波逸提

Two: The Living Plant Chapter

生物村品

11	十一
The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed.	損壞活的植物，波逸提。
“A certain Āḷavī bhikkhu was chopping down a tree. The devatā living in the tree said to the bhikkhu, ‘Venerable sir, do not chop down my home to build a home for yourself.’ The bhikkhu, disregarding her, kept right on chopping and injured the arm of the devatā’s child. The devatā thought: ‘What if I were to kill this bhikkhu right here?’ Then another thought occurred to her: ‘But no, that wouldn’t be proper…. What if I were to tell the Blessed One of what has happened?’ So she went to the Blessed One and… told him of what had happened.	「有一位阿羅毘比丘正在砍樹。住在樹上的天女對比丘說：『大德，不要砍倒我的房子來為自己建造房子。』比丘不理會她，繼續砍樹，弄傷了天女孩子的手臂。天女想：『如果我就在這裡殺死這位比丘會怎麼樣？』然後她又想到：「但不，那樣不合適......如果我把所發生的事告訴世尊呢？』於是她去找世尊並......告訴他所發生的事。
“‘Very good, devatā, very good. It’s very good that you didn’t kill the bhikkhu. If you had killed him today, you would have produced much demerit for yourself. Now go, devatā. Over there is a vacant tree. Go into it.’ (The Commentary adds here that the tree, being in Jeta’s Grove, was a definite move up for the devatā. She had a front-row seat for overhearing the Buddha’s teachings well into the night; unlike other lesser devas she wasn’t pushed out to the far reaches of the galaxy when large groups of major devas met with the Buddha; and when the Four Great Kings came to attend to the Buddha, they always made a point of visiting her before leaving. However:)	「『很好，天女，很好。你沒有殺死比丘，這很好。如果你今天殺了他，你會為自己造下很多罪孽。現在去吧，天女。那邊有一棵空樹。進去吧。』（《義註》在這裡補充說，這棵樹位於祇陀林，對天女來說，這絕對是一個明確的進步。她有一個前排的座位，可以聽到佛陀的教誨，一直到夜晚；與其他較低天神不同，當大天神群與佛陀會面時，她並沒有被推到銀河系的遙遠地方；每當四大天王來侍奉佛陀時，他們離開之前總會去拜見她。無論如何：）
“People criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks cut down trees and have them cut down? They are mistreating one-facultied life.’”	「人們批評、抱怨並四處散播，『這些沙門釋子怎麼能砍伐樹木並讓人砍伐？他們虐待一根之命。』」
This is another offense with the four factors of object, effort, perception, and intention.	此為另一個具有對象、努力、感知、意圖四個因素的犯戒。
Object	對象
The Pali term for living plant—bhūtagāma—literally means the home of a being. This the Sub-commentary explains by saying that devatās may take up residence in plants standing in place by means of a longing on which their consciousness fastens (at the end of their previous lives) as in a dream. This rule is justified, it says, in that the etiquette of a contemplative precludes doing harm to the abodes of living beings. As the origin story shows, though, the reason this rule was laid down in the first place was to prevent bhikkhus from offending people who held to the animist belief that regarded plants as one-facultied life having the sense of touch.	巴利語中表示活體植物的字——bhūtagāma——字面意思是生物的家。《複註》對此作出了解釋，說天神可以透過渴望而居住在站立的植物中，他們的意識（在前世結束時）依附於此，就像在夢中一樣。它說，本戒條是合理的，因為沙門的威儀禁止傷害生物的居所。然而，正如起源故事所示，制定這條戒條的初衷是為了防止比丘冒犯那些持有萬物有靈論信仰的人，他們認為植物是具有觸覺的單能生命。
The Vibhaṅga defines bhūtagāma as vegetation arising from any of five sources:	《經分別》將 bhūtagāma 定義為來自以下五個來源之一的植物：
1) from bulbs, rhizomes, or tubers (e.g., potatoes, tulips),	1）來自球莖、根莖或塊莖（例如馬鈴薯、鬱金香），
2) from cuttings or stakes (e.g., willows, rose bushes),	2）從插枝或木樁（例如柳樹、玫瑰叢）中獲取，
3) from joints (e.g., sugar cane, bamboo),	3）來自節段（例如甘蔗、竹子），
4) from runners (e.g., strawberries, couch grass), or	4）來自蔓生植物（例如草莓、狗牙根），或
5) from seeds (e.g., corn, beans).	5）來自種子（例如玉米、豆類）。
According to the Commentary, a whole plant or part of one that has been removed from its original place is no longer classed as bhūtagāma. If it is capable of growing again when placed in the ground, it is classed as bījagāma, which means “home of a seed.” When a seed is sown, it is regarded as bījagāma until the first shoot turns a fresh green color and the first leaf appears. After that it is regarded as bhūtagāma.	根據《義註》，從原處移走的整株植物或植物的一部分不再被歸類為 bhūtagāma。如果它被放入土中後能夠再次生長，它就被歸類為 bījagāma，意思是「種子的家」。當一顆種子被播下時，它被視為 bījagāma，直到第一根嫩芽變成新鮮的綠色並且長出第一片葉子。此後，它被視為 bhūtagāma。
In line with this criterion, the Commentary classifies as bījagāma such lower forms of plant life as mushrooms that still have their spores, fungi, lichens without leaves, and molds, in that they do not pass through a fresh green stage, have no discernable leaves, and yet are capable of regeneration. Mushrooms that have lost their spores, and parts of any plants that have been removed from place and will not grow, or that have been cooked or otherwise damaged to the point where they are incapable of generation, are not grounds for an offense under this rule.	根據這個標準，《義註》將一些較低級的植物生命形式歸類為 bījagāma，如仍有孢子的蘑菇、真菌、無葉地衣和黴菌，因為它們不會經歷新鮮的綠色階段，沒有可辨別的葉子，但具有再生能力。已經失去孢子的蘑菇，以及任何被移走而無法生長的植物的部分，或者已經被煮熟或以其他方式損壞到無法繁殖的程度的植物的部分，都不屬於根據本戒條犯戒的理由。
The Commentary asserts further that to damage bījagāma entails a dukkaṭa. The Vibhaṅga does not mention this point, but the Commentary cites as its justification a passage occurring in a number of suttas (such as DN 2) saying that a bhikkhu consummate in virtue refrains from harming both bhūtagāma and bījagāma. In doing so, the Commentary is utilizing the Cullavagga’s blanket rule assigning a dukkaṭa to all bad habits (Cv.V.36). The Mahāvagga and Cullavagga give further but partial justification to the Commentary’s assertion in two passages, dealing with bhikkhus eating fruit, which we will discuss below. The Jain ascetics follow similar observances, which suggests that both the Buddhists and the Jains adopted this point from the ancient Indian ascetics who predated both religions.	《義註》進一步指出，損壞 bījagāma 會導致《突吉羅》。《經分別》並沒有提到這一點，但《義註》引用了多部經典（如《長部》2經）中的出現的一段話作為其依據，這段話指出，戒德圓滿的比丘不會傷害 bhūtagāma 和 bījagāma 。在這樣做時，《義註》利用了《小品》的總括戒條，所有不良習慣都違犯《突吉羅》（《小品》.五.36）。《大品》和《小品》在兩段關於比丘吃水果的段落中對《義註》的斷言提供了進一步但部分的證明，我們將在下面討論。耆那教苦行者也遵循類似的戒律，顯示佛教徒和耆那教徒都從早於這兩種宗教的古印度苦行者那裡採納了這一觀點。
Furthermore, according to the Commentary, there are certain kinds of plants that do not count either as bhūtagāma or bījagāma under this rule, and to damage them entails no offense. To justify this point it quotes a passage from Cv.VIII.1.3: “If a wall treated with ochre… (or) a finished floor is moldy (§), one should moisten a rag, wring it out, and wipe it clean.” The Commentary extends the Canon’s instructions here to cover not only mold on walls but also other lower forms of plant life—such as algae on the inside of water jars, fungus on toothbrushes, and mold on food—that would count as filth if they were allowed to continue growing.	此外，根據《義註》，有些植物根據這條戒條既不算是 bhūtagāma，也不算是 bījagāma，損壞它們並不構成犯戒。為了證明這一點，它引用了《小品》.八.1.3 中的一段話：「如果用赭石處理過的牆壁……（或）所作地面發霉了（§），則應將抹布弄濕，擰乾，然後擦拭乾淨。」《義註》擴展了《聖典》的指示，不僅涵蓋了牆壁上的黴菌，還涵蓋了其他低等植物生命形式—例如水罐內部的藻類、牙刷上的真菌和食物上的黴菌—如果允許它們繼續生長，則將被視為污穢。

Effort	努力
According to the Vibhaṅga, the term damaging includes such actions as cutting, breaking, and cooking, as well as getting other people to perform these actions. The Commentary defines damaging as “dealing with a plant as one likes by cutting it, breaking it, and so on.” Although the word for dealing with—paribhuñjati—literally means “making use of,” the Commentary’s illustrations of what this covers include even such things as shaking a tree limb to get the dry leaves to fall off so that one can sweep them up. Thus, it says, damaging would include picking flowers or leaves, uprooting a plant, engraving one’s initials in a tree trunk, etc. Because no exception is made for doing such things with “benevolent” intentions toward the plant, pruning would be included as well. Given the catch-all nature of the Commentary’s definition, using herbicides to kill plants would also come under damaging.	根據《經分別》，損害包括切割、破壞、烹飪等行為，以及讓其他人執行這些行為。《義註》將損害定義為「以切割、破壞等方式隨意對待植物」。儘管表示對待—paribhuñjati—的單字字面意思是「利用」，《義註》中對此內容的說明甚至包括諸如搖晃樹枝讓乾樹葉掉落以便可以將其掃起之類的事情。因此，它說，損害包括採摘花朵或葉子、拔除植物、在樹幹上刻上自己的姓名首字母等。因為對植物懷著「仁慈的」意圖做這些事沒有豁免，所以修剪也包括在內。鑑於《義註》定義的包羅萬象性，使用除草劑殺死植物也算損害。
The Commentary adds that plants growing in water, such as water hyacinths, whose roots do not extend to the earth beneath the water, have the water as their base. To remove them from the water is to damage them, although there is no offense in moving them around in the water. To move them from one body of water to another without incurring a penalty, one may take them together with some of the water in which they originally lived and place them together with that water into the new body of water.	《義註》還補充道，水葫蘆等生長在水中的植物，其根部不會延伸到水下的土地，而是以水為基部。將它們從水中取出是損害它們，儘管在水中移動它們並沒有犯戒。為了將它們從一個水域移到另一個水域而不受到懲罰，可以將它們連同它們原來生活的部分水一起帶入新的水域。
Also, says the Commentary, plants such as mistletoe, orchids, and bird vine that grow on trees have the tree as their base. To remove them from the tree is to damage them and so entails a pācittiya.	此外，《義註》還說，槲寄生、蘭花和鳥藤等生長在樹上的植物都以樹為基礎。把它們從樹上摘下來就會對它們造成損害，因此犯《波逸提》。
Perception	感知
If one damages a living plant (§) perceiving it to be something else—say, a dead plant—there is no offense. If one damages a plant in doubt as to whether it is living or dead, then regardless of what it actually is, the offense is a dukkaṭa.	如果將一株活的植物（§）視為別的東西（例如，一株死的植物）而對其進行了損害，這並不構成犯戒。如果因懷疑植物是死是活而對其進行損害，那麼無論該植物實際上是什麼，罪行都是《突吉羅》。
Intention	意圖
Intention is discussed in detail under the non-offenses, below.	下文的不犯條款將詳細討論意圖。
Making fruit allowable	作淨水果
Because fruit seeds are bījagāma, the question arises as to how bhikkhus should go about eating fruit. The Commentary to this rule discusses in detail two passages, one each in the Mahāvagga (VI. 21) and the Cullavagga (V.5.2), dealing with precisely this question. The Cullavagga passage reads, “I allow you, bhikkhus, to consume fruit that has been made allowable for monks in any of five ways: if it is damaged by fire, by a knife, by a fingernail, if it is seedless, and the fifth is if the seeds are discharged.” The Mahāvagga passage reads, “Now at that time there was a great quantity of fruit at Sāvatthī, but there was no one to make it allowable…. (The Buddha said,) ‘I allow that fruit that is seedless or whose seeds are discharged be consumed (even if) it has not been made allowable.”	因為水果種子是 bījagāma，所以就出現了比丘應該如何吃水果的問題。本戒條的《義註》詳細討論了兩個段落，一段在《大品》（六.21），一段在《小品》（五.5.2），專門處理這個問題。《小品》段落中寫道：「我允許你們，諸比丘，以五種方式中的任一種方式食用已經為沙門作淨的水果：如果它被火損壞、被刀子損壞、被指甲損壞、如果是無籽的、第五種是如果籽被排出。」《大品》段落寫道：「當時舍衛城有許多水果，但沒有人作淨……（佛陀說）『我允許吃沒有籽的水果，或者籽排出的水果，（即使）它沒有被作淨。』
First, to summarize the commentaries’ discussion of seedless fruit and fruit whose seeds have been discharged: According to the Commentary to the Mahāvagga, seedless fruit includes fruit whose seeds are too immature to grow. As for fruit whose seeds have been discharged, the Sub-commentary states that this means, “Fruit, such as mangoes or jackfruit, which it is possible to eat having removed the seeds and separating them entirely (from the flesh).”	首先，總結一下註釋書中對無籽水果和籽已排出的水果的討論：根據《大品》的《義註》，無籽水果包括種子未成熟而無法生長的水果。至於種子已排出的水果，《複註》指出，這意味著「諸如芒果或菠蘿蜜之類的水果，可以去掉種子並將它們完全（與果肉）分離後再食用。」
The question sometimes arises as to whether bhikkhus may remove the seeds themselves before eating fruit of this sort, or if an unordained person has to remove them first. Given the context of the Mahāvagga passage and the wording of the Sub-commentary’s explanation, it seems clear that the bhikkhus themselves may discharge the seeds before or while eating the fruit. As the Commentary notes, both these kinds of fruit are allowable in and of themselves, and need not go through any other procedure to make them allowable.	有時會出現這樣的問題：比丘是否可以在吃這種水果之前自己去掉種子，或者是否必須由未受具足戒的人先去掉種子。考慮到《大品》段落的上下文和《複註》解釋的措辭，似乎很明顯比丘自己可以在吃水果之前或吃水果時排出種子。正如《義註》所指出的，這兩種水果本身都是允許的，不需要經過任何其他作淨程序。
Other kinds of fruit, though, such as those with numerous seeds (such as tomatoes and blackberries) or whose seeds would be difficult to remove undamaged (such as grapes) must be damaged by fire, a knife, or a fingernail before a bhikkhu may eat them. The Commentary’s description of how to do this shows that the damaging need only be symbolic: An unordained person draws a hot object or a knife across the skin of the fruit, or pokes it with a fingernail, saying “allowable” (kappiyaṁ) either while doing the damaging or immediately afterward. The Sub-commentary notes that the word for “allowable” may be stated in any language.	然而，其他種類的水果，例如帶有大量種子的水果（例如蕃茄和黑莓）或難以去除而不損害種子的水果（例如葡萄），必須用火、刀或指甲損害後，比丘才能食用。《義註》中對如何做到這一點的描述表明，損害只需要是象徵性的：一個未受具足戒的人用一個熱物體或一把刀劃過水果皮，或者用指甲戳它，在損害的同時或之後立即說「允許的」（kappiyaṁ）。《複註》指出，「允許的」一詞可以用任何語言表達。
If a heap of fruit, such as grapes, is brought to a bhikkhu, he should say, “Make it allowable,” (Kappiyaṁ karohi,) either to the donor or to any other unordained person who knows how. The unordained person need only make one of the grapes allowable in line with the above procedures for the entire heap to be considered allowable, although he/she should not remove the grape from the heap while doing so.	如果一堆水果（例如葡萄）被帶給比丘，他應該對布施者或任何其他知道如何做的未受具足戒者說「使其被允許」（Kappiyaṁ karohi）。未受具足戒者只需按照上述程序作淨其中一顆葡萄，整堆葡萄即可被視為已作淨，但他/她在如此做時不應將該葡萄從葡萄堆中取出。
The Sub-commentary claims that the ceremony of making fruit allowable must always be performed in the presence of a bhikkhu, but the Commentary mentions this factor only in connection with this last case—making an entire heap of fruit allowable by “damaging” only one piece—and not in its basic description of how the procedure is done.	《複註》聲稱，作淨水果的儀式必須始終在比丘面前進行，但《義註》僅在與最後一種情況相關時提到了這一因素——通過「損壞」一塊水果來作淨整堆水果——而不是在對如何進行該程序的基本描述中提到了這一點。
In Communities that follow the Sub-commentary, the custom is as follows: When a donor brings grapes, tomatoes, or similar fruit to a bhikkhu, the bhikkhu says, “Kappiyaṁ karohi (Make it allowable).” The donor damages the fruit in any of the three specified ways and says, “Kappiyaṁ bhante (It is allowable, venerable sir),” while doing the damaging, and then presents the fruit to the bhikkhu.	在遵循《複註》的僧團中，習俗如下：當施主帶給比丘葡萄、蕃茄或類似的水果時，比丘會說「Kappiyaṁ karohi（使其被允許）」。施主以三種指定方式中的一種損害水果，並在損害時說：「Kappiyaṁ bhante（這是允許的，尊者）」，然後將水果呈給比丘。
In Communities that do not follow the Sub-commentary, the donor may perform the act of damaging the fruit beforehand. If the damage is obvious, a bhikkhu may accept and consume the fruit without asking. If it’s not, he should ask whether it has been damaged. If the reply is Yes, he may accept and consume it. If No, it should first be damaged in his presence.	在不遵循《複註》的僧團中，施主可以事先進行損害水果的行為。如果損害很明顯，比丘可以接受並食用水果而無需詢問。如果不明顯，他應該詢問它是否已被損害。如果答案是肯定的，他可以接受並食用它。如果不是，則應先在他面前將其損害。
Even in this second type of Community, however, the act of making a heap of fruit allowable by damaging only one piece must be done in a bhikkhu’s presence. And we should note again that seedless fruit or fruit whose seeds may be removed entirely from the flesh of the fruit are allowable in and of themselves, and do not have to go through any procedure before a bhikkhu may accept and eat them.	然而，即使在第二種類型的僧團中，透過損害一塊水果來作淨一堆水果的行為必須在比丘面前進行。我們應該再次注意，無籽水果或可以將種子從果肉中完全去除的水果本身是允許的，並且不需要經過任何程序，比丘就可以接受和食用它們。
The two passages in the Mahāvagga and Cullavagga that we have been discussing deal specifically only with fruit, but the Commentary extrapolates from them to say that the same conditions apply to other forms of bījagāma, such as sugar cane and bean sprouts as well.	我們一直在討論的《大品》和《小品》中的兩個段落僅僅專門討論了水果，但《義註》從中推斷，同樣的情況也適用於其他形式的 bījagāma，例如甘蔗和豆芽。

Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga says that there is no offense for a bhikkhu who cuts a living plant—	《經分別》說，比丘砍伐活的植物並無犯戒——
unknowingly—e.g., thinking it to be dead,	不知道地──例如，以為它死了，
unthinkingly—e.g., absent-mindedly pulling grass while talking with someone, or	不假思索地——例如，在與人交談時心不在焉地拔草，或者
unintentionally—e.g., inadvertently uprooting grass while raking leaves, or grabbing onto a plant for support while climbing a hill and inadvertently uprooting it.	無意地——例如，在耙樹葉時不小心把草連根拔起，或者在爬山時抓住植物支撐而無意中把它連根拔起。
Also, there is no penalty in telling an unordained person to make an item allowable; in asking for leaves, flowers, etc., without specifically saying which leaves or flowers are to be picked; or in indicating indirectly that, e.g., the grass needs cutting (“Look at how long the grass is”) or that a tree needs pruning (“This branch is in the way”) without expressly giving the command to cut. In other words, this is another rule where one may avoid an offense by using kappiya-vohāra: “wording it right.”	此外，告訴未受具足戒的人作淨某件物品不會受到懲罰；索要樹葉、花朵等，但沒有具體說明要採摘哪些樹葉或花朵；或者間接地表明，例如，草需要修剪（「看看這草有多長」）或樹需要修剪（「這個樹枝擋道了」），而沒有明確發出修剪的命令。換句話說，這是另一條可以透過使用 kappiya-vohāra（「正確措辭」）來避免違犯的戒條。
Cv.V.32.1 says that if a brush fire is approaching a dwelling, one may light a counter-fire to ward it off. In doing so, one is exempt from any penalty imposed by this rule.	《小品》.五.32.1 規定，如果灌木叢火災正在逼近住所，可以點燃逆火來撲滅。這樣做，免於本戒條所施加的任何懲罰。
Also, according to the Sub-commentary to NP 6, a bhikkhu whose robes have been snatched away and who cannot find any other cloth to cover himself may pick grass and leaves to cover himself without incurring a penalty here.	此外，根據《捨墮》六的《複註》，如果比丘的袈裟被奪走，而他又找不到其他衣服遮蓋自己，那麼他可以採摘草葉來遮蓋自己，而不會受到懲罰。
Summary: Intentionally cutting, burning, or killing a living plant is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：故意砍伐、焚燒或殺死活的植物，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

12	十二
Evasive speech and causing frustration are to be confessed.	迴避言論和造成挫折，波逸提。
This rule deals with a bhikkhu’s behavior in a Community meeting when being formally questioned about a charge made against him. The factors for the full offense here are three.	這條戒條涉及比丘在僧團會議上被正式詢問對他的指控時的行為。此處構成完全違犯的因素有三。
1) Intention: One’s motive is to hide one’s offenses.	1）動機：是為了掩蓋自己的罪行。
2) Effort: One continues engaging in evasive speech or in causing frustration	2）努力：繼續進行迴避性言論或造成挫折
3) Object: when being questioned in the Community about a rule or an offense after the Community has brought a formal charge of evasive speech or causing frustration against one.	3）對象：在僧團正式指控自己發表迴避性言論或造成挫敗後，在僧團中被問及有關戒條或犯戒時。
Effort	努力
Evasive speech is illustrated in the origin story as follows:	迴避性言論在起源故事中有以下描述：
“Now at that time Ven. Channa, having misbehaved and being examined about the offense in the midst of the Community, wandered around (§) one thing by way of another: ‘Who has committed the offense? What was committed? With regard to what matter was it committed? How was it committed? What are you saying? Why do you say it?’”	「爾時，闡陀尊者行為不當並在僧團中接受有關犯戒的審問，異語遁辭：『誰犯了戒？犯了什麼戒？關於什麼事犯的戒？怎樣犯的戒？你在說什麼？為什麼這麼說？』」
The Vibhaṅga, following the lead of the origin story, gives examples of evasive speech that are all in the form of questions. However, the Commentary argues that the Vibhaṅga’s examples are not intended to be exhaustive, and that evasive speech covers any and all forms of speaking beside the point when being formally questioned. The Sub-commentary agrees and gives an entertaining example of its own:	《經分別》依照起源故事的線索，列舉了迴避性言論的例子，這些言論都以問題的形式出現。然而，《義註》認為，《經分別》中的例子並非詳盡無遺，迴避性言論涵蓋了在正式詢問時偏離主題的任何及所有形式的言論。《複註》對此表示同意，並給了一個有趣的例子：
“Have you committed this offense?”	「你犯了這條戒嗎？」
“I’ve been to Pāṭaliputta.”	「我去過波吒釐城。」
“But we’re not asking about your going to Pāṭaliputta. We’re asking about an offense.”	「但我們不是問你去波吒釐城的事。我們問的是犯戒的事。」
“From there I went to Rājagaha.”	「我從那裡去了王舍城。」
“Well, Rājagaha or Brahmaṇāgaha, did you commit the offense?”	「那麼，王舍城或 Brahmaṇāgaha，你犯了戒嗎？」
“I got some pork there.”	「我在那裡得到了一些豬肉。」
As for causing frustration:	至於造成挫折：
“Now at a later time Ven. Channa, being examined about an offense in the midst of the Community, (thinking), ‘By evading one question with another, I will fall into an offense,’ remained silent and frustrated the Community.”	「後來，有一次，闡陀尊者在僧團中被盤問犯了戒時，（心想）：『用另一個問題來迴避問題，我就會犯戒。」於是，他保持沉默，使僧團感到挫折。」
Thus, the texts say, causing frustration means remaining silent when being formally questioned in the midst of the Community.	因此，文獻說，造成挫折意味著在僧團中受到正式盤問時保持沉默。

Intention	意圖
This factor is fulfilled only if one’s motive is to conceal one’s own offenses. If one has other motives for remaining silent, asking questions, or speaking not to the point while being questioned, there is no penalty. For example, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who, when being examined,	只有當動機是掩飾自己的罪行時，這因素才會得到滿足。如果保持沉默、提問或在被問及時說話不切題，是出於其他動機，則不會受到懲罰。例如，當一位比丘接受審查時，
asks questions or gives answers not to the point because he does not understand what is being said,	問問題或回答不中要點，因為他不明白所說的內容，
is too ill to speak,	病得無法說話，
feels that in speaking he will create conflict or dissension in the Community, or	覺得自己的言論會在僧團中引發衝突或分歧，或
feels that the Community will carry out its transactions unfairly or not in accordance with the rule.	認為僧團將不公平或不依照戒條進行羯磨。
Object	對象
If a bhikkhu speaks evasively or remains silent out of a desire to conceal his offenses, he incurs a dukkaṭa. If the Community sees fit, it may then bring a formal charge of evasive speech or causing frustration against him in order to restrain him from persisting in such behavior. (See Appendix VIII for these transaction statements.) If he then continues speaking evasively or remaining silent, he incurs a pācittiya.	如果比丘為了掩蓋自己的罪行而閃爍其詞或保持沉默，他犯《突吉羅》。如果僧團認為合適，可以對他提出迴避言論或造成挫折的正式指控，以阻止他堅持這種行為。（請參閱附錄八中的這些羯磨文。）如果他繼續閃爍其詞或保持沉默，他犯《波逸提》。
Perception is not a factor here. Once a formal charge of evasive speech or causing frustration has been rightfully brought against a bhikkhu, and he continues to speak evasively or remain silent, he incurs a pācittiya regardless of whether he sees the charge as rightful or not. If the charge has been wrongfully brought against him, then regardless of whether he perceives the charge as wrongful, rightful, or doubtful, the offenses or lack of offenses are allotted as if the Community transaction bringing the charge had not happened at all. This covers two situations. In the first, the bhikkhu actually deserves the charge, but the transaction was not carried out strictly in accordance with formal procedure. In this case, if the bhikkhu continues to be evasive or remain silent out of a desire to hide his offenses, he incurs another dukkaṭa. In the second situation, the bhikkhu does not deserve the charge—for instance, he has asked questions or remained silent for one of the allowable reasons, but the Community has abused its powers in bringing the charge against him. In this case, if he continues to ask questions or remain silent for the allowable reasons, he incurs no offense.	感知在這裡不是一個因素。一旦針對比丘的迴避言論或造成挫折的正式指控已被公正地提出，而他繼續迴避言論或保持沉默，無論他是否認為該指控是正當的，他都犯《波逸提》。如果對他的指控是錯誤的，那麼無論他認為指控是錯誤的、正確的還是有疑問的，犯戒或不犯戒的認定，就如同提出指控的僧團羯磨根本沒有發生一樣。這包括兩種情況。第一種情況，比丘確實應該受到指控，但羯磨並沒有嚴格按照正式程序進行。在這種情況下，如果比丘為了掩蓋自己的罪行而繼續逃避或保持沉默，他就犯另一次《突吉羅》。在第二種情況下，比丘不應該受到指控——例如，他已經根據允許的理由提出問題或保持沉默，但僧團濫用權力對他提出指控。在這種情況下，如果他繼續提問或因為允許的理由保持沉默，他不犯戒。
As for the case in which the Community rightly brings a formal charge of evasive speech or causing frustration against a bhikkhu, and he incurs a pācittiya for continuing to speak evasively or remain silent: If he continues being uncooperative, he may further be subject to a more severe penalty, a censure transaction (tajjanīya-kamma) for being a maker of trouble and strife for the Community (Cv.I.1-8—BMC2, Chapter 20). If he finally admits to having committed the offense about which he is being questioned—or another previously unconfessed offense—he is subject to what is essentially the same thing: an act of further punishment (tassa-pāpiyasikā-kamma) for not admitting to a true charge right from the start (see the discussion under the Adhikaraṇa-samatha rules, Chapter 11).	至於如果僧團正確地正式指控比丘迴避言論或造成挫折的情況，而他繼續說話不清或保持沉默，則犯《波逸提》：如果他繼續不合作，他可能會受到更嚴厲的懲罰，即呵責(苦切)羯磨（tajjanīya-kamma），因為他給僧團製造了麻煩和紛爭（《小品》.一.1-8—《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第二十章）。如果他最終承認犯了被質問的罪行，或者另一個之前未承認的罪行，那麼他將遭受本質上相同的懲罰：因從一開始就不承認真實指控而受到罪處所(覓罪相)（tassa-pāpiyasikā-kamma）的懲罰（參見第十一章滅諍戒條的討論）。

Non-offenses	不犯
If a bhikkhu answers not to the point or remains silent for any of the allowable reasons, he incurs no penalty even after a transaction of evasive speech or causing frustration has for some reason been enacted against him.	如果比丘回答不中要點或因為任何允許的理由而保持沉默，即使因某種原因對他實施了迴避性言論或造成挫敗的羯磨之後，他也不犯戒。
Summary: Persistently replying evasively or keeping silent in order to conceal one’s own offenses when being questioned in a meeting of the Community—after a formal charge of evasive speech or causing frustration has been brought against one—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：在僧團會議上被詢問到時，為了掩蓋自己的罪行而不斷閃爍其詞或保持沉默—在對自己提出迴避言論或造成挫敗的正式指控後—是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

13	十三
Criticizing or complaining (about a Community official) is to be confessed.	批評或抱怨（僧團執事），波逸提。
Community officials. In the Cullavagga (VI.11.2-4; VI.21.1-3), the Buddha gives allowances for a Community of bhikkhus to designate various of its members as Community officials to handle such business as distributing food, deciding who will stay in which dwelling, keeping the rosters that decide who will receive the invitations to which meals, etc. Ven. Dabba Mallaputta was the first such official and was well-equipped for the job:	僧團執事。在《小品》（六.11.2-4；六.21.1-3）中，佛陀允許比丘僧團指派其成員擔任僧團執事，處理諸如分配食物、決定誰將住在哪個住所、保存名冊以決定誰將收到哪些餐食的邀請等事務。摩羅子陀驃尊者是第一位這樣的執事，並且完全有能力勝任這份工作：
“As for those bhikkhus who came at night, he would enter the fire element for them and by that light would assign them dwellings—so much so that bhikkhus arrived at night on purpose, thinking, ‘We will see the marvel of Ven. Dabba Mallaputta’s psychic power.’ Approaching him, they said, ‘Friend Dabba, assign us dwellings.’	「至於那些夜間前來的比丘，他會為他們進入火光三昧（火界），並藉著火光為他們安排住處——以至於比丘們特意夜間前來，心想：『我們將親眼目睹摩羅子陀驃尊者神通的神奇。』他們到他那裡，說道：『陀驃朋友，請為我們安排住處。』
“Ven. Dabba Mallaputta said, ‘Where would you like? Where shall I assign them?’	「摩羅子陀驃尊者說：『您想去哪裡？我該把他們分配到哪裡？』
“Then they named a distant place on purpose: ‘Friend Dabba, assign us a dwelling on Vulture’s Peak Mountain. Friend Dabba, assign us a dwelling on Robber’s Cliff….’	「於是他們故意說了一個遙遠的地方的名字：『陀驃朋友，請您在靈鷲山上為我們安排一處住所。陀驃朋友，請您在盜賊嶽上為我們安排一處住所……』
“So Ven. Dabba Mallaputta, entering the fire element for them, went before them with his finger glowing, while they followed right behind him with the help of his light.”—Cv.IV.4.4	「於是摩羅子陀驃尊者為他們進入火光三昧（火界），用發光的手指走在他們前面，而他們則藉助他的光芒緊隨其後。」—《小品》.四.4.4
Even with his special skills, there were bhikkhus who were dissatisfied with the dwellings and meals he assigned to them—as we saw under Sg 8 & 9—and in the origin story to this rule they criticize and complain about him.	即使他擁有特殊技能，還是有一些比丘對他分配給他們的住所和餐食不滿意—正如我們在《僧殘》八和九中看到的那樣—並且在本戒條的起源故事中，他們批評和抱怨他。
The factors for a full offense here are three: object, intention, and effort—although the Vibhaṅga makes intention an integral part of its definition of the factor of effort.	這裡構成完整犯戒的因素有三：對象、意圖和努力—儘管《經分別》將意圖視為努力因素定義中不可或缺的一部分。

Object	對象
This factor is fulfilled only by (1) a bhikkhu who (2) has been properly authorized as a Community official and (3) does not habitually act out of the four causes for bias: desire, aversion, delusion, or fear. With regard to the first two of these sub-factors, other people—and the Vibhaṅga’s list of “others” here is interesting—are grounds for a dukkaṭa. The list is: an ordained person who has been improperly authorized to act as a Community official, an ordained person who hasn’t been authorized to act as a Community official, and an unordained person, regardless of whether he/she has been authorized to act as a Community official or not. With regard to the third sub-factor, anyone who would otherwise be grounds for a pācittiya or a dukkaṭa is not grounds for an offense if he/she behaves in a biased way.	只有符合以下條件才滿足本因素：（1）比丘（2）該比丘已經獲得適當地授權成為僧團執事，並且（3）不習慣出於四種偏見原因而採取行動：貪、嗔、癡或恐懼。就這些子因素中的前兩者而言，其他人 —— 《經分別》在這裡列出的「其他人」很有趣 —— 則為《突吉羅》的理由。列表包括：被不適當地授權擔任僧團執事的受具足戒者、未被授權擔任僧團執事的受具足戒者，以及未受具足戒者，無論他/她是否被授權擔任僧團執事。對於第三個子因素，任何可能成為《波逸提》或《突吉羅》理由的人，如果他/她行為有偏見，不構成犯戒的理由。
Perception is not a factor here. Thus, if the official is actually properly authorized, he fulfills this factor whether one perceives his authorization as proper, improper, or doubtful. If he is improperly authorized, he is grounds for a dukkaṭa whether one perceives his authorization as proper, improper, or doubtful. In other words, this is another case where the pattern set out under Pc 4 does not hold.	感知在這裡不是一個因素。因此，如果該執事確實獲得了適當的授權，那麼無論認為他的授權是適當的、不適當的還是可疑的，他都滿足這一因素。如果他被不當地授權，那麼無論認為他的授權是正當的、不適當的還是可疑的，他都是《突吉羅》的理由。換句話說，這是《波逸提》四所列出的模式不成立的另一個情況。
(The PTS edition of the Canon says that if one perceives an improper authorization as improper, there is no offense, but the Thai, Sri Lankan, and Burmese editions of the Canon, together with the PTS edition of the K/Commentary, all agree with the above reading.)	（PTS 版《聖典》說，如果認為不適當地授權是不適當的，那就沒有犯戒，但泰國、斯里蘭卡和緬甸版的《聖典》以及 PTS 版的 K/《義註》都同意上述解讀。）

Intention	意圖
One’s motive is to make him lose face, lose status, or feel abashed.	其動機是想讓他丟臉、失去地位、或感到羞愧。
Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga defines criticizing as criticizing or complaining about a Community official to a fellow bhikkhu with the desire of making the official lose face, lose status, or feel abashed. The line between effort and intention appears blurred here, in that the intention is a part of the definition of “effort,” but the non-offense clauses provide an exemption for critical remarks that are motivated simply by a desire to tell the truth.	《經分別》將批評定義為向比丘同儕批評或抱怨僧團執事，希望讓該執事丟臉、失去地位或感到羞愧。在這裡，努力和意圖之間的界限似乎很模糊，因為意圖是「努力」定義的一部分，但不犯條款為僅僅出於說真話的願望而發表的批評性言論提供了豁免。
The Commentary and Sub-commentary give the clearest description of the distinction between criticizing and complaining: To criticize means to speak critically of a person in the presence of one or more other people so as to make them form a low opinion of him/her. To complain means simply to give vent to one’s criticisms of the person within earshot of someone else.	《義註》和《複註》對批評和抱怨的區別作了最清楚的描述：批評是指在一個或多個人面前批評某人，以使他們對某人產生低評價。抱怨的意思，僅僅就是在別人聽得到的地方發洩自己對某人的批評。
According to the Vibhaṅga, the penalty for criticizing or complaining about a Community official is a pācittiya if one’s listener is a fellow bhikkhu, and a dukkaṭa if one’s listener is an unordained person (§). The question of who one’s remarks are addressed to is irrelevant if one is criticizing or complaining about an unauthorized ordained Community official, or an unordained Community official, authorized or not: The penalty is a dukkaṭa, regardless.	根據《經分別》，批評或抱怨僧團執事的懲罰是，如果聽眾是比丘同儕，則為《波逸提》；如果聽眾是未受具足戒者，則為《突吉羅》（§）。如果批評或抱怨的是未經授權的受具足戒僧團執事，還是未受具足戒的僧團執事，無論其是否獲得授權，其言論針對的對象是誰，都無關緊要：無論如何，懲罰都是《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses	不犯
As mentioned above, if a Community official acts habitually out of any of the four causes for bias—desire, aversion, delusion, or fear—there is no offense in criticizing or complaining about him. For example, if he assigns the best dwellings to certain bhikkhus simply because he likes them, gives the poorest food to certain bhikkhus simply because he dislikes them, habitually sends the wrong bhikkhus to the wrong meals because he is too stupid to handle the rotating rosters properly, or gives the best treatment to certain bhikkhus because he is afraid of them or their supporters, there is no offense in criticizing his behavior in the presence of others.	如上所述，如果僧團執事習慣性地出於四種偏見原因（貪、瞋、癡、恐懼）中的任何一種而採取行動，批評或抱怨他並沒有犯戒。例如，如果他僅僅因為喜歡某些比丘而為他們安排最好的住所，僅僅因為不喜歡某些比丘而為他們提供最差的食物，或者因為他太愚蠢而無法妥善處理輪值表而習慣性地將錯誤的比丘安排到錯誤的餐食中，或者因為他害怕某些比丘或他們的支持者而給予他們最好的待遇，那麼在他人面前批評他的行為並沒有犯戒。
The reason for this allowance is that one of the qualifying factors for a Community official is that he be unbiased (see BMC2, Chapter 18). Thus any complaint of bias would be tantamount to an accusation that the Community transaction authorizing him as an official was invalid, and the Community would then be duty bound to look into the matter.	允許此開緣的原因是，擔任僧團執事的資格條件之一就是他必須公正無私（參見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第十八章）。因此，任何有關偏見的投訴都等於指控授權他擔任執事的僧團羯磨無效，因此僧團有義務調查此事。
However, one should be very sure of the facts of the case before taking advantage of this allowance, for—as noted above—perception is not a mitigating factor under this rule. Disappointment and anger have a way of coloring one’s perceptions, making another person’s perfectly blameless behavior look biased and unjust. If one criticizes or complains about an official, thoroughly convinced that he has been acting out of bias, one is still guilty of an offense if it turns out that in fact the official’s behavior has been fair. The same considerations apply also to complaints or criticisms concerning anyone, ordained or not.	然而，在利用這項開緣之前，應該非常清楚真實情況，因為──如上所述──根據這條戒條，感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素。失望和憤怒會影響一個人的看法，使另一個人完全無可指責的行為看起來有偏見和不公正。如果批評或抱怨某個執事，並且完全相信該執事的行為帶有偏見，那麼如果事實證明該執事的行為是公正的，仍然犯了戒。同樣的考慮也適用於對任何人的抱怨或批評，無論是否受具足戒。
To criticize a Community official to his face, simply for the sake of hurting his feelings, would be an offense under Pc 2, regardless of whether his behavior has in fact been biased or not.	根據《波逸提》二，僅僅為了傷害僧團執事的情感而當面批評他，都是犯戒，無論他的行為是否真的有偏見。
The job of a Community official is often a thankless one. The procedures he must follow in distributing invitations, etc., can be fairly complex and, in large Communities, quite time-consuming. Because there is no way he can guarantee equal treatment to all, there may be times when he seems to be acting out of bias when he is simply following standard procedure. If he cannot receive the benefit of the doubt from his fellow bhikkhus, there is no incentive for him to undertake these duties in the first place. The Buddha likened material gains to excrement (see AN 5:196), and when excrement is shared out there is rarely any point in complaining about who gets the choicest portions.	僧團執事的工作往往是吃力不討好的工作。分配邀請等等他必須遵循的程序可能相當複雜，並且在大型僧團中相當耗時。因為他無法保證對所有人都相同待遇，所以有時他只是在遵循標準程序，但卻顯得帶有偏見。如果他不能得到同儕比丘們的假定信任，那麼他一開始就沒有動力去承擔這些職責。佛陀將物質利益比喻為排泄物（參考《增支部》5:196經），當排泄物被分享時，抱怨誰得到了最好的部分幾乎沒有任何意義。
Summary: If a Community official is innocent of bias: Criticizing him within earshot of another bhikkhu is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：如果僧團執事沒有偏見：在另一位比丘聽力可及範圍內批評他，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

14	十四
Should any bhikkhu set a bed, bench, mattress, or stool belonging to the Community out in the open—or have it set out—and then on departing neither put it away nor have it put away, or should he go without taking leave, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘將屬於僧團的床、長椅、床墊或凳子擺放在露天，或讓人擺放出來，然後在離開時既不收拾也不讓人收拾，或如果不告而別就離開，波逸提。
During the four months of the rains, furniture belonging to the Community—when not in use—is to be kept in a place where it will not be rained on, such as a fully-roofed storeroom or dwelling. The Vibhaṅga to this rule contains an allowance whereby during the remainder of the year it may also be kept in an open pavilion roofed with slats or branches, or under a tree where birds do not leave droppings. (At present, tents would fit under “pavilions” here.) The Commentary implies, though, that this latter allowance holds only in those regions with a distinct dry season; and, according to the Sub-commentary, even where there is a dry season, if a bhikkhu sees an unseasonable rain storm approaching he should not leave furniture in such semi-open places. And as we can infer from the Vibhaṅga to the next rule, even during the dry season this allowance applies only as long as one continues to reside in the monastery.	在四個月的雨季期間，僧團的傢俱不使用時，應存放在不會被雨淋到的地方，例如完全覆蓋屋頂的儲藏室或住處。本戒條的《經分別》包含一項開緣，即在一年中的剩餘時間裡，它也可以保存在用板條或樹枝覆蓋屋頂的開放式亭子中，或保存在鳥類不會留下糞便的樹下。（目前，帳篷可以算在這裡的「亭子」下。）然而，《義註》暗示，後一項開緣只適用於有明顯乾季的地區；而且，根據《複註》，即使在乾季，如果比丘看到不合季節的暴雨即將來臨，他也不應該將傢俱留在這種半開放的地方。並且，我們可以從下一條戒條的《經分別》推斷，即使在乾季，只有繼續居住在寺院中，本開緣才適用。
This rule deals with a bhikkhu who sets furnishings of the Community out in the open and then leaves without taking leave or getting them put away in the proper place. The factors for the full offense are three.	這條戒條針對的是比丘將僧團的傢俱擺放在露天，然後離開時沒有告別或將它們放回適當的地方。構成完全犯戒的因素有三。
1) Object: any bed, bench, mattress, or stool belonging to the Community.	1）對象：任何屬於僧團的床、長椅、床墊或凳子。
2) Effort: One sets such furnishings out in the open and then departs without taking leave, putting the furnishings away, or getting them put away in the proper place.	2）努力：將傢俱擺放在露天，然後不辭而別，不將傢俱收好，或不讓人將其收回適當的地方。
3) Intention: One has set them out for some purpose other than sunning them (§).	3）意圖：把它們擺出來不是為了曬太陽（§）。
Object	對象
Any bed, bench, mattress, or stool belonging to the Community is grounds for a pācittiya. Perception as to whether the item belongs to the Community is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). Carpets, bedspreads, mats, ground-covering under-pads, foot-wiping cloths, and wooden chairs belonging to the Community are grounds for a dukkaṭa, as are both classes of furnishings—beds, etc., and carpets, etc.—belonging to another individual. One’s own furnishings are not grounds for an offense.	任何屬於僧團的床、長椅、床墊或凳子都是構成《波逸提》的理由。對於該物品是否屬於僧團的感知並不是這裡的減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。屬於僧團的地毯、床罩、墊子、地面覆蓋墊、擦腳布和木椅都是構成《突吉羅》的理由，屬於另一個人的兩類傢俱（床等和地毯等）也是如此。自己的傢俱不構成犯戒的理由。
According to the Commentary, if one has made an arrangement with someone else to take his/her belongings on trust, there is no offense in leaving that person’s furnishings out in the open. The Sub-commentary adds that any furnishings a donor presents for the Community to use out in the open—e.g., stone or concrete benches—are likewise not grounds for an offense.	根據《義註》，如果與另一個人達成協議，信託他/她的所有物，那麼將該人的傢俱放在露天並不犯戒。《複註》也補充道，施主為僧團提供的任何戶外使用的傢俱（例如石凳或混凝土長凳）同樣不構成犯戒的理由。
Under this rule, the Commentary contains a long essay on the proper storage of brooms. Because its remarks are based on an improper application of the Great Standards—brooms were known in the time of the Buddha and yet he chose not to include them under this rule—there is no reason to regard them as binding.	根據這條戒條，《義註》中包含一篇關於如何正確存放掃帚的長文。因為其評論是基於對《四大教示》的不當應用——佛陀時代就已經知道掃帚，但他選擇不將其納入這一戒條——因此沒有理由將其視為具有約束力。
Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga defines departing the furnishings as going further than one leḍḍupāta—approximately 18 meters—from them. It does not define “taking leave,” aside from stating that one may take leave from a bhikkhu, a novice, or a monastery attendant. This much, however, establishes that even though the Pali verb for taking leave, āpucchati, is etymologically related to the verb for asking, pucchati, the act of taking leave does not mean asking permission, for nothing in the Canon suggests that a bhikkhu has to get a novice’s or a lay attendant’s permission for his actions. The Commentary expands on this point, saying that taking leave means informing a bhikkhu, a novice, or a temple attendant whom one assumes will take responsibility for the furnishings. Unlike the following rule, where the intent to return is a mitigating factor, here it is not: Once a bhikkhu has departed from the furnishings, he has completed the factor of effort here even if he intends to return immediately.	《經分別》將離開傢俱定義為距離其超過一個 leḍḍupāta （約 18 公尺）。它沒有對「告別」做出定義，只是說可以向比丘、沙彌或寺院侍者告別。然而，這表明，儘管巴利語中表示告別的動詞 āpucchati 在詞源上與表示詢問的動詞 pucchati 相關，但告別的行為並不意味著請求許可，因為《聖典》中沒有任何內容表明比丘必須獲得沙彌或在家侍者的許可才能採取行動。《義註》對這一點進行了擴展，指出告別意味著通知比丘、沙彌或寺院侍者，並認為他們會對傢俱負責。與下一條戒條不同，在下一條戒條中，返回的意圖是一個減輕懲罰因素，但這裡不是：一旦比丘離開了傢俱，即使他打算立即返回，他也已完成了此處的努力因素。

Responsibility	責任
A bhikkhu is held responsible for putting away furnishings that he has ordered another person to place in the open, unless the other person is also a bhikkhu, in which case he is the one responsible. The Commentary states that if a senior bhikkhu requests a junior bhikkhu to place out in the open any furnishings that may be grounds for a penalty, then the junior bhikkhu is responsible for them until the senior bhikkhu sits down on them, places an article of his use (such as a robe or a shoulder bag) on them, or gives the junior bhikkhu permission to leave, after which point the senior bhikkhu is responsible.	比丘有責任收拾他命令別人擺放在露天的傢俱，除非另一個人也是比丘，在這種情況下，他就是負責人。《義註》指出，如果一位資深比丘要求一位資淺比丘將任何可能成為懲罰理由的傢俱擺放在露天，那麼資淺比丘要對這些傢俱負責，直到資深比丘坐在上面，在上面放置他使用的物品（比如袈裟或肩包），或者允許資淺比丘離開，此後資深比丘要負責。
The Commentary also states that if there is to be an open-air meeting, the host bhikkhus are responsible for any seats set out in the open, until the visiting bhikkhus claim their places, from which point the visitors are responsible. If there is to be a series of Dhamma talks, each speaker is responsible for the sermon seat from the moment he sits in it until the moment the next speaker does.	《義註》也指出，如果要舉行露天會議，主辦比丘要負責露天擺放的任何座位，直到來訪的比丘佔據自己的座位，從那時開始，來訪的比丘就要負責。如果有一系列的佛法開示，每位開示者都要對講經座位負責，從他坐下的那一刻起直到下一位開示者坐下的那一刻。
Non-offenses	不犯
As stated above, there is no offense if one departs having set furnishings belonging to the Community or another individual out in the sun with the purpose of drying them, and thinking, “I will put them away when I come back (§).” Also, there is no offense:	如上所述，如果離開時將屬於僧團或另一個人的傢俱放在陽光下，目的是將其曬乾，並想著「我回來時會把它們收起來（§）」，這並不構成犯戒。此外，以下也無犯戒：
if one departs after someone else takes possession of or responsibility for furnishings one has left out in the open;	如果在他人接管或負責自己留在戶外的傢俱後才離開；
if there are constraints on the furnishings—the Commentary mentions a senior bhikkhu making one get up from them and taking possession of them, tigers or lions lying down on them, or ghosts or ogres taking possession of them; or	如果傢俱有限制——《義註》中提到，一位資深比丘讓自己從傢俱上站起來並佔有它們，老虎或獅子躺在它們上面，或鬼魂或妖魔佔有它們；或者
if there are dangers—which according to the Commentary means dangers to one’s life or to one’s remaining in the celibate life—that leave one no time to put the furnishings away.	如果有危險——根據《義註》，這意味著對自己的生命或保持梵行生活的危險——那麼就沒有時間把傢俱收起來。
The Vinaya-mukha, extracting a general principle from this rule, says, “This training rule was formulated to prevent negligence and to teach one to care for things. It should be taken as a general model.”	《戒律入口》從此戒條中提取出一條普遍原則，說道：「此學處被制定來防止疏忽，並教導愛護事物。它應該被視為普遍的典範。」
Summary: When one has set a bed, bench, mattress, or stool belonging to the Community out in the open: Leaving its immediate vicinity without putting it away, arranging to have it put away, or taking leave is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：當將屬於僧團的床、長椅、床墊或凳子放在露天時：離開其附近而不將其放好、安排將其放好，或告別，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

15	十五
Should any bhikkhu set out bedding in a dwelling belonging to the Community—or have it set out—and then on departing neither put it away nor have it put away, or should he go without taking leave, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘在僧團的住所擺放寢具—或讓人擺放寢具—然後離開時既不收拾，也不讓人收拾，或不告而別就離開，波逸提。
Here again the three factors for a full offense are object, effort, and intention.	此處再一次，構成完整犯戒的三個要素是對象、努力和意圖。
Object	對象
Bedding here includes mattresses, pillows, rugs, sheets, mats, sitting cloths, blankets, bedspreads, animal skins, throw rugs, etc., but not the beds or benches on which they may be placed. Unlike the preceding rule, the question of whom the bedding belongs to is not an issue in determining the offense under this rule.	這裡的寢具包括床墊、枕頭、地毯、床單、墊子、坐布、毯子、床罩、動物皮、小地毯等，但不包括放置這些物品的床或長椅。與前一條戒條不同，本戒條寢具屬於誰的問題與判定犯戒不相關。
The place where it is left, though, is an issue. Bedding left in a dwelling belonging to the Community is grounds for a pācittiya. Bedding (§) left in a dwelling belonging to another individual is grounds for a dukkaṭa, as is bedding left in the area around a dwelling, in an assembly hall, an open pavilion, or at the foot of a tree—these last three places belonging to the Community or to another individual.	但它被放置在哪裡則是一個問題。遺留在僧團住處內的寢具是構成《波逸提》的理由。將寢具（§）遺留在他人住處內，是構成《突吉羅》的理由，將寢具留在住所周圍、集會大廳、開放涼亭、或樹下也是構成《突吉羅》的理由 —— 最後這三個地方屬於僧團或他人所有。
A bed or a bench taken from its original place and left in any of the above places is grounds for a dukkaṭa. Given that this rule covers a different kind of ”departing” from the preceding rule, this penalty applies even during the periods when one is allowed to keep such things under trees, etc., through the allowance given in the Vibhaṅga to that rule.	將床或長椅從其原處搬走並遺留在上述任何地方均會構成《突吉羅》的理由。鑑於此戒條涵蓋了與前一條戒條不同的「離開」，因此，即使在根據本戒條的《經分別》的開緣允許將此類物品放在樹下等的期間，也適用此懲罰。
Bedding left in a dwelling, etc., belonging to oneself is not grounds for an offense.	將寢具留在屬於自己的住所等處不構成犯戒。
According to the Vibhaṅga, this rule applies specifically to bedding that one has oneself set out or arranged to be set out. Thus it would not apply to cases where a bhikkhu comes to a dwelling and finds bedding already set out there, even when set out as a courtesy for him. The Commentary qualifies this point by saying that if a visiting bhikkhu is staying temporarily in a Community dwelling to which another bhikkhu has laid claim (see BMC2, Chapter 18), the bedding is the responsibility of the bhikkhu with the claim on the dwelling, and not of the visitor. Once the visitor does lay claim to the dwelling, however, responsibility for the bedding becomes his. In line with this qualification, if a monastery has a dwelling set aside for receiving visiting elders, it would be a wise policy for one of the resident bhikkhus to lay claim to it so that visiting elders would not have to be responsible for any bedding set out for them.	根據《經分別》，這條戒條專門適用於自己擺放或安排令人擺放的寢具。因此，這不適用於比丘來到住處並發現那裡已經擺放好寢具的情況，即使是出於對他的禮貌而擺放的寢具。《義註》中對此進行了限定，指出如果一位來訪的比丘暫時住在另一位比丘聲稱居住的僧團住處（見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第十八章），則寢具是聲稱居住該住處的比丘的責任，而不是訪客的責任。然而，一旦訪客確實對該住處提出聲稱居住，寢具的責任就落到訪客身上了。依照這項條件，如果一座寺院專門為接待來訪的長老而設立了住處，那麼明智的做法是讓其中一位常住比丘聲稱居住該住處，這樣來訪的長老就不必負責為他們擺放的寢具。
Perception as to whether the dwelling belongs to the Community or to another individual is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	關於該住處是否屬於僧團或其他個人的感知並不是這裡的減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Effort	努力
The Commentary’s discussion of putting the item away shows that it essentially means putting it back in the safe place where it was kept before being spread out. Thus, if the bedding was hanging in a bundle from a clothesline before being spread out, it should be wrapped in a bundle and hung from the line as before. If it was taken from another room, it should be returned to the room from which it was taken.	《義註》中關於收起物品的討論表明，它本質上意味著將其放回被展開之前保存的安全地方。因此，如果寢具在被展開之前是捆成一捆掛在晾衣繩上的，則應將其包捆起來並像之前一樣掛在晾衣繩上。如果是從另一個房間拿走的，則應將其放回被拿走的房間。
Having the item put away and taking leave are defined as under the preceding rule, with one exception: A bhikkhu who orders someone else to spread the item is responsible for it even if the other person is also ordained.	令人收起物品和告別的定義與前一條戒條相同，但有一個例外：命令其他人展開物品的比丘要對其負責，即使另一個人也受過具足戒。
To depart is defined as going outside the grounds of the monastery: beyond the wall of the monastery if it is walled, beyond its vicinity if it is not. (In all rules mentioning this point, the Commentary defines a monastery’s vicinity as a distance of two leḍḍupātas—approximately 36 meters—from the buildings.) However, the absence of any reference to this rule in the protocols to be done before one’s alms round (Cv.VIII.5—see BMC2, Chapter 9) indicates that temporary excursions outside the monastery are not counted as “departing.” This conclusion is seconded by one of the non-offense clauses here, discussed below, which says that when a bhikkhu goes with the expectation of returning but then sends word back to the monastery that he is taking leave, he avoids any penalty under this rule. This implies that a bhikkhu who leaves his bedding spread out in a dwelling belonging to the Community, leaves the monastery temporarily with the intent of returning, and returns as planned, incurs no penalty as well.	離開的定義是走出寺院的範圍：如果寺院有圍牆，則走出寺院圍牆之外；如果沒有圍牆，則走出寺院周圍。（在所有提到這一點的戒條中，《義註》都將寺院的附近定義為距離建築物兩個 leḍḍupāta（約 36 米）的距離。）然而，在托缽前需作持的行儀中沒有提到這條戒條（《小品》.八.5 ——參見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第九章），這表明寺院外的臨時出遊不算作「離開」。這一結論得到了下面討論的其中一條不犯條款的支持，該條款規定，當一位比丘帶著返回的期望出去，但隨後又向寺院傳回話說他要告別時，他可以避免根據這條戒條受到任何懲罰。這意味著，如果比丘將自己的寢具展開留在僧團的住所中，暫時離開寺院並打算返回，並且按照計劃返回，那麼他也不會受到懲罰。
The question arises, though, as to how long a temporary period of absence is allowable. The Vibhaṅga itself sets no time limit. The Commentary illustrates the non-offense clause we have just mentioned with the case of a bhikkhu who leaves, thinking, “I will return today,” but makes no specific statement that longer periods are not allowed.	但問題是，暫時不在多久是被允許的。《經分別》本身沒有設定時間限制。《義註》以比丘離開時想著「我今天會回來」的例子來說明我們剛才提到的不犯條款，但沒有具體說明不允許停留更長時間。
Because the texts give no specific guidelines here, this is a matter that each Community should decide for itself, taking the following considerations into account:	由於文獻中此處沒有給出具體的指導方針，因此每個僧團都應自行決定此事，並考慮以下因素：
1) The origin story suggests that the purpose of the rule is to prevent the bedding’s being left so long in an unoccupied dwelling that it attracts ants, termites, or other pests.	1）起源故事表明，本戒條的目的是防止寢具在無人居住的住所中放置太久，以致吸引螞蟻、白蟻或其他害蟲。
2) Another consideration, raised by the Vinaya-mukha, is that if a bhikkhu goes for a long excursion, leaving his bedding and other belongings scattered about in a dwelling, this might inconvenience the resident bhikkhus in that they could not easily allot the dwelling to another bhikkhu in the interim.	2）《戒律入口》提出的另一個考慮是，如果比丘外出長途旅行，將他的寢具和其他物品散落在住處內，這可能會給住在那裡的比丘帶來不便，因為他們無法在這段時間輕易地將住所分配給另一位比丘。

Intention	意圖
is a factor here, in that—as mentioned above—if one plans to return within the allowable space of time, there is no offense. This point is conveyed by a passage in the non-offense clauses that reads, “having gone with the desire (to return), staying there one takes leave; he is constrained by something or another.” The Commentary, reasonably, reads this passage as two exemptions governed by the first phrase. In other words, (1) if one leaves the monastery with the intent to return and then, after reaching the opposite bank of a river or going the interval of one village away, one changes one’s mind and decides not to return, one can avoid an offense by sending word back to the monastery with the message that one is taking leave. Or, (2) if one leaves the monastery with the intent to return but encounters physical constraints—such as flooded rivers, kings, or robbers—that prevent one’s return, that in and of itself exempts one from an offense, and there is no need to send word.	在此處是一個因素，因為——如上所述——如果計劃在允許的時間內返回，那就沒有犯戒。不犯條款中的一段話傳達了這一點，寫道「帶著（返回的）願望去，留在那裡告別，他受到某些事物的束縛。」《義註》合理地將這段話解讀為受第一句約束的兩項豁免。換句話說，（1）如果離開寺院，打算返回，但到達河對岸，或走過一個村莊的距離後，改變主意，決定不再返回，只需向寺院傳回話說要告別，即可避免犯戒。或者（2）如果離開寺院，打算返回，但遭遇身體限制——例如河水氾濫、國王或盜賊——阻止返回，這本身就免除了他的罪行，不需要傳話。
Non-offenses	不犯
In addition to these two exemptions, the Vibhaṅga says that there is no offense in departing having left bedding spread out in a dwelling if someone else has taken responsibility for the bedding or if one has taken leave of a bhikkhu, a novice, or a monastery attendant. According to the protocols to be done before leaving a monastery to live elsewhere (Cv.VIII.3.2), if there is no one from whom to take leave, “then having set the bed on four stones, having stacked bed on bed, bench on bench, having placed the lodgings (including the bedding) in a heap on top, having put away the wooden goods and clay goods, having closed the windows and doors, he may set out.”	除了這兩項豁免之外，《經分別》還規定，如果有其他人對寢具負責，或者如果已經向比丘、沙彌或寺院侍者告別，那麼離開時將展開的寢具留在住處並不算犯戒。根據離開寺院去其他地方居住前需作持的行儀（《小品》.八.3.2），如果沒有人可以告別，「那麼，要把床放在四塊石頭上，把床疊放在床上，把長椅疊放在長椅上，把臥坐具（包括寢具）堆放在上面，把木器和陶器收好，關上門窗，然後他就可以出發了。」
And as under the preceding rule, there is no offense if there is a constraint on the bedding or there are dangers—i.e., constraints or dangers that would prevent one from putting them away before leaving.	並且如同前面的戒條，如果寢具有限制條件或危險（即，限製條件或危險會阻止在離開之前將寢具收起來），則不構成犯戒。
Summary: When one has spread bedding out in a dwelling belonging to the Community: Departing from the monastery without putting it away, arranging to have it put away, or taking leave is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：當在僧團的住處內展開寢具時：離開寺院時沒有將其收拾好、沒有安排令其收拾好、或者沒有告別，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

16	十六
Should any bhikkhu knowingly lie down in a dwelling belonging to the Community so as to intrude on a bhikkhu who arrived there first, (thinking), “Whoever finds it confining will go away”—doing it for just that reason and no other—it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘明知地躺在僧團的住處中，以致打擾到先到的比丘，（想著），「誰覺得侷限就會走開」 — 只因為這個原因而這樣做，沒有別的原因 — 波逸提。
There are four factors for an offense here.	此處的犯戒有四個因素。
1) Object: a bhikkhu who should not be forced to move.	1）對象：不應被強迫搬遷的比丘。
2) Perception: One perceives him as such.	2）感知：知道他不應被強迫搬遷。
3) Effort: One intrudes on his space in a dwelling belonging to the Community	3）努力：侵入了屬於僧團住處的他的空間
4) Intention: with the sole purpose of forcing him out.	4）意圖：唯一目的就是迫使他離開。
Object & perception	對象及感知
Knowingly is defined in the Vibhaṅga as knowing that the dwelling’s current occupant is a senior bhikkhu, a sick one, or one to whom the Community (or its official) has assigned the dwelling. The Commentary interprets this definition as a list of examples and generalizes from it to include any case where one knows, “This bhikkhu shouldn’t be forced to move.”	《經分別》將「明知地」定義為知到住處的現任居住者是資深比丘、病人、或僧團（或其執事）已指定居於該住處的人。《義註》將這個定義解釋為一系列例子，並從中概括出來包含任何我們知道「這個比丘不應該被迫搬遷」的情況。
Effort	努力
To intrude means to lie down or sit down in the area immediately adjacent to the bhikkhu’s sleeping or sitting place—which the Commentary defines as anywhere within 75 cm. of the sleeping or sitting place—or on a 75 cm. wide path from either of those places to the dwelling’s entrance. There is a dukkaṭa for placing one’s bedding or seat in such an area, and a pācittiya for each time one sits or lies down there. To place one’s bedding or seat in any other part of the dwelling entails a dukkaṭa; and to sit or lie down there, another dukkaṭa—assuming in all of these cases that the dwelling belongs to the Community.	侵入的意思是躺下或坐下在緊鄰比丘睡覺或坐著的地方的區域——《義註》將其定義為距離睡覺或坐著的地方 75 公分以內的任何地方——或從上述任兩個地點之一到住處入口的 75 公分寬的道路上。在這樣的區域放置寢具或座位是《突吉羅》，而每次在那裡坐著或躺下是《波逸提》。將寢具或座位放置在住處的任何其他部分犯《突吉羅》；而在那裡坐著或躺下，另一次《突吉羅》——在所有這些情況下，都假設該住處屬於僧團。
Perception with regard to the dwelling is not an issue here (see Pc 4). If the dwelling actually belongs to the Community, this part of the factor is fulfilled regardless of whether one perceives it as belonging to the Community or not.	關於住處的感知在這裡不是問題（參見《波逸提》四）。如果該住處確實屬於僧團，那麼無論是否認為它屬於僧團，這一部分因素都已滿足。
There is a dukkaṭa for intruding on the space of a bhikkhu—intending to force him out—in the area immediately adjacent to such a dwelling, in a place belonging to the Community that is not the dwelling of a particular person (e.g., an open pavilion or a meal hall), the shade of a tree, in the open air, or in a dwelling belonging to another individual. To do so in a dwelling belonging to oneself entails no offense. According to the Commentary, this last allowance also applies to a dwelling belonging to anyone who has offered to let one take his/her belongings on trust.	侵入比丘的空間（意圖強迫他離開）、這樣的住處的緊鄰區域、屬於僧團但不是某個特定的人的住處的地方（例如，開放涼亭或食堂）、樹蔭下、露天場所、或屬於另一個人的住處，是《突吉羅》。在自己的住處這樣做並不犯戒。根據《義註》，最後這項開緣也適用於任何願意讓自己基於信任拿走其所有物的人的住處。
Intention	意圖
If there is a compelling reason—one is ill or suffering from the cold or heat, or there are dangers outside—one may intrude on the space of another bhikkhu without penalty. The reason for these allowances would appear obvious—one is not aiming at forcing the other bhikkhu out—but the matter is not as simple as that. The Sub-commentary reports the Three Gaṇṭhipadas as saying that because of this allowance, one may make an excuse of one’s illness, etc., as a pretext for intruding on the other bhikkhu’s space so as to force him out of the dwelling. The Sub-commentary tries to argue with this ruling, but the Gaṇṭhipadas have the support of the Vibhaṅga here: Only if one’s sole motive is to force the other bhikkhu out is one subject to an offense under this rule. If one has mixed motives, one may take advantage of one’s illness, etc., to move in on the other bhikkhu.	如果有令人信服的理由——疾病、受寒或受熱，或外面有危險——可以侵入另一個比丘的空間而不受懲罰。給予這些開緣的理由顯而易見──目的並不是要強迫另一方比丘離開──但事情並非如此簡單。《複註》引用《Three Gaṇṭhipadas》指出，由於這種開緣，可以以自己生病等為藉口，侵入其他比丘的空間，迫使他離開住處。《複註》試圖反駁這項規定，但《Gaṇṭhipadas》在這裡得到了《經分別》的支持：只有當唯一動機是強迫另一位比丘離開時，他才會犯本戒條。如果有混合的動機，可以利用自己的疾病等來搬到其他比丘那裡。
However, once the illness, etc., has passed, one would commit an offense each time one continued to sit or lie down intruding on his space.	然而，一旦疾病等過去了，每次繼續坐下或躺下來侵入他的空間，就會犯戒。
All of this may seem very strange on the surface, but it is likely that the original occupant would not feel unduly pressured if an ill bhikkhu or one escaping dangers were to move into his dwelling, while he would start feeling pressured by the continued presence of the bhikkhu after the illness or dangers had passed, which is why the penalties are allotted as they are.	這一切表面上看起來很奇怪，但很可能原來的居住者不會因為生病的比丘或逃避危險的比丘搬進他的住所而感到過度的壓力，而當疾病或危險過去後，比丘繼續住在那裡，他就會開始感到壓力，這就是為什麼要分配這樣的懲罰。
Summary: Intruding on another bhikkhu’s sleeping or sitting place in a dwelling belonging to the Community, with the sole purpose of making him uncomfortable and forcing him to leave, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：侵入僧團住處中另一位比丘的睡覺或坐著的地方，僅僅是為了讓他感到不舒服並強迫他離開，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

17	十七
Should any bhikkhu, angered and displeased, evict a bhikkhu from a dwelling belonging to the Community—or have him evicted—it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘因憤怒和不滿而將比丘從僧團的住處中趕出，或命令他人將其趕出，波逸提。
“At that time some group-of-seventeen bhikkhus (see Pc 65) were fixing up a large dwelling on the fringes of the monastery, thinking, ‘We will spend the Rains here.’ Some group-of-six bhikkhus… seeing them, said, ‘These group-of-seventeen bhikkhus are fixing up a dwelling place. Let’s drive them out.’ But others of them said, ‘Wait, friends, while they fix it up. When it’s fixed up, then we’ll drive them out.’	「爾時，十七群比丘（見《波逸提》六五）正在寺院邊緣修葺一處大住處，心想：『我們要在此度雨季。』六群比丘……看到他們，說：『這十七群比丘正在修葺大住處。我們趕他們出去吧。』但他們中的其他人說：『朋友們，等他們修好。修好後，我們再趕他們出去。』
“Then the group-of-six bhikkhus said to the group-of-seventeen bhikkhus, ‘Get out, friends. The dwelling is ours.’	「然後六群比丘對十七群比丘說：『出去吧，朋友們。這住處是我們的。」
“‘Shouldn’t this have been mentioned beforehand so that we could have fixed up another one?’	「『這難道不應該事先提嗎，這樣我們就可以修葺另一處？』
“‘Isn’t this a dwelling belonging to the Community?’	「『這不是屬於僧團的住處嗎？』
“‘Yes….’	「『是的…。』
“‘Then get out. The dwelling is ours.’	「『那就出去吧。這住處是我們的。』
“‘The dwelling is large, friends. You can stay here, and we’ll stay here, too.’	「『住處很大，朋友們。你們可以住在這裡，我們也會住在這裡。』
“‘Get out. The dwelling is ours.’ And, angered and displeased, seizing them by the throat, they threw them out. The group-of-seventeen bhikkhus, having been thrown out, began to cry.”	「『出去！這住處是我們的。』憤怒且不滿，掐住他們的喉嚨，把他們扔了出去。被扔出去的十七群比丘們哭了起來。』
The three factors for the full offense here are:	此處構成完全違犯的三個因素是：
1) Object: a bhikkhu.	1）對象：比丘。
2) Effort: One evicts him from a dwelling belonging to the Community.	2）努力：將他從屬於僧團的住處中趕出去。
3) Intention: One’s prime impulse is anger.	3）意圖：主要衝動是憤怒。

Object	對象
A bhikkhu is grounds for a pācittiya here, while the following are grounds for a dukkaṭa: a bhikkhu’s belongings, an unordained person, and an unordained person’s belongings.	在此，比丘是構成《波逸提》的理由，而下列各項是構成《突吉羅》的理由：比丘的所有物、未受具足戒者、未受具足戒者的所有物。
Effort	努力
According to the Commentary, this rule covers both physical eviction—picking up the bhikkhu and throwing him out—as well as verbal eviction—ordering him to leave. The penalty in both cases is the same. (The Mahāsāṁghikas and Sarvāstivādins write this point into their version of the rule.) The Vibhaṅga counts offenses here as follows: a pācittiya for evicting the bhikkhu from the room to the porch, and another pācittiya for evicting him off the porch. If, with a single effort, one evicts him through many doors, one incurs a single pācittiya.	根據《義註》，這條戒條涵蓋了身體驅逐（抓起比丘並將他扔出去）以及口頭驅逐（命令他離開）。兩種情況的懲罰是一樣的。（大眾部與說一切有部將這一點寫入他們的戒條版本中。）《經分別》在此計算犯戒次數如下：將比丘從房間趕到門廊處，一次《波逸提》；將比丘趕出門廊處，另一次《波逸提》。如果用單一次努力，就將他驅逐出數個門去，犯單一次《波逸提》。
There is a dukkaṭa in telling someone else to evict the bhikkhu—no allowances for kappiya-vohāra are given here—and, assuming that all the other factors are fulfilled, a pācittiya once the bhikkhu has been evicted, regardless of how many efforts it takes. (The Thai edition of the Canon assigns a pācittiya for the order/request for someone else to do the eviction, but even the Thai edition of the Commentary assigns only a dukkaṭa here, as do all the other major editions of the Canon, so the Thai reading here is probably mistaken.)	告訴其他人驅逐比丘是《突吉羅》 —— 這裡不允許 kappiya-vohāra —— 並且，假設所有其他因素都滿足，一旦比丘被驅逐，就犯一次《波逸提》，無論花費多少努力。（泰國版《聖典》將命令/請求他人執行驅逐指定為犯一次《波逸提》，但即使是泰國版《義註》也只在此處指定了一次《突吉羅》，所有其他主要版本的《聖典》也都如此，因此這裡的泰國拼讀可能是錯誤的。）
To evict a bhikkhu from a dwelling belonging to the Community entails a pācittiya. As under the preceding rule, perception with regard to the ownership of the dwelling is not an issue here. To evict anyone—bhikkhu or not—from an area immediately adjacent to a dwelling belonging to the Community, from a place belonging to the Community that is not the dwelling of a particular person, from the shade of a tree, from a spot in the open air, or from a dwelling belonging to another individual entails a dukkaṭa. There is also a dukkaṭa for throwing a person’s belongings out from any of these places. (In all the cases mentioned in this paragraph, the assumption is that one is motivated by anger.)	將比丘從僧團的住處中驅逐出去，會招致《波逸提》的懲罰。如同前一條戒條，對住處所有權的感知在這裡不是問題。將任何人（無論是否比丘）從僧團住處的緊鄰區域、屬於僧團的非特定人住處的地方、樹蔭下、露天場所或屬於另一個人的住處驅逐，都將導致《突吉羅》。將某人的所有物從這些地方扔出去也是《突吉羅》。（本段中提到的所有情況都假設動機是憤怒。）
To evict anyone or anyone’s belongings from one’s own dwelling—or from one that belongs to an individual who has offered to let one take his/her belongings on trust—is not grounds for an offense.	將任何人或其財物從自己的住處中驅逐出去（或從屬於願意讓自己基於信任拿走他/她的財產的人的住處中驅逐出去），並不構成犯戒。
Perception as to whether the dwelling belongs to the Community is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	對於該住處是否屬於僧團的感知並不是這裡的減輕懲罰因素（參見《波逸提》四）。

Intention	意圖
There is no offense in evicting anyone when one’s primary impulse is not anger. Examples given in the non-offense clauses include evicting anyone—or the requisites of anyone—who is insane, unconscientious in his/her behavior, or a maker of quarrels, strife, and dissension in the Community. The Commentary adds here that one also has the right to throw the person out of the monastery as a whole if he/she is a maker of quarrels, strife, and dissension, but not if he/she is simply unconscientious.	當主要衝動不是憤怒時，驅逐任何人並沒有犯戒。不犯條款中給出的例子包括驅逐任何精神失常、行為不認真或在僧團中製造爭吵、衝突和不和的人（或其必需品）。《義註》在這裡補充說，如果某人是爭吵、衝突和不和的製造者，那麼自己也有權將這個人逐出寺院，但如果他只是不認真，那麼就沒有權利這麼做。
The Vibhaṅga adds that one may without penalty evict one’s student or his belongings from his dwelling if he is not properly observing his duties.	《經分別》規定，如果弟子沒有適當地履行職責，可以將其或其所有物從其住所驅逐出去，而不受懲罰。
In all of these cases, the Sub-commentary notes, if anger happens to arise in one’s mind in the course of evicting the person, there is no offense as long as it is not the primary impulse.	《複註》指出，在所有這些情況下，如果在驅逐他人的過程中，憤怒恰好在心中升起，只要這不是主要的衝動，就沒有犯戒。
The texts do not mention the case where one’s primary motive is greed, and the origin story suggests why: The group-of-six bhikkhus’ anger was simply a function of frustrated greed, and the two emotions would easily go together in any infraction of this rule.	文獻中沒有提到主要動機是貪婪的情況，起源故事解釋了原因：六群比丘的憤怒只是貪婪受挫的結果，而一旦違反這條戒條，這兩種情緒很容易結合在一起。
Summary: Causing a bhikkhu to be evicted from a dwelling belonging to the Community—when one’s primary impulse is anger—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：當主要衝動是憤怒時，導致比丘被驅逐出僧團的住處，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

18	十八
Should any bhikkhu sit or lie down on a bed or bench with detachable legs on an (unplanked) loft in a dwelling belonging to the Community, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘在僧團住處的（未鋪地板的）閣樓上坐或躺下在帶有可拆卸腳的床或長椅上，波逸提。
Object	對象
A loft is a partial second story in a dwelling; an unplanked loft is one whose joists have not been covered with floorboards. A bed or bench with detachable legs on an unplanked loft is grounds for a pācittiya under this rule if it is in a dwelling belonging to a Community, a dukkaṭa if in a dwelling belonging to another individual, and no offense if in a dwelling belonging to oneself or to anyone who has offered to let one take his/her belongings on trust. Perception of the ownership of the dwelling, as in the preceding rules, is not an issue here.	閣樓是住處的部分二樓；未鋪地板的閣樓是指托樑上沒有鋪地板的閣樓。如果床或長椅位於未鋪地板的閣樓上，且床或長椅有可拆卸的腳，並且位於屬於僧團的住處內，則根據本戒條，構成《波逸提》的理由；如果在屬於另一個人住處中，則構成《突吉羅》的理由；如果是在自己的住處，或是任何願意讓自己基於信任拿走他/她的所有物的人的住處，則不構成犯戒。與前一條戒條一樣，對住處所有權的感知在這裡不是問題。
The purpose of this rule, as indicated by the origin story, is to guard against injury to a bhikkhu living under the loft: He might get hit on the head if any of the detachable legs fall down through the joists of the loft. Thus there is no offense if the loft is not high enough off the ground for a man of medium height to stand under it without hitting his head; if the floor of the loft is completely planked; if there is no one under the loft; if the area under the loft cannot be used as a dwelling (e.g., it is used solely for storage space, says the Commentary); if the bed or bench with detachable legs is on the ground; or if the legs of the bed or bench are securely fixed to their frame.	正如起源故事所表明的那樣，本戒條的目的是防止對生活在閣樓下面的比丘造成傷害：如果任何可拆卸的腳穿過閣樓的托樑掉落，他可能會被擊中頭。因此，如果閣樓離地面不夠高，無法讓一個中等身高的人站在閣樓下而不撞到頭，並沒有犯戒；如果閣樓的地板完全鋪了地板；如果閣樓下沒有人；如果閣樓下的區域不能用作住處（例如，它僅用於存儲空間，《義註》說）；如果帶有可拆卸腳的床或長椅在地面上；或者，如果床或長椅的腳安全地固定在其框架上。
Effort	努力
There is a question as to whether sitting and lying down would include standing as well, inasmuch as the non-offense clauses allow one “to stand there and hang things up or take them down.” The Commentary interprets “there” as a bed or bench with detachable legs, but standing on such a thing would seem to be even more dangerous than sitting or lying down on it. More probably, “there” refers to the unplanked loft.	有一個問題，即坐和躺下是否也包括站立，因為不犯條款允許「站在那裡並掛起或取下東西」。《義註》將「那裡」解釋為帶有可拆卸腳的床或長椅，但站在這樣的東西上似乎比坐在或在上面躺下更危險。更有可能的是，「那裡」指的是未鋪地板的閣樓。
Some people have noted that although the bhikkhu in the origin story sat down hurriedly, the word hurriedly does not appear in the rule, and they speculate that it may have been dropped by mistake. If one is not allowed at all to sit or lie down on a bed or bench with detachable legs on an unplanked loft, they say, there would be no reason to have one there. Actually, beds with detachable legs do not sound like wise things to have on an unplanked loft, and perhaps the Buddha’s purpose in formulating this rule was to discourage their being placed there in the first place.	有些人注意到，雖然起源故事中的比丘匆忙地坐下，但戒條中並沒有出現「匆忙地」這個詞，他們推測它可能被誤刪了。他們說，如果根本不允許在未鋪地板的閣樓上坐在或躺在有可拆卸腳的床或長椅上，那麼就沒有理由在那裡放置可拆卸腳的床或長椅。實際上，在未鋪地板的閣樓上放置帶有可拆卸腳的床聽起來並不是一個明智的事情，也許佛陀制定這條戒條的目的是為了阻止可拆卸腳的床一開始就被放置在那裡。
Summary: Sitting or lying down on a bed or bench with detachable legs on an unplanked loft in a dwelling belonging to the Community is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：在僧團住處未鋪地板的閣樓上，坐在或躺在帶有可拆卸腳的床或長椅上，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

19	十九
When a bhikkhu is having a large dwelling built, he may supervise two or three layers of facing to plaster the area around the window frame and reinforce the area around the door frame the width of the door opening, while standing where there are no crops to speak of. Should he supervise more than that, even if standing where there are no crops to speak of, it is to be confessed.	當比丘正在建造一所大住處時，他可以監督用兩三層飾面抹灰窗框周圍的區域，並加固門框周圍的區域，門口打開的寬度，同時站在沒有農作物的地方說。若他監督超過這個限度，即使站在沒有農作物的地方說，波逸提。
“Now at that time a chief minister who was Ven. Channa’s supporter was having a dwelling built for Ven. Channa. Ven. Channa had the finished dwelling covered with roofing material again and again, plastered again and again, so that the dwelling, overloaded, caved in. Then Ven. Channa, collecting grass and sticks, despoiled the barley field of a certain brahman. The brahman criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can their reverences despoil our barley field?’… Bhikkhus… criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can Ven. Channa have a finished dwelling covered with roofing material again and again, plastered again and again, so that the dwelling gets overloaded and caves in?’”	「爾時，一位是闡陀尊者支持者的首相正在為闡陀尊者建造一所住處。闡陀尊者讓人把已完工的住處一遍又一遍地蓋上屋頂，一遍又一遍地抹上灰泥，結果住處因負荷過重而坍塌。隨後，闡陀尊者收集草和樹枝，毀壞了一位婆羅門的麥田。這位婆羅門批評、抱怨並四處散佈：『諸大德怎麼能毀壞我們的麥田？』……比丘們……批評、抱怨並四處散佈：『闡陀尊者怎麼能讓人把已完工的住處一遍又一遍地蓋上屋頂，一遍又一遍地抹上灰泥，結果住處因負荷過重而坍塌？』」
This rule is an extension of Sg 7, giving further directions for how to go about building a dwelling for one’s own use when sponsored by another person. Because the rule deals with techniques used in building wattle and daub dwellings 2,500 years ago, the rule and its explanations in the Canon and commentaries contain terms whose meaning is uncertain at present. The syntax of the rule suggests one interpretation, the Commentary another, while the Vibhaṅga is non-committal on the points where the two interpretations differ. Because both interpretations make sense, we will present them both.	本戒條是《僧殘》七的延伸，進一步指導了在他人贊助下如何建造供自己使用的住處。由於本戒條涉及 2500 年前建造籬笆條和塗抹住處所使用的技術，因此本戒條及其在《聖典》和註釋書中的解釋包含一些目前含義尚不確定的術語。戒條的語法顯示了一種解釋，《義註》則顯示了另一種解釋，而《經分別》對於兩種解釋的差異是含糊的。因為兩種解釋都有道理，所以我們將同時介紹它們。

What the rule seems to say	戒條似乎在說
The area 1.25 meters around the door frame is to be covered with up to three layers of plaster or roofing material to reinforce it so that when the door is blown open or shut it will not damage the wall or be loosened from its hinges. Five kinds of roofing material are mentioned in the Vibhaṅga: tiles, stones, lime (cement), grass, and leaves.	門框周圍 1.25 公尺的區域要覆蓋最多三層灰泥或屋頂材料來加固，這樣當門被風吹開或關閉時，它不會損壞牆壁或從鉸鏈上鬆動。《經分別》中提到了五種屋頂材料：瓦片、石頭、石灰（水泥）、草和樹葉。
Similarly, around the windows, an area the width of the window shutters is to be reinforced with up to three layers of plaster to protect it from being damaged when the shutters are blown open or shut. Three kinds of plaster were used in the Buddha’s time—white, black, and ochre—and bhikkhus were allowed to apply them in a number of geometrical patterns, but not to use them to make obscene pictures of men and women on the walls (!) (Cv.VI.3.1-2). Although the bhikkhus were allowed to cover the entire walls and floor with this plaster, this rule gives directions only for the minimum area that should be covered to keep the walls strong.	同樣，在窗戶周圍，與百葉窗寬度相同的區域需要用最多三層灰泥加固，以保護百葉窗被吹開或關閉時受損。佛陀時代使用三種灰泥——白色、黑色和赭色——比丘們被允許用它們畫出各種幾何圖案，但不允許用它們在牆上畫出男人和女人的淫穢圖畫（！）（《小品》.六.3.1-2）。儘管比丘們被允許用這種灰泥覆蓋整個牆壁和地板，但這條戒條給出了只為保持牆壁堅固而應覆蓋的最小面積的指導。

What the Commentary says

《義註》說了什麼

Because the rule refers to roofing material, the Commentary assumes that it must refer to the roof of the dwelling, even though this assumption does violence to the syntax of the rule. Its interpretation: One may reinforce the door and window frames with as much plaster or roofing material as one likes, but may cover the roof with only three layers of roofing material. A relevant point from the Canon is the passage at Cv.VIII.3.3 stating that if at a later date the roof begins to leak, the resident bhikkhu—if he can—should re-roof it himself or arrange for someone else to do it for him. If he can do neither, though, there is no offense.

因為本戒條涉及屋頂材料，所以《義註》假設它一定是指住處的屋頂，儘管這種假設違反了戒條的語法。它的解釋是：可以用任意數量的灰泥或屋頂材料來加強門窗框架，但只能用三層屋頂材料覆蓋屋頂。《聖典》中的一個相關點是《小品》.八.3.3 中的一段話，其中指出，如果日後屋頂開始漏水，居住的比丘——如果可以的話——應該自己重新修繕屋頂，或者安排別人替他修繕。但如果這兩件事他都做不到，那並不犯戒。

The reasons for this rule	制定此戒條的原因
The origin story suggests that the Buddha imposed the three-layer limit in order to prevent the dwelling from collapsing under the weight of too much roofing material, but the non-offense clauses show clearly that the rule is aimed at preventing bhikkhus from abusing the generosity of the person sponsoring the building work. In either case, the Commentary’s interpretation has its logic, in that an overloaded roof would be more burdensome to the dwelling and to the sponsor than an overloaded window or door frame would be.	起源故事表明，佛陀規定三層限制是為了防止住處在過多的屋頂材料的重量下倒塌，但不犯條款清楚地表明，本戒條旨在防止比丘濫用贊助建築工程的人的慷慨。無論哪種情況，《義註》的解釋都有其邏輯，即超載的屋頂對於住處和贊助人來說比超載的窗戶或門框更累贅。
A supplementary regulation arising from the origin story is that one should not perform any building operations, including supervising, where crops are growing.	起源故事中出現的一個補充規定是，不應該在農作物生長的地方進行任何建築作業，包括監督。
The offenses here are as follows: a pācittiya for each piece of roofing beyond the allowable three layers, and a dukkaṭa for doing or directing the work while standing where crops are growing. These offenses apply regardless of whether one is doing the work oneself or having it done. They also apply whether one is building a new dwelling or having an old one repaired.	這裡的犯戒如下：屋頂超過允許的三層，每超過一層就要犯一次《波逸提》，站在農作物生長的地方進行或指揮工作，犯一次《突吉羅》。無論是自己做還是讓人做，這些犯戒都適用。無論是建造新住處還是修繕舊住處，這些都適用。
Perception as to whether one has exceeded the allowable number of layers is not a factor here (see Pc 4).	對於是否超出允許層數的感知在這裡不是一個因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Non-offenses	不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, these regulations do not apply to “an abode in a cave, a grass hut, (a dwelling) for the use of another, (a dwelling built) by means of one’s own resources, or anything other than a dwelling.” The Sub-commentary argues from the wording of the rule—its reference to “a large dwelling”—that the regulations also do not apply to small dwellings built to the standard measurement specified under Sg 6: i.e., no larger than 3 by 1.75 meters.	根據《經分別》，這些規定不適用於「洞穴住所、草屋、供他人使用（的住處）、用自己的資源（建造的住處），或住處以外的任何建築」。《複註》從戒條的措詞（它提及「大住處」）中指出，這些規定也不適用於按照《僧殘》六規定的標準尺寸建造的小住處：即不大於 3 x 1.75 公尺。
Summary: When a bhikkhu is building or repairing a large dwelling for his own use, using resources donated by another, he may not reinforce the window or door frames with more than three layers of roofing material or plaster. To exceed this is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：當比丘使用他人捐贈的資源為自己建造或修繕大住處時，他不得使用超過三層屋頂材料或灰泥加固窗戶或門框。超過這個限度，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

(未完待續)