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；
|
| 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：此部份古漢譯有「十五日食」、「布薩食」、「月初日食」]，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。） |
(未完待續)