尼薩耆波逸提（《捨墮》）

Three: The Bowl Chapter 第三 缽品
21 二十一
An extra alms bowl may be kept ten days at most. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
多餘的缽最多可以保留十天。超過此限者，尼薩耆波逸提。
The offense under this rule involves two factors. 本戒條下的犯戒涉及兩個因素。
1) Object: an alms bowl fit to be determined for use. 1）對象：一個適合決意使用的缽。
2) Effort: One keeps it for more than ten days without determining it for use, placing it under shared ownership, abandoning it (giving or throwing it away); and without its being lost, destroyed, burnt, snatched away, or taken by someone else on trust within that time. 2）努力：保留十天以上而未決意使用、置於共享所有權之下、放棄（贈送或丟棄）；並且在此期間沒有丟失、毀壞、燒毀、搶走或被其他人基於信任拿走。
Alms bowls 缽
According to the Commentary, an alms bowl fit to be determined for use must be— 根據《義註》，適合決意使用的缽必須符合以下條件：
1) made of the proper material; 1）由適當的材料製成；
2) the proper size; 2）合適的尺寸；
3) fully paid for; 3）已全額付款；
4) properly fired; and 4）適當地燻燒；和
5) not damaged beyond repair. 5）未出現無法修復的損壞。
Material 材料
Cv.V.8.2 allows two kinds of alms bowls: made either of clay or of iron. Cv.V.9.1 forbids eleven: made either of wood, gold, silver, pearl, beryl, crystal, bronze, glass, tin, lead, or copper. Using the Great Standards, the Council of Elders in Thailand has recently decided that stainless steel bowls are allowable—because, after all, they are steel—but aluminum bowls not, because they share some of the dangers of tin. In the time of the Buddha, clay bowls were the more common. At present, iron and steel bowls are. 《小品》.五.8.2允許使用兩種缽：用黏土或鐵製成。《小品》.五.9.1禁止十一種：由木材、金、銀、珍珠、綠柱石、水晶、青銅、玻璃、錫、鉛或銅製成。根據《四大教示》，泰國長老會最近決定允許使用不鏽鋼缽——因為畢竟它們是鋼製的——但不允許使用鋁製缽，因為它們具有錫的一些危險。佛陀時代，黏土缽（陶缽）較為普遍。目前則是鐵缽和不鏽鋼缽。
Size 尺寸
The Vibhaṅga contains a discussion of three proper sizes for a bowl—the medium size containing twice the volume of the small, and the large twice the volume of the medium—but they are based on measurements that are not known with any precision at present. The author of the Vinaya-mukha reports having experimented with various sizes of bowls based on a passage in the story of Meṇḍaka in the Dhammapada Commentary. His conclusion: A small bowl is just a little larger than a human skull, and a medium bowl approximately 27 1/2 English inches (70 cm.) in circumference, or about 8.75 inches (22.5 cm.) in diameter. He did not try making a large bowl. Any size larger than the large size or smaller than the small is inappropriate; any size between them falls under this rule. 《經分別》討論了缽的三種適當尺寸——中號缽的體積是小號缽的兩倍，大號缽的體積是中號缽的兩倍——但它們所基於的測量結果目前還沒有已知的任何精確度。《戒律入口》的作者報告說，他根據《法句經》《義註》中 Meṇḍaka 故事的一個段落，嘗試了各種尺寸的缽。他的結論是：小缽只比人的頭骨大一點，中缽的周長約為 27 又 1/2 英寸（70 公分），直徑約為 8.75 英寸（22.5 公分）。他沒有嘗試做一個大缽。任何大於大號或小於小號的尺寸都是不合適的；它們之間的任何大小都屬於符合本戒條。
Fully paid for 已全額付款
According to the Commentary, if a bowl-maker makes a gift of a bowl, it counts as fully paid for. If a bowl has been delivered to a bhikkhu but has yet to be fully paid for, it may not be determined and does not come under this rule until paid for in full. 根據《義註》，如果制缽者製作了一個缽作為布施，則視為已全額付款。如果缽已交付給比丘但尚未全額付款，則在全額付款之前，它不可被決意，並且不屬於本戒條範疇。
Fired 燻燒
The Commentary states that a clay bowl must be fired twice before it can be determined, to make sure it is properly hardened; and an iron bowl five times, to prevent it from rusting. Because stainless steel does not rust it need not be fired, but a popular practice is to find some way to make it gray—either by painting it on the outside or firing the whole bowl with leaves that will give it a smoky color—so that it will not stand out. 《義註》指出，黏土缽（陶缽）必須燒製兩次才能決意，以確保其適當硬化；鐵缽五次，防止生鏽。因為不銹鋼不會生鏽，所以不需要燒製，但一種流行的做法是找到某種方法使其變灰色——若非在外面塗漆，不然就是用葉子燒製整個缽，使其呈現煙燻色——這樣它就不會顯眼突出。
Not damaged beyond repair 未出現無法修復的損壞
The Vibhaṅga to the following rule says that a bhikkhu may ask for a new bowl if his current bowl has five mends or more, the space for a mend (§) being two inches (fingerbreadths). The Commentary explains this first by saying that a bowl with five mends or more is damaged beyond repair, and thus loses its determination as a bowl. It then expands on the Vibhaṅga’s statements as follows: A clay bowl is damaged beyond repair if it has at least ten inches of cracks in it, the smallest of the cracks being at least two inches long. Cracks less than two inches long are said not to merit mending—this is the meaning of the Vibhaṅga’s phrase, “space for a mend”—and so do not count. As the K/Commentary notes, whether the cracks are actually mended is not an issue here. If a bowl has fewer cracks than that, they should be mended either with tin wire, sap (but for some reason not pure pine sap), or a mixture of sugar cane syrup and powdered stone. Other materials not to be used for repair are beeswax and sealing wax. If the total length of countable cracks equals ten inches or more, the bowl becomes a non-bowl, and the owner is entitled to ask for a new one. 下一條戒條的《經分別》指出，如果比丘目前的缽有五處修補或更多，則比丘可以要求一個新缽，而修補的空間（§）為兩英寸（指寬）。《義註》首先解釋說，缽修補五次以上，就已經損壞到無法修復的程度，從而失去了其決意為缽。然後，它對《經分別》的敘述進行了如下擴展：如果一個粘土缽（陶缽）上有至少十英寸的裂縫，其中最小的裂縫至少有兩英寸長，那麼它就被損壞到無法修復的程度。小於兩英寸長的裂縫據說不值得修補——這就是《經分別》的措辭「用來修補的空間」的含義——所以不算數。正如 K/《義註》所指出的，裂縫是否真正得到修補在此並不是問題。如果缽的裂縫比那少，則應使用錫絲、樹液（但由於某種原因不是純松樹液）或甘蔗糖漿和石粉的混合物來修補。其他不能用於修復的材料是蜂蠟和密封蠟。如果可數裂縫的總長度等於或超過十英寸，則該缽就不再是缽，主人有權要求換一個新的。
As for iron and steel bowls, a hole in the bowl large enough to let a millet grain pass through is enough to make the determination lapse, but not enough to make the bowl a non-bowl. The bhikkhu should plug the hole—or have a blacksmith plug it—with powdered metal or a tiny metal plug polished smooth with the surface of the bowl and then re-determine the bowl for use. 對於鐵缽、不銹鋼缽來說，缽上有一個足以讓一粒小米粒通過的孔，足以使決意失效，但不足以使該缽成為非缽。比丘應該用金屬粉末或與缽表面打磨光滑的小金屬塞塞住這個洞，或者請鐵匠塞住，然後重新決意缽來使用。
If the hole is small enough to be plugged in this way, then no matter how many such holes there are in the bowl they do not make it a non-bowl. The bhikkhu should mend it and continue using it. If, however, there is even one hole so large that the metal used to plug it cannot be polished smooth with the surface of the rest of the bowl, the tiny crevices in the patch will collect food. This makes it unfit for use, and the owner is entitled to ask for a new one to replace it. 如果這個洞夠小，可以用這種方式堵住，那麼無論缽裡有多少個這樣的洞，都不會使它成為一個非缽。比丘應該修補它並繼續使用它。然而，即使只有一個孔太大，以至於用於堵塞它的金屬無法與缽其餘部分的表面拋光光滑，修補片上的微小縫隙就會積聚食物。這將導致其不適合使用，所有者有權要求更換新的。
An extra alms bowl, according to the Vibhaṅga, is any that has not yet been determined for use or placed under shared ownership. Because a bhikkhu may have only one bowl determined for use at any one time, he should place any additional bowls he receives under shared ownership if he plans to keep them on hand. (The procedures for placing bowls under determination and shared ownership, and for rescinding their determination and shared ownership, are given in Appendices IV & V.) 根據《經分別》，額外的缽是指尚未決意使用或置於共享所有權之下的任何缽。因為比丘在任何時候只可以有一個缽決意使用，所以如果他打算將收到的任何額外的缽放在手邊，他應該將它們置於共享所有權之下。（將缽決意和置於共享所有權之下以及撤銷其決意和共享所有權的程序參見附錄四和五。）
Effort 努力
According to the Commentary, once a bowl belonging to a bhikkhu fulfills all the requirements for a determinable bowl, he is responsible for it even if he has not yet received it into his keeping—in other words, the countdown on the time span begins. For example, if a blacksmith promises to make him a bowl and to send word when it is finished, the bhikkhu is responsible for the bowl as soon as he hears word from the blacksmith’s messenger that the bowl is ready, even if he has yet to receive it. If the blacksmith, prior to making the bowl, promises to send it when it is done, then the bhikkhu is not responsible for it until the blacksmith’s messenger brings it to him. (All of this assumes that the bowl is already fully paid for.) 根據《義註》，一旦比丘擁有的缽滿足了可決意缽的所有要求，即使他還沒有收到它，他也要對它負責——換句話說，時間跨度開始倒數。例如，如果鐵匠答應為他製作一個缽，並在完成後通知他，一旦比丘聽到鐵匠的使者說缽已準備好，他就要對缽負責，即使他還沒有收到它。如果鐵匠在製作缽之前承諾完成後將其送出，那麼在鐵匠的使者將缽帶給比丘之前，比丘不對此負責。（所有這些都假設缽已經全額付款。）
However, all of this runs contrary to the principle given at Mv.V.13.13, in which the countdown for a robe’s time span (see NP 1) does not begin until the robe reaches one’s hand. It would seem that the same principle should apply here. 然而，所有這些都違背了《大品》.五.13.13中給出的原則，其中袈裟的時間跨度（參見《捨墮》一）的倒數計時直到袈裟到達手中時才開始。同樣的原則似乎也適用於此。
The Vibhaṅga states that if within ten days after receiving a new bowl a bhikkhu does not determine it for use, place it under shared ownership, abandon it (give it or throw it away); and if the bowl is not lost, snatched away, damaged beyond repair, or taken on trust, then on the tenth dawnrise after receiving it he incurs the full penalty under this rule. If he then uses the bowl without having forfeited it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. 《經分別》規定，如果比丘在收到新缽後十天內不決意它來使用，置於共享所有權之下，放棄它（給予或扔掉）；而且如果缽沒有遺失、被搶走、損壞到無法修復或被基於信任拿走，那麼在收到缽後的第十天黎明時，根據本戒條他將承擔全部懲罰。如果他隨後使用了缽而沒有捨出它，則懲罰是《突吉羅》。
Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if the bhikkhu thinks that ten days have not passed when they have, or if he thinks that the bowl is damaged beyond repair or placed under shared ownership, etc., when it isn’t, he incurs the penalty all the same. 在這裡，感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素。即使比丘認為十天還沒過，但實際上已經過十天了，或認為缽已損壞無法修復或置於共享所有權之下，但事實並非如此，他仍然會受到懲罰。
The Vibhaṅga also states that, in the case of an extra bowl that has not been kept more than ten days, if one perceives it to have been kept more than ten days or if one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. As under NP 1, this dukkaṭa is apparently for then using the bowl. 《經分別》還規定，多餘的缽沒有保存超過十天，如果認為它已經保存了超過十天或有疑問，則懲罰是《突吉羅》。與《捨墮》一中一樣，這個《突吉羅》顯然是為了使用缽。
Forfeiture & confession 捨出 & 懺罪
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the bowl are the same as under NP 1. For the Pali formulae to use in forfeiting and returning the bowl, see Appendix VI. As with the rules concerning robe-cloth, the bowl must be returned to the offender after he has confessed his offense. Not to return it entails a dukkaṭa. Once the bowl is returned, the ten-day countdown starts all over again. 捨出、懺罪和返還缽的程序與《捨墮》一中的相同。捨出和歸還缽時使用的巴利語公式，請參閱附錄六。與有關袈裟布的戒條一樣，在犯戒者懺罪後，必須將缽歸還給犯戒者。不歸還它會犯《突吉羅》。一旦缽歸還後，十天倒數又重新開始。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if within ten days the bhikkhu determines the bowl for use, places it under shared ownership, or abandons it; or if the bowl is lost, destroyed, broken, or snatched away; or if someone else takes the bowl on trust. With regard to “destroyed” and “broken” here, the Commentary’s discussion indicates that these terms mean “damaged beyond repair,” as defined above. 若比丘在十天內決意使用該缽、將其置於共享所有權之下，或將其放棄，並不犯戒；或者如果缽遺失、毀壞、破損或被搶走；或者如果其他人基於信任拿走缽。關於這裡的「毀壞」和「破損」，《義註》的討論表明這些術語的意思是「損壞到無法修復』，如同上文所定義。
Summary: Keeping an alms bowl for more than ten days without determining it for use or placing it under shared ownership is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：保留缽十天以上，而未決意使用或置於共享所有權之下，是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
22 二十二
Should any bhikkhu with an alms bowl having fewer than five mends ask for another new bowl, it is to be forfeited and confessed. The bowl is to be forfeited by the bhikkhu to the company of bhikkhus. That company of bhikkhus’ final bowl should be presented to the bhikkhu, (saying,) “This, bhikkhu, is your bowl. It is to be kept until broken.” This is the proper course here.
如果任何比丘的缽少於五處修補，要求另一個新缽，尼薩耆波逸提。比丘應將缽捨出給比丘同伴。比丘同伴最後的缽應給比丘，（說：）「比丘，這是你的缽。必須保留它，直到損壞為止。」這於此是如法的。
“Now at that time a certain potter had invited the bhikkhus, saying, ‘If any of the masters needs a bowl, I will supply him with a bowl.’ So the bhikkhus, knowing no moderation, asked for many bowls. Those with small bowls asked for large ones. Those with large ones asked for small ones. (§) The potter, making many bowls for the bhikkhus, could not make other goods for sale. (As a result,) he could not support himself, and his wife and children suffered.”
「爾時，有一個陶匠邀請了比丘們，說：『如果哪位大德需要一個缽，我就供給他一個缽。』於是，比丘們毫無節制地要了很多缽。那些有小缽的人要求大缽。那些有大缽的要求小缽。（§）陶匠為比丘們製作了許多缽，無法製作其他物品來出售。（結果）他無法養活自己，他的妻子和孩子也受苦了。」
Here the full offense involves three factors: 這裡，完整的違犯涉及三個因素：
1) Effort: Before one’s alms bowl is beyond repair, one asks for 1）努力：在缽無法修復之前，要求
2) Object: a new almsbowl fit to be determined for use. 2）對象：一個適合決意使用的新缽。
3) Result: One obtains the bowl. 3）結果：獲得缽。
According to the Commentary, the phrase, a bowl “having fewer than five mends” refers to one that is not beyond repair, as explained under the preceding rule. Thus this rule allows a bhikkhu whose bowl is beyond repair to ask for a new one. 根據《義註》，該措辭，缽「少於五處修補」，是指未至不可修復的缽，如前述戒條所解釋。因此，本戒條允許比丘的缽為無法修復時可以要求換一個新的。
A bhikkhu whose bowl is not beyond repair incurs a dukkaṭa in asking for a new bowl, and a nissaggiya pācittiya in receiving it. 當比丘的缽沒有無法修復時，會因索取新缽而犯《突吉羅》，並在接受新缽時犯《捨墮》。
Forfeiture, confession, & bowl exchange 捨出、懺罪和交換缽
Once a bhikkhu has obtained a bowl in violation of this rule, he must forfeit it in the midst of the Community and confess the offense. (See Appendix VI for the Pali formulae used in forfeiture and confession.) He then receives the Community’s “final bowl” to use in place of the new one he has forfeited. 一旦比丘違反本戒條獲得了缽，他必須在僧團中捨出它並懺悔罪行。（請參閱附錄六，用於捨出和懺罪的巴利語公式。）然後，他收到僧團的「最後缽」來使用，以代替他捨出的新缽。
The Community’s final bowl is selected in the following way: Each bhikkhu coming to the meeting to witness the offender’s forfeiture and confession must bring the bowl he has determined for his own use. If a bhikkhu has an inferior bowl in his possession—either extra or placed under shared ownership—he is not to determine that bowl and take it to the meeting in hopes of getting a more valuable one in the exchange about to take place. To do so entails a dukkaṭa. 僧團的最後缽是按下列方式選出的：每一位來參加集會見證犯戒者捨出和懺罪的比丘必須攜帶他已決意供自己使用的缽。如果比丘擁有一個較差的缽——無論是額外的還是置於共享所有權之下——他都不能決意該缽並將其帶到集會上，希望在即將舉行的交換中得到一個更有價值的缽。這樣做犯《突吉羅》。
Once the bhikkhus have assembled, the offender forfeits his bowl and confesses the offense. The Community, following the pattern of a motion and one proclamation (ñatti-dutiya-kamma) given in Appendix VI, then chooses one of its members as bowl exchanger. As with all Community officials, the bowl exchanger must be free of the four types of bias: based on desire, based on aversion, based on delusion, based on fear. He must also know when a bowl is properly exchanged and when it’s not. His duty, once authorized, is to take the forfeited bowl and show it to the most senior bhikkhu, who is to choose whichever of the two bowls pleases him more—his own or the new one. If the new bowl is preferable to his own and yet he does not take it out of sympathy for the offender, he incurs a dukkaṭa. The K/Commentary and Sub-commentary add that if he does not prefer the new bowl, there is no offense in not taking it. The Commentary states that if he does prefer the new bowl but, out of a desire to develop the virtue of contentment with what he has, decides not to take it, there is also no offense. 一旦比丘們聚集在一起，犯戒者捨出他的缽並懺悔罪行。僧團按照附錄六中給出的一項動議和一項公告[譯註：一白與一羯磨] (ñatti-dutiya-kamma [譯註：白二羯磨]) 的模式，選擇其中一名成員作為缽交換者。與所有僧團執事一樣，缽交換者必須擺脫四種類型的偏見：基於貪、基於嗔、基於癡、基於恐懼。他還必須知道何時正確交換缽，何時不正確。一旦獲得授權，他的職責就是將被捨出的缽拿給戒臘最高的比丘看，後者要選擇兩個缽中他更喜歡的一個——他自己的缽或新的缽。如果新缽比他自己的缽更好，但他出於對犯戒者的同情而沒有拿走它，他犯《突吉羅》。 K/《義註》和《複註》補充說，如果他不喜歡新缽，不接受它並沒有犯戒。《義註》指出，如果他確實喜歡新缽，出於培養滿足於自己所擁有的美德的願望，決定不接受它，也沒有犯戒。
To continue with the Vibhaṅga: Once the most senior bhikkhu has taken his choice, the remaining bowl is then shown to the bhikkhu second in seniority, who repeats the process, and so on down the line to the most junior bhikkhu. The bowl exchanger then takes the bowl remaining from this last bhikkhu’s choice—the least desirable bowl belonging to that company of bhikkhus—and presents it to the offender, telling him to determine it for his use and to care for it as best he can until it is no longer useable. 繼續講《經分別》：一旦戒臘最高的比丘做出了選擇，剩下的缽就會呈給戒臘第二高的比丘，重複這個過程，依此類推，依次遞給戒臘最低的比丘。然後，缽交換者將最後一位比丘選擇的剩餘缽——屬於比丘同伴們最不合意的缽——交給犯戒者，告訴他決意來使用並盡其所能地照料它，直到它不可用為止。
If the offender treats it improperly—putting it in a place where it might get damaged, using it in the wrong sort of way (on both of these points, see BMC2, Chapter 3)—or tries to get rid of it (§), thinking, “How can this bowl be lost or destroyed or broken,” he incurs a dukkaṭa. 如果犯戒者對待它不當——將其放在可能損壞的地方，以錯誤的方式使用它（這兩點，請參閱《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第三章）——或試圖擺脫它（§），心想：「這個缽怎麼才會遺失、毀壞或破碎呢？」
Non-offenses 不犯
A bhikkhu whose bowl is not beyond repair incurs no penalty if he asks for a new bowl from relatives or from people who have invited him to ask, or if he gets a new bowl with his own resources. He is also allowed to ask for a bowl for the sake of another, which—following the Commentary to NP 6—would mean that Bhikkhu X may ask for a bowl for Y only if he asks from his own relatives or people who have invited him to ask for a bowl OR if he asks from Y’s relatives or people who have invited Y to ask. Asking for and receiving a bowl for Y from people other than these would entail the full offense. 比丘的缽尚未無法修復時，如果他向親戚或邀請他的人索取新缽，或者用自己的資源得到新缽，則不會受到懲罰。他也被允許為另一個人要一個缽，這——根據《捨墮》六的《義註》——意味著比丘 X 只有在向自己的親戚或邀請他的人索取時，或者向 Y 的親戚或邀請 Y 的人索取時，才可以為 Y 要一個缽。向這些人以外的人索取並為 Y 接受的缽將構成完全違犯。
Summary: Asking for and receiving a new alms bowl when one’s current bowl is not beyond repair is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：當現有的缽尚未無法修復時，索取並接受新的缽是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
23 二十三
There are these tonics to be taken by sick bhikkhus: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses. Having been received, they are to be used from storage seven days at most. Beyond that, they are to be forfeited and confessed.
生病的比丘可以服用以下補充品：酥油、新鮮奶油、油、蜂蜜、糖/糖蜜。收到後，最多可儲藏使用七天。超過此限者，尼薩耆波逸提。
The factors for a full offense here are two. 完全違犯的因素有二。
1) Object: any of the five tonics. 1）對象：五種補品中的任何一種。
2) Effort: One keeps the tonic past the seventh dawnrise after receiving it. 2）努力：在接受補品後將其保留到第七次黎明（明相）。
Object 對象
The five tonics mentioned in this rule form one of four classes of edibles grouped according to the time period within which they may be eaten after being received. The other three—food, juice drinks, and medicines—are discussed in detail at the beginning of the Food Chapter in the pācittiya rules. Here is the story of how the tonics came to be a special class: 本戒條中提到的五種補品屬於四類食品之一，根據收到後可以食用的時間段進行分組。其他三種——食物、果汁飲料和藥物——在《波逸提》戒條的食物品開頭詳細討論。以下是補品如何成為一類特殊類別的故事：
“Then as the Blessed One was alone in seclusion, this line of reasoning occurred to his mind: ‘At present the bhikkhus, afflicted by the autumn disease, bring up the conjey they have drunk and the meals they have eaten. Because of this they are thin, wretched, unattractive, and pale, their bodies covered with veins. What if I were to allow medicine for them that would be both medicine and agreed to be medicine by the world, and serve as food, yet would not be considered gross (substantial) food.’
「當世尊獨自隱居時，他心中生起這樣的推理：『現在，諸比丘，受秋病之苦，嘔吐出他們所喝的粥和所吃的飯菜。因此，他們瘦弱、可憐、毫無吸引力、臉色蒼白，全身佈滿青筋。如果我允許為他們提供藥物，這種藥物既是藥物，又被世人認為是藥物，又可以作為食物，但又不會被視為粗劣（大量）食物。」
“Then this thought occurred to him: ‘There are these five tonics—ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses—that are both medicine and agreed to be medicine by the world, and serve as food yet would not be considered gross food. What if I were now to allow the bhikkhus, having accepted them at the right time (from dawnrise to noon), to consume them at the right time’….
「然後他想到：『有這五種滋補品——酥油、新鮮奶油、油、蜂蜜、糖/糖蜜——既是藥物，又被世人認為是藥物，作為食物卻不會被認為是粗劣食物。如果我現在允許比丘們，在正確的時間（從黎明到中午）接受它們，在正確的時間食用，會怎麼樣」…。
“Now at that time bhikkhus, having accepted the five tonics at the right time, consumed them at the right time. Because of this they could not stomach even ordinary coarse foods, much less rich, greasy ones. As a result, afflicted both by the autumn disease and this loss of appetite for meals, they became even more thin and wretched…. So the Blessed One, with regard to this cause, having given a Dhamma talk, addressed the bhikkhus: ‘Bhikkhus, I allow that the five tonics, having been accepted, be consumed at the right time or the wrong time (from noon to dawnrise).’”—Mv.VI.1.2-5
「那時，諸比丘們，在適當的時候接受了五種補品，在適當的時候食用了它們。因此，他們連普通的粗糧都吃不了，更別說油膩的了。結果，在秋病和食慾不振的雙重折磨下，他們變得更加瘦弱……。為此，世尊在說法之後，對比丘們說：『比丘們，我允許接受之後，在正確的時間或錯誤的時間（從中午到黎明）服食五種補品。』」—《大品》.六.1.2-5
The Vibhaṅga defines the five tonics as follows: 《經分別》對五種補品的定義如下：
Ghee means strained, boiled butter oil made from the milk of any animal whose flesh is allowable for bhikkhus to eat (see the introduction to the Food Chapter in the pācittiya rules). 酥油是指任何允許比丘食用其肉的動物的奶製成的過濾煮沸的奶油（參見《波逸提》戒條中食物品的介紹）。
Fresh butter must be made from the milk of any animal whose flesh is allowable. None of the Vinaya texts go into detail on how fresh butter is made, but MN 126 describes the process as “having sprinkled curds in a pot, one twirls them with a churn.” Fresh butter of this sort is still made in India today by taking a small churn—looking like an orange with alternate sections removed, attached to a small stick—and twirling it in curds, all the while sprinkling them with water. The fresh butter—mostly milk fat—coagulates on the churn, and when the fresh butter is removed, what is left in the pot is diluted buttermilk. Fresh butter, unlike creamery butter made by churning cream, may be stored unrefrigerated in bottles for several days even in the heat of India without going rancid. 新鮮奶油必須由任何允許食用其肉的動物的奶製成。律藏文獻中沒有詳細介紹如何製作新鮮奶油，但《中部》126經將這一過程描述為「將凝乳撒在鍋中，然後用攪拌器旋轉它們」。如今，這種新鮮奶油在印度仍然是通過取一個小攪拌器（看起來像一個被去除了交替部分的橙子，連接到一根小棍子上）並將其與凝乳一起旋轉，同時在凝乳中撒上水來製作的。新鮮奶油（主要是乳脂）在攪拌器上凝固，當新鮮奶油被取出時，鍋中剩下的就是稀釋的酪乳。與攪拌奶油製成的乳清奶油不同，新鮮奶油即使在印度炎熱的天氣下也可以在不冷藏的情況下在瓶子中保存幾天而不會變質。
Arguing by the Great Standards, creamery butter would obviously come under fresh butter here. A more controversial topic is cheese. 按照《四大教示》，乳清奶油顯然屬於新鮮奶油。一個更有爭議的話題是起司。
In Mv.VI.34.21, the Buddha allows bhikkhus to consume five products of the cow: milk, curds, buttermilk, fresh butter, and ghee. Apparently, cheese—curds heated to evaporate their liquid content and then cured with or without mold—was unknown in those days, but there seems every reason, using the Great Standards, to include it under one of the five. The question is which one. Some have argued that it should come under fresh butter, but the argument for classifying it under curds seems stronger, as it is closer to curds in composition and is generally regarded as more of a substantial food. Different Communities, however, have differing opinions on this matter. 在《大品》.六.34.21中，佛陀允許比丘食用五種奶牛產品：牛奶、凝乳、酪乳、新鮮奶油和酥油。顯然，起司——加熱蒸發其液體成分的凝乳，然後在有或沒有黴菌的情況下固化——在當時還不為人所知，但使用《四大教示》，似乎有充分的理由將其納入此五種之一。問題是哪一個。有些人認為它應該歸類為新鮮奶油，但將其歸類為凝乳的論點似乎更強烈，因為它的成分更接近凝乳，並且通常被認為是更大量的食物。然而，不同的僧團對此問題有不同的看法。
Oil, according to the Vibhaṅga, includes sesame oil, mustard seed oil, “honey tree” oil, castor oil, and oil from tallow. The Commentary adds that oil made from any plants not listed in the Vibhaṅga carries a dukkaṭa if kept more than seven days, although it would seem preferable to use the Great Standards and simply apply the full offense under this rule to all plant oils that can be used as food; and to class as medicines (see BMC2, Chapter 5) any aromatic plant oils—such as tea-tree oil or peppermint oil—made from leaves or resins that qualify as medicines that can be kept for life. 油，根據《經分別》，包括芝麻油、芥菜籽油、「蜜樹」油、蓖麻油和動物脂油。《義註》補充說，由任何未列入《經分別》中的植物製成的油，如果保存超過七天，犯《突吉羅》，儘管使用《四大教示》似乎更合適，並且只需將本戒條下的完全違犯適用於所有可當食物使用的植物油；並將任何由可以作為可以終生保存藥物的葉子或樹脂製成的芳香植物油（例如茶樹油或薄荷油）歸類為藥物（參見《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第五章）。
Mv.VI.2.1 allows five kinds of tallow: bear, fish, alligator, pig, and donkey tallow. Because bear meat is one of the kinds normally unallowable for bhikkhus, the Sub-commentary interprets this list as meaning that oil from the tallow of any animal whose flesh is allowable—and from any animal whose flesh, if eaten, carries a dukkaṭa—is allowable here. Because human flesh, if eaten, carries a thullaccaya, oil from human fat is not allowed. 《大品》.六.2.1允許使用五種動物脂：熊脂、魚脂、鱷魚脂、豬脂和驢脂。因為熊肉是比丘通常不允許食用的種類之一，所以《複註》解釋了這個清單，意思是來自任何食用其肉是允許的動物的脂油——以及來自任何如果食用其肉犯《突吉羅》的動物——是這裡允許。因為如果食用人肉，犯《偷蘭遮》，因此不允許使用人類脂肪製成的油。
Mv.VI.2.1 adds that tallow of any allowable sort may be consumed as oil if received in the right time (before noon, according to the Commentary), rendered in the right time, and filtered in the right time. (The PTS and Thai editions of the Canon use the word saṁsaṭṭha here, which usually means “mixed together”; the Sri Lankan edition reads saṁsatta, or “hung together.” Whichever the reading, the Commentary states that the meaning here is “filtered,” which best fits the context.) According to Mv.VI.2.2, if the tallow has been received, rendered, or filtered after noon, the act of consuming the resulting oil carries a dukkaṭa for each of the three activities that took place after noon. For example, if the tallow was received before noon but rendered and filtered after noon, there are two dukkaṭas for consuming the resulting oil. 《大品》.六.2.1補充說，如果在正確的時間（根據《義註》，在中午之前）接受、在正確的時間提煉並在正確的時間過濾，任何允許種類的動物脂都可以作為油食用。（《聖典》的 PTS 和泰國版本在這裡使用 saṁsaṭṭha 這個詞，通常意味著「混合在一起」；斯里蘭卡版本讀作 saṁsatta ，「懸掛在一起」。無論哪種讀法，《義註》都指出這裡的含義是「過濾」，這最適合上下文。）根據《大品》.六.2.2，如果動物脂在中午之後被接受、提煉或過濾，那麼食用所得的油的行為就會為中午之後發生的三項活動中的每一項犯《突吉羅》。例如，如果在中午之前收到動物脂，但在中午之後提煉和過濾，則食用所得的油犯兩次《突吉羅》。
Whether the Great Standards can be used to include gelatin under the category of “oil” here is a controversial topic. The argument for including it is that, like oil from tallow, it is rendered from a part of an animal’s body that the Commentary would include under “flesh,” and—on its own—it does not serve as substantial food. Different Communities, however, have differing opinions on this matter. 是否可以依照《四大教示》將明膠納入「油」範疇，這是一個有爭議的議題。支持將其包括在內的論點是，就像來自動物脂中的油一樣，它是從動物身體的一部分提煉出來的，《義註》將其納入「肉」中，並且它本身並不能作為大量的食物。然而，不同的僧團對此問題有不同的看法。
Honey means the honey of bees, although the Commentary lists two species of bee—cirika, long and with wings, and tumbala, large, black and with hard wings—whose honey it says is very viscous and ranks as a medicine, not as one of the five tonics. 蜂蜜的意思是蜜蜂的蜂蜜，儘管《義註》列出了兩種蜜蜂—— cirika ，長且有翅膀，和 tumbala ，大，黑色，翅膀堅硬——它說它們的蜂蜜非常黏稠，可以作為藥物，而不是作為五種補品之一。
Sugar/molasses the Vibhaṅga defines simply as what is extracted from sugar cane. The Commentary interprets this as meaning not only sugar and molasses, but also fresh sugar cane juice, but this contradicts Mv.VI.35.6, which classes fresh sugar cane juice as a juice drink, not a tonic. The Commentary also says that sugar or molasses made from any fruit classed as a food—such as coconut or date palm—ranks as a food and not as a tonic, but it is hard to guess at its reasoning here, as sugar cane itself is also classed as a food. The Vinaya-mukha seems more correct in using the Great Standards to say that all forms of sugar and molasses, no matter what the source, would be included here. Thus maple syrup and beet-sugar would come under this rule. 糖/糖蜜，《經分別》僅將其定義為從甘蔗中提取的物質。《義註》將其解釋為不僅指糖和糖蜜，還指新鮮甘蔗汁，但這與《大品》.六.35.6相矛盾，後者將新鮮甘蔗汁歸類為果汁飲料，而不是補品。《義註》還說，由任何被歸類為食物的水果（例如椰子或椰棗）製成的糖或糖蜜都屬於食物，而不是補品，但很難猜測其原因，因為甘蔗本身就是也被歸類為食物。《戒律入口》似乎更正確地使用《四大教示》來說所有形式的糖和糖蜜，無論來源是什麼，都包括在這裡。因此，楓糖漿和甜菜糖算在本戒條之下。
The Vinaya-mukha—arguing from the parallel between sugar cane juice, which is a juice drink, and sugar, which is made by boiling sugar cane juice—maintains that boiled juice would fit under sugar here. This opinion, however, is not accepted in all Communities. 《戒律入口》——從甘蔗汁（一種果汁飲料）和糖（通過煮沸甘蔗汁製成）之間的相似性出發——認為煮沸的果汁可以算在此處的糖之下。然而，這項意見並未被所有僧團接受。
According to Mv.VI.16.1, even if the sugar has a little flour mixed in with it simply to make it firmer—as sometimes happens in sugar cubes and blocks of palm sugar—it is still classed as a tonic as long as it is still regarded simply as “sugar.” If the mixture is regarded as something else—candy, for instance—it counts as a food and may not be eaten after noon of the day on which it is received. 根據《大品》.六.16.1，即使糖中混有少量麵粉，只是為了使其更堅硬（有時會發生在方糖和棕櫚糖塊中），只要它仍然僅被視為「糖」，它仍然被歸類為補品。如果混合物被視為其他東西（例如糖果），則它被視為食物，並且在接受的當天中午之後不得食用。
Sugar substitutes that have no food value would apparently not be classed as a food or a tonic, and thus would come under the category of life-long medicines. 沒有食用價值的糖替代品顯然不會被歸類為食品或補品，因此將屬於終身藥物的範疇。
Proper use 適當使用
According to Mv.VI.40.3, any tonic received today may be eaten mixed with food or juice drinks received today, but not with food or juice drinks received on a later day. Thus, as the Commentary points out, tonics received in the morning may be eaten with food that morning; if received in the afternoon, they may not be eaten mixed with food at all. 根據《大品》.六.40.3，今天接受的任何補品可以與今天接受的食物或果汁飲料混合食用，但不能與稍後的日子接受的食物或果汁飲料混合食用。因此，正如《義註》所指出的，早上接受的補品可以與當天早上的食物一起吃；如果是下午接受的，則根本不可與食物混合食用。
Also, the Commentary to this rule says at one point that one may take the tonic at any time during those seven days regardless of whether one is ill. At another point, though—in line with the Vibhaṅga to Pc 37 & 38, which assigns a dukkaṭa for taking a tonic as food—it says that one may take the tonic after the morning of the day on which it is received only if one has a reason. This statement the Sub-commentary explains as meaning that any reason suffices—e.g., hunger, weakness—as long as one is not taking the tonic for nourishment as food. In other words, one may take enough to assuage one’s hunger, but not to fill oneself up. 此外，本戒條的《義註》中曾提到，在這七天內，無論是否生病，都可以隨時服用補品。然而，在另一點上，與《波逸提》三七和三八的《經分別》一致，它為服用補品作為食物指定了《突吉羅》，它說，只有在有理由的情況下，才可以在接受補品的當天早上之後服用補品。《複註》解釋這句話的意思是，任何原因都可以──例如飢餓、虛弱──只要不以服用補品滋補作為食物。換句話說，可以吃足夠的東西來緩解飢餓，但不能填飽自己。
Mv.VI.27, however, contains a special stipulation for the use of sugar. If one is ill, one may take it “as is” at any time during the seven days; if not, then after noon of the first day one may take it only if it is mixed with water. 然而，《大品》.六.27對糖的使用有特殊規定。如果生病了，可以在七天內的任何時間「照原樣」服用；如果沒有，那麼第一天中午之後，只有與水混合後才可以服用。
Effort 努力
If a bhikkhu keeps a tonic past the seventh dawnrise after it has been received—either by himself or another bhikkhu—he is to forfeit it and confess the nissaggiya pācittiya offense. Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if he thinks that seven days have not yet passed when they actually have—or thinks that the tonic is no longer in his possession when it actually is—he incurs the penalty all the same (§). 如果一位比丘在接受補品後，無論是他自己還是其他比丘，在第七次黎明（明相）之後仍保留補品，他將捨出該補品並懺悔《捨墮》罪。在這裡，感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素。即使他認為還沒有過去七天，但實際上七天已經過去了——或者認為補品已經不在他手中了，而實際上仍在——他仍然會受到懲罰（§）。
Offenses 犯戒
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the tonic are the same as under NP 1. The formula to use in forfeiting the tonic is given in Appendix VI. Once the bhikkhu receives the tonic in return, he may not use it to eat or to apply to his body, although he may use it for other external purposes, such as oil for a lamp, etc. Other bhikkhus may not eat the tonic either, but they may apply it to their bodies—for example, as oil to rub down their limbs. 捨出、懺罪和返還補品的程序與《捨墮》一中的相同。附錄六給出了捨出補品的公式。一旦比丘收到補藥作為回報，他就不能用它來吃或塗在身體上，儘管他可以將它用於其他外部用途，例如燈油等。其他比丘也不可吃該補品，但他們可將其塗在身體上——例如，作為油擦在四肢上。
The Vibhaṅga states that, in the case of a tonic that has not been kept more than seven days, if one perceives it to have been kept more than seven days or if one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. As under NP 1, this dukkaṭa is apparently for using the tonic. 《經分別》指出，對於未保存超過七天的補品，如果認為它已保存超過七天或有疑問，則懲罰為《突吉羅》。與《捨墮》一中一樣，這個《突吉羅》顯然是因為使用補品。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if within seven days the tonic gets lost, destroyed, burnt, snatched away, or taken on trust; or if the bhikkhu determines it for use, abandons it, or—having given it away to an unordained person, abandoning desire for it—he receives it in return and makes use of it (§). 根據《經分別》，如果補品在七天內遺失、毀壞、燒毀、被搶走或基於信任被拿走，並沒有犯戒；或者，如果比丘決意使用它，放棄它，或者—將它給予未受具足戒的人，放棄對它的渴望—他收到它作為回報並使用它（§）。
The Commentary contains an extended discussion of these last three points. 《義註》包含對最後三點的擴展討論。
1) Determining the tonic for use means that within the seven days the bhikkhu determines that he will use it not as an internal medicine, but only to apply to the outside of his body or for other external purposes instead. In this case, he may keep the tonic as long as he likes without penalty.
1）決意使用補品，是指比丘在七日內決意不將其用作內服藥，而只用於塗抹身體外部或作其他外用。在這種情況下，他可以隨心所欲地保留補品，而不會受到懲罰。
2) Unlike the other rules dealing with robe-cloth or bowls kept x number of days, the non-offense clauses here do not include exemptions for tonics placed under shared ownership, but the Commentary discusses abandons it as if it read “places it under shared ownership.” Its verdict: Any tonic placed under shared ownership may be kept for more than seven days without incurring a penalty as long as the owners do not divide up their shares, but after the seventh day they may not use it for internal purposes. The Sub-commentary adds that any tonic placed under shared ownership may not be used at all until the arrangement is rescinded.
2）與其他處理袈裟布或缽保存 x 天數的戒條不同，這裡的不犯條款不包括對共享所有權下的補品的豁免，但《義註》討論放棄它，就好像它讀作「將其置於共享所有權之下」。其判決：只要所有者不分割其份額，任何共享所有權下的補品都可以保留超過七天，而不會受到處罰，但在第七天之後，他們不得將其用於內用目的。《複註》補充說，在取消該安排之前，任何共享所有權下的補品都不得使用。
3) The Commentary reports a controversy between two Vinaya experts on the meaning of the last exemption in the list—i.e., “having given it away to an unordained person, abandoning possession of it in his mind, he receives it in return and makes use of it.” Ven. Mahā Sumanatthera states that the phrase, “if within seven days” applies here as well: If within seven days the bhikkhu gives the tonic to an unordained person, having abandoned possession of it in his mind, he may then keep it and consume it for another seven days if the unordained person happens to return it to him.
3）《義註》記述了兩位戒律專家之間關於列表中最後一項豁免的含義的爭議，即「將它給予未受具足戒的人，在心中放棄了對它的擁有，他收到它作為回報並使用它」。摩訶Sumanatthera尊者指出，該措辭「若在七日內」也適用於此：如果在七日內，比丘將補品給予一位未受具足戒的人，並在心中放棄了對它的擁有，如果未受具足戒的人碰巧將其歸還給他，那麼他可以保留它並繼續食用七天。
Ven. Mahā Padumatthera disagrees, saying that the exemption abandons it already covers such a case, and that the exemption here refers to the situation where a bhikkhu has kept a tonic past seven days, has forfeited it and received it in return, and then gives it up to an unordained person. If the unordained person then returns the tonic to him, he may use it to rub on his body. 摩訶Padumatthera尊者不同意，他說，放棄它的豁免已經涵蓋了這種情況，這裡的豁免是指比丘保留補品超過七天，已經捨出並收到它作為回報，然後給予一位未受具足戒的人的情況。如果未受具足戒者隨後將補品歸還給他，他可以用它來塗抹身體。
The K/Commentary agrees with the latter position, but this creates some problems, both textual and practical. To begin with, the phrase, “if within seven days,” modifies every one of the other non-offense clauses under this rule, and there is nothing to indicate that it does not modify this one, too. Second, every one of the other exemptions refers directly to ways of avoiding the full offense and not to ways of dealing with the forfeited article after it is returned, and again there is nothing to indicate that the last exemption breaks this pattern. K/《義註》同意後一種觀點，但這造成了一些問題，包括文字和實際問題。首先，「如果在七天之內」這句話修改了本戒條下的所有其他不犯條款，並且沒有任何跡象表明它不會修改這條。其次，其他每項豁免都直接提到了避免完全違犯的方式，而不是提到歸還捨出物品後的處理方式，而且沒有任何跡象表明最後一項豁免打破了這種模式。
On the practical side, if the exemption abandons it covers cases where a bhikkhu may give up the tonic to anyone at all and then receive it in return to use for another seven days, bhikkhus could spend their time trading hoards of tonics among themselves indefinitely, and the rule would become meaningless. But as the origin story shows, it was precisely to prevent them from amassing such hoards that the rule was formulated in the first place. 從實際角度來看，如果放棄它的豁免涵蓋了比丘可以將補品給予任何人，然後再收到補藥以供使用七天的情況，比丘們可以無限期地花時間在他們之間交易補品，那麼本戒條就變得毫無意義了。但正如起源故事所示，最初制定本戒條正是為了防止他們累積如此多的東西。
“Then Ven. Pilindavaccha went to the residence of King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha and, on arrival, sat down on a seat made ready. Then King Seniya Bimbisāra… went to Ven. Pilindavaccha and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Pilindavaccha addressed him: ‘For what reason, great king, has the monastery attendant’s family been imprisoned?’
「於是，畢陵伽婆蹉尊者來到摩揭陀斯尼耶頻毘娑羅王的住所，一到那裡，就在準備好的座位上坐下。然後，斯尼耶頻毘娑羅王… 去找畢陵伽婆蹉尊者，到達後，向他敬禮，然後坐在一旁。當他坐在那裡時，畢陵伽婆蹉尊者問他：『偉大的國王，寺院淨人一族因何被監禁？』
“‘Venerable sir, in the monastery attendant’s house was a garland of gold: beautiful, attractive, exquisite. There is no garland of gold like it even in our own harem, so from where did that poor man (get it)? It must have been taken by theft.’
「『尊者，寺院淨人一族有一串金花環：美麗、迷人、精巧。就連我們自己的後宮中都沒有這樣的金花環，那麼，那個可憐的男人是從哪裡得到它的呢？它肯定是被偷了。』
“Then Ven. Pilindavaccha willed that the palace of King Seniya Bimbisāra be gold. And it became made entirely of gold. ‘But from where did you get so much of this gold, great king?’
「時，畢陵伽婆蹉尊者用意念將斯尼耶頻毘娑羅王的宮殿變成黃金。它變成完全由黃金製成。『但是，偉大的國王，您從哪裡得到這麼多的黃金？』
“(Saying,) ‘I understand, venerable sir. This is simply the master’s psychic power’ (§—reading ayyass’ev’eso with the Thai edition of the Canon)’ he had the monastery attendant’s family released.
「（說）『我明白了，尊者。這只是大德的神通力』（§—泰國版《聖典》拼讀成 ayyass’ev’eso）』他釋放了寺院淨人一族。
“The people, saying, ‘A psychic wonder, a superior human feat, they say, was displayed to the king and his retinue by the master Pilindavaccha,’ were pleased and delighted. They presented Ven. Pilindavaccha with the five tonics: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and sugar.
「人們說：『據說，畢陵伽婆蹉大德向國王和他的隨從示現神通不可思議之過人法，』他們很開心高興。他們為畢陵伽婆蹉尊者持來五種補品：酥油、新鮮奶油、油、蜂蜜和糖。
“Now ordinarily Ven. Pilindavaccha was already a receiver of the five tonics (§), so he distributed his gains among his company, who came to live in abundance. They put away their gains, having filled pots and pitchers. They hung up their gains in windows, having filled water strainers and bags. These kept oozing and seeping, and their dwellings were crawling and creeping with rats. People, engaged in a tour of the dwellings and seeing this, criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘These Sakyan-son monks have inner storerooms like the king….’”
「現在畢陵伽婆蹉尊者已獲得五種補品（§），因此他將所得分配給他的隨從，使他們過得富足。他們把所得裝滿了罐子和水壺，然後存了起來。他們把所得裝滿濾水器和水袋，掛在窗戶上。這些地方不斷有液體滲出，他們的住處到處都是老鼠。人們在參觀住處時看到這種情況，便批評、抱怨並四處傳播：『這些沙門釋子與國王一樣擁有內部儲藏室……。』」
Thus it seems more likely that the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses should be interpreted like this: A bhikkhu is no longer held responsible for a tonic if he abandons it or gives it away—no matter to whom he gives it, or what his state of mind—but he may receive it in return and use it another seven days only if within the first seven days he has given it to an unordained person, having abandoned all possession of it in his mind. 因此，《經分別》的不犯條款似乎更有可能被這樣解釋：如果比丘放棄或贈送補品，他不再對補品負責——無論他給誰，或他的心理狀態如何——但他可以接受其歸還並再使用七天，只有當前提是，在前七天裡，他必須將其給予一個未受具足戒的人，並在心中放棄對它的所有權。
Summary: Keeping any of the five tonics—ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, or sugar/molasses—for more than seven days, unless one determines to use them only externally, is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：將酥油、新鮮奶油、油、蜂蜜或糖/糖蜜這五種補品中的任何一種保存超過七天，除非決意只外用，否則是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
24 二十四
When a month is left to the hot season, a bhikkhu may seek a rains-bathing cloth. When a half-month is left to the hot season, (the cloth) having been made, may be worn. If when more than a month is left to the hot season he should seek a rains-bathing cloth, (or) when more than a half-month is left to the hot season, (the cloth) having been made should be worn, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
當離炎熱季節還有一個月的時候，比丘可尋求一件雨浴衣。離炎熱季節還有半個月，（衣）做好了，可以穿了。如果距離炎熱季節還超過一個月，他尋求一件雨浴衣，（或）距離炎熱季節還超過半個月，（衣）已經做好了並穿上，尼薩耆波逸提。
Bhikkhus in the time of the Buddha commonly bathed in a river or lake. Passages in the Canon tell of some of the dangers involved: They had to watch over their robes to make sure they weren’t stolen or washed away by the river, and at the same time make sure they didn’t expose themselves. (SN 2:10 tells of a female deva who, seeing a young bhikkhu bathing, became smitten with the sight of him wearing only his lower robe. She appeared to him, suggesting that he leave the monkhood to take his fill of sensual pleasures before his youth had passed, but fortunately he was far enough in the practice to resist her advances.) A further danger during the rainy season was that the rivers would become swollen and their currents strong. During this time, then, bhikkhus would bathe in the rain. 佛陀時代的比丘通常在河流或湖泊中沐浴。《聖典》中的段落講述了其中涉及的一些危險：他們必須看管好自己的袈裟，確保它們不會被偷走或被河水沖走，同時確保他們不會暴露自己。（《相應部》2:10經講述了一位女天神看到一位年輕的比丘沐浴，被他只穿著下衣袈裟所吸引。她出現在他面前，建議他還俗，在他的青春已逝之前盡情享受感官愉悅，但幸運的是，他的修行已經足夠深入，可以抵抗她的追求。）雨季的另一個危險是河水上漲且水流湍急。在這段時間裡，比丘們會在雨中沐浴。
Rains-bathing cloth 雨浴衣
Mv.VIII.15.1-7 tells the story of a servant girl who went to a monastery and—seeing bhikkhus out bathing naked in the rain—concluded that there were no bhikkhus there, but only naked ascetics. She returned to tell her mistress, Lady Visākhā, who realized what was actually happening and made this the occasion to ask permission of the Buddha to provide rains-bathing cloths for the bhikkhus, because as she put it, “Nakedness is repulsive.” He granted her request, and at a later point (Mv.VIII.20.2) stated that a rains-bathing cloth could be determined for use during the four months of the rainy season—beginning with the day after the full moon in July, or the second if there are two—and that at the end of the four months it was to be placed under shared ownership. This training rule deals with the protocol for seeking and using such a cloth during the rains and the period immediately preceding them. 《大品》.八.15.1-7 講述了一個女僕去寺院的故事，她看到比丘們在雨中裸體沐浴，於是得出結論，那裡沒有比丘，只有裸體的苦行僧。她回去告訴了女主人，毘舍佉夫人，毘舍佉夫人意識到了事情的真相，並藉此機會向佛陀請求允許為比丘們提供雨浴衣，因為用她的話來說，「裸體是令人厭惡的」。他答應了她的請求，並在後來的某個時刻（《大品》.八.20.2）表示，可以在雨季的四個月內決意使用雨浴衣——從七月滿月後的次日開始，或者如果有兩個滿月的話，則是第二個滿月後的次日開始——並且在四個月結束後，將其置於共享所有權之下。本學處涉及在雨季和雨季之前尋求和使用這種衣物的行儀。
The protocol as sketched out in the Vibhaṅga—together with details from the Commentary in parentheses and my own comments in brackets—is as follows: During the first two weeks of the fourth lunar month of the hot season—[the lunar cycle ending with the full moon in July, or the first full moon if there are two]—a bhikkhu may seek a rains-bathing cloth and make it (if he gets enough material). (However, he may not yet use it or determine it for use because it may be determined for use only during the four months of the rainy season—[see Mv.VIII.20.2].) 《經分別》中概述的行儀——包括圓括號中的《義註》細節和方括號中我自己的評論——如下：在炎熱季節的第四個陰曆月的前兩週——[以七月滿月結束的月亮週期，或如果有兩個滿月，則為第一個滿月]——比丘可以尋求雨浴衣並製作它（如果他獲得足夠的材料）。（然而，他還不能使用它或決意使用它，因為它只可以在雨季的四個月內被決意使用——[見《大品》.八.20.2]。）
In seeking the cloth he may directly ask for it from relatives or people who have invited him to ask, or he may approach people who have provided rains-bathing cloths in the past and give them such hints as: “It is the time for material for a rains-bathing cloth,” or “People are giving material for a rains-bathing cloth.” As under NP 10, he may not say, “Give me material for a rains-bathing cloth,” or “Get me…” or “Exchange for me…” or “Buy me material for a rains-bathing cloth.” (If he asks directly from people who are not relatives or who have not invited him to ask, he incurs a dukkaṭa; if he then receives cloth from them, he incurs the full penalty under NP 6. If he gives hints to people who have never provided rains-bathing cloths in the past, he incurs a dukkaṭa [which the Commentary assigns on the general principle of breaking a duty].) 在尋求布料時，他可以直接向親戚或邀請他來詢問的人索取，或者他可以接近過去曾提供過雨浴衣服的人，並給他們這樣的暗示：「現在是需要雨浴衣材料的時候了」或「人們正在提供用於雨浴衣的材料」。根據《捨墮》十，他不得說「給我一件雨浴衣的材料」，或「給我拿來…」或「給我換來…」或「給我買一件雨浴衣的材料」。（如果他直接向非親屬或沒有邀請他來詢問的人索取，他犯《突吉羅》；如果他隨後從他們那裡接受布，他會遭受《捨墮》六規定的全部懲罰。如果他向過去從未提供過雨浴衣的人暗示，他犯《突吉羅》[《義註》中對違反義務的一般原則的規定]。
During the last two weeks of the fourth lunar month of the hot season he may now begin using his cloth (although he may not yet determine it for use). [This shows clearly that this rule is providing an exemption to NP 1, under which he otherwise would be forced to determine the cloth within ten days after receiving it.] (If he has not yet received enough material, he may continue seeking for more in the way described above and make himself a cloth when he receives enough.) 在炎熱季節的第四個陰曆月的最後兩週，他現在可以開始使用他的布料了（儘管他可能還沒有決意使用）。[這清楚地表明，本戒條為《捨墮》一提供了豁免，否則他將被迫在收到布料後十天內決意布料。]（如果他還沒有得到足夠的材料，他可以繼續按照上面描述的方式尋求更多的材料，當他得到足夠的材料時，他可以為自己做一件衣。）
(When the first day of the rainy season arrives, he may determine the cloth. If he does not yet have enough material to make his rains-bathing cloth, he may continue seeking it throughout the four months of the rains.) If he bathes naked in the rain when he has a cloth to use, he incurs a dukkaṭa. (However, he may bathe naked in a lake or river without penalty. If he has no cloth to use, he may also bathe naked in the rain.) （當雨季的第一天到來時，他可以決意布料。如果他還沒有足夠的材料來製作雨浴衣，他可以在四個月的雨季裡繼續尋求。）如果他有衣服可用，卻在雨中赤裸裸地洗澡，他犯《突吉羅》。（然而，他可以在湖泊或河流中裸浴而不受懲罰。如果他沒有衣服可用，他也可以在雨中裸浴。）
(At the end of the four months, he is to wash his cloth, place it under shared ownership, and put it aside if it is still usable. He may begin using it again the last two weeks of the last lunar month before the next rainy season and is to re-determine it for use on the day the rainy season officially begins.) （在四個月結束時，他要洗淨他的衣，將其置於共享所有權之下，如果還能用的話，就把它放在一邊。他可以在下一個雨季前最後一個陰曆月的最後兩週再次開始使用它，並在雨季正式開始之日重新決意使用之。）
Toward the end of his discussion of this rule, Buddhaghosa adds his own personal opinion on when a rains-bathing cloth should be determined for use if it is finished during the rains—on the grounds that the ancient commentaries do not discuss the issue—one of the few places where he overtly gives his own opinion anywhere in the Commentary. His verdict: If one receives enough material to finish the cloth within ten days, one should determine it within those ten days. If not, one may keep what material one has, undetermined and throughout the rainy season if need be, until one does obtain enough material and then determine the cloth on the day it is completed. 在討論本戒條的最後，佛音補充了他自己的觀點，關於如果雨季期間完成了雨浴衣，應該何時決意使用之——理由是古代註釋沒有討論這個問題——在《義註》中，他少數幾次公開發表自己的觀點。他的結論是：如果收到足夠的材料，可以在十天內完成衣物，那麼他就應該在這十天內做出決意。如果不夠，如有必要的話則可以在整個雨季保留現有的材料不做決意，直到獲得足夠的材料，然後在完成的那天決意衣物。
Offenses 犯戒
As the K/Commentary points out, this rule covers two separate offenses whose factors are somewhat different: the offense for seeking a rains-bathing cloth at the wrong time and the offense for using it at the wrong time. 正如 K/《義註》指出的那樣，本戒條涵蓋兩項不同的罪行，其因素略有不同：在錯誤的時間尋求雨浴衣的罪行和在錯誤的時間使用雨浴衣的罪行。
Seeking 尋求
The factors here are three: object, effort, and result. The bhikkhu is looking for material for a rains-bathing cloth, he makes hints to people during the time he is not allowed to make hints, and he receives the cloth. 這裡的因素有三：對象、努力、結果。比丘在尋找雨浴衣的材料，他在不允許暗示的時間向人們暗示，並得到了布料。
Using 使用
The factors here are two: object—he has a rains-bathing cloth—and effort—he has other robes to use, there are no dangers, and yet he wears the cloth during the period when he is not allowed to wear it. (The conditions here are based on the non-offenses clauses, which we will discuss below.) 這裡的因素有兩個：對象—他有一件雨浴衣—而努力—他有其他袈裟可用，也沒有危險，但他卻在禁止穿雨浴衣的期間裡穿著它。（這裡的條件是基於不犯條款，我們將在下面討論。）
In neither of these cases is perception a mitigating factor. Even if a bhikkhu thinks that the right time to hint for the cloth or to wear it has come when it actually hasn’t, he is not immune from an offense. 在這兩種情況下，感知都不是減輕懲罰的因素。即使比丘認為暗示衣物或穿戴衣物的正確時機已到，但實際上並未到，他仍不能免於犯戒。
A bhikkhu who has committed either of the two full offenses here is to forfeit the cloth and confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1. 比丘若完全違犯了此處所述的兩種罪行，則須捨出衣物並懺悔罪行。捨出、懺罪及歸還衣物的程序與《捨墮》一相同。
If a bhikkhu seeks or uses a rains-bathing cloth during the permitted times and yet believes that he is doing so outside of the permitted times, or if he is in doubt about the matter, he incurs a dukkaṭa. 如果比丘在允許的時間內尋求或使用雨浴衣，然而卻相信他是在允許的時間之外這樣做，或者如果他對此事有懷疑，他犯《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses 不犯
As the rule states, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who hints for a rains-bathing cloth within the last lunar month of the hot season, or for one who wears his rains-bathing cloth during the last two weeks of that month. 根據本戒條所述，在炎熱季節的最後一個陰曆月內暗示雨浴衣的比丘，或在該月的最後兩週內穿著雨浴衣的比丘，均不構成犯戒。
The Vibhaṅga then refers to a situation that occasionally happens under the lunar calendar: The four months of the hot season end, but the Rains-residence is delayed another lunar cycle because a thirteenth lunar month has been added at the end of the hot season or the beginning of the rainy season to bring the lunar year back into line with the solar year. In this case, it says that the rains-bathing cloth—having been sought for during the fourth month and worn during the last two weeks of the hot season—is to be washed and then put aside. When the proper season arrives, it may be brought out for use (§). 《經分別》接著提到了陰曆中偶爾發生的情況：四個月的炎熱季節結束了，但雨安居又推遲了一個陰曆週期，因為在炎熱季節結束或者雨季的開始時又增加了第十三個陰曆月，使得陰曆年與陽曆年重新保持一致。在這種情況下，它說，在炎熱季節的第四個月尋求並在最後兩週穿著的雨浴衣需要清洗然後放在一邊。當適當的季節到來時，就可以拿出來使用（§）。
The Commentary adds that there is no need to determine the cloth in this period until the day the Rains-residence officially starts, but it doesn’t say when the proper season for using it begins. Having made use of the two-week allowance for using the undetermined bathing cloth at the end of the hot season, is one granted another two-week allowance prior to the Rains-residence, or can one begin using it only when the Rains-residence begins? None of the texts say. It would make sense to allow the bhikkhu to begin using the cloth two weeks before the Rains-residence, but this is simply my own opinion. 《義註》補充道，直到雨安居正式開始的那一天為止，不需要決這段時期的衣物，但沒有說明使用它的適當季節從何時開始。在炎熱季節結束時，已經使用了兩週開緣的未決意浴衣，在雨安居之前，是否還獲得另外兩週的開緣，或者只能在雨安居時開始時才能開始使用？沒有任何文獻提及。允許比丘在雨安居前兩週開始使用衣物算是合理的，但這只是我個人的看法。
The Vibhaṅga then adds three more exemptions: There is no offense for a “snatched-away-robe” bhikkhu, a “destroyed-robe” bhikkhu, or when there are dangers. Strangely enough, the Commentary and the K/Commentary—although both were composed by Buddhaghosa—give conflicting interpretations of these exemptions. The Commentary interprets “robe” here as meaning rains-bathing cloth, and says that these exemptions apply to the dukkaṭa offense for bathing naked in the rain. A bhikkhu whose rains-bathing cloth has been snatched away or destroyed may bathe naked in the rain without incurring a penalty, as may a bhikkhu with an expensive bathing cloth who would rather bathe naked because of his fear of cloth thieves. 然後，《經分別》又增加了三種豁免：「被奪走袈裟」的比丘、「被毀壞袈裟」的比丘，或當有危險時，則不犯戒。奇怪的是，儘管《義註》和 K/《義註》都是由佛音編纂的，但對這些豁免的解釋卻相互矛盾。《義註》將這裡的「袈裟」解釋為雨浴衣，並表示這些豁免適用於在雨中裸浴的《突吉羅》罪。比丘的雨浴衣被搶走或毀壞，可以在雨中裸體沐浴而不受懲罰；如果比丘有一件昂貴的浴衣，但是由於害怕盜衣賊，他寧願裸體沐浴，那麼他也可以不受懲罰。
The K/Commentary, however, makes the Vibhaṅga’s exemptions refer also to the full offense. If a bhikkhu’s other robes have been snatched away or destroyed, he may wear his rains-bathing cloth out of season. The same holds true when, in the words of the K/Commentary, “naked thieves are plundering,” and a bhikkhu decides to wear his rains-bathing cloth out-of-season in order to protect either it or his other robes from being snatched away. 然而，K/《義註》使《經分別》的豁免也涉及完全違犯。如果比丘的其他袈裟被奪走或毀壞，他可以在非時季節穿著雨浴衣。同樣的情況也適用於，用 K/《義註》的話來說，「赤身裸體的盜賊正在掠奪」，而比丘決定在非時季節穿他的雨浴衣，以保護它或其他袈裟不被搶走。
Because the non-offense clauses usually apply primarily to the full offense, it seems appropriate to follow the K/Commentary here. 由於不犯條款通常主要適用於完全違犯，因此遵循此處的 K/《義註》似乎是適當的。
At present, much of this discussion is purely academic, inasmuch as most bhikkhus—if they use a bathing cloth—tend to determine it for use as a “requisite cloth” so as to avoid any possible offense under this rule. 目前，這方面的討論大多是純粹學術性的，因為大多數比丘——如果他們使用雨浴衣——傾向於將其決意為「必需布」，以避免本戒條下的任何可能罪行。
Summary: Seeking and receiving a rains-bathing cloth before the fourth month of the hot season is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：在炎熱季節的第四個月之前尋求並接受雨浴衣是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
Using a rains-bathing cloth before the last two weeks of the fourth month of the hot season is also a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 在炎熱季節第四個月的最後兩週之前使用雨浴衣也是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
25 二十五
Should any bhikkhu—having himself given robe-cloth to (another) bhikkhu and then being angered and displeased—snatch it back or have it snatched back, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果任何比丘將袈裟布給了（另一個）比丘，然後感到憤怒和不悅，將其奪回，或讓別人將其奪回，尼薩耆波逸提。
“At that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan said to his brother’s student, ‘Come, friend, let’s set out on a tour of the countryside.’
「爾時，釋迦族的優波難陀尊者對其兄弟的學生說：『朋友，走吧，我們去遊行諸方吧。』
“‘I can’t go, venerable sir. My robe is threadbare.’
「『我不能去，大德。我的袈裟已經破爛了。』
“‘Come, friend, I’ll give you a robe.’ And he gave him a robe. Then that bhikkhu heard, ‘The Blessed One, they say, is going to set out on a tour of the countryside.’ The thought occurred to him: ‘Now I won’t set out on a tour of the countryside with Ven. Upananda the Sakyan. I’ll set out on a tour of the countryside with the Blessed One.’
「『來吧，朋友，我給你一件袈裟。』於是他就給了他一件袈裟。然後那位比丘聽到說：『他們說，世尊要去遊行諸方。』他心裡想：『現在我不和釋迦族的優波難陀尊者去遊行諸方了。我要和世尊去遊行諸方。』
“Then Ven. Upananda said to him, ‘Come, friend, let’s set out on that tour of the countryside now.’
「然後，優波難陀尊者對他說：『來吧，朋友，我們現在就去遊行諸方吧。』
“‘I won’t set out on a tour of the countryside with you, venerable sir. I’ll set out on a tour of the countryside with the Blessed One.’
「『我不會和您去遊行諸方，大德。我要和世尊去遊行諸方。』
“‘But the robe I gave you, my friend, will set out on a tour of the countryside with me.’ And angered and displeased, he snatched the robe back.”
「『但是我給你的袈裟，我的朋友，會和我去遊行諸方。』他既生氣又不高興，把袈裟搶了回去。」
As the Commentary points out, this rule applies to cases where one perceives the robe-cloth as being rightfully one’s own even after having given it away, as when giving it on an implicit or explicit condition that the recipient does not later fulfill. Thus the act of snatching back here does not entail a pārājika. If, however, one has mentally abandoned ownership of the robe to the recipient and then for some reason snatches it back, the case would come under Pr 2. 正如《義註》所指出的，本戒條適用於這樣的情況：即使在將袈裟布贈予他人之後，仍認為袈裟布理應屬於自己，例如在贈予袈裟時附加了隱含或明確的條件，而接受者後來沒有履行該條件。因此，此處的奪回行為並不涉及《波羅夷》。然而，如果在心裡已經放棄了袈裟的所有權，將其交給了接受者，然後又因為某種原因把它奪了回來，這種情況就屬於《波羅夷》二的情況。
The factors for an offense here are three. 此處的犯戒因素有三。
Object: 對象：
A piece of any of the six allowable kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. 六種允許使用的袈裟布中的任一種，尺寸至少為四指乘八指寬。
Effort 努力
One has given the cloth to another bhikkhu on one condition or another and then either snatches it back or has someone else snatch it back. In the latter case, one incurs a dukkaṭa in giving the order to snatch the robe, and the full offense when the robe is snatched. If one’s order is to snatch a single robe but the person ordered snatches and delivers more than one robe, they are all to be forfeited. 在某個條件下把布給了另一個比丘，然後若非把它奪回來，則是讓別人把它奪回來。在後一種情況下，如果下令搶奪袈裟，則犯《突吉羅》，而當袈裟被搶走，則會完全違犯。如果命令是搶奪一件袈裟，但被命令的人搶奪並交付了多件袈裟，則所有袈裟都將被捨出。
Perception (with regard to the recipient/victim) is not a mitigating factor here. If he actually is a bhikkhu, then the offense is a pācittiya regardless of whether one perceives him to be so. If he is not a bhikkhu, the offense is a dukkaṭa, again regardless of whether one perceives him as a bhikkhu or not. 在此，感知（對接受者/受害者而言）不是減輕處罰的因素。如果他實際上是一位比丘，那麼無論別人是否認為他是比丘，罪行都是《波逸提》。如果他不是比丘，罪行都是《突吉羅》，不管是否認為他是比丘。
Intention 意圖
One is impelled by anger or displeasure. The displeasure here, however, need not be great, as the Vibhaṅga makes an exemption for only one sort of intention under this rule, that of taking the cloth on trust (§). 被憤怒或不滿所驅使。然而，這裡的不滿不必太大，因為《經分別》只對本戒條下的一種意圖進行了豁免，那就是基於信任地拿走布料（§）。
Forfeiture & confession. 捨出及懺罪
A bhikkhu who has obtained robe-cloth in violation of this rule is to forfeit it and confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1. The formula to use in forfeiting the cloth is given in Appendix VI. 違反本戒條而獲得袈裟布的比丘應予捨出並懺悔其罪行。捨出、懺罪及歸還布料的程序與《捨墮》一相同。捨出布料所使用的公式請見附錄六。
Lesser offenses 較輕罪行
There is a dukkaṭa for angrily snatching back from a bhikkhu requisites other than cloth; and for angrily snatching back any kind of requisite—cloth or otherwise—that one has given to someone who is not a bhikkhu. The Sub-commentary adds that to give robe-cloth to a layman planning to be ordained, and then to snatch it back in this way after his ordination, entails the full offense. 憤怒地從比丘手中奪回布料以外的其他必需品，《突吉羅》；憤怒地奪回給予非比丘之人的任何必需品（布料或其他物品）。《複註》補充說，將袈裟布送給即將受具足戒的俗人，然後在受具足戒之後再以此方式將其奪回，犯全部罪行。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if the recipient returns the robe of his own accord or if the donor takes it back on trust (§). The Commentary’s discussion of the first exemption shows that if the recipient returns the robe after receiving a gentle hint from the donor—“I gave you the robe in hopes that you would study with me, but now you are studying with someone else”—the donor incurs no penalty. However, if the donor’s hint shows anger—“I gave this robe to a bhikkhu who would study with me, not to one who would study with somebody else!”—he incurs a dukkaṭa for the hint, but no penalty when the recipient returns the robe. 根據《經分別》，如果接受者自願歸還袈裟，或捐贈者基於信任而收回袈裟（§），則不犯戒。《義註》對第一項豁免的討論表明，如果接受者在收到捐贈者的溫和暗示後歸還袈裟——「我給你袈裟是希望你跟我學習，但現在你卻在跟別人學習」——那麼捐贈者不會受到任何懲罰。然而，如果捐贈者的暗示表現出憤怒——「我把這件袈裟給一個要和我一起學習的比丘，而不是給一個和別人一起學習的比丘！」——他會因這個暗示而犯《突吉羅》，但當接受者歸還袈裟時不會受到懲罰。
Summary: Having given another bhikkhu a robe on a condition and then—angry and displeased—snatching it back or having it snatched back is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：在有條件的情況下給予另一位比丘袈裟，然後——生氣和不滿——將其奪回或令其被奪回，是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
26 二十六
Should any bhikkhu, having requested thread, have robe-cloth woven by weavers, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
若比丘自己乞線後，請織匠們織袈裟布者，尼薩耆波逸提。
This rule covers two actions—asking for thread and getting weavers to weave it into robe-cloth—but the Vibhaṅga is often unclear as to which action its explanations refer to. It barely touches on the first action explicitly, and even its treatment of the second action is extremely terse, leaving many questions unanswered. For these reasons, the compilers of the Commentary felt called upon to clarify the references and fill in the blanks even more than is normally the case. The Vibhaṅga’s discussion does make clear that the factors for an offense here are three—object, effort, and result—so the following discussion will focus on each factor in turn, stating what the Vibhaṅga does and doesn’t say about that factor, giving the Commentary’s further explanations, at the same time evaluating those further explanations as to their cogency. 本戒條涵蓋兩個行動 - 索取線和讓織匠將其織成袈裟布 - 但《經分別》通常不清楚其解釋指的是哪個行動。它幾乎沒有明確涉及第一個行動，甚至對第二個行動的處理也非常簡潔，留下許多未解答的問題。基於這些原因，《義註》的編纂者感到有必要比平常更澄清參考文獻並填補空白。《經分別》的討論確實明確指出，此處的犯戒因素有三個——對象、努力和結果——因此，以下的討論將依次關注每個因素，說明《經分別》對該因素說了什麼和沒有說什麼，給出《義註》的進一步解釋，同時評估這些進一步解釋的說服力。
Object: 對象：
Thread or yarn of the six allowable types for robe-cloth that a bhikkhu has himself requested from others. Because the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses give an exemption “to sew a robe,” the Commentary is apparently right in stating that, to fulfill this factor, the thread or yarn has to have been requested for the purpose of making robe-cloth. And because the non-offense clauses also state, “from relatives or people who have invited one to ask,” the Commentary also seems right in stating that thread requested from these two types of people would not fulfill this factor. However, none of the texts explicitly assign a penalty for requesting thread that would not fall under the exemptions. Perhaps it would entail a dukkaṭa under the catch-all rule against misbehavior (Cv.V.36). 比丘向他人乞求的、可用於製作袈裟布料的六種允許類型的線或紗。因為《分別經》的不犯條款豁免了「縫製袈裟」，所以《義註》顯然正確地指出，要滿足這一因素，線或紗必須是為了製作袈裟布而乞求的。而且，由於不犯條款還規定「來自親戚或已經邀請詢問者」，因此《義註》似乎正確地指出，向這兩類人乞求線不會滿足這一因素。但是，沒有任何文獻明確規定對請求不屬於豁免範圍的線進行懲罰。也許，根據針對不當行為包含所有的戒條（《小品》.五.36），這將犯《突吉羅》。
Effort 努力
One gets weavers to weave robe-cloth using the thread. Again, because of the exemptions regarding relatives and people who have invited one to ask, the Commentary seems correct in saying that any weavers who fall into either of these categories would not fulfill this factor. 讓織匠用線織成袈裟布。同樣，由於親戚和邀請詢問者有豁免，《義註》似乎正確地指出，任何屬於這兩類的織匠都不會滿足這一因素。
The Vibhaṅga does not give a minimum size for the robe-cloth. The Commentary, following the pattern from other NP rules, states that any cloth measuring four by eight fingerbreadths or larger would fulfill this factor. However, several of the items allowed in the non-offense clauses would be larger than that measurement, so it seems preferable to interpret robe-cloth here as robe—as the Commentary does under Pc 58, where again the Vibhaṅga gives no minimum size for the cloth. In other words, the penalty is for getting the weavers to weave a wearable robe. 《經分別》並沒有規定袈裟布的最小尺寸。《義註》遵循其他《捨墮》戒條的模式，指出任何尺寸為四乘八指寬或更大的布料都滿足這一因素。然而，不犯條款中允許的幾件物品會比該尺寸更大，因此，似乎最好將袈裟布解釋為袈裟——正如《義註》在《波逸提》五八中所做的那樣，其中《經分別》也沒有給出布料的最小尺寸。換句話說，懲罰是針對讓織匠織出一件可穿的袈裟。
The Vibhaṅga states that there is a dukkaṭa in the effort of getting the weavers to weave the robe-cloth, which the Commentary explains by saying that the first dukkaṭa is incurred with the weavers’ first effort toward actually making the cloth, with additional dukkaṭas incurred for each additional effort they make. In other words, the dukkaṭa is for successfully getting the weavers to act on one’s request. It may seem strange not to allot a dukkaṭa for the request itself, but the Vibhaṅga to the following rule clearly states that the bhikkhu, in a similar case, incurs a dukkaṭa only when the weavers act on his request to improve a robe. The Vibhaṅga for this rule simply uses the causative—the form of verb describing the act of getting someone else to do something—which is ambiguous, for it could mean either trying to get the weavers to weave the cloth or successfully getting the weavers to weave the cloth. To clear up the ambiguity, the Commentary seems justified in applying the pattern from the following rule here. However, it seems excessive to impose multiple dukkaṭas on the bhikkhu for what, from his point of view, was a single action. There are many rules—such as Pc 10, Pc 20, and Pc 56—where a single request carries only one offense even if the person requested does the action many times. 《經分別》中說，在讓織匠織造袈裟布的努力，會犯一次《突吉羅》，而《義註》則解釋說，第一次《突吉羅》是在織匠第一次努力實際織造布料時發生的，而額外的《突吉羅》則發生在他們每一次額外的努力。換句話說，《突吉羅》是針對成功地讓織匠按照自己的要求採取行動。請求本身不犯《突吉羅》似乎很奇怪，但以下戒條的《經分別》明確指出，在類似情況下，只有當織匠根據他的要求改善袈裟時，比丘才會犯《突吉羅》。本戒條的《經分別》僅使用使役動詞——描述讓別人做某事的行為的動詞形式——這是模棱兩可的，因為它可能意味著試圖讓織匠織布，也可能意味著成功地讓織匠織布。為了消除歧義，《義註》似乎有理由在此套用以下戒條的模式。然而，從比丘的角度來看，對於一個單一的行動而犯多次《突吉羅》似乎太過度了。有許多戒條（例如《波逸提》十、《波逸提》二十和《波逸提》五六），其中單次要求只會構成一次犯戒，即使被要求的人多次執行該行動。
None of the texts discuss this point further, but the Commentary’s interpretation of the causative verb here apparently holds for other rules as well in which the Vibhaṅga imposes a penalty on a bhikkhu for improperly getting someone else to make an item for him, such as NP 11-15 and Pc 86-92: no offense for the request itself, but a dukkaṭa if the request successfully persuades the other person to act in line with it. Only when the Vibhaṅga explicitly states that there is an offense in the request—as under Pc 26, the rule concerned with sewing a robe or having one sewn for a bhikkhunī—does the request carry an offense even if the person requested does not follow it. 沒有任何文獻進一步討論這一點，但《義註》對此處使役動詞的解釋顯然也適用於其他戒條，其中《經分別》對比丘因不適當地讓別人為自己製作物品而施加懲罰，例如《捨墮》十一至十五和《波逸提》八六至九二：請求本身並不犯戒，但如果請求成功說服另一方按照其行事，則犯《突吉羅》。只有當《經分別》明確指出請求中有犯戒之處時——如《波逸提》二六關於縫製袈裟或為比丘尼縫製袈裟的戒條——即使被請求者不遵照行事，該請求仍構成犯戒。
Result 結果
One obtains the cloth. According to the Commentary, the cloth counts as “obtained” when the weavers have completed weaving four by eight fingerbreadths of cloth. It also states that there is an extra NP offense for each added four-by-eight-fingerbreadths section they complete. Neither of these explanations has a precedent anywhere in the Canon. Mv.V.13.13 states clearly that the countdown on the time span of robe-cloth begins only when it is delivered to one’s hand, and the same principle would surely apply here: The full offense is incurred when the robe-cloth is delivered to one’s hand. As for the second explanation, the Vibhaṅga assigns only one full offense for receiving the cloth, which means that a larger piece of cloth would not carry more offenses than a smaller one. 得到了布料。根據《義註》，當織匠織完四乘八指寬的布料時，布料就算「獲得」。它還規定，他們每完成一個額外的四乘八指寬的部分，就會被犯一次額外的《捨墮》。這兩種解釋在《聖典》中都沒有任何先例。《大品》.五.13.13明確指出，袈裟布的時間跨度倒數計時只有當它被送到手中時才開始，同樣的原則肯定也適用於這裡：當袈裟布被送到手中時，就會完全違犯。至於第二種解釋，《經分別》規定接受布料時只完全違犯一次，這意味著一塊大布料不會比一塊小布料犯更多次戒。
Perception is not a factor here. The Vibhaṅga states if the cloth was woven as a result of one’s request, then even if one perceives it as not having been woven at one’s request or if one is in doubt about the matter, one incurs the full offense. If, on the other hand, the cloth was not woven at one’s request and yet one perceives it as having been woven at one’s request—or one is in doubt about the matter—the penalty on obtaining it is a dukkaṭa. 在此處，感知不是一個因素。《經分別》規定，如果這塊布是應自己的要求而織成的，那麼即使認為它不是應自己的要求而織成的，或者對該事情有懷疑，也會完全違犯。另一方面，如果這塊布不是應自己的要求而織成的，而卻認為它是應自己的要求而織成的——或者對此事有懷疑——那麼對獲得它的懲罰就是《突吉羅》。
Forfeiture & confession 捨出 & 懺罪
Robe-cloth received in a way that entails the full offense under this rule is to be forfeited and the offense confessed, following the procedure under NP 1. 以構成本戒條所規定完全違犯的方式收到的袈裟布須被捨出，並懺悔罪行，按照《捨墮》一中的程序進行。
Derived offenses 衍生違犯
To provide a complete treatment of the various combinations of proper and improper behavior related to the two actions covered by this rule, the Commentary gives a table working out the possible combinations of offenses based on two variables: thread properly or improperly received, and weavers proper or improper for the bhikkhu to ask. Thread properly received is any that the bhikkhu has requested from people who are related to him or have invited him to ask. Similarly, weavers proper for him to ask are any who are related to him or have offered him their services. 為了全面處理與本戒條涵蓋的兩種行為相關的適當和不適當行為的各種組合，《義註》提供了一張表格，根據兩個變數計算出可能的犯戒組合：以適當或不適當的方式接受線，以及適合或不適合比丘要求的織匠。適當接受的線是比丘向與他有親戚關係的人或邀請他詢問的人要求的任何線。同樣，適合他要求的織匠是任何與他有親戚關係或為他提供服務的人。
If both the thread and the weavers are classed as not proper, the penalty is a dukkaṭa in getting them to weave cloth, and a nissaggiya pācittiya when the cloth is obtained. 如果線和織匠都被歸類為不合適，那麼在讓他們織布時要受到《突吉羅》的懲罰，而在獲得布時要受到《捨墮》的懲罰。
There is a dukkaṭa in obtaining the cloth if the thread is proper, but the weavers not; OR if the thread is not proper, but the weavers are. (For ease of remembrance: a dukkaṭa if one variable is proper and the other not.) 如果線合適，織匠不合適，當獲得布時犯《突吉羅》；或如果線不合適，但織匠合適。（為了方便記憶：如果一個變數合適而另一個變數不合適，則為《突吉羅》。）
If both variables are proper, there is no offense. 如果兩個變數都合適，則不犯戒。
The Commentary then has a field day working out the permutations if two different weavers—one proper and one improper—work on the cloth, or if proper and improper thread are used in the cloth—proper warp and improper woof, or alternating strands of proper and improper thread—which if nothing else provides an insight into the commentators’ minds. 然後，《義註》開始花一整天時間研究如果兩個不同的織匠（一位合適，一位不合適）在織布，或者如果在布中使用了合適的和不合適的線（合適的經線和不合適的緯線，或交替使用合適的線），會出現什麼樣的排列組合。這至少能讓我們洞察註釋者的想法。
Non-offenses 不犯
The Vibhaṅga says that there is no offense “to sew a robe; in (§) a knee strap (§), in a belt, in a shoulder strap, in a bag for carrying the bowl, or in a water-strainer; from relatives or people who have invited one to ask; for the sake of another; or by means of one’s own resources.” 《經分別》說，以下不犯「縫製袈裟；在（§）膝帶（§）中、腰帶中、肩帶中、裝缽的袋子中，或濾水器中；向親戚或邀請的人詢問；為了他人的利益；或利用自己的資源。」
The Commentary interprets the first exemption as applying to the first action mentioned in the rule, meaning that there is no offense in asking anyone at all for thread or yarn to sew a robe. This seems right, as the grammatical form of the exemption is unusual for a non-offense clause, and does not follow the pattern the Vibhaṅga would have used if the exemption were for getting the weavers to sew a robe. 《義註》將第一項豁免解釋為適用於本戒條中提到的第一個行動，這意味著向任何人索取線或紗線來縫製袈裟都沒有犯戒。這似乎是正確的，因為豁免的語法形式對於不犯條款來說是不尋常的，而且如果豁免是為了讓織匠縫製袈裟，並不遵循《經分別》所採用的模式。。
The Commentary also states that the exemptions for a knee strap and the other small items also apply to the first action. In other words, one may request thread or yarn from anyone to make these items, but may not get weavers to weave them. This explanation seems designed to support the Commentary’s position that a piece of cloth measuring four by eight fingerbreadths would be grounds for a full offense under this rule. Here, however, the grammatical form of the relevant exemptions does not support the Commentary’s assertion, for it follows a pattern typical throughout the Vibhaṅga for non-offenses related to the main action covered by a rule. Thus there would be no offense in providing weavers with thread with which to make small items of this sort. Because these articles can be quickly woven, this may have been a common courtesy that weavers extended to contemplatives in the Buddha’s time. 《義註》也指出，膝帶和其他小件物品的豁免也適用於第一個行動。換句話說，可以向任何人要求線或紗來製作這些物品，但不能讓織匠來編織它們。這個解釋似乎是設計來支持《義註》的觀點，即一塊尺寸為四指乘以八指寬的布料將構成本戒條規定的完全違犯行為的理由。然而，這裡相關豁免的語法形式並不支持《義註》的斷言，因為它遵循了整個《經分別》中關於與戒條涵蓋的主要行為相關的不犯的典型模式。因此，向織匠提供用於製作此類小物件的線並不犯戒。由於這些物品可以快速編織完成，這可能是佛陀時代織匠對沙門的常見禮遇。
As for the exemptions for relatives and people who have invited one to ask, we have already noted that the Commentary seems correct in applying them to both actions: asking for thread and getting weavers to weave cloth. 至於親戚和邀請詢問者的豁免，我們已經注意到，《義註》似乎正確地將其應用於兩種行為：要求線和讓織匠織布。
Following the Commentary’s explanation under NP 6 & 22, for the sake of another here would mean that one may ask from one’s own relatives or from those who have invited one to ask OR from relatives of the other person or people who have invited him to ask. Asking for his sake from people other than these would entail the full offense. 按照《義註》中《捨墮》六和二十二的解釋，這裡的「為了他人」是指可以向自己的親戚或邀請自己詢問者要求，或者向他人的親戚或邀請他人詢問者要求。向除這些人之外的人為了他人而要求會構成完全違犯。
If the cloth is obtained by means of one’s own resources—i.e., one arranges to pay for the thread and hire the weavers—the Commentary states that one is responsible for the cloth as soon as it is finished and fully paid for, regardless of whether it is delivered into one’s possession. One must therefore determine it for use within 10 days of that date so as not to commit an offense under NP 1. (Alternatively, the Commentary suggests, one may avoid this difficulty by not giving full payment for the cloth until it is delivered.) If, after one has given full payment for the cloth, the weavers promise to send word when the cloth is done, one’s responsibility starts when one receives word from their messenger; if they have promised to send the cloth when done, one’s responsibility begins when their messenger delivers it. At any rate, as with its explanation of “obtaining cloth” under this rule, the Commentary’s statements here conflict with the principle in Mv.V.13.13, in which the countdown on the time span of the cloth begins only when it is delivered to one’s hand. 如果布料是透過自己的資源獲得的——即自己安排支付線的費用並僱用織匠——《義註》指出，只要布料完成並全額付款，就應對布料負責，無論它是否已被交付到手中。因此，必須在該日期後的十天內決意使用，以免違反《捨墮》一。（或者，《義註》建議，可以透過在布料交付之前不支付全額款項來避免這種困難。）如果在支付了布料的全部款項之後，織匠承諾在布料完成後捎來消息，那麼責任就從他收到信使的消息時開始；如果他們承諾完成後會把布料送來，那麼當信使送達時，責任就開始了。無論如何，正如對本戒條下「獲得布料」的解釋一樣，《義註》中的陳述與《大品》.五.13.13中的原則相衝突，在該原則中，布料時間跨度的倒數計時僅在布料交付到手中才開始。
Summary: Taking thread that one has asked for improperly and getting weavers to weave cloth from it—when they are unrelated and have not made a previous offer to weave—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：獲得自己不適當地索取的線，並讓織匠用它來織布——如果織匠與自己沒有血緣關係，而且之前也沒有提出過編織邀請——是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
27 二十七
In case a man or woman householder unrelated (to the bhikkhu) has robe-cloth woven by weavers for the sake of a bhikkhu, and if the bhikkhu, not previously invited (by the householder), having approached the weavers, should make stipulations with regard to the cloth, saying, “This cloth, friends, is being woven for my sake. Make it long, make it broad, make it tightly woven, well woven, well spread, well scraped, well smoothed, and perhaps I may reward you with a little something”; and should the bhikkhu, having said that, reward them with a little something, even as much as almsfood, it (the cloth) is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果一位（與比丘）無血緣關係的男或女居士，讓織匠為比丘織布，而比丘事先沒有受到（居士）邀請，就去前往織匠處，對衣作指示，說道：「朋友們，這塊布是為我織的。把它弄長、弄寬、織得緊密、織得好、鋪得好、刮得好、撫平得好，也許我可以給你一點獎勵」；如果比丘說了這樣的話，以一點東西獎勵他們，即使是缽食之量，（布料）尼薩耆波逸提。
The origin story here starts like the origin story for NP 8—a donor plans to clothe Ven. Upananda with a robe—but it contains two differences: Ven. Upananda interferes in the process of making the robe while it is still cloth being woven; and he addresses his stipulations, not to the donors, but to the weavers. The Buddha could have used this occasion as a chance to expand that rule, but he didn’t—perhaps because the change in details required new definitions for the factors of effort and object. Under NP 8, “object” is fulfilled only by a finished robe; here, it is fulfilled simply by the cloth made by the weavers, whether sewn into a finished robe or not. 這裡的起源故事 與《捨墮》八的起源故事一樣——一位施主計劃為優波難陀尊者提供袈裟——但它有兩個不同之處：當袈裟還是一塊正在編織的布時，優波難陀尊者就介入了袈裟的製作過程；他不是針對施主，而是針對織匠說出的自己明確的要求。佛陀本可以利用這次機會來擴展本戒條，但他沒有這樣做——也許是因為細節的改變需要對努力和對象因素有新的定義。根據《捨墮》八，「對象」僅由一件完成的袈裟來滿足；在這裡，它僅透過織匠製作的布料來實現，無論是否縫製成成品袈裟。
The factors for an offense here are three. 此處構成犯戒的因素有三。
Object: 對象：
A piece of any of the six allowable types of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths, which is being made for one’s sake by the arrangement of a donor who is unrelated and has not given an invitation to ask. 六種允許使用類型的袈裟布中的任一種，尺寸至少為四指乘八指寬，由無親屬關係且未發出邀請詢問的施主安排為自己製作，。
Effort 努力
One approaches the weavers and gets them to improve the cloth in any of the seven ways mentioned in the rule. Although the rule seems to indicate that the factor of effort is completed only when the weavers receive the promised reward, the Vibhaṅga says simply that it is completed when, as a result of one’s statement, the weavers improve the cloth as requested. In addition, the non-offense clauses give no exemption for a bhikkhu who does not give the promised reward. Thus, the bhikkhu does not have to give the reward for this factor to be fulfilled. The commentaries follow the Vibhaṅga on this point, and add that the bhikkhu’s statement need not even include a promise of a reward. As the Commentary puts it, the bhikkhu’s words quoted in the rule are meant simply as an example of any way in which one might get them to add more thread to the cloth. The Sub-commentary, however, notes that of the seven ways of improving the cloth, only the first three involve added thread. Its implied conclusion is that any statement that succeeds in getting the weavers to improve the cloth in any of these seven ways would fulfill the factor of effort here, regardless of whether the improvement involves adding more thread. 聯繫織匠並讓他們按照戒條中提到的七種方法中的任何一種方法來改進布料。雖然戒條似乎表明，只有當織匠收到承諾的獎勵時，努力的因素才算完成，但《經分別》僅說，當織匠根據陳述，按照要求改進布料時，努力的因素就完成。此外，不犯條款並未給予沒有承諾獎勵的比丘任何豁免。因此，比丘不必給予獎勵就滿足這個因素。註釋書在這一點上遵循了《經分別》，並補充說，比丘的陳述甚至不需要包括獎勵的承諾。正如《義註》中所說，戒條中引用的比丘的話只是為了舉例說明如何讓他們在布上添加更多的線。然而，《複註》指出，在七種改良布料的方法中，只有前三種需要添加線。其隱含的結論是，任何成功地讓織匠以這七種方式中的任何一種來改進布料的陳述都可以滿足這裡的努力因素，不管這種改進是否涉及添加更多的線。
As for the promised reward, the Vibhaṅga defines almsfood as covering anything of even the slightest material value—food, a lump of powder, tooth wood, unwoven thread, or even a phrase of Dhamma. (For example, the bhikkhu might try to get the weavers to improve the cloth by promising to describe the merit they will gain by doing so.) Note, however, that almsfood is defined as the minimal amount of reward. There is no maximum on what might be promised. Thus, even if the bhikkhu promises to pay in full for any added materials or time that the weavers might devote to the robe, he does not escape fulfilling this factor of the offense. (Some have objected that it should be all right for the bhikkhu to pay in full for the improvements in the robe, but remember that to do so would be an insult to the donors.) 至於承諾的獎勵，《經分別》將缽食定義為任何具有最微小物質價值的東西，如食物、一塊粉末、牙木、未編織的線、甚至一句佛法。（例如，比丘可能會試圖讓織匠改善布料，並承諾描述他們這樣做將獲得的功德。）但請注意，缽食被定義為最低限度的獎勵。對於承諾之物沒有上限。因此，即使比丘承諾全額支付織匠為製作袈裟所花費的任何額外材料或時間，他仍然逃脫不了滿足本戒的此因素。（有些人反對，認為比丘全額支付改善袈裟的費用是可以的，但請記住，這樣做是對施主的侮辱。）
Result 結果
One obtains the cloth. 獲得該布料。
Offenses 犯戒
The bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa when the weavers improve the cloth in line with his instructions, and the full offense when he obtains it. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1. The role of perception—regarding whether the donors are one’s relatives or not—is the same as under NP 8. 當織匠按照比丘的指示改進布料時，比丘犯《突吉羅》；而當他得到布料時，則完全違犯。捨出、懺悔罪行、歸還布料的程序與《捨墮》一相同。感知的角色——關於施主是否是自己的親戚——與《捨墮》八中相同。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if— 若符合以下情況則不構成犯戒：
the donors are relatives, 施主是親戚，
they have invited one to ask, 他們已經邀請詢問，
one asks for the sake of another, 為了另一個人要求，
one gets the weavers to make the cloth less expensive than the donors had ordered, or 讓織匠以低於施主訂購的價格織出布料，或者
it is by means of one’s own resources. (This last point refers only to cases where the bhikkhu was the one who had the weavers hired in the first place.) 藉由利用自己的資源。（最後一點僅指比丘為首先僱用織匠者的情況。）
Summary: When donors who are not relatives—and have not invited one to ask—have arranged for weavers to weave robe-cloth intended for one: Receiving the cloth after getting the weavers to improve it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：當非親戚的布施者—也不曾邀請詢問—安排織匠為自己編織袈裟布時：在讓織匠改進布料後再接受布料，是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
28 二十八
Ten days prior to the third-month Kattika full moon, should robe-cloth offered in urgency accrue to a bhikkhu, he is to accept it if he regards it as offered in urgency. Once he has accepted it, he may keep it throughout the robe season. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
咖底咖第三個月滿月前十天，若有袈裟布被緊急供養給比丘，則比丘若認為此袈裟布為緊急供養，則應接受。一旦他接受了它，他可以在整個袈裟季節保留它。存放超過此者，尼薩耆波逸提。
The third-month Kattika full moon is the full moon in October, or the first if there are two. This is the final day of the first Rains-residence, and the day before the beginning of the robe season. 咖底咖第三個月滿月是十月的滿月，或者如果有兩個滿月的話，則是第一個滿月。這是前雨安居的最後一天，也是袈裟季節開始的前一天。
Robe-cloth offered in urgency is any piece of the six allowable kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths, offered under the following conditions: The donor is someone who wants the greater merit that some people believe accrues to a gift of cloth given during the robe season, but who does not want to wait until the robe season to make an offering, either because his/her survival is in doubt—as when a soldier is going into war, a traveler is about to set out on a journey, or a woman has become pregnant—or because he/she has developed new-found faith in the religion. At any time from the fifth through the fifteenth day of the waxing moon at the end of the first Rains-residence (see BMC2, Chapter 11) he/she sends a messenger to the bhikkhus, saying, “May the venerable ones come. I am giving a Rains-residence (cloth).” (The Commentary adds that the donor can also simply bring the cloth to the bhikkhus him- or herself.) Out of compassion for the donor, the bhikkhus should accept the cloth and then, before putting it aside, mark it as robe-cloth offered in urgency. The cloth can then be kept throughout the robe season—the first month after the Rains if the kaṭhina is not spread; and the period during which the kaṭhina privileges are in effect if it is. 緊急供養的袈裟布是六種允許類型的袈裟布中的任一種，尺寸至少為四指寬乘以八指寬，供養條件如下：供養者是想要獲得更大功德的人，有些人認為，在袈裟季節布施布料可以增加功德，但不想等到袈裟季節再去供養，要麼是因為他/她懷疑是否能活到那時—例如當士兵奔赴戰場，旅人即將啟程，或婦女懷孕時—或者因為他/她對宗教建立了新的信仰。在前雨季居結束時從上弦月的第五天到第十五天的任何時間（見《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第十一章），他/她派遣使者去見比丘們，說道：「願尊者們到來。我正在布施雨安居（布料）。（《義註》補充說，布施者也可以自己把布帶給比丘。）出於對布施者的慈悲，比丘應該接受布，然後在放在一邊之前，將其標記為緊急供養的袈裟布。然後，可以在整個袈裟季節（雨季後的第一個月，如果沒有敷展功德衣；如果有敷展的話，功德衣方便利益的有效期限）保留這塊布料。
The question is, why mark it? 問題是，為什麼要標記它？
The Commentary argues that, because the cloth counts as Rains-residence cloth, it can appropriately be shared out only among bhikkhus who have kept the Rains-residence up to that point. If any other bhikkhu receives such a piece of cloth, he must give it back, as it belongs to the Community. Thus the mark is for the purpose of recognizing it as such. However, if this were the rationale, there would be no reason to treat the cloth any differently from other gifts of Rains-residence cloth. A more likely rationale for the mark is suggested by a later passage in the Commentary: Other gifts of cloth received during the last ten days of the Rains-residence carry a life span that can, under NP 1 or 3, extend past the end of the robe season. If, for instance, the cloth is offered five days before the end of the Rains, then after the end of the robe season, it can be kept—without determining it or placing it under shared ownership—for an additional five days; if it is not enough to make a robe, it can be kept for up to an additional 25. Robe-cloth offered in urgency, however—as the Vibhaṅga makes clear—carries a life-span that cannot extend past the end of the robe season. Thus, on receiving such a gift of cloth, one should mark it as such before putting it away so as not to forget its status when the end of the robe season approaches. 《義註》認為，因為這塊布料算是雨安居布料，所以只有在雨安居期間一直保留著住處的比丘們之間才能適當地分配它。如果任何其他比丘收到這樣的一塊布，他必須歸還，因為它屬於僧團。因此，該標記的目的在於使其被識別。然而，如果這是理由的話，就沒有理由將這塊布料與其他雨安居布料的布施區別對待了。《義註》後面的一段話提出了這個標記更可能存在的理由：雨安居最後十天收到的其他布料布施的壽命，根據《捨墮》一或三，可以延續到袈裟季節結束後。例如，如果在雨季結束前五天布料被供養了，那麼在袈裟季節結束後，它可以被再保留五天——無需決意它或將其置於共享所有權之下；如果不夠製作一件袈裟，還可以再保留二十五天。然而，正如《經分別》明確指出的，緊急供養的袈裟布的使用壽命不會超過袈裟季節的結束。因此，在收到這樣的布料布施時，應該在放在一邊之前做好標記，以免在袈裟季節結束到來時忘記它的狀態。
The factors for an offense 犯戒因素
The factors for an offense here are two: object—robe-cloth offered in urgency; and effort—one keeps it past the end of the robe season: the dawnrise after the full moon one month after the end of the first Rains-residence if one does not participate in a kaṭhina, or the end of one’s kaṭhina privileges if one does. 這裡的犯戒因素有兩個：對象—緊急供養的袈裟布；和努力—將其保留到袈裟季節結束後：如果不參加功德衣，那麼在前雨安居結束後的一個月，滿月後的黎明時分；如果參加了，那麼在功德衣方便利益結束時。
Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Thus the Vibhaṅga states that if, at the end of the robe season, one perceives a piece of robe-cloth offered in urgency as something else—say, as ordinary out-of-season cloth—and keeps it for the amount of time allowed for ordinary out-of-season cloth under NP 3, one commits the full offense all the same. The same penalty holds if the cloth has not been determined or placed under shared ownership and yet one keeps it past the end of the robe season, perceiving that it has. 在這裡，感知並不是一個減輕懲罰的因素。因此，《經分別》規定，如果在袈裟季節結束時，將緊急供養的一塊袈裟布視為其他東西—比如說，普通的非時布料—並將其保留至《捨墮》三規定的普通非時布料允許保留的時間，則其同樣完全違犯。如果布料尚未決意或尚未置於共享所有權之下，但在袈裟季節結束後仍保留它，並認為它已經決意或置於共享所有權之下，則將受到同樣的懲罰。
As for robe-cloth that has not been offered in urgency, if one perceives it as having been offered in urgency or is in doubt about the matter, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. Arguing from the Commentary’s explanation of the similar situation discussed under NP 1, the dukkaṭa here would be for using the cloth without having forfeited it after the robe season is ended. 對於沒有緊急供養的袈裟布，如果認為它是緊急供養的，或者對此事有懷疑，則懲罰是《突吉羅》。根據《義註》對《捨墮》一中討論的類似情況的解釋，此處的《突吉羅》是指在袈裟季節結束後，使用布料而沒有捨出它。
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1. See Appendix VI for the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth. 捨出、懺悔罪行、歸還布料的程序與《捨墮》一相同。請參閱附錄六，以了解捨出布料所使用的巴利語公式。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if, before the robe season is over, one determines the cloth, places it under shared ownership, or abandons it (gives it away or throws it away); if it is lost, destroyed, burnt, or snatched away; or if someone else takes it on trust. 如果在袈裟季節結束之前，決意了布料，將其置於共享所有權之下，或者放棄它（贈送或扔掉），則不構成犯戒；如果遺失、毀壞、燒毀或被搶走；或者如果其他人基於信任拿走它。
Summary: Keeping robe-cloth offered in urgency past the end of the robe season after having accepted it during the last eleven days of the Rains-residence is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：在雨安居最後十一天接受了緊急供養的袈裟布，但在袈裟季節結束後仍繼續保留，是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
29 二十九
There are wilderness lodgings that are considered dubious and risky. A bhikkhu living in such lodgings after having observed the Kattika full moon may keep any one of his three robes in a village if he so desires. Should he have any reason to live apart from the robe, he may do so for six nights at most. If he should live apart from it beyond that—unless authorized by the bhikkhus—it is to be forfeited and confessed.
有些荒野住所被認為是可疑和有風險的。居住在此類住所的比丘在奉行咖底咖月滿月之後，如果願意的話，可以將他的三衣中的任何一件留在村莊裡。如果他因為任何原因離該衣生活，那麼最多只能六個晚上。如果他離開生活超過此者，除非得到比丘們的授權，尼薩耆波逸提。
The Vibhaṅga explains the phrase, “after having observed the Kattika full moon,” as meaning that, having completed the first Rains-residence, one is now in the fourth month of the rainy season. As we noted under NP 2, that rule—unlike NP 1 & 3—is not automatically rescinded during this month. However, the origin story to this rule indicates that this period was a dangerous time for bhikkhus living in wilderness areas, as thieves were active—perhaps because they knew that bhikkhus had just received new requisites, or simply because now that roads had become passable it was time to get back to their work. This rule was thus formulated to provide a bhikkhu living in a dangerous wilderness area with a safe place to keep a robe away from his lodging as long as certain conditions are met. The Commentary notes that this rule would be of special use to bhikkhus who have completed their robes, ended their kaṭhina privileges, and so want to settle down in the wilderness to meditate. If it so happens that a bhikkhu’s kaṭhina privileges are still in effect, he has no need for the allowance under this rule because NP 2 is automatically rescinded as part of those privileges, which means that he can keep his robes in a safe place away from his lodging as long as he wants. 《經分別》解釋道，「在奉行咖底咖月滿月之後」這句話的意思是，已經完成前雨安居，現在正處於雨季的第四個月。正如我們在《捨墮》二中提到的，與《捨墮》一和三不同，該戒條不會在此月自動失效。然而，本戒條的起源故事表明，對於生活在荒野地區的比丘來說，這個時期是一段危險的時期，因為小偷很活躍——也許是因為他們知道比丘剛剛收到新的必需品，或者只是因為現在道路已經可以通行，是時候回去工作了。制定本戒條的目的是，只要滿足某些條件，為生活在危險荒野地區的比丘提供一個遠離他的住處的安全地方存放袈裟。《義註》指出這條戒條對那些已完成袈裟、結束功德衣方便利益，並因此想要在荒野定居禪修的比丘特別有用。如果比丘的功德衣方便利益仍然有效，那麼他就不需要根據本戒條獲得開緣，因為《捨墮》二作為這些方便利益的一部分已自動失效，這意味著只要他願意，他可以將他的袈裟放在遠離他的住所的安全地方。
The Commentary defines the situation covered by this rule in terms of four factors: 《義註》從四個因素定義了本戒條所涵蓋的情況：
1) A bhikkhu has spent the first Rains-residence (see BMC2, Chapter 11) without break.
1）比丘度過了前雨安居（見《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第十一章）而未破安居。
2) He is staying in a wilderness lodging, defined in the Vibhaṅga as one at least 500 bow-lengths, or one kilometer, from the nearest village, this distance being measured by the shortest walkable path between the two and not as the crow flies. At the same time, he is not so far from a village that he cannot go for alms there in the morning and then return to eat in his lodging before noon.
2）他住在荒野住所，《經分別》將其定義為距離最近的村莊至少 500 弓長或 1 公里的住所，此距離以兩村之間最短的步行路徑測量，而非直線距離。同時，他離村莊也不太遠，早上他可以去那裡托缽，然後在中午之前返回住處吃飯。
3) The lodging is dubious and risky. According to the Vibhaṅga, dubious means that signs of thieves—such as their eating, resting, sitting, or standing places—have been seen within it or its vicinity; risky means that people are known to have been hurt or plundered by thieves there. Unlike other rules occurring later in the Pāṭimokkha that mention the vicinity of a lodging—such as Pc 15 & 84—none of the texts define precisely how far the vicinity extends for the purpose of this rule. This lack of a precise definition also occurs in the other rule dealing with dangerous wilderness lodgings, Pd 4. Given the risks inherent in such places, perhaps it was felt unwise to delimit the area in too precise a manner. Thus, in the context of this rule, the “vicinity” of the lodging can be stretched to include any area where the presence of thieves leads to a common perception that the lodging is dangerous.
3）住所可疑，有風險。根據《經分別》的說法，可疑的意思是，在其內部或其附近發現了小偷的跡象，例如他們吃飯、休息、坐著或站立的地方；危險意味著已知有人在那裡受到盜賊傷害或搶劫。與《波羅提木叉》裡後期出現的提到了住所的附近區域的其他戒條不同——例如《波逸提》十五和八四——沒有任何文獻為本戒條精確地定義附近區域延伸到多遠。這種缺乏精確定義的現象也出現在另一個處理危險荒野住所的戒條，《應悔過》四。因此，在本戒條的背景下，住所的「附近」可以擴大到包括任何因小偷的存在而導致人們普遍認為住所很危險的區域。
4) The time period for the extension is one month beginning the day after the end of the first Rains-residence.
4）延長期間為一個月，從前雨安居結束的次日開始。
A bhikkhu living in the situation complying with these four factors may keep one robe of his set of three anywhere in the village where he normally goes for alms, and—if he has a reason—may stay apart from it six nights at most. As usual, nights are counted by dawns. 符合上述四個條件的比丘，可以將他的三衣中的一件保留在他通常去托缽的村莊的任何地方，並且——如果他有理由的話——最多可以六夜離開它。照常，夜晚是以黎明（明相）來計算的。
The factors for an offense 犯戒因素
The factors for an offense here are two: object—any one robe of a bhikkhu’s basic set of three; and effort—staying away from the robe for seven straight dawns (i.e., six straight dawns after first leaving it). Perception is not a mitigating factor here: Even if one thinks that the seventh dawnrise has not arrived when it actually has, one is not immune from the offense. 這裡構成犯戒的因素有二：對象－比丘基本三衣中的任一件；和努力－連續七個黎明（明相）離開袈裟（即第一次離開袈裟後連續六個黎明）。在這裡，感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素：即使認為第七次黎明尚未到來，而實際上它已經到來，他也無法免於犯戒。
As the Sub-commentary points out, the Commentary and K/Commentary differ in their definition of the factor of effort here—in particular, as to what it means to be apart from one’s robe. The difference centers on how the two commentaries interpret one of the non-offense clauses: “Having been apart for six nights, having entered the village territory (gāma-sīmā) again, having stayed there (to greet dawnrise), he departs.” The K/Commentary interprets this as meaning that if, at the seventh dawnrise, one is in one’s wilderness dwelling, one incurs the full offense, but if one enters the village territory for the seventh dawnrise, one can then leave the robes there for another six dawns. This means that the bhikkhu counts as being apart from his robe when it is placed in the village and he is in his wilderness lodging. 正如《複註》所指出的，《義註》和 K/《義註》對這裡的努力因素的定義有所不同——特別是對於離開袈裟的含義。差異在於兩部註釋書如何解釋其中一條不犯條款：「離開六夜，進入村界（gāma-sīmā），住於彼處（迎接黎明），他離開。」 K/《義註》將此解釋為，如果在第七個黎明時分，在自己的荒野住所，那麼就完全違犯，但是，如果他在第七個黎明時分進入村界，那麼他可以把袈裟留在那裡另外六個黎明。這意味著，當比丘將他的袈裟放在村莊裡並且他自己在荒野住所時，他就算是與他的袈裟離開了。
The Commentary, however, interprets the non-offense clause as covering a different and very particular situation: The bhikkhu is away from both the village and the lodging, and as the seventh dawnrise approaches he is closer to the village than the lodging. The non-offense clause allows him to enter the village, stay in the public hall or any other spot in the village, check up on his robe, and then return to his dwelling, free from an offense. From this interpretation, the Sub-commentary, following Bhadanta Buddhadatta Thera, concludes that the bhikkhu is not counted as apart from his robe when it is placed in the village and he is staying in his lodging. Thus he can leave the robe in the village for the entire fourth month of the rainy season, but if he leaves that lodging on business and lets his robe remain in the village, he may stay away from the lodging or the village only six dawns at a stretch. 然而，《義註》將不犯條款解釋為涵蓋一種不同的、非常特殊的情況：比丘遠離村莊和住處，隨著第七個黎明的臨近，他距離村莊比距離住處更近。不犯條款允許他進入村莊，留在公共大廳或村莊的任何其他地方，檢查他的袈裟，然後返回他的住所，而不犯戒。根據這種解釋，《複註》遵循了佛授長老的結論，認為當比丘的袈裟被放置在村落中並且比丘住在住處時，他不算與袈裟分開。因此，他可以在雨季的整個第四個月將袈裟留在村子裡，但是，如果他因事離開住處，而將袈裟留在村子裡，那麼他只可連續六個黎明離開住處或村莊。
There are minor problems with both interpretations. The Commentary’s explanation of the non-offense clause seems forced, but the K/Commentary’s interpretation ignores the Vibhaṅga’s definition of “any reason”—i.e., “any business”—which under other rules indicates situations where a bhikkhu would be away from his lodging. The reason for this rule, as suggested by the origin story, was similar to that for NP 2: When the bhikkhus were away from their robes, the robes “were lost, destroyed, burned, eaten by rats.” If the bhikkhu is staying in his lodging and going for alms in the village, he may check up on his robe every day to make sure that it is safe and sound. The Commentary’s interpretation seems preferable, but both interpretations would fulfill what seems to be the purpose for the rule, so the question of which interpretation to follow is up to each Community. 這兩種解釋都存在一些小問題。《義註》對不犯條款的解釋似乎有些牽強，但 K/《義註》的解釋忽略了《經分別》對「任何原因」的定義——即「任何事務」——在其他戒條下，這表示比丘離開住處的情況。起源故事表明，這條戒條的原因與《捨墮》二的原因類似：當比丘們離開他們的袈裟時，袈裟「會遺失、被毀壞、被燒毀、被老鼠吃掉」。如果比丘住在住處並去村裡托缽，他可以每天檢查他的袈裟，以確保其安全無虞。《義註》的解釋似乎更可取，但兩種解釋似乎都可以實現該戒條的目的，因此遵循哪種解釋的問題取決於每個僧團。
None of the texts, by the way, define village territory in the context of this exemption. Apparently it has the same meaning as the village territory mentioned in Mv.II.12.7 which, according to the Commentary to that rule, includes not only the built-up area of the village but also any surrounding areas—such as land under cultivation—from which it collects taxes (see BMC2, Chapter 13). 順便說一句，沒有任何文獻在這一豁免的背景下對村界進行定義。顯然，它與《大品》.二.12.7中提到的村界具有相同的含義，根據該戒條的《義註》，它不僅包括村莊的建成區，還包括村莊的任何從中徵稅的週邊區域（例如耕地）（參見《佛教修道準則 第二冊》第十三章）。
Forfeiture & confession 捨出 & 懺罪
A bhikkhu under these conditions who has been away from his robe for seven dawns is to forfeit it and confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe are the same as under NP 1. The Pali formula for forfeiting the robe is in Appendix VI. 處於此種情形的比丘若已離開其袈裟達七個黎明（明相），則須捨出其袈裟並懺悔其罪行。捨出、懺悔罪行及歸還袈裟的程序與《捨墮》一相同。捨出袈裟的巴利語公式在附錄六。
If seven dawns have not yet passed, and yet one thinks that they have or one is in doubt about the matter, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. As under NP 1, this penalty is apparently for using the robe. 如果七次黎明尚未過去，但卻認為已經過去，或者對此事存有疑問，則懲罰是《突吉羅》。根據《捨墮》一，這個懲罰顯然是針對使用袈裟的。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense for a bhikkhu who has stayed away from his robe six dawns or fewer than six; or 若比丘已經六次黎明或少於六次黎明沒有離開他的袈裟，則不犯戒；或者
if, having been apart from his robe six dawns, he enters the village territory again, stays there (to greet dawnrise), and departs;
如果他已經離開他的袈裟六個黎明，再次進入村界，留在那裡（迎接黎明昇起），然後離開；
if, within the six nights, he rescinds the determination of the robe, abandons it; or the robe gets lost, destroyed, burnt, snatched away, or taken by someone else on trust; or
如果在六夜之內，他撤銷了袈裟的決意，放棄了它；或袈裟遺失、毀壞、燒毀、被搶走，或被他人基於信任拿走；或者
if he has been authorized by the Community to be apart from his robe. (This, according to the Commentary, refers to the authorization discussed under NP 2.)
如果他已得到僧團的授權，可以離開袈裟。（根據《義註》，這指的是《捨墮》二下討論的授權。）
As mentioned above, a bhikkhu is immune from an offense under this rule as long as his kaṭhina privileges are in effect, no matter how many nights he is away from any of his robes. 如上所述，只要比丘的功德衣方便利益仍然有效，無論他有多少個夜晚離開袈裟，他都不犯本戒條。
Summary: When one is living in a dangerous wilderness lodging during the month after the Rains-residence and has left one of one’s robes in the village where one normally goes for alms: Being away from the lodging and the village for more than six nights at a stretch—except when authorized by the Community—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：如果在雨安居後的一個月內居住在危險的荒野住所，並將自己的一件袈裟留在其通常去托缽的村子裡：除非得到僧團的批准，否則，離開住所和村莊連續超過六個晚上，是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
30 三十
Should any bhikkhu knowingly divert to himself gains that had been allocated for a Community, they are to be forfeited and confessed.
如果任何比丘明知故犯地將分配給僧團的所獲挪作己用，尼薩耆波逸提。
In AN 3:58, the Buddha states that a person who prevents a donor from giving a gift where intended creates three obstacles: one for the donor’s merit, one for the intended recipient’s gains, and one for himself. There are many ways of creating these obstacles, one of them being to convince the donor to give, not to the recipient originally intended, but to someone else. This is one of two rules— Pc 82 is the other—aimed at preventing a bhikkhu from creating obstacles of this sort. 在《增支部》3:58經中，佛陀指出，如果阻止布施者將禮物贈予指定的人，那麼將製造三種障礙：一種是布施者的功德障礙，一種是受施者的利益障礙，一種是他自己的障礙。設置這些障礙的方法有很多種，其中之一就是說服布施者將布施對象改為其他人，而不是布施給原本打算接受者的人。這是兩條戒條之一（另一條是《波逸提》八二），旨在防止比丘製造此類障礙。
The origin story here is this: 起源故事如下：
“Now in Sāvatthī at that time a certain guild had prepared a meal with robe-cloth for the Community, (thinking,) ‘Having fed (the bhikkhus), we will clothe them with robe-cloth.’
「當時，在舍衛城，有一個行會為僧團準備了一頓飯以及袈裟布，（他們想）『供養（比丘們）食物之後，我們將為他們提供袈裟布。』
“Then some group-of-six bhikkhus went to the guild and on arrival said, ‘Give us these robe-cloths, friends.’
「然後，六群比丘來到行會，一到就說：『朋友們，把這些袈裟布給我們吧。』
“‘We can’t, venerable sirs. We arrange alms with robe-cloth for the Community (like this) on a yearly basis.’
「『我們不能給，大德。我們每年都會為僧團準備施食和袈裟布（就像這樣）。』
“‘Many are the Community’s donors, my friends. Many are the Community’s supporters. It’s in dependence on you, looking to you, that we live here. If you won’t give to us, then who is there who will? Give us these robe-cloths, friends.’
「『我的朋友們，很多人都是僧團的施主。很多人都是僧團的支持者。我們依靠您、仰望您，才能在這裡生存。如果你不給我們，那還有誰會給我們呢？把這些袈裟布給我們吧，朋友們。』
“So the guild, pressured by the group-of-six bhikkhus, gave them what robe-cloth they had prepared and then served the meal to the Community. The bhikkhus who knew that a meal with robe-cloth had been prepared for the Community, but not that the cloth had been given to the group-of-six bhikkhus, said to the guild: ‘Present the robe-cloth to the Community, friends.’
「於是，在六群比丘的壓力下，行會將他們準備好的袈裟布給了他們，並為僧團提供了餐食。那些比丘們知道已經為僧團準備了帶有袈裟布的餐食，但不知道已經將袈裟布送給了六群比丘，於是他們對行會說道：『朋友們，請將袈裟布贈送給僧團。』
“‘There isn’t any, venerable sirs. What robe-cloth we had prepared, the masters—the group-of-six bhikkhus—have diverted to themselves.’
「『沒有，大德。我們所準備的袈裟布，卻被那六群比丘的大德們迴入為己有了。』
“Those bhikkhus who were modest… criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘How can these group-of-six bhikkhus knowingly divert to themselves gains allocated for the Community?’”
「那些少欲的比丘們......批評、抱怨並散佈：『這六位比丘怎麼能明知故犯地將分配給僧團的所獲迴入為己有呢？』」
Here there are four factors for an offense. 這裡有四個構成犯戒的因素。
Object: 對象：
Any requisite—“robe-cloth, almsfood, lodgings, medicine, even a lump of powder, tooth wood, or unwoven thread”—that donors have indicated by word or gesture that they intend to give to a Community. As the Commentary notes, donors here include not only lay people in general, but also one’s fellow bhikkhus and relatives—even one’s own mother. The fact that a gift is allocated for a Community overrides all other considerations, even when one is ill. 任何必需品——「袈裟布、施食、住所、藥品，甚至一塊粉末、牙木或未編織的線」——施主透過言語或示意動作表示他們打算布施給僧團。正如《義註》所指出的，這裡的施主不僅包括一般的俗人，還包括自己的比丘同儕和親戚——甚至是自己的母親。分配給僧團這一事實超越了所有其他考慮，即使自己生病了。
Perception 感知
One perceives that the donors have allocated the requisite for a Community. (§—The various editions of the Canon differ with regard to the role of perception under this rule. The PTS edition essentially holds that perception is not a factor here, saying that if one diverts to oneself an item that has actually been allocated to a Community, then whether one perceives the item as allocated or not allocated or is doubtful about the matter, one incurs the full offense in every case. This reading is clearly mistaken, as it does not account for the word knowingly in the rule. The Burmese and Sri Lankan editions list the penalties for the same cases as follows: perceiving it as allocated, the full offense; in doubt about the matter, a dukkaṭa; perceiving it as not allocated, a dukkaṭa. The Thai edition lists the penalties as follows: perceiving it as allocated, the full offense; in doubt about the matter, a dukkaṭa; perceiving it as not allocated, no offense. This last reading is most consistent with the word knowingly in the rule and the Vibhaṅga’s general treatment of rules that include this word. In particular, it corresponds to the parallel passage under Pc 82 as given in all four major editions, and is also supported by the K/Commentary to this rule even in its PTS edition. Thus we will adopt it here.) 認為施主已經將必需品分配給了僧團。（§—《聖典》的不同版本對於本戒條下感知的作用有不同的看法。 PTS 版本基本上認為感知在這裡不是一個因素，並說如果將一個實際上已經分配給僧團的東西轉移給自己，那麼無論他是否認為該東西已分配或未分配，或者對此事有疑問，他在每種情況下都會完全違犯。這種解讀顯然是錯誤的，因為它沒有交待戒條中的「明知」一詞。緬甸和斯里蘭卡版本對相同情況的懲罰規定如下：視其為已分配，完全違犯；對該事有疑問，《突吉羅》；認為它沒有分配，《突吉羅》。泰國版本對懲罰的規定如下：視其為已分配，完全違犯；對該事有疑問，《突吉羅》；認為它沒有分配，不犯。最後的解讀與戒條中的「明知」一詞以及《經分別》對包含該詞的戒條的一般處理最為一致。尤其是，它相符於所有四個主要版本中給出的《波逸提》八二下的相對應的段落，並且甚至在其 PTS 版本中也得到了該戒條的 K/《義註》的支持。因此我們將在此採用它。）
All the editions of the Canon agree that if the item is not allocated for a particular recipient, there is a dukkaṭa for diverting it to oneself or anyone else if one perceives it as allocated or is doubtful about the matter, and no offense if one perceives it as not allocated. 所有版本的《聖典》都同意，如果某件物品沒有分配給特定的接收者，而自己認為該物品已被分配或對此事有疑問，則將其轉移給自己或他人犯《突吉羅》，如果認為該物品未被分配，則不犯。
This is the only NP rule where perception is a factor in the full offense. 這是唯一一條將感知作為完全違犯的因素的《捨墮》戒條。
Effort 努力
One tries to persuade them that they should give it to oneself instead. (The texts make no allowance for kappiya-vohāra here.) This in itself, following on the second factor, entails a dukkaṭa. 試圖說服他們應該把它給自己。（此處文獻沒有對 kappiya-vohāra 開緣。）這本身，按照第二個因素，導致了《突吉羅》。
Result 結果
One obtains the article from the donors. This entails the full offense. 從施主那裡獲得了物品。這構成完全違犯。
Forfeiture & confession 捨出 & 懺罪
Any gains obtained in violation of this rule are to be forfeited and the offense confessed. The procedures here are the same as under NP 1. The Pali formula for forfeiting the gains is in Appendix VI. 違反本戒條所獲得的一切收益均須捨出，並懺悔罪行。此處的程序與《捨墮》一相同。捨出所獲的巴利公式見附錄六。
Related offenses 相關違犯
If one knowingly tries to divert gains allocated for a Community to oneself, but the donors go ahead and give the gains to the Community anyway, then the Commentary says that one should not have a share in them. If one does receive a share from the Community, one should return it. If, instead of returning it, one shares it among lay people, the case is to be treated under Pr 2. This, however, seems unnecessarily harsh, for in the case where the donors do give the item to the bhikkhu who tries to divert it to himself, he can receive it back after having forfeited it and then use it as he likes. To impose a heavier penalty on a bhikkhu for not being successful in diverting items to himself seems unfair, and the Vibhaṅga’s judgment here seems preferable: that the penalty in this case would simply be a dukkaṭa for fulfilling the factor of effort. 如果明知故犯地試圖將分配給僧團的收益挪為自己所有，但施主仍然將收益捐給僧團，那麼《義註》說，不應該分享這些收益。如果確實從僧團獲得了一份收益，應該歸還它。如果不歸還，而是與俗人分享，則應根據《波羅夷》二處理此情況。然而，這似乎沒有必要那麼嚴厲，因為在施主確實將物品給了試圖將其挪作己用的比丘的情況下，他可以在捨出物品後將其接受回來，然後按照自己的喜好使用它。因為比丘未能成功將物品轉移給自己而對其施加更重的懲罰似乎不公平，而《經分別》在此的判斷似乎更可取：在這種情況下的懲罰僅僅是因履行努力因素而犯《突吉羅》。
To divert items allocated for a Community to another individual entails a pācittiya under Pc 82. To divert items allocated for one Community of bhikkhus to another Community or to a shrine (cetiya) entails a dukkaṭa. The same holds true for diverting items allocated for a shrine to a Community, to an individual, or to another shrine; and for diverting items allocated for an individual to a Community, to a shrine, or to another individual. In all of these cases, there is no preliminary offense for the effort. The offense is incurred only when—assuming all the other factors are present—the factor of result is fulfilled. 將分配給僧團的物品迴入給另一個人，根據《波逸提》八二犯《波逸提》。將分配給比丘僧團的物品迴入給另一個僧團或支提（cetiya），犯《突吉羅》。將分配給支提的物品迴入給僧團、個人或其他支提也是如此；以及將分配給個人的物品迴入給僧團、支提或其他個人。在所有這些情況中，都沒有因努力的初步違犯。只有當（假設所有其他因素均存在）結果因素已滿足時，才會犯戒。
The Commentary states that the term individual here can mean common animals as well as human beings, and that this last case thus includes even such things as saying, “Don’t give it to that dog. Give it to this one.” This point is well-taken: A bhikkhu has no business interfering with the gains that are to be freely given to another being, no matter what that being’s current status (see AN 3:58). 《義註》指出，這裡的「個人」一詞既可以指普通動物，也可以指人類，因此最後一種情況甚至包括這樣的話：「不要把它給那隻狗。把它給這隻。」這一點很有道理：比丘無權干涉其他眾生自由給予的所獲，無論該眾生目前的狀態如何（參閱《增支部》3:58經）。
The Sub-commentary holds that once an item has been presented by a donor, there is nothing wrong in diverting it elsewhere. Thus, it says, taking flowers presented to one shrine and placing them at another—or chasing a dog away from food that has been given to it so that another dog can have a share—would be perfectly all right, but the Thai editors of the Sub-commentary state in a footnote that they disagree. 《複註》認為，一旦施主已經贈予了某件物品，那麼將其轉移到其他地方並沒有什麼不妥。因此，文中說，把供奉在一個支提的鮮花帶到另一個支提，或者把一隻狗從已經餵過的食物旁趕走，以便另一隻狗能分得一份，這些都完全沒有問題，但《複註》的泰國編輯者在註腳中表示他們不同意。
Non-offenses 不犯
The Vibhaṅga discusses the non-offenses under this rule in two different contexts. As we noted above, in its passage on perception it says that if one perceives a planned donation as not yet allocated for a particular recipient, one incurs no offense in diverting it to oneself or to others. In the non-offense clauses, however, aside from the standard exemptions, the Vibhaṅga states simply that if one is asked, “Where do we give (this)?” one may answer, “Give wherever your gift would be used, or would be well-cared for, or would last long, or wherever your mind feels inspired.” 《經分別》從兩個不同的脈絡討論了本戒條下的不犯。正如我們上面提到的，在關於感知的段落中，它說，如果認為計劃中的捐獻尚未分配給特定的接受者，那麼將其轉移給自己或他人並不會犯戒。然而，在不犯條款中，除了標準豁免之外，《經分別》僅規定，如果被問到，「我們應該把（這個）布施給哪裡？」可以回答：「布施給任何被需要用到的地方，或會被精心保管的地方，或會長久保存的地方，或讓你感到受到啟發的地方。」
The question is, why the exemption for perception was not included in the non-offense clauses. The apparent answer is that that exemption absolves one from an offense under this rule, but not from offenses under other rules concerning inappropriate requests. In particular, as we have noted above, this rule contains no exemption for diverting an item perceived as allocated even when the donors are relatives or people who have invited one to ask. However, if one perceives the item as not allocated, it would not come under this rule, and so one can request it from people such as these or in other instances where requests for items of that sort are allowed. Aside from these instances, though, one may still not request the item even when perceiving it as not allocated. In other words, perceiving an item as not allocated does not give carte blanche to divert it as one likes. 問題是，為什麼感知豁免沒有被列入不犯條款。顯而易見的答案是，該豁免可以免除根據本戒條所犯的罪行，但不能免除根據其他戒條有關不適當要求所犯的罪行。特別是，正如我們上面提到的，即使施主是親屬或邀請其詢問的人，本戒條也不包含轉移被視為已分配物品的豁免。然而，如果認為該物品尚未被分配，就不屬於本戒條，因此可以向這些人提出請求，或在允許此類物品請求的其他情況下提出請求。但是，除了這些情況之外，即使認為物品尚未被分配，仍然不可要求該物品。換句話說，認為物品未被分配並不代表可以隨心所欲地轉移它。
As for the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clause, it is similar to a passage in SN 3:24, where King Pasenadi asks the Buddha where a gift should be given, and the Buddha replies, “Wherever the mind feels inspired.” This is an important point of bhikkhu etiquette. Throughout the early texts, the act of generosity is treated as an expression of the donor’s freedom of choice and an illustration of the principle of action. If there were no freedom of choice, actions would be predetermined and there would be no motivation to follow a path of action leading to the end of suffering. When a donor gives a gift, he/she is experiencing a moment of freedom from the claims of greed and possessiveness, and gaining direct experience of the benefits of exercising that freedom. For this reason, the Buddha was careful never to infringe on that freedom by suggesting that there was an obligation to give gifts. When King Pasenadi, in the same sutta, asked the Buddha where a gift, when given, bears great fruit, the Buddha stated that this was a different question entirely, and one that he could answer directly: “What is given to a virtuous person—rather than to an unvirtuous one—bears great fruit.” 至於《經分別》中的不犯條款，與《相應部》3:24經中的一段話類似，波斯匿王問佛陀應該布施在哪裡，佛陀回答說：「心受到啟發的地方。」這是比丘威儀的重要一點。在早期文獻中，慷慨行為被視為施主選擇自由的表達和行動原則的體現。如果沒有選擇的自由，行動就會被預先決定，就沒有動機去遵循一條導致苦的止息的行動之道。當施主布施時，他/她會體驗到擺脫貪婪和占有欲束縛的自由，並直接體驗到行使這種自由的好處。基於這個原因，佛陀非常小心，從不建議有布施的義務來侵犯這種自由。在同一部經中，當波斯匿王問佛陀，什麼樣的布施能夠結出大果報時，佛陀表示，這是一個完全不同的問題，他可以直接回答：「給予有德之人，而非無德之人，才會結出大果報。」
Thus, following the Buddha’s example, a bhikkhu may tell where a gift bears great fruit, but even when asked where a gift should be given he may not be more specific than the Buddha’s response in SN 3:24 or the response in the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clause here. When not asked, he has no business at all telling people where they should give their gifts, regardless of how noble his motives may seem in his eyes. 因此，效法佛陀的例子，比丘可以說出在何處布施會帶來大果報，但即使被問及應該在何處布施，他的回答也不可比佛陀在《相應部》3:24經中的回答或此處《經分別》的不犯條款中的回答更具體。當沒有人問起時，他根本沒有權利告訴人們應該布施給哪裡，不管在他眼裡他的動機有多麼高貴。
The Commentary provides an additional example of what it regards as proper etiquette in this case: If donors come to a bhikkhu, expressing a desire to give a gift to a Community, a shrine, or an individual bhikkhu, adding that they want to give it in line with his preference, the bhikkhu may say, “Give where you want.” If they are inspired by this remark and give the gift to him, he incurs no offense. The Commentary adds, though, that if the donors express a general desire to give without saying that they want to give in line with the bhikkhu’s preference, he may say only what is stated in the non-offense clause. 《義註》還提供了一個額外的例子，說明在這種情況下什麼是適當的威儀：如果施主們來到一位比丘面前，表達了想要向僧團、支提、或一位比丘個人布施的願望，並補充說他們想按照他的喜好來布施，比丘可以說，「布施給你想要的地方。」如果他們被這句話啟發，並把布施給他，他不犯戒。然而，《義註》補充道，如果施主表達了一般性的布施願望，而沒有說他們想按照比丘的喜好來布施，那麼他只能說不犯條款中所述的內容。
Summary: Persuading a donor to give a gift to oneself, knowing that he or she had planned to give it to a Community, is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：明知施主計畫將布施給僧團，卻勸說施主布施給自己，是《尼薩耆波逸提》（《捨墮》）罪。
* * *
A bhikkhu who commits any of these thirty nissaggiya pācittiya offenses must first forfeit the item in question before confessing the offense. If he makes use of the item before forfeiting it, he incurs an extra dukkaṭa—except for money received in violation of NP 18 or 19, which would involve another nissaggiya pācittiya if used in trade. The Commentary to NP 20 states that if the item gets lost, destroyed, or consumed before the bhikkhu forfeits it, he may simply confess a pācittiya. The same would apparently hold true if the item is snatched away or thrown away. 比丘若犯下此三十種《捨墮》罪中的任何一種，在懺悔其罪行之前，必須先捨出所犯的物品。如果他在捨出該物品之前使用它，他犯額外一次《突吉羅》 —— 違反《捨墮》十八或十九而收到的金錢除外，如果用於交易，會涉及另一次《捨墮》。《捨墮》二十的《義註》指出，如果物品在比丘捨出之前丟失，毀壞或被用盡，他可以僅懺悔《波逸提》。如果物品被搶走或丟棄，情況顯然也是一樣適用。

(未完待續)