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。

(未完待續)