波逸提

Six: The Alcoholic Drink Chapter 第六 飲谷酒品
51 五十一
The drinking of alcohol or fermented liquor is to be confessed.
飲酒或發酵酒，波逸提。
“Then Ven. Sāgata went to the hermitage of the coiled-hair ascetic of Ambatittha, and on arrival—having entered the fire building and arranged a grass mat—sat down cross-legged with his body erect and mindfulness to the fore. The nāga (living in the fire building) saw that Ven. Sāgata had entered and, on seeing him, was upset, disgruntled, and emitted smoke. Ven. Sāgata emitted smoke. The nāga, unable to bear his rage, blazed up. Ven. Sāgata, entering the fire element, blazed up. Then Ven. Sāgata, having consumed the nāga’s fire with his own fire, left for Bhaddavatikā.
「其時，娑伽陀尊者前往安巴提達盤髮苦行者的隱居處，到達後，他進入火舍，鋪好草蓆，盤腿而坐，端正身軀，將正念置於前。龍眾（住在火舍中）看到娑伽陀尊者進來，見狀感到不安、不滿，並噴出煙霧。娑伽陀尊者也噴出煙霧。彼龍不勝怒而放出火焰。娑伽陀尊者入於火界三昧，也放出火焰。娑伽陀尊者以自己的火焰燒盡彼龍之火焰，然後前往跋陀越邑。
“Then the Blessed One, having stayed at Bhaddavatikā as long as he liked, left on a walking tour to Kosambī. The lay followers of Kosambī heard, ‘They say that Ven. Sāgata did battle with the Ambatittha nāga!’
「時，世尊在跋陀越邑隨意住宿，然後步行前往憍賞彌。憍賞彌的優婆塞們聽說：『據說娑伽陀尊者曾與跋陀越邑的龍戰鬥過！』
“Then the Blessed One, having toured by stages, came to Kosambī. The Kosambī lay followers, after welcoming the Blessed One, went to Ven. Sāgata and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there they said to him, ‘What, venerable sir, is something the masters like that is hard for you to get? What can we prepare for you?’
「世尊次第遊行後，來到了憍賞彌。憍賞彌的優婆塞們迎接世尊後，前往娑伽陀尊者處。到達後，他們向他頂禮，並在一旁坐下。坐下後，他們對他說：『大德，尊師們有什麼喜好且難以得到之物嗎？我們可以為您準備什麼嗎？』
“When this was said, some group-of-six bhikkhus said to the Kosambī lay followers, ‘Friends, there is a strong liquor called pigeon’s liquor (the color of pigeons’ feet, according to the Commentary) that the bhikkhus like and is hard for them to get. Prepare that.’
「如是言時，六群比丘對憍賞彌的優婆塞們說道：『朋友們，有一種烈酒叫鴿子酒（根據《義註》，鴿子腳的顏色），比丘們都喜歡，但很難得到。準備那個吧。』
“Then the Kosambī lay followers, having prepared pigeon’s liquor in house after house, and seeing that Ven. Sāgata had gone out for alms, said to him, ‘Master Sāgata, drink some pigeon’s liquor! Master Sāgata, drink some pigeon’s liquor!’ Then Ven. Sāgata, having drunk pigeon’s liquor in house after house, passed out at the city gate as he was leaving the city.
「於是，憍賞彌的優婆塞們家家戶戶地準備了鴿子酒，看到娑伽陀尊者出去托缽，就對他說：『娑伽陀尊者，喝點鴿子酒吧！娑伽陀尊者，喝點鴿子酒吧！』娑伽陀尊者家家戶戶地喝完鴿子酒後，出城時，倒臥在城門口。
“Then the Blessed One, leaving the city with a number of bhikkhus, saw that Ven. Sāgata had passed out at the city gate. On seeing him, he addressed the bhikkhus, saying, ‘Bhikkhus, pick up Sāgata.’
「那時，世尊與一群比丘離開城市，看到娑伽陀尊者倒臥在城門口。見到他後，世尊對比丘們說：『比丘們，扶持娑伽陀。』
“Responding, ‘As you say, venerable sir,’ the bhikkhus took Ven. Sāgata to the monastery and laid him down with his head toward the Blessed One. Then Ven. Sāgata turned around and went to sleep with his feet toward the Blessed One. So the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying, ‘In the past, wasn’t Sāgata respectful to the Tathāgata and deferential?’
「答道：『如你所言，世尊。』比丘們把娑伽陀尊者帶回寺院，讓他頭朝向世尊躺下。然後娑伽陀尊者轉過身去，雙腳朝向世尊，繼續睡著了。世尊便對比丘們說道：『過去，娑伽陀對如來不是恭敬順從的嗎？』
“‘Yes, venerable sir.’
「『是的，世尊。』
“‘But is he respectful to the Tathāgata and deferential now?’
「『但他現在對如來還恭敬恭順嗎？』
“‘No, venerable sir.’
「『不，世尊。』
“‘And didn’t Sāgata do battle with the Ambatittha nāga?’
「『娑伽陀不是和安巴提達之龍戰鬥過嗎？』
“‘Yes, venerable sir.’
「『是的，世尊。』
“‘But could he do battle with even a salamander now?’
「『但是他現在能和即使一隻蠑螈戰鬥嗎？』
“‘No, venerable sir.’”
「『不，世尊。』」
(§—Reading deḍḍubhena-pi with the Thai and Sri Lankan versions of the Canon.)
（§—泰國版和斯里蘭卡版的《聖典》拼讀為 deḍḍubhena-pi 。）
Object 對象
Alcohol means any alcoholic beverage made from grain, yeast, or any combination of ingredients. Examples now would include whiskey, beer, vodka, and gin. Fermented liquor means any alcoholic beverage made from flowers, fruits, honey, sugar, or any combination of ingredients. Examples now would include wine, mead, and rum. Together, the two terms are meant to cover all kinds of alcoholic beverages. 酒精是指任何由穀物、酵母或任何成分組合製成的酒精飲料。現在的例子包括威士忌、啤酒、伏特加和金酒。發酵酒是指任何由花、水果、蜂蜜、糖或任何成分組合製成的酒精飲料。現在的例子包括葡萄酒、蜂蜜酒和蘭姆酒。這兩個術語合在一起，旨在涵蓋所有種類的酒精飲料。
There is some controversy as to what other substances would be included in this factor in line with the Great Standards. Because the Canon repeatedly criticizes alcohol on the grounds that it destroys one’s sense of shame, weakens one’s discernment, and can put one into a stupor—as happened to Ven. Sāgata—it seems reasonable to extend this rule to other intoxicants, narcotics, and hallucinogens as well. Thus things like marijuana, hashish, heroin, cocaine, and LSD would fulfill this factor. Coffee, tea, tobacco, and betel do not have this effect, though, so there is no reason to include them here. 關於哪些其他物質符合《四大教示》，也應納入此因素，存在一些爭議。由於《聖典》一再批評酒精，認為它會損害人的羞恥感，削弱人的辨識力，並可能使人神智不清——就像娑伽陀尊者所遭遇的那樣——因此，將這一戒條擴展到其他麻醉品、麻醉劑和致幻劑似乎也合情合理。因此，大麻、大麻樹脂、海洛因、古柯鹼和迷幻藥（LSD）等東西符合此因素。然而，咖啡、茶、菸草和檳榔不具有這種效果，因此沒有理由將它們納入此處。
Perception as to whether a liquid counts as alcohol or liquor is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). Thus a bhikkhu drinking champagne that he thinks to be carbonated apple juice would fall under this factor, regardless of his ignorance. 對於某種液體是否屬於酒精或含酒精飲料的感知，並非此處的減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。因此，如果一位比丘喝了他認為是碳酸蘋果汁的香檳，那麼無論他是否無知，都符合這一因素。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga defines drinking as taking even as little as the tip of a blade of grass. Thus taking a small glass of wine, even though it might not be enough to make one drunk, would be more than enough to fulfill this factor. 《經分別》將飲用定義為哪怕只喝一小片草尖。因此，喝一小杯酒，即使不足以讓人醉，也足以滿足這項條件。
The Vibhaṅga does not, however, indicate how offenses are to be counted here. According to the Commentary, the number of offenses involved in taking an alcoholic drink is determined by the number of separate sips. As for intoxicants taken by means other than sipping, each separate effort would count as an offense. 然而，《經分別》並未指明此處如何計算犯戒次數。根據《義註》，飲酒的犯戒次數取決於單獨啜飲的次數。至於以啜飲以外的方式使用麻醉品，每次單獨努力都算作一次犯戒。
Non-offenses 不犯
The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense in taking items that are non-alcoholic, but whose color, taste, or smell is like alcohol. Thus, for example, carbonated apple juice that resembles champagne would not be grounds for an offense. 《經分別》規定，飲用不含酒精但顏色、味道或氣味類似酒精的飲品並不構成犯戒。例如，類似香檳的碳酸蘋果汁不構成犯戒。
There is also no offense in taking alcohol “cooked in broth, meat, or oil.” The Commentary interprets the first two items as referring to sauces, stews, and meat dishes to which alcoholic beverages, such as wine, are added for flavoring before they are cooked. Because the alcohol would evaporate during the cooking, it would have no intoxicating effect. Foods containing unevaporated alcohol—such as rum babas—would not be included under this allowance. 飲用「用肉湯、肉或油烹調的」酒類也不犯戒。《義註》將前兩項解釋為醬汁、燉菜和肉類菜餚，在烹飪前會加入諸如葡萄酒等酒精飲料調味。由於酒精會在烹調過程中揮發，因此不會產生醉人效果。含有未揮發酒精的食物（例如蘭姆巴巴）不在此開緣之列。
As for alcohol cooked in oil, this refers to a medicine used in the Buddha’s time for afflictions of the “wind element.” The Mahāvagga (VI.14.1) allows this medicine for internal use only as long as the taste, color, and smell of the alcohol are not perceptible. From this point, the Vinaya-mukha argues that morphine and other narcotics used as pain killers are allowable as well. 至於油裡煮的酒，指的是佛陀時代用來治療「風大」不調的藥物。《大品》（六.14.1）規定，這種藥物只能內服，但酒的味道、顏色和氣味必須無法察覺。從這一點來看，《戒律入口》認為嗎啡和其他用於止痛的麻醉劑也是可以允許的。
In addition, the non-offense clauses state, “With regard to molasses and emblic myrobalan, (there is no offense) if he drinks unfermented ariṭṭha.” The Commentary explains this as follows: “There is no offense for non-alcoholic ariṭṭha. They reportedly make ariṭṭha with the juice of such fruits as emblic myrobalan, which has the color, smell, and taste of alcohol but is not alcoholic: This is what is meant. That which has the starter thrown in, however, is alcoholic, and even the mother (of this kind of ariṭṭha) is unallowable.” 此外，不犯條款規定：「至於糖蜜和餘甘子，如果他飲用未發酵的 ariṭṭha ，（不犯戒）。」《義註》對此解釋如下：「不含酒精的 ariṭṭha 不犯戒。據說他們用諸如餘甘子等水果的汁液製作 ariṭṭha ，有酒的顏色、氣味和味道，但不含酒精：這就是它的意思。然而，加入發酵劑者含有酒精，即使（這種 ariṭṭha 的）母體也是不允許的。」
Summary: Taking an intoxicant is a pācittiya offense regardless of whether one is aware that it is an intoxicant. 摘要：服用麻醉物是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，無論是否知道它是麻醉物。
* * *
52 五十二
Tickling with the fingers is to be confessed.
用手指搔癢，波逸提。
“Now at that time some group-of-six bhikkhus were making one of the group of seventeen laugh by tickling him with their fingers. Convulsed with laughter and unable to catch his breath, he died.”
「其時，六群比丘，用手指撓十七群比丘中的一位，逗得他哈哈大笑。他笑得渾身抽搐，喘不過氣來，就死了。」
There are three factors for the full offense here. 這裡的完全違犯有三個因素。
1) Object: another bhikkhu. 1）對象：另一位比丘。
2) Effort: One touches any part of his body with any part of one’s own body 2）努力：用自己身體的任何部位觸碰他的身體的任何部位
3) Intention: for fun. 3）意圖：為了好玩。
Object 對象
A bhikkhu is grounds for a pācittiya here; any unordained person, grounds for a dukkaṭa. The Vibhaṅga does not say whether unordained here includes bhikkhunīs. The Commentary states explicitly that it does, adding that a bhikkhu looking for a little fun can tickle a bhikkhunī without incurring a penalty stronger than a dukkaṭa. There are occasional attempts at humor in the Commentary, and we can probably write this off as one of them. 比丘在此構成《波逸提》；任何未受具足戒者，構成《突吉羅》。《經分別》並未說此處的未受具足戒是否包括比丘尼。《義註》明確指出，包括比丘尼，並補充說，想找點樂子的比丘可以搔比丘尼癢，而不會遭受比《突吉羅》更重的懲罰。《義註》中偶爾會有一些幽默的嘗試，我們或許可以把這算作其中之一。
Perception as to whether the person being tickled is ordained is irrelevant to the offense (see Pc 42). 被搔癢的人是否受過具足戒的感知與犯戒無關（參閱《波逸提》四二）。
Effort 努力
This factor is fulfilled only by body-to-body contact, as defined at length under Sg 2. The following actions, if done with the intent of making the other person laugh, would be grounds for a dukkaṭa here regardless of whether the person was ordained or not: 這一因素僅透過身體對身體的接觸才能滿足，如《僧殘》二中詳細定義的那樣。如果以逗別人笑為目的而做出以下行為，則無論該人是否受具足戒，在此都構成《突吉羅》：
using an item connected with the body—such as a stick—to poke at the person;
使用與身體相連的物品（例如棍子）來戳人；
touching an item connected with the other person’s body;
觸摸與他人身體相連的物品；
tossing or dropping things on the other person.
向他人投擲或降落物品。
Intention 意圖
If one has legitimate motives for touching the other person aside from a desire for fun, there is no penalty in doing so. Thus a bhikkhu massaging another bhikkhu’s tired back commits no offense if he inadvertently happens to touch a spot where the other bhikkhu is ticklish. However, touching another bhikkhu in anger would come under Pc 74. 如果除了為了好玩之外，有正當動機觸碰他人，則這樣做不會受到任何懲罰。例如，一位比丘在按摩另一位比丘疲憊的背部時，如果無意中觸碰到了另一位比丘怕癢的部位，則不構成犯戒。然而，憤怒地觸碰另一位比丘則算在《波逸提》七四。
Summary: Tickling another bhikkhu is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：搔其他比丘癢是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
53 五十三
The act of playing in the water is to be confessed.
在水中玩耍的行為，波逸提。
Here again, the factors for the full offense are three. 此處再次，構成完全違犯的因素有三。
1) Effort: One jumps up or down, splashes, or swims 1）努力：跳起或跳下、濺起水花或游泳
2) Object: in water deep enough to immerse one’s ankle 2）對象：水深足以浸沒腳踝
3) Intention: for fun. 3）意圖：為了好玩。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga is silent on how to count offenses under this rule. According to the Commentary, each individual effort counts as a separate offense. Thus if one is swimming for fun, one incurs a pācittiya for each hand or foot stroke. 《經分別》並沒有說明如何根據這條戒條計算犯戒。根據《義註》，每一次單獨的努力都算作一次單獨的犯戒。因此，如果只是為了好玩而游泳，那麼每次划手或划腳都犯一次《波逸提》。
Perception as to whether one’s actions count as “playing in the water” is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 關於自己的行為是否算作「在水中玩耍」的感知在這裡並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Object 對象
Jumping up or down in water less than ankle deep entails a dukkaṭa, as does splashing water with the hands, feet, a stick, or a piece of tile; or playing with water or other liquids—such as rice gruel, milk, buttermilk, colored dyes, urine, or mud—in a vessel. 在水深不到腳踝的水中跳上跳下犯《突吉羅》，用手、腳、棍子或瓷磚濺起水花也一樣；或玩在容器中的水或其他液體（如米粥、牛奶、酪乳、彩色染料、尿液或泥漿）。
The Vibhaṅga states that there is also a dukkaṭa for playing in a boat. This the Commentary illustrates with examples: such things as paddling a boat with an oar, propelling it with a pole, or pushing it up on shore. At present, sailing a sailboat or steering a motorboat would come under this factor. 《經分別》指出，在船上玩耍也犯《突吉羅》。《義註》舉例說明了這一點：例如用槳划船、用篙撐船、或將船推上岸。目前，駕駛帆船或駕駛摩托艇都算在此因素之下。
Intention 意圖
The Vibhaṅga defines this factor as “for a laugh” (hassādhippāyo), which the Commentary translates as “for fun” or “for sport” (kiḷādhippāyo). 《經分別》將此因素定義為「為了笑」（hassādhippāyo），《義註》將其翻譯為「為了好玩」或「為了運動」（kiḷādhippāyo）。
The question of swimming for fitness or exercise is not discussed in any of the texts and seems to have been virtually unheard of in Asia until recent times. Swimming in most Asian countries has long been regarded as a childish form of play, and the one mention in the Canon of athletic bhikkhus keeping their bodies in strong shape is disparaging. In the origin story to Sg 8, Ven. Dabba Mallaputta assigned separate dwellings to different groups of bhikkhus—those who studied the suttas, those who studied the Vinaya, those who meditated, etc.—and, finally, “for those bhikkhus who lived indulging in animal talk and keeping their bodies in strong shape, he assigned dwellings in the same place, ‘So that even these venerable ones will stay as they like.’” Thus it does not seem likely that the Buddha would have recognized physical fitness as an appropriate reason for bhikkhus to go swimming. 游泳健身或鍛鍊身體的問題在任何文獻中均未提及，而且似乎直到近代才在亞洲有所聞。在大多數亞洲國家，游泳一直被視為幼稚的玩樂形式，而《聖典》中關於運動型比丘保持強健體魄的提及更是帶有貶義。在《僧殘》八的起源故事中，沓婆摩羅子尊者為不同群體的比丘——研習經藏的、研習律藏的、禪修的等等——分配了不同的住所，最後，「對於那些沉溺於畜生論並保持強健體魄的比丘，他分配了同一住所，『以便連這些尊者，也都能隨意居住。』」因此，佛陀似乎不太可能認可身體健康是比丘們去游泳的適當理由。
On the other hand, if a bhikkhu has a medical motive for swimming—e.g., he has injured his shoulder, and his doctor has recommended that he swim to help speed its healing—this would probably count as an instance of “having business to do in the water” and thus would come under the relevant non-offense clause. 另一方面，如果比丘游泳是為了醫療目的——例如，他的肩膀受傷了，他的醫生建議他游泳以加速癒合——這或許可算作「在水中有事要做」的例子，因此算在相關的不犯條款之下。
Non-offenses. The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense in jumping in or out of the water, swimming, or using a boat— 不犯。《經分別》規定，跳入或躍出水面、游泳或使用船均不構成犯戒—
if one goes into the water not for fun but because one has business to do—examples would include bathing or helping a person who cannot swim;
如果下水不是為了好玩而是因為有事要做──例如洗澡或幫助不會游泳的人；
if one is crossing to the other shore of a body of water; or
如果正在穿越水域到另一邊；或者
if there are dangers—e.g., one is escaping a fire or a wild beast.
如果有危險——例如，逃離火災或野獸。
Summary: Jumping and swimming in the water for fun is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：為了好玩而在水中跳躍和游泳是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
54 五十四
Disrespect is to be confessed.
不尊重，波逸提。
This rule refers to cases where one has been admonished for one’s behavior. The factors for the full offense are two. 此戒條適用於因行為而受到訓誡的情況。構成完全違犯的因素有二。
1) Effort: Having been admonished by a fellow bhikkhu who cites a rule formulated in the Vinaya, one shows disrespect 1）努力：被一位比丘同儕引用律藏裡的戒條訓誡時，表現出不敬。
2) Object: for the bhikkhu or for the rule. 2）對象：對比丘或對戒條。
We will discuss these factors in reverse order. 我們將按相反的順序討論這些因素。
Object 對象
Only if the bhikkhu cites a rule formulated in the Vinaya is this factor grounds for a pācittiya. If he criticizes one’s actions, citing standards of behavior for the sake of being “self-effacing, scrupulous, or inspiring; for lessening (defilement) or arousing energy” that are not formulated in the Vinaya, this factor becomes grounds for a dukkaṭa. The Commentary limits “not formulated” to teachings in the suttas and Abhidhamma, but there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to suggest that this is so. Its normal way of referring specifically to the suttas and mātikās (the basis for the Abhidhamma) is to say, “another Dhamma,” and so its choice of words here seems intended to include any principle, whether expressed in the other parts of the Canon or not, that aims at the goal of being self-effacing, etc. Thus any teaching devoted to such goals would be grounds for a dukkaṭa. 只有當比丘引用律藏中所制定的戒條時，此因素才構成《波逸提》的依據。如果他批評自己的行為，引用律藏中未明文規定的行為準則，以「謙遜、謹慎或鼓舞人心；減少（煩惱）或激發精進」為目的，則此因素構成《突吉羅》的依據。《義註》將「未明文規定」的範疇限定於經藏和阿毘達摩的教義，但《經分別》中沒有任何內容顯示這一點。它特別指經和論（阿毘達摩的基礎）的通常方式是說「另一種法」，因此這裡的措辭似乎意在包括任何原則，無論是否在經典的其他部分中表達，旨在實現謙遜等目標。因此，任何致力於此類目標的教學都將構成《突吉羅》的依據。
If the person admonishing one is not a bhikkhu, then regardless of whether he/she cites a rule in the Vinaya or standards for being self-effacing, etc., outside of the Vinaya, then the penalty for showing disrespect to that person is a dukkaṭa. 如果訓誡者不是比丘，那麼無論他/她引用的是律藏中的戒條，還是律藏之外的謙遜準則等，對那個人表示不尊重的懲罰是《突吉羅》。
Perception as to whether the person doing the admonishing is ordained is irrelevant to the offense (see Pc 42). 對於訓誡者是否受過具足戒的感知，與犯戒無關（參閱《波逸提》四二）。
The validity of the admonition is not an issue here. Even if the other person is really an ignorant fool, has misinterpreted the rule, or has peculiar ideas on being self-effacing, etc., one should be careful not to show disrespect in word or deed. 勸誡的有效性在這裡並不重要。即使對方真的是個無知的傻瓜，誤解了戒條，或者對謙遜有自己獨特的想法等等，也應該注意不要在言語或行為上表現出不尊重。
If one is being criticized against standards that have nothing to do with being self-effacing, etc., it would not be grounds for an offense. However, a wise policy would be to avoid showing disrespect for another person, regardless of the situation. 如果批評的標準與謙遜等無關，則不構成犯戒。然而，明智的做法是，無論情況如何，都應避免表現出對他人的不尊重。
Effort 努力
There are two possible targets for one’s disrespect—the person and the rule—and two ways of showing it: by word or by gesture. 不尊重有兩個可能的對象——人和戒條——而表達不尊重的方式也有兩種：言語或示意動作。
Disrespect for the person includes—
對人不尊重包括—
saying things that show disrespect in either a crude or subtle way, e.g., “Who are you to tell me?” “It’s presumptuous of you to pass judgment when you aren’t in my position,” “Your critical attitude shows that you have some messy emotional problems that you would be well-advised to look into,” “Get lost!” or “Go to hell!”
以粗魯或微妙的方式說出表現出不尊重的話，例如「你是誰，憑什麼告訴我？」「你沒有站在我的立場上就妄加評判，這是很冒昧的」，「你的批判態度表明你有一些混亂的情緒問題，你最好去調查一下」，「滾開！」或「去死吧！」
or making a rude gesture or even a slight facial expression to show one’s contempt.
或者做出粗魯的手勢，甚至輕微的面部表情來表達自己的蔑視。
Disrespect for the rule includes—
對戒條不尊重包括—
saying, “That’s a stupid rule,” “That rule doesn’t apply to me”;
說「那是一條愚蠢的戒條」，「那條戒條不適用於我」；
stubbornly repeating the action for which one was admonished (this point is covered in Mv.IV.17.7-9);
固執地重複被訓誡的行為（這點被涵蓋在《大品》.四.17.7-9中）；
or making a rude gesture, saying, “This is what I think of that rule.”
或者做出粗魯的示意動作，說「這就是我對該戒條的看法。」
None of the texts explicitly confine this factor to disrespect expressed in the person’s presence. Thus it would seem that if, as a result of the person’s comments, one expresses disrespect behind his or her back, it would fulfill this factor as well. 沒有任何文獻明確規定這一因素僅限於當面表達的不尊重。因此，如果因為對方的言論，導致在對方背後表達不尊重，似乎也滿足這個因素。
Further action 進一步行動
If one persists in acting disrespectfully when being admonished, one may also be subject to Sg 12 or to suspension from the Community (see BMC2, Chapter 20). 如果在受到訓誡時仍然堅持表現出不尊重的行為，則可能還會受到《僧殘》十二的處罰或被僧團舉罪（參見《佛教比丘戒律 第二冊》第二十章）。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if, being admonished, one states simply that one was taught differently by one’s teachers. (The precise words in the Vibhaṅga are, “Such is our teachers’ tradition and catechism.” (§)) The Commentary contains a discussion of which sort of teachers’ tradition is worthy of including in this exemption, but this seems to miss the point. If one can rightfully cite one’s teacher’s instruction as the reason for one’s behavior, then regardless of whether the teacher is right or wrong, such a citation would not count as disrespect. 如果在被訓誡時，僅僅說自己的老師教得不一樣，這並沒有犯戒。（《經分別》的確切措辭是：「這就是我們老師的傳統和教義。」（§））《義註》討論了哪些老師的傳統值得納入這一豁免，但這似乎沒有抓住要點。如果能夠正確地引用自己老師的教導為自己行為的理由，那麼無論老師是對是錯，這樣的引用都不算不尊重。
As Dhp 76 says, one should regard a person who points out one’s faults as a guide who points out hidden treasure. If one shows disrespect to such a guide, it is unlikely that he/she will feel inclined to point out any hidden treasure ever again. 正如《法句》七六所說，應該將指出自己過失的人視為指出寶藏的嚮導。如果對這樣的嚮導不敬，那麼他/她很可能永遠不會再想指出任何寶藏。
A good example of how to receive admonishment was set by Ven. Ānanda during the First Council (Cv.XI.1.10). Although he was admonished for committing acts that the Buddha had not declared to be offenses, and although he did not see that he had committed any error, still he willingly confessed his actions as offenses so as to show good faith in his fellow bhikkhus. 阿難尊者在第一次結集（《小品》.十一.1.10）中樹立了接受訓誡的典範。儘管他因犯下佛陀未明示的罪行而受到訓誡，儘管他並未意識到自己犯了任何過錯，但他仍然願意承認自己的行為是罪行，以向比丘同儕們展現誠意信心。
A related rule 相關戒條
Pc 71 covers the case of a bhikkhu who, trying to avoid an offense under this rule, uses a ploy to get out of altering his behavior in response to an admonition. For details, see the explanation under that rule. 《波逸提》七一涵蓋比丘為了避免違反本戒條，使用計謀逃避因勸誡而改變行為的情況。詳情請參閱該戒條的解釋。
Summary: Speaking or acting disrespectfully after having been admonished by another bhikkhu for a breach of the training rules is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：在因違反學處而受到另一位比丘的訓誡後，如果言語或行為不敬，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
55 五十五
Should any bhikkhu try to frighten another bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘試圖驚嚇另一位比丘，波逸提。
There are three factors for the full offense here. 這裡的完全違犯有三個因素。
Intention 意圖
One wants to frighten the other person. 想驚嚇另一個人。
Effort 努力
One arranges a frightening sight, sound, smell, taste, or tactile sensation—this would include such things as hanging a sheet in a dark room so that it looks like a ghost, making a ghostly wail outside the person’s window, etc.—or one describes dangers from ghosts, robbers, or wild animals. 安排令人恐懼的視覺、聽覺、嗅覺、味覺或觸覺——這包括在黑暗的房間裡掛一張床單，使它看起來像鬼魂，在人的窗外發出鬼哭狼嚎的聲音等——或者描述鬼魂、強盜或野生動物的危險。
Object 對象
The other person is a bhikkhu. Anyone who is not a bhikkhu is grounds for a dukkaṭa. 另一個人是比丘。任何不是比丘的人都構成《突吉羅》。
Perception as to whether the person one is trying to frighten is ordained is irrelevant to the offense (see Pc 42). 至於試圖驚嚇的人是否受過具足戒的感知，則與犯戒無關（參閱《波逸提》四二）。
“Result” is not a factor here. If the three factors are fulfilled, one commits the offense regardless of whether the other person is actually frightened. 「結果」在這裡不是一個因素。如果三個因素都滿足，那麼無論對方是否真的被驚嚇到，都構成犯戒。
Non-offenses 不犯
To inform another person of dangers from ghosts, robbers, etc., without intending to frighten him/her constitutes no offense. The same exemption holds for arranging a sight, sound, smell, taste, or tactile sensation without the intention of causing fright. 告知他人鬼怪、盜賊等危險，而非有意驚嚇他人，不構成犯戒。同樣，營造視覺、聽覺、嗅覺、味覺或觸覺，而非有意驚嚇他人，亦不構成犯戒。
Summary: Attempting to frighten another bhikkhu is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：試圖驚嚇另一位比丘是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
56 五十六
Should any bhikkhu who is not ill, seeking to warm himself, kindle a fire or have one kindled—unless there is a suitable reason—it is to be confessed.
如果任何無病的比丘，為了取暖而點火或讓人點火——除非有適當的理由——波逸提。
“Now at that time, in the winter months, bhikkhus warmed themselves, having kindled a fire by a large hollow log. And in that hollow a cobra was scorched by the fire. Coming out, it sprang at the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus ran off every which way.”
「當時正值冬季，比丘們在一根空心的大木頭旁生火取暖。木頭洞裡有一條眼鏡蛇被火灼傷了。它竄出來，向比丘們撲去。比丘們四處逃竄。」
Here again the factors for the full offense are three. 再次，此處構成完全違犯的因素有三。
1) Object: One is not ill. 1）對象：自己沒有生病。
2) Effort: One lights a fire or gets someone else to light one 2）努力：自己點火或讓別人點火
3) Intention: for the purpose of warming oneself. 3）意圖：以取暖為目的。
Object 對象
Not ill, in the context of this rule, means that one can fare comfortably without warming oneself. The Vibhaṅga makes the point that perception as to whether one is actually ill is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). What this means is that when it is chilly outside, one should be very sure that extra warmth is necessary for one’s health before lighting a fire to warm oneself. 在本戒條的脈絡中，「無病」是指無需取暖即可舒適地生活。《經分別》指出，是否真的生病的感知並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。這意味著，當外面很冷時，在生火取暖之前，應該非常確定額外的保暖對健康是必要的。
Effort 努力
Lighting a fire at present would include turning on the flame in a heating system in one’s dwelling for the sake of the warmth. Solar or electric heating systems, which do not use flames, would not be included here. 目前，生火包括為了取暖而打開住處供暖系統的火焰。不使用火焰的太陽能或電加熱系統不在此列。
Getting a fire lit, according to the Vibhaṅga, means ordering another person to light a fire. Thus there is apparently room for kappiya-vohāra under this rule, as long as one’s suggestion for lighting a fire not be an express command. 根據《經分別》，「令點火」意味著命令他人點火。因此，只要點火的建議不是明確的命令，這條戒條下顯然就有 kappiya-vohāra 的空間。
If, when not ill, one orders someone else to light a fire (or fires) for the purpose of warming oneself, there is a pācittiya in making the order, and another pācittiya when the other person lights the fire(s), regardless of how many fires are lit as a result of the one order. To return a burning piece of fuel to a fire is grounds for a dukkaṭa; adding new fuel to a fire—according to the Commentary—is grounds for a pācittiya. 如果在無病的情況下，為了取暖而命令別人生火，那麼發出命令時會犯一次《波逸提》，而當別人生火時，無論因這個命令而生了多少火，犯另一次《波逸提》。將燃燒的燃料放回火中構成《突吉羅》；根據《義註》，往火中添加新的燃料構成《波逸提》。
Intention 意圖
There is no offense if one lights a fire or has one lit for purposes other than warming oneself. Thus one may light a lamp or light a fire to boil water, burn dead leaves, or fire an alms bowl without penalty. Cv.V.32.1 says that if a forest fire is approaching one’s dwelling, one may light a counter-fire to ward off its approach. In other circumstances, though, Pc 10 would impose a penalty for lighting a fire on top of “live” soil; and Pc 11 would impose a further penalty for damaging plant life. 如果出於取暖以外的目的而生火或讓人生火，則不構成犯戒。因此，們可以點燈或點火燒水、燒枯葉或燒缽，而不會受到懲罰。《小品》.五.32.1 說，如果森林大火正在逼近住所，可以點燃逆火以阻止火勢蔓延。不過，在其他情況下，《波逸提》十規定，在「活」土壤上生火會受到懲罰；《波逸提》十一規定，破壞植物生命會受到進一步懲罰。
Non-offenses 不犯
In addition, there is no offense in warming oneself at raked-out coals or at a fire lit by someone else (not at one’s request). And there is no offense in lighting a fire when there are dangers. This, the Commentary says, refers to cases when one is bitten by a snake (and wants to make the snake-bite medicine mentioned under Pc 40), when one is surrounded by robbers, or disturbed by non-human beings or beasts of prey. 此外，用耙出的煤塊或他人點燃的火（非本人要求）取暖也不犯戒。在危險的情況下生火也不犯戒。《義註》指出，這指的是被蛇咬傷（並想製作《波逸提》四十中提到的蛇咬藥）、被強盜包圍或被非人或猛獸騷擾的情況。
Cv.V.14.1 allows bhikkhus to use a “fire hall (§),” similar to a sauna at present, for the purpose of inducing perspiration for health reasons. According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense in lighting a fire in a place such as this. 《小品》.五.14.1 允許比丘使用類似現在桑拿房的「火堂」（§），以促進排汗，從而達到保健目的。根據《經分別》，在這樣的地方生火並無犯戒。
The purpose of this rule is suggested by AN 5:219, which lists the five disadvantages of sitting around a fire: It is bad for one’s eyes, bad for one’s skin, bad for one’s strength, and (most importantly, in this context) groups tend to form (that can turn into factions), and they spend their time in animal talk. 這條戒條的目的由《增支部》5:219經提出，其中列出了圍坐在火堆旁的五個缺點：對眼睛有害、對皮膚有害、對體力有害，並且（最重要的是，在這種脈絡下）容易形成團體（可能變成派系），他們會把時間花在畜生論上。
Summary: Lighting a fire to warm oneself—or having it lit—when one does not need the warmth for one’s health is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：當不需要溫暖來保持健康時，點火取暖或讓人點火是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
57 五十七
Should any bhikkhu bathe at intervals of less than half a month, except at the proper occasions, it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: the last month and a half of the hot season, the first month of the rains, these two and a half months being a time of heat, a time of fever; (also) a time of illness; a time of work; a time of going on a journey; a time of wind or rain. These are the proper occasions here.
若任何比丘在非適當時間，每隔少於半個月沐浴一次，波逸提。這裡適當時間如下：熱季的最後一個半月，雨季的第一個月，這兩個半月是熱時，暑時；（也是）生病的時候；工作的時候；旅行的時候；刮風或下雨的時候。這些是此處適當的時間。
“Now at that time bhikkhus were bathing in the hot spring (at Rājagaha). Then King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha, having gone to the hot spring (with the thought), ‘I will bathe my head,’ waited to one side, (thinking,) ‘I will wait as long as the masters are bathing.’ The bhikkhus bathed until nightfall.
「其時，比丘們正在（王舍城）溫泉沐浴。摩竭陀國的斯尼耶頻毘娑羅王來到溫泉（心想）：『我要沐浴頭部。』他站在一旁等待（心想）：『只要大師們在沐浴，我就等著。』比丘們一直沐浴到夜幕降臨。
“Then King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha, after having bathed his head at the wrong time (night)—the gates of the city being closed—spent the night outside the city walls…. (The Buddha learned of the incident and rebuked the bhikkhus:) ‘How can you worthless men, even though you saw the king, bathe not knowing moderation?’”
「然後，摩竭陀國的斯尼耶頻毘娑羅王在錯誤的時間（夜間）沐浴他的頭部後，城門關閉，於是便在城外過夜……（佛陀得知此事後呵責比丘們：）『你們這些愚人，即使見到國王，怎麼還不知道適度沐浴呢？』」
The original formulation of this rule—with no allowance for “proper occasions”—seems to have been intended as a temporary disciplinary measure for the bhikkhus who had inconvenienced the king. (There was a similar temporary rule, against eating mangoes (Cv.V.5.1), that the Buddha formulated when King Bimbisāra had invited the bhikkhus to help themselves to his mangoes, and some group-of-six bhikkhus went and took all the mangoes in his park, even the unripe ones. The rule was later rescinded (Cv.V.5.2) when the Buddha allowed bhikkhus to eat any and all fruit as long as it was allowable in any of the five ways mentioned under Pc 11.) 這條戒條的最初制定——沒有「適當時間」的開緣——似乎是針對那些給國王帶來不便的比丘們的臨時懲戒措施。（佛陀也曾制定過一條類似的臨時戒律，禁止食用芒果（《小品》.五.5.1）。當時頻毘娑羅王邀請比丘們隨意享用他的芒果，結果有六群比丘去把王園裡所有的芒果都吃光了，連未熟的也吃光了。後來，佛陀允許比丘吃任何水果，只要符合《波逸提》十一中提到的五種方式中的任何一種是允許的，這條戒條就被廢除了（《小品》.五.5.2）。）
As for this rule: Once the proper occasions were added, they relaxed it considerably. For instance: 至於這條戒條：一旦增加了適當的時間，他們就大大放寬了。例如：
a time of illness is any time when one does not feel comfortable without bathing;
生病的時候是指不沐浴就覺得不舒服的任何時候；
a time of work can involve as little work as sweeping out the yard of one’s dwelling (§);
工作的時候可以只是清掃自家院子那麼簡單（§）；
a time of going on a journey is whenever one is about to go, is going, or has gone on a trip of at least half a yojana (approximately 5 miles/8 kilometers);
旅行的時候是指即將出發、正在出發或已經出發至少半由旬（約 5 英哩/8 公里）的旅程；
a time of wind and rain is whenever a dusty wind blows and at least two or three drops of rain fall on one’s body.
刮風或下雨的時候，就是刮起一陣塵土飛揚的風，及至少落下兩三滴雨到身上。
In addition, Mv.V.13 tells the story of Ven. Mahā Kaccāna’s leaving the middle Ganges Valley and settling in Avantī, to the south. After some time, one of his students—Ven. Soṇa Kuṭikaṇṇa—asked permission to visit the Buddha. Ven. Mahā Kaccāna gave his permission, together with a request to convey to the Buddha: that certain rules inappropriate for areas outside of the Ganges Valley—this rule among them—be rescinded for bhikkhus living in outlying districts. The Buddha complied with the request and defined the outlying districts in such a way that there is nowhere in the world outside of the middle Ganges Valley where this rule applies. 此外，《大品》.五.13 也講述了摩訶迦旃延尊者離開恆河中游，定居於南邊的阿槃提的故事。一段時間後，他的一位弟子——首樓那億耳尊者——請求准許去拜見佛陀。摩訶迦旃延尊者同意了，但他同時請求轉告佛陀：一些不適用於恆河流域以外地區的戒條——其中包括這條戒條——對於居住在邊遠地區的比丘來說，應予以廢除。佛陀遵從了該請求，並劃定了邊遠地區的範圍，使得世界上除恆河中游地區外，沒有任何地方適用這條戒條。
Offenses 犯戒
For those who live in the middle Ganges Valley, the offenses for bathing more frequently than once a fortnight outside of the proper occasions are these: a dukkaṭa for every time one scrubs oneself with chunam (bathing powder) or clay (soap), and a pācittiya when one has finished bathing. 對於居住在恆河中游者來說，在適當時間之外每半個月沐浴超過一次的犯戒如下：每次用 chunam （沐浴粉）或黏土（肥皂）擦身體犯一次《突吉羅》，沐浴完畢犯一次《波逸提》。
Perception as to whether a fortnight has actually passed is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 對於半個月是否真的已經過去的感知並不是這裡的減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Non-offenses 不犯
In addition to the allowances to bathe more frequently than once a fortnight during the proper occasions or in areas outside the middle Ganges Valley, there is no offense in bathing more frequently if one is crossing a river or if there are dangers. This last allowance the Commentary explains with an example: One is being chased by bees and so jumps into the water to escape them. 除了在適當時間或在恆河中游以外的地區允許每半個月沐浴一次以上之外，如果要過河或遇到危險，更頻繁地沐浴也無犯戒。《義註》舉例解釋了最後一種開緣：被蜜蜂追趕，於是跳入水中躲避。
Summary: Bathing more frequently than once a fortnight when residing in the middle Ganges Valley, except on certain occasions, is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：居住在恆河中游地區時，除特定場合外，每半個月沐浴超過一次，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
58 五十八
When a bhikkhu receives a new robe, any one of three means of discoloring it is to be applied: green, brown, or black. If a bhikkhu should make use of a new robe without applying any of the three means of discoloring it, it is to be confessed.
當比丘收到一件新袈裟時，可以用三種方法之一來作壞色：綠色、棕色或黑色。如果比丘使用新袈裟時沒有使用上述三種方法作壞色，波逸提。
“Now at that time many bhikkhus and wanderers were traveling from Sāketa to Sāvatthī. On the way, thieves came out and robbed them. Royal officials, coming out of Sāvatthī and capturing the thieves with the goods, sent a messenger to the bhikkhus, saying, ‘Come, your reverences. Let each identify his own robes and take them.’ The bhikkhus couldn’t identify their robes. People criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can their reverences not identify their own robes?’”
「其時，許多比丘和遊方者從沙祇前往舍衛城。途中，盜賊出沒，劫掠了他們。王國官員從舍衛城出來，擒獲了盜賊和財物，便派使者去見比丘，說道：「諸大德，來吧，各認各的袈裟，帶走。」比丘們認不出自己的袈裟。人們紛紛批評、抱怨，並四處散播：『諸大德怎麼會認不出自己的袈裟呢？』」
Protocol 行儀
As this rule indicates, a bhikkhu should wear robes only that have been marked with an identifying mark. The Vibhaṅga does not go into any great detail on procedures for marking a robe, aside from saying that the mark may be as small as the tip of a blade of grass, and can be made with any of the colors mentioned in the rule. (The color green in Pali also covers the color blue, so a mark made with blue ink would be acceptable.) 正如這條戒條所示，比丘只能穿著帶有識別標記的袈裟。《經分別》並未詳細闡述在袈裟上做標記的步驟，只是說標記可以小到草尖，並且可以用戒條中提到的任何顏色來標記。（巴利語中的綠色也涵蓋藍色，因此用藍墨水做的標記是可以接受的。）
The Commentary goes into more detail: After the robe has been dyed, one should make a round mark no smaller than the size of a bedbug’s back and no larger than the iris of a peacock’s eye in all four corners of the robe, three corners, two, or one, as one sees fit. Only round marks are allowable. Such things as lines or angular marks (squares, triangles, or stars) are not. Because these prohibitions have no basis in the Canon or the Great Standards, they are not binding. 《義註》對此進行了更詳細的闡述：袈裟染色後，應在袈裟的四個角（三個角、兩個角或一個角，視情況而定）上，做一個不小於臭蟲背部大小、不大於孔雀眼虹膜大小的圓形標記。只允許做圓形標記。不允許做線狀或有角的標記（正方形、三角形或星形）。由於這些禁令在《聖典》或《四大教示》中均無依據，因此不具約束力。
As the Vibhaṅga notes, once the robe has been marked there is no need to mark it again, even if the mark wears off, the marked part of the robe gets worn through age, one sews a marked cloth together with an unmarked one, or one patches, darns, or adds a hem to a marked robe. If Bhikkhu X marks a robe and then gives it to Bhikkhu Y, Y may wear it without having to mark it again. 《分別論》指出，一旦袈裟上有標記，就無需再標記。即使標記磨損，或標記部分因時間久遠而磨損，或將標記的布料與未標記的布料縫合在一起，或為標記的袈裟打補丁、縫補或加邊，也無需再次標記。如果比丘 X 在袈裟上做了標記，然後將其給予比丘 Y ，Y 可以穿著它，而無需再次標記。
In Thailand at present, the custom is to make three small dots in one corner of the robe, saying, “Imaṁ bindu-kappaṁ karomi,” (I make this properly marked) while making each dot. This procedure does not appear in the Canon or commentaries, but does not conflict with any of them. 泰國目前的習俗是在袈裟的一角點三個小點，每點一個，都要說「Imaṁ bindu-kappaṁ karomi」（我適當地標記之）。此做法並未見於《聖典》或註釋書，但與它們也並不衝突。
The factors for the offense here are two: object—a new robe; and effort—one makes use of it without first marking it. 這裡的犯戒因素有兩個：對象——一件新袈裟；以及努力——在沒有先標記的情況下使用它。
Object 對象
According to the Vibhaṅga, a new robe here is one made out of any of the six kinds of robe-cloth and not yet marked. Thus an unmarked cloth kept for a long time is still regarded as new. The Commentary, noting that the Vibhaṅga does not qualify robe as including even the smallest cloth that can be placed under shared ownership, concludes that robe in the context of this rule refers specifically to completed robes that can be worn over the shoulders or around the waist—i.e., lower robes, upper robes, outer robes, rains-bathing cloths, skin-eruption covering cloths—and not to ordinary pieces of cloth or other cloth items such as sitting cloths, handkerchiefs, or shoulder bags. Any cloth requisite that is not a robe in this sense is not grounds for an offense. Shoulder cloths (aṁsa) were not worn in the time of the Commentary but would seem to fall under this factor, as would any other item a bhikkhu might wear around his body. 根據《經分別》，此處的新袈裟是指用六種袈裟布中的任一種製成且未作標記的袈裟。因此，即使未作標記的布長期保存，也被視為新的。《義註》指出，《經分別》並未將袈裟定義為哪怕是最小的、可至於共享所有權之下的布料，並得出結論：本戒條脈絡中的袈裟特指可披於肩上或圍於腰間的成品袈裟，即下衣、上衣、外衣、雨浴衣、覆瘡布，而非指普通的布片或其他布製物品，例如坐墊、手帕或肩包。任何非此種意義上的袈裟的布料用品均不構成犯戒。在《義註》的時代，人們並不穿戴肩布（aṁsa），但似乎屬於這一因素，就像比丘可能穿戴在身上的任何其他物品一樣。
Perception as to whether the robe has actually been marked is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 對於袈裟上是否真的有標記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 Vibhaṅga defines this factor with the verb “use” (paribhuñjati), while the K/Commentary is more specific in saying that this factor is fulfilled when one wears the robe over the shoulders or around the waist. Because the mark is to be added only after the robe is dyed, this factor does not cover such things as trying on a new robe while it is being sewn but has yet to be dyed. 《經分別》用動詞「使用」（paribhuñjati）來定義此因素，而 K/《義註》則更明確地指出，當將袈裟披在肩上或圍在腰間時，這一因素就被滿足。由於標記只能在袈裟染色後添加，因此這一因素並不涵蓋諸如袈裟正在縫製但尚未染色時試穿之類的情況。
Non-offenses 不犯
As noted above, there is no offense— 如上所述，不構成犯戒——
in using a robe that has been properly marked;
使用已被適當地標記的袈裟；
in using a robe whose mark has worn off (as in washing); or
使用標記已磨損的袈裟（如洗滌後）；或
in using a robe whose marked corner has been torn off or otherwise destroyed.
使用其標記角已被撕掉或以其他方式損壞的袈裟。
There is also no need to re-mark a marked robe if one sews it together with an unmarked piece of cloth, or if one patches it, darns it, or adds a new hem to it. 如果將有標記的袈裟與沒有標記的布縫在一起，或對其進行打補丁、縫補或加新邊，也無需重新標記。
The K/Commentary, arguing from the allowance for makeshift robes under NP 6, states that if one’s robes have been snatched away, destroyed, etc., one may wear an unmarked piece of cloth without committing an offense. K/《義註》從《捨墮》六允許穿著臨時袈裟的角度進行論證，指出如果袈裟被搶走、毀壞等，則可以穿著一塊沒有標記的布而不會犯戒。
Summary: Wearing an unmarked robe is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：穿著沒有標記的袈裟是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
59 五十九
Should any bhikkhu, having himself placed robe-cloth under shared ownership (vikappana) with a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a female trainee, a male novice, or a female novice, then make use of the cloth without the shared ownership’s being rescinded, it is to be confessed.
任何比丘將袈裟布與比丘、比丘尼、學法女（式叉摩那）、沙彌或沙彌尼共有（vikappana），然後使用那塊布而沒有取消共享所有權，波逸提。
Shared ownership 共享所有權
As mentioned in the explanations to NP 1, vikappana is an arrangement whereby a bhikkhu places a robe or robe-cloth under shared ownership so that he may store it for any length of time without its being counted as an extra cloth. One may share ownership with any of one’s co-religionists as mentioned in the rule. 如同在《捨墮》一的解釋中所提到的， vikappana 是指比丘將一件袈裟或袈裟布置於共享所有權之下，以便他可以將其存放任意時間，而不會被視為額外的布料。如本戒條所述，可以與任何一位同宗教者共享所有權。
Passages in the Mahāvagga (VIII.20.2; VIII.21.1) show that shared ownership is intended for cloth that is being stored and not for cloth in use. Cloth that has not been made into a finished robe, rains-bathing cloths being kept during the eight months of the year outside of the rainy season, and skin-eruption covering cloths being kept when they are not needed, may all be placed under shared ownership. The three basic robes, miscellaneous requisites, handkerchiefs, and the sitting cloth may not. As this rule states, when a bhikkhu wants to use a piece of cloth placed under shared ownership, the shared ownership must first be rescinded. 《大品》（八.20.2；八.21.1）中的段落表明，共享所有權適用於正在儲存的布料，而不適用於正在使用的布料。尚未製成成品袈裟的布料、一年中除雨季外八個月保存的雨浴衣，以及不需要時保存的覆瘡布，都可以置於共享所有權之下。基本三衣、雜項用品、手帕和坐墊則不行。如本戒條所述，當比丘想要使用置於共享所有權之下的布料時，必須先取消共享所有權。
Protocol 行儀
The Vibhaṅga to this rule explains how cloth may be placed under shared ownership, but unfortunately the explanation is rather terse, so we will have to discuss two alternative interpretations. 這條戒條的《經分別》解釋了如何將布料置於共享所有權之下，但不幸的是，解釋相當簡潔，所以我們必須討論兩種替代解釋。
What the Vibhaṅga says 《經分別》說了什麼
One may place a piece of cloth under shared ownership only if it is one of the six kinds of robe-cloth discussed under NP 1 and it measures at least four by eight fingerbreadths. There are two ways of placing it under shared ownership: in the presence of (the second owner presumably, although this is a controversial point) or in the absence of (again, this would seem to mean the second owner). 只有當一塊布料屬於《捨墮》一中討論的六種袈裟布料之一，且其尺寸至少為四指寬乘八指寬時，才可以將其置於共享所有權之下。有兩種方式可以將其置於共享所有權之下：在場的情況下（推測是第二個所有者在場，儘管這一點存在爭議）或不在場的情況下（同樣，這似乎是指第二個所有者）。
In the first method, one says, “I place this robe-cloth under shared ownership with you (plural)” or “with so-and-so.” (The Pali formulae for this and the following procedures are in Appendix V.) This is as far as the Vibhaṅga explains the method, but it seems to refer to two ways of doing the procedure in the presence of the second owner: One uses “you (plural)” if the other owner is a bhikkhu with more seniority than oneself; and the second owner’s name if he/she is a junior bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, female trainee, or male or female novice. (Passages throughout the Canon show that it was considered disrespectful to refer to a senior person by his name in his presence. Buddhists, for instance, would never address the Buddha as Gotama, although members of other religions often did. At Mv.I.74.1, Ven. Ānanda says that he is not worthy enough to refer to Ven. Mahā Kassapa by name, as the latter is his teacher.) 在第一種方法中，說，「我把這件袈裟布與你（複數）或『與某某』共同擁有。」（這一程序的巴利語公式和以下程序見附錄五。）《經分別》對此方法的解釋到此為止，但它似乎是指在第二個所有者面前執行該程序的兩種方式：如果另一個所有者是比自己戒臘高的比丘，則使用「你（複數）」；如果第二個所有者是戒臘較低的比丘、比丘尼、學法女（式叉摩那）或沙彌或沙彌尼，則使用他的名字。（整個《聖典》中的段落都表明，在長者面前直呼其名被認為是不敬的。例如，佛教徒永遠不會稱呼佛陀為喬達摩，儘管其他宗教的成員經常這樣做。在《大品》.一.74.1中，阿難達尊者說他沒有資格直呼摩訶迦葉尊者的名字，因為後者是他的老師。）
The Vibhaṅga does not say how shared ownership is to be rescinded in a case like this, although the K/Commentary gives a formula for the second owner to say: “Use what is mine, give it away, or do as you like with it.” 《經分別》並沒有說明在這種情況下如何取消共享所有權，儘管 K/《義註》給出了第二個所有者所說的公式，即「使用屬於我的東西，贈予出去，或按照你的意願處置它」。
In the second method, one gives the cloth to a witness and says, “I give this robe-cloth to you to place under shared ownership.” The witness then says, “Who are your friends and acquaintances?” One then names two of one’s friends (with whom one has made an arrangement for using one another’s belongings on trust), and the witness says, “I give it to them. Use what is theirs, give it away, or do as you like with it.” 第二種方法，把布交給見證人，說：「我把這塊袈裟布交給你，置於共享所有權之下。」見證人接著說：「你的朋友和熟人是誰？」然後，說出兩個朋友的名字（他們已經約定好互相信任使用對方的物品），見證人說：「我把它給他們。使用屬於他們的東西，贈予出去，或按照你的意願處置它。」
This second method, apparently, is for use in situations where one has an extra cloth whose time span is almost up and one is far away from any co-religionist with whom one has made an arrangement to use one another’s belongings on trust. 顯然，第二種方法是用於這樣的情況：有一塊多餘的布，其使用期限即將結束，而又遠離任何與已達成協議可以信任地使用彼此物品的同宗教者。
What is happening in the procedure is that one is giving the cloth away to the witness; the witness then places it with one as a gift to one’s friends. Because one already has permission to use their things on trust, one may freely make use of the cloth if one wants to, or simply keep it for any number of days if not. (See Mv.V.13.13.) Cases of placing gifts in trust in this way are discussed in detail at Mv.VIII.31.2-3. According to those passages, the witness has no business in giving one permission to use the cloth after having given it to the two other people; perhaps the statement is included here to show that all sides involved—the witness and the two new owners of the cloth—are agreeable to one’s making use of the cloth. If the two new owners have not previously given one permission to use their belongings on trust, one may not make use of the cloth until they give express permission to do so, although one may keep it for any number of days without incurring a penalty under NP 1. 在程序中，將布料送給見證人；見證人隨後將放在自己身邊，作為禮物贈予自己的朋友。由於已獲得以信託方式使用其物品的許可，因此如果願意，可以自由使用這塊布料；如果不願意，也可以只將其保留任意天數。（參見《大品》.五.13.13。）以此方式將禮物置於信託中的案例在《大品》.八.31.2-3中有詳細討論。根據這些段落，見證人在將布料交給另外兩人後，無權允許自己使用；此處加入聲明或許是為了表明所有相關方——見證人和布料的兩位新主人——都同意自己使用布料。如果兩位新主人之前未曾以信託方式允許自己使用其物品，則自己在獲得他們的明確許可之前不得使用布料，然而自己可以保留任意天數，而不會受到《捨墮》一的懲罰。
What the K/Commentary says K/《義註》說了什麼
The Commentary has nothing to say about these procedures, while the K/Commentary goes into great detail, reworking the Vibhaṅga’s descriptions to come up with three methods. 《義註》對這些程序隻字未提，而 K/《義註》則進行了詳細的闡述，重新修訂了《經分別》的描述，提出了三種方法。
In the first method, “in the presence of,” one says in the presence of the second owner, “I place this robe-cloth under shared ownership with you.” The shared ownership is rescinded when the second owner/witness gives one permission to use the cloth, give it away, or do as one likes with it. 第一種方法是「在場」，當著第二個所有者的面說，「我將這件袈裟布與你共享所有。」當第二個所有者/見證人允許自己使用、贈送或隨意處置這件布時，共享所有權就被取消了。
In the second method—which the K/Commentary also calls “in the presence of”—one says in the presence of a witness who is not the second owner, “I place this robe-cloth under shared ownership with so-and-so.” The shared ownership is rescinded when the witness gives one permission to use the cloth, give it away, or do as one likes with it. 第二種方法——K/《義註》也稱之為「在場」——在非第二所有者的見證人面前說：「我將這件袈裟布與某某共享所有。」當見證人允許自己使用、贈送或隨意處置這塊布時，共享所有權即被撤銷。
In the third method, “in the absence of,” one gives the cloth to a witness, saying, “I give this robe-cloth to you to place under shared ownership.” The witness says, “Who is a friend or acquaintance of yours?” One names a friend, and the witness says, “I give it to him/her. Use what is his/hers, give it away, or do as you like with it.” The shared ownership is rescinded when the witness says this. 第三種方法，即「不在場」，將布交給見證人，說：「我將這塊袈裟布交給你，置於共享所有權之下。」見證人說：「你的朋友或熟人是誰？」說出一個朋友的名字，見證人說：「我把它給他/她。使用屬於他/她的東西，贈予出去，或按照你的意願處置它」當見證人說這句話時，共享所有權就被取消了。
There are several problems with the K/Commentary’s interpretations. First, it is hard to see any practical difference between its methods 2 and 3, why one should be called “in the presence of” and the other “in the absence of,” and in method 2 why the witness should have the right to give one permission to use an article that strictly speaking belongs to someone else. K/《義註》的解釋有幾個問題。首先，很難看出方法二和三之間有什麼實際區別，為什麼一個應該被稱為「在場」，另一個應該被稱為「不在場」，以及在方法二中，為什麼見證人有權允許自己使用嚴格來說屬於他人的物品。
Second, the K/Commentary’s method for “in the absence of” deviates from the Vibhaṅga’s description of the method. In the Vibhaṅga’s description, the witness places the cloth under shared ownership with two of one’s friends, whereas in the K/Commentary’s, he/she places it under shared ownership with one friend. Why this should be the case, none of the texts explain. 其次，K/《義註》中「不在場」的情況下所使用的方法與《經分別》中的方法描述不同。在《經分別》的描述中，見證人將布料與自己的兩個朋友共有，而在K/《義註》中，見證人將布料與自己的一個朋友共有。至於為什麼會這樣，所有文獻都沒有解釋。
For these reasons, it would seem that the previous explanation—that there are two methods, as described in the Vibhaṅga—is preferable to the K/Commentary’s. 基於這些原因，似乎先前的解釋（即《經分別》中所描述的兩種方法）比 K/《義註》的解釋更可取。
The factors for the offense 犯戒因素
The factors for the offense here are two: object—any one of the six kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths, that one has placed under shared ownership; and effort—one uses the cloth without the shared ownership’s being rescinded. 此處的犯戒因素有二：對象──六種袈裟布中的任何一種，尺寸至少為四指乘八指寬，置於共享所有權之下；努力──在不取消共享所有權的情況下使用該布料。
Perception as to whether the shared ownership has actually been rescinded is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 對於共享所有權是否真的被取消的感知並不是這裡的減輕懲罰因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
The K/Commentary notes that this rule applies not only to robe-cloth, but also to bowls as well. None of the other texts mention this point, but—given that bowls placed under shared ownership are mentioned under NP 21, and that there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to indicate that this arrangement is different for bowls than it is for cloth—the Great Standards could be cited to support the K/Commentary here. K/《義註》指出，這條戒條不僅適用於袈裟布，也適用於缽。其他文獻均未提及這一點，但鑑於《捨墮》二一提及了共享所有權的缽，且《經分別》中沒有任何內容表明缽的分配方式與布料不同，因此可以引用《四大教示》來支持 K/《義註》。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense in using an item placed under shared ownership if the shared ownership has been rescinded or if one makes use of the item on trust. The factors for legitimately taking an item on trust are as follows (Mv.VIII.19.1): 若共享所有權已被取消，或基於信任使用該物品，則使用該共享所有權下的物品不構成犯戒。合法地基於信任取得物品的要素如下（《大品》.八.19.1）：
1) The other person is a friend.
1）對方是朋友。
2) He/she is an intimate.
2）他/她是親密的人。
3) He/she has spoken of the matter. (According to the Commentary, this means that he/she has said, “You may take any of my property you want.”)
3）他/她已經說了此事。（根據《義註》，這意味著他/她說：「你可以拿走屬於我的任何你想要的財產。」）
4) He/she is still alive.
4）他/她還活著。
5) One knows that he/she will be pleased at one’s taking it.
5）知道他/她會很高興自己取走它。
These factors are discussed in detail under Pr 2. 這些因素在《波羅夷》二中有詳細討論。
The K/Commentary’s analysis of the factors involved in committing an offense under this rule suggests that when an item placed under shared ownership is taken on trust, the shared ownership is automatically rescinded, and the item reverts to the status of extra cloth or an extra bowl, as the case may be. K/《義註》對違反此戒條所涉及的因素的分析表明，當共享所有權下的物品被基於信任拿走時，共享所有權將自動取消，並且該物品將恢復為額外的布料或額外的缽的狀態，視情況而定。
Summary: Making use of cloth or a bowl stored under shared ownership—unless the shared ownership has been rescinded or one is taking the item on trust—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：使用共享所有權下存放的布料或缽（除非共享所有權已被取消或基於信任而拿走該物品）是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。
* * *
60 六十
Should any bhikkhu hide (another) bhikkhu’s bowl, robe, sitting cloth, needle box, or belt—or have it hidden—even as a joke, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘隱藏（另一個）比丘的缽、袈裟、坐墊、針盒或腰帶 —— 或令隱藏 —— 即使是出於玩笑，波逸提。
This is another rule that comes from some members of the group of six teasing the children in the group of seventeen. The factors for the full offense are three. 這是另一條戒條，源自於六群中的一些成員戲弄十七群中的孩子。構成完全違犯的因素有三。
Object: 對象：
Any of the requisites mentioned in the rule, belonging to a bhikkhu. Robe here means any piece of robe material measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths, except for sitting cloths, which are mentioned separately. Needle box covers not only cases containing needles (see Pc 86) but also empty ones. Any requisite not mentioned in the rule but belonging to a bhikkhu is grounds for a dukkaṭa, as is any requisite belonging to a person who is not a bhikkhu. 任何在戒條中提及的、屬於比丘的必需品。袈裟在此指任何至少四指乘八指寬的袈裟材料，但坐墊除外，坐墊另行提及。針盒不僅指裝有針的盒子（參見《波逸提》八六），也指空針盒。任何在戒條中未提及但屬於比丘的必需品，以及任何屬於非比丘者的必需品，均構成《突吉羅》。
Perception as to the status of the person whose requisite one is hiding is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 42). 對於自己隱藏必需品的人的身分的感知在這裡並不是減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四二）。
Effort 努力
One hides the article or has it hidden. In the latter case—assuming that the other factors are fulfilled—there is a pācittiya in making the request/command/suggestion, and another pācittiya when the other person does one’s bidding, regardless of how many items that person hides as the result of the one request/command/suggestion. 藏匿物品，或令藏匿物品。在後一種情況下－假設其他因素均已滿足－提出請求/命令/建議時，犯一次《波逸提》；而當對方遵從自己的命令時，犯另一次《波逸提》，無論對方因這一個請求/命令/建議而藏匿了多少物品。
Intention 意圖
One is doing it as a game. The Sub-commentary makes clear that the “game” here can either be friendly or malicious. If one hides the other bhikkhu’s requisites out of the perverse pleasure of annoying him or simply for a friendly laugh, one commits the full offense all the same. 這樣做當成一場遊戲。《複註》明確指出，這裡的「遊戲」可以是善意的，也可以是惡意的。如果出於惹惱比丘的變態快感而藏匿他的必需品，或者只是為了友善地一笑，同樣犯了全部罪行。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if— 如果以下情況，則不構成犯戒：
not as a game, one puts away properly items that have been put away improperly (§), e.g., a bowl left hanging on a peg (see Cv.V.9.5); or
不是作為一種遊戲，而是將放得不當的物品妥善放好（§），例如，掛在掛鉤上的缽（參見《小品》.五.9.5）；或者
one puts away an item, thinking, “I will give it back (to him) after having given him a Dhamma talk.” Dhamma talk here, the Commentary says, refers to such admonitions as, “A contemplative should not leave his requisites scattered around.” Hiding things with this purpose in mind is sometimes an effective way for a teacher to train his students to stop being careless with their belongings, but it should be used with discretion, for it can easily backfire.
收起一件物品，心想：「我給他講完佛法後再還（給他）。」《義註》說，這裡的佛法指的是這樣的勸誡：「沙門不應將自己的物品散落在各處。」出於這個目的而隱藏物品有時是老師訓練學生不再粗心大意對待自己物品的有效方法，但應謹慎使用，因為它很容易適得其反。
Summary: Hiding another bhikkhu’s bowl, robe, sitting cloth, needle box, or belt—or having it hidden—either as a joke or with the purpose of annoying him, is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：隱藏另一個比丘的缽、袈裟、坐墊、針盒或腰帶，或令隱藏，無論是出於玩笑還是為了惹惱他，都是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。