第九寶品

Nine: The Valuable Chapter

第九寶品

83	八十三
Should any bhikkhu, unannounced beforehand, cross the threshold of a consecrated noble king’s (sleeping chamber) from which the king has not left, from which the valuable (the queen) has not withdrawn, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘，未經事先通知，跨過神聖高貴國王（寢宮）的門檻，而國王尚未離開，寶貴（王后）也尚未撤離，波逸提。
“As he was sitting to one side, King Pasenadi of Kosala said to the Blessed One, ‘It would be good, venerable sir, if the Blessed One would appoint a bhikkhu to teach Dhamma in our harem’…. So the Blessed One addressed Ven. Ānanda, ‘In that case, Ānanda, go teach Dhamma in the king’s harem.’	「他坐在一旁時，拘薩羅國波斯匿王對世尊說：『大德，如果世尊能指派一位比丘到我們後宮說法，那就太好了…』於是世尊對阿難尊者說：『既然如此，阿難，你去國王的後宮說法吧。』
“Responding, ‘As you say, venerable sir,’ Ven. Ānanda entered the king’s harem time and again to teach Dhamma. Then (one day) Ven. Ānanda, dressing early in the morning, taking his bowl and (outer) robe, went to King Pasenadi’s palace. At that time King Pasenadi was lying on a couch with Queen Mallikā. Queen Mallikā saw Ven. Ānanda coming from afar and, on seeing him, got up hurriedly. Her cloth of burnished gold slipped off. Ven. Ānanda turned around and went back to the monastery.”	「尊者阿難答道：『如你所說，大德。』尊者阿難多次進入國王的後宮說法。後來（有一天），尊者阿難清晨著裝，帶著他的缽和（外）衣，前往波斯匿王的宮殿。當時，波斯匿王正與摩利王后躺在臥榻上。摩利王后遠遠地看見阿難尊者走過來，便急忙起身，金光閃閃的衣袍滑落下來。阿難尊者轉身返回了寺院。」
The factors for the full offense here are two: object and effort.	構成完全違犯的因素有二：對象和努力。
Object	對象
A king—a consecrated (“crowned” in Western terms) member of the noble warrior class, pure in his lineage through the past seven generations—is in his sleeping chamber with his queen. Sleeping chamber means any place where his bed is prepared, even if it is outside, surrounded only by a curtain or screen wall (as was the custom on royal excursions in those days, a custom often depicted in murals on the walls of Thai temples).	一位國王——一位神聖（用西方術語來說是「加冕」）的貴族武士階層[譯註:剎帝利]成員，其血統在過去七代中保持純正——正與他的王后在他的寢宮中。寢宮指的是任何鋪好床的地方，即使是在室外，僅用帷幔或屏風牆圍起來（就像當時皇家出遊時的習俗一樣，這種習俗經常在泰國寺廟牆壁上的壁畫中描繪）。
Effort	努力
If, unannounced, one steps over the threshold of the sleeping chamber with one foot, the penalty is a dukkaṭa; when both feet are over the threshold, a pācittiya. Perception as to whether one has been announced is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	若未經通知，單腳踏入寢室門檻，懲罰是《突吉羅》；若雙腳踏入門檻，懲罰是《波逸提》。在此，是否已事先通知的感知在此並非減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense if—	不構成犯戒，如果——
one has been announced,	已通知，
the king is not a member of the noble warrior class or has not been consecrated,	國王並非貴族武士階級[譯註:剎帝利]成員，或者沒有接受過加冕儀式，
either the king or the queen has left the sleeping chamber, or	國王或王后離開了寢宮，或者
the room is not a sleeping chamber.	該房間不是寢宮。
Obviously, there is little chance that a bhikkhu will break this rule at present. However, in the course of formulating the rule, the Buddha mentioned ten dangers for a bhikkhu who enters the king’s inner palace even at the king’s request, and some of these dangers still apply to any situation in which a bhikkhu is on familiar terms with a person of influence, royal or not:	顯然，目前比丘違反此戒條的可能性很小。然而，佛陀在制定此戒條時，曾提及比丘即使應國王之邀進入國王內宮，也會面臨十種危險。其中一些危險至今仍然適用於比丘與有影響力的人物（無論是否為王室成員）關係密切的任何情況：
1) “‘There is the case where the king is on a couch together with the queen. A bhikkhu enters there. Either the queen, seeing the bhikkhu, smiles; or the bhikkhu, seeing the queen, smiles. The thought occurs to the king, “Surely they’ve done it, or are going to do it”….	1）「有這樣一個場景：國王和王后同在臥榻上。一位比丘走了進來。若非王后看到比丘後微笑；就是比丘看到王后後微笑。國王心想：『他們肯定已經做了，或者即將要做』…
2) “‘And furthermore, the king is busy, with much to do. Having gone to a certain woman, he forgets about it. On account of that, she conceives a child. The thought occurs to him, “No one enters here but the one gone forth. Could this be the work of the one gone forth?”….	2）「此外，國王繁忙有許多事要做。他去到了某一位女子處，卻忘記了此事。結果，那女子懷了孕。他心想：『除了那位出家人，沒有人能進來。這會不會是那位出家人所為？』…
3) “‘And furthermore, some valuable in the king’s inner palace disappears. The thought occurs to the king, “No one enters here but the one gone forth. Could this be the work of the one gone forth?”….	3）「此外，國王內宮裡的一些貴重物品不翼而飛。國王心想：『除了那位出家人，沒有人能進來。這會不會是那位出家人所為？』…
4) “‘And furthermore, secret consultations in the confines of the inner palace get spread abroad. The thought occurs to the king, “No one enters here but the one gone forth. Could this be the work of the one gone forth?”….	4）「此外，宮廷內部的秘密磋商傳到外面去。國王心想：『除了那位出家人，沒有人能進來。這會不會是那位出家人所為？』…
5) “‘And furthermore, in the king’s inner palace the son is estranged from the father, or the father from the son. The thought occurs to them, “No one enters here but the one gone forth. Could this be the work of the one gone forth?”….	5）「此外，在國王的內宮裡，兒子與父親疏遠失和，或父親與兒子疏遠失和。他們心想：『除了那位出家人，沒有人能進來。這會不會是那位出家人所為？』…
6 & 7) “‘And furthermore, the king establishes one from a low position in a high position… (or) one from a high position in a low position. The thought occurs to those displeased by this, “The king is on familiar terms with one gone forth. Could this be the work of the one gone forth?”….	6和7）「此外，國王置地位低者於高位…（或）置地位高者於低位。對此不滿者心想：『國王與一位出家人關係密切。這會不會是那位出家人所為？』…
8) “‘And furthermore, the king sends the army out at the wrong time. The thought occurs to those displeased by this, “The king is on familiar terms with one gone forth. Could this be the work of the one gone forth?”….	8）「此外，國王派軍的時機不對。對此不滿者心想：『國王與一位出家人關係密切。這會不會是那位出家人所為？』…
9) “‘And furthermore, the king sends the army out at the right time, but has it turn around mid-way. The thought occurs to those displeased by this, “The king is on familiar terms with one gone forth. Could this be the work of the one gone forth?”….	9）「此外，國王在適當的時間派軍，卻讓軍隊在中途掉頭。對此不滿者心想：『國王與一位出家人關係密切。這會不會是那位出家人所為？』…
10) “‘And furthermore, bhikkhus, the king’s inner palace is crowded with elephants… horses… chariots. There are enticing sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations unsuitable for one gone forth. This, bhikkhus, is the tenth danger for one who enters the king’s inner palace.’”	10）「『此外，諸比丘，國王的內宮裡擠滿了大象……駿馬……戰車。那裡有誘人的景象、聲音、氣味、味道和觸覺感，不適合出家者。諸比丘，這就是進入國王內宮者的第十個危險。』」
Summary: Entering a king’s sleeping chamber unannounced, when both the king and queen are in the chamber, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：未通知進入國王的寢宮，且國王和王后都在其內，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

84	八四
Should any bhikkhu pick up or have (someone) pick up a valuable or what is considered a valuable, except in a monastery or in a dwelling, it is to be confessed. But when a bhikkhu has picked up or had (someone) pick up a valuable or what is considered a valuable (left) in a monastery or in a dwelling, he is to keep it, (thinking,) “Whoever it belongs to will (come and) fetch it.” This is the proper course here.	如果任何比丘撿起或令（某人）撿起一件貴重物品或被認為是貴重物品，除了在寺院或住所內，波逸提。但是，當比丘撿起或令（某人）撿起寺院或住所中（被遺留下）的貴重物品或被視為貴重物品時，他應收藏它，（思考）「無論它屬於誰，都會（過來）拿它。這於此是如法的。
The general purpose of this rule is to prevent a bhikkhu from picking up misplaced valuables belonging to other people, for as the origin story shows, there are dangers inherent in such an act even when done with the best intentions.	本戒條的總體目的是防止比丘撿起屬於其他人的遺失的貴重物品，因為正如起源故事所示，即使是出於最好的意圖，這種行為也存在固有的危險。
“Now at that time a certain bhikkhu was bathing in the Aciravatī River. And a certain brahman, having placed a bag of 500 gold pieces on the river bank, bathed in the river and left, forgetting it. The bhikkhu, (saying to himself,) ‘Don’t let this bag of the brahman’s be lost,’ picked it up. Then the brahman, remembering, rushed back and said to the bhikkhu, ‘My good man, have you seen my bag?’	「爾時，有一位比丘正在阿致羅筏底河沐浴。某一位婆羅門，將一袋五百金幣放在河岸上，沐浴在河中，忘記它而離去。比丘（自言自語）『不要讓這個婆羅門的袋子丟失』，把它撿起來。這時，婆羅門想起來了，衝回來對比丘說：『善男子，你看到我的袋子了嗎？』
“‘Here you are, brahman,’ he said, and gave it to him.	「『給你，婆羅門，』他說，把它交給了他。
“Then the thought occurred to the brahman, ‘Now by what means can I get away without giving a reward to this bhikkhu?’ So (saying,) ‘I didn’t have 500, my good man, I had 1,000!’ he detained him for a while and then let him go.”	「然後，婆羅門想到，『現在我怎麼能不給這位比丘報酬而逃脫呢？』所以（說）『我沒有 500 ，善男子，我有 1,000 ！』拘留了他一段時間，然後就放了他。」
However, a bhikkhu who comes across a fallen valuable in a monastery or in a dwelling he is visiting—if he does not pick it up—may later be held responsible if it gets lost: thus the two situations mentioned as exemptions in the rule. In situations such as these, a bhikkhu is allowed even to pick up money and other items he is not normally allowed to take. In fact, the Vinaya-mukha states that if he does not pick up the valuable and put it in safe-keeping, he incurs a dukkaṭa. None of the other texts mention this point, although it is probably justified on the grounds that the bhikkhu is neglecting his duty in not following the “proper course” here.	然而，比丘在寺院或他所拜訪的住處中發現掉落的貴重物品，如果他沒有撿起來，之後如果丟失的話，可能要承擔責任：因此，戒條中提到的兩種情況是豁免的。在這類情況下，比丘甚至可以拿走金錢和其他他通常不被允許拿走的物品。事實上，《戒律入口》指出，如果他不撿起貴重物品並將其妥善保管，他犯《突吉羅》。其他文獻都沒有提到這一點，儘管這可能是合理的，因為比丘在這裡沒有遵循「適當的方針」而忽視了他的職責。
The Vibhaṅga advises that if a bhikkhu has picked up a fallen valuable in this way and put it in safe keeping, he should take note of its features. (The Commentary adds that if it is a bag of money, he should open the bag and count how much it contains. The same would hold for such things as wallets at present.) He should then have an announcement made, “Let him come whose goods are lost.” If a person comes to claim the item, the bhikkhu should ask him/her to describe it. If the person describes it correctly, the bhikkhu should hand it over. If not, he should tell the person to “keep looking.” If the bhikkhu is going to leave the monastery to live elsewhere, he should entrust the item to another bhikkhu or—if no suitable bhikkhu is available—to a suitable lay person (§).	《經分別》建議，如果比丘以這種方式撿起掉落的貴重物品並將其妥善保管，他應該記下它的特徵。（《義註》補充說，如果是一袋金錢，他應該打開袋子數一下裡面有多少錢。在目前，錢包之類的東西也應如此做。）然後他應該宣布：「誰的東西丟了請過來。」如果有人來領取物品，比丘應該請他/她描述它。如果此人描述正確，比丘應該交給他。如果不正確，他應該告訴這個人「繼續尋找」。如果比丘要離開寺院到其他地方居住，他應該將物品託付給另一位比丘，或者－－如果沒有合適的比丘－－託付給合適的在家人（§）。
The Commentary adds that if, after a suitable length of time, no one comes to claim the item, the bhikkhu should have it exchanged for something of lasting use to the monastery. If, after that, the owner does come to claim the item, the bhikkhu should tell him/her of the use to which it was put. If the owner is satisfied, there is no problem. If not, the bhikkhu should arrange to have the owner compensated. However, as we noted in the discussion of compensation under Pr 2, the Canon imposes only one potential penalty on a bhikkhu in a situation such as this: The Community, if it sees fit, can force him to apologize to the owner (Cv.I.20; see BMC2, Chapter 20).	《義註》補充說，如果在一段適當的時間後，沒有人來領取該物品，比丘應該將其換成對寺院持久使用的東西。如果之後，所有者真的來領取該物品，比丘應該告訴他/她該物品的用途。如果所有者滿意的話就沒有問題。如果不滿意，比丘應該安排對所有者進行補償。然而，正如我們在討論《波羅夷》二下的賠償時所指出的，在這種情況下，《聖典》只對比丘施加一種潛在的處罰：如果僧團認為合適，可以強迫他向所有者道歉（《小品》.一.20；見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第二十章）。
The factors for the offense here are four.	這裡的犯戒因素有四個。
1) Object: a valuable or anything considered a valuable that one finds left behind, except in a monastery or a dwelling that one is visiting.	1）對象：發現留下的有價值的東西或任何被認為有價值的東西，除了在拜訪的寺院或住處中。
2) Perception: One does not perceive it as discarded.	2）感知：不認為它是被丟棄的。
3) Intention: One wants to keep it in safe keeping for the owner.	3）意圖：希望為所有者保管它。
4) Effort: One picks it up or has someone else pick it up.	4）努力：自己撿起或讓別人撿起。

Object	對象
The Vibhaṅga defines a valuable as jewels, gold, or silver. At present, money would be included here. What is considered a valuable means anything that people use or consume. Items meeting these definitions at present would include wallets, watches, keys, eyeglasses, cameras, etc.	《經分別》將有價值的物品定義為珠寶、黃金或白銀。目前，金錢也包含在這裡。被認為有價值的東西是指人們使用或消費的任何東西。目前符合這些定義的物品包括錢包、手錶、鑰匙、眼鏡、相機等。
According to the K/Commentary, the object has to belong to someone else to fulfill the factor of effort here. The Vibhaṅga does not state this point explicitly, but it does make the point implicitly with the activities it discusses under this rule: putting an item in safe keeping, quizzing those who come to claim it, taking an item on trust, borrowing it. These are all activities that pertain to the belongings of others, and not to one’s own belongings. The K/Commentary adds that if the owner has given one permission to take the article, it does not fulfill the factor of object here. This comment has to be qualified, of course, by noting that if the item is a valuable, then taking it would involve an offense under another rule.	根據 K/《義註》，物品必須屬於其他人才能滿足此處的努力因素。《經分別》沒有明確說明這一點，但它確實透過在本戒條下討論的活動隱含地表達了這一點：妥善保管一件物品，詢問那些前來索取它的人，託付一件物品，借用它。這些都是與他人的財物有關的活動，而不是與自己的財物有關的活動。 K/《義註》補充說，如果所有者已給予拿取該物品的權限，則不滿足此處的對象因素。當然，這個評論必須是有限制的，留意到如果該物品是貴重物品，那麼根據另一條戒條，拿走它就會涉及犯戒。
The Vibhaṅga defines in a monastery as follows: If the monastery is enclosed, then within the enclosure. If not, then in the immediate vicinity (according to the Commentary, a radius of two leḍḍupātas—approximately 36 meters—around the monastery buildings). As for in a dwelling: If the area around the dwelling is enclosed, then within the enclosure. If not, then in the immediate vicinity (according to the Commentary, the distance one can throw a basket or a pestle (!) from the dwelling).	《經分別》對寺院裡的定義如下：如果寺院是封閉的，那就在封閉的範圍內。如果不是，那麼就在緊鄰範圍裡（根據《義註》，圍繞寺院建築的半徑為兩個 leḍḍupāta，大約 36 公尺）。至於住處裡：如果住處周圍的區域是封閉的，則在封閉範圍內。如果不是，那麼就在緊鄰範圍裡（根據《義註》，可以從住處扔籃子或杵（！）的距離）。
For some reason, the Commentary says that if the item has fallen in an area of the monastery where many people come and go—e.g., the doorway to the Bodhi tree or public shrine—one should not pick it up. Its reasoning here is hard to guess. It notes that the Kurundī—one of the ancient commentaries—interprets the range of a bhikkhu’s responsibility in the opposite direction. In other words, the Kurundī holds that if a bhikkhu walking alone along a road outside a monastery comes across a valuable or anything considered valuable in such circumstances that he might later be suspected of being responsible for its disappearance, he should stop and wait by the roadside until the owner appears. If no owner appears, he should make it “allowable” and take it with him. The Sub-commentary adds that making it allowable means deciding that it has been thrown away, and applies only to items classed as “considered a valuable.” All of this, however, lies outside the allowances in the Vibhaṅga, and at most can be adopted, where appropriate, as a wise policy.	由於某種原因，《義註》說，如果該物品落在寺院內人來人往的地方，例如菩提樹的門口或公共聖壇，則不應撿起它。這裡它的推理很難猜測。它指出，《Kurundī》——古代註釋之一——從相反的方向解釋了比丘的責任範圍。換句話說，《Kurundī》認為，如果一個比丘獨自走在寺院外的路上，遇到一個貴重的東西或任何被認為有價值的東西，並且在這種情況下他可能會被懷疑對它的失蹤負有責任，他應該停下來在路邊等待，直到所有者出現。如果所有者沒有出現，他應該讓它成為「允許的」並帶走它。《複註》補充說，讓它成為允許的意思是決定它已被丟棄，並且僅適用於被歸類為「被認為有價值」的物品。然而，所有這些都超出了《經分別》的允許範圍，最多可以在適當的情況下作為明智之舉而採用。
The Commentary also notes that if someone asks to put his/her belongings in safe keeping with a bhikkhu, the bhikkhu should not accept—so as to avoid being responsible for them—but if he/she leaves the things with the bhikkhu and goes off in spite of his objections or before giving him a chance to object, he should take the belongings and put them away in safe keeping.	《義註》還指出，如果有人要求將自己的物品交給比丘保管，比丘不應接受——以免對這些物品負責——但如果他/她將物品留給比丘，並且儘管他反對，或者在給他反對的機會之前離開，他應該拿走財物並妥善保管。

Perception & intention	感知及意圖
According to the Commentary, if one picks up money for one’s own use, for the Community, or for anyone aside from the owner, the case would come under NP 18, rather than here. The same holds true with dukkaṭa objects, such as jewels and semi-precious stones. This judgment, though, would seem to hold only in the case where one perceives the money, etc., as thrown away or left behind for the use of the person or Community for whom one is taking it. If one does not perceive it as thrown away or abandoned, and one is not borrowing it or taking it on trust, the case would come under Pr 2, regardless of what the item is.	根據《義註》，如果撿取金錢用於自己、僧團或除所有者之外的任何人，則該情況將屬於《捨墮》一八，而不是這裡。對於珠寶和半寶石等《突吉羅》物件也是如此。然而，這項判定似乎僅在以下情況成立：認為金錢等被丟棄，或留下供拿取者或拿取者僧團使用。如果不認為它被丟棄或遺棄，並且沒有借用它或親厚取，則該情況將屬於《波羅夷》二，無論該物品是什麼。
The Commentary also makes the peculiar point that if one sees an item belonging to one’s mother or other close relative left behind on the roadside, one would incur the full penalty under this rule for picking it up to put in safe keeping for the owner, but no offense if one took the item, on trust, for one’s own. Of course, after taking it on trust like this, one could then without penalty give it back to the owner as one liked.	《義註》還提出了一個奇特的觀點，如果看到屬於自己母親或其他近親的物品留在路邊，根據本戒條，拾起該物品並妥善保管將受到全額懲罰，但如果出於親厚而拿取這件物品，則沒有犯戒。當然，這樣親厚取之後，就可以依照自己的喜好，不受懲罰地還給所有者了。

Effort	努力
When getting someone else to pick up the item, the offense is incurred not in the asking but only when the other person does as asked.	當讓別人拿起物品時，犯戒行為不是在要求時發生的，而是在對方按照要求行事時才發生的。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense if, within a monastery or a dwelling, one picks up a valuable or what is considered a valuable—or if one has it picked up—with the thought, “Whoever this belongs to will come for it.” (§)	如果在寺院或住處內，撿起一件貴重物品或被認為是貴重物品—或如果令其被撿起—心裡想：「無論這東西是誰的，都會來拿它。」並沒有犯戒。（§）
Also, according to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense in taking an item “considered to be a valuable” no matter where it is found if one takes it on trust, borrows it, or perceives it as having been thrown away (§).	此外，根據《經分別》，如果基於信任拿走一件「被認為是有價值的」物品、借用它或認為它已被扔掉，那麼無論它在哪裡被發現，都不會構成犯戒（§）。
Summary: Picking up a valuable, or having it picked up, with the intention of putting it in safe keeping for the owner—except when one finds it in a monastery or in a dwelling one is visiting—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：撿起或讓人撿起貴重物品，並意圖為所有者將其妥善保管——除非在寺院或正在拜訪的住處中發現它——是《波逸提》罪。

* * *

85	八十五
Should any bhikkhu, without taking leave of an available bhikkhu, enter a village at the wrong time—unless there is a suitable emergency—it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘，有比丘在而未告假，在非時進入村莊——除非有適當的緊急情況——波逸提。
As the origin story here indicates, the purpose of this rule is to prevent bhikkhus from passing their time among householders engaged in animal talk (see the discussion under Pc 7).	正如這裡的起源故事所表明的那樣，這條戒條的目的是防止比丘們把時間消磨在與在家人從事畜生論（參見《波逸提》七下的討論）。
The factors for the full offense here are two.	完全違犯的因素有二。
1) Object: a village (this would include larger inhabited areas, such as towns and cities, as well).	1）對象：村莊（這也包括較大的居住區，如城鎮和城市）。
2) Effort: One enters the village at the wrong time—without having taken leave of an available bhikkhu—except when there is an emergency.	2）努力：在非時進入村莊——有比丘在而未告假——除非有緊急情況。

Object	對象
The Vibhaṅga says that if the village as a whole is enclosed, everywhere inside the enclosure is considered to be in the village. If not, the area in the village includes all the buildings and their immediate vicinity. According to the Sub-commentary, this means everywhere within a two-leḍḍupāta radius of the buildings.	《經分別》指出，如果整個村莊被圍起來，那麼圍起來的所有區域都屬於村莊範圍。如果沒有被圍起來，村莊的範圍則包括所有建築物及其周邊區域。根據《複註》，這意味著建築物半徑為兩個 leḍḍupāta 內的所有區域都屬於村莊範圍。
Thus if one is staying in a monastery located within a village or town, the area covered by this factor would apparently begin at the vicinity of the nearest buildings outside the monastery.	因此，如果住在位於村莊或城鎮內的寺院裡，那麼這個因素所涵蓋的區域顯然會從寺院外最近的建築物周圍開始。
Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga defines the wrong time as from after noon until the following dawnrise. This rule thus dovetails with Pc 46, which deals with the period from dawnrise until noon on days when one has been invited to a meal.	《經分別》將非時定義為中午過後至隔天黎明。這條戒條與《波逸提》四六相銜接吻合，該條規定了受邀赴餐食日子裡，從黎明到中午這段時間。
Perception as to whether the time is right or wrong is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	關於是否非時的感知在這裡並不構成減輕懲罰的因素（參見《波逸提》四）。
As under Pc 46, another bhikkhu is said to be available for taking one’s leave if, in the Vibhaṅga’s words, “It is possible to go, having taken leave of him.” That is, if there is another bhikkhu in the monastery, and there are no obstacles to taking one’s leave from him (e.g., he is asleep, he is sick, he is receiving important visitors), one is obliged to go out of one’s way to inform him.	如同《波逸提》四六，如果，用《經分別》的話來說，「告別他之後，就可以離開了。」，那就是有另一位比丘在可以告假。也就是說，如果寺院裡有另一位比丘，並且向他告假沒有任何障礙（例如，他正在睡覺、生病、接待重要訪客），那麼就必須特意去通知他。
According to the K/Commentary, taking leave in the context of this rule means the simple act of informing the other bhikkhu that, “I am going into the village,” or any similar statement. In other words, one is not asking permission to go, although if the other bhikkhu sees that one is doing something improper in going, he is perfectly free to say so. If one treats his comments with disrespect, one incurs at least a dukkaṭa under Pc 54. (See the discussion under that rule for details.)	根據 K/《義註》，在此戒條的脈絡中，「告假」僅指告知另一位比丘「我要入村」或類似表述。換言之，並非徵求前去的許可，但若另一位比丘認為在前往時會做不恰當的事情，他完全可以指出來。若對他的指正不敬，則至少會根據《波逸提》五四犯《突吉羅》（詳情請參閱該戒條下的討論）。
The Commentary states that if there is no bhikkhu in the monastery to take leave from, there is no need to inform any bhikkhu one may meet after leaving the monastery. If many bhikkhus are going together, they need only take leave from one another before entering the village.	《義註》指出，如果寺院裡沒有比丘可以告假，那麼離開寺院後遇到的任何比丘都不需要告知。如果很多比丘一同前往，他們只需在進入村莊前互相告假即可。
For a new bhikkhu still living in dependence (nissaya) on his mentor, though, the protocols in Cullavagga VIII indicate that taking leave is a matter of asking permission from his mentor at all times, “wrong” or not. (See the discussion of this point under Pc 46.)	然而，對於一位仍依止於其導師（nissaya）的新比丘而言，《小品》第八卷的行儀表明，無論「非」時與否，告假隨時都要徵得導師的同意。（參見《波逸提》四六對此的討論。）
As for the suitable emergencies under this rule—which would seem to exempt even new bhikkhus from having to take leave from their mentors—the Vibhaṅga gives the example of a bhikkhu rushing to get fire to make medicine for another bhikkhu bitten by a snake. Examples more likely at present would include rushing to get a doctor for a sick bhikkhu or to get help when a fire has broken out in the monastery.	至於這條戒條下適用的緊急情況——這似乎意味著即使是新比丘也不必向他們的導師告假——《經分別》舉例說，一位比丘急忙去取火，為另一位被蛇咬傷的比丘熬製藥物。而如今更常見的例子則包括急忙為生病的比丘請醫生，或在寺院發生火災時尋求幫助。

Further action	進一步行動
Although there is no penalty for engaging in animal talk, a bhikkhu who enters a village frequently and engages in it, even if he takes leave of other bhikkhus, can be subject to an act of censure for “unbecoming association with householders” (see BMC2, Chapter 20).	雖然從事畜生論並沒有懲罰，但經常進入村莊從事畜生論的比丘，即使向其他比丘告假，也可能因「與居士交往不當」而受到呵責的處分（見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第二十章）。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense in entering a village when one has taken leave of another bhikkhu, or in going when one has not taken leave if:	在向另一位比丘告假後進入村莊，或未告假就進入村莊並符合以下條件，均不犯戒：
There is an emergency.	有緊急狀況。
There is no bhikkhu available (e.g., one is living alone or all the other bhikkhus have left).	沒有比丘在（例如，自己獨自居住，或其他比丘都離開了）。
One is on one’s way to another monastery (§), to bhikkhunīs’ quarters, to the residence of people ordained in another religion (located in a village, says the Commentary), or one is returning from any of these places.	正前往另一個寺院（§），前往比丘尼的住所，前往外道受戒者的住所（《義註》中說，位於村莊內），或從這些地方返回。
One is going along a road that happens to pass through a village. (According to the Commentary, a bhikkhu who wants to leave the road and enter the village proper should take leave of another bhikkhu if one is available.)	正沿著一條路走，這條路剛好穿過村莊。（根據《義註》，如果比丘想要離開這條路進入村莊，應該向另一位比丘告假，如果有比丘在的話。）
There are dangers. (Examples in the Commentary include seeing lions or tigers approaching, or clouds building up and threatening a storm.)	有危險。（例如，《義註》中例子包括看到獅子或老虎靠近，或烏雲密布，預示著暴風雨即將到來。）
Summary: Entering a village, town, or city during the period after noon until the following dawnrise, without having taken leave of an available bhikkhu—unless there is an emergency—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：在中午之後到第二天黎明之前，有比丘在而未向其告假並進入村莊、城鎮或城市——除非有緊急情況——是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪。

* * *

86	八十六
Should any bhikkhu have a needle box made of bone, ivory, or horn, it is to be broken and confessed.	如果任何比丘擁有用骨頭、象牙或角製成的針盒，就應當將其打碎並懺悔[波逸提]。
The origin story here echoes the one for NP 22.	這裡的起源故事與《捨墮》二二的起源故事如出一轍。
“Now at that time a certain ivory-worker had invited the bhikkhus, saying, ‘If any of the masters needs a needle box, I will supply him with a needle box.’ So the bhikkhus asked for many needle boxes. Those with small needle boxes asked for large ones; those with large ones asked for small ones. (§) The ivory-worker, making many needle boxes for the bhikkhus, was not able to make other goods for sale. He could not support himself, and his wife and children suffered.”	「其時，一位象牙匠邀請比丘們，說：『如果哪位大德需要針盒，我可以給他提供。』於是比丘們索要許多針盒。有小針盒的就去要大的，有大的就去要小的。（§）這位象牙匠為比丘們製作了許多針盒，卻無力製作其他商品出售。他無法養活自己，妻子和孩子也因此受苦。」
Here there are three factors for the full offense.	此處完整違犯包含三個因素。
1) Object: a needle box made of bone, ivory, or horn.	1）對象：用骨頭、象牙或角製成的針盒。
2) Effort: One obtains it after making it or having it made	2）努力：透過自己或他人製作而獲得它。
3) Intention: for one’s own use.	3）意圖：供自己使用。
Two of these factors involve permutations: effort and intention.	其中兩個因素涉及排列組合：努力和意圖。

Effort	努力
The permutations under this factor are as follows: the act of making the needle box or having it made—a dukkaṭa; obtaining the finished box—a pācittiya. This last penalty applies regardless of whether the box was made entirely by oneself, entirely by others either partly or entirely at one’s instigation, or whether one finished what others began or got others to finish what one began oneself. In any event, one must break the box before confessing the offense.	此因素下的排列組合如下：製作針盒或讓人製作針盒的行為——《突吉羅》；取得成品盒——《波逸提》。無論針盒是完全由自己製作，還是完全由他人製作（部分或全部受自己唆使），亦或是自己完成了他人開始之物，或令他人完成了自己開始之物，最後一種懲罰均適用。無論如何，必須在懺悔罪行前打碎該盒。
If one obtains a bone, ivory, or horn needle box made by another—not at one’s instigation—then using it entails a dukkaṭa (§).	如果獲得了由他人製作的骨頭、象牙或角針盒——並非是應自己的唆使要求製作的——那麼使用它犯《突吉羅》（§）。
Intention	意圖
There is a dukkaṭa in making a bone, ivory, or horn needle box—or having it made—for another’s use.	為了他人而製作或令人製作骨頭、象牙或角針盒，犯《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses	不犯
The non-offense clauses, instead of listing materials from which a needle box might be made, list allowable items made of bone, ivory, or horn: a fastener (§) (for a robe), a fire-starter (according to the Commentary, this means a bow used with the upper stick of a fire-starter), a belt fastener, an ointment box, a stick for applying ointment, an adze handle, and a water wiper (§) (see BMC2, Chapter 1). This list was apparently intended simply to be illustrative, because the Khandhakas contain allowances for many other items to be made from bone, ivory, or horn as well—although it’s worth noting that the non-offense clauses here are the only passages in the Canon stating that the fire-starter, adze handle, and water wiper can be made of these materials.	不犯條款並未列舉製作針盒的可用材料，而是列出了允許用骨頭、象牙或角製成的物品：扣件（§）（用於袈裟）、引火物（根據《義註》，這指的是與引火物上桿配合使用的弓形物）、腰帶扣、藥膏盒、塗抹藥膏的棍子、斧頭柄和擦水器（§）（參見《佛教比丘戒律第二冊》第一章）。這份清單顯然只是為了舉例說明，因為《犍度》中也允許用骨頭、象牙或角製作許多其他物品——儘管值得注意的是，此處的不犯條款是《聖典》中唯一明確指出引火物、斧頭柄和擦水器可以用這些材料製成的段落。
Pc 60 mentions a needle box as one of a bhikkhu’s requisites, so apparently one would be allowable if not made of bone, ivory, or horn. Cv.V.11.2 contains an allowance for a “needle tube” (or “needle cylinder”—sūci-nāḷika) for keeping needles, but does not explain how it differs from a needle box. Apparently both the box and the tube may be made of reed, bamboo, wood, lac (resin), fruit (e.g., coconut shell), copper (metal), or conch-shell, as the Khandhakas often list these materials as allowable for other items as well.	《波逸提》六十提到針盒是比丘的必備物品之一，因此，如果不是用骨頭、象牙或角製成的，針盒顯然是允許的。《小品》.五.11.2允許使用「針筒」（或「針管」－sūci-nāḷika）來存放針，但並未解釋它與針盒有何不同。顯然，針盒和針筒都可以用蘆葦、竹子、木頭、紫膠（樹脂）、水果（例如椰子殼）、銅（金屬）或海螺殼製成，因為《犍度》也經常將這些材料列為其他物品的允許材料。

The general principle	一般原則
The Vinaya-mukha derives a general principle from this rule: The Buddha, in formulating this rule, was putting a halt to the sort of fad that can occur among bhikkhus when certain requisites become fashionable to the point of inconveniencing donors, and senior bhikkhus at present should try to put a halt to any similar fads.	《戒律入口》從這條戒條中引申出一條普遍原則：佛陀制定這條戒條，是為了阻止比丘中出現某種風尚，即某些必需品變得時髦，以至於給布施者帶來不便。如今，上座比丘應該嘗試阻止任何類似的風尚。
Summary: Obtaining a needle box made of bone, ivory, or horn after making it—or having it made—for one’s own use is a pācittiya offense requiring that one break the box before confessing the offense.	摘要：獲得為自己使用而製作或讓人製作的用骨頭、象牙或角製成的針盒，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，必須先打碎針盒才能懺悔罪行。

* * *

87	八十七
When a bhikkhu is having a new bed or bench made, it is to have legs (at most) eight fingerbreadths long—using sugata fingerbreadths—not counting the lower edge of the frame. In excess of that it is to be cut down and confessed.	比丘製作新床或凳子時，腳的長度（至多）應為八指寬——使用善逝指寬——不包括框架的下緣。超過此長度應被砍掉並懺悔[波逸提]。
The purpose of this rule is to prevent bhikkhus from making and using furnishings that are high and imposing.	這條戒條的目的是防止比丘們製作和使用高大而氣派的家具。
The factors for the offense here are three.	此處犯戒的因素有三。
1) Object: a bed or bench whose legs, measuring from the lower side of the frame to the floor, are longer than eight sugata fingerbreadths (16.7 cm.)	1）對象：床或凳子的腳，從框架下緣到地面的長度，超過八善逝指寬（16.7 公分）。
2) Effort: One obtains it after making it or having it made	2）努力：自己製作或他人製作後而獲得它。
3) Intention: for one’s own use.	3）意圖：供自己使用。
Object	對象
The Canon contains many rules dealing with furnishings, especially in the Khandhakas, and because furnishings in the time of the Buddha were somewhat different from what they are now, it is often a matter of guesswork as to what, precisely, the rules are referring to. The bed (mañca) here almost certainly refers to what we mean by a bed. The bench (pīṭha), according to the K/Commentary, is shorter than a bed, but not so short that it is square. This last stipulation comes from Cv.VI.2.4, which allows bhikkhus to use an āsandika—apparently a square stool, large enough to sit on but not to lie on—even if the legs are long. Another piece of furniture with long legs allowed in the same passage is the sattaṅga, a chair or sofa with a back and arms. The Vinaya-mukha includes a pañcaṅga—a chair or sofa with a back but no arms—under this allowance as well. The Canon and commentaries make no mention of this point, but it seems valid: Armless chairs and sofas are less imposing than those with arms.	《聖典》中包含許多關於傢俱的戒條，尤其是在《犍度》中。由於佛陀時代的傢俱與現在有所不同，因此這些戒條的具體意義往往需要推測。這裡的床（mañca）幾乎可以肯定是指我們今天所說的床。根據 K/《義註》，凳子（pīṭha）比床短，但又不至於短到呈正方形。最後這項規定出自《小品》.六.2.4，其中允許比丘使用 āsandika ——顯然是方形凳子，這種凳子足夠大，可以坐，但不能躺——即使凳腿很長。在同一段落中允許使用的另一種長腿家具是 sattaṅga ，一種有靠背和扶手的椅子或沙發。《戒律入口》中也允許使用 pañcaṅga ——一種有靠背但沒有扶手的椅子或沙發。《聖典》和註釋書中都沒有提到這一點，但這似乎是合理的：沒有扶手的椅子和沙發不如有扶手的椅子和沙發那麼引人注目。
The sugata measures are a matter of controversy, discussed in Appendix II. For the purposes of this book, we are taking the sugata span to be 25 cm. Because there are twelve sugata fingerbreadths in a sugata span, eight sugata fingerbreadths would be equal to 16.7 cm.	善逝的度量衡存在爭議，在附錄二中討論。本書中，我們將善逝張手定為 25 公分。因為一善逝張手有十二善逝指寬，所以八善逝指寬等於 16.7 公分。

Effort	努力
The permutations under this factor are as follows: the act of making the bed/bench or having it made—a dukkaṭa; obtaining the finished article—a pācittiya. This last penalty applies regardless of whether the bed/bench was made entirely by oneself, entirely by others either partly or entirely at one’s instigation, or whether one finished what others began or got others to finish what one began oneself. In any event, one must cut the bed/bench down to the proper size before confessing the offense.	此因素下的排列組合如下：製作床/凳的行為（或讓人製作）——《突吉羅》；獲得成品——《波逸提》。無論床/凳是完全由自己製作，或是完全由他人製作（部分或全部受自己唆使），亦或是完成他人開始之物，或令他人完成自己開始之物，均適用此最後一種懲罰。無論如何，在懺悔罪行之前，必須將床/凳切成合適的尺寸。
If one obtains a tall bed/bench made by another—not at one’s instigation—then using it entails a dukkaṭa (§). Cv.VI.8 allows that if furnishings of the sort unallowable for bhikkhus to own themselves are in a lay person’s house (and belong to the lay person, says the Sub-commentary) bhikkhus may sit on them but not lie down on them. There are three exceptions to this allowance, the one piece objected to on account of its height being a dais (āsandī)—a square platform, large enough to lie on, and very high. Bhikkhus are not allowed even to sit on such a thing, even in a lay person’s house.	若獲他人所造的高床/凳——並非是應自己的唆使要求製作的——那麼使用它犯《突吉羅》（§）。《小品》.六.8允許在居士家中（且屬於居士所有，《複註》中如此描述）擺放比丘不得擁有的家具，比丘可以坐在上面，但不能躺在上面。此開緣有三個例外，其中一例外因其高度而遭禁，即高臺（āsandī）——一種方形平台，足夠大，可躺之，且高度極高。比丘即便在居士家中，亦不可坐其上。

Intention	意圖
There is a dukkaṭa in making a bed or bench with extra long legs—or having it made—for the sake of another person.	為了他人的緣故，製作或請人製作腳特別長的床或凳，犯《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense in making a bed or bench—or having one made—if the legs are eight sugata fingerbreadths or less; or in receiving a bed or bench with overly long legs made by another if one cuts the legs down to regulation size before using it. The Commentary notes that if one buries the legs in the ground so that no more than eight fingerbreadths separate the ground from the lower frame, that is also allowable.	製作床或凳子，或請人製作，只要腳長不超過八善逝指寬，不構成犯戒；或接受他人製作的腳過長的床或凳子，只要在使用前將腿截短至規定尺寸，也不構成犯戒。《義註》指出，如果將腳埋入土中，使框架底部與地面之間的距離不超過八指寬，也是允許的。
Summary: Obtaining a bed or bench with legs longer than eight sugata fingerbreadths after making it—or having it made—for one’s own use is a pācittiya offense requiring that one cut the legs down before confessing the offense.	摘要：為自己使用而製作——或請人製作——腳長超過八善逝指寬的床或凳子之後並獲得它，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，必須先將腳切短才能懺悔罪行。

* * *

88	八十八
Should any bhikkhu have a bed or bench upholstered with cotton down, it (the upholstery) is to be torn off and confessed.	如果任何比丘的床或凳子是用棉絨填充的，它（填充物）應該被撕掉並懺悔[波逸提]。
Upholstery & cushions	坐椅填充物及墊子
Cotton down was apparently the most luxurious material known in the Buddha’s time for stuffing furniture, cushions, and mattresses, inasmuch as bhikkhus are forbidden by this rule from making beds and benches upholstered with cotton-down. Cv.VI.8 forbids them from sitting on cushions or other articles of furnishing upholstered or stuffed with cotton down (this would include meditation cushions), even in the homes of lay people. The only article of furnishing stuffed with cotton down allowed to bhikkhus is a pillow (§), although the pillow should be made no larger than the size of the head (Cv.VI.2.6).	在佛陀時代，棉絨顯然是已知最奢華的材料，用來填充家具、坐墊和床墊，因此，此戒條禁止比丘製作以棉絨為填充物的床和凳子。《小品》.六.8 禁止比丘坐在以棉絨為填充物的墊子或其他家具物上（包括禪坐墊子），即使在居士的家中也不例外。比丘唯一被允許的以棉絨為填充物的家具是枕頭（§），但枕頭不得超過頭部的大小（《小品》.六.2.6）。
The Commentary’s explanations of this point show that the pillow used in those days was an oblong cushion, looking like a rectangle when viewed from above and a triangle when viewed from either the right or left side (like the old style of pillow still in use in Thailand). Such pillows, the Commentary says, should be no more than two cubits (1 meter) long, and one span plus four fingerbreadths (32 cm.) from corner to corner on the sides (although this seems considerably larger than a pillow “the size of the head”). A bhikkhu who is not ill may use such a pillow for his head and feet; an ill bhikkhu may line up a series of pillows, cover them with a cloth, and lie down on them with no offense. According to Cv.VI.14, if bhikkhus are presented with cushions stuffed with cotton down, they may use them only after tearing them up and making them into pillows.	《義註》對此的解釋表明，當時使用的枕頭是一種長橢圓形的墊子，從上方看呈長方形，從左側或右側看呈三角形（類似於泰國至今仍在使用的舊式枕頭）。《義註》說，這種枕頭的長度不應超過兩肘（1公尺），從邊角到另一邊角不超過一張手加四指寬（32公分）（儘管這似乎比「頭部大小」的枕頭要大得多）。無病的比丘可以用這種枕頭墊頭和腳；生病的比丘可以擺放一排枕頭，用布蓋好，然後躺下，並不犯戒。根據《小品》.六.14，如果比丘獲贈填充棉絨的墊子，他們只能將其撕碎，重新製成枕頭後才能使用。
Human hair was another forbidden form of stuffing. Mattresses and cushions stuffed with other materials, though, are allowed even for use in the monastery. Cv.VI.2.7 mentions five kinds of allowable stuffing: wool, cloth, bark, grass, and leaves. (According to the Commentary, wool here includes all kinds of animal fur and bird feathers. Goose down would thus be allowable. Synthetic fibers and synthetic down would apparently come under “cloth.” The Commentary also mentions that, according to the Kurundī, mattresses and cushions stuffed with these materials are allowable whether covered with leather or cloth.)	人類頭髮是另一種被禁止的填充物。不過，即使在寺院內也允許使用填充有其他材料的床墊和墊子。《小品》.六.2.7 提到了五種允許的填充物：羊毛、布、樹皮、草和樹葉。（根據《義註》，這裡的羊毛包括各種動物毛皮和鳥類羽毛。因此，鵝絨是允許的。合成纖維和合成絨顯然屬於「布」。《義註》還提到，根據《Kurundī》，用這些材料填充的床墊和墊子是允許的，無論覆蓋著皮革還是布料。）
The purpose of all this is to keep bhikkhus from using furnishings that are extravagant and ostentatious. As the Vinaya-mukha mentions, though, standards of what counts as extravagant and ostentatious vary from age to age and culture to culture. Some of the things allowed in the Canon and commentaries now seem exotic and luxurious; and other things forbidden by them, common and ordinary. Thus the wise policy, in a monastery, would be to use only those furnishings allowed by the rules and regarded as unostentatious at present; and, when visiting a lay person’s home, to avoid sitting on furnishings that seem unusually grand.	這一切的目的是為了防止比丘使用奢侈、炫耀的家具。然而，正如《戒律入口》中提到的那樣，奢侈和炫耀的標準因時代和文化的不同而有所不同。《聖典》和註釋書中所允許的一些事物現在看來顯得異國情調和奢華；以及其所禁止的其他事物，現在看來顯得常見和普通。因此，在寺院裡，明智之舉是只使用那些戒條允許的、目前被認為不炫耀的家具。當拜訪居士家中時，避免坐在看起來異常華麗的家具上。
The factors for the offense here are three.	這裡的犯戒因素有三個。
1) Object: a bed or bench stuffed with cotton down.	1）對象：填充棉絨的床或凳。
2) Effort: One obtains it after making it or having it made	2）努力：在製作或令人製作之後獲得它
3) Intention: for one’s own use.	3）意圖：供自己使用。

Object	對象
Cotton down, according to the Vibhaṅga, includes any down from trees, vines, and grass. The Commentary to Cv.VI.2.6 interprets this as meaning down from any plant, inasmuch as “trees, vines, and grass” is the Canon’s usual way of covering all plant life. Kapok, flax fibers, jute, and cotton would thus all come under this category.	棉絨，根據《經分別》，包括樹木、藤蔓和草類的任何絨毛。《小品》.六.2.6的《義註》將其解釋為任何植物的絨毛，因為「樹木、藤蔓和草類」是《聖典》通常用來指稱所有植物的方式。因此，木棉、亞麻纖維、黃麻和棉花都屬於此種類。
Because cotton-down cushions are forbidden in all situations, bed and bench here would seem to include all forms of furniture, including the stools, chairs, and sofas exempted from the preceding rule.	由於在任何情況下都禁止棉絨墊子，因此這裡的床和凳似乎包括所有形式的家具，包括前一條戒條中豁免的凳子、椅子和沙發。
Effort	努力
The permutations under this factor are as follows: the act of making the bed/bench or having it made—a dukkaṭa; obtaining the finished article—a pācittiya. This last penalty applies regardless of whether the bed/bench was made entirely by oneself, entirely by others either partly or entirely at one’s instigation, or whether one finished what others began or got others to finish what one began oneself. In any event, one must tear off the upholstery before confessing the offense.	此因素下的排列組合如下：製作床/凳的行為（或讓人製作）——《突吉羅》；獲得成品——《波逸提》。無論床/凳是完全由自己製作，或是完全由他人製作（部分或全部受自己唆使），亦或是完成他人開始之物，或令他人完成自己開始之物，均適用此最後一種懲罰。無論如何，在懺悔罪行之前，必須先撕掉填充物。
If one obtains an upholstered bed/bench made by another—not at one’s instigation—then using it entails a dukkaṭa (§).	如果獲得一張由他人製作的軟墊床/凳——並非應自己的要求——那麼使用它犯《突吉羅》（§）。
Intention	意圖
There is a dukkaṭa in making a bed or bench upholstered with cotton down—or having it made—for the sake of another person.	為了他人而製作或請人製作用棉絨填充的床或凳，犯《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense in using cotton down to stuff a pillow, a knee strap (§), a belt, a shoulder strap, or a bag for carrying the alms bowl; or to form the filter in a water strainer. If one obtains a bed or bench stuffed with cotton down made for another person’s use, there is no offense in using it if one removes the upholstery first.	用棉絨填充枕頭、膝帶（§）、皮帶、肩帶或用來裝缽的袋子，或製作濾水器的濾芯，並不犯戒。若獲得他人使用的、填充棉絨的床或凳，只要先移除其內部的填充物，使用它也不犯戒。
Summary: Obtaining a bed or bench stuffed with cotton down after making it—or having it made—for one’s own use is a pācittiya offense requiring that one remove the stuffing before confessing the offense.	摘要：為自己使用而製作——或請人製作——填充了棉絨的床或凳之後並獲得它，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，必須先取出填充物才能懺悔罪行。

* * *

89	八十九
When a bhikkhu is having a sitting cloth made, it is to be made to the standard measurement. Here the standard is this: two spans—using the sugata span—in length, one and a half spans in width, the border a span. In excess of that, it is to be cut down and confessed.	當比丘製作坐具時，必須按照標準尺寸製作。這裡的標準是這樣的：長度為兩張手（使用善逝張手），寬度為一個半張手，邊框為一張手。超過那者，應該被裁掉並懺悔[波逸提]。
The origin story here follows on the passage in Mv.VIII.16.1, where the Buddha allows bhikkhus to use a sitting cloth in order to protect their robes from getting soiled by their furnishings, and their furnishings from getting soiled by their robes and bodies.	這裡的起源故事延續《大品》.八.16.1 的段落，佛陀允許比丘使用坐具，以保護他們的袈裟不被他們的家具弄髒，以及他們的家具不被他們的袈裟和身體弄髒。
“Now at that time the Blessed One had allowed a sitting cloth for the bhikkhus. Some group-of-six bhikkhus… used sitting cloths, without any limit in size, that hung down in front and behind even on beds and benches.” (As a result, the Buddha set the limit at 2 by 1.5 spans.) Now, Ven. Udāyin was very large. Setting out his sitting cloth in front of the Blessed One, he stretched it out on all sides before sitting down. The Blessed One said to him, ‘Why is it, Udāyin, that when setting out your sitting cloth you stretch it out on all sides like a worker in old leather? (§)’	「其時世尊允許比丘們使用坐具。某六群比丘……使用坐具，沒有任何尺寸限制，甚至在床和凳子上都前後垂下。」（因此，佛陀將限制設為 2 x 1.5 張手。）其時，優陀夷尊者身體非常大。在世尊面前鋪其坐具，向四面八方展開，然後坐下。世尊對他說：『優陀夷，為什麼在鋪你的坐具時，你像一個穿著舊皮革的工人一樣將它向四面八方展開呢？(§)』
“Because the sitting cloth the Blessed One has allowed for the bhikkhus is way too small.’” (Thus the Buddha added the allowance for the border.)	「因為世尊允許比丘們的坐具太小了。』」（因此佛陀增加了邊框的開緣。）
There are three factors for the full offense here.	這裡完全違犯的因素有三個。
1) Object: a sitting cloth larger than the standard measure.	1）對象：比標準尺寸大的坐具。
2) Effort: One obtains it after making it or having it made	2）努力：在製作或令人製作之後獲得它
3) Intention: for one’s own use.	3）意圖：供自己使用。

Object	對象
A sitting cloth, by definition, has to have a border, regardless of whether it is made of felted or woven material. However—as none of the texts give any clear indication as to how many sides should have a border or how the borders should be patterned—there is no definitive measurement as to how large the overall cloth should be. A wise policy, then, is to take the origin story as a guide: Make the cloth large enough so that one can sit cross-legged on it without soiling one’s robes or furnishings, but not so large that it extends out on any side.	坐具，根據定義，必須有邊框，無論其材質是氈製還是編織。然而，由於沒有任何文獻明確指出坐具多少邊應該有邊框，或者邊框的圖案應該如何設計，因此坐具的整體尺寸並沒有確切的標準。所以，明智之舉是以起源故事為指導：製作坐具要足夠大，以便可以雙盤腿而坐而不會弄髒袈裟或家具，但又不能太大，以至於向四面八方延伸。
Effort	努力
The permutations under this factor are as follows: the act of making the sitting cloth or having it made—a dukkaṭa; obtaining the finished article—a pācittiya. This last penalty applies regardless of whether the cloth was made entirely by oneself, entirely by others either partly or entirely at one’s instigation, or whether one finished what others began or got others to finish what one began oneself. In any event, one must cut the cloth down to the proper size before confessing the offense.	此因素下的排列組合如下：製作或讓人製作坐具的行為——《突吉羅》；獲得成品——《波逸提》。無論坐具是完全由自己製作，或是完全由他人製作（部分或全部受自己唆使），亦或是完成他人開始之物，或令他人完成自己開始之物，均適用此最後一種懲罰。無論如何，在懺悔罪行之前，必須將坐具裁剪至合適尺寸。
If one obtains an oversized sitting cloth made by another—not at one’s instigation—then using it entails a dukkaṭa (§).	如果獲得一塊由他人製作的過大尺寸的坐具——並非應自己的要求——那麼使用它犯《突吉羅》（§）。
Intention	意圖
There is a dukkaṭa in making an overly large sitting cloth—or having it made—for the sake of another person.	為了他人而製作或請人製作過大的坐具，犯《突吉羅》。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense if one receives an overly large sitting cloth made by another person (§)—not at one’s instigation—and cuts it down to size before using it oneself. The non-offense clauses also state that there is no offense in a canopy, a floor-covering, a wall screen, a mattress/cushion, or a kneeling mat. This apparently means that if one receives an overly large sitting cloth, one may use it as a canopy, etc., instead.	若收到他人製作的過大坐具（§），且並非應自己的要求，並在使用前將其裁剪至合適尺寸，則不構成犯戒。不犯條款也規定，天篷、地墊、屏風、床墊/墊子或跪墊也不構成犯戒。這顯然意味著，如果收到過大的坐具，可以將其用作天篷等其他用途。
Summary: Obtaining an overly large sitting cloth after making it—or having it made—for one’s own use is a pācittiya offense requiring that one cut the cloth down to size before confessing the offense.	摘要：為自己使用而製作——或請人製作——過大的坐具後，獲得該坐具，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，必須先將坐具裁剪到合適的尺寸才能懺悔罪行。

* * *

90	九十
When a bhikkhu is having a skin-eruption covering cloth made, it is to be made to the standard measurement. Here the standard is this: four spans—using the sugata span—in length, two spans in width. In excess of that, it is to be cut down and confessed.	當比丘製作覆瘡布時，必須按照標準尺寸製作。這裡的標準是這樣的：長度為四張手（使用善逝張手），寬度為兩張手。超過那者，應該被裁掉並懺悔[波逸提]。
Object	對象
Mv.VIII.17 allows bhikkhus to use a skin-eruption covering cloth to protect their robes when they are suffering from boils, running sores, rashes, or “thick scab” diseases (large boils? psoriasis?). The Vibhaṅga to this rule states that the cloth is to cover the area from the navel down to the knees, thus suggesting that the cloth is intended to be worn as an inner robe beneath the lower robe. As we already mentioned under NP 1, one should determine these cloths for use when one is suffering from such a disease and place them under shared ownership when not.	《大品》.八.17 允許比丘在患癤、潰爛、皮疹或「厚痂」疾病（大癤？牛皮癬？）時，使用覆瘡布來保護袈裟。此戒條的《經分別》指出，布料應覆蓋從肚臍到膝蓋的區域，這表明布料應作為內衣穿在下衣之內。正如我們在《捨墮》一中所述，應在患此種病時決意這些布料使用，並在非患病時將其置於共享所有權之下。
As mentioned under Pc 87, above, the sugata measures are discussed in Appendix II. Here we take the sugata span to equal 25 cm., which would put the standard measurement for the skin-eruption covering cloth at 1 meter by 50 cm.	如上文《波逸提》八七所提到，善逝尺寸在附錄二中討論。這裡我們取善逝張手為 25 公分，這將使覆瘡布的標準尺寸為 1 公尺 x 50 公分。
Effort, intention, & non-offenses	努力，意圖，及不犯
The permutations of these factors are the same as under the preceding rule.	這些因素的排列組合與前一條戒條下的排列組合相同。
Summary: Obtaining an overly large skin-eruption covering cloth after making it—or having it made—for one’s own use is a pācittiya offense requiring that one cut the cloth down to size before confessing the offense.	摘要：為自己使用而製作——或請人製作——過大的覆瘡布後，獲得該覆瘡布，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，必須先將覆瘡布裁剪到合適的尺寸才能懺悔罪行。

* * *

91	九十一
When a bhikkhu is having a rains-bathing cloth made, it is to be made to the standard measurement. Here the standard is this: six spans—using the sugata span—in length, two and a half spans in width. In excess of that, it is to be cut down and confessed.	當比丘製作雨浴衣時，必須按照標準尺寸製作。這裡的標準是這樣的：長度為六張手（使用善逝張手），寬度為兩個半張手。超過那者，應該被裁掉並懺悔[波逸提]。
Object	對象
The rains-bathing cloth has already been discussed in detail under NP 24. Taking the sugata span as 25 cm., the standard measurement for the rains-bathing cloth would be 1.5 m. by 62.5 cm.	雨浴衣已在《捨墮》二四中詳細討論過。以善逝張手為 25 公分，雨浴衣的標準尺寸為 1.5 公尺 x 62.5 公分。
Effort, intention, & non-offenses	努力，意圖，及不犯
The permutations of these factors are the same as under Pc 89.	這些因素的排列組合與《波逸提》八九下的排列組合相同。
Summary: Obtaining an overly large rains-bathing cloth after making it—or having it made—for one’s own use is a pācittiya offense requiring that one cut the cloth down to size before confessing the offense.	摘要：為自己使用而製作——或請人製作——過大的雨浴衣後，獲得該雨浴衣，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，必須先將雨浴衣裁剪到合適的尺寸才能懺悔罪行。

* * *

92	九十二
Should any bhikkhu have a robe made the measurement of the sugata robe or larger, it is to be cut down and confessed. Here, the measurement of the Sugata’s sugata robe is this: nine spans—using the sugata span—in length, six spans in width. This is the measurement of the Sugata’s sugata robe.	若任何比丘所造的袈裟尺寸與善逝袈裟相同或更大，應該被裁掉並懺悔[波逸提]。這裡善逝袈裟的尺寸是這樣的：長度為九張手（使用善逝張手），寬度為六張手。此乃善逝袈裟的尺寸。
Object	對象
The term sugata—meaning well-gone or accomplished—is an epithet for the Buddha.	「sugata（善逝）」一詞意為善逝或成就，是佛陀的別稱。
Robe is not defined in the Vibhaṅga here but apparently means any of the three basic robes: the lower robe, the upper robe, and the outer robe. This raises an interesting point: Perhaps in the Buddha’s time all three of the basic robes were approximately the same size. This would have made it much more convenient than it is at present to hold to the practice of using only one set of three robes. When washing one robe, one could wear the other two without looking out of line.	「袈裟」一詞並未在《經分別》中對其進行定義，但顯然指的是基本的三衣：下衣、上衣和外衣。這引出了一個有趣的觀點：或許在佛陀時代，所有基本三衣的尺寸大致相同。這樣一來，堅持只使用一套三衣的修行就比現在方便得多。當清洗一件袈裟時，可以穿著另外兩件，而不會顯得不協調。
At any rate, taking the sugata span to be 25 cm. would put the size of the Buddha’s robes at 2.25 m. by 1.50 m.—much larger than the lower robes used at present, but much smaller than present-day upper and outer robes.	無論如何，如果將善逝張手取為 25 公分，那麼佛陀的袈裟尺寸將為 2.25 公尺乘以 1.50 公尺——比現在使用的下衣大得多，但比現在的上衣和外衣小得多。
As we will see under Appendix II, various theories have been offered over the centuries as to the length of the sugata span. Beginning at least with the time of the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā, one of the ancient commentaries, the Buddha was assumed to be of three-times normal height, and so his handspan, cubit, etc., were assumed to be three-times normal length. Only recently, within the last century or so, have Vinaya experts taken evidence from the Canon to show that the Buddha, though tall, was not abnormally so, and thus the estimate of the sugata span, etc., has shrunk accordingly. Still, the traditional estimates of the Buddha’s height continue to influence the size of the robes that bhikkhus wear today throughout the Theravādin countries. There was a movement in Thailand during the mid-19th century to return to the original size and style as shown in the earliest Indian Buddha images, but the idea never caught on.	正如我們將在附錄二中看到的，幾個世紀以來，關於善逝張手的長度的各種理論被提出。至少從古代註釋書之一《Mahā Aṭṭhakathā》時期開始，佛陀被認為身高是常人的三倍，因此他的張手、肘長等也被認為是常人的三倍。直到最近一個世紀左右，律藏專家才從《聖典》中尋找證據，顯示佛陀雖然身材高大，但並非異常高大，因此對張手等的估計也相應縮小。儘管如此，關於佛陀身高的傳統估計仍然影響著當今上座部佛教國家比丘所穿袈裟的尺寸。19世紀中期，泰國曾出現過一場運動，試圖恢復最早期印度佛像所展現的原始尺寸和樣式，但這一理念並未流行起來。
Effort, intention, & non-offenses	努力，意圖，及不犯
The permutations of these factors are the same as under Pc 89.	這些因素的排列組合與《波逸提》八九下的排列組合相同。
Summary: Obtaining an overly large robe after making it—or having it made—for one’s own use is a pācittiya offense requiring that one cut the robe down to size before confessing the offense.	摘要：為自己使用而製作——或請人製作——過大的袈裟後，獲得該袈裟，是《波逸提》（《單墮》）罪，必須先將袈裟裁剪到合適的尺寸才能懺悔罪行。