雨安居

CHAPTER ELEVEN	第十一章
Rains-residence	雨安居
Well before the Buddha’s time there was a custom in India that wanderers would stay in place for the rainy season, both to avoid having to negotiate muddy roads and to avoid trampling plants. Bhikkhus in the early years of the Buddha’s teaching career were criticized by the Jains for not observing this custom, so the Buddha gave his permission for them to stop their wandering for three months of the Rains. Later he imposed a penalty for not observing this custom.	早在佛陀時代之前，印度就有一個習俗，就是遊方者會在雨季待在原地，以避免行走泥濘的道路和踩踏植物。在佛陀早期的教化生涯中，比丘們因不遵守這項習俗而受到耆那教徒的批評，於是佛陀允許他們在雨季三個月內停止遊方。後來，他對不遵守這項習俗施加懲罰。
Periods of residence	安居時段
Because the rainy season in South Asia is roughly four months, bhikkhus are allowed to choose between two periods of Rains-residence: the first, starting the day after the full moon of the month of Asāḷhi (roughly July); and the second, starting the day after the following full moon. At present, the first Rains-residence starts on the full moon in July, or the second if there are two. Why the Buddha formulated two periods of Rains-residence, the Canon does not say. From the Commentary’s discussion of Mv.II.21.4, it would appear that if one enters the first Rains and then, for one reason or another, “breaks” the Rains (see below) within the first month, one would still be eligible to enter the second Rains so as to receive the privileges contingent on its successful completion.	由於南亞的雨季大約有四個月，比丘們可以在兩個雨安居時段之間進行選擇：前雨安居，從 Asāḷhi 月（大約是七月）滿月的次日開始；後雨安居，從下一個滿月的次日開始。目前，前雨安居從七月的滿月開始，如果有兩個滿月，則從第二個開始。至於佛陀為何要訂定兩個雨安居時段，《聖典》中並未說明。從《義註》對《大品》.二.21.4 的討論來看，如果入前雨安居，然後因為某種原因在第一個月內「中斷」了雨安居（見下文），仍然有資格入後雨安居，並在圓滿完成之後獲得方便利益。
In the Buddha’s time, the determination of the lunar calendar was one of the responsibilities of the government in each kingdom or republic. Thus, to avoid controversy, the Buddha allowed that the wishes of kings be respected in this matter: If a king wanted to postpone the designation of the Asāḷhi full moon another month, bhikkhus were allowed to comply. (The rule coming from this origin story is stated in more general terms—“I allow that kings be complied with”—showing the general principle that we noted under Chapter 7, that the Buddha was not so foolish as to try to legislate for kings. The Commentary notes, however, that this principle applies only in matters in which the king’s wish is in line with the Dhamma. No one, it says, should be complied with in matters where their wishes are not in line with the Dhamma.) At present, the governments of only a few countries concern themselves with calculating the lunar calendar for the sake of the general population. In other countries this point is not an issue, and the bhikkhus are free to calculate the lunar calendar without regard to the government’s calculations.	在佛陀時代，制定陰曆是每個王國或共和國政府的職責之一。因此，為了避免爭議，佛陀允許在此事上尊重國王的意願：如果國王想將 Asāḷhi 滿月的指定推遲一個月，比丘們被允許遵從。（源自此起源故事的戒條以更普遍的措辭表達——「我允許國王被遵從」——體現了我們在第七章中提到的普遍原則，即佛陀不會愚蠢到試圖為國王立法。然而，《義註》指出，這一原則僅適用於國王意願符合佛法的事上。它說，如果有人的意願與佛法不符，就不應該在該事上遵從他。）目前，只有少數國家的政府會為了民眾而計算陰曆。在其他國家，這一點並不成問題，比丘們可以自由地計算陰曆，而不必考慮政府的計算方式。

Entering for the Rains	入雨安居
The first day of the Rains-residence is when lodgings in a monastery are assigned for the duration of the Rains, so the Commentary recommends that a bhikkhu planning to spend the Rains in another monastery should start heading there a month before the start of the Rains so as not to inconvenience the assigner of lodgings and other bhikkhus there. As for bhikkhus planning to stay on in the monastery where they are already residing, they should spend the month before the beginning of the Rains preparing any worn-down buildings so that those who come for the Rains will study and/or practice meditation in comfort. The assigner of lodgings should assign lodgings for the Rains at dawn of the day the Rains begins. If other bhikkhus come later in the day and there are no extra spaces for them, they should be told that the lodgings have been assigned and that they should go to other lodgings, such as the foot of a tree. (What this means, apparently, is that they should enter the second Rains somewhere else, as the Canon contains a rule against entering the Rains in anything less than a proper dwelling. See below.)	雨安居的第一天是寺院分配雨安居住所的日子，因此《義註》建議，計劃在其他寺院度過雨安居的比丘應在雨安居開始前一個月前往該寺院，以免給分配住所的人和寺院的其他比丘帶來不便。至於計劃繼續留在現居寺院的比丘，他們應在雨安居開始前一個月整修任何破舊的建築，以便前來雨安居的人能夠舒適地學習和/或修行。分配住所的人應在雨安居開始當天黎明分配雨安居住所。如果其他比丘當天晚些時候到來，並且沒有多餘的空間，應告知他們住所已分配完畢，他們應前往其他住所，例如樹下。（顯然，這意味著他們應該在其他地方入後雨安居，因為《聖典》裡戒條規定，不得在非合適住所入雨安居。見下文。）
Mv.III.4.2 states that on a day for beginning the Rains one should not intentionally pass by a residence/monastery not desiring to enter for the Rains. How this applies to the beginning of the second Rains period is obvious: A bhikkhu must stop for the Rains on that day. As for the beginning of the first Rains period, the Commentary notes simply that if there are obstacles (see below), one may choose to enter the second Rains period instead. One obstacle not mentioned in the list below, however, is discussed in Mv.II.21.4. This is the case of a monastery where many (i.e., four or more) bhikkhus—“inexperienced and incompetent”—are staying for the Rains and none of them knows the uposatha or the uposatha transaction, the Pāṭimokkha or the recital of the Pāṭimokkha. One of them should be sent to a neighboring monastery immediately to master the Pāṭimokkha in brief or in its full extent. If he can manage it immediately, well and good. If not, one of them should be sent to a neighboring monastery for a period of seven days to master the Pāṭimokkha in brief or in its full extent. If he can manage it within seven days, well and good. If not, then all the bhikkhus should go stay for the Rains in the neighboring monastery. If they stay where they are, they all incur a dukkaṭa. None of the texts discuss the point, but apparently “going to stay for the Rains” in the neighboring monastery means entering the second Rains there.	《大品》.三.4.2 規定，在雨安居開始的那一天，不應該故意路過不想入雨安居的住所/寺院。這一條如何適用於後雨安居期的開始是顯而易見的：比丘必須在那一天留下來過雨安居。至於前雨安居期的開始，《義註》僅指出，如果有障礙（見下文），可以選擇入後雨安居期。然而，有一個障礙在下面的列表中沒有提到，在《大品》.二.21.4 中進行了討論。這種情況發生在一個寺院裡，許多（即四位或更多）比丘——「缺乏經驗和能力」——留下來過雨安居，他們中沒有人懂得布薩或布薩羯磨、《波羅提木叉》或《波羅提木叉》的念誦。應立即派遣其中一人前往鄰近的寺院，簡略或全面掌握《波羅提木叉》。如果他能立即掌握，那就很好。如果不能，應派遣其中一人前往鄰近的寺院，為期七天，簡略或全面掌握《波羅提木叉》。如果他能在七天內掌握，那就很好。如果不能，那麼所有比丘都應該前往鄰近的寺院雨安居。如果他們留在原地，全都犯《突吉羅》。所有文獻均未討論這一點，但顯然「前往鄰近的寺院雨安居」意味著在那裡入後雨安居。
The Commentary adds here that if a monastery has only one bhikkhu who knows the Pāṭimokkha and he dies, leaves, or disrobes in the first month of the first Rains, the remainder should go where there is someone who knows the Pāṭimokkha and stay there for the second Rains. If the knowledgeable bhikkhu dies, leaves, or disrobes in the latter two months of the first Rains, the remainder may stay there for the remainder of the Rains without offense.	《義註》在此補充：如果一座寺院只有一位通曉《波羅提木叉》的比丘，且此人在前雨安居期的第一個月內去世、離開或還俗，其餘比丘應前往有通曉《波羅提木叉》之人的地方，並在後雨安居期住在那裡。如果這位知識淵博的比丘在前雨安居期的後兩個月內去世、離開或還俗，其餘比丘可以在雨安居期剩餘時間裡住在那裡而不犯戒。
However, one does not have to spend the Rains in a monastery. One may also live alone or in a small, ad hoc group as long as one stays in a proper lodging and knows the uposatha transaction appropriate for one’s number (see Chapter 15). In general, the Commentary says that a proper lodging is one with a door that can be opened and closed. Improper lodging arrangements listed in the Canon include living in the hollow of a tree (“like goblins”), in the fork of a tree (“like hunters”), in the open air, in a non-lodging (according to the Commentary, this means a place covered with the five kinds of allowable facing/roofing but lacking a door that can be opened and closed), in a charnel house (a place for keeping corpses, says the Commentary, adding that other proper lodgings within a charnel ground are all right), under a canopy, or in a large storage vessel (the Commentary interprets this as a shield). The Commentary notes that if one fixes up a hut in the hollow of a tree or the fork of a tree with a platform, a proper roof, walls, and a door, it is all right to stay there. The same holds true with a canopy or a shield if it is fitted with walls nailed to four posts and provided with a door that can be opened and closed. Yurts would thus be allowable.	然而，不必在寺院裡度過雨安居。也可以獨自居住，或與臨時小群體住在一起，只要住在合適的住所，並通曉適合自己人數的布薩羯磨（見第十五章）。一般來說，《義註》說，適當的住所是指有可開關門的住所。《聖典》中列出的不合適的住所包括住在樹洞裡（「像妖精一樣」）、樹杈裡（「像獵人一樣」）、露天、非住所（根據《義註》，這指的是用五種允許的面/屋頂覆蓋，但沒有可開關門的地方）、屍骨存放處（《義註》說，這是存放屍體的地方，並補充說，屍骨堆內的其他適當住所都可以）、在樹冠/頂蓬下，或在一個大型儲藏船中（《義註》將其解釋為屏障）。《義註》指出，如果在樹洞或樹杈裡搭建了一間小屋，配有平台、合適的屋頂、牆壁和門，那麼住在那裡是可以的。如果樹冠/頂蓬或屏障的牆壁釘在四根柱子上，並配有可開關的門，則同樣可以居住。因此，蒙古包是允許的。
The Canon also gives permission to stay in a cowherd camp, with a caravan, or in a boat. If, during the Rains, any of these picks up and moves, one is allowed to go along. The Commentary adds that if one is planning to stay with a caravan, one should inform the caravan people that one needs a small hut on one of the carts. If they provide that, one may take that hut as one’s residence for the Rains. If not, one may take as one’s residence the space under a tall cart. If that is not possible, one should not enter the Rains with that caravan. If one is joining the caravan in hopes of arriving at a particular destination, then if the caravan reaches that destination one is allowed to remain there even if the caravan continues on its way. If the caravan breaks up, one should remain at the spot where it breaks up until the end of the Rains. If one has entered the Rains in a boat, then if the boat ends its trip, one should stay at that spot. If the boat is following the river bank or sea coast and arrives at one’s destination, one may stay there even if the boat continues its journey.	《聖典》也允許人們在牧牛營、商隊或船上居住。如果在雨安居期間，這些中的任何一個開始移動，允許跟隨之。《義註》補充道，如果打算跟著商隊居住，應該告知商隊成員，需要在一輛馬車上搭建一間小屋。如果他們提供小屋，可以把小屋當作雨安居的住所。如果沒有，可以把高大的馬車下方的空間當作住所。如果無法做到這一點，不應該跟隨商隊入雨安居。如果加入商隊是為了到達某個目的地，那麼如果商隊到達目的地，即使商隊繼續前行，也可以留在那裡。如果商隊解散，應該留在解散地點，直到雨安居結束。如果在船上入雨安居，那麼如果船結束了行程，應該留在該地點。如果船沿著河岸或海岸行駛並到達自己的目的地，即使船隻繼續航行，也可以留在那裡。
At present, these allowances would extend to caravan/trailers, mobile homes, and other similar vehicles.	目前，這些開緣可擴展到大篷車/拖車、移動房屋和其他類似交通工具。

Breaking one’s promise	違背諾言(破安居)
If a bhikkhu has accepted an invitation to stay at a certain place for the Rains but then does not fulfill his promise by not staying at the place, he incurs a dukkaṭa for the broken promise and becomes ineligible for the privileges contingent on having completed that Rains-residence. (Literally, the rule says that his first Rains “isn’t discerned,” which means that it doesn’t count.) The Sub-commentary misses the point of this rule, which has led to its general misinterpretation. In the origin story, Ven. Upananda accepts an invitation to spend the Rains at one spot and then decides to spend the Rains at two other locations. The Sub-commentary maintains that his Rains was invalidated by the fact that he determined two locations for his Rains; however, Mv.VIII.25.4 shows that spending the Rains in two locations, spending half of one’s time at one and half at the other, is perfectly legitimate. Thus the only possible reason for Ven. Upananda’s first Rains not to count is because he broke his promise.	如果一位比丘接受了在某地安居的邀請，但後來卻沒有履行諾言，沒有住在那裡，他將因違背諾言而犯《突吉羅》，並且失去資格享受完成雨安居的方便利益。（字面意思是，這條戒條說他的前雨安居「未被辨識」，這意味著它不算數。）《複註》沒有理解這條戒條的要點，導致了它被普遍誤解。在起源故事中，優波難陀尊者接受了在一個地方雨安居的邀請，然後決定在另外兩個地方雨安居。《複註》認為，他的雨安居無效，因為他決意了兩個雨安居地點；然而，《大品》.八.25.4 表明，在兩個地方雨安居，一半時間在一個地方，一半時間在另一個地方，是完全合法的。因此，優波難陀尊者的前雨安季不算數的唯一可能原因是他違背了諾言。
The Canon also states that one also incurs the dukkaṭa for breaking one’s promise in this situation if one goes to the agreed location and then “breaks” one’s Rains (see below). The Commentary notes in either case that if one originally made the promise with the intention of breaking it, one incurs both the dukkaṭa for the broken promise and a pācittiya for lying. From the way these rules are phrased in the Canon—“one’s first (Rains) isn’t discerned”—it would appear that if one promised to stay for the first Rains but then broke the promise, one would still be eligible to stay at the promised place, or elsewhere, for the second Rains and be eligible for the lesser privileges contingent on having completed the second Rains, but none of the commentaries mention this point.	《聖典》也指出，如果去約定地點後「破壞」了雨安居（見下文），在這種情況下，也會因違背諾言而犯《突吉羅》。《義註》指出，無論哪種情況，如果最初許諾時有意違背，他都會因違背諾言而犯《突吉羅》，並因說謊而犯《波逸提》。從《聖典》對這些戒條的表述方式——「無法辨識前（雨安居）」——來看，如果承諾在前雨安居留下，但後來違背了諾言，他仍然有資格在後雨安居留在承諾的地方或其他地方，並有資格在完成後雨安居後享受較少的方便利益，但所有註釋書均未提及這一點。

Determination	決意
The only formality mentioned in the Canon for starting a Rains-residence is that one prepares one’s lodging, sets out drinking-water and washing-water, and sweeps the area. The Commentary, however, recommends making a formal determination: After paying respects to the cetiya, etc., one should say one or two times:	《聖典》中提到的開始雨安居的唯一禮儀是準備住處，準備好飲用水和洗用水，並清掃周圍環境。然而，《義註》建議做出正式的決意：在禮敬佛塔等之後，應該念誦一兩遍：
“Imasmiṁ vihāre imaṁ te-māsaṁ vassaṁ upemi. (I am entering this three-month Rains in this dwelling.)”	「Imasmiṁ vihāre imaṁ te-māsaṁ vassaṁ upemi.（我將在此住所入這三個月的雨安居。）」
If staying in a place that does not qualify as a vihāra—as in a hut on a cart in a caravan—one should say three times:	若住在不符合 vihāra 條件的地方—例如大篷車上的小屋—則應念三遍：
“Idha vassaṁ upemi. (I am entering the Rains here.)”	「Idha vassaṁ upemi. （我在這裡入雨安居。）」
If staying under a cart, one need only think, “I am going to stay here for the Rains.”	如果待在車下，只需想：「我要待在這裡過雨安居。」
Different Communities have developed the Commentary’s recommendations in different ways. In some, the phrase “paying respects to the cetiya, etc.,” has been expanded to a tradition where the bhikkhus formally ask forgiveness of the Triple Gem and of one another in line with seniority. Because the word vihāra can be translated either as “dwelling” or as “monastery,” some Communities have avoided ambiguity first by formally announcing the boundaries of the area of one’s residence for the three months—usually covering the entire territory of the monastery—and by changing the determination to:	不同的僧團以不同的方式發展了《義註》的建議。在一些僧團中，「禮敬佛塔等」這個措辭被擴展為一種傳統，即比丘們正式向三寶以及按戒臘彼此請求寬恕。由於 vihāra 一詞既可以翻譯為「住所」，也可以翻譯為「寺院」，因此，一些僧團為了避免歧義，首先正式宣布三個月居住地的邊界——通常涵蓋整個寺院領域——然後將決意改為：
“Imasmiṁ āvāse imaṁ te-māsaṁ vassaṁ upemi. (I am entering this three-month Rains in this monastery.)”	「Imasmiṁ āvāse imaṁ te-māsaṁ vassaṁ upemi.（我將在這座寺院入這三個月的雨安居。）」
A common practice is to say this three times, instead of the one or two times recommended in the Commentary.	通常的做法是說三遍，而不是《義註》中建議的一兩遍。
If, however, a bhikkhu prefers to limit his boundaries to the area around his hut, he is free to make that determination on his own.	然而，如果比丘希望將他的界限限制在他的小屋周圍的區域，他可以自由地自行決意。
Duration	持續時間
Once a bhikkhu has entered the Rains, he must not go wandering off for the next three months. According to the Commentary, this means that he must greet the rising of dawn each day during those three months within the area he has determined for his residence. If he greets even one dawn outside of his determined area, his residence is broken. In breaking his residence, he both incurs a dukkaṭa and becomes ineligible for the privileges contingent on having completed the Rains.	比丘一旦進入雨安居，在接下來的三個月內不得外出遊方。根據《義註》，這意味著在這三個月內，他必須在其決意居住的區域內迎接每日的黎明升起。如果他在決意的區域之外迎接那怕一次黎明，他的安居就被破壞了。破安居，他不僅犯《突吉羅》，而且將失去完成雨安居後享有方便利益的資格。
There are, however, two exceptions to this rule: going on legitimate seven-day business and breaking the residence because of valid obstacles.	但本戒條有兩個例外：進行合法的七日事務和由於合理障礙而破安居。
Seven-day business	七日事務
The first exception to the rule concerning duration is that if one has legitimate business, one is allowed to go away for up to seven days. In the Commentary’s terms, this means that one may be away from one’s residence for up to six dawns and must return to greet the rising of the seventh dawn within the area that one has determined for one’s residence.	戒條關於期限的第一個例外是，如果有正當事務，允許離開最多七天。用《義註》的話來說，這意味著可以離開住所最多六個黎明，並且必須返回到他所決意安居的區域迎接第七個黎明的升起。
The legitimacy of the business is determined by the nature of the business, the person who needs one’s help, and whether that person sends for one to come.	事務的合法性取決於事務的性質、需要幫助的人以及該人是否來請。
If any one of seven classes of people asks for one’s help—a fellow bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a female trainee, a male novice, a female novice, a male lay follower, a female lay follower—one may go if sent for, but not if not sent for, if the business concerns that person’s desire to make merit, to hear the Dhamma, or to see the bhikkhus. The Canon gives a long list of situations in which a person—lay or ordained—might want a bhikkhu to come for these purposes. The list is not meant to be exhaustive, but it provides an interesting glimpse of the merit-making occasions of the time: The donor has arranged the construction of a building, either for the Community, for a group of bhikkhus, or a single bhikkhu; he/she has arranged the construction of a building for his/her own use. Other occasions, given only in the case of a lay follower, include the following: His/her son or daughter is getting married; he/she has fallen ill; or he/she has memorized an important discourse and wants to pass it on so that it does not disappear with his/her death (which, in the days before written transmission, could easily have happened). In all these cases, the Sub-commentary says that if one goes without being sent for, one has broken one’s Rains-residence and incurred an offense.	如果有七種人中的任何一種請求幫助——比丘同儕、比丘尼、學法女（式叉摩那）、沙彌、沙彌尼、男在家弟子、女在家弟子——如果該事務是關於此人想要做功德、聞法、或見比丘，如果來請，則可以前往；如果沒有來請，則不得前往。《聖典》列舉了一長串人們——無論是在家還是出家——可能希望比丘為此目的而前往的情況。這份清單並非詳盡無遺，但它提供了一個有趣的視角來了解當時的做功德場合：布施者安排建造建築物，供僧團、比丘團體或單一比丘使用；他/她安排建造建築物供自己使用。其他僅在在家弟子情況下出現的情形包括：其子女結婚；其本人患病；或其背誦了一篇重要的開示，並希望將其傳承下去，以免隨著其死亡而消失（在書面傳承出現之前，這種情況很容易發生）。在所有這些情況下，《複註》都指出，如果未經邀請就離開，則破了雨安居，構成了犯戒。
There are other cases in which one may go, even if not sent for—all the more if sent for—if any of the following situations arises concerning a fellow bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a female trainee, a novice, or a female novice, and one plans to be of help:	還有其他情況，即使沒有來請，也可以前往——更不用說如果來請的話——如果發生以下任何一種情況，涉及比丘同儕、比丘尼、學法女（式叉摩那）、沙彌、或沙彌尼，而且自己打算提供幫助：
he/she has fallen ill,	他/她病了，
he/she is suffering from dissatisfaction with the holy life,	他/她對梵行生活感到不滿，
he/she is suffering from anxiety over the possibility of having broken a training rule, or	他/她擔心自己可能違反了學處，或者
he/she has fallen into a viewpoint (diṭṭhigata—see the discussion in Chapter 9).	他/她陷入了某種觀點（diṭṭhigata—參見第九章的討論）。
Furthermore, in the case of a bhikkhu or bhikkhunī, one may go if he/she has committed a saṅghādisesa offense and needs help in the steps leading to rehabilitation, is about to become the object of a Community disciplinary transaction (such as censure), or has had a Community disciplinary transaction imposed on him/her. In the case of a female trainee, one may go if she has broken her training rules and interrupted her training, and one wants to help her undertake her training again. In the case of a male novice or female trainee, one may also go if he/she wants to determine his/her eligibility for ordination or wants to be ordained. In the case of a female novice, one may go if she wants to determine her eligibility to become a female trainee or to take on the female trainee’s training.	此外，如果是比丘或比丘尼，犯了《僧殘》罪，需要幫助出罪清淨，即將變成僧團治罪羯磨（如呵責）的對象，或已經對他/她施加僧團治罪羯磨，也可以前往。如果是學法女（式叉摩那），她違反了學處併中斷了訓練，想要幫助她重新開始訓練，也可以前往。如果是沙彌或學法女（式叉摩那），他/她想要確定自己是否有資格受具足戒或想要受具足戒，也可以前往。如果是沙彌尼，她想要確定自己是否有資格成為學法女（式叉摩那）或接受學法女（式叉摩那）的訓練，也可以前往。
If either of one’s parents falls ill, one may go even if not sent for, all the more if sent for. If any of one’s other relatives fall ill, or if a person who lives in dependence on the bhikkhus falls ill, one may go only if sent for, not if not sent for.	若父母一方患病，即使無人來請，亦可前往，更何況是來請。若其他親屬患病，或依附比丘而生活之人患病，則必須來請，方可前往，無人來請則不得前往。
In all of the cases where one may go if not sent for, the Canon depicts the person in question as sending a messenger with a general invitation for bhikkhus to come. The Commentary notes, though, that the invitation is not a prerequisite for being allowed to go. Even if no message or messenger is sent, one may still go on seven-day business as long as one goes with the purpose of being of help.	在所有無需邀請即可前往的情況中，《聖典》都將當事人描述為派遣信使，向比丘發出普遍的邀請。然而，《義註》指出，邀請並非獲准前往的先決條件。即使沒有傳訊或信使被送來，只要是為了提供幫助而前往，仍然可以進行為期七天的事務。
One may also go on Community business. The example given in the Canon: A Community dwelling has fallen into disrepair and a lay follower has taken the goods from the dwelling and stashed them away in the wilderness. He asks for bhikkhus to come and take them to put them into safe keeping. Examples given in the Commentary: One may go to help with construction work on a cetiya, a hall, or even the hut of an individual bhikkhu. However, this last example—because it is for individual rather than Community business—seems to go beyond the Canon’s intent.	也可以去處理僧團事務。《聖典》中舉了一個例子：一處僧團住所年久失修，一位在家弟子從住所取走財物，藏匿於林野。他請求比丘們前來取走，妥善保管。《義註》中舉了例子：可以去幫助修建佛塔、大殿，甚至是個別比丘的小屋。然而，最後這個例子—因為它是處理個人事務而非僧團事務—似乎超出了《聖典》的本意。
Finally, as noted above, if one has started spending the Rains in a residence with four or more bhikkhus, none of whom knows the Pāṭimokkha in full or in brief, one of the bhikkhus may go to a neighboring residence for up to seven days to learn the Pāṭimokkha.	最後，如上所述，如果開始與四位或更多比丘一起在住處度過雨安居，而其中沒有一位比丘完全或簡要地通曉《波羅提木叉》，則其中一位比丘可以前往鄰近的住處學習《波羅提木叉》，時間最長為七天。
Under the heading of seven-day business, the Commentary gives some extra allowances that it admits do not come from the Canon. If, before the Rains, a group of bhikkhus set a date for a meeting during the Rains—the context of the Commentary’s allowance suggests that the meeting would be to listen to a Dhamma talk—one may treat it as seven-day business, but not if one’s intention in going is simply to wash one’s belongings. However, if one’s mentor sends one there for whatever purpose (even for washing one’s robes, says the Sub-commentary) one may go for seven days. If one goes to a monastery that is not far away, intending to return that day, but for some reason cannot return in time, one may treat it as seven-day business. One may not use the seven-day allowance for recitation and interrogation—i.e., memorizing and studying the meaning of the Dhamma—yet if one goes with the purpose of visiting one’s mentor and returning that day, but the mentor tells one to stay on, it is all right to stay. The Sub-commentary adds here that one may even stay on for more than seven days without incurring an offense, although one’s Rains will be broken. Because these allowances have no basis in the Canon, many Communities do not recognize them as valid.	在七日事務的範疇下，《義註》給了一些額外的開緣，並承認這些開緣並非出自《聖典》。如果在雨安居之前，一群比丘約定了在雨安居期間一個聚會的日期——《義註》的開緣上下文暗示這次聚會是為了聆聽佛法開示——可以將其視為七日事務，但如果比丘前往的目的僅僅是清洗自己的物品，則不可以。然而，如果自己的導師派自己去那裡，無論出於何種目的（《複註》說，即使是為了洗自己的袈裟），可以去七天。如果前往一座不遠的寺院，打算當天返回，但由於某種原因無法及時返回，也可以將其視為七日事務。七天的開緣不得用於背誦及詢問—即背誦和研習佛法的意義。但如果是為了拜訪自己的導師而去，並在當天返回，但導師告訴自己繼續留下，則也可以留下。《複註》補充道，即使停留超過七天也不構成犯戒，雖然會破雨安居。由於這些開緣在《聖典》中沒有依據，許多僧團並不承認其有效性。
The Commentary notes, citing a passage in Mv.III.14.6, that one may leave for seven-day business even on the first day of the Rains, and there is apparently no limit to the number of times one may go for seven-day business during the following three months. This opens the possibility of taking up Rains-residence in more than one place, alternating short periods in one residence and then the other. We will deal with the implications of this possibility below. Mv.III.14.7 indicates that if one leaves on seven-day business less than seven days before the end of the Rains-residence, one need not return.	《義註》引用了《大品》.三.14.6 的一段話，指出即使在雨安居的第一天，也可以離開去處理七天的事務，而且在接下來的三個月裡，去處理七天事務的次數顯然沒有限制。這打開了在超過一個地方度過雨安居的可能性，交替在一個住處和另一個住處短暫居住一段時間。我們將在下文探討這種可能性的含意。《大品》.三.14.7 指出，如果在雨安居結束前不到七天離開去處理七天事務，則無需返回。
None of the texts make exemption for the case where a bhikkhu, going on legitimate seven-day business and planning to return in time, ends up spending more than seven days, either through forgetfulness or through circumstances beyond his control. In other words, whether he intends to or not, if he overstays his seven-day limit, his Rains-residence is broken and he incurs an offense.	沒有任何文獻豁免比丘去處理合法的七日事務，打算按時返回，但最終卻停留超過七天的情況，無論是由於健忘還是超出他控制的情況。換句話說，無論他是否故意，如果他超過了七天的期限，他的雨安居就被破壞了，並構成了犯戒。

Obstacles	障難
The second exception to the rule concerning duration is that a bhikkhu may break his Rains-residence at any time if there are valid obstacles for doing so. He does not incur an offense, but does relinquish his right to the privileges that come with having completed the Rains.	關於持續時間戒條的第二個例外是，如果有合理障礙這樣做的話，比丘可以隨時破雨安居。他不犯戒，但確實放棄了完成雨安居後所帶來的方便利益的權利。
Mv.III.9.1–Mv.III.11.13 gives a long list of valid obstacles, which Pv.VI.4 divides into four sorts: dangers to life, dangers to the holy life, a threatened split in the Community, and an actual split in the Community.	《大品》.三.9.1–《大品》.三.11.13 列出了一長串合理障礙，《附隨》.六.4 將其分為四類：生命危險、梵行生活危險、僧團分裂威脅以及僧團實際分裂。
Dangers to life	生命危險
Bhikkhus may break the Rains without offense if they are	比丘可以破雨安居而不犯戒，如果他們
—harassed by beasts who seize and attack them;	—受到野獸的騷擾，抓住並攻擊他們；
—harassed by creeping things who bite and attack them;	—受到爬蟲類的騷擾，咬傷並攻擊他們；
—harassed by criminals who rob them and beat them;	—遭受犯罪者的騷擾，搶劫並毆打他們；
—harassed by demons who possess them and sap their vitality.	—受到惡靈的騷擾，附身於他們身上並消耗他們的活力。
With regard to the beasts, the Commentary notes that “seize and attack” also includes cases where the beasts, having surrounded one, chase one away, frighten one, or kill someone else in the vicinity.	關於野獸，《義註》指出，「抓住並攻擊」還包括野獸包圍人、驅逐人、驚嚇人或殺死附近的其他人的情況。
Also, if the village where the bhikkhus have entered for the Rains is burned or carried away by a flood, and the bhikkhus suffer in terms of alms; or if their own lodgings are burned or carried away by a flood and they suffer in terms of lodgings, they may leave without offense.	另外，如果比丘們入雨安居的村莊被燒毀或被洪水沖走，而比丘們在缽食方面受苦；或者如果他們自己的住所被燒毀或被洪水沖走，他們在住所方面受苦，他們可以離開而不犯戒。
If the village on which they depend moves to a new location, the bhikkhus may follow along. If the village splits, they are to go to the location where the majority of villagers have gone or to the location where the faithful supporters have gone. However, the Commentary recommends that if the village moves only a short distance away and is still within range for alms-going, one should stay in place. If it goes farther than that, one may follow the village to its new location but should try to return to one’s original place every seven dawns to keep the Rains. If that isn’t possible, one should stay with congenial bhikkhus in the village’s new location.	如果依附的村莊搬遷，比丘們可以跟隨。如果村莊分裂，他們應該前往大多數村民或虔誠支持者去的地方。然而，《義註》建議，如果村莊遷移的距離不遠，且仍在托缽範圍之內，則應留在原地。如果遷移的距離超出托缽範圍，可以跟隨村莊遷移到新地點，但應試著每七個黎明返回原地以保持雨安居。如果無法做到，則應在村莊的新地點與志同道合的比丘們同住。
If the bhikkhus do not get enough food for their needs; or if the food is plentiful but uncongenial to them; or if the food is plentiful and congenial, but they don’t receive congenial medicine; of it they don’t get a suitable attendant, they may leave without offense. The Vinaya-mukha interprets the allowance in these instances as valid only if one’s health is in serious jeopardy.	如果比丘們沒有得到足夠的食物；或者食物充足但不適合他們；或者食物充足且適合他們，但沒有得到合適的藥物；或者沒有合適的侍者，他們可以離開，而不犯戒。《戒律入口》認為，只有在健康受到嚴重威脅的情況下，這些情況下的開緣才有效。
Dangers to the holy life	梵行生活危險
If anyone tries to tempt a bhikkhu, offering him wealth or a wife (or to be his wife), or if he sees abandoned treasure, and in any of these cases he reflects, “The Blessed One says that the mind is easily changed. This could be an obstacle to my holy life,” he may break the Rains without offense.	如果有人試圖引誘比丘，給他財富或妻子（或成為他的妻子），或看到被遺棄的財寶，並在這些情況下的任何一種，他反思到：「世尊說，心很容易改變。這可能會成為我梵行生活的障礙。」他可以破雨安居，而不犯戒。
A threatened split in the Community	僧團分裂威脅
If many bhikkhus are striving for a schism in the Community where one is living and one doesn’t want the Community to be split in one’s presence, one may leave. However, if bhikkhus in another residence are striving for a schism in their Community and one feels that one might be able to talk them out of it, one may go to their residence. The same holds true if bhikkhunīs are striving for a split in the Community. The Commentary—assuming that Community here means the Bhikkhu Saṅgha—objects to this allowance on the grounds that bhikkhunīs cannot split the Bhikkhu Saṅgha. However, the original meaning of the Pali may have been that the bhikkhunīs were striving for a schism in their own Community. In this case, one may break the Rains without offense in order to try to prevent the split.	如果許多比丘在自己居住的僧團中試圖分裂，而自己不想僧團在自己面前分裂，可以離開。但是，如果其他住處的比丘試圖分裂僧團，而自己覺得可以勸阻他們，可以前往他們的住處。如果比丘尼試圖分裂僧團，也同樣適用。《義註》—假設這裡的僧團是指比丘僧團—反對此開緣，理由是比丘尼不能分裂比丘僧團。然而，巴利文的原意可能是比丘尼試圖在她們自己的僧團中分裂。在這種情況下，為了阻止分裂，可以破雨安居而不犯戒。
A split in the Community	僧團分裂
If bhikkhus or bhikkhunīs in another residence have split their Community, one may break the Rains to go there. The Commentary raises another objection here, on the grounds that once the Community has split nothing can be done; and that the Pali should thus read, “the bhikkhus are about to split the Community.” This, however, ignores the very real possibility that both sides of the split have been acting in good faith, and that one may bring them to a reconciliation. (See Chapter 21, especially Mv.X.5.14 & Mv.X.6.1.)	如果其他住處的比丘或比丘尼分裂了他們的僧團，可以破雨安居前往那裡。《義註》在此提出了另一個反對意見，理由是僧團一旦分裂就無能為力；巴利語應該這樣理解：「比丘們即將分裂僧團」。然而，這忽略了一個非常現實的可能性：分裂雙方都本著善意行事，可以促成他們和解。（參見第二十一章，尤其是《大品》.十.5.14 和《大品》.十.6.1 。）
If any of these four kinds of obstacles arises and one can handle the situation by going away for no more than seven days, the Commentary recommends returning within seven days so as not to break the Rains. In other words, the situation is to be treated as legitimate seven-day business. If this cannot be managed, one commits no offense, but one becomes ineligible for the privileges that come with having completed the Rains.	如果出現這四種障難中的任何一種，而可以透過外出不超過七天來處理該情況，《義註》建議在七天內返回，以免破雨安居。換句話說，這種情況應被視為合法的七日事務。如果無法處理，則不犯戒，但將失去完成雨安居所帶來的方便利益。
In addition to these four categories, there is also the rule mentioned above that if many bhikkhus have begun the Rains in a residence where none of them knows the Pāṭimokkha and they cannot arrange for one of their number to memorize the Pāṭimokkha in a nearby residence within seven days, they are to leave their original to residence to spend the Rains in the neighboring residence.	除了上述四種情況外，還有一條上面提到的戒條，即如果許多比丘在一處開始雨安居，而其中沒有人通曉《波羅提木叉》，並且他們無法在七天內安排其中一人在附近的住處記誦《波羅提木叉》，那麼他們必須離開原來的住處，到鄰近的住處過雨安居。

Non-dhamma agreements	非如法約定
Traditionally, the Rains-residence is a time for becoming more stringent in one’s practice. Often, bhikkhus staying together will make group vows as a way of offering encouragement to one another. However, there is a rule against making agreements that are not in accord with the Dhamma. In the origin story for this rule, a group of bhikkhus agreed not to ordain any new bhikkhus during the Rains. A relative of Lady Visākhā wanted to ordain during that period but the bhikkhus refused, telling him to wait to the end of the Rains. Yet when the Rains had ended, he had abandoned his desire to ordain. So the Buddha made a ruling that “This sort of agreement should not be made: ‘During the Rains, the Going-forth is not to be given.’”	傳統上，雨安居是在修行上會更加嚴格的時間。通常，住在一起的比丘們會立下集體誓言，以此互相鼓勵。然而，有一條戒條禁止做出非如法約定。這條戒條的起源故事是這樣的：一群比丘約定在雨安居不為任何新比丘受具足戒。毘舎佉女士的一位親戚想在雨季受具足戒，但比丘們拒絕了，並告訴他要等到雨安居結束。然而，雨安居結束後，他放棄了受具足戒的願望。於是佛陀做出裁決：「不應做出這樣的約定：『雨安居期間，不得出家。』」
The Commentary to Mv.III.13.2 cites two other agreements that are of this sort: taking a vow of silence and agreeing that those who go away for seven-day business should not get a share of the Community’s gains distributed while they are away. The rule against taking a vow of silence comes in Mv.IV.1.13. In the origin story to that rule, the Buddha learns that a group of bhikkhus have observed a vow of silence for the duration of the Rains and his response is this: “These worthless men, having spent the Rains uncomfortably, claim to have spent the Rains comfortably. Having spent the Rains in cattle (-like) affiliation, they claim to have spent the Rains comfortably. Having spent the Rains in sheep (-like) affiliation, they claim to have spent the Rains comfortably. Having spent the Rains in heedless-affiliation, they claim to have spent the Rains comfortably. How can these worthless men undertake a vow of dumb silence, the undertaking of sectarians?”	《大品》.三.13.2 的《義註》引用了另外兩項類似的約定：宣誓沉默，並同意那些外出七日事務的人在外出期間不應獲得僧團收益的分配。禁止宣誓沉默的戒條載於《大品》.四.1.13 。在這個戒條的起源故事中，佛陀得知一群比丘在雨安居期間遵守了沉默的誓言，他的回應是：「這些無用之人，過著不舒服的雨安居，卻聲稱自己過得很舒服。他們像牛一樣共住過雨安居，卻聲稱自己過得很舒服。他們像羊一樣共住過雨安居，卻聲稱自己過得很舒服。他們住放逸共住過雨安居，卻聲稱自己過得很舒服。這些無用之人，怎麼能立下沉默的誓言，立下外道的誓言呢？」
More generally, the Commentary says that agreements “of this sort” are the non-dhamma agreements that the Buddha criticized in the Sutta Vibhaṅga. Apparently, this is a reference to the origin story to NP 15, in which the Buddha, criticizing a group of bhikkhus for inventing their own pācittiya rule, says, “What has not been formulated (as a rule) should not be formulated, and what has been formulated should not be rescinded, but one should dwell in conformity and in accordance with the rules that have been formulated.”	更概括地說，《義註》說「這類」約定指的是佛陀在《經分別》中所批評的非如法約定。這顯然是指《捨墮》一五的起源故事。佛陀在其中批評一群比丘創造他們自己的《波逸提》戒條時說：「未制定（戒條）者，不應制；已制定（戒條）者，不應廢；應依已制定之戒條而住。」
The Commentary to Pārājika 4 expands on this point with a long list of agreements that should not be made for the Rains: refusing to give the Going-forth, prohibiting the study or teaching of the Dhamma, deciding to share in-season gifts to the Community with bhikkhus staying outside the monastery precincts, or compelling the observance of the dhutaṅga (ascetic) practices. The Commentary to Cv.VI.11.3 adds other agreements to this list: refusing to give Acceptance, refusing to give dependence, refusing to give the opportunity to listen to the Dhamma, and not sharing Community gains with those who go away on seven-day business. It then adds a list of agreements that would accord with the Dhamma, such as encouraging one another to know moderation in speech, to converse on the ten proper subjects of conversation (AN 10:69), to show consideration to meditators when one is reciting the Dhamma, to willingly undertake any of the dhutaṅga practices in line with one’s abilities, and to be heedful at all times.	《波羅夷》四的《義註》擴充此點，列舉了一長串雨安居不應達成的約定：拒絕給予出家，禁止研習或教授佛法，決定與待在寺院區域外的比丘分享當季的布施，或強迫遵循頭陀行（苦行）。《小品》.六.11.3 的《義註》增加了其他約定到此列表上：拒絕授予具足戒，拒絕給予依止，拒絕給予聽聞佛法的機會，以及不與外出處理七日事務的人分享僧團的收益。然後，它又增加了一系列會符合佛法的約定，例如鼓勵彼此懂得言語適度、談論十種適當的話題（《增支部》10:69經）、在誦讀佛法時體諒禪修者、願意根據自己的能力進行任何頭陀行、以及時刻保持不放逸。

Gifts of cloth	贈布
Mv.VIII.32 lists eight ways in which a donor may designate gifts of cloth, and one of them is that a gift of cloth may be for the bhikkhus who are residing or have resided in a particular residence for the Rains. We will discuss this arrangement in more detail in Chapter 18, but here we will simply note the Commentary’s observation that, during the Rains-residence, this arrangement applies only to bhikkhus who have kept the residence up to that point without break; for one month after the Rains, it applies only to the bhikkhus who have successfully kept the entire Rains-residence. According to the Canon, if the kaṭhina has been spread, this arrangement extends until the end of the kaṭhina privileges.	《大品》.八.32 列出了布施者指定贈布的八種方式，其中之一就是布匹可以贈予正在或曾經在特定住處居住過雨安居的比丘。我們將在第十八章詳細討論這項安排，但這裡我們僅提及《義註》中的觀察：在雨安居期間，此安排僅適用於保持安居不破的比丘；雨安居過後一個月，此安排僅適用於成功保持整個雨安居的比丘。根據《聖典》，如果功德衣已經敷展，此安排將持續到功德衣方便利益結束為止。
The Canon also adds that, if a donor has designated a gift of cloth for the bhikkhus who are residing/have resided for the Rains, a bhikkhu who is not residing/has not resided for the Rains in that residence should not accept a portion. To do so is to incur a dukkaṭa. The Commentary adds that if he does accept such a portion, he should return it. If it gets worn out or lost before he returns it, he should make compensation. If, when the Community asks for its return, he doesn’t return it, the offense is to be determined by the value of the cloth, which could well amount to a pārājika. In saying this, the Commentary is following the theory of bhaṇḍadeyya, which—as we stated in the discussion of Pr 2—has no basis in the Canon. Here in particular it seems excessive punishment for what the Canon explicitly says is an act incurring only a dukkaṭa. If we follow the Canon, the bhikkhu who has accepted such a portion need not return it. Once it has been given to him, it is his—even though he incurs an offense in accepting it.	《聖典》也補充道，如果布施者指定為正在/已在度雨安居的比丘布施布料，則未正在/未曾在該住處度雨安居的比丘不應接受部分布料。這樣做會犯《突吉羅》。《義註》補充道，如果他接受了這部分布料，則應歸還。如果在歸還之前布料磨損或遺失，則應予以賠償。如果當僧團要求歸還布料時，他沒有歸還，則應根據布料的價值來判定其罪過，這很可能構成《波羅夷》罪（pārājika）。《義註》這樣說是遵循了「bhaṇḍadeyya」的理論，正如我們在《波羅夷》二的討論中所述，這種理論在《聖典》中沒有依據。尤其在這裡，對於《聖典》明確指出只會犯《突吉羅》的行為，懲罰似乎過重。如果我們遵循《聖典》，接受這部分布料的比丘無需歸還。一旦被給予，這部分布料就屬於他了——即使他接受它時犯了戒。
As mentioned above, under the topic of seven-day business, there is the technical possibility that a bhikkhu may enter the Rains in two residences. If donors at both places designate gifts of Rains-residence cloth, then if the bhikkhu spends half the time at one residence and half the time at the other, he should be given half a portion here and half a portion there. Or if he spends more time at one than the other, he should be given a full portion at his main residence and nothing at the other.	如上所述，在七日事務的主題下，技術上存在比丘可以在兩個住處入雨安居的可能性。如果兩個地方的施主都指定布施雨安居的布匹，那麼如果比丘一半時間在一個住處，一半時間在另一個住處，則應在這裡給他一半份額，在那裡給他一半份額。或者，如果他在其中一個住處待的時間比另一個住處多，則應在其主要住處給予全額布匹，而在另一處則不給予。

Privileges	方便利益
The Commentary, in scattered places, explicitly mentions five privileges to which a bhikkhu who completes the first period of Rains-residence without break is entitled. The first four are:	《義註》在零散的地方明確地提到了完成前雨安居不破的比丘所享有的五項方便利益。前四項是：
he may participate in the Invitation (pavāraṇā) transaction marking the end of the Rains-residence (see Chapter 16);	他可以參加標誌著雨安居結束的自恣（pavāraṇā）羯磨（見第十六章）；
he may continue receiving gifts of Rains-residence cloth at that residence for a month after the end of the Rains-residence;	雨安居結束後的一個月內，他可以在該住處繼續接受雨安居布料的布施；
he may keep one of his robes in his alms-village if he is staying in a wilderness area (see NP 29); and	如果他住在林野地區，他可以將一件袈裟留在他的托缽村莊（見《捨墮》二九）；並且
he may participate in the spreading of a kaṭhina (see Chapter 17).	他可以參與功德衣(迦絺那衣)的敷展（請參閱第十七章）。
In each of these cases, the Commentary is basing its judgment on the fact that the Canon’s permission for these activities is given for “bhikkhus who have lived for (i.e., completed) the Rains-residence.”	在每一種情況中，《義註》的判斷都是基於這樣的事實：《聖典》允許「已住滿（即，完成）雨安居的比丘」進行這些活動。
The fifth privilege is based on three passages in Mv.VIII.24 (sections 2, 5, & 6). In each of the three, donors present gifts of cloth “to the Community” and in each case the bhikkhus who have spent the Rains in that residence have sole rights to these gifts until their kaṭhina privileges are ended (see Chapter 17). If the bhikkhus do not spread a kaṭhina, the Commentary states that they hold this right for the month after the end of the Rains-residence.	第五項方便利益是基於《大品》.八.24 中的三個段落（第二、五、和六節）。在這三個段落，施主均「向僧團」布施布料，且在每一個情況裡，在該住度雨安居的比丘們擁有這些布施的獨享權利，直至他們的功德衣方便利益結束（參見第十七章）。如果比丘們沒有敷展功德衣，則《義註》指出，他們在雨安居結束後的一個月內擁有此權利。
A bhikkhu who completes the second period of Rains-residence without break is entitled to one privilege: He may participate in the Invitation transaction marking the end of his period of Rains-residence. If the bhikkhus in his residence have delayed their Invitation to that date, he may join in their Invitation. If not, he may participate in an Invitation with any fellow bhikkhus who have completed the second period of Rains-residence along with him. Because Pv.XIV.4 limits the period for receiving a kaṭhina to last month of the rainy season, and because a bhikkhu can participate in the spreading of a kaṭhina only after having completed his Rains-residence, this means that a bhikkhu who has completed the second period of Rains-residence is not entitled to this privilege.	完成後雨安居不破的比丘享有一項方便利益：他可以參加標誌著其雨安居週期結束的自恣羯磨。如果他所在住處的比丘們已將自恣推遲到該日期，他可以參加他們的自恣。如果沒有，他可以與任何和他一起已完成後雨安居的比丘同儕參加自恣。由於《附隨》.十四.4 將接受功德衣的時間限制在雨季的最後一個月，並且由於比丘只有在完成其雨安居後才能參加功德衣的敷展，這意味著已完成後雨安居週期的比丘不能享有這項方便利益。
The Vinaya-mukha follows an old tradition that NP 1, 2, & 3; and Pc 32, 33, & 46 are also rescinded for one month for a bhikkhu who has completed the first period of Rains-residence. I have tried to trace the source of this tradition in the Canon and commentaries, but without success. The Vibhaṅgas to NP 3, Pc 32, 33, & 46 make clear that the fourth month of the rainy season—the month after the first period of Rains-residence, and the last month of the second period of Rains-residence—is the cīvara-kāla, the robe season (also called the cīvara-dāna-samaya, the occasion for giving robe-cloth), during which those rules, along with NP 1, are rescinded. However, neither the Canon nor the commentaries to these rules make these privileges contingent on having completed the Rains.	《戒律入口》遵循一個古老的傳統，對於已經完成前雨安居的比丘，《捨墮》一、二和三；以及《波逸提》三二、三三和四六也被取消一個月。我曾試圖在《聖典》和註釋書中追溯這項傳統的來源，但沒有成功。《捨墮》三、《波逸提》三二、三三和四六的《經分別》明確指出，雨季第四個月—前雨安居後的該月份，以及後雨安居的最後一個月—是 cīvara-kāla ，袈裟季節（也稱為 cīvara-dāna-samaya ，布施袈裟布的場合），在此期間，這些戒條以及《捨墮》一都會被取消。然而，無論是《聖典》還是這些戒條的註釋書，都沒有將這些方便利益規定為必須完成雨安居才能獲得。
As for rescinding NP 2, the texts mention this only as one of the privileges for participating in the spreading of a kaṭhina. It might seem reasonable to regard NP 2 as rescinded during the cīvara-kāla, as all of the other privileges for participating in the kaṭhina are simply extensions of other cīvara-kāla privileges, but neither the Canon nor the commentaries support this idea. For instance, Mv.VIII.23.3 allows a bhikkhu to enter a village without his full set of robes if he has spread a kaṭhina, but does not extend the same privilege to a bhikkhu who has simply completed the Rains. Furthermore, the Commentary to Mv.VII indicates that the Buddha’s purpose in instituting the kaṭhina was to give the bhikkhus the privilege of traveling without their full set of robes during the last month of the rains, when roads were still wet. If this privilege came automatically with the completion of the Rains-residence, there would be no need to institute the kaṭhina for this purpose.	至於取消《捨墮》二，文獻僅將其作為參與敷展功德衣所得的方便利益之一提及。在 cīvara-kāla 期間，將《捨墮》二視為被取消似乎是合理的，因為參與功德衣所得的其他所有方便利益都只是其他 cīvara-kāla 方便利益的延伸，但《聖典》和註釋書均不支持這種觀點。例如，《大品》.八.23.3 允許比丘不著全套三衣進入村莊，如果他已經敷展功德衣，但並未將同樣的方便利益延伸給僅完成雨安居的比丘。此外，《大品》.七的《義註》指出，佛陀設立功德衣的目的是賦予比丘們在雨季最後一個月道路仍然濕潤時，不著全套三衣出行遊方的方便利益。如果這項方便利益隨著雨安居的完成而自動到來，那麼就沒有必要為此目的設立功德衣。
Thus the only privileges contingent on completing the Rains-residence without break are:	因此，完成雨安居不破的方便利益只有：
the five for completing the first period of Rains-residence (participating in the Invitation transaction; receiving gifts of Rains-residence robe-cloth for an extra month; having sole rights to cloth presented “to the Community” in that residence for an extra month; keeping one of one’s robes in a village while living in a wilderness; and participating in the spreading of a kaṭhina); and	完成前雨安居的五項（參與自恣羯磨；額外一個月接受雨安居袈裟布的布施；在該住處擁有額外一個月供「給僧團」的布料的獨有權利；在居住林野時，將自己的其中一件袈裟保留在村莊；參與功德衣的敷展）；而且
the one—participating in the Invitation—for completing the second.	完成後雨安居的一項—參與自恣。

(未完待續)