附錄

CHAPTER TWELVE

 第十二章
Appendices 附錄

I. Controversial points: Dawn and dawnrise

 一、爭議點：明相及明相出
In a number of rules where the boundary between two days is the line between an offense and a non-offense, the Vibhaṅga in some cases defines that boundary as dawn (aruṇa) and in others as dawnrise (aruṇuggamana). Dawnrise is the boundary for NP 1, 3, 21, 24, & 29; and for Pc 37 & 85. In the case of the NP rules, an item kept until dawnrise after the allowed number of days has to be forfeited. In the case of the Pc rules, dawnrise marks the end of the “wrong time” and the beginning of the “right time” for the activities discussed in those rules. The boundary for Pc 5 & 49, however, is dawn. If, under the situations covered by these rules, one gets up or leaves before dawn (purāruṇā), the night ending in that dawn doesn’t count toward the offense. The Vibhaṅga to NP 2 refers to both dawn and dawnrise in analyzing the offense under that rule: As with the other NP rules, a robe kept until dawnrise is to be forfeited. If, however, the robe is abandoned, etc., anto aruṇe—which can either mean “before dawn” (just as anto pātarāse means “before the morning meal”) or “during dawn” (just as anto māse under NP 3 means “within the month”)—there is no offense. 在一些戒條中，兩日之間的界限是區分犯戒與不犯戒的分界線，《經分別》有時將該界限定義為明相（黎明）（aruṇa），有時定義為明相出（黎明升起）（aruṇuggamana）。明相出（黎明升起）是《捨墮》一、三、二一、二四和二九；以及《波逸提》三七和八五的界限。在《捨墮》戒條中，物品若在允許的天數之後仍保留至明相出（黎明升起），則必須捨出。在《波逸提》戒條中，明相出（黎明升起）標誌著這些戒條中所討論活動的「非時（錯誤時間）」的結束和「時（正確時間）」的開始。然而，《波逸提》五和四九 的界限是明相（黎明）。如果在這些戒條涵蓋的情況下，在明相（黎明）之前（purāruṇā）起床或離開，則在該明相（黎明）結束的夜晚不計入犯戒。《捨墮》二的《經分別》在分析該戒條下的違犯時，同時提及了明相（黎明）和明相出（黎明升起）：與其他《捨墮》戒條一樣，保留至明相出（黎明升起）的袈裟應被捨出。然而，如果袈裟被放棄等等，在 anto aruṇe （既可指「明相（黎明）之前」，如同 anto pātarāse 指「早上餐食之前」，也可指「明相（黎明）時分」，如同《捨墮》三中的 anto māse 指「當月之內」），則不構成犯戒。
The Vibhaṅga treats these various terms casually, offering no definition of when dawn and dawnrise take place, or of how the two are related. The Commentary and Sub-commentary also treat them casually, passing over the terms as “obvious.” 《經分別》對這些用語的處理方式十分隨意，既沒有定義明相（黎明）和明相出（黎明升起）的時間，也沒有解釋二者之間的關係。《義註》和《複註》也同樣如此，將這些術語視為「顯而易見」而略過。
In later centuries, however, there was an effort to make these terms more precise. The Khuddakasikkhā—a Vinaya manual written by Ven. Dhammasiri, a Sinhalese monk, in the 11th or 12th century—states that the sky lightens in four stages before sunrise (measuring in Sinhalese hours, of which there are 60 in one period of day and night): a slight reddening 4 Sinhalese hours (= 1 hour and 36 minutes) before sunrise; a slight whitening 3 Sinhalese hours (= 1 hour and 12 minutes) before sunrise; a second reddening 2 Sinhalese hours (= 48 minutes) before sunrise; and a second whitening 1 Sinhalese hour (= 24 minutes) before sunrise. 然而，在之後幾個世紀裡，人們努力使這些術語更加精確。《Khuddakasikkhā》——一部由僧伽羅比丘 Dhammasiri 尊者於11或12世紀撰寫的律藏手冊——指出，日出前天空會經歷四階段的變亮（以僧伽羅時為單位，一日一夜共有 60 個僧伽羅時）：日出前4個僧伽羅時（= 1小時36分鐘）略微泛紅；日出前3個僧伽羅時（= 1小時12分鐘）略微泛白；日出前2個僧伽羅時（= 48分鐘）再次泛紅；日出前1個僧伽羅時（= 24分鐘）再次泛白。
Some Communities in Burma, Sri Lanka, and Thailand follow this analysis, differing among themselves only as to which of the four stages constitutes dawnrise. Some count the first reddening, when aside from the faint light on the horizon, the sky is still dark. However, as mentioned in the discussion under NP 1, a sub-commentary entitled the Vinayālaṅkāra counts the last whitening, and there is good Canonical reason to follow its definition. 緬甸、斯里蘭卡和泰國的一些僧團遵循這種分析，彼此之間的差異僅在於對四個階段中哪一個才算明相出（黎明升起）。有些採取最初泛紅，此時除了地平線上微弱的光線外，天空仍然漆黑一片。然而，正如《捨墮》一下的討論中所述，名為《Vinayālaṅkāra》的子註釋採取最後泛白，而且遵循其定義也有充分的《聖典》依據。
Pc 37 & 38, taken together, require that a bhikkhu not accept alms before dawn. If he did go for alms before dawn, he would not be able to eat any of the food he accepted at that time, as Pc 37 forbids him from eating before dawnrise, and Pc 38 forbids him from eating food received on a previous day. A passage in MN 66 states specifically that once the rules were established, one of their benefits was that they prevented bhikkhus from going for alms in the dark. This suggests that in the time of the Canon, the first faint light on the horizon did not count as dawnrise. The passage runs as follows: 《波逸提》三七和三八合在一起，規定比丘不得在明相（黎明）前托缽。如果他真的在明相（黎明）前托缽，就不能食用當時所接受的任何食物，因為《波逸提》三七禁止他在明相出（黎明升起）前進食，而《波逸提》三八禁止他食用前一天所接受的食物。《中部》66經中有一段經文明確指出，這些戒條確立之後，其益處之一便是防止比丘在黑暗中托缽。這表明，在《聖典》所在的時期，地平線上的第一道微光並不被算是明相出（黎明升起）。該段經文如下：
“[Ven. Udāyin—apparently the good Udāyin, not the lax Udāyin of the first five saṅghādisesas—is addressing the Buddha:] ‘It used to be, venerable sir, that we ate in the evening, in the morning, and in the wrong time [the afternoon]. Then there was the time when the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying, “Bhikkhus, please discontinue that daytime meal at the wrong time.” For just a day I was upset, for just a day I was sad, [thinking,] “The exquisite staple and non-staple foods that faithful householders give us during the day at the wrong time: The Blessed One has us abandon them! The Sugata has us relinquish them!” But, considering our love & respect & shame & compunction around the Blessed One, we abandoned that daytime meal at the wrong time and ate (only) in the evening and in the morning.
「[優陀夷尊者——顯然是那位良好的優陀夷，而非前五《僧殘》那位放蕩不羈的優陀夷——正在對佛陀說：]『大德，過去我們晚上、早上，甚至在非時（下午）進食。後來世尊對比丘們說：『比丘們，請停止在非時的日間餐食。』我只難過了一天，我只傷心了一天，[心想：]『那些有敬信的居士們在日間非時給我們提供的精緻主食和副食：世尊讓我們放棄它們！善逝讓我們捨棄它們！』「但是，考慮到我們對世尊的愛戴、尊敬、慚和愧，我們捨棄在非時的日間餐食，只在晚上和早上進食。
“‘Then there was the time when the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying, “Bhikkhus, please discontinue that evening meal at the wrong time.” For just a day I was upset, for just a day I was sad, [thinking,] “The more exquisitely prepared of our two meals: Even that the Blessed One has us abandon! Even that the Sugata has us relinquish!” It has happened, venerable sir, that a man—obtaining some soup during the day—has told his wife, “Put this aside and we’ll all eat it together in the evening.” [Almost] all food preparation is done at night, venerable sir, and almost none during the day. But, considering our love & respect & shame & compunction around the Blessed One, we abandoned that evening meal.
「『然後，有一次，世尊對比丘們說：『比丘們，請停止在非時的晚上餐食。』我只難過了一天，我只傷心了一天，[心想：]『我們兩餐中較精心準備的餐食，世尊竟讓我們放棄！善逝竟讓我們捨棄！』大德，曾有這樣的事：有男人白天獲得了些湯，便對妻子說：『先放一放，我們晚上一起吃。』大德，[幾乎]所有的食物都是在晚上準備的，白天幾乎沒有。但是，考慮到我們對世尊的愛戴、尊敬、慚和愧，我們捨棄晚上的餐食。
“‘It has happened that bhikkhus going for alms in the pitch black of night have walked into a waste-water hole, fallen into a cesspit, stumbled over a thorny hedge, stumbled over a sleeping cow. They have encountered young hooligans on the way to or from a crime. They have been propositioned by women. Once I went for alms in the pitch black of night. A woman washing a pot saw me by a lightning flash and, on seeing me, screamed out: “I’m done for! A demon is after me!”
「『比丘們在漆黑的夜晚托缽時，曾誤入廢水坑，跌入糞池，被帶刺的樹籬絆倒，被睡著的牛絆倒。他們曾經遇過正在前往或離開犯罪現場的年輕流氓。他們還曾被女人提議發生性關係。有一次，我在漆黑的夜晚去托缽。一道閃電劃過，一個正在洗鍋子的女人看見了我，驚叫道：「我完了！有惡魔在追我！」
“‘When this was said, I said to her, “I’m no demon, sister. I’m a bhikkhu waiting for alms.”
「『聽到這話，我對她說：「姐妹，我不是魔鬼，我是個站著乞食的比丘。」
“‘“Well then you’re a bhikkhu whose mommy’s dead and daddy’s dead. It would be better for you, bhikkhu, that your belly be slit open with a sharp butcher’s knife than this prowling around for alms for your belly’s sake in the pitch black of night!”
「願你是個父母雙亡的比丘。比丘，被用鋒利的屠刀剖開肚子，也比在漆黑的夜晚四處乞討只為了填飽肚子來得好！”
“‘On recollecting this, venerable sir, the thought occurred to me: “So many painful things has the Blessed One taken away from us! So many pleasant things has he brought us! So many unskillful qualities has the Blessed One taken away from us! So many skillful qualities has he brought us!”’”
「『大德，回想起此事，我心中想到：「世尊為我們除去了那麼多痛苦！為我們帶來了那麼多快樂！世尊為我們除去了那麼多不善法！為我們帶來了那麼多善法！』」
This shows clearly that once the rules were in effect, bhikkhus were saved from the dangers of going for alms in the dark. It further suggests that dawnrise can be no earlier than the point recognized by the Vinayālaṅkāra. 這清楚地表明，一旦這些戒條生效，比丘們便免於在黑暗中托缽乞食的危險。這也進一步表明，明相出（黎明升起）不可能早於《Vinayālaṅkāra》所認定的時間。
As noted under NP 1, the Vinayālaṅkāra’s definition of dawnrise corresponds in modern terminology to the onset of civil twilight. Although the Khuddakasikkhā states that this period of whitening occurs 24 minutes prior to sunrise, this figure would apply only to locations that, like Sri Lanka, lie near the equator. At other latitudes, the length of time from the onset of civil twilight to sunrise would vary widely according to season, with the variations most extreme at higher latitudes. 如《捨墮》一所述，《Vinayālaṅkāra》中對明相出（黎明升起）的定義，用現代術語來說，對應於民用曙暮光的開始。雖然《Khuddakasikkhā》指出，這段泛白出現的時間發生在日出前24分鐘，但這個數字只適用於像斯里蘭卡這樣位於赤道附近的地點。在其他緯度，從民用曙暮光開始到日出的時間長短會因季節而異，緯度越高，這種差異越顯著。
This leaves the question of how dawnrise is related to dawn. As mentioned above, anto aruṇe under NP 2 can mean either “during dawn” or “before dawn.” The Vinayālaṅkāra defines this term as “before dawn-rising” (aruṇodayato puretaram’eva); another sub-commentary, the Namakkāra, in turn defines aruṇodayato as equivalent to aruṇuggamana, or dawnrise. 這就引出了一個問題：明相出（黎明升起）與明相（黎明）之間究竟有何關聯？如上所述，《捨墮》二下的 anto aruṇe 既可以指「明相（黎明）時分」，也可以指「明相（黎明）之前」。《Vinayālaṅkāra》將此術語定義為「明相（黎明）升起之前」（aruṇodayato puretaram’eva）；而另一部子註釋《Namakkāra》又定義 aruṇodayato 等同於 aruṇuggamana，即明相出（黎明升起）。
Some scholars, opting to translate anto aruṇe as “within dawn” or “during dawn,” have cited these passages to assert that dawn is a period of time preceding and ending with dawnrise. 一些學者選擇將 anto aruṇe 翻譯為「在明相（黎明）之內」或「在明相（黎明）期間」，並引用這些段落來斷言明相（黎明）是明相出（黎明升起）之前到結束的一個時段。
This assertion, however, is dubious on several grounds. One obvious objection is that if the Vinayālaṅkāra had meant to define dawn as a distinct period of time, it would have mentioned not only the point at which dawn ends—at dawnrise—but also the point at which it begins. But it doesn’t. In fact, unless we assume that dawnrise is actually the beginning of dawn and not its end, none of the texts define a beginning for dawn. This leads to a severe practical problem, in that it would leave Pc 5 and Pc 49 with no clear line to define how to avoid an offense under those rules, where the beginning of dawn is the end of the non-offense period. If the compilers of the Vibhaṅga to those rules had meant to draw the line dividing an offense from a non-offense following a standard different from that in all the other rules in the Pāṭimokkha where the line between the end of night and the beginning of day is also relevant, they would have offered clear definitions to distinguish one standard from the other. But they don’t. This indicates that the assumption of a separate “dawn” preceding “dawnrise” must be mistaken. 然而，這種說法在幾個方面都值得懷疑。一個顯而易見的反對意見是，如果《Vinayālaṅkāra》意在將明相（黎明）定義為一個獨立的時間段，那麼它不僅會提及明相（黎明）結束的時刻——即明相出（黎明升起）——還會提及明相（黎明）開始的時刻。但事實並非如此。實際上，除非我們假定明相出（黎明升起）實際上是明相（黎明）的開始而非結束，否則沒有任何文獻定義明相（黎明）的開始。這導致了一個嚴重的實際問題，即《波逸提》五和《波逸提》四九將無法明確界定如何在這些戒條下避免犯戒，因為在這些戒條中，明相（黎明）的開始即為不犯期間的結束。如果那些戒條的《經分別》編纂者意圖以不同於《波羅提木叉》其他戒條的標準來劃分犯戒與不犯，而《波羅提木叉》中其他戒條夜晚結束和白晝開始之間的分界線也具有相關性，那麼他們理應提供清晰的定義來區分不同的標準。但他們並沒有這麼做。這表明，認為有一個單獨的「明相（黎明）」先於「明相出（黎明升起）」的假設必然是錯誤的。
A reading more consistent with the Canon’s casual treatment of the issue of dawn would be to translate anto aruṇe as “before dawn,” and to interpret dawnrise (aruṇuggamana) as the beginning of dawn, and not as its end. In other words, in all the rules where the line dividing the end of night from the beginning of day is the line between an offense and a non-offense, that line is marked by the onset of civil twilight, regardless of whether the Vibhaṅga refers to the period immediately preceding it as anto aruṇe or purāruṇā. 更符合《聖典》對明相（黎明）問題的隨意處理方式的解讀，是將 anto aruṇe 譯為「明相（黎明）之前」，並將明相出（黎明升起）（aruṇuggamana）解釋為明相（黎明）的開始，而非結束。換言之，在所有以晝夜交替為界線，作為犯戒與不犯界線的戒條中，這條界線都以民用曙暮光的開始為標誌，無論《經分別》將緊接著其之前的期間稱為 anto aruṇe 還是 purāruṇā。
This reading is also consistent with all the other uses of dawn and dawnrise in the Commentary and Sub-commentary. 這種解讀也與《義註》和《複註》中所有其他關於明相（黎明）和明相出（黎明升起）的用法一致。
* * *
II. Controversial points: Sugata measures 二、爭議點：善逝計量單位
The Commentary to Sg 6 states that the Buddha’s cubit—the distance from his bent elbow to the tips of his fingers—was three times that of a normal man. This puts all the sugata measures—based on the Buddha’s cubit, handspan, and breadth of his fingers—at three times normal length and makes the Buddha freakishly tall. 《僧殘》六的《義註》指出，佛陀的肘長（即從彎曲的手肘到指尖的距離）是常人的三倍。這使得所有以佛陀肘長、手掌寬度和手指寬度為基礎的善逝計量單位都達到了常人的三倍，也使得佛陀顯得異常高大。
How the Commentary arrived at this figure is hard to say, for the Vinaya-mukha cites several passages from the Canon showing that the Buddha, though tall, was not abnormally so. The most telling passage is the one from DN 2, in which King Ajātasattu visits the Buddha while the latter is sitting in an assembly of bhikkhus, and the king is unable to identify which member of the assembly the Buddha is. This, of course, is meant to indicate the king’s spiritual blindness, but if the Buddha had been remarkably tall it would have been part of his general reputation, and the king would not have had to ask. 《義註》是如何得出這個數字的，很難說，因為《戒律入口》從《聖典》中引用了多段經文，表明佛陀雖然身材高大，但並非異常高大。最能說明的經文是《長部》2經中的一則記載：阿闍世王拜訪佛陀，當時佛陀在一群比丘集眾裡坐著，國王卻無法辨認出佛陀是集眾中的哪一位成員。這當然意在顯示國王的靈性盲目，但如果佛陀真的身材高大，那這早已是他整體聲譽的一部分，國王也就無需詢問了。
The Vinaya-mukha then goes on to suggest a variety of ways of calculating the Buddha’s measurements, the most useful being to assume the Buddha’s cubit to be 50 cm. This, at least roughly, fits a number of passages from the Canon, as follows: 《戒律入口》接著建議了多種計算佛陀的尺寸的方法，其中最實用的方法是假設佛陀的肘長為 50 公分。這至少大致符合《聖典》中的一些段落，如下所示：
According to DN 30, the spread of the Buddha’s arms, outstretched, was equal to his height. Because a person’s cubit is one-fourth the spread of his outstretched arms, this would put the Buddha’s height at 2 meters, or approximately 6 feet 7 inches. The origin story to Pc 92 states that his half-brother, Nanda, was four fingerbreadths shorter than he, and that when bhikkhus saw him coming from afar, they would mistake him for the Buddha, partly on the basis of his tall height. One fingerbreadth is said to be 1/24 cubit, or a little more than 2 cm. by this reckoning, which would put Nanda at 1.92 meters, or approximately 6 feet 4 inches tall. 根據《長部》30經，佛陀雙臂伸展的寬度等於他的身高。由於一肘的長度是雙臂伸展寬度的四分之一，由此推算，佛陀的身高為2米，或約6英尺7英寸。而《波逸提》九二的起源故事則講述了佛陀的同父異母兄弟難陀比他矮四指寬，當比丘們遠遠地看到他走過來時，會誤以為他是佛陀，部分原因在於難陀的身高很高。據說一指寬是 1/24 肘長，或略多於 2 公分，按此計算，難陀的身高為 1.92 公尺，或約6英尺4英寸高。
These figures would seem to fit the information in the Canon fairly well, in that they allow for both Nanda and the Buddha to be tall but not outlandishly so. 這些數字似乎與《聖典》中的資訊相當吻合，因為它們既能說明難陀和佛陀身材高大，又不會高得離譜。
Another pair of passages supporting these measurements is the ruling under Pc 87 that the legs of a bhikkhu’s bed not be more than eight sugata fingerbreadths tall, taken together with the recommendation at Cv.VIII.1.5 that one should grope under the bed with one’s hand to make sure that nothing is there before placing one’s bowl there. Our measurements would put the maximum height for the bed legs at 18 cm. If they were much taller than that, there would be no need to grope, for one could easily see under the bed with a glance. If they were much shorter than that, even a small bowl wouldn’t fit. 另外兩段經文支持這些測量結果，分別是《波逸提》八七的裁定，即比丘床腳的高度不得超過善逝八指寬，以及與《小品》.八.1.5的建議合在一起，即在放置自己的缽之前，應先用手摸索床下，確認無物。根據我們的測量，床腳的最大高度為18公分。如果床腳遠高於此，則無需摸索，因為只需瞥一眼就能輕易看到床下。如果床腳遠低於此，即使是小缽也無法放入。
Although there is no way of determining the sugata measures with 100% accuracy, the above considerations suggest that the following estimates are reasonable: 雖然無法 100% 準確地確定善逝計量單位，但上述考慮顯示以下估計是合理的：
The sugata cubit = 50 cm.
善逝肘長 = 50 公分。
The sugata span = 25 cm.
善逝張手 = 25 公分。
The sugata fingerbreadth = 2.08 cm.
善逝指寬 = 2.08 公分。
Applied to the various rules, this would give us a hut 3 x 1.75 meters—small, but adequate; a rains-bathing cloth 1.5 x .625 meters—enough to cover one from the waist to the knees; and an skin-eruption covering cloth 1 x .5 meters—enough to cover one from the waist to just above the knees. All of these figures seem appropriate and so have been accepted for the purposes of this book. 套用到各項戒條，我們可以得到一個 3 × 1.75 公尺的小屋（孤邸）——雖小但足夠；一塊 1.5 × 0.625 公尺的雨浴衣——足以遮蓋腰部到膝蓋；以及一塊 1 × 0.5 公尺的覆瘡布——足以遮蓋腰部到膝蓋上方。所有這些尺寸似乎都合適，因此本書採用這些尺寸。
* * *
III. Controversial points: Meals 三、爭議點：餐食
Cv.VI.21.1 allows bhikkhus to accept seven kinds of specially arranged meals in addition to the meals they receive on alms round. The context for this allowance is as follows: 《小品》.六.21.1 允許比丘們除了托缽乞食的餐食之外，接受七種特意安排的餐食。此項開緣的背景如下：
“Now at that time Rājagaha was short of food. People were not able to provide a meal for the Community, but they wanted to provide a designated meal, an invitational meal, a lottery meal, a meal on a day of the waxing or waning of the moon, on uposatha days, and on the day after each uposatha day. They told this matter to the Blessed One. He said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, a Community meal, a designated meal, an invitational meal, a lottery meal, a meal on a day of the waxing or waning of the moon, on an uposatha day, and on the day after an uposatha day.’”
「當時王舍城糧食短缺。人們無法為僧團提供餐食，但他們卻想提供指定食[譯註：古漢譯為「僧次請食」]、邀請食[譯註：古漢譯為「別請食」]、抽籤食[譯註：古漢譯為「行籌食」]、月盈月虧日食[譯註：古漢譯為「十五日食」]、布薩日食、以及每個布薩日後的次日食。他們將此事禀告世尊。他說：『比丘們，我允許僧團食、指定食、邀請食、抽籤食、月盈月虧日食、布薩日食、以及布薩日次日食。』」
Unfortunately, the Canon provides no detailed explanation of these terms. The Commentary explains Community meals as meals for the entire Community, and the other terms as follows: 可惜的是，《聖典》並未對這些術語提供詳細解釋。《義註》將「僧團食」解釋為供給整個僧團的餐食，其他術語的解釋如下：
“(Having said,) ‘Give one, two… ten bhikkhus designated from the Community,’ they wanted to provide a meal for the bhikkhus they got through that designation. Later, having decided on bhikkhus in the same way (i.e., one, two… ten bhikkhus), and having invited them, they wanted to provide a meal for them. Later, they wanted to provide a meal having decided on a lottery. Later, having fixed a date—the waxing or waning moons, the uposatha day, or the day after—they wanted to provide a meal for one, two… ten bhikkhus. This is the extent of the meals that fall under the terms ‘designated meals, invitational meals (the Sub-commentary adds an ‘etc.’ here.)’”
「（已說，）『從僧團中指定一、二…十位比丘』，他們想為透過該指定獲得的比丘們提供餐食。後來，他們以同樣的方式（即一、二…十位比丘）選定比丘，並邀請他們，他們想為他們提供膳食。再後來，他們想要以抽籤[行籌]決定來提供餐食。再後來，以固定日期——月盈月虧，布薩日，或次日——他們想要提供餐食給一、二…十位比丘。這就是「指定食、邀請食（《複註》中在此處添加了『等等』）」這些術語所涵蓋的餐食範圍。」
These definitions seem fairly clear: a designated meal is one in which the donors do not specify which bhikkhus are to receive it, but simply ask for x number of bhikkhus from the Community, leaving it up to the meal designator—the Community official responsible for managing these various meals (see BMC2, Chapter 18)—to designate who the recipients will be. An invitational meal is one in which the donors decide on the recipients themselves. A lottery meal is one in which the recipients are chosen by drawing lots, while the remaining meals—periodic meals—are given regularly to a rotating roster of x number of bhikkhus every time the specified date comes around. 這些定義似乎相當清楚：指定食[僧次請食]是指布施者不指定哪些比丘接受之，而是向僧團請求若干比丘，由餐食指定人（即負責管理各類餐食的僧團執事，參見《佛教比丘戒律 第二冊》第十八章）來指定受請者。邀請食[別請食]是指布施者自行決定受請者。抽籤食[行籌食]是指透過抽籤決定受請者，而其餘的餐食——週期食（定期食）[常請食]——則每當指定日期到來時，都會規律地分配給輪換的若干比丘。。
However, the Commentary’s discussion of how the meal designator should manage these meals blurs the lines between the first three categories. It gives no detailed discussion of Community meals, but divides designated meals into the following two types: 然而，《義註》對餐食指定人應如何管理這些餐食的討論模糊了前三類之間的界限。它沒有對僧團食進行詳細討論，而是將指定食分為以下兩種類型：
1a) Meals for which the number of bhikkhus to be designated is equal to the total number of bhikkhus in the Community.
1a）指定比丘人數等於僧團比丘總數的餐食。
1b) Meals for which the number of bhikkhus to be designated is less than the total number of bhikkhus in the Community.
1b）指定比丘人數少於僧團比丘總數的餐食。
Invitational meals come in four types: 邀請食分為四種：
2a) Meals to which the entire Community is invited.
2a）整個僧團都被邀請的餐食。
2b) Meals to which specific individuals or types of bhikkhus (e.g., no one but senior bhikkhus) are invited.
2b）邀請特定個人或特定類型的比丘（例如，只邀請長老比丘）的餐食。
2c) Meals to which one bhikkhu is invited and asked to bring x number of his friends.
2c）一位比丘被邀請並被要求帶若干位他的朋友的餐食。
2d) Meals for which the donor simply asks for x number of bhikkhus, without specifying in any way who they should be.
2d）布施者只要求若干位比丘，而不以任何方式指定他們是誰的餐食。
This typology raises two questions. First, why aren’t types 1a and 2a grouped under Community meals? Is it because the donor uses the words designated and invited when announcing his/her plans for the meal? If so, how does one arrange for a Community meal that would not fall into these two types, in line with the fact that a Community meal is said to be a separate category? 這種分類引出了兩個問題。首先，為什麼類型 1a 和 2a 沒有被歸類在僧團食之下？是因為布施者在宣布其餐食計劃時使用了指定和邀請這樣的字眼嗎？如果是這樣，那麼如何安排一場僧團食，既不屬於這兩種類型，又符合僧團食應有的獨立類別呢？
The second question is how type 2d differs from a designated meal. Is it, again, because the donor does not use the word designated in announcing the meal? If so, the difference is only formal, for the Commentary itself states that the meal designator is to treat such a meal as he would a designated meal, which shows that in essence it is the same thing. 第二個問題是，2d 類型與指定食有何不同？是否同樣是因為布施者在宣布餐食時未使用「指定」一詞？如果是這樣，區別僅在於形式，因為《義註》本身指出，餐食指定人應將此類餐食視為指定食，這表明本質上它是同一件事。
As we reasoned in the discussion of Pc 32, that rule applies only to invitational meals. If we follow the Commentary’s original definitions of the various categories of special meal—eliminating types 1a, 2a and 2d as redundant—it is easy enough to determine in essence which types of meals fall into this category and which don’t. If we follow the detailed typologies, though, the distinctions become more a matter of formality and technicalities. For example, if the donor asks the meal designator to “designate nine bhikkhus from the Community,” the meal would not violate Pc 32, but if he simply asked for nine bhikkhus—even if he did not specify who they were to be—the meal would be a group meal, and any bhikkhus who ate it would be committing an offense. Or again, if he asked that the entire Community be “designated” to come to his meal, they would not incur a penalty in going, but if he simply invited the entire Community to a meal, they would. 正如我們在討論《波逸提》三二時所論證的，該戒條只適用於邀請食。如果我們遵循《義註》中對各種特殊餐食類別的原始定義——將1a、2a和2d類型視為冗餘而剔除——就夠容易從本質上決定哪些類型的餐食屬於此類別，哪些不屬於。然而，如果我們遵循詳細的分類，這些差異就更多地變成了形式和技術細節。例如，如果布施者要求餐食指定人「從僧團中指定九位比丘」，那麼這頓餐食就不會違反《波逸提》三二；但如果他只是要求九位比丘——即使他沒有具體說明是誰——這頓餐食就屬於結眾食，任何用餐的比丘都會犯戒。或再者，如果他要求整個僧團「被指定」來他的餐食，他們不會因前去而受到懲罰；但如果他只是邀請整個僧團來餐食，他們就會受到懲罰。
Because the Commentary is a compendium of the opinions of many generations of teachers, the definitions of the categories of meals may have been agreed on by one generation of teachers, and the typologies by another. This would explain the discrepancies between the two. Or the entire discussion—definitions and typologies—may have been the product of one generation, who did mean the distinctions among the categories to depend on formalities and technicalities. 由於《義註》匯集了多代導師的觀點，餐食類別的定義可能由某一代導師達成共識，而類型劃分則由另一代導師形成。這可以解釋兩者之間的差異。或者，整個討論——包括定義和類型劃分——可能都出自某一代導師之手，他們確實認為類別之間的區別取決於形式和技術細節。
At any rate, as with many other areas where the Canon gives no definite guidance, this is an area where the wise policy for each bhikkhu is to follow the standards of the Community to which he belongs. 總之，就像《聖典》沒有明確指引的許多其他領域一樣，在這個領域，每個比丘的明智之舉是遵循他所屬僧團的標準。
* * *
IV. Pali formulae: Determination 四、巴利公式：決意
The articles a bhikkhu must determine for his use have already been mentioned under NP 1, 21, & 24. 比丘必須決意自己使用的物品已在《捨墮》一、二一和二四中提及。
Determination, according to the Commentary, may be done in either of two ways: by body or by word. To determine by body means to grasp or touch the object in question with any part of the body and to determine in the mind that the object is for one’s own particular use, in line with the formula given below. To determine by word means to speak the formula out loud. In this case, if the object is within the reach of the hand, use the same formula as for determination with the body. If it is beyond the reach of the hand, alter the formula, changing imaṁ, “this,” to etaṁ, “that.’ Articles to be worn—i.e., robes, the rains-bathing cloth—must first be dyed the proper color and properly marked in accordance with Pc 58. 決意，根據《義註》，可透過兩種方式之一完成：藉由身體或藉由言語。藉由身體決意是指用身體的任何部位抓住或觸摸目標物，並遵循以下公式，在心中決意該物是供自己使用的。藉由言語決意是指大聲說出公式。在這種情況下，如果該物在伸手可及的範圍內，則使用與以身體決意相同的公式。若該物超出伸手可及的範圍，則需修改公式，將「imaṁ」（此）改為「etaṁ」（彼）。穿著的物品——即袈裟、雨浴衣——必須依照《波逸提》五八先染成合適的顏色並適當地標記。
The Canon and commentaries make no mention of any formula to repeat while marking, but the tradition in Thailand is to repeat: 《聖典》及註釋書中並未提及任何標記時需要重複的公式，但泰國的傳統做法是重複：
Imaṁ bindu-kappaṁ karomi,  
which means, “I make this properly marked.”
意思是，「我將此適當地被標記」。
The words for determination, taking the bowl as an example, are: 以缽為例，表示決意的字詞是：
Imaṁ pattaṁ adhiṭṭhāmi,  
which means, “I determine this bowl” or “I determine this as a bowl.”
意思是，「我決意此缽」或「我決意此為缽」。
To determine other requisites, replace the word pattaṁ, bowl, with the appropriate name, as follows: 要決意其他必需品，將單字 pattaṁ（缽）替換為適當的名稱，如下：
for the outer robe: saṅghāṭiṁ
外衣[僧伽黎]：saṅghāṭiṁ
for the upper robe: uttarāsaṅgaṁ
上衣[鬱多羅僧]：uttarāsaṅgaṁ
for the lower robe: antaravāsakaṁ
下衣[安陀會]：antaravāsakaṁ
for the sitting cloth: nisīdanaṁ
坐布[尼師壇]：nisīdanaṁ
for the skin-eruption cloth: kaṇḍu-paṭicchādiṁ
覆瘡布：kaṇḍu-paṭicchādiṁ
for the rains-bathing cloth: vassikasāṭikaṁ
雨浴衣：vassikasāṭikaṁ
for the sleeping cloth: paccattharaṇaṁ
睡布[床單]：paccattharaṇaṁ
for the handkerchief: mukha-puñchana-colaṁ
手帕[拭面巾]：mukha-puñchana-colaṁ
for other cloth requisites: parikkhāra-colaṁ
其他布料必需品[雜用布]：parikkhāra-colaṁ
To determine many cloths of the same sort at the same time, use the plural forms: Change imaṁ to imāni; etaṁ to etāni; and the –aṁ ending for the name of the article to -āni. For example, to determine many miscellaneous cloth requisites within reach of the hand, the formula is:
若要同時決意多件同類布料，使用複數形式：將 imaṁ 改為 imāni；將 etaṁ 改為 etāni；並將該物名稱的 -aṁ 詞尾改為 -āni。例如，要決意伸手可及的多件雜用布，公式為：
Imāni parikkhāra-colāni adhiṭṭhāmi.
  
A bhikkhu may determine only one of each of the following five items for use at any one time: the bowl, the basic set of three robes, and the sitting cloth. If he wishes to replace an old item with a new one, he must first withdraw the determination of the old item before determining the new one. The formula for withdrawal, again taking the bowl as an example, is:
比丘在任何時候，在以下五種物品中的任一種，都只可決意一件使用：缽、基本的三衣、和坐布[尼師壇]。如果他想用新的物品取代舊的，必須先撤回對舊物品的決意，才能決意新物品。再次以缽為例，撤回決意的公式如下：
Imaṁ pattaṁ paccuddharāmi,
  
which means, “I relinquish this bowl.” To withdraw the determination of other items, replace the word pattaṁ with the appropriate name, as above.
意思是「我放棄這個缽」。若要撤回其他物品的決意，將單字 pattaṁ 替換為適當的名稱，如上所述。
If an item has been snatched away, burnt, destroyed, lost, given away, or taken away on trust, its determination automatically lapses, and there is no need to withdraw the determination before determining a new item to replace it. The Commentary explains destroyed as meaning that the bowl or any of the three robes develops a hole of a certain size: for a clay bowl, a hole large enough for a millet grain to pass through; for an iron bowl, a hole large enough to let liquid pass through; for the robes, a complete break at least the size of the fingernail of the small finger, located at least one handspan in from the long edge of the robe, and four fingerbreadths from the short edge of the lower robe, or eight fingerbreadths from the short edge of the upper and outer robes. 若物品被奪走、被燒毀、損壞、遺失、被給予出去或基於信任拿走，其決意自動失效，無需撤回決意即可決意新的物品以替代之。《義註》中對「損壞」的解釋是：缽或三衣中的任何一件出現一定大小的破洞：對於陶缽，破洞大小足以讓一粒小米穿過；對於鐵缽，破洞大小足以讓液體流過；對於袈裟，完整破損處至少有小指指甲大小，距離袈裟的長邊內側至少一張手寬，且距離下衣[安陀會]的短邊至少四指寬，或距離上衣[鬱多羅僧]及外衣[僧伽黎]的短邊至少八指寬。
Once the robe or bowl develops a hole of this sort, it reverts to the status of an extra robe or bowl. If the owner still wishes to use it, the hole must be mended and the article redetermined before ten days elapse. Otherwise, he is subject to the penalties imposed by NP 1 or 21. 一旦袈裟或缽出現此類破洞，它就還原成為額外袈裟或缽的狀態。如果所有者仍想使用它，則必須在十日內修補破洞並重新決意該物品。否則，他將受到《捨墮》一或二一規定的處罰。
* * *
V. Pali formulae: Shared ownership 五、巴利公式：共享所有權
The topic of shared ownership, together with the various controversies connected with it, are discussed in detail under Pc 59. Here we will simply give the formulae. 共享所有權的主題及其相關的各種爭議在《波逸提》五九中有詳細討論。這裡我們只給公式。
There are two formulae for sharing ownership in the presence of the second owner. The first—taking as an example a piece of robe-cloth within reach of the hand—is this: 在第二位所有者在場的情況下，有兩種共享所有權的公式。第一種方式——以伸手可及的一塊袈裟布為例——如下：
Imaṁ cīvaraṁ tuyhaṁ vikappemi,
  
meaning, “I share ownership of this robe-cloth with you (plural).”
意思是，「我與你們（複數）共享這件袈裟布的所有權。」
To place a bowl under shared ownership, change cīvaraṁ to pattaṁ. For more than one piece of cloth, change imaṁ cīvaraṁ to imāni cīvarāni. For more than one bowl, change imaṁ pattaṁ to ime patte. For articles beyond the reach of the hand, change imaṁ to etaṁ; imāni to etāni; and ime to ete. 要將一個缽置於共同所有權之下，將 cīvaraṁ 改為 pattaṁ。要將多塊布置於共同所有權之下，將 imaṁ cīvaraṁ 改為 imāni cīvarāni。要將多於一個缽置於共同所有權之下，請將 imaṁ pattaṁ 改為 ime patte。要將超出伸手可及範圍的物品置於共同所有權之下，將 imaṁ 改為 etaṁ； imāni 改為 etāni； ime 改為 ete。
The second formula—less formal than the first—is: 第二個公式——不如第一個正式——是：
Imaṁ civaraṁ Itthannāmassa vikappemi,
  
which means, “I share ownership of this robe-cloth with so-and-so.” Suppose, for example, that the person’s name is Nando. If he is one’s senior, change Itthannāmassa to Āyasmato Nandassa; if he is one’s junior, change it to Nandassa Bhikkhuno; if he is a novice, change it to Nandassa Sāmaṇerassa. If he is very much one’s senior, use the first formula, above. (Mv.I.74.1 shows that the tradition in the Buddha’s time was not to use a very senior or respected person’s name when referring to him.)
意思是，「我與某某共享這件袈裟布的所有權」。例如，假設此人名叫 Nando。如果他戒臘較高，將 Itthannāmassa 改為 Āyasmato Nandassa ；如果他戒臘較低，則改為 Nandassa Bhikkhuno ；如果他是沙彌，則改為 Nandassa Sāmaṇerassa 。如果他戒臘較自己高出非常多，則使用上述第一種公式。（《大品》.一.74.1表明，在佛陀時代的傳統是，在稱呼一位戒臘非常高或受人尊敬的人時，通常不使用其名字。）
To share a bowl in this way, change cīvaraṁ to pattaṁ. Other changes, as called for, may be inferred from the previous formulae. 以這種方式共享一個缽，將 cīvaraṁ 改為 pattaṁ。其他需要的更改可從前面的公式推斷出來。
To place a piece of robe-cloth under shared ownership with two people who are absent, say to a witness: 要將一塊袈裟布置於兩名不在場者的共同所有權之下，對見證者說：
Imaṁ cīvaraṁ vikappan’atthāya tuyhaṁ dammi,
  
which means, “I give this robe-cloth to you to share.” The witness should ask the original owner the names of two bhikkhus or novices who are his friends or acquaintances. In Pali, this is:
意思是「我把這件袈裟給你，與你共享」。見證者應該詢問原主人兩位比丘或沙彌的名字，這兩位比丘或沙彌是他的朋友或熟人。在巴利語中，這句話是：
Ko te mitto vā sandiṭṭho vā.
  
After the original owner tells the names, the witness says:
在原主人說出姓名後，見證者說：
Ahaṁ tesaṁ dammi,
  
which means, “I give it to them.”
意思是，「我把它給他們。」
To rescind the shared ownership, the Vibhaṅga says that the witness in the last case should say, 《經分別》說，要撤銷共享所有權，最後一個情況裡的見證者應該說：
Tesaṁ santakaṁ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathā-paccayaṁ vā karohi,
  
which means, “Use what is theirs, give it away, or do as you like with it.”
意思是，「使用屬於他們的東西，贈予出去，或按照你的意願處置它。」
As for cases in which the article is placed under shared ownership in the presence of the second owner, the Vibhaṅga gives no formula for rescinding the arrangement. The K/Commentary suggests that the second owner should say, 至於在第二位所有者在場的情況下，物品被置於共享所有權之下的情況，《經分別》並未給出撤銷該安排的公式。K/《義註》建議第二位所有者應該說：
Mayhaṁ santakaṁ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathā-paccayaṁ vā karohi,
  
which means, “Use what is mine, give it away, or do as you like with it.”
意思是，「使用屬於我的東西，贈予出去，或按照你的意願處置它。」
The Pubbasikkhā-vaṇṇanā, though, suggests the following formula (for robe-cloth within reach, rescinded by a bhikkhu who is senior to the original owner): 《Pubbasikkhā-vaṇṇanā》卻提出了以下公式（適用於可及的袈裟布，由比原所有者戒臘更高的比丘撤銷）：
Imaṁ cīvaraṁ mayhaṁ santakaṁ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathā-paccayaṁ vā karohi,
  
which means, “Use this robe-cloth of mine, give it away, etc.” If the bhikkhu rescinding the shared ownership is junior to the original owner, the verb endings are more formal:
意思是，「使用這件屬於我的袈裟布，贈予出去等等。」如果撤銷共享所有權的比丘戒臘低於原所有者，則動詞詞尾更正式：
Imaṁ cīvaraṁ mayhaṁ santakaṁ paribhuñjatha vā vissajjetha vā yathā-paccayaṁ vā karotha.
  
For a bowl, change cīvaraṁ to pattaṁ. If more than one piece of cloth is involved, the formula begins, Imāni cīvarāni mayhaṁ santakāni…. If more than one bowl, Ime patte mayhaṁ santake…. Changes for articles outside the reach of the hand may be inferred from those for the earlier formulae.
對於缽，將 cīvaraṁ 改為 pattaṁ 。如果涉及超過一塊布料，則公式以 Imāni cīvarāni mayhaṁ santakāni… 開頭。如果超過一個缽，則以 Ime patte mayhaṁ santake… 開頭。對於伸手不可及的物品，其變化可從前面的公式推斷。
* * *
VI. Pali formulae: Forfeiture 六、巴利公式：捨棄
As noted in the conclusion to the chapter on nissaggiya pācittiya rules, articles received in defiance of NP 18, 19, & 22 must be forfeited to a Community. The words of forfeiture in these cases are: 正如《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）戒條該章的結論中所指出的，違反《捨墮》一八、一九和二二的物品必須被捨出給僧團。在這些情況下，捨出的言語是：
NP 18 《捨墮》一八
For receiving gold and silver (money): 接受金銀（金錢）：
Ahaṁ bhante rūpiyaṁ paṭiggahesiṁ. Idaṁ me nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ saṅghassa nissajjāmi.  
This means, “Venerable sirs, I have received money. This of mine is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to the Community.” 這意思是：「尊者們，我已經接受金錢。我的這個將被捨出。我把它捨給僧團。」
NP 19 《捨墮》一九
For engaging in monetary exchange: 對於從事金錢兌換：
Ahaṁ bhante nānappakārakaṁ rūpiya-saṁvohāraṁ samāpajjiṁ. Idaṁ me nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ saṅghassa nissajjāmi.  
This means, “Venerable sirs, I have engaged in various types of monetary exchange. This of mine is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to the Community.” 這意思是：「尊者們，我從事過各種金錢兌換。我的這個將被捨出。我把它捨給僧團。」
NP 22 《捨墮》二二
For asking for a new bowl when one’s original bowl is still usable: 當原來的缽仍然可用時要求新缽：
Ayaṁ me bhante patto ūna-pañca-bandhanena pattena cetāpito nissaggiyo. Imāhaṁ saṅghassa nissajjāmi.  
This means, “This bowl of mine, venerable sirs, asked for when the (previous) bowl had less than five mends, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to the Community.” 這意思是：「尊者們，我的這缽，當（前一個）缽補綴不足五次時被要求得到，將被捨出。我把它捨給僧團。」
In each case, after the item has been forfeited, the offender must confess his offense, with an experienced and competent bhikkhu to acknowledge his confession, using the following formula: 在每種情況下，物品被捨出後，犯戒者必須承認自己的罪行，並由經驗豐富且有能力的比丘接受他的懺罪，使用以下公式：
Confessant（懺罪者）: Ahaṁ bhante nissaggiyaṁ pācittiyaṁ āpattiṁ āpanno. Taṁ paṭidesemi.
Recipient（接受者）: Passasi āvuso?
C（懺）: Āma bhante, passāmi.
R（受）: Āyatiṁ āvuso saṁvareyyāsi.
C（懺）: Sādhu suṭṭhu bhante saṁvarissāmi. (Three times.)
  
An alternative version of the last exchange, found in MN 104, is: 《中部》104 經中發現的最後一次交換的替代版本是：
R（受）: Āyatiṁ saṁvaraṁ āpajjeyyāsi.
C（懺）: Saṁvaraṁ āpajjissāmi.
  
This is the formula to use when the bhikkhu making the confession is junior to the bhikkhu acknowledging it. For translations and instructions on how to change the formula to use when the bhikkhu making the confession is senior to the bhikkhu acknowledging it, see Appendix VII. 當作懺悔的比丘比接受懺悔的比丘地位戒臘低時，可以使用這個公式。當作懺悔的比丘比接受懺悔的比丘戒臘高時，如何改變所使用的公式的翻譯和說明，請參閱附錄七。
If, after money has been forfeited under NP 18 or 19 and the offense has been confessed, the Community needs to authorize a money-disposer, they must first choose a member of the group who is free of the four kinds of bias—based on desire, based on aversion, based on delusion, based on fear—and who knows what counts as disposed and not disposed. Then they must ask him to perform this duty. When he has agreed, one of the bhikkhus recites the transaction statement, as follows: 如果在根據《捨墮》一八或一九金錢被捨出並且罪行被懺悔後，僧團需要授權金錢處置者，他們必須先選擇一個不存在四種偏見的團體成員——基於貪欲，基於瞋恨，基於愚癡，基於恐懼——知道什麼算是被處置了，什麼不算被處置之人。然後他們就必須要求他履行這個職責。當他同意後，其中一位比丘背誦羯磨文如下：
Suṇātu me bhante saṅgho. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṁ, saṅgho Itthannāmaṁ bhikkhuṁ rūpiya-chaḍḍakaṁ sammanneyya. Esā ñatti.
Suṇātu me bhante saṅgho. Saṅgho Itthannāmaṁ bhikkhuṁ rūpiya-chaḍḍakaṁ sammannati. Yass’āyasmato khamati, Itthannāmassa bhikkhuno rūpiya-chaḍḍakassa sammati, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.
Sammato saṅghena Itthannāmo bhikkhu rūpiya-chaḍḍako. Khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī. Evam-etaṁ dhārayāmi.
  
This means, Venerable sirs, may the Community listen to me. If the Community is ready, it should authorize Bhikkhu (name) as the money-disposer. This is the motion. 這意思是，尊者們，願僧團傾聽我。如果僧團準備好了，它應該授權比丘（名字）作為金錢處置者。此為動議。
Venerable sirs, may the Community listen to me. The Community authorizes Bhikkhu (name) as the money-disposer. He to whom the authorization of Bhikkhu (name) as the money-disposer is agreeable should remain silent. He to whom it is not agreeable should speak. 尊者們，願僧團傾聽我。僧團授權比丘（名字）為金錢處置人。凡同意比丘（名字）授權為金錢處置者的人應保持沉默。不同意的人應該說話。
Bhikkhu (name) has been authorized by the Community as the money-disposer. This is agreeable to the Community, therefore it is silent. Thus do I hold it. 比丘（姓名）已被僧團授權為金錢處置者。這是僧團所同意的，因此它保持沉默。此事我如是持。
If the bhikkhu being authorized is senior to the bhikkhu reciting the authorization, Itthannāmo bhikkhu should be replaced as follows (supposing that his name is Dhammadharo): 如果被授權的比丘比背誦授權的比丘戒臘高，則應如下取代 Itthannāmo bhikkhu（假設他的名字是 Dhammadharo）：
Itthannāmo bhikkhu → āyasmā Dhammadharo
Itthannāmaṁ bhikkhuṁ → āyasmantaṁ Dhammadharaṁ
Itthannāmassa bhikkhuno → āyasmato Dhammadharassa
  
For the patterns to use when the bhikkhu’s name has a different stem-form (-i, -u, etc.), see the introduction to Appendix II in BMC2. 當比丘的名字有不同的詞幹形式（-i、-u等）時所使用的模式，請參閱《佛教比丘戒律 第二冊》附錄二的介紹。
To authorize a bowl-exchanger under NP 22, the same procedure is followed, except that—in addition to being free from the four forms of bias—the bhikkhu to be chosen must know what is (properly) exchanged and what is not. The same form for the transaction statement is used, replacing rūpiya-chaḍḍakaṁ/ rūpiya-chaḍḍakassa/ rūpiya-chaḍḍako with patta-gāhāpakaṁ/ patta-gāhāpakassa/ patta-gāhāpako. 要根據《捨墮》二二授權一名缽交換者，遵循相同的程序，除了——除了不受四種形式的偏見之外——被選擇的比丘必須知道什麼是（適當地）交換，什麼不是。羯磨文使用相同的形式，將 rūpiya-chaḍḍakaṁ/ rūpiya-chaḍḍakassa/ rūpiya-chaḍḍako 替換為 patta-gāhāpakaṁ/ patta-gāhāpakassa/ patta-gāhāpako。
Articles used or received in violation of the remaining NP rules may be forfeited to the Community, to a group, or to an individual. Here, only the formulae for forfeiting to an individual will be given. Formulae for rules rarely broken—e.g., involving bhikkhunīs or felt rugs—are not listed. 違反其餘《捨墮》戒條而使用或接收的物品可以被捨出給僧團、團體或個人。這裡，僅給出捨出給個人的公式。很少被違犯的戒條的公式——例如涉及比丘尼或毛氈地毯——則不列出。
NP 1 《捨墮》一
For an extra robe (or robe-cloth) kept beyond ten days: 對於保存超過十天的額外袈裟（或袈裟布料）：
Idaṁ me bhante cīvaraṁ dasāhātikkantaṁ nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi.  
This means, “This robe (robe-cloth) of mine, venerable sir, kept beyond ten days, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” If the speaker is senior to the listener, change bhante to āvuso. If many pieces of cloth are to be forfeited at once, the forms should be changed to plural: 意思是：「尊者，我此袈裟（袈裟布料），保存超過十天，應予捨出。我把它捨給你。」如果說者的戒臘比聽者高，將 bhante 改為 āvuso 。如果要同時捨出多塊布，則應將形式改為複數：
Imāni me bhante cīvarāni dasāhātikkantāni nissaggiyāni. Imānāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi.  
For robes beyond the reach of the hand, change idaṁ to etaṁ; imāhaṁ to etāhaṁ; imāni to etāni; and imānāhaṁ to etānāhaṁ. For example, for one robe, one would say: 伸手可及之處之外的袈裟，將 idaṁ 改為 etaṁ ； imāhaṁ 改為 etāhaṁ ； imāni 改為 etāni ；以及 imānāhaṁ to etānāhaṁ 。例如，對於一件袈裟，可以說：
Etaṁ me bhante cīvaraṁ dasāhātikkantaṁ nissaggiyaṁ. Etāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi.  
For more than one robe beyond the reach of the hand, one would say: 對於不只一件伸手可及之處之外的袈裟，可以說：
Etāni me bhante cīvarāni dasāhātikkantāni nissaggiyāni. Etānāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi.  
Once the offense has been confessed, the robe (robe-cloth) is to be returned to the original owner, using this formula: 一旦懺罪完成，袈裟（袈裟布料）將歸還給原來的擁有者，使用以下公式：
Imaṁ cīvaraṁ āyasmato dammi,  
which means, “I give this robe (robe-cloth) to you.” 意思是：「我把這件袈裟（袈裟布料）給你。」
For more than one piece: 對於超過一件：
Imāni cīvarāni āyasmato dammi.  
Changes in the formula for robe-cloth beyond the reach of the hand may be inferred from the preceding example. These two formulae for returning robe-cloth are used in every case involving robes or robe-cloth and will not be repeated below. 從前面的例子可以推論出伸手可及之處之外的袈裟布料的公式的變化。這兩個返還袈裟的公式適用於所有涉及袈裟或袈裟布料的情況，以下不再贅述。
NP 2 《捨墮》二
For a robe from which one dwelled apart a night or more: 對於一件分開過夜一晚或更長時間的袈裟：
Idaṁ me bhante cīvaraṁ ratti-vippavutthaṁ aññatra bhikkhu-sammatiyā nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This robe of mine, venerable sir, from which I dwelled apart for a night without authorization of the bhikkhus, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” Change cīvaraṁ to dvi-cīvaraṁ for two robes, and to ti-cīvaraṁ for three. Other changes, as necessary, may be inferred from the formulae for NP 1, above. The formulae for returning the robe(s) are also given there. 意思是：「尊者，未經比丘許可，我分開過夜的這件袈裟，將被捨出。我把它捨給你。」兩件袈裟將 cīvaraṁ 改為 dvi-cīvaraṁ ，三件袈裟則改為 ti-cīvaraṁ 。如有必要，其他變化可以從上面的《捨墮》一的公式中推斷出來。那裡也給出了歸還袈裟的公式。
NP 3 《捨墮》三
For out-of-season robe-cloth kept more than a month: 對於保存超過一個月的不合時令的袈裟布：
Idaṁ me bhante akāla-cīvaraṁ māsātikkantaṁ nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This out-of-season robe-cloth of mine, venerable sir, kept beyond a month, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” For more than one piece of cloth: 意思是：「尊者，我這件不合時令的袈裟布，存放超過一個月的，將被捨出。我把它捨給你。」對於超過一塊布：
Imāni me bhante akāla-cīvarāni māsātikkantāni nissaggiyāni. Imānāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi.  
Other changes, as necessary, may be inferred from the formulae for NP 1. 如有必要，其他變化可以從《捨墮》一的公式中推斷出來。
NP 6 《捨墮》六
For a robe (robe-cloth) requested from an unrelated householder: 對於從非親戚的居士要求的袈裟（袈裟布料）：
Idaṁ me bhante cīvaraṁ aññātakaṁ gahapatikaṁ aññatra samayā viññāpitaṁ nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This robe (robe-cloth) of mine, venerable sir, requested from an unrelated householder at other than the proper occasion, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” 意思是：「尊者，我的這件袈裟（袈裟布料），在非適合情況向非親戚的居士要求，應被捨出。我把它捨給你。」
For more than one robe: 對於超過一件袈裟：
Imāni me bhante cīvarāni aññātakaṁ gahapatikaṁ aññatra samayā viññāpitāni nissaggiyāni. Imānāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi.  
NP 7 《捨墮》七
For a robe (robe-cloth) requested from an unrelated householder during an allowable occasion, but beyond the allowable limit: 對於非親戚的居士在允許的情況下要求但超出允許限制的袈裟（袈裟布料）：
Idaṁ me bhante cīvaraṁ aññātakaṁ gahapatikaṁ tad’uttariṁ viññāpitaṁ nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This robe (robe-cloth) of mine, venerable sir, requested beyond that (allowable) from an unrelated householder, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” 意思是：「尊者，我的這件袈裟（袈裟布料），向非親戚的居士索要超出（允許的限制），應被捨出。我把它捨給你。」
For more than one robe: 對於超過一件袈裟：
Imāni me bhante cīvarāni aññātakaṁ gahapatikaṁ tad’uttariṁ viññāpitāni nissaggiyāni. Imānāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi.  
NP 8 《捨墮》八
For cloth received after making a stipulation to an unrelated householder: 對於向非親戚居士作出指示後收到的布料：
Idaṁ me bhante cīvaraṁ pubbe appavārito aññātakaṁ gahapatikaṁ upasaṅkamitvā cīvare vikappaṁ āpannaṁ nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This cloth, venerable sir—mine after, without having been invited beforehand, I approached an unrelated householder and made stipulations about cloth—is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” 意思是：「尊者，我的這塊布，在沒有事先邀請的情況下，我接洽了一個非親戚的居士，並就布料做了指示——應該被捨出。我把它捨給你。」
NP 9 《捨墮》九
For cloth received after making stipulations to two or more unrelated householders, use the same formula as for the preceding rule, changing aññātakaṁ gahapatikaṁ to aññātake gahapatike. 對於向兩個或兩個以上非親戚的居士做出指示後收到的布料，使用與前一戒條相同的公式，將 aññātakaṁ gahapatikaṁ 更改為 aññātake gahapatike 。
NP 10 《捨墮》十
For a robe (robe-cloth) received after reminding one’s steward too many times: 對於太多次提醒淨人後收到的袈裟（袈裟布料）：
Idaṁ me bhante cīvaraṁ atireka-tikkhattuṁ codanāya atireka-chakkhattuṁ ṭhānena abhinipphāditaṁ nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This robe (robe-cloth) of mine, venerable sir, produced after more than three reminders, after more than six standings, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” 意思是：「尊者，我的此袈裟（袈裟布料），經過三次以上的提醒，經過六次以上的站立後獲得，應被捨出。我把它捨給你。」
NP 18 & 19 《捨墮》一八 及 一九
The formulae for these rules are given at the beginning of this appendix. 這些戒條的公式在本附錄的開頭已經給出。
NP 20 《捨墮》二十
For an article received in trade: 對於在交易中收到的物品：
Ahaṁ bhante nānappakārakaṁ kaya-vikkayaṁ samāpajjiṁ. Idaṁ me nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “Venerable sir, I have engaged in various types of trade. This of mine is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” 意思是：「尊者，我從事過各種類型的交易。我的這個將被捨出。我把它捨給你。」
To return the article: 歸還物品：
Imaṁ āyasmato dammi,  
which means, “I give this to you.” 意思是「我把這個給你」。
NP 21 《捨墮》二一
For an extra bowl kept beyond ten days: 對於保存超過十天的額外的缽：
Ayaṁ me bhante patto dasāhātikkanto nissaggiyo. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This bowl of mine, venerable sir, kept beyond ten days, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” 意思是：「尊者，我的這缽，保存超過十天，將被捨出。我把它捨給你。」
To return the bowl: 歸還缽：
Imaṁ pattaṁ āyasmato dammi.  
NP 22 《捨墮》二二
The formula for this rule is given at the beginning of this appendix. 本戒條的公式在本附錄的開頭已經給出。
NP 23 《捨墮》二三
For any of the five tonics kept beyond seven days: 對於任何五種補品，保存超過七日：
Idaṁ me bhante bhesajjaṁ sattāhātikkantaṁ nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This medicine of mine, venerable sir, kept beyond seven days, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” 意思是：「尊者，我的此藥，保存超過七日，將被捨出。我把它捨給你。」
To return the medicine: 歸還該藥：
Imaṁ bhesajjaṁ āyasmato dammi.  
NP 25 《捨墮》二五
For a robe (robe-cloth) snatched back in anger: 對於憤怒地奪回的袈裟（袈裟布料）：
Idaṁ me bhante cīvaraṁ bhikkhussa sāmaṁ datvā acchinnaṁ nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This robe (robe-cloth) of mine, venerable sir, snatched back after I myself gave it to a bhikkhu, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” 意思是：「尊者，我的這件袈裟（袈裟布料），在我親自給予比丘後被奪回，應被捨出。我把它捨給你。」
NP 28 《捨墮》二八
For a robe (robe-cloth) offered in urgency kept beyond the robe season: 對於緊急供養的袈裟（袈裟布料），保存超過袈裟季節：
Idaṁ me bhante acceka-cīvaraṁ cīvara-kāla-samayaṁ atikkāmitaṁ nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This robe-cloth-offered-in-urgency of mine, venerable sir, kept beyond the robe season, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” 意思是：「尊者，我的這件緊急供養的袈裟，保存超過袈裟季節，將被捨出。我把它捨給你。」
NP 29 《捨墮》二九
For a robe separated from one for more than six nights: 對於一件袈裟分離超過六夜：
Idaṁ me bhante cīvaraṁ atireka-chā-rattaṁ vippavutthaṁ aññatra bhikkhu-sammatiyā nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This robe of mine, venerable sir, separated (from me) for more than six nights without authorization of the bhikkhus, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” Change cīvaraṁ to dvi-cīvaraṁ for two robes, and to ti-cīvaraṁ for three. 意思是：「尊者，未經比丘們許可，我的這件袈裟（與我）分離超過六夜，將被捨出。我把它捨給你。」兩件袈裟則將 cīvaraṁ 改為 dvi-cīvaraṁ，三件改為 ti-cīvaraṁ 。
NP 30 《捨墮》三十
For gains intended for the Community that one has diverted to oneself: 施向僧團的所得而挪為己用者：
Idaṁ me bhante jānaṁ saṅghikaṁ lābhaṁ pariṇataṁ attano pariṇāmitaṁ nissaggiyaṁ. Imāhaṁ āyasmato nissajjāmi,  
which means, “This of mine, venerable sir, which—knowing it was intended for the Community—I diverted for myself, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you.” 意思是，「尊者，我的這個——知道它是為僧團而施的——我挪為己用了，將被捨出。我把它捨給你。」
To return the article: 歸還該物品：
Imaṁ āyasmato dammi.  
* * *
VII. Pali formulae: Confession 七、巴利公式：懺悔罪過

(未完待續)

* * *
VIII. Pali formulae: Transaction Statements 八、巴利公式：羯磨文

(未完待續)