波逸提

Eight: The In-accordance-with-the-Rule Chapter

第八如法品

71	七十一
Should any bhikkhu, admonished by the bhikkhus in accordance with a rule, say, “Friends, I will not train myself under this training rule until I have put questions about it to another bhikkhu, competent and learned in the discipline,” it is to be confessed. Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu in training should understand, should ask, should ponder. This is the proper course here.	若有比丘被比丘們如法勸誡時，說：「朋友們，在向另一位精通戒律、學識淵博的比丘請教之前，我不會按照此學處訓練自己。」，波逸提。諸比丘，修行中的比丘應當理解、應當提問、應當思考。這於此是如法的。
This rule deals with cases where a bhikkhu tries to excuse himself from following any of the training rules without showing out-and-out disrespect for the rule or the person admonishing him. (If he showed out-and-out disrespect, the case would come under Pc 54.) The factors for the full offense here are three.	這條戒條處理的是比丘試圖為自己不遵守任何學處找藉口，但又未表現出對戒條或對其訓誡者的徹底不尊重的情況。（如果他表現出徹底的不尊重，則該情況適用《波逸提》五四。）構成完全違犯的因素有三。
1) Object: One has been admonished by a fellow bhikkhu who cites a rule formulated in the Vinaya.	1）對象：受到一位比丘同儕的訓誡，且他引用了律藏中所制定的戒條。
2) Intention: One does not want to train oneself in line with the rule.	2）意圖：不想按照戒條訓練自己。
3) Effort: As a ploy to excuse oneself, one says something to the effect that one will not train in line with the rule.	3）努力：做為給自己找藉口的花招，說了些話達到不按照戒條訓練的效果。
Only two of these factors—object and effort—require explanation.	這三個因素中，只有兩個——對象和努力——需要解釋。
Object	對象
The explanation for this factor is exactly the same as under Pc 54. Perception as to whether the person giving the admonishment is ordained is irrelevant to the offense (see Pc 42).	對於這一因素的解釋與《波逸提》五四完全相同。對給予訓誡者是否受過具足戒的感知與犯戒無關（參見《波逸提》四二）。

Effort	努力
Looking at the Vibhaṅga’s discussion of this factor, it would appear to cover only cases where one used the precise words mentioned in the training rule, but the K/Commentary—drawing probably on the Great Standards—expands it to cover any case where one says something as a ploy to excuse oneself from following the rule without showing disrespect. Examples might include: “I’ll worry about that rule when I come to it.” “I don’t have time for that right now.” “I’ve been wondering: Do you really think that that rule applies in this day and age? It gets in the way of our spreading the Dhamma.” In other words, this factor closes any loopholes left by Pc 54.	從《經分別》對此因素的討論來看，它看起來只涵蓋了使用學處中被提及的明確措辭的情況，但 K/《義註》——可能藉鑑了《四大教示》——將其擴展至涵蓋任何說了些話做為花招，在不顯得不尊重的情況下，為自己不遵守戒條找藉口的情況。例如可能包括：「那條戒條我到時候再說吧。」「我現在沒時間做那件事。」「我一直在想：你真的認為那條戒條在今天的時代還適用嗎？它阻礙了我們弘揚佛法。」換句話說，這一因素彌補了《波逸提》五四留下的任何漏洞。
Non-offenses	不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, the only way to avoid an offense in situations like this is to say that one will learn about the rule and train in line with it. As the non-offense clauses to Pc 54 make clear, though, if one has been admonished with any interpretation of a rule that differs from one’s teachers’, one may avoid an offense simply by stating that one’s teachers taught differently.	根據《經分別》，在這種情況下避免犯戒的唯一方法是表示會學習戒條並遵照其來訓練。然而，正如《波逸提》五四的不犯條款所明確指出的，如果因對戒條的解釋與導師的解釋不同而受到訓誡，則只需說明導師教導得不同，即可避免犯戒。
Summary: When being admonished by another bhikkhu with regard to a training rule formulated in the Vinaya, saying something as a ploy to excuse oneself from training under the rule is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：當因律藏中制定的學處而被另一位比丘訓誡時，以某種藉口耍花招逃避該戒條下的訓練，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

72	七十二
Should any bhikkhu, when the Pāṭimokkha is being recited, say, “Why are these lesser and minor training rules recited when they lead only to anxiety, bother, and confusion?” the criticism of the training rules is to be confessed.	在誦讀《波羅提木叉》時，若任何比丘說：「這些細小的、次要的學處（小小戒）只會導致焦慮、煩擾和困惑，為何還要誦讀呢？」對學處的批評，波逸提。
“Now at that time the Blessed One, phrasing it in many ways, gave a talk on discipline to the bhikkhus. He spoke in praise of discipline, in praise of the mastery of discipline, and in praise of Ven. Upāli, referring to him again and again. The bhikkhus (said), ‘… Come, friends, let’s study discipline with Ven. Upāli.’ They and many other bhikkhus—elders, newly ordained, and those in between—studied discipline with Ven. Upāli.	「其時，世尊以種種方便向比丘們講述了戒律。他讚揚戒律，讚揚精通戒律，並讚揚優婆離尊者，多次提及他。比丘們（說）：『……來吧，朋友們，讓我們跟隨優婆離尊者學習戒律。』他們和許多其他比丘——上座、下座以及中座跟隨優婆離尊者學習戒律。
“Then the thought occurred to some group-of-six bhikkhus: ‘Now, friends, many bhikkhus… are studying discipline with Ven. Upāli. If they become well versed in the discipline, they will push us and pull us around in whatever way they like, however they like, and as long as they like. Come, friends, let’s criticize the discipline.’ Then the group-of-six bhikkhus, going to the bhikkhus, said, ‘Why are these lesser and minor training rules repeated when they lead only to anxiety, bother, and confusion?’”	「這時，有六群比丘想到：『現在，朋友們，許多比丘…都在跟隨優婆離尊者學習戒律。如果他們精通戒律，就會隨心所欲地擺佈我們，想怎麼擺佈就怎麼擺佈，想擺佈多久就多久。來吧，朋友們，讓我們批評這些戒律。』然後，這六群比丘走到其他比丘面前，說：『這些細小的、次要的學處（小小戒），只會帶來焦慮、煩擾和困惑，為什麼還要反覆強調呢？』」
The full offense here has three factors.	此處的完全違犯有三個因素。
1) Effort: One criticizes the discipline in the presence	1）努力：有人在場時批評戒律
2) Object: of another bhikkhu	2）對象：當著另一位比丘的面
3) Intention: with the intent of disparaging it.	3）意圖：意圖貶低它。
Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga explains criticizing the discipline with a list of examples. In addition to the statement in the rule, the list includes such statements as, “Those who master this suffer anxiety, bother, and confusion. Those who don’t master this suffer no anxiety, bother, or confusion. It would be better (§) if this were not repeated. It would be better (§) if this were not learned. It would be better (§) if this were not mastered. It would be better (§) if this were not borne in mind. May the discipline disappear or may these bhikkhus not be well-versed in this.” This last sentence sounds less like a criticism and more like a possible motivation for one’s criticism—a typical ambiguity in the style of the Pali Canon—but none of the commentaries discuss this point.	《經分別》列舉了例子來解釋批評戒律。除了戒條本身的陳述外，列舉的例子還包括：「掌握此者，會感到焦慮、煩擾和困惑。未掌握此者，則不會感到焦慮、煩擾和困惑。最好（§）這不被重複。最好（§）這不被學習。最好（§）這不被掌握。最好（§）這不被銘記在心。願戒律消失，或願這些比丘對此不甚精通。」最後這句話與其說是批評，不如說是批評的可能動機——這是巴利《聖典》風格中典型的含糊不清之處——但沒有任何註釋書討論過這一點。
The training rule would seem to indicate that these actions are grounds for an offense only while the Pāṭimokkha is being recited or rehearsed, but the non-offense clauses in the Vibhaṅga give no allowance to criticize the discipline at other times, and the K/Commentary follows the Vibhaṅga in not making the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha a necessary factor for the offense here. In other words, the factor of effort here is fulfilled if one criticizes the discipline at any time.	此學處似乎表明，只有在誦讀或練習《波羅提木叉》時，這些行為才構成犯戒；但《經分別》中的不犯條款並未允許在其他時間批評戒律， K/《義註》也遵循《經分別》，認為誦讀《波羅提木叉》並非構成此處犯戒的必要條件。換言之，只要在任何時候批評戒律，就滿足了此處「努力」因素。
Object	對象
There is a pācittiya for criticizing the discipline in the presence of a bhikkhu; and a dukkaṭa for criticizing any other Dhamma in his presence, or criticizing either the discipline or any other Dhamma in the presence of an unordained person. Perception as to whether one’s listener is ordained is irrelevant to the offense (see Pc 42).	在比丘面前批評戒律，犯《波逸提》；在比丘面前批評其他佛法，或在未受具足戒者面前批評戒律或其他佛法，犯《突吉羅》。聽者是否受具足戒的感知與犯戒無關（參閱《波逸提》四二）。
Intention	意圖
This factor is fulfilled when one’s intention is to disparage the discipline. Given the way “effort” is defined above, this factor might seem superfluous, but the non-offense clauses give an example of an effort that may sound like criticism but is not actually meant to be taken as disparagement. The Commentary defines the factor of intention here as the desire to give rise to skepticism (vimati) about the discipline in the listener’s mind.	當意圖是貶低戒律時，這個因素就成立了。鑑於上文對「努力」的定義，這一因素可能似乎顯得多餘，但不犯條款舉例說明了這樣一種努力：它聽起來像是批評，但實際上並非意在貶低。《義註》將此處的意圖因素定義為：意欲在聽者心中引發對戒律的懷疑（vimati）。
Further action	進一步行動
A bhikkhu who makes a concerted effort to speak in dispraise of the Dhamma or discipline may be subject to an act of censure or banishment, depending on the seriousness of the case (Cv.I.4.1; Cv.I.14.2). (See BMC2, Chapter 20.)	比丘若蓄意詆毀佛法或戒律，可受呵責（羯磨）或驅出（羯磨），視情節嚴重程度而定（《小品》.一.4.1；《小品》.一.14.2）。（參見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第二十章。）
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense if, without intending to criticize the discipline, one suggests to another person that he/she master the suttas, the gāthās (verses), or the Abhidhamma first, before mastering the discipline.	如果無意批評戒律，建議另一個人先掌握經文、偈頌或阿毘達摩，然後再掌握戒律，並不構成犯戒。
Summary: Criticizing the discipline in the presence of another bhikkhu, in hopes of making him skeptical about the discipline or its study, is a pācittiya offense.	總結：當著另一位比丘的面批評戒律，希望使他懷疑戒律或其研讀，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

73	七十三
Should any bhikkhu, when the Pāṭimokkha is being recited every half-month, say, “Just now have I learned that this case, too, is handed down in the Pāṭimokkha, is included in the Pāṭimokkha, and comes up for recitation every half-month”; and if the bhikkhus should know of that bhikkhu, “This bhikkhu has already sat through two or three recitations of the Pāṭimokkha, if not more,” the bhikkhu is not exempted for being ignorant. Whatever the offense he has committed, he is to be dealt with in accordance with the rule; and in addition, his deceit is to be exposed: “It is no gain for you, friend, it is ill-done, that when the Pāṭimokkha is being recited, you do not pay attention, properly taking it to heart.” As for the deception (§), it is to be confessed.	若任何比丘在每半月誦讀《波羅提木叉》時說：「我剛剛才知道，此情況也記載於《波羅提木叉》內，包含於《波羅提木叉》內，且每半月誦讀一次」；且如果比丘們知道那位比丘，「這位比丘已經坐著聽了兩、三遍《波羅提木叉》的誦讀，甚至更多。」，該比丘也不能因為無知而免於懲罰。無論他犯了何種罪過，都應按照戒條處置；此外，還應揭露他的欺騙行為：「朋友，誦讀《波羅提木叉》時，你不專心、不牢記於心，對你並無益處，而且是糟糕的做法。」至於欺騙（§），波逸提。
To summarize the Vibhaṅga: If a bhikkhu—when the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha comes to a rule he has violated—tries to excuse himself through the sort of pretence cited in the rule, he immediately incurs a dukkaṭa if he has already listened to the Pāṭimokkha in full three times or more. The other bhikkhus may then expose his deception by means of a Community transaction (see Appendix VIII). If he then continues with the pretence, he incurs a pācittiya. If they do not enact a transaction against him, though, he incurs a dukkaṭa for each effort he makes in keeping up the pretence. There is no offense, though, if he is not feigning ignorance or if he has not yet heard the Pāṭimokkha in full at least three times.	綜合《經分別》所述：若比丘在誦讀《波羅提木叉》時，遇到自己已違反的戒條，並試圖以戒條中所列的藉口為自己開脫，若他已完整聆聽過《波羅提木叉經》三遍或以上，則立即犯《突吉羅》。其他比丘則可藉由僧團羯磨（見附錄八）揭穿其欺騙。若他繼續其虛偽藉口，犯《波逸提》。但若他們不對其施以羯磨，則他每努力一次維持其虛偽藉口，犯一次《突吉羅》。但若他並非裝無知，或尚未完整聆聽《波羅提木叉》至少三遍，則不犯戒。
Obviously, these explanations were formulated when Pali was the bhikkhus’ native language, and the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha in Pali offered the opportunity to learn the rules, along with the opportunity to feign ignorance without telling an out-and-out lie. In other words, one could say immediately after the recitation of a particular rule, “Just now have I heard that this rule is in the Pāṭimokkha,” and strictly speaking it would be true: One has just heard it, even if for the umpteenth time, but one hopes that the other bhikkhus will be deceived into inferring that one has just heard it for the first time.	顯然，這些解釋是在巴利語是比丘母語的時代形成的。用巴利語誦讀《波羅提木叉》既提供了學習戒條的機會，也提供了在不徹底撒謊的情況下假裝無知的機會。換句話說，可以在誦讀一條戒條後立即說：「我剛才聽到這條戒條在《波羅提木叉》裡。」嚴格來說，這確實是真的：他剛剛才聽到它，即使是第無數次聽到，但希望其他比丘會被蒙蔽，誤以為他是第一次聽到。
However, the discussion of this rule in the Vibhaṅga and commentaries makes no exceptions for bhikkhus whose native language is not Pali. Nevertheless, as the Pāṭimokkha is available in a number of translations, the grace period in which one is expected to be ignorant—three recitations covers at least a month to a month and a half—is not too short a time for a new bhikkhu to read and remember the rules in translation.	然而，《經分別》及註釋書中對這條戒條的討論並未對母語非巴利語的比丘做出例外規定。儘管如此，《波羅提木叉》已有多種譯本，因此，對於一位新比丘而言，這段允許其無知的寬限期——三次誦讀至少涵蓋一個月到一個半月——並不算短，足以讓他閱讀並記住譯本中的戒條。
It is also worth noting that the non-offense clauses do not make an exception for a bhikkhu who tries a similar ploy to feign ignorance of the rules outside of the time when the Pāṭimokkha is being formally recited, and the K/Commentary—as under the preceding rule—follows the Vibhaṅga in not making the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha a necessary factor for the offense here. In other words, this rule covers the use of a half-truth to feign ignorance of the rules at any time.	值得注意的是，不犯條款並未對試圖在正式誦讀《波羅提木叉》之外的時間裡，以類似伎倆假裝不知戒條的比丘做出例外規定。 K/《義註》──如同前一條戒條一樣──遵循《經分別》，並未將誦讀《波羅提木叉》作為構成此處犯戒的必要條件。換言之，此戒條涵蓋了在任何時候以半真半假之言假裝不知戒條。
The factors for the full offense here are three.	此處構成完全違犯的因素有三點。
1) Object: a rule in the Pāṭimokkha.	1）對象：《波羅提木叉》中的戒條。
2) Intention: One wants to deceive the bhikkhus into believing that one is ignorant of the rule one has broken.	2）意圖：想要欺騙比丘相信自己對所違反的戒條一無所知。
3) Effort: One has heard the Pāṭimokkha in full for at least three times, yet one persists in saying half-truths to feign ignorance after the bhikkhus have enacted a Community transaction exposing one’s deceit. (Out-and-out lies would come under Pc 1.)	3）努力：至少三次完整地聽過《波羅提木叉》，但在比丘們透過僧團羯磨揭穿其欺騙行為後，仍然堅持說半真半假的話來假裝無知。（徹頭徹尾的謊言屬於《波逸提》一。）
Perception as to the transaction’s validity is not a mitigating factor here. If the transaction exposing one’s deceit has been properly carried out, then regardless of whether one perceives it as valid, one incurs a pācittiya for trying to deceive the bhikkhus any further. If it has been improperly carried out, one incurs a dukkaṭa for trying to deceive them further, regardless of how one perceives the transaction.	對羯磨有效性的感知並非減輕懲罰的因素。如果揭穿欺騙行為的羯磨已妥善執行，那麼無論是否認為其有效，若試圖進一步欺騙比丘們，都犯《波逸提》。如果羯磨執行不當，無論如何看待羯磨，若試圖進一步欺騙比丘們，都犯《突吉羅》。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense if one has heard the Pāṭimokkha in full fewer than three times or if one is not intending to deceive anyone.	如果完整地聽過《波羅提木叉》少於三次，或沒有欺騙任何人的意圖，那麼就不犯戒。
Summary: Using half-truths to deceive others into believing that one is ignorant of the rules in the Pāṭimokkha—after one has already heard the Pāṭimokkha in full three times, and a Community transaction exposing one’s deceit has been brought against one—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：在已經完整地聽過三次《波羅提木叉》之後，用半真半假的話欺騙他人，使他人相信自己對《波羅提木叉》裡的戒條無知，並且揭露欺騙行為的僧團羯磨被提出，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

74	七十四
Should any bhikkhu, angered and displeased, give a blow to (another) bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘憤怒且不滿而打了（另一位）比丘，波逸提。
The factors for the full offense here are three.	構成完全違犯的因素有三點。
1) Object: another bhikkhu.	1）對象：另一位比丘。
2) Effort: One gives him a blow	2）努力：給他一擊
3) Intention: out of anger.	3）意圖：出於憤怒。
Object	對象
A bhikkhu is grounds for the full offense here; anyone unordained, grounds for a dukkaṭa. According to the Commentary, anyone unordained includes animals as well as human beings.	比丘在此構成全額犯戒；任何未受具足戒者，構成《突吉羅》。根據《義註》，任何未受具足戒者包括動物和人類。
As under Pc 42, the Vibhaṅga indicates that perception as to whether the person receiving the blow is ordained is irrelevant to the offense here.	如同《波逸提》四二，《經分別》指出，對於被擊打者是否受具足戒的感知與此處的犯戒無關。
Effort	努力
This factor is fulfilled whether one gives a blow—	無論是否出手，這項因素都成立——
with one’s own body (hitting with a fist, jabbing with an elbow, kicking with a foot);	用自己的身體（用拳頭擊打、用手肘刺擊、用腳踢）；
with something attached to the body (e.g., a stick, a knife); or	用附在身上的東西（例如棍子、刀子）；或
with something that can be “thrown” (this includes such things as throwing a rock, shooting an arrow, or firing a gun). According to the Vibhaṅga, this last category includes throwing “even a lotus leaf,” which shows that the blow need not be painful in order to fulfill this factor.	用可以「投擲」的東西（包括投擲石頭、射箭或開槍等）。根據《經分別》，此最後一類甚至包括投擲「一片蓮葉」，這表明，即使打擊本身並不一定要帶來疼痛，也能滿足這一因素。
Such actions as twisting the other person’s arm behind his back or wringing his neck are not mentioned under this rule, but the act of grabbing his arm prior to twisting it or grabbing his neck prior to wringing it would fulfill the factor of effort here.	本戒條並未提及將對方的手臂扭到背後或扭斷對方的脖子等行為，但在扭對方的手臂之前抓住對方的手臂或在扭斷對方的脖子之前抓住對方的脖子，就符合這裡的努力因素。
Intention	意圖
If one gives a blow for reasons other than anger, the action does not fall under this rule. Thus, for instance, if one thumps a fellow bhikkhu on the back to help dislodge something caught in his throat, there is no offense. And as the Commentary notes, if—impelled by lust—one gives a blow to a woman, one incurs the full penalty under Sg 2.	如果並非出於憤怒而擊打他人，則此行為不屬於此戒條的範疇。例如，如果為了幫助其他比丘吐出卡在喉嚨裡的東西而輕拍其背部，則不構成犯戒。正如《義註》所指出的，如果出於淫欲而擊打女性，則應根據《僧殘》二受到全額懲罰。
For some reason, the Commentary says that if one cuts off the nose or ear of a fellow bhikkhu in order to disfigure him, one incurs only a dukkaṭa. As the Vinaya-mukha points out, though, there is no basis in the Vibhaṅga or in reason for this statement. It is hard to imagine anyone doing this unless impelled by anger, and the act of cutting another person would come under the factor of giving a blow with something connected with the body.	不知何故，《義註》中說，若為了毀容而割掉同儕比丘的鼻子或耳朵，只會犯《突吉羅》。然而，正如《戒律入口》所指出的，這種說法在《經分別》或論證中並無依據。很難想像有人會做出這種事，除非是出於憤怒。而且，割傷他人屬於用連接身體的東西進行攻擊的因素。
“Result” is not a factor here. Whether the other person is hurt—or how badly he/she is hurt—does not affect the offense. If one intends simply to hurt the other person, but he/she happens to die from one’s blow, the case is treated under this rule, rather than under Pr 3. In other words, the penalty is a pācittiya if the victim is a bhikkhu, and a dukkaṭa if not.	「結果」在此並非因素。對方是否受傷——或受傷程度如何——並不影響犯戒。若僅意圖傷害他人，卻因自己的出手導致對方死亡，則應依此戒條處理，而非依《波羅夷》三處理。換言之，若受害者為比丘，則懲罰為《波逸提》；若受害者並非比丘，則懲罰為《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses	不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who, trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow “desiring freedom.” The Commentary’s discussion of this point shows that it includes what we at present would call self-defense; and the K/Commentary’s analysis of the factors of the offense here shows that even if anger or displeasure arises in one’s mind in cases like this, there is no penalty.	根據《經分別》，比丘身處困境，為求得自由而出手，並無犯戒。《義註》對此的討論表明，這包含了我們今天所說的自衛；而 K/《義註》對此處犯戒因素的分析表明，即便在這種情況下心中生起憤怒或不滿，也無需受懲罰。
Summary: Giving a blow to another bhikkhu when impelled by anger—except in self-defense—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：因憤怒而打其他比丘——自衛除外——是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

75	七十五
Should any bhikkhu, angered and displeased, raise the palm of his hand against (another) bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘憤怒且不滿而向（另一位）比丘舉起手掌，波逸提。
This rule is similar to the preceding one, differing only in the factor of effort: Raising the palm of one’s hand means raising any part of one’s body (the hand, the foot, etc.) or anything attached to the body (a stick, a rock, a gun, a bow and arrow) in a threatening manner.	這條戒條與前一條戒條類似，只是在努力因素上有所不同：舉起手掌意味著以威脅的方式舉起身體的任何部位（手、腳等）或附著在身體上的任何東西（棍棒、石頭、槍、弓箭）。
The Commentary notes that if one intends only to raise one’s hand but then accidentally gives a blow, one incurs a dukkaṭa. The Sub-commentary, following the lead of the Old K/Sub-commentary, explains this in the only way that would make sense: One incurs the dukkaṭa for the blow, but a pācittiya for raising the hand in the first place.	《義註》指出，如果原本只想舉手，卻不小心打到了，犯《突吉羅》。《複註》遵循舊 K/《義註》的思路，以唯一合理的解釋來說明這一點：因打到而犯《突吉羅》，但因最初舉手而犯《波逸提》。
The Sub-commentary also notes that if an animal, for example, is making a mess and a bhikkhu raises his hand against it, this would be included under desiring freedom—i.e., from the mess—and so would not be an offense. This explanation, however, would open a large loophole for a bhikkhu who wanted to justify raising his hand against another bhikkhu in any situation that he found displeasing. It would seem preferable to limit the allowance for one desiring freedom to cases where one is in physical danger.	《複註》也指出，例如，如果一隻動物弄得一團糟，比丘對其舉手，這屬於渴望自由——即擺脫一團糟——因此不構成犯戒。然而，這種解釋會給比丘留下很大的漏洞，使他可以為自己在任何不愉快的情況下想要對其他比丘舉手的行為找到藉口。因此，似乎更可取的做法是，將渴望自由的開緣限制在人身安全受到危險的情況下。
Summary: Making a threatening gesture against another bhikkhu when motivated by anger—except in self-defense—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：因憤怒而對其他比丘做出威脅性動作——自衛除外——是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

76	七十六
Should any bhikkhu charge a bhikkhu with an unfounded saṅghādisesa (offense), it is to be confessed.	若任何比丘無根據而指控比丘犯《僧殘》罪，波逸提。
Here again the factors for the full offense are three.	同樣，完全違犯的因素有三個。
1) Object: another bhikkhu.	1）對象：另一位比丘。
2) Perception: One has not seen, heard, or suspected him of committing the offense one is charging him with.	2）感知：沒有看到、聽到或懷疑他犯下了自己指控他的罪行。
3) Effort: One accuses him in his presence—or gets someone else to accuse him in his presence—of having committed a saṅghādisesa offense.	3）努力：當著他的面指控他，或讓別人當著他的面指控他，犯了《僧殘》罪。
If one makes an unfounded charge accusing another bhikkhu of a defect in conduct or a defect in view, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. According to Mv.IV.16.12, a defect in conduct means any offense of a thullaccaya or less; a defect in view means wrong view or a view holding to an extreme. The Commentary to Pv.VI.10 identifies wrong view as mundane wrong view as defined in MN 117, and as classed as a defect in view in AN 3:117. The same Commentary identifies a view holding to an extreme as any one of the ten standpoints on which the Buddha refused to take a stand. See, e.g., DN 9 and MN 63. Although a defect in view is not automatically an offense, charging a bhikkhu with such a defect could lead the Community to interrogate him to see if the view warrants treatment under Sg 10, Pc 69, or the procedures leading up to censure.	若無根據指控另一位比丘行為或見解有缺陷，則懲罰是《突吉羅》。根據《大品》.四.16.12，行為有缺陷是指任何《偷蘭遮》或更輕的犯戒；見解有缺陷是指錯誤的見解或極端的見解。《附隨》.六.10的《義註》指出，錯誤的見解是指《中部》117經中定義的世俗錯誤的見解，以及《增支部》3:117經中歸類的見解有缺陷。同一《義註》也指出，極端的見解是指佛陀拒絕表明立場的十種觀點中的任何一種。例如，參見《長部》9經和《中部》63經。雖然見解有缺陷本身並非必然構成犯戒，但指控一位比丘有此缺陷可能會導致僧團對其進行訊問，以確定該見解是否應根據《僧殘》十、《波逸提》六九或導致呵責的程序進行處理。
The Vibhaṅga states that there is also a dukkaṭa for making an unfounded charge accusing an unordained person—such as a bhikkhunī or a novice—of a defect in conduct or a defect in view.	《經分別》指出，無根據指控未受具足戒者（如比丘尼或沙彌）行為或見解有缺陷，也犯《突吉羅》。
As under Pc 42, perception as to whether the person being charged is ordained is irrelevant to the offense.	如同《波逸提》四二，被指控的人是否受過具足戒的感知與犯戒無關。
The topic of unfounded charges is a complex one and has already been covered in detail under Sg 8. Additional points may be inferred from the discussion of that rule, the differences being that intention is not a factor here, and the change in effort—one is accusing the other bhikkhu of a saṅghādisesa or lesser offense—changes the seriousness of the penalty.	無根據指控的話題很複雜，在《僧殘》八中已經詳細論述過。從該戒條的討論中可以推斷出一些其他要點，區別在於意圖在這裡不是一個因素，而且努力的變化——指控另一個比丘犯《僧殘》罪或較輕的罪行——會改變懲罰的嚴重程度。
Non-offenses	不犯
As under Sg 8, there is no offense if one makes the accusation—or gets someone else to make it—when one thinks it to be true, even if the other bhikkhu is actually not guilty of the offense.	如同《僧殘》八，如果認為指控屬實（或讓別人指控）即使對方比丘實際上沒有犯下該罪行，也不構成犯戒。
Summary: Making an unfounded charge to another bhikkhu—or getting someone else to make the charge to him—that he is guilty of a saṅghādisesa offense is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：無根據指控另一位比丘（或讓別人指控他）犯有《僧殘》罪，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

77	七十七
Should any bhikkhu intentionally provoke anxiety in (another) bhikkhu, (thinking,) “This way, even for just a moment, he will have no peace”—doing it for just that reason and no other—it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘故意挑起（另一位）比丘的焦慮，（心想）「這樣，即使只是一瞬間，他也不會安寧」——僅僅因為這個原因而沒有其他原因——波逸提。
The Vinaya-mukha’s explanation for this rule is worth quoting at length:	《戒律入口》對此戒條的解釋值得詳細引用：
“There are people who normally tend to be anxious about one thing or another…. If someone speaks to this sort of bhikkhu about contingencies that run counter to the Buddha’s ordinances and are impossible to know—e.g., ‘When you were ordained, how can you know that all the qualifications (for a valid Community transaction) were fulfilled? If they were lacking, doesn’t that mean you aren’t really ordained?’—even this is enough to set him worrying, giving him all sorts of anguish. A bhikkhu who is unrestrained and who—looking for fun with no concern for how his friends will suffer—takes such matters to tell them is penalized with a pācittiya in this rule.”	「有些人天生就容易為這樣那樣的事情焦慮……如果有人跟這類比丘談論一些違背佛陀戒律且根本無法知曉的變數——例如，『你受具足戒的時候，怎麼知道所有（有效的僧團羯磨的）條件都具備了呢？如果缺少某些條件，那豈不是代表你沒真的受具足戒？』——即使只是這樣，也足以讓他憂慮，給他帶來各種各樣的痛苦。一位放縱自己的比丘，只顧找樂子，絲毫不顧及他的朋友會如何地痛苦，將此類事情告訴他們，則根據這條戒條，將受到《波逸提》的懲罰。」
The full offense here has four factors.	完全違犯有四個因素。
1) Object: another bhikkhu.	1）對象：另一位比丘。
2) Effort: One mentions that he might have broken a rule.	2）努力：提到他可能違反了戒條。
3) Result: One provokes anxiety in him.	3）結果：引起了他的焦慮。
4) Intention: One’s motive is simply to cause him anxiety even if just for a moment.	4）意圖：動機只是為了讓他焦慮，哪怕只是一瞬間。
Object	對象
A bhikkhu here is grounds for a pācittiya; an unordained person—this apparently includes bhikkhunīs—grounds for a dukkaṭa. As under Pc 42, perception as to whether one’s listener is ordained is irrelevant to the offense.	比丘在此構成《波逸提》；未受具足戒者——顯然也包括比丘尼——構成《突吉羅》。如同《波逸提》四二，聽者是否受具足戒的感知與犯戒無關。
Effort & result	努力及結果
The Vibhaṅga illustrates these two factors together, saying, “One provokes anxiety (saying), ‘Perhaps you were ordained when less than twenty; perhaps you have eaten at the wrong time; perhaps you have drunk alcohol; perhaps you have sat down in private with a woman.’ Most of these possible offenses are ones that can be committed unknowingly, but the last one is not. However, it is close enough to an offense that the mention of the possibility of having done it unknowingly would cause an ignorant bhikkhu anxiety. Similarly, in the origin story, some group-of-six bhikkhus made insinuating remarks to the group of seventeen that because they were ordained when they were less than 20 years old, they were not really ordained. Yet, because the group of seventeen were the instigators for that rule, they were not subject to it. All of this shows that the factor of effort can be fulfilled by any statement one might make to another bhikkhu insinuating that he may have broken a rule, even if the action mentioned is not actually an offense.	《經分別》將這兩個因素一起闡釋，說道：「引發焦慮（說）：『或許你未滿二十歲就受具足戒了；或許你在非時吃了東西；或許你喝了酒；或許你曾與女子私下同坐。』這些可能的罪行大部分可以在不知不覺中犯下，但最後一條並非如此。然而，它與犯戒非常接近，提及可能在不知不覺的情況下做了這件事，會引起無明比丘的焦慮。同樣，在起源故事中，六群比丘曾暗示十七群比丘，因為他們受具足戒時未滿二十歲，所以不算真正受具足戒。然而，由於這十七群比丘是這條戒條的最初犯者，所以他們不受其約束。所有這些都表明，任何暗示另一位比丘其可能違反戒條的言論，即使所提及的行為本身並非真的犯戒，也能滿足「努力」這一因素。
The Commentary underlines the need for the factor of result here by translating “provokes” as “generates.” In other words, anxiety has to arise in one’s listener as a result of one’s remarks, even if for a moment, for there to be an offense. This interpretation is seconded by the fact that the Vibhaṅga to Pc 55, which is in some ways parallel to this rule, contains explicit statements to the effect that result is not a factor under that rule, whereas the Vibhaṅga to this rule contains no such statements.	《義註》強調了結果因素在此的重要性，將「引發」譯為「產生」。換言之，即使只是片刻，只要聽者因自己的言語產生了焦慮，便可構成犯戒。這項解釋得到了以下事實的支持：與此戒條在某些方面相似的《波逸提》五五的《經分別》明確指出，結果並非該戒條的因素，而此戒條的《經分別》則沒有此類表述。
Intention	意圖
Intention here is defined in the same terms used under Pr 3, Sg 1, and Pc 61: “having willed, having made the decision knowingly and consciously.” In those rules, this phrase indicates that one’s intention has to be clear and unequivocal. Here, however, the wording of the training rule suggests that, to fulfill the factor of intention, one’s intention to cause anxiety has to be the sole motive for one’s statements. The non-offense clauses illustrate this point with the case where, not wanting to provoke anxiety, one says, “Perhaps you were ordained when less than twenty; perhaps you have eaten at the wrong time; perhaps you have drunk alcohol; perhaps you have sat down in private with a woman. Please look into it. Don’t suffer anxiety later.” It’s easy to anticipate that a bhikkhu hearing these remarks might suffer a moment of anxiety, but because one’s overriding purpose is to prevent greater anxiety at a later time—say, after he has become a preceptor and ordained many other bhikkhus, he discovers that his ordination was invalid—one incurs no offense in making these remarks in a timely and compassionate fashion.	意圖在此的定義與《波羅夷》三、《僧殘》一和《波逸提》六一中的定義相同：「有意願，明知且有意識地做出決定」。在這些戒條中，這一措辭表明意圖必須清晰明確。然而，此處的學處措辭表明，要滿足「意圖」這一因素，發表言論的唯一動機必須是造成焦慮。不犯條款透過以下例子說明了這一點：不想引起焦慮，說：「或許你未滿二十歲就受具足戒了；或許你在非時吃了東西；或許你喝了酒；或許你曾與女子私下同坐。請調查一下。別以後為此焦慮。」可以預見，比丘聽到這些話可能會感到焦慮，但因為首要目的是為了防止日後出現更大的焦慮——比如，在他成為戒師並為許多其他比丘授戒之後，他發現自己的受具足戒無效——所以及時、慈悲地提出這些話並不犯戒。
Summary: Intentionally provoking anxiety in another bhikkhu that he may have broken a rule, when one has no other purpose in mind, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：故意引起另一位比丘的焦慮，讓他擔心自己可能違反了戒條，而且並無其他目的，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

78	七十八
Should any bhikkhu stand eavesdropping on bhikkhus when they are arguing, quarreling, and disputing, thinking, “I will overhear what they say”—doing it for just that reason and no other—it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘站著偷聽其他比丘爭論、爭吵、辯論，想著，「我要偷聽他們說什麼」，這樣做只因為該理由而無其他，波逸提。
“Now at that time some group-of-six bhikkhus were quarreling with the well-behaved bhikkhus. The well-behaved bhikkhus (meeting among themselves) said, ‘These group-of-six bhikkhus are shameless. There’s no way you can quarrel with them.’	「其時，有六群比丘與品行端正的比丘們發生爭執。品行端正的比丘們（聚在一起）說：『這六群比丘無慚愧，不能和他們爭吵。』」
“(Later,) the group-of-six bhikkhus said to them, ‘Why do you disgrace us by calling us shameless?’	「（後來，）六群比丘對他們說：『你們為什麼稱我們無慚愧，使我們蒙羞呢？』
“‘But how did you overhear?’	「『但是你們是怎麼偷聽到的？』
“‘We stood eavesdropping on you.’”	「『我們當時站著偷聽你們說話。』」
The factors for the full offense here are three.	構成完全違犯的因素有三點。
1) Object: other bhikkhus who are involved in an argument over an issue.	1）對象：參與諍論的其他比丘們。
2) Effort: One stands eavesdropping on them,	2）努力：站著偷聽他們說話，
3) Intention: with the purpose of using what they say against them, either as part of a formal accusation (charging, interrogating, counter-charging, or counter-interrogating them) or simply to make them feel abashed.	3）意圖：目的是利用他們所說的話來對付他們，無論是作為正式指控的一部分（指控、質疑、反指控或反質疑他們），還是僅僅為了讓他們感到羞愧。
Object	對象
According to the Vibhaṅga, the words, arguing, quarreling, and disputing refer to arguments over issues (see Pc 63). The Commentary says that this refers to one kind of issue—disputes—but accusations would appear to fit here as well.	根據《經分別》，爭論、爭吵、辯論等字詞指的是圍繞著各種議題的諍論（參見《波逸提》六三）。《義註》指出，這指的是一種議題——諍論——但指控似乎也適用於此。
This factor is fulfilled regardless of whether the two parties in the dispute/accusation are confronting each other or—as in the origin story—one party is talking in private. It is also fulfilled regardless of whether one is already involved in the dispute oneself.	無論諍論/指控中的雙方是當面對質，還是像最初的故事那樣，一方私下交談，這一因素都成立。無論自己是否已牽涉入諍論，此因素也成立。
Bhikkhus involved in an argument are grounds for a pācittiya; unordained people involved in an argument, grounds for a dukkaṭa. The Vibhaṅga, in its references to bhikkhus as objects under this rule, switches back and forth between the singular and the plural. Thus even a single bhikkhu, involved in an argument with an unordained person, would be grounds for the full offense.	牽涉入諍論的比丘，構成《波逸提》；牽涉入諍論的未受具足戒者，構成《突吉羅》。在《經分別》中，比丘作為此戒條的對象時，單複數交替出現。因此，即使只有一位比丘，牽涉入與未受具足戒者的諍論，也構成完全違犯。
The role of perception here is the same as under Pc 42.	感知在這裡的作用與《波逸提》四二下相同。
People who are not involved in an argument are not grounds for an offense. Thus there is no penalty in eavesdropping on a Dhamma talk or on a bhikkhu sitting in private with a woman, to see what they will say to each other.	未牽涉入諍論者，則不構成犯戒。因此，偷聽佛法開示或與女性私下坐著的比丘，看看他們互相說什麼，並不構成犯戒。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga goes into a fair amount of detail on this factor, allotting the offenses as follows (assuming the other factors to be fulfilled as well):	《經分別》對此因素進行了相當詳細的闡述，並按如下方式劃分了罪行（假設其他因素也被滿足）：
One goes with the purpose of eavesdropping on the other party (§): a dukkaṭa. One stays in one place eavesdropping on them: a pācittiya.	前往是為了竊聽對方（§）：一次《突吉羅》。待在一處偷聽他們說話：一次《波逸提》。
One is walking behind the other party and speeds up one’s steps to overhear them: a dukkaṭa. One stays in one place eavesdropping on them: a pācittiya.	走在對方身後，加快腳步想偷聽他們：一次《突吉羅》。待在一處偷聽他們說話：一次《波逸提》。
One is walking ahead of the other party and slows down to overhear them: a dukkaṭa. One stays in one place eavesdropping on them: a pācittiya.	走在對方前面，放慢速度偷聽他們：一次《突吉羅》。待在一處偷聽他們說話：一次《波逸提》。
One comes to a place where a bhikkhu involved in discussion is sitting, standing, or lying down: One should cough, clear one’s throat, or otherwise let one’s presence be known. (The K/Commentary suggests saying, “I’m here.”) Not to do so entails a pācittiya.	來到正在討論的比丘的地方，無論他是坐著、站著或躺著：都應該咳嗽、清嗓子，或以其他方式表明自己的存在。（ K/《義註》建議說：「我在這裡。」）不這樣做犯《波逸提》。
At present, surreptitiously reading another person’s mail would seem to fulfill this factor as well.	目前來看，偷偷閱讀他人的郵件似乎也符合此因素。
Intention	意圖
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if one goes (to listen) with the motive, “having heard their (words), I will abstain, I will refrain, I will grow calm, I will free myself” (“by declaring my innocence,” says the Commentary) (§).	根據《經分別》，如果懷著這樣的動機去（聽）：「聽了他們的（話語）之後，我將節制，我將克制，我將增長冷靜，我將解脫自己」（《義註》說，「透過宣告我的清白」），那麼就沒有犯戒（§）。
Summary: Eavesdropping on bhikkhus involved in an argument over an issue—with the intention of using what they say against them—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：偷聽比丘們就某個議題進行諍論，意圖利用他們所說的話來對付他們，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

79	七十九
Should any bhikkhu, having given consent (by proxy) to a transaction carried out in accordance with the rule, later complain (about the transaction), it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘（透過代理人）同意依照戒條執行的羯磨，之後又抱怨（該羯磨），波逸提。
“Now at that time some group-of-six bhikkhus were indulging in bad habits but protested when a transaction was being carried out against any one of their group. Then on one occasion the Community was meeting on some business or other, and the group-of-six bhikkhus, making robes, sent their consent with one of their members. Then the Community, (saying,) ‘Look, friends, this member of the group-of-six has come alone. Let’s carry out a transaction against him,’ did just that.	「其時，有六群比丘沉溺於不良習慣，但當對他們中之任一人執行羯磨時，他們提出抗議。後來有一次，僧團開會討論某事，六群比丘正在製作袈裟，並派他們成員其中一人來表示同意。然後，僧團（說）『看，朋友們，這六群中的這名成員獨自前來。讓我們對他執行羯磨』，然後就這麼做了。
“He then went to the group-of-six bhikkhus. They asked him, ‘What, friend, did the Community do?’”	「然後他去找那六群比丘。他們問他：『朋友，僧團做了什麼？』」
“‘They carried out a transaction against me.’	「『他們對我執行了羯磨。』
“‘That wasn’t what we gave our consent for, that they would carry out a transaction against you. If we had known that they would carry out a transaction against you, we wouldn’t have given our consent!’”	「『我們當初同意的並不是讓他們對你執行羯磨。如果我們知道他們會對你執行羯磨，我們不會同意！』」
Transactions	羯磨
A transaction is a procedure by which a Community issues a statement to settle an issue (see BMC2, Chapter 12). Cv.IV gives the pattern for such procedures, stating the minimum number of bhikkhus that have to be present for the transaction, the qualifications (positive or negative) of the individual or situation warranting the act, and the formal pattern for the statement—an announcement, a motion, a motion with one proclamation, or a motion with three proclamations—that constitutes the transaction. Thus the Vibhaṅga to this rule defines transaction as any of the four types of statements that form the heart of the transaction. A transaction carried out in accordance with these patterns is said to be carried out in accordance with the rule.	羯磨是指僧團透過發表聲明來解決議題的程序（參見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第十二章）。《小品》.四規定了此類程序的模式，敘述羯磨所需的最低在場比丘人數、促成羯磨的個人或情況的資格（肯定或否定），以及構成羯磨的聲明的正式模式——公告[譯註：求聽羯磨 apalokana-kamma]、動議[譯註：單白羯磨 ñatti-kamma]、附有一次宣告的動議[譯註：白二羯磨 ñatti-dutiya-kamma]或附有三次宣告的動議[譯註：白四羯磨 ñatti-catuttha-kamma]。因此，本戒條的《經分別》將羯磨定義為構成羯磨核心的四種聲明中的任何一種。依照這些模式進行的羯磨，即被稱為依照戒條執行。
However, for a transaction to be valid and irreversible, it must be carried out not only in accordance with the rule but also by a complete assembly (Mv.IX.2.4). This point is to prevent small factions from carrying out transactions as they like. When this point was first raised, the question arose, How many bhikkhus are needed for an assembly to be complete? All the bhikkhus in the world? All the bhikkhus in a particular monastery? The Buddha’s answer was, All the bhikkhus in a monastery, and he gave permission for the bhikkhus to mark out territories (sīmā) so as to determine who did and did not have to join in the transaction for the assembly to be complete (Mv.II.5.2,`6.1`_,`12.7`_). Later, he gave permission that an ill bhikkhu living within the territory did not have to attend the meeting, but could give his consent by proxy, through word or gesture, and the assembly would still be regarded as complete (Mv.II.23.1-2).	然而，羯磨要有效且不可逆轉，不僅必須按照戒條，而且必須由完整的集眾執行（《大品》.九.2.4）。這一點是為了防止小團體隨意執行羯磨。當這一點最初被提出時，問題便產生：究竟需要多少比丘才算一個完整的集眾？是全世界所有的比丘？還是某個特定寺院的所有比丘？佛陀的回答是：一個寺院的所有比丘。他允許比丘們劃分戒場（sīmā），以此來決定哪些人必須參與羯磨，哪些人不必參與，從而確保集眾的完整性（《大品》.二.5.2、《大品》.二.6.1、《大品》.二.12.7）。後來，他允許居住在該戒場內的生病比丘不必參加會議，但可以透過言語或示意動作代理表示同意，集眾仍會被視為完整（《大品》.二.23.1-2）。
Thus a complete assembly is defined as follows: All the bhikkhus of common affiliation within the territory are either present at the meeting (sitting within hatthapāsa, or 1.25 meters of one another) or have given their consent by proxy, and no one—in the course of the transaction—makes a valid protest against its being carried out (Mv.IX.3.5-6). (An invalid protest would be one made by someone who is not a bhikkhu, by a bhikkhu who is insane, possessed by a spirit, outside the territory, or suspended from the Community, or by the bhikkhu against whom the act is being carried out (Mv.IX.4.7-8).)	因此，完整的集眾定義如下：界場內所有共羯磨的比丘，若非親自出席會議（坐在伸手可及之處，即彼此間隔 1.25 公尺之內），就是藉由代理人給予同意，而且——在羯磨進行過程中——無人對其被執行提出有效的抗議（《大品》.九.3.5-6）。（無效的抗議是：由非比丘提出；精神錯亂、被邪靈附身、界場外、被僧團舉罪、或正對其執行羯磨的比丘提出（《大品》.九.4.7-8）。）
Before we go on to discuss this rule, there are a few added points concerning the origin story we should touch on:	在繼續討論這條戒條之前，我們還需要提及一些關於其起源故事的要點：
1) A protest does not need to be justified in order to count as valid. In other words, a bhikkhu can make protest simply because he doesn’t agree with the transaction, and his protest stands regardless of whether he can find any basis for it in the Dhamma and Vinaya.	1）抗議無需提供正當理由即可被視為有效。換言之，比丘可以因為不認同該羯磨而提出抗議，無論他能否在法與律中找到任何依據，他的抗議都成立。
2) One Community may not carry out a transaction against another Community (Mv.IX.2.3). What this means is that they may carry it out against no more than three bhikkhus at a time. This is why the group-of-six bhikkhus were able to protect one another from being subject to a transaction, for there were usually more than three of them at any one meeting of the Community. Even though the ones against whom the transaction was being carried out had no right to protest, their friends did, and they took advantage of their right.	2）一個僧團不得對另一個僧團執行羯磨（《大品》.九.2.3）。這意味著他們一次只能對不超過三位比丘執行羯磨。正因如此，六群比丘才能互相抗議，免於受到羯磨，因為僧團每次會議他們通常都有超過三位在場。即使被執行羯磨者無權抗議，他們的朋友也有，且他們行使了他們的權利。
3) In the passage where the Buddha gives permission for bhikkhus to give their consent by proxy (Mv.II.23.1-2), he states that this permission applies to ill bhikkhus. Yet in the origin stories to this rule and the following one, the group-of-six bhikkhus are not ill, they give their consent by proxy, and the transaction carried out with their consent is considered valid. None of the texts make note of this point, but it seems to indicate that ill in this context covers not only physical illness but also any other serious inconvenience that prevents one from joining in the meeting.	3）在佛陀允許比丘藉由代理人給予同意的段落（《大品》.二.23.1-2）中，他指出此開緣適用於生病的比丘。然而，在這條戒條及其後一條戒條的起源故事中，六群比丘並非生病，他們藉由代理人給予同意，且經他們同意而執行的羯磨也被視為有效。所有文獻均未提及這一點，但這似乎表明，此脈絡下的「生病」不僅涵蓋身體疾病，也包括任何其他嚴重不便之處，導致無法參加會議。
The factors for the offense under this rule are three.	本戒條下犯戒的因素有三點。
1) Object: a valid transaction to which one has given one’s consent.	1）對象：已給予本人同意的有效羯磨。
2) Perception: One perceives it as valid.	2）感知：認為它是有效的。
3) Effort: One complains about it.	3）努力：抱怨它。

Object & perception	對象及感知
The various permutations of these factors are as follows:	這些因素的各種組合如下：
a valid transaction that one perceives to be valid: grounds for a pācittiya;	有效羯磨，而且認為它是有效的：構成《波逸提》；
an invalid transaction that one perceives to be valid: grounds for a dukkaṭa;	無效羯磨，而且認為它是有效的：構成《突吉羅》；
a transaction that one is doubtful about, regardless of its actual validity: grounds for a dukkaṭa;	對羯磨存疑，無論其實際有效性如何：構成《突吉羅》；
a transaction that one perceives to be invalid, regardless of its actual validity: grounds for no offense.	認為羯磨無效，無論其實際有效性如何：不構成犯戒。
Effort	努力
Any expression of displeasure with the transaction would fulfill this factor. If, however, one states that the transaction was not carried out in accordance with the rule, then regardless of whether one had given one’s consent, the case would fall under Pc 63 rather than here.	任何對羯磨表示不滿的表達都符合此因素。但是，如果聲稱羯磨未按戒條執行，那麼無論是否給予同意，該情況都應適用《波逸提》六三，而非本戒條。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense in complaining about the transaction if one perceives it as having been carried out not in accordance with the rule, by an incomplete assembly, or against someone who did not warrant such an act. This exemption holds even if the transaction was actually valid.	如果認為羯磨未依照戒條執行、由不完整的集眾執行，或者針對的是不該進行此羯磨的人，那麼抱怨該羯磨並不構成犯戒。即使該羯磨真的有效，這項豁免仍然適用。
Summary: Complaining about a Community transaction to which one gave one’s consent—if one perceives the transaction as having been carried out in accordance with the rule—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：抱怨已給予自己同意的僧團羯磨——如果認為該羯磨是按照戒條執行的——是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

80	八十
Should any bhikkhu, when deliberation is being carried on in the Community, get up from his seat and leave without having given consent, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘在僧團進行討論時，未給予同意便起座離開，波逸提。
The origin story here is a sequel to the one for the preceding rule.	這裡的起源故事是前一條戒條起源故事的續篇。
“Now at that time the Community was meeting on some business or other, and the group-of-six bhikkhus, making robes, sent their consent with one of their members. Then the Community, thinking, ’We’ll carry out the transaction (against the one member of the group-of-six) that was our real purpose in meeting,’ set forth a motion. The bhikkhu—thinking, ‘It’s just in this way that these people carry out transactions against us one at a time. Well, who are you going to carry out this transaction against?’—without giving his consent, got up from his seat and left.”	「其時，僧團正在商議某事，六群比丘，正在製作袈裟，派其中一位送去了他們的同意。然後，僧團心想：『我們開會的真正目的，就是為了執行（針對那六群比丘中的一位）羯磨。』於是提出了一項動議[譯註：白文]。」該比丘——心想：『這些人就是這樣一次一位地對我們執行羯磨。那麼，你們要對誰執行此羯磨呢？』——未給予他的同意，起座離開。
As explained under the preceding rule, a bhikkhu has no right to protest when the Community is carrying out a transaction against him. However, the Community may not carry out a transaction against a bhikkhu who is not in its midst (see As 1), and any transaction is invalid if carried out when there is a bhikkhu within the territory who is not in the meeting and who has not given his consent. The bhikkhu in the origin story took advantage of these two principles to escape from the transaction’s being carried out against himself, and the Buddha then formulated this rule to impose a penalty on any bhikkhu who tried the same maneuver in the future.	如前一條戒條所述，當僧團對一位比丘執行羯磨時，他無權抗議。然而，僧團不得對不在其中的比丘執行羯磨（見《滅諍》一），且如果在界場內有比丘不在會議中且未給予其同意的情況下執行的任何羯磨均無效。在起源故事中的那位比丘正是利用這兩個原則逃脫了針對他的執行的羯磨，佛陀因此制定了這條戒條，以懲戒任何日後試圖故伎重演的比丘。
There are four factors for the full offense.	完全違犯有四個因素。
1) Object: a Community transaction that has been started but has yet to be finished, and is being carried out in a valid manner.	1）對象：已開始但尚未完成，且正在以有效方式執行的僧團羯磨。
2) Perception: One perceives it as being carried out in a valid manner.	2）感知：認為它是以有效的方式執行的。
3) Intention: One wants to invalidate the transaction or to keep the group from carrying it out.	3）意圖：想要使羯磨無效或阻止該團體執行之。
4) Effort: Without having first given one’s consent, one goes beyond hatthapāsa (1.25 m.) from the bhikkhus sitting in the meeting.	4）努力：未經先給予同意，離開正在會議裡坐著的比丘們，超過伸手可及之處（1.25 公尺）。

Object & perception	對象及感知
The various permutations of these two factors are as follows:	這兩個因素的各種組合如下：
a valid transaction that one perceives to be valid: grounds for a pācittiya;	有效羯磨，而且認為它是有效的：構成《波逸提》；
an invalid transaction that one perceives to be valid: grounds for a dukkaṭa;	無效羯磨，而且認為它是有效的：構成《突吉羅》；
a transaction that one is doubtful about, regardless of its actual validity: grounds for a dukkaṭa;	對羯磨存疑，無論其實際有效性如何：構成《突吉羅》；
a transaction that one perceives as invalid, regardless of its actual validity: grounds for no offense.	認為羯磨無效，無論其實際有效性如何：不構成犯戒。
According to the Vibhaṅga, the time period covered by the factor of object begins at the point where the matter has been brought up in the Community—or a motion has been set forth—and ends when the Community’s decision has been announced.	根據《經分別》，對象因素所涵蓋的時間段從該事件在僧團中被提出（或動議[譯註：白文]被提出）開始，到僧團宣布決定為止。
The Commentary, in discussing this point, says that, in the case of an accusation, the point when the matter has been brought up is when both sides have stated their initial positions, and a bhikkhu has been authorized to cross-examine them. This, however, would open a loophole for an accused bhikkhu to avoid a penalty simply by leaving the meeting after being accused but before stating his case. Thus it would seem preferable to follow the Vibhaṅga here, holding that the time period even in an accusation would begin when the issue is first raised in a valid Community meeting.	《義註》在討論這一點時指出，在指控的情況下，事件被提出的時間點是雙方都陳述了各自的初步立場，並且有一位比丘被授權進行盤問之時。然而，這會使被指控的比丘有機可乘，只需在被指控後、陳述情況之前離開會議，即可逃避懲罰。因此，此處似乎最好遵循《經分別》，保持即使在指控的情況下，時間段也應從該議題首次在有效的僧團會議上提出之時開始計算。
Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga divides the effort here into three parts and allots the penalties as follows:	《經分別》將此處的努力分為三個部分，並以以下方式分配懲罰：
One gets up to go: a dukkaṭa.	起身要走：一次《突吉羅》。
One reaches the distance of one hatthapāsa from the meeting: another dukkaṭa.	到達離會議一個 hatthapāsa （1.25 公尺）的距離：另一次《突吉羅》。
One passes beyond the distance of one hatthapāsa: a pācittiya.	越過了一個 hatthapāsa （1.25 公尺）的距離：一次《波逸提》。
The K/Commentary adds that one must also remain within the territory (sīmā) for this factor to be fulfilled, but the Vibhaṅga makes no mention of this, and there seems no reason to adopt it. If we did adopt it, it would mean that if a transaction were being carried out against a bhikkhu, and he left both the meeting and the territory to avoid it, he would be committing no offense. Thus it seems better to stick with the Vibhaṅga and say that this factor is fulfilled when one goes beyond one hatthapāsa away from the meeting, regardless of whether one then continues to stay within the territory.	K/《義註》補充說，為了滿足這一條件，還必須留在界場（sīmā）內，但《經分別》並未提及這一點，而且似乎也沒有理由採納。如果我們採納這一說法，那就意味著如果正在對一位比丘執行羯磨，而他為了避免羯磨而離開了會議和界場，他就不會犯戒。因此，似乎最好還是堅持《經分別》的說法，即當離開會議超過一個 hatthapāsa 時，無論他之後是否繼續留在界場內，這一條件就已經滿足了。
Intention	意圖
There is no offense if, without giving one’s consent, one leaves the meeting for purposes other than to invalidate the transaction. Examples in the Vibhaṅga include:	如果未給予同意而離開會議，目的並非為了使羯磨無效，則不構成犯戒。《經分別》中的例子包括：
One is ill.	生病。
One has to do something (e.g., prepare or give medicine) for one who is ill.	必須為病人做些事（例如，準備或給予藥物）。
One is overcome with the need to urinate or defecate.	被排尿或排便需求壓倒。
One leaves, without desiring to invalidate the transaction, with the thought, “I’ll come right back.”	離開時並不想讓羯磨無效，心裡想著：「我很快就會回來。」
In all of these cases, though, if possible, it is best to give one’s consent before going.	不過，在所有這些情況下，如果可能的話，最好在前往之前先給予同意。
Further action	進一步行動
A bhikkhu who has committed this offense would, under Cv.IX.3, be subject to having his Pāṭimokkha canceled (see BMC2, Chapter 15). This would provide the Community with the opportunity to look into his attitude and to take further disciplinary actions if it sees fit.	根據《小品》.九.3，犯下此戒的比丘將遭受《波羅提木叉》被取消（參見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第十五章）。這將使僧團有機會審視其態度，並在認為適當時採取進一步的治罪措施。

Non-offenses	不犯
In addition to the above cases, there is also no offense if one leaves a meeting without giving one’s consent with the purpose of invalidating the transaction if one perceives that:	除了上述情況外，如果認為有以下情況，則未給予同意就離開會議以使羯磨無效也不構成犯戒：
the transaction will lead to strife, quarreling, a dispute, a crack, or a split in the Community; or	該羯磨將導致僧團內部的衝突、爭吵、糾紛、裂痕或分裂；或者
the transaction is being carried out not in accordance with the rule, by an incomplete assembly, or against/for a person who doesn’t warrant it.	此羯磨未被如法執行，由不完整的集眾，或針對/為了不值得該羯磨者。
Summary: Getting up and leaving a meeting of the Community in the midst of a valid transaction that one knows to be valid—without having first given one’s consent to the transaction and with the intention of invalidating it—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：在有效羯磨進行期間，明知羯磨有效，卻在未事先同意該羯磨的情況下起身離開僧團會議，意圖使該羯磨無效，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

81	八十一
Should any bhikkhu, (acting as part of) a united Community, give robe-cloth (to an individual bhikkhu) and later complain, “The bhikkhus allocate the Community’s gains according to friendship,” it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘（作為一員）在和合僧團給予（一位比丘）袈裟布，後來抱怨：「比丘們根據友誼分配僧團的收益」，波逸提。
Apportioning the Community’s gains	分配僧團收益
Cv.VI.15.2 states that no one—not even the Community itself—can take any of the following items belonging to the Community and turn them over to individual ownership: monasteries or monastery land; dwellings or land on which dwellings are built; furnishings, such as couches, chairs, or mattresses; metal vessels or tools; building materials or articles made of pottery or wood. The collective term for these goods is garubhaṇḍa: heavy or expensive articles. (For a detailed discussion of these articles, see BMC2, Chapter 7.) The penalty for handing any of the Community’s garubhaṇḍa over to individual ownership is a thullaccaya. In the origin story to Pr 4, the Buddha states that a bhikkhu who gives the Community’s garubhaṇḍa to a lay person is one of the five great thieves in the world.	《小品》.六.15.2 規定，任何人——甚至僧團本身——都不得將以下屬於僧團的物品轉為個人所有：寺院或寺院土地；住處或住處用地；家具，例如臥榻、椅子或床墊；金屬器皿或工具；建築材料或陶器、木製品。這些物品統稱為 garubhaṇḍa ：重或昂貴的物品。（關於這些物品的詳細討論，請參見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第七章。）將僧團的任何 garubhaṇḍa 轉為個人所有的懲罰是《偷蘭遮》。在《波羅夷》四的起源故事中，佛陀指出，將僧團的 garubhaṇḍa 給予在家人的比丘，是世間五大盜之一。
Light or inexpensive articles (lahubhaṇḍa) belonging to the Community, though, may be turned over to individual ownership—of a bhikkhu or novice—but only when the proper procedures are followed. The usual pattern is to appoint a Community official, through a Community transaction, to be responsible for ensuring that such items be distributed fairly to the members of the Community eligible to receive them. Such officials include distributors of robe-cloth, of food, of fruit, and of non-staple foods; and dispensers of small accessories, such as scissors, sandals, water strainers, etc. (see BMC2, Chapter 18).	屬於僧團的輕或非昂貴物品（lahubhaṇḍa）可以移交給個人所有——比丘或沙彌——但前提是必須遵循適當的程序。通常的做法是透過僧團羯磨指定一名僧團執事，負責確保此類物品公平地分配給有資格接受的僧團成員。這些執事包括袈裟布、食物、水果和副食的分配者；以及諸如剪刀、涼鞋、濾水器等小配件的分發者（參見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第十八章）。
In the origin story to Pc 41, the Community receives a large amount of non-staple food, so much that the Buddha instructs Ānanda to share the excess among those who live off leftovers. Some Communities have taken this as a precedent for taking excess perishable items belonging to the Community and distributing them among the poor.	在《波逸提》四一的起源故事中，僧團收到了大量的副食，多到佛陀指示阿難將多餘的食物分給那些靠剩飯剩菜度日的人。有些僧團以此為先例，將僧團多餘的易腐物品分送給窮人。
In addition, this training rule shows that a Community acting as a whole may take lahubhaṇḍa articles belonging to it and turn them over to individual bhikkhus or novices. (According to the K/Commentary to Pc 79, this can be done with a simple announcement (apalokana), although the kaṭhina ceremony, which would fall under this general category, follows the pattern of a motion with one announcement.) A typical example, apart from the kaṭhina, would be if the Community receives a particularly fine piece of cloth and, instead of cutting it up to share the pieces out among its members, decides to present the entire piece to one of its members who has been especially helpful to the group. This is one way in which the Community may reward a Community official for his services.	此外，這條學處表明，僧團作為一個整體，可以把屬於僧團的 lahubhaṇḍa 物品交給予個別比丘或沙彌。（根據《波逸提》七九的 K/《義註》，這可以透過簡單的求聽（apalokana）完成，儘管屬於這一通用範疇的功德衣（kaṭhina）儀式遵循的是以一白一羯磨[譯註：白二羯磨]的形式。）除了功德衣之外，一個典型的例子是，如果僧團收到一塊特別好的布料，不將其裁剪後分給成員，而是決定將整塊贈送給一位對團體特別有幫助的成員。這是僧團獎勵僧團執事服務的一種方式。
Any member of the Community who disagrees with such a decision may prevent it from happening by protesting during the announcement. The purpose of this rule is to prevent members of the Community from complaining after they have taken part in such a decision that the Community was acting out of favoritism.	任何僧團成員如不同意該決定，均可在求聽過程中提出抗議，阻止其生效。此戒條旨在防止僧團成員在參與決定後抱怨僧團出於偏袒而行事。
The factors for the full offense are two.	構成完全違犯的因素有二。
1) Object: One has acted as part of a united Community that has given robe-cloth to a bhikkhu who has been chosen, through a prior Community transaction, to be a Community official.	1）對象：作為和合僧團的一份子，向一位比丘給予了袈裟布，該比丘通過先前的僧團羯磨被選為僧團執事。
2) Effort: One complains afterward that the Community acted out of favoritism.	2）努力：事後抱怨僧團是出於偏袒而行事。

Object	對象
Acting as part of a united Community means that one is in affiliation with the Community that handed over the cloth, and that one was in the same territory with them: i.e., one was either in the meeting or had given one’s consent to it.	作為和合僧團的一份子，意味著與給予布料的僧團共羯磨，並且與他們處於同一界場：也就是說，若非參加了會議，就是給予其同意。
Robe-cloth means a piece of any of the six kinds of allowable cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths.	袈裟布是指六種允許的布料中的任何一種，其尺寸至少為四指寬乘八指寬。
The various permutations of articles and recipients are as follows:	物品和接受者的各種組合如下：
Complaining when the Community has given robe-cloth to a Community official: a pācittiya.	當僧團給予僧團執事袈裟布時抱怨：一次《波逸提》。
Complaining when the Community has given any other light article to a Community official: a dukkaṭa.	當僧團給予僧團執事任何其他輕物品時抱怨：一次《突吉羅》。
Complaining when the Community has given any light article—cloth or otherwise—to a bhikkhu who is not a Community official: a dukkaṭa.	當僧團將任何輕物品（布料或其他）給予非僧團執事的比丘時抱怨：一次《突吉羅》。
Complaining when the Community has given any light article—cloth or otherwise—to a novice, whether authorized as a Community official or not: a dukkaṭa.	當僧團將任何輕物品（布料或其他）給予沙彌時抱怨，無論其是否被授權擔任僧團執事：一次《突吉羅》。
Perception with regard to the transaction is not a mitigating factor here. If the recipient was made a Community official through a valid Community transaction, then regardless of how one perceives that transaction, he is grounds for a pācittiya. If the act was invalid then, again, regardless of how one perceives it, he is grounds for a dukkaṭa. (The Vibhaṅga is somewhat confusing on this point, not saying explicitly whether the factor of “perception with regard to the transaction” refers to the transaction by which the official was appointed or to the one by which the cloth was handed over to him. The interpretation given here follows the Commentary, which for this issue refers the reader to its explanation of Pc 13, and the K/Commentary, which defines the validity of the object’s authorization as a factor in the offense here. This interpretation has given rise to some controversy, largely because there are two variant readings of the last sentence of the perception section in the Vibhaṅga. The PTS and Burmese editions of the Canon give the sentence as, “In perceiving an invalid transaction as an invalid transaction: no offense.” The Thai and Sri Lankan editions of the Canon, and the PTS edition of the K/Commentary, give the sentence as, “In perceiving an invalid transaction as an invalid transaction: a dukkaṭa offense.” If the first reading were correct, the perception would apply to the transaction by which the cloth is handed to the official. However, with the Commentary stating that the perception section here is identical with that under Pc 13, and with all Asian editions of the Canon giving the second reading there, it would seem that the PTS and Burmese editions are mistaken here, and that the correct interpretation of the perception passages here is the one given above.)	對該羯磨的感知並非減輕懲罰的因素。如果接受者透過有效的僧團羯磨被任命為僧團執事，那麼無論如何感知該羯磨，他都構成《波逸提》。如果該羯磨無效，那麼同樣，無論如何感知，他都構成《突吉羅》。（《經分別》在這一點上有些含糊不清，沒有明確說明「對羯磨的感知」的因素是指執事被任命的羯磨，還是指布料給予他的羯磨。此處的解釋遵循《義註》，就此問題引導讀者參閱其對《波逸提》十三的解釋，以及 K/《義註》，將對象授權的有效性定義為此處犯戒的一個因素。這種解釋引發了一些爭議，主要是因為《經分別》裡的感知部分的最後一句話有兩種不同的拼讀法。PTS版和緬甸版的《聖典》將該句拼讀為：「將無效羯磨感知為無效羯磨：不犯。」泰國版和斯里蘭卡版的《聖典》，以及PTS版的 K/《義註》，將該句拼讀為：「將無效羯磨感知為無效羯磨：《突吉羅》罪。」如果第一種拼讀法正確，那麼這種感知就適用於將布料給予執事的羯磨。然而，《義註》指出此處的感知部分與《波逸提》十三中的感知部分相同，而且所有亞洲版本的《聖典》都採用了第二種拼讀法，因此PTS版和緬甸版在此處似乎有誤，此處感知部分的正確解釋應該是上述所給的拼讀法。

Effort	努力
This factor is fulfilled by any expression of personal displeasure with the Community in regard to its distribution of requisites. If, however, one accuses the Community of having carried out the transaction improperly—not in accordance with the rule, or with an incomplete assembly—the case would come not here, but under Pc 63.	任何人對僧團分配必需品表達個人不滿，均滿足此因素。然而，如果指控僧團執行羯磨不當－未依照戒條，或集眾不完整——則該情況不屬於此，而應依據《波逸提》六三處理。
Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga says that if the recipient of the article acts out of habitual favoritism, anger, delusion, or fear, there is no offense in complaining, “What’s the use of giving it to him? Even having received it, he’ll ruin it; he won’t take proper care of it.” This is an extension of the non-offense clause under Pc 13, in which one is allowed to complain about a community official who acts out of any of the four bases for bias. Thus this exemption applies here both before and after the Community gives the article to the individual in question. As an application of the exemption under Pc 13, one can complain before the Community transaction that the recipient is unqualified to receive the article. This would put a halt to the transaction. As an application of the exemption under Pc 63, one can complain after the transaction that the recipient was a poor choice because his habitual favoritism, anger, delusion, or fear means that he was unqualified to be given the article. This would mean that the Community transaction was invalid to begin with, and so one is entitled to complain.	《經分別》指出，如果物品的接受者出於慣常的偏袒、憤怒、愚癡或恐懼而行事，那麼抱怨「把東西給他有什麼用？即使收到了，他也會毀壞它；他不會妥善保管。」並不構成犯戒。這是《波逸提》十三中不犯條款的延伸，該條款允許抱怨出於四種偏見中的任何一種而行事的僧團執事。因此，這項豁免在此適用於僧團將物品給予相關個人之前和之後。作為《波逸提》十三中豁免條款的應用，可以在僧團羯磨之前抱怨接受者不具備接受物品的資格。這將導致羯磨中止。作為《波逸提》六三中豁免條款的應用，可以在羯磨之後抱怨接受者是一個糟糕的選擇，因為他慣常的偏袒、憤怒、愚癡或恐懼意味著他不具備被給予物品的資格。這意味著該僧團羯磨從一開始就是無效的，因此有權提出抱怨。
Summary: After participating in a Community transaction giving robe-cloth to a Community official: Complaining that the Community acted out of favoritism is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：參與僧團羯磨，給予僧團執事袈裟布後：抱怨僧團出於偏袒而行事，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

82	八十二
Should any bhikkhu knowingly divert to an individual gains that had been allocated for a Community, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘明知地將已被分配給僧團的利益挪為個人所有，波逸提。
This rule has already been explained under NP 30.	這條戒條已經在《捨墮》三十中解釋過了。
Summary: Persuading a donor to give to another individual a gift that he or she had planned to give to a Community—when one knows that it was intended for the Community—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：勸說施主將原本打算給予僧團的布施轉而給予另一個人——當明知該布施原本是打算給僧團的——是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。