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。
Object	對象
Here woman is defined as a female human being who knows what is properly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd. Paṇḍakas, female petas, female yakkhas, and animals in the form of a woman are again grounds for a dukkaṭa. As under the preceding rule, perception as to whether a person is actually a woman is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	這裡，女人的定義是指懂得言語得當與不當、淫穢與不淫穢的女性人類。黃門、雌餓鬼、雌夜叉以及女性形態的動物，同樣構成《突吉羅》。與上一條戒條相同，對某人是否真的為女性的感知在此不構成減輕懲罰因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Effort	努力
One sits with her alone—without another person present—in a place private to the ear and to the eye, but not secluded. Examples of such places would be spots out in the open (e.g., a bench in an open, deserted park), seats in a glassed-in porch or room, or in an open-air pavilion. The Commentary would include walled-in open areas—such as a park with a fence around it—here as well, but outside areas screened by a wall or a bush would fall under the preceding rule. Ay 1 & 2 suggest that the distinguishing factor here would be how hidden it is. If it would be convenient for committing sexual intercourse, it would fall under the preceding rule; if not, it would fall here.	與她單獨坐在一起——沒有其他人在場——在對耳朵及眼睛私密的地方，但並非隱密。這樣的地方的例子可以是開闊的地方（例如，開闊空曠的公園裡的長椅）、玻璃門廊或房間裡的座位，或露天涼亭。《義註》將有圍牆的開放區域（例如，周圍有圍欄的公園）也包括在內，但被牆壁或灌木叢遮擋的外部區域適用前一條戒條。《不定》一和二表明，這裡的差異在於隱藏程度。若方便性交，則適用前一條戒條；否則，則適用這條戒條。
Sitting is defined as under the preceding rule.	坐的定義同前一條戒條。
This rule’s expression for alone—one man with one woman—implies that the other person whose presence exempts one from this factor can be either a man or a woman. The Commentary states explicitly that this is so, and adds that this person must also know what is properly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd; must be awake; must not be deaf or blind; and must be sitting “within sight,” i.e., a radius of six meters. As in the preceding rule, whether or not the man or woman is distracted or drowsy is of no consequence.	這條戒條中關於「單獨」的陳述——一男一女——意味著，如果另一人在場，則可以免除此限制，可以是男性，也可以是女性。《義註》明確指出了這一點，並補充說，此人還必須知道哪些話是合適的，哪些話是不合適的，什麼是淫穢的，什麼不是淫穢的；必須保持清醒；不能是聾的或瞎的；並且必須坐在「視線範圍內」，即半徑六米範圍內。與上一條戒條一樣，無論該男子或女子是否心不在焉或昏昏欲睡，都無關緊要。
Intention	意圖
One must be aiming at privacy for this factor to be fulfilled. See the discussion under the preceding rule.	要滿足此因素，必須是為了隱私。請參閱上一條戒條下的討論。
Non-offenses	不犯
Strangely enough, the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses here are identical with those for the preceding rule—i.e., they make no mention of the fact that the presence of another woman would exempt one from an offense. The Commentary seems justified in inferring this fact from the rule, though, for otherwise there would be no reason to have these two separate rules on the same subject.	奇怪的是，《經分別》此處的不犯條款與前一條戒條的條款完全相同——也就是說，它們沒有提及有其他女性在場即可免除犯戒。然而，《義註》似乎有理由從本戒條中推斷出這一事實，否則就沒有理由在同一主題上分別制定這兩條戒條了。
Summary: When aiming at privacy, sitting or lying down alone with a woman in an unsecluded but private place is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：當為了隱私時，與一位女性單獨在不隱蔽但私密的地方坐下或躺下，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

46	四十六
Should any bhikkhu, being invited for a meal and without taking leave of an available bhikkhu, go calling on families before or after the meal, except at the proper occasions, it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: a time of giving cloth, a time of making robes. These are the proper occasions here.	任何比丘受邀赴餐食，有比丘在而未與之告別，在餐食前或餐食後走訪俗家，除非在適當的場合，波逸提。此處適當的場合是：施衣時，做衣時。這些是此處適當的場合。
The origin story here suggests that the purpose of this rule is to prevent bhikkhus from wandering off before an appointed meal time so that they will not show up late or be difficult to track down; and to prevent them, after the meal, from using the invitation as an excuse to go off wandering without taking leave (see Pc 85). However, the definition of the factor of object—which limits this rule to visiting lay people’s houses—and the non-offense clauses—which allow one to visit monasteries and nunneries without taking leave—suggest a more over-riding purpose: to prevent bhikkhus from taking the invitation as an excuse to visit lay people and spend their time in inappropriate activities.	這裡的起源故事表明，這條戒條的目的是防止比丘在約定用餐時間前遊蕩，以免他們遲到或難以找到；也是為了防止他們在用餐後以邀請為藉口不告別就去遊蕩（參見《波逸提》八五）。然而，對象因素的定義——將本戒條限制為拜訪在家眾的家——以及不犯條款——允許不告別就去寺院和尼姑庵——暗示了一個更重要的目的：防止比丘以邀請為藉口拜訪在家眾並將時間浪費在不適當的活動上。
There are two factors for the full offense here.	這裡的全面違犯有兩個因素。
1) Object: a family residence.	1）對象：俗家住處。
2) Effort: One enters such a residence—without having taken leave of an available bhikkhu—on a morning when one has been invited to a meal, except during the time exemptions mentioned in the rule.	2）努力：在被邀請用餐的早晨，有比丘在而未與之告別，進入這樣的住處，除非在戒條中提到的時間豁免期間。

Object	對象
A family residence is grounds for a pācittiya here; its yard, grounds for a dukkaṭa.	這裡，俗家住處構成《波逸提》；其庭院構成《突吉羅》。
Effort	努力
Entering the residence is defined as having both feet inside the threshold. Having only one foot over the threshold incurs a dukkaṭa, in addition to the dukkaṭa for entering the yard.	進入住處的定義是雙腳在門檻內。如果只有一隻腳跨過門檻，犯《突吉羅》，除此之外，進入其庭院也犯一次《突吉羅》。
Meal means one consisting of any of the five staple foods. The Vibhaṅga indicates that the amount eaten is irrelevant.	餐食是指由五種主食組成的一餐。《經分別》指出，吃多少並不相關。
As for the question of how to determine whether another bhikkhu is or is not available, the Commentary draws the distinction like this: After the desire to go calling on families arises in one’s mind and one takes a normal path to leave the monastery, if one comes across a bhikkhu who is close enough to address in a normal tone of voice (within six meters, says the Sub-commentary), that means that a bhikkhu is available and one should inform him of where one is going. If one does not come across a bhikkhu that close, no bhikkhu is available, and there is no need to go out of one’s way to find one.	至於如何判斷是否有比丘在或不在，《義註》是這樣區分的：當心生走訪俗家的願望，並沿著正常的路徑離開寺院後，如果遇到一位距離足夠近、可以用正常語氣講話的比丘（《複註》中說，距離在六米以內），則代表有比丘在，應告知其去向。如果在這麼近的地方沒有遇到比丘，則表示沒有比丘在，無需特意去找。
This, though, is in direct contradiction to the Vibhaṅga’s definition of available—“It is possible to go, having taken leave”—that is, if there is another bhikkhu in the monastery, and there are no obstacles to taking one’s leave from him (e.g., he is asleep, he is sick, he is receiving important visitors), one is obliged to go out of one’s way to inform him.	但這與《經分別》中「在」的定義直接矛盾——「告別後可以離開」——也就是說，如果寺院裡有另一位比丘，而向他告別沒有任何障礙（例如，他睡著了，他生病了，他正在接待重要訪客），那麼就有義務去通知他。
According to the K/Commentary, taking leave in the context of this rule means the simple act of informing the other bhikkhu that, “I am going to the house of so-and-so,” or any similar statement. In other words, one is not asking permission to go (see the discussion of taking leave under Pc 14). However, if the other bhikkhu sees that one is doing something improper in going, he is perfectly free to say so. If one treats his comments with disrespect, one incurs at least a dukkaṭa under Pc 54. (See the discussion under that rule for details.)	根據 K/《義註》，在此戒條中，「告別」指的是簡單地告知其他比丘「我要去某某家」或任何類似的說法。換句話說，並非在請求允許前往（參見《波逸提》十四中告別的討論）。然而，如果其他比丘認為前往時在做不恰當的事情，他完全可以自由地如此說。如果不尊重其他比丘的言辭，則根據《波逸提》五四，至少會犯《突吉羅》。（詳情請參閱該戒條下的討論。）
For a new bhikkhu still living in dependence (nissaya) on his mentor, though, taking leave is a matter of asking permission at all times, whether one has been invited to a meal or not. The Mahāvagga (I.25.24; II.21.1) states that one of the duties of such a bhikkhu is that he must receive permission from his mentor before entering a village, going to a cemetery, or leaving the district. Not to ask permission before going, or to go after being denied permission, is to incur a dukkaṭa. As for the mentor, if he gives permission to go when it is not appropriate to do so, he is the one who incurs the dukkaṭa.	然而，對於仍依止（nissaya）導師生活的新出家比丘來說，無論是否受邀請赴餐食，每次離開都需先行請求導師的允許。《大品》（一.25.24；二.21.1）規定，這類比丘的義務之一是，在進入村莊、前往墓地或離開所在地區之前，必須獲得導師的許可。未經許可前往，或被拒絕後仍前往，均會犯《突吉羅》。至於導師，如果在不合適的情況下允許前往，他自己犯《突吉羅》。
Perception as to whether one has actually been invited to a meal is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	對於是否真的被邀請赴餐食的感知並不是這裡的減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。

Non-offenses	不犯
As the rule states, there is no offense in not taking leave at the time of giving cloth—the robe season—or at a time of making robes, i.e., any time when one is making a robe. These exceptions enable a bhikkhu to visit his lay supporters easily to obtain any gifts of thread, cloth, or scissors, etc., he may need at such times.	如戒條所述，在施衣時（袈裟季節）或做衣時（即任何正在製作袈裟的時間）不告別並無犯戒。這些豁免使得比丘能夠容易地拜訪他的在家支持者，以獲得他可能需要的線、布、剪刀等的布施。
There is also no offense in going to or through a family residence when one has taken leave of another bhikkhu, or in going when one has not taken leave under any of the following circumstances:	當已經向另一位比丘告別時，前往或經過俗家住處，或者在下列任何情況下沒有向另一位比丘告別而前往，也沒有犯戒：
—There is no bhikkhu available (in addition to the examples mentioned above, this would include cases where one is living alone, all the other bhikkhus have left, or all the bhikkhus in the monastery are going together).	—沒有比丘在（除了上述例子外，還包括一個人獨居、其他比丘都已離開，或寺院裡所有比丘都一起前往的情況）。
—One is going to the house where one was invited for the meal.	—前往被邀請赴餐食的那戶人家。
—The path to the house in which the meal is to be given leads through another house or its yard.	—通往提供餐食的房屋的路徑要穿過另一棟房屋或其院子。
—One is on one’s way to another monastery (§), to bhikkhunīs’ quarters, to the residence of people ordained in another religion (located in a village, says the Commentary), or one is returning from any of these places.	—正前往另一座寺院（§）、比丘尼的住處、另一個宗教的出家者的住所（《義註》中說，位於村莊裡），或者正從這些地方返回。
—There are dangers. This, according to the Commentary, refers to dangers to one’s life or to one’s resolve in remaining celibate.	—存在危險。根據《義註》，這指的是危及生命或危及保持梵行的決心。
The non-offense clauses do not mention this point, but the perception section of the Vibhaṅga makes clear that this rule does not apply when one is not invited to a meal.	不犯條款並沒有提到這一點，但《經分別》的感知章節明確指出，當沒有被邀請赴餐食時，這條戒條不適用。
The general principle	一般原則
This rule, in conjunction with Pc 85, is designed to keep bhikkhus from visiting lay people and spending their time in inappropriate ways. Pc 85 deals with entire villages and towns, and covers the act of leaving the monastery during the period from noon until the following dawnrise. This rule deals with family residences and covers the act of leaving the monastery during the period from dawnrise until noon on days when one has been invited to a meal. The period from dawnrise to noon on days when one is not invited to a meal, and would be expected to go on alms round, is thus not covered by either rule. Note, however, that in the origin story to this rule the Buddha reprimands Ven. Upananda for visiting families during the latter part of a morning after going for alms. This shows that he did not approve of such behavior even though he had practical reasons for not laying down a rule against it: On mornings when one is going for alms—and in his time, alms-going could often be an all-morning affair—there is no convenient way to draw a hard and fast line between appropriate alms-going and inappropriate visiting. Thus we have the rules as they stand. At present, though, in monasteries where alms-going takes up much less of the morning or where the bhikkhus do not go outside the monastery for alms at all, a wise policy is to adhere to the general principle by informing a fellow bhikkhu whenever possible when one is leaving the monastery for errands or visits involving lay people, even during periods not covered by the rules.	這條戒條，結合《波逸提》八五，旨在防止比丘拜訪俗人並以不適當的方式度過他們的時間。《波逸提》八五涉及整個村莊和城鎮，並涵蓋從中午到第二天黎明之前的時間段離開寺院的行為。這條戒條涉及俗家住處，涵蓋在被邀請赴餐食的日子裡從黎明到中午的時間段離開寺院的行為。因此，在沒有被邀請赴餐食而應該去托缽的日子裡，從黎明到中午的時間段不在這兩條戒條的範圍內。但請注意，在本戒條的起源故事中，佛陀斥責了優跋難陀尊者，因為他在托缽後於上午的後半段拜訪俗家。這表明他不贊成這種行為，儘管他有不制定禁止戒條的實際原因：在去托缽的上午——在他的時代，托缽往往是一整個上午的事情——沒有方便的方法來在適當的托缽和不適當的拜訪之間劃出一條嚴格的界限。因此，我們有了現在的戒條。然而，目前，在托缽佔用早上時間很少或比丘根本不出寺院托缽的寺院中，一個明智之舉是遵守一般原則，盡可能在離開寺院辦事或牽涉俗人的拜訪時通知同儕比丘，即使是在戒條未涵蓋的時間段。
Summary: Visiting lay families—without having informed an available bhikkhu—before or after a meal to which one has been invited is a pācittiya offense except during the robe season or any time one is making a robe.	摘要：在被邀請赴餐食之前或之後，有比丘在而未通知其的情況下拜訪俗家，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，除非是在袈裟季節或任何正在製作袈裟的時間。

* * *

47	四十七
A bhikkhu who is not ill may accept (make use of) a four-month invitation to ask for requisites. If he should accept (make use of) it beyond that—unless the invitation is renewed or is permanent—it is to be confessed.	無病的比丘可以接受（利用）四個月的邀請來索取必需品。如果他接受（利用）超過此者 —— 除非該邀請被更新的或是永久的 —— 波逸提。
Invitations	邀請
An invitation to ask for requisites is an offer made by a lay person to supply a bhikkhu with requisites whenever he (the bhikkhu) asks for them. Such invitations may be made either to individual bhikkhus, to groups, or to entire Communities. The responsibilities incumbent on the two sides in such an arrangement are well illustrated in a passage from the origin story to this rule.	邀請來索取必需品是指居士提出的供養，每當比丘索取時，為其提供必需品。此類邀請可以針對個別比丘、團體或整個僧團提出。此種安排中雙方應盡的責任，在本戒條起源故事的一個段落中已有詳盡闡述。
“Now at that time some group-of-six bhikkhus wore their lower robes improperly, their upper robes improperly, and were not at all consummate in their deportment. Mahānāma the Sakyan criticized them: ‘Venerable sirs, why do you wear your lower robes improperly, your upper robes improperly, and why are you not at all consummate in your deportment? Shouldn’t a person who has gone forth wear his lower robe properly, his upper robe properly, and be consummate in his deportment?’	「爾時，有六群比丘，下衣穿著不當，上衣穿著不當，儀態也不夠端正。釋迦族摩訶男批評他們：『尊者，你們為何下衣穿著不當，上衣穿著不當，儀態也不夠端正？出家的人難道不應該下衣穿著得體，上衣穿著得體，儀態端正嗎？』
“The group-of-six bhikkhus nursed a grudge against him. They thought, ‘Now, how can we make Mahānāma the Sakyan feel abashed?’ Then the thought occurred to them, ‘He has made an invitation to provide the Community with medicines. Let’s ask him for ghee.’	「那六位比丘對他心生怨恨。他們心想：『現在，我們該如何讓釋迦族摩訶男感到羞愧呢？』於是他們想：『他已提出邀請來提供僧團藥物。我們去跟他要酥油吧。』
“So they went to Mahānāma the Sakyan and on arrival said to him, ‘We need a tubful of ghee, my friend.’	「於是他們去見釋迦族摩訶男，一到那裡就對他說：『我們需要一桶酥油，我的朋友。』
“‘Please wait for the rest of today, venerable sirs. People have just gone to the cattle pen to get ghee. You may come and fetch it in the morning.’	「『請大德們等待今天剩下的時間。人們剛去牛圈取酥油。您明早再來取吧。』
A second time… A third time, they said to him, ‘We need a tubful of ghee, my friend.’	第二次…第三次，他們對他說：『我們需要一桶酥油，我的朋友。』
“‘Please wait for the rest of today, venerable sirs. People have just gone to the cattle pen to get ghee. You may come and fetch it in the morning.’	「『請大德們等待今天剩下的時間。人們剛去牛圈取酥油。您明早再來取吧。』
“‘What’s with this invitation without wanting to give, friend, in that having made the invitation you don’t give?’	「『朋友，既然不想給而邀請，為什麼還要提出你不想給的邀請呢？』
“So Mahānāma the Sakyan criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can their reverences, being told, “Please wait for the rest of today, venerable sirs,” not wait?’”	「因此釋迦族摩訶男批評、抱怨並傳播此事，『尊者們被告知「請等待今天剩下的時間，大德們」，怎麼不等待呢？』」
As the story shows, the person making the invitation was expected to provide the goods he offered, while bhikkhus were expected to be reasonable in their requests.	如故事所示，提出邀請的人應該提供他所供養的物品，而比丘們則應該合理地請求。
The Vibhaṅga’s discussion here assumes that this rule applies to invitations offering medicines, but it does not say explicitly whether it covers invitations made to individuals or to those made to entire Communities. The Commentary, however, argues reasonably from a statement in the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses (see below) that it covers only invitations made to Communities.	《經分別》在此的討論假設這條戒條適用於提供藥物的邀請，但並未明確說明是否涵蓋向個人發出的邀請，還是向整個僧團發出的邀請。然而，《義註》根據《經分別》的不犯條款（見下文）的陳述，合理地論證了本戒條僅涵蓋向僧團發出的邀請。
The rule and origin stories show that invitations of this sort originally had three standard forms: a four-month invitation (each of the major seasons in India lasts four months, which may have been the reason for this type of invitation), a renewed four-month invitation, and a permanent invitation. Eventually, though, the Vibhaṅga worked out the following fourfold schema to cover invitations of a wide variety of sorts: those that specify (1) requisites (medicines), (2) a time period, (3) both, or (4) neither.	戒條和起源故事表明，此類邀請最初有三種標準形式：四個月的邀請（印度每個主要季節持續四個月，這可能是此類邀請的原因）、續期（更新）四個月的邀請以及永久邀請。然而，《經分別》最終制定了以下四重模式，以涵蓋各種類型的邀請，指定：（1）必需品（藥物）、（2）時間段、（3）兩者兼具、（4）兩者皆無。
1) An invitation specifying requisites may specify merely the type of item offered—“Let me know if you ever need any honey or sugar”—or also the amount—“Let me know if you ever need a bottle of honey… a pound of sugar.” In cases like these, a bhikkhu may ask for the type or amount of the item offered. If he asks for other items or for more of the proper item than the amount offered, if that too is specified, he incurs a pācittiya. However, because the donor mentions no time limit, the Vibhaṅga says that the bhikkhu may ask at any time.	1）指定必需品的邀請，可能僅指定供養物品的種類——例如「如果您需要蜂蜜或糖，請告訴我」——或者也指定數量——例如「如果您需要一瓶蜂蜜……一磅糖，請告訴我」。在這種情況下，比丘可以要求供養物品的種類或數量。如果他要求其他物品，或要求供養物品的數量超過供養數量（如果數量也指定的話），則他犯了《波逸提》。然而，由於布施者沒有提及時間限制，《經分別》規定比丘可以隨時提出請求。
2) An invitation specifying the time period may be phrased, for example, “Let me know if you need any medicine during this Rains-residence.” In cases like this, a bhikkhu may ask for any type or amount of medicine during that time period. But as the origin stories to this and the other rules dealing with asking make clear (see Sg 6 and NP 6 & 7), he should be moderate and reasonable when making requests, and not abuse the lay supporter’s generosity. If, not being ill, he asks after the period has expired, he incurs a pācittiya.	2）可以指定具體時間段的邀請，例如：「如果您在雨安居期間需要任何藥物，請告訴我。」在這種情況下，比丘可以在該時間段內請求任何種類或數量的藥物。但正如此戒條的起源故事以及其他有關請求的戒條所明確指出的（參見《僧殘》六以及《捨墮》六和七），比丘在提出請求時應適度合理，切勿濫用在家支持者的慷慨。如果他沒有生病，但在雨安居期滿後才請求，則犯《波逸提》。
3) An invitation specifying requisites and the time period might be phrased, “Let me know if you need any honey during the Rains-residence.” In cases like this, a bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya if he asks for items other than those offered—or for more of the proper item than the amount offered, if that too is specified—regardless of whether he asks during the specified time period. He also incurs a pācittiya if, not being ill, he asks for the items offered after the time period has expired.	3）指定必需品和期限的邀請，可以這樣表述：「在雨安居期間，如果您需要蜂蜜，請告訴我。」在這種情況下，如果比丘請求供養品以外的物品，或請求供養品的數量超過供養量（如果供養量也已指定），無論他是否在指定的期限內請求，都會招致《波逸提》。如果他沒有生病，但在期限過後要求供養品，也會招致《波逸提》。
4) An invitation specifying neither requisites nor the time period may be phrased, for example, “Let me know if you ever need any medicine.” In cases like this, the bhikkhu may ask for any medicine at any time. As in case (2), though, he should try to be reasonable in his requests.	4）邀請既不指定必需品也不指定具體時間，可以這樣表述，例如：「如果您需要任何藥物，請告訴我。」在這種情況下，比丘可以隨時請求任何藥物。不過，與情況（2）一樣，他應該盡量合理地提出請求。

The factors of the offense	犯戒因素
The factors of the offense here are two.	此處的犯戒因素有二。
1) Object: medicine that a donor has invited a Community to request.	1）對象：布施者邀請僧團請求的藥物。
2) Effort: One requests it outside of the terms of the invitation when one is not ill.	2）努力：在沒有生病的情況下，在邀請條件之外提出請求。
Object	對象
The Vibhaṅga does not define medicine here, but its examples all deal with the five tonics, and that is how the Commentary defines medicine under this rule. The Great Standards could be used to extend medicine to cover lifetime medicines as well.	《經分別》在此並未對藥物做出定義，但其例子均與五種補品有關，而《義註》也正是以此為依據對本戒條下的藥物做出定義。《四大教示》亦可被用來擴展藥物，使其亦涵蓋終身藥物。
Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga also neglects to give an explicit definition for not ill, but in one of its wheels it states that if a bhikkhu asks for a medicine when he has no need for a medicine (§—reading na-bhesajjena karaṇiye with the Thai and Sri Lankan editions of the Canon), he incurs a pācittiya in the asking. The Commentary explains having no need for medicine as being well enough to get by on “mixed” food, which is apparently its term for food acquired at random (see BMC2, Chapter 18).	《經分別》也忽略了對「無病」給予明確定義，但在其中一個「輪子」中指出，如果比丘在不需要藥物的情況下要求藥物（§——在泰國和斯里蘭版本的《聖典》中讀作 na-bhesajjena karaṇiye ），則他在要求時會犯《波逸提》。《義註》將不需要藥物解釋為身體狀況良好，可以靠「混合」食物過活，顯然它是指隨機獲取的食物（參見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第十八章）。
The Vibhaṅga’s wheel goes on to state that if a bhikkhu requests one medicine when he actually has need of another (e.g., he has a disease that calls for a disgusting ghee concoction (see Mv.VIII.1.23-26) but requests honey instead), he incurs a pācittiya in the requesting as well. These penalties apply regardless of whether he receives what he requests.	《經分別》的「輪子」繼續指出，如果比丘請求一種藥物，而實際上他需要的是另一種藥物（例如，他患了一種需要令人作嘔的酥油混合物的疾病（參見《大品》.八.1.23-26），但他卻請求蜂蜜），那麼他也會因請求而犯《波逸提》。無論他是否得到他所請求之物，都會受到這些懲罰。
Perception as to whether one is making a request outside the terms of the invitation is not a mitigating factor here (Pc 4).	對於是否提出超出邀請條款的請求的感知並不是這裡的減輕懲罰因素（《波逸提》四）。

Non-offenses	不犯
Three of the non-offense clauses require no explanation: There is no offense in asking from relatives, for the sake of another, or for medicine to be bought with one’s own resources.	其中三項不犯條款無需解釋：向親戚要求、為他人要求、用自己的資源購買藥物均不犯戒。
One of the two non-offense clauses requiring explanation is that there is no offense in asking “from those by whom one was invited with medicine.” This the Commentary explains by saying that if one has received a personal invitation, one may ask in line with its terms, but that otherwise the limits set by this rule apply only to invitations made to an entire Community and not to those made on a personal basis to individual bhikkhus. Although the Vibhaṅga makes no specific mention of this point, the Commentary’s explanation seems the best way to make sense of this non-offense clause and the relationship between this rule and Pc 39. Under that rule, a bhikkhu who is not ill and has not been invited incurs a dukkaṭa in asking for any one of the five tonics, and there seems no reason to impose a heavier penalty for requesting one of the five tonics after a personal invitation to do so has expired. If, though, the invitation referred to in this rule is one made to an entire Community, the heavier penalty makes sense as an added protection to the donor against having his/her invitation abused by the less conscientious members of the Community. This added protection would also be a means of encouraging further invitations of this sort in the future.	需要解釋的兩條不犯條款之一是，「向邀請自己藥物的人」要求並無犯戒。《義註》對此的解釋是，如果收到了個人邀請，則可以按照其條款提出要求，但除此之外，此戒條的限制僅適用於向整個僧團發出的邀請，而不適用於基於個人向個別比丘發出的邀請。雖然《經分別》沒有具體提及這一點，但《義註》的解釋似乎是理解此不犯條款以及此戒條與《波逸提》三九之間關係的最佳方式。根據該戒條，無病且未被邀請的比丘在要求五種補品中的任何一種時犯《突吉羅》，並且似乎沒有理由對在個人邀請過期後請求五種補品之一施加更重的懲罰。然而，如果本戒條中提到的邀請是向整個僧團發出的，那麼更重的懲罰是合理的，因為它可以為布施者提供額外的保護，防止其邀請被僧團中不太負責任的成員濫用。這種額外的保護也有助於鼓勵未來繼續進行此類邀請。
The second non-offense clause requiring explanation is the one for an ill bhikkhu. Reading the rule, one might imagine that the exemption for an ill bhikkhu would read simply, “There is no offense if one is ill,” but instead it reads, “There is no offense if one says, ‘The time period for which we were invited has passed, but we have need of medicine.’” This is an important point of etiquette. Normally, an ill bhikkhu may ask anyone for medicine at any time, but in dealing with a person who has made an invitation for medicine to the Community, he has to show special consideration. In mentioning the fact that the time period for the invitation has expired, he gives recognition of the fact that the donor is no longer under any obligation to provide the medicine, thus giving the donor a convenient “out” in case he/she can no longer provide it. This simple gesture is the least consideration that can be shown to someone who has had the generosity to invite the Community to ask for medicines. And again, simple gestures of this sort help to protect donors and encourage similar invitations again in the future.	第二個需要解釋的不犯條款是關於生病比丘的。閱讀這條戒條，可能會以為，對生病比丘的豁免條款可簡單地拼讀成「如果生病，就沒有犯戒」，但實際上卻是「如果說『我們被邀請的期限已過，但我們需要藥物』，則沒有犯戒。」這是威儀中的一個重要方面。通常，生病的比丘可以隨時向任何人要求藥物，但在對待邀請僧團索取藥物的人時，他必須表現出特殊的體諒。在提到邀請期限已過這一事實時，他承認了布施者不再有提供藥物的義務，從而為布施者在無法再提供藥物時提供了一個方便的「藉口」。這個簡單的舉動，是對慷慨邀請僧團索取藥物的人所能表現出的最低限度的體諒。再次強調，這種簡單的舉動有助於保護布施者，並鼓勵未來再次發出類似的邀請。
Although this last non-offense clause applies explicitly only to an invitation specifying the time period, the Great Standards could be used to apply it to an invitation specifying requisites as well. In other words, an ill bhikkhu could say, “You invited the Community with honey, but I have need of ghee.”	雖然最後這條不犯條款明確僅適用於指定時段的邀請，但可用《四大教示》來將此不犯條款也適用於指定必需品的邀請。換句話說，一位生病的比丘可以說：「你用蜂蜜邀請僧團，但我需要酥油。」

An alternative interpretation	另一種解釋
The Vinaya-mukha tries to extend this rule to cover invitations of every sort, individual and communal, dealing with any sort of requisite. It also reads the training rule to mean that if a time limit is not specified on an invitation, a four-month time limit is to be assumed. All of this has no support in the Vibhaṅga and so is not binding, but the last point is something that individual bhikkhus may adopt as a personal policy to teach themselves moderation in their requests. A donor’s faith and financial position can change quickly, and it is reasonable not to depend on an invitation for longer periods of time unless the donor makes it clear that he/she is still willing to continue providing the item offered on a long-term basis.	《戒律入口》試圖將此戒條擴展至涵蓋各種形式的邀請，無論是個人邀請還是集體邀請，以及處理任何種類的必需品。它還將本戒條解讀成，如果邀請未註明期限，則視為四個月的期限。所有這些在《經分別》中均無依據，因此不具有約束力，但最後一點是比丘們可以作為個人準則，以學習在請求時保持節制。布施者的信心和經濟狀況可以快速地轉變，因此，除非布施者明確表示願意長期繼續供養物品，否則不依賴長期邀請是合理的。
Summary: When a supporter has made an offer to supply medicines to the Community: Asking him/her for medicine outside the terms of the offer when one is not ill is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：當支持者向僧團提出供養藥物時：在沒有生病的情況下向其要求超出提供條款的藥物，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

48	四十八
Should any bhikkhu go to see an army on active duty, unless there is a suitable reason, it is to be confessed.	任何比丘若去觀看值勤的軍隊，除非有適當的理由，波逸提。
This is an offense with three factors: object, effort, and intention.	這是一個有三個因素的犯戒：對象、努力和意圖。
Object	對象
An army in the time of the Buddha was a very different affair from what an army is now. We will start with a discussion of how the Vibhaṅga explains this factor in terms of armies at that time, and then follow with a discussion of how it may be applied to armies at present.	佛陀時代的軍隊與現代的軍隊截然不同。我們將首先討論《經分別》如何從當時的軍隊解釋這一因素，然後再討論它如何應用於現代軍隊。
Armies in the Buddha’s time consisted mainly of what we would call reserve units. These were organized into four divisions: elephant units, cavalry units, chariot units, and infantry units. The soldiers for the most part were citizens who would live at home until called up on active duty to engage in actual warfare or to practice maneuvers, activities that normally took place outside the city. Battles, both actual and practice, were fought according to rules—total warfare did not come to India until many centuries after the Buddha’s time—and it was possible for non-military citizens to watch, with occasional danger to life and limb, much as people at present watch football games. (Going to a battlefield is listed in the Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1) as a form of entertainment.)	佛陀時代的軍隊主要由我們所謂的預備隊組成。這些預備隊分為四個部分：象隊、騎兵隊、戰車隊和步兵隊。士兵大多為平民，他們在家居住，直至被徵召入伍值勤，參與實際戰爭或演習，這些活動通常在城外進行。無論是實際戰鬥還是演習，都遵循規則——總體戰爭直到佛陀時代之後數個世紀才傳入印度——非軍人公民也可以觀看，儘管偶爾會有生命危險，就像現在人們觀看足球比賽一樣。（《梵網經》（《長部》1經）將前往戰場列為一種娛樂形式。）
With this information in mind, it is easy to understand the Vibhaṅga’s treatment of this rule: An army on active duty—composed of a full panoply of elephant, cavalry, chariot, and infantry units who have left the city—is grounds for a pācittiya. This applies whether the army is camped or on the move. Any segment of an army on duty—even one armed archer, says the Commentary—is grounds for a dukkaṭa. An army not on duty—the Commentary illustrates this with a king’s pleasure trip—is not grounds for an offense.	了解了這些資訊，就容易理解《經分別》對這條戒條的處理方式：一支正在值勤的軍隊——由全副武裝的戰象、騎兵、戰車和步兵組成，並且已經離開城市——構成《波逸提》。無論軍隊是駐紮還是行進，這條都適用。《義註》指出，任何值勤的軍隊——即使只有一個武裝弓箭手——構成《突吉羅》。一支未值勤的軍隊——《義註》以國王的遊樂旅行為例——不構成犯戒。
To apply these definitions to armed forces at present: The Vibhaṅga’s definition for army comes close to the modern definition of a field army with a full array of artillery, armored, airborne, and infantry divisions. Navies, marines, and air forces did not exist at that time, but the Great Standards would allow us to extend the definition of army to cover similar large units of these branches of the military as well. Because armies on active duty no longer limit their activities to areas outside of cities—they are sometimes based in cities, run practice drills there, and can be called in to quell riots or fight enemy forces there—the definition of “on active duty” must be changed to fit the way armies use it at present. Thus soldiers at work on base or off would count as being on duty. An army camped—on base or off—for active duty would also count as being on active duty. There is some controversy at present as to whether the on-base areas for staff housing would count as an army camped, but because the Vibhaṅga defines active duty as being away from home, it would seem that the homes within a base would not come under this rule.	將這些定義應用於當今的武裝部隊：《經分別》對軍隊的定義接近現代野戰軍的定義，該野戰軍擁有完整的砲兵、裝甲師、空降師和步兵師。當時還沒有海軍、海軍陸戰隊和空軍，但《四大教示》允許我們擴展軍隊的定義，使其涵蓋這些軍種的類似大型部隊。由於值勤軍隊的活動範圍不再局限於城市以外的地區——他們有時駐紮在城市，在那裡進行訓練演習，並可能被召集到城市平息騷亂或與敵軍作戰——「值勤」的定義必須進行修改，以適應軍隊目前的使用方式。因此，在基地或基地外工作的士兵都算在值勤。在基地或基地外駐紮服現役的軍隊也算是在值勤。目前，對於基地內的工作人員住房是否算作駐紮的軍隊目前存在一些爭議，但由於《經分別》將值勤定義為離家在外，因此基地內的住家似乎不受此戒條的約束。
With these points in mind, we may say that a full field army—or the equivalent in naval, marine, or air forces—on active duty would be grounds for a pācittiya here. Any smaller unit of the military on active duty—a regiment, a division, or even one armed soldier—would be grounds for a dukkaṭa. Armies not on active duty, as when they organize charity events, would not be grounds for an offense.	考慮到以上幾點，我們可以說，一支完整的野戰軍——或相當於海軍、陸戰隊或空軍的部隊——在值勤，此處構成《波逸提》。任何較小的值勤軍人單位——一個團、一個師，甚至一名武裝士兵——構成《突吉羅》。非值勤軍隊，例如在組織慈善活動時，則不構成犯戒。
Perception as to whether a group qualifies as an army on duty is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	對於某個團體是否符合值勤軍隊的感知並不是這裡的減輕懲罰因素（見《波逸提》四）。

Effort	努力
This factor is fulfilled simply by staying still and watching an army on duty except when one has a suitable reason. The Vibhaṅga gives a dukkaṭa for every step one makes in going to watch an army on duty, and a pācittiya for staying still and watching. It also gives an extra pācittiya for every time one returns to watch after going away.	除非有適當理由，否則只需靜靜地觀看執勤的軍隊即可滿足此條件。《經分別》給予前往觀看執勤軍隊的每一步一次《突吉羅》，靜靜地觀看一次《波逸提》。此外，每次離開後返回觀看，《經分別》還會額外給予一次《波逸提》。
Intention	意圖
The origin story’s example of a suitable reason is that a bhikkhu’s uncle in the army had fallen ill and wished to see him. The non-offense clauses also allow one to take shelter with the army to escape dangers. (This the Commentary defines as dangers to one’s life or celibacy.) Other suitable reasons would include accepting an invitation from the soldiers to receive alms or to give a Dhamma talk.	起源故事中一個適當理由的例子是，一位比丘在軍隊服役的叔叔病倒了，想見他。不犯條款也允許為了躲避危險而投靠軍隊庇護。（《義註》將其定義為危及生命或梵行生活的危險。）其他適當的理由包括接受士兵的邀請去接受布施或給予佛法開示。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense—	不犯戒——
if, having gone on business, one sees the army;	如果出差時看見了軍隊；
if, standing within a monastery, one watches an army fighting or holding practice maneuvers nearby;	如果站在寺院裡，觀看附近一支軍隊在戰鬥或進行演習；
if an army comes to where one happens to be;	如果一支軍隊來到自己碰巧所在的地方；
if one meets an army coming from the opposite direction; or	如果遇到一支從對面來的軍隊；或者
if there are dangers.	如果有危險。
Summary: Watching a field army—or similar large military force—on active duty, unless there is a suitable reason, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：觀看野戰軍隊或類似的大型軍事力量執勤，除非有適當的理由，否則是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

49	四十九
There being some reason or another for a bhikkhu to go to an army, he may stay two or three (consecutive) nights with the army. If he should stay beyond that, it is to be confessed.	當比丘有因緣前往軍隊，他可以隨軍隊停留兩至三個（連續）夜晚。若停留時間超過此者，波逸提。
Object	對象
Unusually, the Vibhaṅgas to this rule and the next do not define army, a crucial term in both rules. But because these rules are continuations of the preceding one, we may be justified in reading their Vibhaṅgas as continuations of the preceding one as well. If so, army means the same thing in all three rules, and the permutations for object are identical in all three as well. Thus this rule does not apply to the housing where military officers live with their families, whether on base or off.	不同尋常的是，這條戒條和下一條戒條的《經分別》並未定義「軍隊」，而軍隊是這兩條戒條中的關鍵術語。但由於這些戒條是前一條戒條的延續，我們或許有理由將它們的《經分別》解讀為前一條戒條的延續。如果是這樣，那麼「軍隊」在這三條戒條中的意義相同，而對象的排列順序也在這三條戒條中相同。因此，這條戒條不適用於軍官及其家人居住的住房，無論其是否在基地內。
Effort	努力
As under Pc 5—the rule that deals with sleeping in the same dwelling with an unordained person—nights here are counted by dawns. If a bhikkhu leaves the army before dawn at the end of any night, that night is not counted. If he returns to spend another night/dawn with the army, the series starts over again from one. If, however, he has spent three consecutive nights with the army and is still with the army at any time beginning with sunset of the fourth night, he incurs a pācittiya. Unlike Pc 5, he does not need to be lying down for this factor to count. The Commentary illustrates this point by saying that even if he is using his psychic power to sit levitating above the army at sunset on the fourth day, he still fulfills this factor.	正如《波逸提》五——關於與未受具足戒者同住的戒條——夜晚以黎明計算。如果比丘在任何夜晚結束的黎明前離開軍隊，則該夜晚不計算在內。如果他返回與軍隊度過另一個夜晚/黎明，則從一開始重新計算。但是，如果他已連續與軍隊度過三個夜晚，並且在第四天晚上日落後的任何時間仍在軍隊中，他犯《波逸提》。與《波逸提》五不同，他不需要躺下來讓這個因素算數。《義註》說明了這一點，即使他在第四天日落時使用神通懸浮在軍隊上方坐著，他仍然滿足這一因素。
Perception as to whether more than three consecutive nights have actually passed is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	對於是否實際上已經過去了連續三個以上夜晚的感知並不是這裡的減輕懲罰因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense in staying longer than three nights if they are not consecutive, or in staying longer than three consecutive nights:	待超過三晚（如果不是連續的）或待超過連續三晚（以下情況）均不構成犯戒：
if one is ill or caring for someone else who is ill;	如果自己生病了或照顧生病的人；
if the army is surrounded by opposing forces (so that the road out is blocked, says the Commentary);	如果軍隊被敵軍包圍（以至於出路被堵塞，《義註》說）；
if one is being constrained (either by the army or its opponents, says the Commentary); or	如果受到限制（無論是被軍隊還是其敵對者，《義註》說）；或者
if there are other dangers (which the Commentary in many other non-offense clauses defines as dangers to one’s life or one’s celibacy).	如果有其他危險（《義註》中許多其他不犯條款將其定義為對生命或梵行生活的危險）。
Summary: Staying more than three consecutive nights with an army on active duty, unless one has a suitable reason to be there, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：除非有適當的理由，否則在值勤軍隊中連續待超過三個晚上，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

50	五十
If a bhikkhu staying two or three nights with an army should go to a battlefield, a roll call, the troops in battle formation, or to see a review of the (battle) units, it is to be confessed.	如果一個比丘在軍隊中停留兩三個晚上，並且去了戰場、點名、觀看戰鬥隊形部隊或觀看（戰鬥）部隊檢閱，波逸提。
“Then a certain group-of-six bhikkhu, having gone to the battlefield, was pierced by an arrow. People made fun of him: ‘We hope (the battle) was well fought, venerable sir. How many points did you get? (§)’”	「爾時，六群比丘前往戰場，卻被箭射中。人們取笑他：『希望這場戰鬥打得不錯，大德。您得了多少分？（§）』」
A battlefield, according to the Vibhaṅga and Commentary here, is a place where actual fighting may be seen; according to the Commentary to the Brahmajāla Suttanta, it is a place where war games are held. Both interpretations seem valid, especially considering the organized and decorous nature of warfare in those days.	戰場，根據這裡的《分別經》及《義註》，是可以看到實際戰鬥的地方；而根據《梵網經》的《義註》，是進行戰爭遊戲的地方。這兩種解釋似乎都成立，尤其是考慮到當時戰爭的組織性和莊嚴性。
The Commentary also says that a review of battle units can mean anything down to a review of a single unit.	《義註》還指出，對戰鬥部隊的檢閱可以包含對單一部隊的檢閱。
Roll call and troops in battle formation are self-explanatory.	點名和戰鬥隊形部隊都是不言自明的。
DN 1 mentions all four of these activities as forms of entertainment. From this, using the Great Standards, we may say that any show the armed forces put on for the public—parades, air shows, etc.—would also fall under this factor.	《長部》1經將這四種活動都列為娛樂形式。由此，根據《四大教示》，我們可以說，武裝部隊為公眾舉辦的任何表演——閱兵、飛航展等等——也都屬於此因素。
Notice that these activities fulfill this factor even if they do not include the full array of forces that one would find in a field army or similar large military unit. In other words, a bhikkhu staying with the army would incur the full penalty here for watching these activities even if they involve only a small segment of a single division. If he is not staying with the army, though, then under Pc 48 he would incur a pācittiya for watching these activities if they contain the full complement of artillery, armored, airborne, and infantry forces; and a dukkaṭa if they contain only a segment.	請注意，即使這些活動並非像野戰軍或類似的大型軍事單位那樣，全部兵力參與，也符合此條件。換句話說，如果比丘待在軍隊中觀看這些活動，即使只涉及一個師的一小部分，他在此也會遭受全額懲罰。然而，如果他沒有待在軍隊中，根據《波逸提》四八，如果軍隊中包括全部砲兵、裝甲兵、空降兵和步兵，他將因觀看這些活動而犯《波逸提》；如果只包括一部分，犯《突吉羅》。
Effort	努力
As with Pc 48, there is a dukkaṭa for every step one takes toward watching these activities, and a pācittiya for staying still and watching them.	正如《波逸提》四八一樣，觀看這些活動的所走每一步都會犯一次《突吉羅》，而靜止不動地觀看這些活動則犯《波逸提》。
Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses here are identical with those for Pc 48. In other words, there is no offense:	此處《經分別》的不犯條款與《波逸提》四八的條文相同。換句話說，不犯戒：
if, having gone on business, one happens to see any of these activities;	如果出差時碰巧看到這些活動；
if, staying within a monastery, one watches these activities;	如果待在寺院裡，觀看這些活動；
if an army comes to where one happens to be;	如果一支軍隊來到自己碰巧所在的地方；
if one meets an army coming from the opposite direction; or	如果遇到一支從對面來的軍隊；或者
if there are dangers.	如果有危險。
Summary: Going to a battlefield, a roll call, an array of troops in battle formation, or to see a review of the battle units while one is staying with an army is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：當待在軍隊中時，前往戰場、點名、列隊作戰的部隊、或觀看戰鬥部隊檢閱，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。