波逸提

Seven: The Animal Chapter 第七 有生物品
61 六十一
Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘故意剝奪動物的生命，波逸提。
There are five factors for the full offense here. 這裡的完整違犯有五個因素。
1) Object: a living animal. 1）對象：活著的動物。
2) Perception: One perceives it to be a living animal. 2）感知：認為它是一個活著的動物。
3) Intention: One knowingly, consciously, deliberately, and purposefully wants to cause its death. 3）意圖：明知、有意識、故意、有目的地想要導致其死亡。
4) Effort: whatever one does with the purpose of causing it to die. 4）努力：為了使其死亡所做的一切。
5) Result: It dies as a result of one’s action. 5）結果：由於自己的行動而導致其死亡。
Object 對象
Animal here covers all common animals. As the Commentary notes, whether the animal is large or small makes no difference in terms of the penalty, although the size of the animal is one of the factors determining the moral gravity of the act. 動物在此處涵蓋所有常見動物。如《義註》所述，動物的大小對懲罰沒有影響，但動物的大小是決定行為道德嚴重程度的因素之一。
Apparently, this factor does not include beings too small to be seen with the naked eye, inasmuch as the classes of medicine allowed in Mv.VI include a number of anti-bacterial and anti-viral substances—some mineral salts and the decoctions made from the leaves of some trees, for example, can be antibiotic. The Commentary’s example of the smallest extreme to which this rule extends is a bed bug egg. The four “Things Not To Be Done” taught to every new bhikkhu immediately after his full Acceptance (Mv.I.78.4) say that one should not deprive an animal of life “even if it is only a black or white ant.” 顯然，這一因素並不包括肉眼無法看見的微小生物，因為《大品》.六中允許的藥物種類包括許多抗菌和抗病毒物質——例如，一些礦物鹽和用某些樹木的葉子製成的湯劑就具有抗生素作用。《義註》中舉的一個例子，是臭蟲卵，說明了這條戒條延伸到的最小極限。每位新比丘在受完整具足戒後都會立即被教導的四件「不可做之事」（《大品》.一.78.4），其中說，不應剝奪動物的生命，「即使它只是一隻黑螞蟻或白螞蟻」。
On the other end of the spectrum, Pr 3 imposes a pārājika for deliberately killing a human being, and a thullaccaya for deliberately killing a peta, yakkha, or nāga. 另一方面，《波羅夷》三規定，故意殺害人類犯《波羅夷》，故意殺害餓鬼、夜叉或龍則犯《偷蘭遮》。
Perception 感知
If one is in doubt as to whether something is a living animal, it is grounds for a dukkaṭa regardless of whether it actually is. If one perceives an inanimate object to be a living animal, it is grounds for a dukkaṭa. If one perceives an object to be inanimate, then regardless of whether it actually is, it is not grounds for an offense. Thus, for example, if—with murderous intent—one steps on a spot of dirt thinking it to be a bed bug egg, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. If one steps on bed bug eggs thinking them to be spots of dirt, there is no penalty. 如果懷疑某物是否為活著的動物，無論它是否真的是，都構成《突吉羅》。如果將無生命物體視為活著的動物，也構成《突吉羅》。如果將某物視為無生命，無論它是否真的是，都不構成犯戒。因此，例如，如果懷著殺意踩到一處泥土，認為那是臭蟲卵，則懲罰為《突吉羅》。如果踩到臭蟲卵，認為它們是泥土，則不受懲罰。
Intention 意圖
Intention, in the Vibhaṅga, is described as “having willed, having made the decision knowingly and consciously”—the same phrase used to define intention under Pr 3. The Commentary to this rule refers back to the Commentary to that rule, where having willed means having willed, having planned, with a murderous intention. Having made the decision means “having summoned up a reckless mind-state, ‘crushing’ through the power of an attack.” Knowingly means knowing that, “This is a living being.” Consciously means being aware that one’s action is depriving the animal of life. 意圖，在《經分別》中，被描述為「有意願，明知且有意識地做出決定」──與《波羅夷》三中對意圖的定義的措辭相同。本戒條的《義註》引用了該戒條的《義註》，其中有意願是指有意願、有計劃、有謀殺意圖。做出決定是指「鼓起不顧一切的心態，以攻擊的力量『粉碎』」。明知是指知道「這是一個生物」。有意識是指知道自己的行為正在剝奪動物的生命。
All of this indicates that this factor is fulfilled only when one acts on a clear and consciously made decision to deprive the animal of life. Thus, for example, if one is sweeping a walk, trying carefully not to kill any insects, and yet some ants happen to die, one does not commit an offense even if one knew that there was the possibility that some might die, because one’s purpose in acting was not to cause their death. 所有這些都表明，只有當根據清晰且有意識的決定採取行動，剝奪動物的生命時，這一因素才會得到滿足。因此，例如，如果正在清掃人行道，小心翼翼地不殺死任何昆蟲，然而卻碰巧死了一些螞蟻，即使知道有可能造成一些螞蟻死亡，也不會構成犯戒，因為行為的目的並非是要導致它們死亡。
Motive, here, is irrelevant to the offense. Even the desire to kill an animal to “put it out of its misery” fulfills the factor of intention all the same. 此處，動機與犯戒無關。即使只是想「結束痛苦」而殺死動物，也同樣構成意圖的因素。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga is silent on what ways of taking life would fall under this rule. The Commentary says that explanations for this rule may be inferred from its discussion to Pr 3. Thus the four ways of taking life listed in the Vibhaṅga to that rule would apply here as well: 《經分別》並沒有說哪些殺生方式符合這條戒條。《義註》說，這條戒條的解釋可以從其對《波羅夷》三的討論中推論出來。因此，該戒條的《經分別》中所列舉的四種殺生方式也適用於此：
using one’s own person (e.g., hitting with the hand, kicking, using a knife or a club);
使用自己的身體（例如，用手打、踢、使用刀或棍棒）；
throwing (hurling a stone, shooting an arrow or a gun);
投擲（投擲石頭、射箭或槍）；
using a stationary device (setting a trap, placing poison in food);
使用固定裝置（設置陷阱、在食物中放置毒藥）；
commanding.
命令。
Mv.V.10.10 discusses a case of this last instance, in which a depraved bhikkhu tells a layman that he has use for a certain calf’s hide, and the layman kills the calf for him. Because the bhikkhu did not give a specific command that the calf be killed, and yet the Buddha said that his action did come under this rule, we can conclude that there is no room for kappiya-vohāra in this context. Whatever one says in hopes of inciting someone else to kill an animal would fulfill this factor. This rule thus differs from Pr 3, under which commanding covers only clear imperatives. 《大品》.五.10.10 討論了最後一個方式的案例：一位墮落的比丘告訴一位居士，他需要一頭小牛的皮，於是這位居士為他宰殺了這頭小牛。由於這位比丘並沒有明確下令宰殺這頭小牛，而佛陀卻說他的行為確實符合這條戒條，因此我們可以得出結論，在這種脈絡下，不存在 kappiya-vohāra 的空間。任何希望煽動他人殺動物的言論都符合此因素。因此，這條戒條與《波羅夷》三不同，該戒條下的命令只涵蓋明確的命令。
Two other ways of taking life, listed in the Commentary to Pr 3, would apparently also apply here: 《波羅夷》三的《義註》中列出了另外兩種殺生的方式，顯然也適用於此：
using magical formulae;
使用咒語；
using psychic powers.
使用神通。
Result 結果
Only if the animal dies does one incur the pācittiya here. The Vibhaṅga here mentions no penalty for the case where one tries to kill an animal but the animal does not die. However, under Pr 3—in its discussion of a pitfall arranged with the intent of causing the death of any living being falling into it—it assigns the following penalties: if an animal falls into the pitfall, a dukkaṭa; if it experiences pain as a result, another dukkaṭa; if it dies, a pācittiya. Thus it seems reasonable to extrapolate from this specific example to make these penalties general: For a bhikkhu making an intentional effort to kill an animal, there is a dukkaṭa for the first effort that touches the animal’s body; another dukkaṭa if the animal experiences pain because of one’s effort; and the full offense if, as a result, it dies. 只有動物死亡，才會在此犯《波逸提》。《經分別》在此並未提及試圖殺死動物但動物未死的情況的懲罰。然而，在《波羅夷》三中——在其討論中，安排意圖讓任何生物掉入其中而死亡的陷阱時——規定了以下懲罰：如果動物掉入陷阱，則犯一次《突吉羅》；如果動物因此遭受痛苦，則犯另一次《突吉羅》；如果動物死亡，則犯一次《波逸提》。因此，似乎可以合理地從這個具體例子推斷而使這些懲罰具普遍性：對於有意殺死動物的比丘，第一次觸及動物身體的努力犯一次《突吉羅》；如果動物因該努力而遭受痛苦，則犯另一次《突吉羅》；如果因此導致動物死亡，則構成完全違犯。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense in killing an animal— 殺死動物並無犯戒——
unintentionally—e.g., accidentally dropping a load that crushes a cat to death;
無意地—例如，意外掉落負載，將貓咪壓死；
unthinkingly—e.g., absent-mindedly rubbing one’s arm while it is being bitten by mosquitoes;
不假思索地—例如，在被蚊子叮咬時心不在焉地揉搓手臂；
unknowingly—e.g., walking into a dark room and, without realizing it, stepping on an insect; or
不知不覺地—例如，走進一個黑暗的房間，沒有意識到踩到了一隻昆蟲；或者
when one’s action is motivated by a purpose other than that of causing death—e.g., giving medicine to a sick dog whose system, it turns out, cannot withstand the dosage.
當行動不是出於導致死亡的目的時—例如，給一隻病狗餵藥，結果這隻狗的身體卻無法承受該劑量。
Still, the Commentary states that if one notices even bed bug eggs while cleaning a bed, one should be careful not to damage them. Thus, “out of compassion, one’s duties are to be done carefully.” Or, in the words of the Sub-commentary: “One’s duties in looking after one’s dwelling are to be done with mindfulness well-established so that such creatures do not die.” 儘管如此，《義註》指出，即使在清潔床舖時發現臭蟲卵，也應小心謹慎，以免損壞它們。因此，「出於慈悲，應謹慎履行職責」。或者，用《複註》的話來說：「看管住所時，應以紮實的正念履行職責，以免這些生物死亡。」
Summary: Deliberately killing an animal—or having it killed—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：故意殺害動物或令其被殺是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
62 六十二
Should any bhikkhu knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘明知而使用含有生物的水，波逸提。
This rule is similar to Pc 20, differing only in the factor of effort and in the fact that intention is not a factor for an offense. So here the factors for the full offense are three: object, perception, and effort. 這條戒條與《波逸提》二十相似，差異僅在於努力因素，以及意圖並非構成犯戒的因素。因此，此處構成完全違犯的因素有三：對象、感知和努力。
Object: 對象：
Water containing living creatures. This includes things like mosquito larvae, but not beings too small to be seen. 含有生物的水。這包括蚊子幼蟲之類的生物，但不包括肉眼看不見的生物。
Perception 感知
One knows that they are there—either from having sensed their presence on one’s own or from having been told of their presence—and that they will die from the factor of effort, defined below. 知道它們的存在——無論是自己感覺到它們的存在，還是被告知它們的存在——並且它們會因為下面定義的努力因素而死亡。
If one is in doubt as to whether water contains living beings, or if one perceives living beings in the water when there actually aren’t, then to use it in a way that would cause their death if they were there is to incur a dukkaṭa. 如果懷疑水中是否有生物，或者認為水中有生物，但實際上沒有，那麼以會導致生物死亡的方式使用水就會犯《突吉羅》。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga does not go into detail on this factor, while the Commentary defines it with examples: drinking the water, using it to wash one’s bowl, using it to cool hot porridge, dipping it out of a tank or pond to bathe with it, making waves in a pool so that the water will splash over its banks. The Sub-commentary suggests that this rule covers only cases in which one is using water for one’s own personal consumption, but this does not fit with the fact that, under this rule, the Commentary explains how one should go about cleaning out a dirty pool. (Place eight to ten potfuls of water containing no living beings in another place that will hold the water, and then dip the water from the pool into it.) The Commentary to Pr 3 states that using water to put out a fire—even an approaching wildfire that threatens one’s dwelling—would also come under this rule. 《經分別》沒有詳細說明這一點，而《義註》則舉例說明：飲水、用它來洗碗、用它來涼熱粥、從水箱或池塘中舀水並以之沐浴、在水池中掀起波浪使水濺到岸邊。《複註》認為這條戒條只涵蓋個人用水的情況，但這與《義註》在這條戒條下解釋如何清理髒水池的事實不符。（將八到十壺沒有生物的水放在另一個可以盛水的地方，然後將水池中的水舀入其中。）《波羅夷》三的《義註》指出，用水滅火——即使是即將威脅到住所的野火——也屬於這條戒條。
From all of this, it would appear that this rule covers all cases of using water containing living beings that are not covered by Pc 20. 從所有這些來看，這條戒條似乎涵蓋了所有使用含有生物的水的情況，而這些情況並未被《波逸提》二十所涵蓋。
Unlike that rule, though, the Vibhaṅga does not include the act of getting other people to make use of water containing living beings under the factor of effort here, although the Commentary and K/Commentary do. On the surface, the commentaries’ position seems reasonable. However, the compilers of the Vibhaṅga may have been taking into account the fact that, unlike telling a person to pour water on the ground, telling a person simply to use water containing living beings is not an order that, if carried out, would automatically doom those beings to death. For example, if one told another bhikkhu to drink water containing living beings, he would be the one responsible for deciding whether to strain the water first (see below). If he did, no damage would be done. If he didn’t, the offense under this rule would be his. Thus the Vibhaṅga seems correct in not including the act of getting other people to use such water under this rule. In fact, this distinction between this rule and Pc 20 may be one of the reasons why this topic is covered by two separate rules. 然而，與那條戒條不同的是，《經分別》並未將讓別人使用含有生物的水的行為納入此處的努力因素，而《義註》和 K/《義註》則將其納入。表面上看，註釋書的立場似乎合理。然而，《經分別》的編纂者可能考慮到了這樣一個事實：與告訴一個人將水倒在地上不同，僅僅告訴一個人使用含有生物的水，並不意味著這個命令如果被執行，就會自動導致這些生物死亡。例如，如果告訴另一個比丘喝含有生物的水，他有責任決定是否先濾水（見下文）。如果他這樣做了，就不會造成損害。如果他不這樣做，他就會犯下這條戒條下的罪行。因此，《經分別》並未將讓別人使用這種水的行為納入這條戒條似乎是正確的。事實上，本戒條與《波逸提》二十之間的差異可能是此主題由兩個獨立戒條涵蓋的原因之一。
The K/Commentary claims that intention is also a factor here, and—as under Pc 20—it states that the intention has to be non-murderous—the implication being that if it were murderous, the case would come under Pc 61. However, unlike the non-offense clauses to Pc 20, the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses here make no exception for a bhikkhu who uses water containing living beings either unthinkingly or unintentionally. The only exemptions deal with what one knows or does not know about the water. This means that if one knows the water contains living beings that would die from using it, then even if one spills the water accidentally, one’s action would incur a penalty all the same. K/《義註》聲稱意圖也是此處的一個因素，並且——與《波逸提》二十一樣——它規定意圖必須是非殺害性的——言下之意是，如果意圖是殺害性的，則該情況屬於《波逸提》六一的範疇。然而，與《波逸提》二十的不犯條款不同，此處《經分別》的不犯條款並未豁免比丘不加思索地或無意地使用含有生物的水。唯一的豁免取決於對水的了解。這意味著，如果知道水中含有生物，而使用水會導致生物會死亡，那麼即使不小心將水灑了，該行為仍然同樣會受到懲罰。
Result is not a factor here. Whether the living beings actually die is of no consequence in determining the offense. 結果在這裡不是一個因素。生物是否真的死亡與判定犯戒無關。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense in using water— 使用水並沒有犯戒——
if one does not know that it contains living beings;
如果不知道其中有生物的話；
if one knows that it does not contain living beings; or
如果知道其中不包含生物；或者
if one knows that the living beings it contains will not die from the use one has in mind.
如果知道其中所包含的生物不會因為想要的用途而死亡。
Water strainers 濾水器
Cv.V.13.1 gives permission for one to use a water strainer to remove dirt and living beings from water before using it, and such strainers eventually became one of a bhikkhu’s eight basic requisites. According to Cv.V.13.2, one must take a water strainer along when going on a journey. If one has no strainer, one may determine the corner of one’s outer robe as a strainer and use it to filter water. 《小品》.五.13.1 允許在使用水之前使用濾水器，去除水中的污垢和生物，這種濾水器最終成為比丘的八項基本必需品之一。根據《小品》.五.13.2 ，在旅行時必須攜帶濾水器。如果沒有濾水器，可以決意外衣的一角當作濾水器，用它來過濾水。
Summary: Using water knowing that it contains living beings that will die from that use is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：明知水中含有會因使用而造成死亡的生物，卻仍使用水，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
63 六十三
Should any bhikkhu knowingly agitate for the reviving of an issue that has been rightfully dealt with, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘明知地鼓動重新提起已經得到正確處理的諍事，波逸提。
Issues 諍事
An issue (adhikaraṇa) is a matter that, once arisen, must be dealt with formally in a prescribed manner. The Vibhaṅga lists four sorts: 諍事（adhikaraṇa）是指一旦發生，必須以規定的方式正式處理的事情。《經分別》列出了四種類型：
1) dispute-issues (vivādādhikaraṇa) concerning Dhamma and Vinaya (see Sg 10), which the Community must deal with by declaring which side is right and which wrong; 1）言諍（vivādādhikaraṇa）是有關法與律的爭議問題（見《僧殘》十），僧團必須透過宣告哪一方是對的、哪一方是錯的來處理這些問題；
2) accusation-issues (anuvādādhikaraṇa) concerning offenses (see Sg 8 & 9; Ay 1 & 2), which the Community must deal with by judging them true or false; 2）教誡諍/覓諍（anuvādādhikaraṇa）有關犯戒的指控問題（見《僧殘》八、九；《不定》一、二），僧團必須透過判斷其真否來處理這些問題；
3) offense-issues (āpattādhikaraṇa), in other words, the commission of offenses, which are to be dealt with by the offender’s undergoing the prescribed penalties (confession, penance, or expulsion from the Community); and 3）犯罪諍/犯諍（āpattādhikaraṇa），換言之即犯下的罪行，應透過對犯戒者進行規定的懲罰（發露懺悔、摩那埵、或驅逐出僧團）來處理；
4) duty-issues (kiccādhikaraṇa)—Community transactions, such as giving ordination and holding the Pāṭimokkha recitation—which the Community must deal with by performing them properly. 4）事諍（kiccādhikaraṇa）——僧伽羯磨，例如授具足戒和持誦《波羅提木叉》——僧團必須藉由妥善履行來處理這些事務。
An issue rightfully dealt with is one that has been handled properly in accordance with the procedures given in the Vinaya. Some of these procedures are discussed under Pc 79 & 80, the Adhikaraṇa-samatha rules, and in BMC2, Chapters 12-22. If an issue has been dealt with improperly, it may be reopened for reconsideration, but once it has been dealt with properly it is considered closed for good. 妥善處理的諍事是依照律藏規定的程序適當地處理的諍事。其中一些程序在《波逸提》七九和八十，滅諍戒條，以及《佛教比丘戒律 第二冊》第十二至二十二章中進行了討論。如果諍事處理不當，可以重新審理，但一旦適當地處理，則視為永久了結。
The factors for an offense under this rule are three. 本戒條下犯戒的因素有三。
1) Object: an issue that has been dealt with properly. 1）對象：已妥善處理的諍事。
2) Perception: One knows that it was dealt with properly, either because one was directly involved or one has been told of the matter. 2）感知：知道諍事已經妥善處理，要不是因為直接參與其中，就是因為被告知了這件事。
3) Effort: One says—in the presence of another bhikkhu—that it was dealt with improperly. The Vibhaṅga gives the following examples of statements that would fulfill this factor: “The issue was not carried out.” “It was poorly carried out.” “It should be carried out again.” “It was not settled.” “It was poorly settled.” “It should be settled again.” 3）努力：在另一位比丘面前說此事處理不當。《經分別》列舉了以下符合此因素的陳述的例子：「此事未被執行。」「它被執行得不好。」「它應被重新執行。」「它未被解決。」「它被解決得不好。」「它應被重新解決。」
Pv.IX.3 contains a short discussion of this rule, making the point that one is subject to this rule regardless of whether one was involved in dealing with the issue the first time around. 《附隨》.九.3 包含此戒條的簡短討論，指出無論是否第一次時即參與處理該問題，都必須遵守此戒條。
Perception 感知
If the transaction dealing with the issue was invalid but one perceives it as valid, it is grounds for a dukkaṭa. If one is in doubt about the validity of the transaction, then it is grounds for a dukkaṭa regardless of whether it was actually valid or not. What this last point means in practice is that if one is in doubt about the transaction, one may declare one’s doubt, but to state baldly that the issue needs to be reopened is to incur a dukkaṭa. 若處理該諍事的羯磨無效，但認為其有效，則構成《突吉羅》。如果對羯磨的有效性存有疑問，則無論該羯磨是否真的有效，都構成《突吉羅》。最後一點在實踐中意味著，如果對羯磨存有疑問，可以聲明自己的疑問，但直言不諱地表示需要重新討論該諍事，則構成《突吉羅》。
Further action 進一步行動
The Commentary to Cv.IX.3 states that in committing this offense one is subject to having one’s Pāṭimokkha canceled (see BMC2, Chapter 15). This would provide an opportunity for the Community to look into one’s attitude to see if one is still insistent on having the issue revived. If one continues to make a concerted effort to reopen an issue, knowing that it was properly dealt with, one is considered a maker of strife, and as such is subject to an act of censure, banishment, or suspension, depending on the gravity of the case (see BMC2, Chapter 20). 《小品》.九.3 的《義註》指出，犯此戒者，其《波羅提木叉》將被取消（參見《佛教比丘戒律 第二冊》第十五章）。這將為僧團提供一個機會，審視其態度，看看其是否仍堅持重新提起此事。如果其明知此事已得到妥善處理，卻仍繼續試圖重新提起，則將被視為挑起紛爭，並根據情況的嚴重程度受到呵責、驅出或舉罪的處分（參見《佛教比丘戒律 第二冊》第二十章）。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense in agitating to have an issue re-opened if one perceives it to have been improperly dealt with: e.g., dealt with not in accordance with the rules and procedures of the Vinaya, dealt with by an incomplete group, or—in the case of an accusation or similar acts—performed against someone who did not deserve it. This allowance holds regardless of whether, in actuality, the issue was properly dealt with. For example: A Community has performed a censure transaction against Bhikkhu X. One honestly believes that X did not deserve the act, and says so to a fellow bhikkhu. In this case, one commits no offense even if it turns out that X did in fact deserve censure. 如果認為諍事處理不當，例如，處理方式不符合律藏的戒條和程序，或由不完整的團體處理，或——在指控或類似行為的情況下——針對不應得之者，則鼓動重新審理該諍事並無犯戒。無論諍事實際上是否得到妥善處理，此開緣仍適用。例如：僧團對比丘 X 進行了呵責羯磨。自己真誠地認為 X 不該受此處分，並向一位比丘同儕如此說。在這種情況下，即使事實證明 X 確實應受呵責，也不構成犯戒。
Summary: Agitating to re-open an issue, knowing that it was properly dealt with, is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：在明知諍事已經妥善處理的情況下，仍鼓動重新提之，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
64 六十四
Should any bhikkhu knowingly conceal (another) bhikkhu’s serious offense, it is to be confessed.
若任何比丘明知地隱瞞（另一位）比丘的嚴重罪行，波逸提。
Here there are four factors for the full offense. 此處構成完全違犯的因素有四。
1) Object: a serious offense committed by another bhikkhu. 1）對象：另一位比丘所犯下的嚴重罪行。
2) Perception: One perceives the offense as serious—either from knowing on one’s own, from having been told by the bhikkhu, or from having been told by others. 2）感知：察覺該罪行是嚴重的—無論是自己知道，被比丘告知，或被他人告知。
3) Intention: One wants to hide the offense from other bhikkhus, one’s motive being either (a) fear that they will charge him with the offense or interrogate him about it (steps in the formal inquiry into the offense) or (b) fear that they will jeer, scoff, or make him feel abashed (steps in his enemies’ informal reaction to the news). In other words, this factor is fulfilled if one wants to prevent a Community transaction from being carried out against the offender or simply to protect him from the jeering remarks of other bhikkhus who may dislike him. 3）意圖：想對其他比丘隱瞞該罪行，動機若非是（a）擔心他們會指控他犯下罪行或審問他（這涉及到對罪行的正式調查）；則是（b）擔心他們會嘲笑、嘲諷他或讓他感到羞愧（這涉及到他的敵人對這一消息的非正式反應）。換句話說，如果想阻止針對犯戒者執行的僧伽羯磨，或者僅僅想保護他免受其他可能不喜歡他的比丘的嘲笑，此因素就成立了。
4) Effort: One sees a bhikkhu suitable to be informed of the matter but abandons one’s duty to report the offense. 4）努力：看到一位適合告知此事的比丘，但卻放棄了報告罪行的義務。
Object & perception 對象及感知
Serious offense, according to the Vibhaṅga, means a pārājika or a saṅghādisesa. As under Pc 9, the Commentary states that, despite what the Vibhaṅga actually says here, its compilers meant to include only saṅghādisesa offenses under this definition. But, as was also the case under Pc 9, this explanation clearly contradicts the Vibhaṅga, so it cannot stand. 嚴重罪行，根據《經分別》，是指《波羅夷》或《僧殘》。正如《波逸提》九之下，《義註》指出，儘管《經分別》在此實際上如此解釋，但其編纂者本意是僅將《僧殘》罪納入此定義。然而，正如《波逸提》九之下的案例，這種解釋顯然與《經分別》相矛盾，因此站不住腳。
Another bhikkhu’s non-serious offenses are grounds for a dukkaṭa here, as are the misdeeds—serious or not—of an unordained person. None of the texts explicitly define the term unordained person here, but because bhikkhus have no responsibility to tell other bhikkhus of the misdeeds of lay people, the sense of the rule would seem to require that it cover only bhikkhunīs, female trainees, male novices, and female novices. (Again, none of the texts state explicitly whether a bhikkhunī counts as ordained or unordained in the context of this rule, but because the Vibhaṅga defines serious offenses as the four pārājikas and the thirteen saṅghādisesas, and because the bhikkhunīs have different numbers of these two classes of rules, it would appear that a bhikkhunī would count as an unordained person here.) According to the Commentary, a breach of any of the first five precepts would count as serious for an unordained person (presumably meaning a novice or female trainee), whereas any other misdeed would count as not serious. 另一位比丘的非嚴重罪行，以及未受具足戒者的不端行為（無論輕重），構成《突吉羅》。所有文獻均未在此明確定義「未受具足戒者」一詞，但由於比丘沒有責任告知其他比丘在家眾的不端行為，因此本戒條的意義似乎要求其僅涵蓋比丘尼、學法女（式叉摩那）、沙彌和沙彌尼。（同樣，沒有文獻明確指出，在這一戒條的脈絡下，比丘尼是否算作受具足戒者或未受具足戒者，但是因為《經分別》將嚴重罪行定義為四《波羅夷》和十三《僧殘》，並且因為比丘尼在這兩類戒條上的數量不同，所以似乎比丘尼在這裡算作未受具足戒者。）根據《義註》，對於未受具足戒的人來說（大概是指沙彌或學法女），違反前五戒中的任何一條都將被視為嚴重的，而任何其他不端行為則不被視為嚴重的。
As for a bhikkhu’s offenses, the Vibhaṅga states that only a serious offense that one perceives to be serious is grounds for a pācittiya. All other possible combinations of object and perception—a serious offense about which one is in doubt, a serious offense that one perceives to be non-serious, a non-serious offense that one perceives to be serious, a non-serious offense about which one is in doubt, and a non-serious offense that one perceives to be non-serious—are grounds for a dukkaṭa. 至於比丘的罪行，《經分別》指出，只有當嚴重罪行被認為是嚴重時，才構成《波逸提》。其他所有對象與感知的組合—嚴重罪行但對之存疑，嚴重罪行認為非嚴重，非嚴重罪行認為嚴重，非嚴重罪行但對之存疑，非嚴重罪行被認為非嚴重—都構成《突吉羅》。
Effort & intention 努力及意圖
The K/Commentary defines the factor of effort here as if it were a simple act of mind—one decides that, “I won’t tell any bhikkhu about this”—but this goes against the principle that the commentaries themselves derive from the Vinīta-vatthu to Pr 2 and apply to all the rules: that the mere arising of a mind state is never sufficient for an offense. It would seem better to argue from the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses to this rule and say that this factor is fulfilled if one comes to this decision when seeing a bhikkhu who is suitable to tell and yet decides not to tell him. K/《義註》將此處的努力因素定義為如同一種簡單的心念行為—決定「我不會告訴任何比丘這件事」—但這違背了註釋書本身源自《波羅夷》二的《Vinīta-vatthu》並適用於所有戒條的原則：即僅僅產生一種心理狀態並不足以構成犯戒。更好的做法似乎是從本戒條的《經分別》的不犯條款論證，如果在看到一位適合告知的比丘卻決定不告訴他時，做出這樣的決定，那麼這個因素就成立了。
None of the texts define suitable bhikkhu here, but—following the Commentary to Cv.III—it would probably mean one who is of common affiliation and in good standing, i.e., neither suspended or undergoing penance or probation. Because of the way in which the factor of intention is worded here, a suitable bhikkhu in this case—unlike the case in which a bhikkhu needs to report his own saṅghādisesa offense—would not have to be on congenial terms with either the bhikkhu who committed the offense that needs to be reported or the bhikkhu responsible for reporting it. If the only bhikkhu available to be told is uncongenial, one must be scrupulously honest with oneself about any disinclination to inform him of the offense. If one’s only fear is that he will jeer at the offender or initiate a Community transaction to look into the offense, one is duty bound to tell him. If one feels that telling him will lead to strife in the Community or retaliation from the original offender—as the non-offense clauses note—one may wait and tell a more suitable bhikkhu. 此處，沒有任何文獻對合適的比丘進行定義，但根據《小品》.三的《義註》，它可能指共同羯磨且品行良好者，即既沒有被舉罪，也沒有正在接受摩那埵或別住。由於此處對意圖因素的表述方式，在這種情況下，合適的比丘—與比丘需要報告他自己的《僧殘》罪的情況不同—不必與犯下需要報告罪行的比丘或負責報告罪行的比丘關係融洽。如果唯一可以報告的比丘不和藹可親，則必須嚴格誠實地面對自己，不要不願告訴他罪行。如果唯一的擔心是他會嘲笑犯戒者或發起僧伽羯磨來調查罪行，則有義務告訴他。如果覺得告訴他會導致僧團的衝突或原始犯戒者的報復—正如不犯條款所指出的那樣—可以等待並告訴一位更合適的比丘。
Because the non-offense clauses also state that there is no offense in not reporting the offense if one’s motive is not to hide it, one need not inform the first suitable bhikkhu one meets if one is planning to inform a more appropriate bhikkhu, such as a senior member of the Community, a Vinaya expert, or the offender’s mentor or preceptor. 因為不犯條款還規定，如果動機不是隱瞞罪行，那麼不報告罪行也不算犯戒，所以如果打算通知更合適的比丘，例如僧團的資深成員、律藏專家或犯戒者的導師或戒師，那麼不需要通知遇到的第一個合適的比丘。
Apparently, once one has told a suitable bhikkhu, one is absolved of the responsibility of having to tell anyone else. However, none of the texts discuss the question of what one’s duty is if, after informing another bhikkhu, one realizes that he wants to conceal the offense. A responsible course of action, if none of the dangers listed in the non-offense clauses apply, would be to find and inform a more responsible bhikkhu, but this is a matter of one’s conscience and not of the rules. 顯然，一旦告知了合適的比丘，就無需再告知他人。然而，所有文獻均未探討過，如果告知了其他比丘後，意識到對方有意隱瞞罪行，自己的職責是什麼。如果不犯條款中列出的所有風險均不適用，那麼負責任的做法是找到並告知一位更負責任的比丘，但這關乎自己的良心，而非戒條。
The Commentary says that if, out of a desire to hide the original offense, one neglects to inform a suitable bhikkhu but then later changes one’s mind and tells either him or yet another bhikkhu, one has committed the offense all the same. 《義註》說，如果為了隱藏原來的罪行而忽略了告知合適的比丘，但後來又改變主意並告訴他或另一個比丘，那麼仍然犯了戒。
It also says that if one tells Bhikkhu X, asking him to help hide Bhikkhu Y’s offense, this also fulfills the factors of effort and intention here. If X then abandons his responsibility to tell, he too commits the corresponding offense under this rule. Regardless of how many co-conspirators would end up trying to keep the original offense secret enough to prevent a formal inquiry into it, all of them would be guilty of the offense here. 它也指出，如果告知比丘 X ，請他協助隱瞞比丘 Y 的罪行，也滿足此處的努力和意圖的因素。如果 X 隨後放棄了他的告知責任，他也犯了此戒條下的相應罪行。無論有多少同謀最終試圖隱瞞原來的罪行，以阻止對其的正式調查，他們所有人都犯了此處的罪行。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense in not telling another bhikkhu— 不告訴其他比丘並沒有犯戒——
if one thinks that telling will lead to strife or a split in the Community;
如果認為告知會導致僧團內的衝突或分裂；
if, seeing that the bhikkhu who has committed the offense is violent by nature, one feels that he might create “dangers to life” or “dangers to the celibate life”;
如果看到犯了戒的比丘生性殘暴，覺得他可能會造成「生命危險」或「梵行生活危險」；
if one sees no suitable bhikkhu to tell;
如果沒有看到合適的比丘可以告知；
if one has no desire to hide the offense; or
如果不想隱瞞罪行；或者
if one feels that the wrong-doer’s own behavior will betray him and thus there is no need to tell.
如果覺得做錯事的人自己的行為會背叛他，因此沒有必要說出來。
Summary: Not informing another bhikkhu of a serious offense that one knows a third bhikkhu has committed—out of a desire to protect the third bhikkhu either from having to undergo the penalty or from the jeering remarks of other bhikkhus—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：如果知道第三個比丘犯了嚴重罪行，而沒有告知另一個比丘——出於保護第三個比丘免受懲罰或免受其他比丘嘲笑的欲望——是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
65 六十五
Should any bhikkhu knowingly give full Acceptance (ordination) to an individual less than twenty years old, the individual is not accepted and the bhikkhus are blameworthy; and as for him (the preceptor), it is to be confessed.
若任何比丘明知地為未滿二十歲的人授具足戒，則該人不得具足戒，且比丘們應受呵責；至於他（戒師），波逸提。
The origin story here tells how the group of seventeen came to be ordained. 這裡的起源故事講述了十七群是如何被授予具足戒的。
“Now at that time in Rājagaha, a group of seventeen boys were friends, with the boy Upāli as their leader. Then the thought occurred to Upāli’s parents, ‘By what means could Upāli, after our death, live pleasantly and not suffer?… If he studies writing, his fingers will hurt…. If he studies calculation, his breast will hurt…. If he studies money changing, his eyes will hurt. Now, these Sakyan-son monks are of pleasant virtue and conduct. Having eaten good meals, they lie down in beds sheltered from the wind. If Upāli went forth among the Sakyan-son monks, he would live pleasantly after our death and not suffer.’
「其時，在王舍城，有十七群男孩為友，以男孩優波離為首。優波離的父母心想：『我們死後，優婆離如何才能生活安樂，不受痛苦？……如果他學書法，手指會痛……學算術，胸口會痛……學金錢兌換，眼會痛。這些沙門釋子品行端正，吃飽飯後，睡臥在避風的床上。如果優波離在沙門釋子中出家，我們死後，他就能生活安樂，不受痛苦。』
“The boy Upāli heard his parents’ conversation. So he went to the boys… and said, ‘Come, masters, let’s go forth among the Sakyan-son monks.’
男孩優婆離聽到了父母的談話。於是他走到男孩們面前……說：『來吧，大德們，我們去沙門釋子中出家吧。』
“‘If you go forth, master, so will we.’
「『大德，您若前去出家，我們亦然。』
“So each of the boys, having gone to his parents, said, ‘Permit us to go forth from home into homelessness.’ Then the parents of the boys gave their permission, (thinking,) ‘All these boys are unanimous in their desire. Their motives are noble.’
「於是，每位男孩都去見自己的父母，說：『請允許我們從家出離而入無家。』男孩們的父母也同意了，（心想）『這些男孩的願望一致，他們的動機高尚。』
“(The boys) having gone to the bhikkhus, asked for the Going-forth. The bhikkhus gave them the Going-forth and full Acceptance. Then, waking up in the last watch of the night, the boys (now bhikkhus) cried out, ‘Give us porridge! Give us a meal! Give us food!’
「（男孩們）去見比丘們，請求出家。比丘們給他們出家和授予具足戒。然後，在後夜時分醒來，男孩們（現在成了比丘）喊道：『給我們粥！給我們飯！給我們食物！』
“The bhikkhus said, ‘Wait, friends, until the night turns light. If there is porridge, you will drink it. If there is a meal, you will eat it. If there is food, you will eat it. But if there is no porridge or meal or food, then you will eat having gone for alms.’
「比丘們說：『朋友們，等到天明，如果有粥，你們就喝。如果有飯，你們就吃。如果有食物，你們就吃。但如果沒有粥、飯或食物，你們就托缽來吃。』
“But even then, those (new) bhikkhus cried out as before, ‘Give us porridge! Give us a meal! Give us food!’ And they wet the bedding and soiled it.”
「但即便如此，那些（新來的）比丘們還是像以前一樣喊叫：『給我們粥！給我們飯！給我們食物！』他們弄濕了寢具，弄髒了寢具。」
The Buddha, in rebuking the bhikkhus who had given full Acceptance to the seventeen boys, painted a picture of the bhikkhus’ life very different from that imagined by Upāli’s parents: 佛陀在呵責那些授予具足戒給這十七群男孩的比丘們時，描繪了比丘們的生活，與優波離父母所想像的截然不同：
“Bhikkhus, how can these worthless men knowingly give full Acceptance to an individual less than 20 years old? An individual less than 20 years old is not resistant to cold, heat, hunger, thirst, the touch of gadflies and mosquitoes, wind and sun and creeping things; or to abusive, hurtful language. He is not the sort who can endure bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, sharp, stabbing, fierce, distasteful, disagreeable, deadly.’”
「比丘們，這些無用之人怎能明知地授予具足戒給一個不到二十歲的人？不到二十歲的人無法抵禦寒冷、炎熱、飢餓、口渴，牛蠅蚊蟲，風吹日曬和爬蟲的觸碰；也無法抵禦辱罵和傷害性的言語。他無法忍受身體上那些生起的痛苦、尖銳、刺痛、兇猛、令人厭惡、不快、致命的感受。』」
The factors for the full offense here are three. 此處構成完全違犯的因素有三。
1) Object: a man less than 20 years old. 1）對象：不到二十歲的男子。
2) Perception: One knows that he is less than 20 years old—either from knowing on one’s own, from having been told by the man, or from having been told by others. 2）感知：知道他不到20歲—要嘛是自己知道，要嘛是那位男子告知，要嘛是被別人告知。
3) Effort: One acts as the preceptor in his full Acceptance as a bhikkhu. 3）努力：在授予具足戒為比丘的過程中，作為戒師。
Object 對象
As Mv.I.75 makes clear, a person’s age for the purpose of this rule is counted from the time he becomes a fetus in his mother’s womb. Because this is difficult—if not impossible—to date with any accuracy, the usual practice in calculating a person’s age is to add six months to the number of years since his birth, to allow for the possibility of his having been born prematurely. As the Commentary notes, a baby born after seven months in the womb may survive, but one born after only six months in the womb won’t. 正如《大品》.一.75 所明確指出的，就本戒條而言，一個人的年齡是從其在母親子宮內變成胎兒時開始計算的。由於很難（甚至不可能）準確地確定年齡，因此計算年齡的常見做法是在其出生年份上加六個月，以考慮到早產的可能性。正如《義註》所指出的，在子宮內七個月後出生的嬰兒可能存活，但在子宮內僅六個月後出生的嬰兒則無法存活。
Perception 感知
If one is in doubt as to whether an individual is less than 20, but goes ahead and ordains him anyway, one incurs a dukkaṭa regardless of his actual age. If one perceives him as less than 20 when he is actually 20 or older, he is grounds for a dukkaṭa. If one perceives him as 20 or older, then regardless of his actual age he is not grounds for an offense. 如果懷疑個人是否不滿20歲，但仍繼續為其授予具足戒，則無論其實際年齡如何，均構成《突吉羅》。如果認為他不滿20歲，但實際上他已滿20歲或以上，則構成《突吉羅》。如果認為他已滿20歲或以上，則無論其實際年齡如何，均不構成犯戒。
Effort 努力
There is a dukkaṭa for every step in arranging the Acceptance of an individual one knows to be less than 20 years old, beginning with the act of searching out a group to join in the transaction, looking for robes and a bowl for him to use, etc., all the way to the second proclamation in the Acceptance transaction. Once the third and final proclamation has been made, the preceptor incurs a pācittiya, and all other bhikkhus in the group who know that the individual is less than 20 years old, a dukkaṭa. 在安排授具足戒予一位已知未滿20歲的個人時，從尋找參與羯磨的團體的行動開始，尋找袈裟和缽供他使用等等，一直到授予具足戒的羯磨中第二次宣告，每一步都犯《突吉羅》。一旦第三次也是最後一次宣告完成，戒師犯《波逸提》，而團體中所有知道此人未滿20歲的比丘犯《突吉羅》。
In any case, if the individual is really less than 20 years old when he is accepted, then—regardless of whether he or anyone else knows of the fact—he does not count as a bhikkhu and is only a novice. The Commentary notes here that if he continues in this state for long enough to become a preceptor or teacher in another person’s Acceptance, that person counts as rightly accepted only as long as there are enough true bhikkhus in the group accepting him, not counting the improperly accepted “bhikkhu” in question. (See BMC2, Chapter 14 for more details on this issue.) 無論如何，如果一個人在受具足戒時確實不滿20歲，那麼——無論他本人或他人是否知曉該事實——他都不算比丘，而只是一名沙彌。《義註》在此指出，如果他保持這種狀態足夠長的時間，以至於在另一個人的受具足戒中成為戒師或導師，那麼只有在授予他具足戒的團體中有足夠多的真正比丘（不包括那個被不適當地授予具足戒的「比丘」）時，該人才算被正確地受具足戒。（有關此問題的更多詳情，請參閱《佛教比丘戒律 第二冊》第十四章。）
The Commentary adds that if one is less than 20 when being accepted, without knowing the fact, it does not act as an obstacle to one’s qualifying for heaven or the transcendent states; but if one ever finds out the truth that one was improperly accepted, one should immediately arrange for a proper Acceptance. 《義註》還說，如果在被授予具足戒時未滿 20 歲，而他不知道這一事實，這並不妨礙他獲得天界或超越境界的資格；但是，如果發現自己被不適當地授予具足戒，就應該立即安排適當的具足戒儀式。
Summary: Acting as the preceptor in the full Acceptance of a person one knows to be less than 20 years old is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：在受具足戒的儀式中為明知未滿 20 歲的人擔任戒師，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
66 六十六
Should any bhikkhu knowingly and by arrangement travel together with a caravan of thieves, even for the interval between one village and the next, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘明知且約定與盜賊商隊一起旅行，即使只是從一個村莊到下一個的間隔，波逸提。
Here the full offense has three factors. 這裡的完全違犯有三個因素。
1) Object: a caravan of thieves. 1）對象：盜賊商隊。
2) Perception: One knows that it is a caravan of thieves—either from knowing on one’s own, from having been told by one of the thieves, or from having been told by others. 2）感知：知道這是盜賊商隊——無論是自己知道，或是被盜賊之ㄧ告知，或是被別人告知。
3) Effort: (a) Having made an arrangement together with the caravan to travel together, (b) one actually travels together with them as arranged (c) from one village to another. 3）努力：（a）與商隊約定一起旅行，（b）按照約定，真的與他們一起旅行，（c）從一個村莊到另一個。
Object 對象
A caravan of thieves, according to the Vibhaṅga, is any group that has committed a theft, is on its way to commit a theft, is planning to evade a tax, or is planning to “rob the king,” which the Commentary translates as planning to cheat the government in one way or another. At present this would include any person or group of people smuggling or trading in contraband goods. 盜賊商隊，根據《經分別》，是指任何犯有盜竊罪、正在行竊途中、計劃逃稅或計劃「搶劫國王」的團體。《義註》將「搶劫國王」翻譯為計劃以某種方式欺騙政府。目前，這包括任何走私或販賣違禁品的個人或團體。
None of the texts mention the minimum number of thieves needed to form a “group,” but because the Vibhaṅga consistently uses plural forms to describe the thieves, it would appear that at least two thieves are needed to fulfill this factor. 沒有任何文獻提到組成「團體」所需的盜賊的最低數量，但是由於《經分別》始終使用複數形式來描述盜賊，因此似乎至少需要兩個盜賊才能滿足這一因素。
Perception 感知
If one is in doubt as to whether a group would count as a caravan of thieves, there is a dukkaṭa for traveling with them regardless of whether they actually are a caravan of thieves or not. If one perceives them to be a caravan of thieves when they actually aren’t, they are grounds for a dukkaṭa. If one does not perceive them to be a caravan of thieves, then regardless of whether they are or aren’t, they are not grounds for an offense. 如果懷疑某個團體是否構成盜賊商隊，那麼無論他們是否真的構成盜賊商隊，與他們同行都會構成《突吉羅》。如果認為他們是盜賊商隊，但實際上並非如此，構成了《突吉羅》。如果不認為他們是盜賊商隊，那麼無論他們是否為盜賊商隊，都不構成犯戒。
Making an arrangement 約定
According to the Vibhaṅga, both the bhikkhu and the thieves must give their verbal assent to the arrangement for this part of the factor to be fulfilled. If the bhikkhu proposes the arrangement but the thieves do not give their verbal assent, then even if they later travel together as he proposed, he incurs a dukkaṭa. If they propose the arrangement but he does not give his verbal assent, then even if they later travel together as proposed, he incurs no penalty. As under Pc 27, verbal assent expressed by writing would fulfill this factor as well. 根據《經分別》，比丘和盜賊都必須口頭同意該安排，才能滿足這部分條件。如果比丘提出安排，但盜賊未口頭同意，那麼即使他們後來按照比丘的提議一起旅行，他犯《突吉羅》。如果他們提出安排，但他並未口頭同意，那麼即使他們後來按照提議一起旅行，他也不會受到懲罰。根據《波逸提》二七，書面表示的口頭同意也同樣滿足這項條件。
As mentioned under Pc 27, a statement or set of statements mentioning both sides of the arrangement in connection with the journey—“We’ll go”; “Let’s go”; “You and I will go together”—would count as verbal assent here, whereas a statement or set of statements mentioning only one’s own plans with regard to the journey—“I’ll go”—would not. Thus if a bhikkhu states, “I’m going to cross the border tomorrow,” and a group of thieves says, “Let’s go together,” then if he says nothing more on the topic, he has not expressed verbal assent. 如《波逸提》二七所述，一句或幾句陳述，提及雙方關於旅程的安排——「我們去吧」、「一起去吧」、「你和我一起去」——在此可視為口頭同意，而一句或幾句陳述，僅提及個人關於旅程的計劃——「我會去」——則不視為口頭同意。因此，如果一位比丘說「我明天要穿過邊境」，而一群盜賊們說：「我們一起去吧」，那麼，如果他沒有再談及此事，則他並未表達口頭同意。
According to the Commentary, the defining feature of the arrangement is that it specifies the time at which they will leave together. But as we noted under Pc 27, many examples of arrangements in the Vibhaṅga do not explicitly mention a time frame for leaving, so the Commentary’s stipulation here cannot stand. Any expressed agreement to go together would fulfill this factor, regardless of whether the time frame is explicitly stated. 根據《義註》，安排的決定特徵是明確規定了他們一起出發的時間。但正如我們在《波逸提》二七中指出的那樣，《經分別》中許多安排的例子並沒有明確提及出發的時間段，因此《義註》的規定在此不成立。任何明確表示同意一起出行的協議都將滿足這一因素，無論是否明確規定了時間段。
The texts do not address the case in which another person initiates the arrangements for a bhikkhu to travel together with a caravan of thieves, say, as part of a larger group. However, as under Pc 27, the examples of arrangements given in the Vibhaṅga suggest that as long as the bhikkhu and the thieves do not address each other—directly or through an intermediary—about traveling together, there would be no offense in joining the group. 文獻並未提及由他人主動安排比丘與盜賊商隊同行（例如，作為更大團體的一部分）的情況。然而，正如《波逸提》二七所述，《經分別》中列舉的安排示例表明，只要比丘與盜賊之間沒有直接或透過中間人就同行事宜進行溝通，加入該團體就不構成犯戒。
Going as arranged 依約定而行
The two parties must travel together as specified in the arrangement for this sub-factor to be fulfilled. If the arrangement is minimal or spur-of-the-moment, with no time frame explicitly specified, then simply leaving together at any time would fulfill this sub-factor. If a time frame is explicitly specified, then this sub-factor is fulfilled only if they leave within the time frame. If they happen to start out earlier or later than arranged, the bhikkhu incurs no penalty. As under Pc 27, the Commentary suggests that “earlier“ or “later” here involve fairly substantial amounts of time, i.e., going one day later than arranged, or going before the meal when the arrangement was to go after the meal. However, if they leave from a different spot than the one they had arranged or go by a different route, that does not absolve the bhikkhu from the offense. 雙方必須依約定一同出行，此子因素才算成立。如果約定的內容很少或只是臨時起意，沒有明確約定時間，那麼隨時一起出發都算成立。如果明確約定了時間，那麼只有在約定時間內出發才算成立。如果他們出發的時間早於或晚於約定時間，比丘不會受到懲罰。正如《波逸提》二七所述，《義註》指出，這裡的「早於」或「晚於」指的是相當長的時間，例如，比約定時間晚一天出發，或者約定在飯後出發，而他們卻在飯前出發。但是，如果他們的出發地點與約定不同，或者他們走了不同的路線，這並不能免除比丘的罪行。
From one village to another 從一個村莊到另一個
There is a pācittiya for every village-to-village interval one passes. In an area where there are no villages—i.e., says the Sub-commentary, where villages are farther than half a yojana (8 km. or 5 miles) apart—there is a pācittiya for every half-yojana one travels together with the thieves as arranged. 每經過村莊到村莊間隔，就犯一次《波逸提》。在沒有村莊的地方——也就是，《複註》說，村莊之間的距離超過半由旬（8公里或5英里）——則每經過半由旬，按照約定與盜賊同行，就犯一次《波逸提》。
None of the texts mention cases of traveling long distances within a large city, but it would seem that in such cases—arguing from the Great Standards—one would incur the full penalty in traveling from one administrative district to the next. 沒有任何文獻提到在大城市內長途旅行的情況，但似乎在這種情況下——從《四大教示》來看——從一個行政區到下一個的旅行會招致全額懲罰。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense— 不犯戒—
if the bhikkhu and thieves happen to travel together without having made an arrangement;
如果比丘和盜賊未經約定而一起旅行；
if the thieves propose an arrangement, but the bhikkhu does not give his verbal assent;
如果盜賊提出安排，但比丘沒有口頭同意；
if the bhikkhu leaves not as specified in the arrangement (§); or
如果比丘沒有依照約定離開（§）；或者
if there are dangers (and the bhikkhu must join the caravan for his safety).
如果有危險（比丘必須加入商隊以確保其安全）。
A peculiarity of the third non-offense clause here, is that—unlike its parallels in Pc 27 & 28—all the major Asian editions of the Canon express it in the singular (he leaves) rather than the plural (they leave). Only the PTS edition puts it in the plural. In the following rule, all the major editions, including the PTS, put the parallel clause in the singular. None of the commentaries call attention to these disparities, and apparently they make no difference in practice. 這裡第三條不犯條款的一個特點是——與《波逸提》二七和二八中的相對應條款不同——所有主要的亞洲版本《聖典》都將其表達為單數（他離開），而不是複數（他們離開）。只有PTS版本將其表示為複數。在以下戒條中，所有主要版本，包括PTS版本，都將相對應條款表達為單數。所有註釋書都沒有提及這些差異，而且顯然它們在實踐中也沒有任何區別。
Summary: Traveling by arrangement with a group of thieves from one village to another—knowing that they are thieves—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：與一群盜賊約定同行從一個村莊到另一個——明知他們是盜賊——是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
67 六十七
Should any bhikkhu, by arrangement, travel together with a woman, even for the interval between one village and the next, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘與女人相約同行，即使只是在一個村莊和下一個之間的間隔，波逸提。
“Now at that time a certain bhikkhu, going through the Kosalan districts on his way to Sāvatthī, passed by the gate of a certain village. A woman, leaving the village after quarreling with her husband, saw the bhikkhu and said, ‘Where are you going, venerable sir?’
「其時，有一位比丘，途經拘薩羅國，前往舍衛城。他經過一個村莊的門前。一位女人與丈夫吵架後，正要離開村莊。她看見比丘，便說：『大德，您要去哪裡？』
“‘I’m going to Sāvatthī, sister.’
「『我要去舍衛城，姊妹。』
“‘Then I’m going with you.’
「『那我跟你一起去。』
“‘As you wish, sister.’
「『如你所願，姊妹。』
“Then the woman’s husband, leaving the village, asked people, ‘Have you seen such-and-such a woman?’
「然後，女人的丈夫離開村莊，問人們說：『你們見過某某女人嗎？』
“‘She’s going along with a monk.’
「『她和一位出家人一起去。』
“So the man, having caught up with them, seized the bhikkhu, gave him a good thrashing, and set him free. The bhikkhu went and sat fuming under a certain tree. The woman said to the man, ‘That bhikkhu didn’t abscond with me. I was the one who went with him. He’s innocent. Go and ask his forgiveness.’
「於是那人追上他們，抓住比丘，狠狠地揍了他一頓，然後把他放了。比丘走到一棵樹下，怒氣沖沖地坐著。那女人對那人說：『那比丘沒有跟我一起逃走。是我跟他一起去的。他是無辜的。去向他求原諒吧。』
“So the man asked the bhikkhu for his forgiveness.”
「於是那人向比丘請求原諒。」
Object 對象
A female human being, experienced enough to know what is properly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd, is grounds for a pācittiya here. Paṇḍakas, female yakkhas and petas, and animals in the form of a female human being are all grounds for a dukkaṭa. Woman here also includes women. In other words, the inclusion of one or more extra women in the travel arrangement is not a mitigating factor; and, in fact, there is an offense for every woman included in the travel arrangement. The inclusion of men in the travel arrangement, however, is a controversial issue at present, and is discussed below. 一位女性人類，有足夠經驗，能夠分辨哪些話是恰當的，哪些話是不恰當的，哪些是淫穢的，哪些不是淫穢的，在此構成了《波逸提》。黃門、雌夜叉和餓鬼，以及化身為女性人類的動物，都構成《突吉羅》。此處的女人也包括女人們。換句話說，在旅行安排中額外包含一名或多名女性，並不能成為減輕懲罰的因素；事實上，旅行安排中每包含一名女性，都犯一次罪行。然而，在旅行安排中包含男性目前是一個有爭議的問題，下文將對此進行討論。
Perception as to whether the person is actually a woman is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 對於該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）。
Similarly, if one travels by arrangement with a paṇḍaka, not knowing that that’s what he is, one still incurs a dukkaṭa. 同樣地，如果與黃門相約同行，卻不知道他是什麼人，那麼仍然犯《突吉羅》。
Effort 努力
Effort here is defined in a parallel way to its definition under the preceding rule: (a) Having made an arrangement together with the woman to travel together, (b) one actually travels together with her as arranged (c) from one village to another. See the preceding rule for explanations and for the allotment of offenses. 此處「努力」的定義與上一條戒條中的定義類似：（a）與女人約定一同出行，（b）實際上與其如約定一同出行（c）從一個村莊到另一個。有關解釋及罪行劃分，請參閱上一條戒條。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense— 不犯戒——
if the bhikkhu and woman happen to travel together without having made an arrangement;
如果比丘與女人未經約定而同行；
if the woman proposes an arrangement, while the bhikkhu does not give his verbal assent;
如果女人提出安排，而比丘沒有口頭同意；
if either party leaves (or, apparently, both leave together) not as specified in the arrangement (§); or
若任何一方離開（或顯然雙方一起離開），但未依約定所述（§）；或者
if there are dangers.
如果有危險。
Current practice 目前實踐
In the time of the Buddha, long-distance travel was mostly by foot, and the question of prior arrangement was what made the difference between whether one was traveling together with someone else or simply happened to be walking along the road at the same time. At present, when one is taking public transport—buses, subways, trains, and airplanes—this is still the factor determining whether one is traveling together with someone else or simply happens to be on the bus, etc., at the same time. This rule thus forbids a bhikkhu from traveling together with a woman, by prior arrangement, on the same public transport. 在佛陀時代，長途出行大多靠步行，事先安排決定了是與他人同行，還是剛好與他人同時在路上行走。如今，當搭乘大眾運輸工具——公車、地鐵、火車和飛機——這仍然是決定與他人同行，還是剛好與他人同時在公車等交通工具上的因素。因此，這條戒條禁止比丘與女性事先安排搭乘同一大眾運輸工具同行。
Private transport, though—such as automobiles, trucks and vans—is an area that different Communities treat in differing ways. Some treat it under Pc 44 rather than here, saying that a bhikkhu may sit in an automobile with a woman as long as a knowledgeable man is present. This holds regardless of whether the automobile is sitting still or traveling any number of miles, and regardless of whether the woman or the man is driving. 然而，對於私人交通工具——例如汽車、卡車和貨車——不同的僧團對此有不同的處理方式。有些僧團根據《波逸提》四四而非本戒條處理此事，說只要有一位知識淵博的男人在場，比丘可以與女人同坐一輛車。無論汽車是靜止不動還是行駛了多少英里，也無論駕駛的是男人還是女人，這都適用。
Other Communities treat private transport under this rule, but say that the prior arrangement is implicitly with the driver of the transport. If the driver is a woman, there is a pācittiya in riding with her from one village to the next. If the driver is a man, there is no offense, regardless of whether a woman is riding along. 其他僧團則依據此戒條處理私人交通工具，但認為事先的約定默認是與交通工具的司機達成的。如果司機是女人，那麼與她同乘從一個村莊到下一個就犯《波逸提》。如果司機是男人，則無論是否有女性同行，均不構成犯戒。
The Commentary would not agree with this second interpretation, for it states explicitly when discussing Mv.V.10.3 that a bhikkhu may ride in a cart driven by a woman or a man. At any rate, though, this is another area where the wise policy is to follow the practice of the Community in which one belongs, as long as one is careful to adhere to the Vibhaṅga by not entering verbally into any arrangement with a woman to go traveling together. 《義註》並不認同第二種解釋，因為它在討論《大品》.五.10.3時明確指出，比丘可以乘坐由女人或男人駕駛的馬車。無論如何，在這方面，明智之舉是遵循其所屬僧團的做法，只要謹慎遵守《經分別》，不與女人口頭約定一起出行。
Summary: Traveling by arrangement with a woman from one village to another is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：與女人從一個村莊到另一個村莊約定同行是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
68 六十八

Should any bhikkhu say the following: “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when engaged in are not genuine obstructions,” the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: “Do not say that, venerable sir. Do not slander the Blessed One, for it is not good to slander the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say anything like that. In many ways, friend, the Blessed One has described obstructive acts, and when engaged in they are genuine obstructions. [The Sri Lankan and Burmese recensions read: In many ways, friend, the Blessed One has described obstructive acts as obstructive, and when engaged in they are genuine obstructions.] ”

And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times for the sake of relinquishing that. If while being rebuked up to three times he relinquishes that, that is good. If he does not relinquish (that), it is to be confessed.

若有比丘說：「據我理解世尊所教導的佛法，世尊所說的那些障礙行為，去從事時並非真正的障礙」，比丘們應當這樣勸誡他：「具壽，不要這樣說。不要誹謗世尊，因為誹謗世尊是不好的。世尊不會說這樣的話。朋友，世尊以各種方便描述了障礙行為，而當從事這些行為時，它們確實是障礙。[斯里蘭卡和緬甸版本為：朋友，世尊以各種方便把障礙行為描述為障礙，而當從事這些行為時，它們確實是阻礙。]」

若那位比丘被比丘們如此勸誡後仍執迷不悟，比丘們應當責備他三次，以勸其捨棄。若他被責備三次後捨棄之，則很好；若他仍不捨棄（之），波逸提。
Obstructions 障礙
The Vibhaṅga does not define obstruction in the context of this rule, although the origin story makes clear that it refers at the very least to the sexual act. The Commentary defines obstruction as anything that acts as an obstacle to the attainment of heaven or emancipation. It lists five major categories: 《經分別》並未在此戒條的脈絡中定義障礙，儘管其起源故事明確表明，它至少指的是性行為。《義註》將障礙定義為任何阻礙證得天界或解脫的事物，並列出了五大類：
1) Actions, i.e., the five ānantariya/ānantarika-kamma: patricide, matricide, the murder of an arahant, the wounding of a Buddha, the creation of a schism in a Saṅgha;
1）行為，即五種無間業（ānantariya/ānantarika-kamma）：弒父、弒母、殺阿羅漢、出佛身血、破和合僧；

(未完待續)