波逸提

Five: The Naked Ascetic Chapter 第五 裸行者品
41 四十一
Should any bhikkhu give staple or non-staple food with his own hand to a naked ascetic, a male wanderer, or a female wanderer, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘親手給裸行者、男遊方者或女遊方者提供主食或副食，波逸提。
There are two origin stories here, the first being the more entertaining of the two: 這裡有兩個起源故事，第一個是其中較有趣者：
“Now at that time (a lot of) non-staple food accrued to the Community. Ven. Ānanda told this matter to the Blessed One, who said, “In that case, Ānanda, give the cakes to those who eat scraps.’”
「爾時，（很多）副食歸屬於僧團所有。阿難尊者將此事稟告世尊。世尊說：『既然如此，阿難，就把餅給予那些吃剩飯的人。』」
“‘As you say, venerable sir,’ Ven. Ānanda responded to the Blessed One. Then, having had those who eat scraps sit down in a line and giving a cake to each, he gave two cakes to a certain female wanderer, thinking they were one. The female wanderers around her said, “That monk is your lover.’
「『如你所說，世尊。』阿難達尊者回應世尊。然後，他讓那些吃剩飯的人坐下成一排，每人給一個餅。他給了一位女遊方者兩個餅，以為是一個。她周圍的女遊方者說：「那位沙門是你的情人。』
“‘No, he’s not. He just gave me two cakes thinking they were one.’
「『不，他不是。他只是把兩個餅以為是一個給了我。』
“A second time…. A third time, Ven. Ānanda, giving a cake to each, gave two cakes to that female wanderer, thinking they were one. The female wanderers around her said, “That monk is your lover.’
「第二次……第三次，阿難尊者給每人一個餅，卻給了那位女遊方者兩個，以為是一個。她周圍的女遊方者說：『那位沙門是你的情人。』
“‘No, he’s not. He just gave me two cakes thinking they were one.’
「『不，他不是。他只是把兩個餅以為是一個給了我。』
“So—‘Lover!’ ‘Not a lover! (§)’—they kept squabbling.”
「所以——『情人！』『不是情人！（§）』——他們持續爭吵。」
The second story, though, gives a better idea of the reason for the rule: 不過，第二個故事更好地解釋了這條戒條的原因：
“Then a certain naked ascetic went to a distribution of food. A certain bhikkhu, having mashed some rice with a great deal of ghee, gave a large helping to the naked ascetic. So the naked ascetic, having received his alms, left. Another naked ascetic asked him, ‘Where, friend, did you get your alms?’
「後來，一位裸行者去食物分配處。一位比丘用大量酥油搗碎了一些米飯，給了這位裸行者一大份。這位裸行者受完施捨後便離開了。另一位裸行者問他：『朋友，你的施捨是從哪裡來的？』
“‘At a distribution of food by that shaveling householder, the Gotama monk.’”
「『那位剃度的居士，喬達摩沙門，在食物分配處。』」
This training rule is corollary to the preceding one. Other religions at the Buddha’s time observed the formalities of receiving food from their lay followers just as the bhikkhus did, and thus a bhikkhu who gave food in such a way to a mendicant ordained in another religion would be placing himself in the position of a lay follower of that religion, as the second origin story shows. An interesting point about this rule is that the Buddha formulated it at the request of Buddhist lay followers. Having overheard the naked ascetics’ conversation, they said to him, “Venerable sir, these adherents of other religions enjoy criticizing the Buddha… Dhamma… and Saṅgha. It would be good if the masters did not give to adherents of other religions with their own hands.” 這條戒條與前一條戒條相輔相成。在佛陀時代，其他宗教也像比丘一樣，遵守著接受他們在家信眾食物的禮儀。因此，如果比丘以這種方式向其他宗教的托缽僧給予食物，就等於將自己置於該宗教的在家信眾的地位，正如第二個起源故事所示。這條戒條的一個有趣之處在於，佛陀是應佛教在家信眾的要求而制定的。他們無意中聽到裸行者的談話，便對佛陀說：「世尊，這些外教信徒喜歡批評佛……法……僧。如果大德們不親手將食物給予外教信徒就好了。」
Object 對象
The Vibhaṅga defines the terms naked ascetic and male or female wanderer in such a way that they cover all people who have “gone forth” except for bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, female trainees, and male or female novices. Because “going forth” was how ordination was understood at that time, we can use the Great Standards at present to include anyone ordained in other religions—e.g., Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis, Muslim mullahs, etc.—under the factor of object here as well. Different Communities differ as to whether they would include people ordained in other Buddhist religions—such as Zen priests or Tibetan lamas—under this category as well. 《經分別》對裸行者和男女遊方者的定義，涵蓋了除比丘、比丘尼、學法女（式叉摩那）以及男女沙彌之外的所有「出家」者。由於「出家」是當時對受戒的理解，我們如今可以運用《四大教示》，將其他宗教出家者（例如天主教神父、新教牧師、猶太教拉比、穆斯林毛拉等）也納入此處的對象因素。不同的僧團對於是否將其他佛教出家者（例如禪宗僧人或西藏喇嘛）納入此類也存在分歧。
Perception as to whether a person would qualify as a naked ascetic or a male or female wanderer is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 對於某人是否真為裸行者或男女遊方者的感知在這裡並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Effort 努力
Staple and non-staple food here covers all edibles: juice drinks, tonics, and medicines as well as food, but not water or tooth-cleaning sticks. Staple and non-staple foods are grounds for a pācittiya; water and tooth-cleaning sticks, grounds for a dukkaṭa. 主食和副食在此處涵蓋所有可食用物：果汁飲料、補品、藥物以及食物，但不包括水或齒木。主食和副食構成《波逸提》；水和齒木構成《突吉羅》。
To give is defined as giving with the body, with something in contact with the body, or by means of letting go, as in the preceding rule. 給予的定義是，用身體給予，用與身體接觸的某物給予，或透過放下來給予，就像前一條戒條一樣。
Non-offenses 不犯
To get someone else to give edible things, to give edible things by depositing them near (as in NP 18), or to give ointments for external use entails no offense. The Commentary qualifies the first exemption by saying that the “someone else” must not be fully ordained. The New K/Sub-commentary points out that the last exemption was probably meant to apply to oils, which otherwise would come under “non-staple food” here. 讓他人給予可食用物，或將可食用物放在附近給予（如《捨墮》一八），或施捨外用藥膏，均不構成犯戒。《義註》對第一項豁免進行了限定，指出「他人」不得受具足戒。新 K/《複註》指出，最後一項豁免可能適用於油類，否則油類在此處應歸入「副食」。
Summary: Handing food or medicine to a person ordained in another religion is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：向其他宗教出家者親手給予食物或藥物是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
42 四十二
Should any bhikkhu say to a bhikkhu, “Come, my friend, let’s enter the village or town for alms,” and then—whether or not he has had (food) given to him—dismiss him, saying, “Go away, my friend. I don’t like sitting or talking with you. I prefer sitting or talking alone”—doing it for just that reason and no other—it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘對另一個比丘說，「來吧，我的朋友，我們進村或進城托缽」，然後——不管有沒有給予他食物——打發他走，說，「走開吧，我的朋友。我不喜歡和你坐在一起或說話。我更喜歡獨自坐著或說話」——如此做僅僅因為這個原因而沒有其他——波逸提。
The factors for the full offense here are four. 這裡構成完全違犯的因素有四。
1) Object: another bhikkhu. 1）對象：另一位比丘。
2) Intention: One wants to indulge in misconduct and does not want him to see it. 2）意圖：想要沉溺於不當行為，卻又不想讓他看到。
3) Effort: One dismisses him. 3）努力：打發他走。
4) Result: He leaves one’s range of hearing and sight. 4）結果：他離開了自己的聽力和視力範圍。
Although the rule mentions one specific situation—bhikkhus going for alms in a town or village—the non-offense clauses give no exemption for a bhikkhu who, wanting to indulge in misconduct, dismisses another bhikkhu while outside of a village or engaged in an activity other than going for alms. The commentaries notice this point and, reasonably, do not list the specific situation as a necessary factor for the offense. For this reason, the factors for this offense apply in any location and at any time of the day. 雖然戒條提到了一種特殊情況——比丘在城鎮或村莊托缽——如果比丘想要沉溺於不當行為，在村莊之外或從事托缽以外的活動時打發另一位比丘走，不犯條款並未給予該比丘豁免。註釋書注意到了這一點，並且合理地沒有將特定情況列為構成此戒條犯戒的必要因素。因此，此戒條犯戒的因素適用於任何地點、任何時間。
Object 對象
The Vibhaṅga states that a bhikkhu is grounds for a pācittiya here; an unordained person (which for the purpose of this rule would include bhikkhunīs), grounds for a dukkaṭa. Perception as to whether a person is actually a bhikkhu is not a mitigating factor here. In other words, a bhikkhu is grounds for a pācittiya if one perceives him as a bhikkhu, if one perceives him as an unordained person, or if one is in doubt about the matter. An unordained person is grounds for a dukkaṭa if one perceives him as a bhikkhu, if one perceives him as an unordained person, or if one is in doubt about the matter. This pattern—three pācittiyas and three dukkaṭas—is repeated in all the rules where a bhikkhu is grounds for a pācittiya, an unordained person is grounds for a dukkaṭa, and perception is not a mitigating factor. 《經分別》規定，比丘在此構成《波逸提》；而未受具足者（就本戒條而言，包括比丘尼）構成《突吉羅》。對某人是否為比丘的感知在此並非減輕懲罰的因素。換句話說，如果認為比丘是比丘，或認為他是未受具足戒者，或對此事存有疑問，則構成《波逸提》。如果認為未受具足戒者是比丘，或認為他是未受具足戒者，或對此事存有疑問，則構成《突吉羅》。這種模式——三《波逸提》和三《突吉羅》——在比丘構成《波逸提》，未受具足戒者構成《突吉羅》，且感知不是減輕懲罰的因素的所有戒條中重複出現。
Intention 意圖
The Vibhaṅga defines misconduct as laughing, playing, or sitting in private with a woman, or any other misbehavior of any sort. To dismiss the other person, ordained or not, for motives other than a desire to hide one’s own misconduct entails no offense. Examples of such motives given in the non-offense clauses are listed below. 《經分別》將不當行為定義為與女性私下嬉笑、玩耍、共坐，或任何其他不當行為。出於非為掩蓋自身不當行為的動機而打發他人走，不論該人是否受具足戒，均不構成犯戒。以下列舉了不犯條款中給予的此類動機範例。
Effort & result 努力及結果
To dismiss the other person means either to say outright for him/her to go away, or else to make remarks that will make him/her want to leave. The Commentary gives an example here—“Look at how this guy stands, sits, and looks around. He stands like a stump, sits like a dog, and looks about like a monkey”—but this would more likely come under Pc 2. 打發對方走意味著若非直接說出讓他/她走開，則是說些讓他/她想離開的話。《義註》在這裡舉了一個例子——「看看這傢伙站著、坐著，四處張望的樣子。他站著像個樹樁，坐著像條狗，看起來就像隻猴子。」——但這更有可能屬於《波逸提》二。
The offenses here are as follows: 此處的違犯如下：
a dukkaṭa for speaking the words of dismissal;
說了打發走的話，犯《突吉羅》；
a dukkaṭa when the other bhikkhu is leaving the range of hearing and sight; and
當其他比丘離開聽力和視力範圍時，犯《突吉羅》；而且
a pācittiya when he has left.
當他離開時，犯《波逸提》。
The Commentary defines range of hearing and range of sight as twelve cubits, or six meters. If, however, there is a wall or a door within that distance, it says, that delimits the range. 《義註》將聽力範圍和視力範圍定義為十二肘尺，即六公尺。然而，如果在該距離內有一堵牆或一扇門，則該範圍就被劃定了。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense in: 根據《經分別》，以下行為並不構成犯戒：
dismissing one’s companion with the thought that two bhikkhus going together won’t obtain enough food;
認為兩個比丘一起去不會得到足夠的食物，所以打發同伴離開；
dismissing him after seeing costly goods ahead, so that he won’t develop a feeling of greed;
看到昂貴的商品後就打發他離開，這樣他就不會產生貪婪的感覺；
dismissing him after seeing a beautiful woman ahead, so that he won’t lose his resolve for the celibate life;
看到前面有美女就打發他離開，這樣他就不會動搖梵行生活的決心；
sending him back with food for one who is sick, who was left behind, or who is guarding the monastery; or
送他回去給生病的人、留下的人或看守寺院的人帶去食物；或者
dismissing him for any other proper reason as long as one is not planning to indulge in misconduct.
只要不打算沉溺於不當行為，就可以因任何其他適當理由打發他離開。
Summary: Sending another bhikkhu away so that he won’t witness any misconduct one is planning to indulge in is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：為了讓另一位比丘不目睹自己計劃沉溺於任何不當行為而將其送走，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
43 四十三
Should any bhikkhu sit intruding on a family “with its meal,” it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘坐著並打擾一個家庭「與其餐食」，波逸提。
The origin story here, briefly, is this: Ven. Upananda visits a woman in her private quarters. Her husband approaches him respectfully, has his wife give him alms, and then asks him to leave. The wife senses that her husband wants to have sexual intercourse with her and so—as a game, apparently—keeps detaining Ven. Upananda until the husband gets exasperated and goes to complain to the bhikkhus: “Venerable sirs, this master Upananda is sitting in the bedroom with my wife. I have dismissed him, but he isn’t willing to go. We are very busy and have much work to do.” 起源故事簡述如下：優跋難陀尊者到一位女人的私人住處拜訪。她的丈夫恭敬地走上前去，讓妻子佈施缽食，然後請他離開。妻子察覺到丈夫想與她發生性關係，於是——顯然是一場遊戲——一直拖著優跋難陀尊者，直到丈夫惱怒不已，去向比丘們抱怨：「大德們，這位優跋難陀尊者正和我的妻子坐在臥室裡。我已經讓他走了，但他就是不肯走。我們很忙，有很多工作要做。」
Object: 對象：
A family “with its meal.” This term—sabhojanaṁ—appears to be a pun in the original Pali, meaning either “with its meal”—sa + bhojanaṁ—or “with two people”—sa + ubho + janaṁ. The Vibhaṅga explains it as a euphemism meaning “a man and woman together, both not having gone out (of their bedroom), not both without lust.” As its further explanations show, this means a man and woman together in their private quarters, with at least one of them desiring sexual intercourse with the other. Although the Commentary tries to justify the Vibhaṅga’s explanation etymologically (bhoga, the root form of meal, has other forms meaning enjoyment, indulgence, and use), there is no need to turn to etymology. Since ancient times in all cultures, eating has been commonly used as a metaphor for sex. (Similarly, the husband’s comment that he “has much work to do” could also be taken as a double entendre.) 一個家庭「與其餐食」。「sabhojanaṁ」一詞在原本巴利語中似乎是雙關語，意為「與其餐食」——sa + bhojanaṁ——或「與兩個人」——sa + ubho + janaṁ。《經分別》將其解釋為一種委婉說法，意為「一男一女在一起，兩人均未出（他們的臥室），並非雙方都無情欲」。進一步的解釋表明，這意味著一男一女在私人住處，至少其中一人渴望與另一人發生性關係。儘管《義註》試圖從字源學角度論證《經分別》的解釋（bhoga，餐食的字根，還有其他形式，意為享受、放縱和使用），但無需追溯詞源。自古以來，在所有文化中，「吃」就普遍被用作性的隱喻。（同樣，丈夫說他「有很多工作要做」也可以理解為（含情欲的）雙關語。）
Effort 努力
To sit intruding means to sit—without another bhikkhu present—in the private area of the house, this being defined in terms of how large the house is. In one large enough to have a separate bedroom, the private area is any spot more than one hatthapāsa (1.25 meters) in from the doorway (of the bedroom, says the Commentary). In a smaller house, the private area is the back half of the house. None of the texts discuss such things as one-room apartments or hotel rooms, but these would probably be treated as “separate bedrooms.” 坐著並打擾是指在沒有其他比丘在場的情況下，坐在房屋的私人區域內。私人區域的定義取決於房屋的大小。在一間大到可以設有獨立臥室的房屋中，私人區域是指距離（《義註》中說是臥室的）門口超過一個 hatthapāsa （1.25米）的任何位置。在較小的房屋中，私人區域是指房屋的後半部。所有文獻均未討論單房間公寓或飯店房間之類的情況，但這些可能被視為「獨立臥室」。
The Vibhaṅga states that perception with regard to the private area is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4) and apparently the same holds true for perception with regard to whether the couple is “with its meal.” As for intention, the Parivāra and commentaries maintain that it is a factor, but the Vibhaṅga does not mention it at all. Thus, to be perfectly safe from an offense in cases like this, a bhikkhu should not sit intruding on a couple unless they both make him 100% certain that he is welcome: a wise policy in any case, regardless of whether one is a bhikkhu. 《經分別》指出，對私人區域的感知並非此處減輕懲罰因素（見《波逸提》四），而對夫妻是否「與其餐食」的感知明顯地也同樣如此。至於意圖，《附隨》和註釋書認為它是一個因素，但《經分別》對此隻字未提。因此，為了在這種情況下完全避免犯戒，比丘不應坐著打擾夫妻，除非夫妻雙方都讓他百分之百確信自己受到歡迎：無論如何，這都是一個明智之舉，無論是否是比丘。
Cases of sitting with a woman alone in her bedroom—or any other private place—are covered by the following rule. 與女性單獨坐在她的臥室或任何其他私人場所的情況則被下一條戒條所涵蓋。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense— 並無犯戒——
if both the man and woman have left the bedroom/private area;
如果男人和女人都離開了臥室/私人區域；
if neither of them is sexually aroused;
如果他們雙方都沒有性興奮狀態；
if the building is not a “sleeping building”;
如果該建築物不是「睡眠建築物」；
if the bhikkhu is not in the private area; or
如果比丘不在私人區域；或
if he has a second bhikkhu as his companion.
如果他有第二個比丘作為他的同伴。
Summary: To sit down intruding on a man and a woman in their private quarters—when one or both are sexually aroused, and when another bhikkhu is not present—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：當一男一女中的一人或兩人都處於性興奮狀態，且沒有其他比丘在場時，闖入他們的私人住處坐下，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
44 四十四
Should any bhikkhu sit in private on a secluded seat with a woman, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘與女人私下坐在僻靜的座位上，波逸提。
There are three factors for the offense here. 此處的犯戒有三個因素。
1) Object: a female human being, “even one born that very day, all the more an older one.” 1）對象：女性人類，「即使是當天出生的女性，更不用說年紀更長者。」
2) Effort: One sits with her in private on a secluded seat without another man present. 2）努力：私下和她坐在僻靜的座位上，沒有其他男人在場。
3) Intention: One is aiming at privacy. 3）意圖：為了隱私。
Object 對象
Woman here includes women as well. In other words, even if one is sitting with many women in the secluded area, one is not exempt from this factor. 這裡的女人也包括超過一位女人。換句話說，即使和許多女人坐在僻靜的地方，也不能免於違犯此因素。
A female human being is grounds for a pācittiya; a paṇḍaka, a female peta, a female yakkha, and an animal in the form of a woman, grounds for a dukkaṭa. 女性人類構成《波逸提》；而黃門、雌餓鬼、雌夜叉和具有女性形象的動物構成《突吉羅》。
Perception as to whether a person is actually a woman is not a mitigating factor (see Pc 4). 關於某人是否確實是女性的感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Effort 努力
Sitting also includes lying down. Whether the bhikkhu sits near the woman when she is already seated, or the woman sits near him when he is already seated, or both sit down at the same time, makes no difference. 坐也包括躺下。無論是比丘在女人已經就座後坐到她附近，或是女人在比丘已經就座後坐到他附近，或是兩人同時就座，都沒有差別。
Private means private to the eye and private to the ear. Two people sitting in a place private to the eye means that no one else can see if they wink, raise their eyebrows, or nod (§). If they are in a place private to the ear, no one else can hear what they say in a normal voice. 私密是指對眼睛和耳朵都私密。兩個人坐在私密的地方意味著無論他們眨眼、揚眉或點頭，其他人都無法看到（§）。如果他們坐在對耳朵私密的地方，其他人無法聽到他們用正常聲音說話。
A secluded seat is one behind a wall, a closed door, a large bush, or anything at all that would afford them enough privacy to commit the sexual act. 僻靜座位是指牆後面、關著的門後面、大灌木叢後面或任何能為他們提供足夠隱私以進行性行為的地方。
According to the Commentary, private to the eye is the essential factor here. Even if a knowledgeable man is within hearing but not within sight—i.e., he is sitting just outside the door to the private place—that does not exempt one from the offense here. 根據《義註》，對眼睛私密是此處的關鍵因素。即使一位知識淵博的男性在聽得見的地方，卻不在視線之內——也就是說，他就正坐在通往私密地方的門外——也不能免除此處的犯戒。
The Vibhaṅga states that the presence of a man within sight absolves one from this factor only if he is knowledgeable enough to know what is and is not lewd. The Commentary adds that he must also be awake and neither blind nor deaf. Even a distracted or drowsy man, though, if he meets these criteria, would absolve one from this factor. 《經分別》指出，只有當一位男性擁有足夠的知識，知道什麼是淫穢，什麼是非淫穢時，該男性在視線可及處，就能免於違犯這一因素。《義註》補充道，他也必須保持清醒，既不盲也不聾。即使是個心不在焉或昏昏欲睡的人，只要符合這些標準，也能免於違犯這一因素。
Intention 意圖
The non-offense clauses give an exemption for a bhikkhu “not aiming at privacy,” but the Vibhaṅga nowhere explains what this means. In light of its definition of private, “aiming at privacy” could mean simply not wanting anyone near enough to hear what he is saying or to see him wink, raise his eyebrow, or nod. 不犯條款規定，比丘「不為了隱私」可免於處罰，但《經分別》並未解釋其意義。根據其對隱私的定義，「為了隱私」可能只是指不想讓任何人足夠靠近到能聽到他說話，或看到他眨眼、揚眉或點頭。
The Commentary offers an alternative explanation, defining aiming at privacy as being impelled by any defilement related to sex, but this explanation opens as many questions as it tries to resolve. Does it refer solely to the desire for intercourse or to other more subtle sexually-related desires such as those listed in AN 7:47? That is the discourse describing a brahman or contemplative who observes the celibate life by not engaging in sexual intercourse but whose celibacy is “broken, cracked, spotted, and blemished” by the joy he finds in any of the following activities: 《義註》提供了另一種解釋，將為了隱私定義為受任何與性相關的煩惱所驅使，但這種解釋在試圖解決的同時也引發了許多問題。它僅僅指性交的欲望，還是指其他更細微的與性相關的欲望，例如《增支部》7:47經中列出的那些？這是一部經文，描述的是一位婆羅門或沙門，透過不進行性交來遵循梵行生活，但他的梵行因在以下任何活動中發現的快樂而「破碎、破裂、斑駁、玷污」：
1) He consents to being anointed, rubbed down, bathed, and massaged by a woman.
1）他同意接受女人的塗油、擦拭、沐浴和按摩。
2) He jokes, plays, and amuses himself with a woman.
2）他和女人開玩笑、玩樂、消遣。
3) He stares into a woman’s eyes.
3）他凝視著女人的眼睛。
4) He listens to the voices of women outside a wall as they laugh, speak, sing, or cry.
4）他聆聽牆外女人的笑聲、說話聲、歌聲或哭聲。
5) He recollects how he used to laugh, converse, and play with a woman.
5）他回憶起過去如何與女人歡笑、交談和玩耍。
6) He sees a householder or householder’s son enjoying himself endowed with the five sensual pleasures.
6）他看見居士或居士之子正在享受五種感官之樂。
7) He practices the celibate life intent on being born in one or another of the deva hosts, (thinking) “By this virtue or practice or abstinence or celibate life I will be a deva of one sort or another.”
7）他修行梵行生活，意圖投生為各種各樣的天神，（想著）「通過此戒行、修行、禁欲或梵行生活，我將成為各種各樣的天神。」
The joy a person finds in any of these things is termed a sexual fetter (methuna-saṁyoga) that prevents him from gaining release from birth, aging, and death, and from the entire round of suffering. If the Commentary is indeed referring to this sort of thing when it mentions “defilements related to sexual intercourse” (methuna-nissita-kilesa), then in light of its interpretation, the factor of intention under this rule would be fulfilled by such things as wanting to joke with the woman, to stare into her eyes, or to enjoy hearing her voice as she talks or laughs. 一個人從任何這些事物中獲得的快樂被稱為淫結（methuna-saṁyoga），它阻礙他從生、老、死以及整個輪迴的苦中獲得解脫。如果《義註》中提到的「與性交相關的煩惱」（methuna-nissita-kilesa）確實是指這類事物，那麼根據其解釋，這條戒條下的意圖因素應該透過諸如想和女人開玩笑、想凝視她的眼睛、享受聽她說話或笑的聲音等行為來滿足。
The Vinaya-mukha provides a third interpretation, defining “not aiming at privacy” with the following illustration: A bhikkhu is sitting in a secluded place with a man and woman present, but the man gets up and leaves before the bhikkhu can stop him. In other words, the bhikkhu is not intending to sit alone in private with the woman at all, but circumstances beyond his control force him to. 《戒律入口》提供了第三種解釋，用以下例子來定義「不為了隱私」：一位比丘與一男一女坐在僻靜之處，但比丘還沒來得及阻止，那位男士就起身離開了。換句話說，比丘根本並不想與那位女士單獨坐在一起，但他無法控制的情況迫使他不得不如此。
Although the first interpretation, because it adheres most closely to the wording in the Vibhaṅga, is probably the correct one here, the Vinaya-mukha’s is probably the safest, and many Communities adhere to it with good reason. Both the Canon and the Commentary give frequent warnings about the dangers that can arise when a bhikkhu sits alone with a woman even when his original intention is innocent. His own defilements may eventually tempt him to do, say, or think things that are detrimental to his resolve in the celibate life; and even when his motives are pure, he is inviting the suspicions of others. Ay 1 requires that if a trustworthy outside witness is suspicious of a bhikkhu’s sitting alone with a woman—and unless he is sitting with his mother or other elderly relative, it’s rare that outsiders won’t be suspicious—the Community must meet to investigate the issue. Even though they may find him innocent of any wrong doing, the fact that they have had to investigate his behavior is usually enough to keep suspicions alive among the laity and to create resentment among his fellow bhikkhus over the waste of their time due to his indiscretion. At the same time, a bhikkhu sitting alone with a woman is leaving himself at the mercy of the woman, who will later be free to make any claims she likes about what went on while they were alone together. As Lady Visākhā said in the origin story to Ay 1, “It is unfitting and improper, venerable sir, for the master to sit in private, alone with a woman…. Even though the master may not be aiming at that act, cynical people are hard to convince.” 雖然第一種解釋，因為它與《經分別》的措辭最為接近，在此可能是正確的，但《戒律入口》的解釋可能是最安全的，許多僧團也有充分的理由遵循它。《聖典》和《義註》都多次警告比丘，即使他的初衷是無辜的，與女人獨坐也會產生危險。他自身的煩惱最終可能會誘使他做出、說出或思考一些有損於他梵行生活決心的事情；即使他的動機是純潔的，他也會引起他人的懷疑。《不定》一規定，如果一個值得信賴的外部目擊者懷疑比丘與女人獨坐——除非他與母親或其他年長的親戚坐在一起，否則外人很少不會起疑心——僧團必須開會調查此事。即使他們可能認定他無辜沒有做錯，但必須調查他的行為本身這件事實通常足以在俗人中引起懷疑，並激起他的比丘同儕們的不滿，因為他的輕率行為浪費了他們的時間。同時，比丘與女子獨坐，等於任由女子擺佈，而女子日後可以隨意對他們獨處時發生的事情做出任何她想要的聲稱。正如毘舍佉鹿子母在《不定》一的起源故事時所說：「大德，大師與女子獨坐，是不得體且不恰當的……即使大師並非有意為之，憤世嫉俗的人也很難被說服。」
Thus the wise policy would be to be no less strict than one’s Community in interpreting this factor. 因此，明智之舉是在解釋這一因素時，其嚴格程度不低於其所在僧團的嚴格程度。
Non-offenses 不犯
In addition to the bhikkhu not aiming at privacy, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who sits alone with a woman when his attention is elsewhere—e.g., he is absorbed in his work or his meditation when a woman comes in and sits down in the room where he is sitting. Also, there is no offense if either the bhikkhu or the woman or both are standing, or if both are sitting when a knowledgeable man is present. 除了比丘不為了隱私之外，如果比丘與女子獨坐時注意力在別處，例如，他正專心工作或禪修，有位女子走進他所坐的房間裡坐下，這並無犯戒。此外，如果比丘或女子，或兩人都站著，或者兩人都坐著，而且有一位博學的男士在場，這同樣也無犯戒。
Summary: When aiming at privacy, sitting or lying down with a woman or women in a private, secluded place with no other man present is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：當為了隱私，在沒有其他男性在場的情況下，與一名或多名女性在私密、僻靜的地方坐下或躺下，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
45 四十五
Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘私下單獨與女人坐在一起，波逸提。
The full offense here has three factors that differ slightly from those for the preceding rule. 這裡的完整違犯有三個因素，與前一條戒條略有不同。

(未完待續)