception.	關於牙膏是否也屬於這一例外，也有爭議。一方面，它符合齒木的模式——半可食用，不打算吞嚥——但另一方面，它含有諸如礦物鹽之類的物質，而這些物質在《聖典》中被歸類為藥物（《大品》.六.8 ），旨在對牙齒和牙齦具有藥用價值。第二種考慮似乎優先於第一種考慮，因為這是一個遵循《聖典》明確規定的問題，而不是應用《四大教示》的問題。因此，明智的做法似乎是將牙膏視為一種必須正式給予才能使用的藥物，而不將其納入這一例外。
The act of giving food and other edibles, as described in the Vibhaṅga, has three factors:	《經分別》中描述了食物和其他可食用物的給予行為有三個因素：
1) The donor (an unordained person) is standing within reach—one hatthapāsa, or 1.25 meters—of the bhikkhu.	1）布施者（未受具足戒者）站在比丘伸手可及的範圍內—一個 hatthapāsa（1.25公尺）。
2) He/she gives the item with the body (e.g., the hand), with something in contact with the body (e.g., a spoon), or by means of letting go. According to the Commentary, letting go means releasing from the body or something in contact with the body—e.g., dropping from the hand or a spoon—and refers to such cases as when a donor drops or tosses something into a bhikkhu’s bowl or hands without directly or indirectly making contact.	2）他/她用身體（例如，手）、與身體接觸之物（例如，湯匙）或放下來給予。根據《義註》，「放下」是指從身體或與身體接觸之物中釋放（例如，從手或湯匙上掉落），指的是這樣的情況：布施者將某物掉落或拋入比丘的缽或手中，而沒有直接或間接地接觸。
3) The bhikkhu receives the item with the body or with something in contact with the body (e.g., his bowl, a piece of cloth).	3）比丘用身體或與身體接觸之物（例如，他的缽，一塊布）來接受物品。
There is a tradition in Thailand that a bhikkhu should never receive an offering from a woman hand-to-hand. Either she must offer it with something in contact with her body (e.g., a tray) or the bhikkhu must accept it with something in contact with his: an alms bowl, a tray, a piece of cloth, etc. Apparently this tradition arose as a means of protecting a sexually aroused bhikkhu from committing an offense under Sg 2, or from the embarrassment that might arise if, say, yesterday he was not aroused and so could take something straight from her hand, while today he is and so can’t. Many Thai eight-precept nuns, even though they don’t have any precepts corresponding to Sg 2, follow a reciprocal tradition of not receiving anything hand-to-hand from a man. Neither of these traditions is mentioned in the Canon or the commentaries, nor are they observed by bhikkhus or ten-precept nuns in Burma or Sri Lanka.	泰國有一項傳統，比丘絕對不能接受女性直接手對手遞來的供養。若非她必須用接觸她的身體的東西（例如托盤）來供養，不然則是比丘必須用接觸他的身體的東西來接受供養：缽、托盤、一塊布等等。顯然，這條傳統的起源是為了保護性欲高漲的比丘，避免觸犯《僧殘》二，或者避免如果比丘昨天沒有性欲高漲，可以直接從她手中拿東西，而今天性欲高漲，就無法直接拿東西，從而產生尷尬。許多泰國八戒女，即使沒有與《僧殘》二相對應的戒律，也遵循同樣的傳統，不接受男性直接手對手遞來的任何東西。這兩種傳統都沒有在《聖典》或註釋書中提及，緬甸或斯里蘭卡的比丘或十戒女也沒有遵循它們。
A special allowance in the Cullavagga (V.26) states that if food accidentally falls while being offered, a bhikkhu may pick it up himself and eat it without committing an offense.	《小品》（五.26）中有一項特殊的開緣，如果供養時食物不小心掉落，比丘可以自己撿起來吃，這並不構成犯戒。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga states that a bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa if, with the intention of eating it, he takes food that hasn’t been properly given; and a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats. Perception as to whether the food has actually been formally given is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	《經分別》規定，如果比丘以吃它的意圖而拿取未經適當給予的食物，則犯《突吉羅》；他每吃一口，犯一次《波逸提》。在此，食物是否真的已經被正式給予的感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
The Commentary asserts, however, that perception would be a mitigating factor in the act of taking food. In other words, the bhikkhu would not incur the dukkaṭa for taking the food if he perceived it as properly given even when in fact it wasn’t. This assertion has no basis in the Vibhaṅga to this rule, and cannot be based on the Great Standards because the Canon contains no example of a derived offense requiring the factor of perception under a rule where the full offense does not. Thus there seems no reason to follow the Commentary on this point.	然而，《義註》聲稱，感知會是拿取食物行為裡的減輕懲罰因素。換句話說，如果比丘認為食物是適當地給予的，即使事實上並非如此，他也不會因拿取食物而犯《突吉羅》。這種說法在本戒條的《經分別》中沒有依據，也不能以《四大教示》為依據，因為《聖典》中沒有某一戒條的衍生違犯需要感知因素，但完全違犯卻不需要的例子。因此，在這一點上，似乎沒有理由遵循《義註》。
Once, during a famine, the Buddha allowed bhikkhus to pick up fallen fruit, take it to an unordained person, place it on the ground, and have it formally “given” without committing an offense. This allowance, however, was later rescinded in a way that left no possibility for its being invoked again (Mv.VI.17.8-9; Mv.VI.32). Thus a bhikkhu who—with the intention of eating it—picks up an edible he knows has not been given may not later make it allowable by formally “receiving” it from an unordained person. Whether other bhikkhus may receive it and make use of it, though, is a controversial point discussed in the Commentary in a treatise separate from its explanation of the Vibhaṅga (see below).	曾經，在飢荒期間，佛陀允許比丘們撿拾掉落的水果，帶給未受具足戒者，放在地上，並讓它被正式地「給予」，而不構成犯戒。然而，這項開緣後來被廢除，並且不再允許再次援引（《大品》.六.17.8-9；《大品》.六.32）。因此，如果比丘—以吃它的意圖—撿起他知道尚未給予的可食用物，則他之後不得透過從未受具足戒者那裡正式地「接受」而使其被允許。然而，其他比丘是否可以接受並使用它，這是一個有爭議的問題，在《義註》的另一篇專論中進行了討論，該專論與《經分別》的解釋不同（見下文）。

Non-offenses

不犯

Mv.VI.14.6 allows a bhikkhu bitten by a snake to make an antidote of urine, excrement (burned in fire), ashes, and soil. If there is no unordained person present who can or will make these things allowable, the bhikkhu may take and prepare them himself, and then eat them without incurring a penalty under this rule. The Commentary adds that if he cuts a tree under these circumstances to burn it, or digs the earth to get soil, he is exempt from the rules dealing with those actions as well.

《大品》.六.14.6 允許被蛇咬的比丘用尿液、糞便（火燒）、灰燼和泥土製作解毒劑。如果在場沒有未受具足戒者能夠或願意使這些東西變成允許的，比丘可以自行取用並準備，然後食用，而不會受到此戒條的懲罰。《義註》補充說，如果他在這些情況下砍樹焚燒，或挖土取土，他也豁免於針對這些行為的戒條。

Controversial points from the Commentary	《義註》中的爭議點
As mentioned above, the Commentary’s discussion of this rule includes a treatise separate from its explanation of the Vibhaṅga, dealing with controversial points for which the Canon gives unclear answers or no answers at all. Because the treatise is a compilation of the opinions of various teachers and does not pretend to explain the meaning or intent of the Buddha’s words—and because the Buddha warned bhikkhus against making up their own rules (NP 15.1.2)—the opinions expressed in the treatise are not necessarily normative. Many Communities do not accept them, or are selective in choosing what they do and do not accept. Here we will give a summary of some of the Commentary’s opinions that have influenced practices found in some, if not all, Communities of bhikkhus at present.	如上所述，《義註》對此戒條的討論包含一篇獨立於其對《經分別》解釋的專論，該專論處理了《聖典》中未給出明確答案或根本沒有答案的爭議點。由於專論匯集了各位導師的觀點，並未假裝解釋佛陀言說的意義或意圖—因為佛陀警告比丘們不要自行制定戒條（《捨墮》一五.1.2）—該專論中表達的觀點並非必然具有規範性。許多僧團並不接受這些觀點，或在接受和不接受方面有所選擇性。此處我們將總結《義註》中的一些觀點，這些觀點影響了部分（即便不是全部）當今比丘僧團的修行。
1. Taking into the mouth	1. 進入嘴中
is defined as going down the throat. As we have already noted under Pc 37, though, this definition has no justification in canonical usage. The Sub-commentary attempts to justify the Commentary’s stand here by defining “mouth” (mukhadvāra—literally, the door of the face) as the larynx, i.e., the back door rather than the front door to the mouth, but again this is not supported by the Canon. Sk 41—“I will not open the door of the face when the mouthful has yet to be brought to it”—shows decisively that this term refers to the lips and not to the larynx. MN 140 explicitly lists the mukhadvāra and the passage “whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets swallowed” as two separate parts of the internal space element in the body. Taking into the mouth thus means taking in through the lips.	被定義為進入喉嚨。然而，正如我們已經在《波逸提》三七中指出的，這個定義在經典用法中沒有依據。《複註》試圖透過將「嘴」（mukhadvāra——字面意思是臉部之門）定義為喉頭，即嘴的後門而不是前門，來證明《義註》在此的立場，但《聖典》再次不支持這種說法。《應學》四一——「當一口食物尚未送達時，我不會打開臉部之門」——明確表明該術語指的是嘴唇而不是喉頭。《中部》140經明確列出了 mukhadvāra 和「由此吃、喝、消耗和品嚐的東西被吞嚥」這段話，它們是身體內部空間元素的兩個獨立部分。因此，進入嘴中意味著透過嘴唇進入。
2. Food	2. 食物
Pond water so muddy that it leaves a scum on the hand or on the mouth is considered to be food, and so must be given before it can be drunk. The same holds true with water into which so many leaves or flowers have fallen that their taste is discernible in the water. For some reason, though, water that has been scented with flowers need not be given, and the same is true with water taken from a stream or river no matter how muddy. (There is a belief still current in India and other parts of Asia that flowing water is inherently clean.) Although leaves and flowers technically do count as edibles—they are classed as non-staple foods or medicines, depending on one’s purpose in eating them—the idea of counting mud and scum as edibles seems to be taking the concept of edible a little too far.	池塘水如果太混濁，在手上或嘴上留有浮渣，則被視為食物，因此必須先被給予才能飲用。如果水中落滿了樹葉或花朵，以至於在水中可以辨別出它們的味道，也是一樣必須先被給予才能飲用。但出於某種原因，加了花香的水就不必被給予，從溪流或河流中取來的水，無論多麼渾濁，也不必被給予。（在印度和亞洲其他地區，人們至今仍然相信流動的水本身是乾淨的。）雖然從技術上講，葉子和花朵確實可以算作可食用物——它們被歸類為副食或藥物，具體取決於食用它們的目的——但將泥土和浮渣算作可食用物似乎對可食用的概念理解得有點過了。
If toothwood is chewed for the sake of its juice, it must first be given. Even if one is chewing it for the sake of cleaning the teeth but accidentally swallows the juice, one has committed an offense all the same. These two opinions have no basis in the Canon, inasmuch as intention is not a factor in determining the offense under this rule.	如果為了汁液而咀嚼齒木，必須先被給予。即使是為了清潔牙齒而咀嚼，卻不小心吞下了汁液，也同樣犯了戒。這兩種觀點在《聖典》中都沒有依據，因為根據這條戒條，意圖並非判斷罪行的因素。
A long section of this treatise discusses what to do if things that are not given get into food that has been given. It concludes that they must be removed from the food or the food must be given again. If the items “not given” are edibles, this seems reasonable enough, but the Commentary extends the concept to include such things as dust, dirty rain water, rust from a knife, beads of sweat dropping from one’s brow, etc. Again, this seems to be taking the concept too far, for the Vibhaṅga states clearly that the rule covers only those things generally considered as fit to eat.	這篇專論用了很長的篇幅討論瞭如果未給予的東西進入已給予的食物中該怎麼辦。結論是，必須將這些未給予的東西從食物中移除，或者食物必須重新被給予。如果「未給予」的東西是可食用的，這似乎很合理，但《義註》將這一概念擴展至包括灰塵、髒雨水、刀上的鏽跡、額頭上滴下的汗珠等等。同樣，這似乎將這一概念延伸得太遠了，因為《經分別》明確指出，這條戒條只涵蓋那些通常被認為適合食用的東西。
3. Giving	3. 給予
The Commentary redefines the act of giving, expanding its factors to five:	《義註》重新定義了給予行為，將其因素擴展至五個：
(a) The item is such that a man of average stature can lift it.	（a）此物品可被普通身材的人舉起。
(b) The donor is within reach—1.25 m.—of the bhikkhu.	（b）布施者距離比丘在可及（1.25公尺）的範圍內。
(c) He/she makes a gesture of offering the food.	（c）他/她做出供養食物的示意動作。
(d) The donor is a deva, a human being, or a common animal.	（d）布施者是天人、人類或普通動物。
(e) The bhikkhu receives the item with the body or with something in contact with the body.	（e）比丘用身體，或用與身體接觸的某物來接受物品。
Factor (a) was included apparently to discourage the practice, still found in many places, of getting two or more men to present a table of food to a bhikkhu by lifting the entire table at once. The inclusion of this factor, though, has given rise to the assumption that the donor must lift the food a certain distance before handing it to the bhikkhu, but the Commentary itself shows that this assumption is mistaken, for it states that if a small novice too weak to lift a pot of rice simply slides it along the table or floor onto a bhikkhu’s hand, it is properly given.	因素（a）被納入顯然是為了阻止許多地方仍然存在的這種做法：讓兩個或兩個以上的人同時抬起整張桌子，將一桌食物呈給比丘。然而，納入這一因素導致了一種假設，即布施者必須將食物抬起一定距離才能遞給比丘。但《義註》本身表明，這種假設是錯誤的，因為它指出，如果一個體弱的沙彌，無法抬起一鍋米飯，只需將米飯沿著桌子或地板滑到比丘的手中，就屬於適當地被給予。
Factor (b): If any part of the donor’s body (except for his/her extended arm) is within 1.25 meters of any part of the bhikkhu’s body (except for his extended arm), this factor is fulfilled. If the donor is standing beyond reach, the bhikkhu should tell him/her to come within reach before donating the food. If for some reason the donor does not comply with the bhikkhu’s request, the bhikkhu may still accept the food but should then take it to another unordained person—without setting it down and picking it up again in the meantime (see below)—and have it properly “given” before eating it.	因素（b）：如果布施者身體的任何部位（除伸出的手臂外）距離比丘身體的任何部位（除伸出的手臂外）在1.25公尺以內，則滿足此條件。若布施者站在比丘不可及的地方，比丘應告知其在布施食物前走到比丘可及的地方。若布施者因故未遵從比丘的請求，比丘仍可接受食物，但應將其帶給另一位未受具足戒者—在此期間沒有放下再拿起（見下文）—並在食用前令其適當地「被給予」。
Although the donor must be within reach, the food itself need not be. Thus if the donor places many vessels on a mat while the bhikkhu touches the mat with the intention of receiving them, all of the food is considered to be properly received as long as the donor is within reach of the bhikkhu. The same holds true if the donor places many vessels touching one another while the bhikkhu touches one of the vessels with the intention of receiving them all. (The factor of the bhikkhu’s intention is discussed further under factor (e) below.)	雖然布施者必須在可及的範圍內，但食物本身卻不必如此。因此，如果布施者將許多器皿放在墊子上，而比丘觸摸墊子意圖接受它們，只要布施者在比丘可及的範圍內，所有食物都被視為已適當地被接受。如果布施者將許多器皿彼此接觸，而比丘觸摸其中一個器皿意圖接受所有食物，則同樣適用。（比丘的意圖因素將在下文的因素（e）中進一步討論。）
Factor (c) means that the donor cannot simply tell the bhikkhu to take the food being given. Rather, he/she should make a physical gesture of offering the food. In some Communities, this factor is interpreted as meaning that the donor must assume a humble or respectful manner while making the offering, and has led some to believe, for instance, that a bhikkhu going barefoot on his alms round should not accept food from a donor wearing shoes. This view is not supported by the Commentary. Although some of the gestures it cites as examples, such as tilting the head, might be interpreted as showing respect, some of them are not respectful in terms of Asian etiquette at all. For instance, a person riding on the bhikkhu’s shoulders picks a piece of fruit from a tree, drops it into the bhikkhu’s hands, and it is considered properly given.	因素（c）意味著布施者不能僅僅告訴比丘接受要被給予的食物。相反，他/她應該做出供養食物的身體示意動作。在某些僧團，這個因素被解釋為布施者在供養時必須採取謙卑或尊重的態度，並且導致一些人認為，例如，赤腳托缽的比丘不應該接受穿鞋的布施者的食物。《義註》並不支持這種觀點。雖然它引用的一些示意動作例子，例如歪著頭，可能被解釋為表示尊重，但從亞洲禮儀來看，有些動作根本不尊重。例如，一個人騎在比丘的肩上，從樹上摘下一個水果，扔到比丘的手中，這被認為是被適當地給予。
The question arises as to how much of a gesture is necessary for this factor to be fulfilled. In the West, if a donor brings a tray of food and stands in front of a bhikkhu, waiting for him to take some of the food, the fact that he/she stands there waiting would be considered enough of a gesture to show that the food is being given. If the bhikkhu were to demand more of a gesture than that, the donor would probably be offended. Because the opinions expressed in this section of the Commentary are not necessarily normative, this is an area where one can make allowances for cultural norms. The essence of this factor would seem to be that a bhikkhu should not snatch food that a person happens to be carrying past him without showing any indication that he/she wants him to take the food.	問題是，要滿足這因素，需要多少示意動作？在西方，如果一位布施者端著一盤食物，站在一位比丘面前，等他取食，那麼他/她站在那裡等待的事實就足以被視為示意動作，表明食物要被給予。如果比丘要求更多示意動作，布施者可能會感到被冒犯。由於《義註》這一部分所表達的觀點不一定具有規範性，因此在這方面可以考慮文化規範。這因素的本質似乎是，比丘不應該在沒有表現出任何想要他取食的跡象時，搶奪恰巧經過他身邊的人攜帶的食物。
Factor (d) is not discussed by the Commentary, although it is probably inspired by such stories as that of elephants offering lotus stalks to Ven. Moggallāna, and of Sakka, the king of the devas, presenting a gift of food to Mahā Kassapa after the latter had withdrawn from seven days of concentration (Ud.III.7). There is at least one bhikkhu in Thailand today who has trained a pet monkey to “give” him things.	因素（d）並未在《義註》裡討論，儘管它可能受到一些故事的啟發，例如大象向目犍連尊者供養蓮花莖，以及帝釋天在摩訶迦葉入定七日出定後，向他獻上食物布施（《自說》.三.7）。如今，泰國至少有一位比丘訓練了一隻寵物猴來「給予」他東西。
Factor (e): The effort involved in receiving the item may be minimal indeed. In fact, the Commentary’s discussion of the Vibhaṅga quotes the Mahā Paccarī, one of the ancient Sinhalese commentaries, as saying that attention is the measure determining whether or not food has been received. Thus if a donor offers food by placing it on a table, the bhikkhu may simply touch the table with his finger, thinking, “I am receiving the food,” and it is properly given. The same holds true if he is sitting on the table or lying on a bed and regards the act of sitting or lying there as one of receiving whatever is placed there. However, immovable objects—such as a floor, the ground, or anything fixed to the floor or ground—may not be used as “items connected to the body” to receive food in this way.	因素（e）：接受食物所需的努力可能確實微不足道。事實上，《義註》對《分別經》的討論中引用了古代僧伽羅語註釋書之一《Mahā Paccarī》的論述，其中指出，注意力是衡量食物是否被接受的標準。因此，如果布施者將食物放在桌子上供養，比丘只需用手指觸摸桌子，心想「我正在接受食物」，這就是適當地給予。同樣，如果他坐在桌子上或躺在床上，並將坐或臥的行為視為接受擺放在那裡的任何東西，也是適當地給予。然而，不可移動的物體——例如地板、地面或任何固定在地板或地面上的東西——不能被用作「與身體相連的物品」來以這種方式接受食物。
Food placed in a bhikkhu’s hand when he is asleep or his attention is elsewhere—e.g., in deep meditation—does not count as properly given. He must be awake and paying enough attention to know that the food is being given for this factor to be fulfilled. Food placed in a bhikkhu’s mouth is considered properly given if he is awake. If he is asleep or unconscious and food is put into his stomach via a feeding tube, he has not broken this rule for he is not the agent putting it there, and as the Sub-commentary notes under Sg 1, the Vinaya does not apply to a bhikkhu when he is not in a normal, waking state of awareness.	當比丘睡著或注意力在其他地方（例如入深定）時，將食物放在他手中不算是適當地給予。他必須保持清醒，並且足夠注意地知道食物正在被給予，才能滿足這一條件。如果比丘清醒，將食物放在他口中算是適當地給予。如果他睡著或失去意識，食物透過餵食管送入他的胃中，他並沒有違反這條戒條，因為他不是將食物放入胃中的施食者。如同《僧殘》一的《複註》所述，當比丘未處於正常的清醒意識狀態時，戒律不適用於他。
4. Taking food that has not been given	4. 拿取未給予的食物
To take food knowing that it has been improperly given or not given at all (here we are not talking about cases of stealing) is no offense if the bhikkhu has no intention of ever eating it. If, after he has set it down, the food is later “given” to him, he may accept and eat it with no penalty. Here the examples given in the Commentary include such things as picking up fallen fruit or the remains of a lion’s kill with the thought of taking them for a novice to eat, or picking up oil or ghee with the thought of taking it to one’s parents. A common example at present would be picking up food left lying around when one is cleaning up the monastery. The Sub-commentary states that this allowance does not hold if one is thinking of taking the food for other bhikkhus to eat.	明知食物未適當地給予或根本沒有給予（這裡我們不討論偷竊的情況）而拿取，如果比丘無意食用，則不構成犯戒。如果比丘放下食物後，之後食物被「給予」他，他可以接受並食用，不受懲罰。《義註》中給出的例子包括撿起掉落的水果或獅子獵物的殘骸，想把它們帶給沙彌吃，或撿起油或酥油，想把它們帶給自己的父母。目前一個常見的例子是，在打掃寺院時撿起散落的食物。《複註》指出，如果想把食物帶給其他比丘吃，則此開緣不成立。
To take food with the purpose of eating it, thinking that it has been properly given when in fact it hasn’t, is also no offense. If one then learns or realizes that it has not been properly given, one should return it—if possible, to its original place—without setting it down and picking it up again in the meantime. Once the food is back in its original place, one may “receive” and eat it with no penalty. If one sets it down and picks it up again before returning it to its original place, though, then technically one incurs a dukkaṭa for taking food that one realizes is not properly given, and so one may not later formally receive the food, as mentioned above. If for some reason there is no possibility of returning the food to its original place, one need only return it to some other spot in the building from which it was taken and then “receive” and eat it without committing an offense.	為了食用的目的而拿取食物，以為食物已適當地給予，但實際上並非如此，這同樣不構成犯戒。如果隨後得知或意識到食物並未適當地給予，應將其歸還——如果可能的話，放回原處——期間沒有放下再拿起。一旦食物會到原處後，可以「接受」並吃它，不會受到任何懲罰。但如果在歸還回原處之前就放下再拿起，那麼嚴格來說，則因意識到食物並非適當地給予而拿取食物，犯《突吉羅》，因此之後不得像上文所述那樣正式地接受食物。如果由於某種原因無法將食物歸還回原處，只需要將它放回被拿取的建築物中的其他地方，然後「接受」並吃它，而不構成犯戒。
As we noted above, the Commentary’s discussion of this point has no basis in the Vibhaṅga to this rule or in the Great Standards, so there seems no reason to follow it.	正如我們上面提到的，《義註》中對這一點的討論在本戒條的《經分別》或《四大教示》中都沒有依據，因此似乎沒有理由遵循它。
According to the Commentary’s treatise, taking the food also includes deliberately touching it or the vessel containing it with the intention of eating it. (Touching it accidentally carries no penalty.) If a bhikkhu deliberately touches it in this way, he may not then properly receive it, although other bhikkhus may. Even after they have received it, the first bhikkhu may not eat any of it.	根據《義註》的專論，拿取食物也包括帶著食用的意圖，故意觸碰食物或盛放食物的器皿。（意外觸碰則不受懲罰。）如果比丘故意以這種方式觸碰食物，他不可正式接受它，但其他比丘可以。即使其他比丘已經接受食物，第一位比丘也不能食用。
If the first bhikkhu, instead of merely touching the food or its vessel, actually moves it from its place, then neither he nor any of the other bhikkhus may receive it. Thus if a donor brings a pot of stew to the monastery, and one of the bhikkhus, curious to see what is going to be offered that day, tilts the pot to peek inside, none of the bhikkhus may eat the food, and the donor must either give it to the novices and any attendants at the monastery, if there are any, throw it to the dogs, or take it home.	如果第一位比丘不只是觸碰食物或盛裝食物的容器，而是真的將食物從原處移開，那麼他和其他比丘都不得接受。因此，如果一位布施者帶著一鍋燉菜來到寺院，其中一位比丘好奇地想看看當天要供養什麼，便傾斜鍋子偷看裡面，所有比丘都不得食用這鍋食物，布施者必須將食物交給沙彌和寺院裡的任何侍者（如果有），或者扔給狗，或者帶回家。
Many Communities do not accept the Commentary’s opinions on this point, and with good reason: The last-mentioned penalty—even though the offense is a dukkaṭa—is stronger than that imposed by any of the nissaggiya pācittiya rules, and penalizes perfectly innocent people: the other bhikkhus and the donor of the food as well. An alternate opinion, which many Communities follow, is that if a bhikkhu takes—with the thought of eating it—food that he knows has not been properly offered, he may not then formally receive it from an unordained person, but other bhikkhus may. Once it has been properly received, any bhikkhu—including the first—may eat from it.	許多僧團不接受《義註》對此的觀點，而且理由充分：最後提到的懲罰——即使罪行是《突吉羅》，也比任何《尼薩耆波逸提》戒條的懲罰更嚴厲，並且懲罰完全無辜的人：其他比丘和食物的施主也一樣。許多僧團遵循的另一種觀點是，如果一個比丘帶著食用的意圖，拿取明知未經適當地供養的食物，那麼他不能從未受具足戒者正式接受該食物，但其他比丘可以。一旦食物被適當地接受，任何比丘——包括第一位比丘——都可以食用。
This is an area in which none of the texts give an authoritative answer, and a wise policy is to adhere to the views of the Community in which one is living, as long as they fit into the framework provided by the Canon.	在這個領域，沒有任何文獻給出權威的答案，明智的做法是遵守自己所居住的僧團的觀點，只要它們符合《聖典》提供的框架。

5. When food becomes “ungiven.”	5. 當食物變成「未給予」
The Commentary to Pr 1, in its discussion of what to do when a bhikkhu’s sex changes spontaneously (!), lists seven actions through which an edible given to a bhikkhu becomes “ungiven”—i.e., no bhikkhu may pick it up and eat it until it is formally given again. The seven are—	《波羅夷》一的《義註》在討論比丘性別自發地改變時（！）該如何處理時，列舉了七種行為，這些行為會導致給予比丘的可食用物變成「未給予」——也就是說，在正式再次給予之前，任何比丘都不能拿起並食用它。這七種行為是──
(a) undergoing a spontaneous sex change,	（a）發生自發性變性，
(b) dying,	（b）死亡，
(c) disrobing and becoming a lay person,	（c）還俗成為在家人，
(d) becoming a low person (according to the Sub-commentary, this means committing a pārājika),	（d）成為下等人（根據《複註》，這意味著犯了《波羅夷》罪），
(e) giving the item to an unordained person (because a spontaneous sex change would turn a bhikkhu into a bhikkhunī, unordained person here apparently includes not only lay people and novices, but bhikkhunīs as well),	（e）將物品給予未受具足戒者（因為自發性變性會使比丘變成比丘尼，因此這裡的未受具足戒者顯然不僅包括在家人和沙彌，也包括比丘尼）。
(f) abandoning the item, having lost interest in it,	（f）放棄該物品，對它失去興趣，
(g) the theft of the item. (The Sub-commentary, in discussing this last point, refers solely to cases of out-and-out thievery, and not to the mere act of touching or moving.)	（g）物品被偷。（在討論最後一點時，《複註》僅指徹頭徹尾的盜竊行為，而非單純的觸摸或移動行為。）
The agent in actions (a) through (f) is apparently the bhikkhu who, at that time, has possession of the item. In other words, it does not have to be the original recipient. If Bhikkhu X, after receiving an item, gives it to Bhikkhu Y, then even if X then dies, the item still counts as given.	（a）至（f）行為中的當事者顯然是當時擁有該物品的比丘。換句話說，當事者不一定是最初的接受者。如果比丘 X 收到一件物品後，將其給予比丘 Y ，那麼即使 X 隨後去世，該物品仍算被給予。
Of these seven actions, the Commentary’s treatise appended to this rule discusses only two—(e) and (f)—in a series of examples, as follows:	在這七項行為中，本戒條所附的《義註》的專論僅討論了兩項——（e）和（f）——在一系列例子中進行了討論，如下：
A bhikkhu with rice in his hand offers it to a novice: The rice remains “given” until the novice takes it.	一位比丘手裡拿著米飯，將米飯供養給一位沙彌：米飯保持「被給予」狀態，直到沙彌拿取為止。
A bhikkhu places food in a vessel and, no longer interested in it, tells a novice to take it: The food is “ungiven” as soon as he says this. This point, however, does not apply to food the bhikkhu leaves in his own bowl or in any Community vessel from which the bhikkhus are served or in which their food is prepared. If he leaves food in such a vessel, he is not regarded as having abandoned interest in it.	比丘將食物放入器皿中，不再對其感興趣，吩咐沙彌取走：他一說完，食物就是「未給予」。然而，此點不適用於比丘留在自己缽中，或任何供養比丘或準備比丘食物的僧團器皿中的食物。如果他將食物留在此類器皿中，則不視為他已放棄對食物的興趣。
A bhikkhu sets his bowl on a stand and tells a novice to take some rice from it. Assuming that the novice’s hand is clean—i.e., not “contaminated” with any food from his own bowl that might fall into the bhikkhu’s bowl—the rice remaining in the bhikkhu’s bowl after the novice has taken his portion is still “given.” Technically speaking, the treatise says, the rice taken by the novice still belongs to the bhikkhu until the novice puts it in his own bowl. Thus if the novice begins to take a second handful and, being told by the bhikkhu, “That’s enough,” puts the second handful back in the bhikkhu’s bowl; or if any grains of rice from the first handful happen to fall back into the bhikkhu’s bowl while the novice is lifting it out, all the rice in the bhikkhu’s bowl is still “given.”	一位比丘將自己的缽放在缽腳上，並吩咐一位沙彌從缽中取一些米飯。假設沙彌的手是乾淨的——也就是說，沒有被他自己缽裡的食物「沾染」而掉進比丘的缽裡——那麼沙彌取完自己那一份後，比丘缽裡剩下的米飯仍然是「給予的」。從技術上講，該專論說，沙彌取的米飯在沙彌將其放入自己的缽中之前仍然屬於比丘。因此，如果沙彌開始取第二把米飯，並被比丘告知「夠了」，於是將第二把米飯放回比丘的缽中；或者，如果在沙彌取第一把米飯時，恰巧有一些米粒掉回了比丘的缽中，那麼比丘缽裡的所有米飯仍然是「給予的」。
A bhikkhu holding a stick of sugar cane tells a novice to cut off a piece from the other end: The remaining section is still “given.”	一位手持甘蔗的比丘告訴沙彌從另一端切下一段：剩下的部分仍然是「給予的」。
A bhikkhu places pieces of hardened molasses on a tray and tells other bhikkhus and novices to help themselves from the tray: If the bhikkhus and novices simply pick up their portions and take them, the remaining hardened molasses is still “given.” If, though, a novice picks up one piece, puts it down, picks up another piece, puts it down, and so on, the hardened molasses remaining on the tray becomes “ungiven.”	一位比丘將幾塊硬化糖蜜放在托盤上，並告訴其他比丘和沙彌自己從托盤中取用：如果比丘和沙彌只是拿起自己的那一份並吃掉，那麼剩下的硬化糖蜜仍然是「給予的」。但是，如果一位沙彌拿起一塊，放下，又拿起另一塊，放下，如此反覆，那麼托盤上剩下的硬化糖蜜就變成了「未給予」。
The Sub-commentary explains this by saying that the novice picking up the molasses is thinking, “This is mine. I’ll take it,” then changes his mind, puts it down and then lays claim to another piece, and so on. Thus, only the pieces that the novice claims and then abandons in this way become “ungiven.” The other pieces on the tray still count as “given.”	《複註》對此的解釋是，拿起糖蜜的沙彌心想：「這是我的。我要拿走它。」但他後來改變了主意，放下糖蜜，又聲稱擁有另一塊，以此類推。因此，只有沙彌聲稱後又以這種方式放棄的糖蜜才算「未給予」。托盤上的其他糖蜜仍然算作「給予的」。
This last example, when taken out of context, has led to the widespread view that food given to a bhikkhu becomes “ungiven” if an unordained person touches or moves it. Viewed in context, though, the example does not imply this at all. The bhikkhu has offered the hardened molasses to the novice, and the novice in picking it up simply completes the factors for case (e): “The bhikkhu gives the item to an unordained person.” The example of the novice taking rice from a bhikkhu’s bowl shows that even when a bhikkhu offers food to an unordained person, the mere fact that the person touches or moves the food does not necessarily make the food “ungiven.”	最後這個例子，如果脫離上下文來看，就導致了這樣一種普遍的觀點：如果未受具足戒的人觸碰或移動了比丘的食物，那麼給予比丘的食物就變成了「未給予」。然而，結合上下文來看，這個例子根本沒有暗示這一點。比丘已經將硬化的糖蜜供養給沙彌，而沙彌拿起它只是完成了案例（e）的因素：「比丘將物品給予未受具足戒的人。」沙彌從比丘缽裡取米的例子表明，即使當比丘將食物供養給未受具足戒的人，僅僅因為該人觸碰或移動了食物，也不一定會使食物成為「未給予」。
Thus in cases where the bhikkhu is not giving away the food and has not abandoned interest in it—and the unordained person is not stealing it—there is no reason to hold that “given” food becomes “ungiven” simply when an unordained person touches or moves it. This is another area, though, where different Communities hold different views, and where the wise policy is to conform to the observances of the Community in which one is living.	因此，如果比丘沒有贈送食物，也沒有放棄對食物的興趣——而未受具足戒者也沒有偷竊食物——那麼，沒有理由僅僅因為未具足戒者觸碰或移動了食物，就認定「給予的」食物變成了「未給予」。然而，這是另一個不同的僧團持有不同的觀點的範疇，明智的做法是遵守自己所在僧團的規定。
These points from the Commentary’s treatise may seem like a lot of hair-splitting, but remember that the gift of food ranks with sexual temptation as one of the largest issues in a bhikkhu’s—or anyone’s—life. If questions of this sort hadn’t arisen in practice, no one would have bothered to compile the treatise in the first place. Given the cursory manner in which the Vibhaṅga treats this rule, and given the large gray areas surrounding the act of giving—modern anthropology started with this subject and will probably never finish with it—it’s good to have those areas spelled out in detail so as to minimize any disharmony that might arise in a Community when its members find themselves in gray situations.	《義註》專論中的這些觀點可能看起來有些吹毛求疵，但請記住，食物的布施與性誘惑一樣，是比丘——或任何人——生活中最大的問題之一。如果這類問題在實務上沒有出現，一開始就沒有人會費心編纂這部專論。鑑於《經分別》對這條戒條粗略的處理態度，以及圍繞給予行為的大量灰色地帶——現代人類學從這個主題開始，並且可能永遠不會結束——將這些領域詳細闡明是好的，以盡量減少僧團成員陷入灰色境地時可能出現的不和諧。
Still, as we have noted several times, the guidelines in the Commentary’s treatise are not binding, and the wise policy is to follow the standards of the Community in which one is living, as long as they fall within the framework of the Canon.	不過，正如我們多次指出的那樣，《義註》專論中的指導方針並不具有約束力，明智的政策是遵循所居住的僧團的標準，只要它們符合《聖典》的框架。
Summary: Eating food that has not been formally given is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：食用未經正式給予的食物是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。