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。
* * *

(未完待續)