法与律

Dhamma-Vinaya was the Buddha’s own name for the religion he founded. Dhamma—the truth—is what he discovered and pointed out as advice for all who want to gain release from suffering. Vinaya—discipline—is what he formulated as rules, ideals, and standards of behavior for those of his followers who go forth from home life to take up the quest for release in greater earnestness. Although this book deals primarily with discipline, we should note at the outset that total training in the Buddha’s path requires that Dhamma and Vinaya function together. In theory they may be separate, but in the person who practices them they merge as qualities developed in the mind and character. Dhamma-Vinaya（法与律）是佛陀对自己所创立的宗教的名字。法（Dhamma）——真理——是他发现并指出的，作为对所有想要从痛苦中解脱的人的建议。律（Vinaya）是他为追随者制定的规则、理想和行为标准。这些追随者离开家庭生活，更加认真地寻求解脱。虽然本书主要讨论戒律，但我们首先应该注意，佛陀道路上的全面修行需要法与律的共同作用。从理论上讲，它们可能是分开的，但对于实践它们的人来说，它们作为心灵和性格中发展的品质而融合在一起。
“Gotamī, the qualities of which you may know, ‘These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered and not to being fettered; to shedding and not to accumulating; to modesty and not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment and not to discontent; to seclusion and not to entanglement; to aroused energy and not to laziness; to being unburdensome and not to being burdensome’: You may definitely hold, ‘This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’”—Cv.X.5
“瞿昙弥！若汝所知之法，‘此法导致冷静而非热情、导致离系而非系缚、导致损减而非积集、导致谦逊而非自夸、导致满足而非不满足、资长闲寂而非纠缠、导致精勤而非懈怠、导致易养而非难养者’：汝可以肯定：‘此是法、此是律、此是导师之言教。’”—《小品》.十.5
Ultimately, the Buddha said, just as the sea has a single taste, that of salt, so too the Dhamma and Vinaya have a single taste: that of release. The connection between discipline and release is spelled out in a passage that recurs at several points in the Canon: 佛陀说，最终，正如大海只有一种味道，即盐的味道一样，法和律也只有一种味道：解脱的味道。戒律和解脱之间的联系在《圣典》中多次重复出现的一段话中得到了阐明：
“Discipline is for the sake of restraint, restraint for the sake of freedom from remorse, freedom from remorse for the sake of joy, joy for the sake of rapture, rapture for the sake of tranquility, tranquility for the sake of pleasure, pleasure for the sake of concentration, concentration for the sake of knowledge and vision of things as they have come to be, knowledge and vision of things as they have come to be for the sake of disenchantment, disenchantment for the sake of dispassion, dispassion for the sake of release, release for the sake of knowledge and vision of release, knowledge and vision of release for the sake of total unbinding through non-clinging.”—Pv.XII.2
「戒律是为了克制，克制是为了无悔，无悔是为了欢悦，欢悦是为了喜，喜是为了轻安，轻安是为了乐，乐是为了定，定是为了如实知见，如实知见是为了厌离，厌离是为了离欲，离欲是为了解脱，解脱是为了解脱知见，解脱知见是为了无取著般涅槃。」——《附随》.十二.2
In establishing his religion of release, though, the Buddha did not simply set out a body of recommendations and rules. He also founded a company (parisā) of followers. This company falls into four main groups: bhikkhus (monks), bhikkhunīs (nuns), lay men, and lay women. Although the Buddha saw no need to organize the laity in any manner, he arranged for the bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs—who had given up the entanglements of the household life to devote themselves more fully to the goal of release—to develop into communities. And he saw that they needed, as all communities do, ideals and standards, rules and customs to ensure their stability. This need is what gave rise to the Vinaya. 然而，在建立他的解脱宗教时，佛陀并没有仅只提出一系列建议和规则。他还创立了追随众（ parisā ）。该众分为四个主要群体：比丘、比丘尼、优婆塞（男在家）和优婆夷（女在家）。虽然佛陀认为没有必要以任何方式组织在家众，但他安排比丘和比丘尼——他们已经放弃了家庭生活的纠缠，更充分地致力于解脱的目标——发展成团体。他认为，正如所有团体一样，他们需要理想和标准、规则和习俗来确保稳定。这种需要就是戒律的产生。
In the early years of the Buddha’s career, the texts tell us, there was no need to formulate monastic disciplinary rules. All of the bhikkhus in his following—the Community of bhikkhunīs had not yet been started—were men of high personal attainments who had succeeded in subduing many or all of their mental defilements. They knew his teachings well and behaved accordingly. The Canon tells of how Ven. Sāriputta, one of the Buddha’s foremost disciples, asked the Buddha at an early date to formulate a Pāṭimokkha, or code of rules, to ensure that the celibate life the Buddha had founded would last long, just as a thread holding together a floral arrangement ensures that the flowers are not scattered by the wind. The Buddha replied that the time for such a code had not yet come, for even the most backward of the men in the Community at that time had already had their first glimpse of the goal. Only when mental effluents (āsava) made themselves felt in the Community would there be a need for a Pāṭimokkha. 文献告诉我们，在佛陀生涯的早期，没有必要制戒。他追随者中的所有比丘——比丘尼僧团尚未成立——都是具有很高个人成就的人，他们已经成功地降伏了许多或全部的心理烦恼。他们非常了解他的教导，并按照他的教导行事。《圣典》讲述了舍利弗尊者是佛陀的上首弟子之一，他很早就请求佛陀制定《波罗提木叉》戒律，以确保佛陀所创立的梵行生活能够久住，就像用一根线将插花连接在一起一样，花不会被风吹散。佛陀回答说，制戒的时候还没有到来，因为即使是当时僧团中最落后的人也已经得法眼净。只有当漏（ āsava ）在僧团中出现时，才会需要《波罗提木叉》。
As time passed, the conditions that provided an opening for the effluents within the Community eventually began to appear. The Bhaddāli Sutta (MN 65) presents the Buddha at a later point in his career listing these conditions as five: 随著时间的推移，僧团内漏的因缘最终开始出现。 《跋陀利经》 （《中部》65经）佛陀在生涯的后期将这些因缘列出为五个：

Ven. Bhaddāli: “Why is it, venerable sir, that there used to be fewer training rules and more bhikkhus established in the knowledge of Awakening? And why is it that there are now more training rules and fewer bhikkhus established in the knowledge of Awakening?” [Bhaddāli, who has been unwilling to abide by the training rules, seems to be suggesting that the rise in the number of training rules is itself the cause for fewer bhikkhus’ attaining Awakening. The Buddha, however, offers a different explanation.]

The Buddha: “So it is, Bhaddāli. When beings have begun to degenerate and the true Dhamma has begun to disappear, there are more training rules and fewer bhikkhus established in the knowledge of Awakening. The Teacher does not lay down a training rule for his disciples as long as there are no cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents have arisen in the Community. But when there are cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents have arisen in the Community, then the Teacher lays down a training rule for his disciples so as to counteract those very conditions.

“There are no cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents have arisen in the Community as long as the Community has not become large. But when the Community has become large, then there are cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents arise in the Community, and the Teacher then lays down a training rule for his disciples so as to counteract those very conditions.... When the Community possesses great material gains... great status... a large body of learning… When the Community is long-standing, then there are cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the effluents arise in the Community, and the Teacher then lays down a training rule for his disciples so as to counteract those very conditions.”

〔跋陀利曰：〕「师尊！依何因、何缘，昔日学处较少而悟入住立之比丘较多耶？又，师尊！依何因、何缘，今日学处较多而悟入住立之比丘〔反〕较少耶？」[跋陀利一直不愿意遵守戒律，他似乎在暗示戒律数量的增加本身就是导致证悟的比丘减少的原因。然而，佛陀提供了不同的解释。]

〔世尊曰：〕「跋陀利！其实如次：即于诸有情衰落、正法灭没时，学处较多而悟入住立之比丘较少。跋陀利！在此少许漏住法不现于僧团之期间内，师对诸弟子不予制定学处。跋陀利！若有少许漏住法出现僧团中时，此时师为防卫彼等诸漏住法，而为诸弟子制定学处。

跋陀利！僧众不达广大期间，在此，无少许漏住法出现于僧团中。然而，跋陀利！僧众达广大期间时，在此，少许漏住法出现于僧团中。此时，师为防护彼等漏住法，对诸弟子制定学处也。跋陀利！僧团不达〔追求〕最胜利养……乃至……〔不〕达最胜名闻……〔不〕达〔世俗〕多闻……〔不〕达经验丰富期间（十腊），在此无少许漏住法显现于僧团中。然而，跋陀利！僧团到达经验丰富时，在此，少许漏住法出现于僧团中。此时，师为防卫彼等漏住法，对诸弟子制定学处也。
Thus the rules themselves were not the cause for degeneracy in the Community, and the conditions that provided a foothold for the effluents were not themselves effluents. Rather, the growing complexity of the Community provided the opportunity for bhikkhus to act on the basis of their defilements in a growing variety of ways, and the rules—although they could not prevent any of the five conditions—had to become correspondingly complex to counteract the opportunities those conditions provided for unenlightened behavior. 因此，戒律本身并不是僧团堕落的原因，为漏提供立足点的因缘本身也不是漏。相反，僧团的日益复杂性为比丘们提供了机会，以越来越多的方式根据他们的烦恼采取行动，而戒律——尽管它们不能阻止五种因缘中的任何一种——必须变得相对应地复杂以抵销这些因缘为无明的行为提供的机会。
Even when these conditions did arise, though, the Buddha did not set out a full code at once. Instead, he formulated rules one at a time in response to events. The considerations that went into formulating each rule are best illustrated by the events surrounding the formulation of the first. 然而，即使这些因缘确实出现，佛陀也没有立即制定完整的戒律。相反，他针对事件一次一个地制戒。制定每个戒条时所考虑的因素可以透过围绕第一个戒条制定时的事件得到最好的说明。
Ven. Sudinna, the story goes, had strong faith in the Buddha and had ordained after receiving his parents’ grudging consent. He was their only child and, though married, was childless. His parents, fearing that the government would confiscate their property at their death if it had no heir, devised various schemes to lure Ven. Sudinna back to the lay life, but to no avail. Finally, his mother realized that he was firm in his intention to stay a bhikkhu and so asked him at least to have intercourse with his former wife so that their property would have an heir. Ven. Sudinna consented, took his wife into the forest, and had intercourse three times. 据说， 须提那迦兰陀子 尊者对佛陀有著坚定的信心，并在父母勉强同意后出家。他是父母唯一的孩子，虽然已婚，但没有孩子。他的父母担心，如果他们死后没有继承人，政府会没收他们的财产，因此设计了各种计划来引诱须提那尊者重回俗家生活，但却无效。最后，他的母亲意识到他做比丘的决心很坚定，所以要求他至少和他的前妻发生性关系，这样他们的财产就有继承人。须提那尊者答应了，带著妻子走进森林，发生了三次性关系。
Immediately he felt remorse and eventually confessed his deed to his fellow bhikkhus. Word reached the Buddha, who called a meeting of the Community, questioned Ven. Sudinna, and gave him a rebuke. The rebuke fell into two major parts. In the first part, the Buddha reminded Ven. Sudinna of his position as a samaṇa —a monk or contemplative—and that his behavior was unworthy of his position. Also, the Buddha pointed out to him the aims of the teaching and noted that his behavior ran counter to them. The implication here was that Ven. Sudinna had not only acted inconsistently with the content of the teaching, but had also shown callous disregard for the Buddha’s compassionate aims in making the Dhamma known. 他立刻感到后悔，并最终向同侪比丘坦白了自己的行为。消息传到了佛陀那里，佛陀召开了一次僧团会议，询问了须提那尊者，并诃责了他。诃责分为两个主要部分。第一部分，佛陀提醒须提那尊者，指出他作为 samaṇa （沙门）的地位，以及他的行为与他的地位不相称。此外，佛陀向他指出了教法的目的，并指出他的行为与这些目的背道而驰。这里的意思是须提那尊者的行为不仅与佛法的内容不符，而且还冷酷无情地漠视佛陀弘扬佛法的慈悲目的。

“‘Worthless man, it is unseemly, out of line, unsuitable, and unworthy of a contemplative; improper and not to be done…. Haven’t I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the sake of dispassion and not for passion; for unfettering and not for fettering; for freedom from clinging and not for clinging? Yet here, while I have taught the Dhamma for dispassion, you set your heart on passion; while I have taught the Dhamma for unfettering, you set your heart on being fettered; while I have taught the Dhamma for freedom from clinging, you set your heart on clinging.

“‘Worthless man, haven’t I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the fading of passion, the sobering of intoxication, the subduing of thirst, the destruction of attachment, the severing of the round, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, unbinding? Haven’t I in many ways advocated abandoning sensual pleasures, comprehending sensual perceptions, subduing sensual thirst, destroying sensual thoughts, calming sensual fevers? Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman’s vagina. Why is that? For that reason you would undergo death or death-like suffering, but you would not on that account, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. But for this reason you would, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell….

“‘Worthless man, this neither inspires faith in the faithless nor increases the faithful. Rather, it inspires lack of faith in the faithless and wavering in some of the faithful.’”

「愚人！此非相应法、非随顺行、非威仪、非沙门行、非清净行、非所当为……我以种种方便为离欲而说法，非为具欲；为离缚而说法，非为具缚；为无著而说法，非为有著。然而，须提那！汝实将我所说离欲法，以为具欲；所说离缚法，以为具缚；所说无著法，以为有著。

愚人！我以种种方便，岂非为离欲而说法；为破憍慢、为调伏渴爱、为除去执著、为断绝轮回、为灭尽爱、为离欲、为证灭、为涅槃而说法耶？我以种种方便，岂非说诸欲之断灭、说诸欲想之遍知、说诸欲渴之调伏、说诸欲寻之灭除、说诸欲热之止静耶？愚人！宁入男根于毒蛇口中，亦勿入于女根中。宁入男根于恐怖毒牙口中，亦勿入于女根中。宁入男根于燃盛之火坑中，亦勿入于女根中。何以故？由彼因缘，实可能受死或等于死之苦，而身坏命终后，不生于恶处、恶道、苦趣、地狱。然而，由此因缘，身坏命终后，当生恶处、恶道、苦趣、地狱……

愚人！此非令未信者生信，已信者增长也。此实是使未信者不生信，已信者部分转向他去也。」
The second part of the rebuke dealt in terms of personal qualities: those that a bhikkhu practicing discipline is to abandon, and those he is to develop. 诃责的第二部分涉及个人素质：比丘修习戒律时应舍弃的素质，以及修持戒律时应培养的素质。
“Then the Blessed One, having in many ways rebuked Ven. Sudinna, having spoken in dispraise of being burdensome, demanding, arrogant, discontented, entangled, and indolent; in various ways having spoken in praise of being unburdensome, undemanding, modest, content, scrupulous, austere, gracious, self-effacing, and energetic; having given a Dhamma talk on what is seemly and becoming for bhikkhus, addressed the bhikkhus.”
「如是，世尊以种种方便呵责尊者须提那后，说难扶养、难教养、多欲不知足、参与众中、放逸之非。然后，以种种方便，说易扶养、易教养、清净少欲知足、好头陀行、端正而不参与众中、勇猛精进之美，并且为诸比丘说随顺适切之法后，谓诸比丘曰：」
This was where the Buddha formulated the training rule, after first stating his reasons for doing so. 佛陀在先陈述他这样做的理由之后，制定学处。
“‘In that case, bhikkhus, I will formulate a training rule for the bhikkhus with ten aims in mind: the excellence of the Community, the comfort of the Community, the curbing of the impudent, the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of effluents related to the present life, the prevention of effluents related to the next life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the true Dhamma, and the fostering of discipline.’”
「诸比丘！然，以十利故，我为诸比丘制立学处，为摄僧、为僧安乐、为调伏恶人、为善比丘得安乐住、为防护现世漏、为灭后世漏、为令未信者生信、为令已信者增长、为令正法久住、为敬重律。」
These reasons fall into three main types. The first two are external: 1) to ensure peace and well being within the Community itself, and 2) to foster and protect faith among the laity, on whom the bhikkhus depend for their support. (The origin stories of the various rules depict the laity as being very quick to generalize. One bhikkhu misbehaves, and they complain, “How can these Sakyan-son monks do that?”) The third type of reason, though, is internal: The rule is to help restrain and prevent mental effluents within the individual bhikkhus. Thus the rules aim not only at the external well being of the Community but also at the internal well being of the individual. This latter point soon becomes apparent to anyone who seriously tries to keep to the rules, for they foster mindfulness and circumspection in one’s actions, qualities that carry over into the training of the mind. 这些原因主要分为三种。前两者是外在的：1）确保僧团内部的和平与福祉，以及2）培养和保护在家人的信仰，比丘们依赖他们的支持。（各种戒律的起源故事都描述了居士非常容易一概而论。一位比丘行为不端，他们抱怨道：「这些释迦子沙门怎么能这么做呢？」）第三种原因是内在的：戒律是为了帮助限制和防止个别比丘们的精神烦恼。因此，规则不仅旨在实现僧团的外在福祉，而且还旨在实现个人的内在福祉。对于任何认真遵守戒律的人来说，后一点很快就会变得显而易见，因为它们培养了一个人行动中的正念和谨慎，这些品质会延续到心的训练中。
Over the course of time the Buddha formulated more than 200 major and minor rules, forming the Pāṭimokkha that was recited fortnightly in each Community of bhikkhus. In addition, he formulated many other minor rules that were memorized by those of his followers who specialized in the subject of discipline, but nothing is known for sure of what format they used to organize this body of knowledge during his lifetime. 随著时间的推移，佛陀制定了超过 200 条主要和次要的戒律，形成了每个比丘僧团每半月念诵的《波罗提木叉》。此外，他还制定了许多其他小戒条，这些戒条被他的那些专精戒律的追随者记住了，但我们无法确定他们在他一生中使用什么格式来组织这一知识体系。
After his total nibbāna, though, his followers made a concerted effort to establish a standard canon of Dhamma and Vinaya, and the Pali Canon as we know it began to take shape. The Vinaya was organized into two main parts: 1) the Sutta Vibhaṅga, the ‘Exposition of the Text’ (which from here on we will refer to simply as the Vibhaṅga), containing almost all the material dealing with the Pāṭimokkha rules; and 2) the Khandhakas, or Groupings, which contain the remaining material organized loosely according to subject matter. The Khandhakas themselves are divided into two parts, the Mahāvagga, or Greater Chapter, and the Cullavagga, or Lesser Chapter. Historians estimate that the Vibhaṅga and Khandhakas reached their present form in approximately the 2nd century B.C.E., and that the Parivāra, or Addenda—a summary and study guide—was added a few centuries later, closing the Vinaya Piṭaka, the part of the Canon dealing with discipline. 然而，在他无余涅槃之后，他的追随者齐心协力建立了标准的法和律经典，而我们所知的《巴利圣典》开始成形。戒律分为两个主要部分：1）Sutta Vibhaṅga《经分别》，即「文本的解释」（从这里开始，我们将简称为 Vibhaṅga），包含几乎所有涉及《波罗提木叉》戒条的材料； 2) Khandhaka《犍度》或称篇章，其中包含根据主题松散组织的剩余材料。《犍度》本身分为两部分：Mahāvagga（大品）和 Cullavagga（小品）。历史学家估计，《经分别》和《犍度》在大约公元前2世纪达到了现在的形式，而 Parivāra 或称《附随》——一份总结和学习指南——在几个世纪后被添加，完成了《律藏》（Vinaya Piṭaka），即《圣典》有关戒律的部份。
Because the purpose of this volume is to translate and explain the Pāṭimokkha, we are most directly concerned with the Vibhaṅga. It is organized as follows: The rules in the Pāṭimokkha are presented one by one, each rule preceded by an origin story relating the events leading up to its formulation. In some instances a rule went through one or more reformulations, in which case an additional story is provided for each amendment to show what prompted it. With each new formulation of a rule, any previous formulations were automatically rescinded. Otherwise, the added restrictions or allowances contained in the reformulations would have been rendered meaningless. Thus, the final formulation of the rule is the authoritative one, with the earlier formulations holding only historical interest. 因为本册的目的是翻译和解释《波罗提木叉》，所以我们最直接关心的是《经分别》。它的组织如下：《波罗提木叉》中的戒条一个接一个介绍，每条戒条之前都有一个起源故事，讲述了导致其制定的事件。在某些情况下，一条戒条经历了一次或多次重新制定，在这种情况下，为每一项修正提供了一个额外的故事，以显示促使其发生的原因。随著戒条的每一个新的制定，任何先前的制定都将自动废除。否则，重新制定中所包含的附加限制或开缘将变得毫无意义。因此，该戒条的最终表述具有权威性，而早期的表述仅具有历史意义。
After the final statement of the rule is a word-analysis (pada-bhājaniya), which explains in detail most of the important terms in the rule. For many of the rules this analysis includes one or more “wheels,” or tables, giving the contingencies connected with the rule, working out all their possible permutations and passing judgment as to what penalty, if any, each permutation entails. For example, the discussion of the first rule contains a wheel that gives all the objects with which a person might have sexual intercourse, lists them against the variables of the sort of intercourse and whether or not the bhikkhu involved gives his consent, and announces the penalty for each possible combination of factors. 戒条的最后陈述之后是语句解说 (pada-bhājaniya)，它详细解释了戒条中的大多数重要术语。对于许多戒条，这种解说包括一个或多个「轮子」，或称表格，给出与戒条相关的意外情况，计算出所有可能的排列，并判断每种排列所带来的惩罚（如果有的话）。例如，第一条戒条的讨论包含一个轮子，给出一个人可能发生性交的所有物体，根据性交类型以及所涉及的比丘是否同意的变数列出它们，并宣布对每种可能的因素组合的惩罚。
Following the word-analysis for each rule is a section of non-offense clauses, listing extenuating circumstances under which a bhikkhu would be exempted from the penalty imposed by the rule. 每条戒条的语句解说之后是不犯条款部分，列出了比丘可以免除该戒条所施加的处罚的情有可原的情况。
Finally, for the major rules, there is the Vinīta-vatthu, or Precedents, listing various cases related to the rule and giving verdicts as to what penalty, if any, they entail. 最后，对于主要戒条，有《Vinīta-vatthu》（先例），列出了与该戒条相关的各种案例，并就这些戒条所带来的惩罚（如果有的话）给出了判决。
The Vibhaṅga forms the basis for most of the explanations of the training rules given in this volume. However, there are many questions on which the Vibhaṅga is silent or unclear. To answer these questions, I have turned either to the Khandhakas or to the commentarial literature that has grown up around the Vinaya over the course of the centuries. The primary works I have consulted are these: 《经分别》构成了本册大部分学处解释的基础。然而，有许多问题《经分别》没有提及或不清楚。为了回答这些问题，我要么求助于《犍度》，要么求助于几个世纪以来围绕戒律发展起来的注释文献。我查阅过的主要著作有：
  1. The Samanta-pāsādikā—“The Thoroughly Inspiring”—(from here on referred to as the Commentary), a commentary on the Vinaya Piṭaka compiled in the 5th century C.E. by Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa, who based his work on ancient commentaries. The originals for these ancient commentaries may have been brought to Sri Lanka from India and translated into Sinhalese, but frequent references throughout the commentaries to places and people in Sri Lanka show that much of the material in the commentaries was composed in Sri Lanka. From internal evidence in Buddhaghosa’s writings—he compiled commentaries on a major portion of the Canon—historians have estimated that the ancient commentaries were collected over a span of several centuries and closed in approximately the 4th century C.E. Buddhaghosa’s work thus contains material much older than his date would indicate.
 1） Samanta-pāsādikā 《一切善见》 、《普端严》、《善见注》 －「彻底启发」－（以下称为《义注》），是由 尊敬的导师 佛音 (Bhadantācariya Buddhaghosa) 在古代注释的基础上于公元5世纪编撰的一部律藏注释。这些古代注释的原件可能是从印度带到斯里兰卡并翻译成僧伽罗语，但注释中经常提到斯里兰卡的地方和人物，这表明注释中的大部分材料是在斯里兰卡撰写的。根据佛音著作中的内部证据（他对《圣典》的主要部分进行了注释），历史学家估计这些古代注释是在几个世纪的时间里收集起来的，并于大约公元4世纪完成。因此，佛音的作品中包含的材料比他的时期所显示的要古老得多。
By Buddhaghosa’s time a belief had grown up that the ancient commentaries were the work of the Buddha’s immediate disciples and thus indisputably conveyed the true intent of the Canon. However, as we shall see below, the ancient commentaries themselves did not make such exalted claims for themselves. 到了佛音时代，人们逐渐相信古代注释是佛陀直接弟子的作品，因而无可争议地传达了《圣典》的真实意图。然而，正如我们将在下面看到的，古代注释本身并没有做出如此崇高的宣称。
Still, the existence of this belief in the 5th century placed certain constraints on Buddhaghosa’s work. At points where the ancient commentaries conflicted with the Canon, he had to write the discrepancies off as copier’s mistakes or else side with the commentaries against the Canon. At a few points, such as his explanation of Pc 9, he provides arguments effectively demolishing the ancient commentaries’ interpretation but then backs off, saying that the ancient commentaries must be right because their authors knew the Buddha’s intentions. Perhaps pressure from the elder bhikkhus at the Mahāvihāra in Anurādhapura—the place where the ancient commentaries had been preserved and where Buddhaghosa was allowed to do his work—was what made him back off in this way. At any rate, only on points where the different ancient commentaries were silent or gave divergent opinions did he feel free to express his own. 尽管如此，这种在五世纪存在的相信还是对佛音的作品造成了一定的限制。当古代注释与《圣典》发生冲突时，他必须将这些差异作为抄写者的错误予以记录，否则就站在反对《圣典》的注释一边。在一些要点上，例如他对《波逸提》九的解释，他提供了有效地推翻古代注释解释的论据，但随后又退缩了，说古代注释一定是正确的，因为它们的作者知道佛陀的意图。也许是来自 阿㝹罗陀补罗 大寺 的长老比丘们的压力——那里保存著古代注释，佛音也被允许在那里做他的工作——是让他如此退缩的原因。无论如何，只有在不同的古代注释没有提及或有不同意见的地方，他才可以自由地表达自己的观点。
  1. The Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī—“The Subjugator of Uncertainty”—(the K/Commentary), a commentary on the Pāṭimokkha also compiled by Buddhaghosa. Although this work is largely a synopsis of material in the Commentary, it contains some independent material, in particular a system of classifying the offenses under each training rule into their component factors. It also contradicts the Commentary from time to time, suggesting that it may have been based on a commentarial tradition different from the one underlying the Commentary.
 2） Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī 《疑惑度脱》 －「不确定性的征服者」－（K/《义注》），也是佛音编撰的《波罗提木叉》的注释。虽然这部作品主要是《义注》中材料的概要，但它包含一些独立的材料，特别是将每个学处下的违规行为分类为其组成因素的体系。它也不时与《义注》相矛盾，表明它所基于的注释传统可能与《义注》所依据的注释传统不同。
  1. The Sārattha-dīpanī—“The Essence-Meaning Illustrator”—(the Sub-commentary), a sub-commentary on the Commentary, written in Sri Lanka in the 12th century C.E. by a Ven. Sāriputta, the first Mahāsāmin, or head of the Sri Lankan Saṅgha, after that Saṅgha was reformed and unified under the patronage of King Parakrāmabāhu I. This work not only explains the Commentary but also deals with points in the Canon itself, sometimes indicating passages where the Commentary has deviated from the Canon. It also quotes as authoritative the judgments of three ancient texts—the Gaṇṭhipadas, which are no longer extant—and of Ven. Buddhadatta, a scholar of the 4th century C.E. who wrote two extant Vinaya guides.
 3） Sārattha-dīpanī 《阐明实义》、《实义灯疏》、《心义灯》 ——「精义说明者」——（《复注》），是《义注》的再注释，于公元 12 世纪在斯里兰卡，由沙利子(Sāriputta)尊者撰写，他是第一任摩诃萨明(Mahāsāmin)，斯里兰卡僧伽的领袖。之后，僧伽在 波罗迦罗摩巴忽一世 (Parakrāmabāhu I) 的赞助下进行了改革和统一。这部著作不仅解释了《义注》，也涉及《圣典》本身的要点，有时指出了《义注》已偏离《圣典》的段落。它也将三部古代文献的判断做为权威引述，包含现已不复存在的《隐晦文句》（Gaṇṭhipada），以及两本现存的戒律指南，由公元 4 世纪的学者佛授(Buddhadatta)尊者撰写。
  1. The Vimati-vinodanī—“The Remover of Perplexity”—(the V/Sub-commentary), another 12th-century sub-commentary, written in southern India by a Ven. Kassapa, who also wrote the Mohavicchedanī, a synopsis of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka and Buddhaghosa’s commentaries on it.
 4） Vimati-vinodanī 《除疑》－「困惑的消除者」－（V/《复注》），另一本 12 世纪的《复注》，由 迦舍博尊者 在南印度撰写，他也写了《断除愚痴》（ Mohavicchedanī ）、是 《论藏》 和佛音对其的注释的概要。
  1. The Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī-purāṇa-ṭīkā and the Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī-abhinava-ṭīkā—the old and new sub-commentaries to the K/Commentary—(Old K/Sub-commentary and New K/Sub-commentary). The first, which appears to be missing some passages, was written by an unnamed author during the Anurādhapura period, which predates the time of the Ven. Sāriputta mentioned above. The second—whose full name is the Vinayattha-mañjūsā Līnapakāsanī, “The Chest for the Meaning of the Discipline, the Clarifier of Subtle Meaning”—was written by Ven. Buddhanāga, a student of Ven. Sāriputta. Both works comment not only on the K/Commentary but also on the Commentary and the Canon.
 5） Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī-purāṇa-ṭīkā 《疑惑度脱旧复注》和 Kaṅkhā-vitaraṇī-abhinava-ṭīkā 《疑惑度脱新复注》－K/《义注》的新旧《复注》－（旧K/《复注》和新K/《复注》）。第一本似乎缺少一些段落，是由一位不知名的作者在 阿㝹罗陀补罗 时期撰写的，该时期早于上面提到的沙利子(Sāriputta)尊者的时代。第二本书的全名是 Vinayattha-mañjūsā Līnapakāsanī ，「戒律意义的宝箱，微妙意义的澄清者」－由佛龙尊者(Buddhanāga)撰写，他是沙利子尊者的弟子。这两本著作不仅对K/《义注》做了注释，而且还对《义注》和《圣典》做了注释。
  1. The Attha-yojanā—“The Interpretation of the Meaning”—(the A/Sub-commentary), a sub-commentary that—unlike the works of Vens. Sāriputta, Kassapa, and Buddhanāga—does little more than analyze the language of the Commentary. This was written in the 15th century C.E. by a Chieng Mai grammarian named Ven. Ñāṇakitti.
 6） Attha-yojanā——「意义的解释」——（A/《复注》），是一本再注释书——与沙利子、迦舍博和佛龙尊者的著作不同——所做的只不过是分析《义注》的语言。这是由一位名叫智名(Ñāṇakitti)尊者的清迈文法学家于公元 15 世纪撰写的。
From here on “the ancient commentaries” will denote the original commentaries that Buddhaghosa had to work with, and “the commentaries” all seven works listed above. 从这里开始，「古代注释」指佛音所著的原始注释，而「注释」则指上面列出的所有七部作品。
In addition to the Canon and the commentaries, I have referred to the texts listed in the Bibliography. Three of these deserve special mention here. 除了《圣典》和注释之外，我还参考了参考书目中列出的文本。其中三个值得特别一提。
  1. The Pubbasikkhā-vaṇṇanā, a large compendium of rules from the Canon and the Commentary, compiled in 1860 by Phra Amarabhirakkhit (Amaro Koed), a pupil of King Rāma IV. This was the first comprehensive Vinaya guide compiled for use in the Dhammayut sect, which was founded by Rāma IV while he was still a monk. Although this book was officially supplanted by the Vinaya-mukha (see below), many Communities in Thailand, especially among the Kammaṭṭhāna forest tradition, still prefer it as more authoritative. The book contains a minimum of explanatory material, but it does occasionally provide interpretations of the Canon that cannot be traced directly to the Commentary. Many of these interpretations were carried over into the Vinaya-mukha, so a bhikkhu practicing in Thailand would be well advised to know them. Thus I have made reference to them wherever relevant.
 1） Pubbasikkhā-vaṇṇanā ，一部来自《圣典》和《义注》的大型戒条纲要，由 拉玛四世 国王的弟子 Phra Amarabhirakkhit (Amaro Koed) 于 1860 年编撰。这是第一本供 法宗派 使用的综合戒律指南，该教派是由拉玛四世在还是比丘时创立的。尽管这本书已正式被《戒律入口》（见下文）取代，但泰国的许多僧团，尤其是 泰国森林传统 中，仍然更偏好它，更具权威性。本书包含最少的解释性资料，但偶尔也会提供对《圣典》的解释，这些解释无法直接追溯到《义注》。其中许多解释都被带入到了《戒律入口》中，所以在泰国修行的比丘最好了解它们。因此，我在相关的地方会提到它们。
  1. The Vinaya-mukha, a guide to the Vinaya written in Thai in the early 20th century by Prince Vajirañāṇavarorasa, a son of King Rāma IV who ordained as a bhikkhu and eventually held the position of Supreme Patriarch of the Thai Saṅgha for many years. This work he wrote as part of his attempt both to create a centralized, bhikkhu-administered ecclesiastical organization for the Thai Saṅgha and to unite its two major sects. The attempt at unification failed, but the attempt at centralization succeeded, and the book is still used as the official textbook on Vinaya for the examinations run by the Thai Council of Elders. Prince Vajirañāṇa in his interpretations often disagrees openly not only with the commentaries, but also with the Vibhaṅga itself. Some of his disagreements with the commentaries are well taken, some not.
 2） 《戒律入口》（ Vinaya-mukha ），20世纪初由 Vajirañāṇavarorasa 王子 所著的泰语戒律指南。他是 拉玛四世 国王之儿子，受戒成为比丘，最终成为了 泰国僧伽的僧王 多年。他写这本书是他为泰国僧伽创建一个中央集权的、由比丘管理的教团组织，并统一其两个主要教派的尝试的一部分。统一的尝试失败了，但中央集权的尝试成功了，这本书仍然被用作泰国长老会考试的官方戒律教科书。金刚智(Vajirañāṇa)王子在他的解释中不仅经常公开地不同意注释，而且也不同意《经分别》本身。他对注释的一些不同意见得到了广泛接受，而另一些则没有。
I include the book here both for the valuable suggestions it makes for dealing with unclear points in the older texts and because it is taken as authoritative through much of Thailand. It has been translated into English, as The Entrance to the Vinaya, but the translation is so flawed that I have chosen to translate anew all the passages I quote from it. 我在此包括这本书，一方面是因为它为处理旧文本中的不清楚之处提出了宝贵的建议，另一方面因为它在泰国大部分地区被视为权威。它已被翻译成英文，书名 The Entrance to the Vinaya ，但翻译有很大缺陷，因此我选择重新翻译我引用的所有段落。
  1. The Book of Discipline, a translation of almost the entire Vinaya Piṭaka into English by Miss I. B. Horner. Although I have learned much from Miss Horner’s work, there are points where my translations and conclusions differ from hers. Because many readers will want to check the information in this book against hers, I have marked these points with a “(§).” Anyone curious as to which interpretation is correct should check the passages in question against the primary sources listed in the Bibliography at the back of this book.
 3） 《戒律书》，是 I. B. Horner 小姐将几乎整部律藏翻译成英文。虽然我从 Horner 小姐的著作中学到了很多东西，但我的翻译和结论与她的在某些地方有所不同。因为许多读者想要将本书中的资讯与她的进行核对，所以我用「(§)」标记了这些地方。任何好奇哪种解释是正确的人应该根据本书后面参考书目中列出的主要来源检查相关段落。
Disagreements among the texts 文本之间的分歧
There are two levels of difficulty in trying to collate all these various texts. The first is that the Canon and Commentary, in Pali, exist in four major printed editions: Thai, Burmese, Sri Lankan, and European (printed by the Pali Text Society (PTS)). Although these editions are largely in agreement, they occasionally differ in ways that can have an important practical impact. Thus, where the editions differ, I have had to choose the reading that seems most reasonable and consistent with the rest of the Canon. In some cases, this has meant adopting a reading followed in only one edition against a reading followed in all the others (see, for example, the discussions under Sg 3 & 4). Where different readings seem equally reasonable, I have given the alternative readings as well. 试图整理所有这些不同的文本有两个层次的困难。首先，巴利的《圣典》和《义注》有四个主要印刷版：泰国版、缅甸版、斯里兰卡版和欧洲版（由巴利文献协会（PTS）印刷）。尽管这些版本在很大程度上是一致的，但它们偶尔在某些方面存在差异，从而产生重要的实际影响。因此，当版本不同时，我必须选择看起来最合理且与《圣典》的其余部分一致的拼读。在某些情况下，这意味著采用仅在一个版本中遵循的拼读，而不是在所有其他版本中遵循的拼读（例如，请参阅《僧残》三和《僧残》四中的讨论）。如果不同的拼读看起来同样合理，我也给了替代的拼读。
In using the principle of internal consistency here, I am following the Great Standards that—as the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (DN 16) reports—the Buddha formulated at Bhoganagara shortly before his passing away: 在这里使用内在一致性原则时，我遵循的是佛陀在圆寂前不久在负弥城制定的《四大教示》——正如《大般涅槃经》（《长部》16经）所记述的那样：

“There is the case where a bhikkhu says this: ‘Face-to-face with the Blessed One have I heard this, face-to-face have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ His statement is neither to be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his words and make them stand against the Suttas and tally them against the Vinaya. If, on making them stand against the Suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they don’t stand with the Suttas or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is not the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has misunderstood it’—and you should reject it. But if… they stand with the Suttas and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has understood it rightly.’”

[The same criteria are to be used when the bhikkhu cites as his authority a Community with well-known leading elders; a monastery with many learned elders who know the tradition, who have memorized the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Mātikā (the precursor to the Abhidhamma as we know it); or a single elder who knows the tradition.]

“比丘们，如果有一位比丘说： ‘贤友，我曾在佛陀跟前听闻及受持这些法、这些律、这些导师的教诫。’ 比丘们，首先不要对这位比丘的说话随喜，也不要排斥，好好地记著这些字句，然后和经核对，和律比较，如果在和经核对、和律比较时不相符，便可得出一个结论：肯定这不是佛陀的说话，这位比丘受持错误。因此应该舍弃它。如果在和经核对、和律比较时相符，便可得出一个结论：肯定这是佛陀的说话，这位比丘受持正确。

[当比丘引用具有知名长老的团体作为其权威时，应使用相同的标准；一座寺院，有许多博学的长老，他们了解传承，背诵佛法、戒律和论母（我们所知的阿毘达摩的前身）；或一位了解传统的长者。]
In other words, the determining factor in deciding a correct understanding is not personal authority but consistency. Only if a statement stands up under comparison with what is known of the Canon should it be accepted as true Dhamma or Vinaya. This standard was enunciated when the texts were still orally transmitted, but applied to our situation at present it means that we cannot take the assumed reliability of a particular printed edition as definitive. If a certain reading seems more consistent than its alternatives with what is known of the rest of the Canon, then—regardless of the edition in which it is found—it should be preferred. If two variant readings seem equally consistent with the known Canon, they may both be treated with respect. 换句话说，判别正确理解的决定因素不是个人权威，而是一致性。只有当一个陈述与已知的《圣典》相比较时站得住脚，它才可以被接受为真正的法或律。该标准是在文本仍在口头传播时阐明的，但应用于我们目前的情况意味著我们不能将特定印刷版本的假定可靠性视为最完整可靠的。如果某种拼读看起来比它的另一拼读更符合已知的《圣典》其余部分，那么——无论它是在哪个版本中找到的——它应该是首选。如果两种不同的拼读看起来与已知的《圣典》同样一致，那么它们都可受到尊重。
The second level of difficulty in dealing with differences among the texts is that there are points on which the Vibhaṅga is at variance with the wording of the Pāṭimokkha rules, and the commentaries are at variance with the Canon. This forces us to decide which strata of the texts to take as definitive. As far as discrepancies between the Vibhaṅga and the rules are concerned, the following passage in the Cullavagga (X.4) suggests that the Buddha himself gave preference to the way the bhikkhus worked out the rules in the Vibhaṅga: 处理文本之间差异的第二层困难是，《经分别》与《波罗提木叉》戒条的措词有些不一致，而且注释与《圣典》也有不一致。这迫使我们决定将文本的哪一部分视为最完整可靠的。至于《经分别》与戒条之间的差异，《小品》（十.4）中的以下段落表明佛陀本人更倾向于比丘们理解《经分别》中戒条的方式：

“As she was standing to one side, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī said to the Blessed One: ‘Venerable sir, those rules of training for the bhikkhunīs that are in common with those for the bhikkhus: What line of conduct should we follow in regard to them?’

“‘Those rules of training for the bhikkhunīs, Gotamī, that are in common with those for the bhikkhus: As the bhikkhus train themselves, so should you train yourselves.’… (emphasis added).

“‘And those rules of training for bhikkhunīs that are not in common with those for bhikkhus, venerable sir: What line of conduct should we follow in regard to them?’

“‘Those rules of training for the bhikkhunīs, Gotamī, that are not in common with those for the bhikkhus: Train yourselves in them as they are formulated.’”

于一面立已，摩诃波阇波提瞿昙弥白世尊：「世尊！比丘尼之学处有与比丘共通者，于彼学处，我等如何为之耶？」

「瞿昙弥！比丘尼之学处与比丘共通者，应如诸比丘之所学而学其学处！」

「比丘尼之学处有与比丘不共通者，于彼学处，我等应如何为之耶？」

「瞿昙弥！比丘尼之学处与比丘不共通者，随所制之学处而学之！」
This passage implies that already in the time of the Buddha the bhikkhus had begun working out a way to interpret the rules that in some cases was not exactly in line with the way the Buddha had originally formulated them. Some people have read this passage as suggesting that the Buddha, though resigned to this development, was displeased with it. This, however, would contradict the many passages in the Canon where the Buddha speaks in high praise of Ven. Upāli, the foremost of his bhikkhu disciples in terms of his knowledge of Vinaya, who was responsible for teaching the rules to the other bhikkhus and who was largely responsible for the shape of the Vinaya as we now have it. It seems more likely that the Buddha in this passage is simply saying that, to avoid unnecessary controversy, the way the bhikkhus had worked out the implications of the rules was to be accepted as is. 这段经文暗示，早在佛陀时代，比丘们就已经开始想办法来解释这些戒条，在某些情况下，这些戒条并不完全符合佛陀最初制定的方式。有些人读到这段话时认为，佛陀虽然听任了这种发展，但却对此不满意。然而，这与《圣典》中佛陀高度赞扬优婆离尊者的许多段落相矛盾。优婆离尊者是比丘弟子中，就戒律知识而言是第一的，负责向其他比丘教导戒律，并且对我们现在所拥有的戒律的形成负有主要责任。佛陀在这段经文中似乎更可能只是说，为了避免不必要的争议，比丘们弄清楚戒条意思的方式应该照原样接受。
Because this development eventually led to the Vibhaṅga, we can be fairly confident that in adhering to the Vibhaṅga we are acting as the Buddha would have us do. And when we check the few places where the Vibhaṅga deviates from the wording of the rules, we find that almost invariably it has tried to reconcile contradictions among the rules themselves, and between the rules and the Khandhakas, so as to make the Vinaya a more coherent whole. This is particularly true with rules that touch on Community transactions. Apparently, many of these rules were formulated before the general patterns for transactions were finalized in the Khandhakas. Thus, after the patterns were established, the compilers of the Vibhaṅga were sometimes forced to deviate from the wording of the original rules to bring them into line with the patterns. 因为这种发展最终导致了《经分别》，所以我们可以相当有信心地相信，在遵从《经分别》时，我们正在按照佛陀的要求行事。当我们检视《经分别》中与戒条措词有偏差的少数地方时，我们发现它几乎无一例外地试图调和戒条本身、以及戒条与《犍度》之间的矛盾，从而使戒律成为一个更连贯的整体。对于涉及僧伽羯磨的戒条尤其如此。显然，在《犍度》里，羯磨的一般模式最终确定之前，其中许多戒条已制定。因此，在模式确立后，《经分别》的编纂者有时被迫偏离原始戒条的措词，以使其与模式保持一致。
As for contradictions between the Commentary and the Vibhaṅga, this is a more controversial area, with two extremes of thought. One is to reject the Commentary entirely, as it is not the Buddha’s word, for modern historical scholarship has shown decisively that it contains material dating many hundreds of years after the Buddha’s passing away. The other extreme is to accept the Commentary as superseding the Vibhaṅga entirely, in line with the traditional belief that grew up around it: that it was composed at the First Council to express the true intent of those who composed the Vibhaṅga and yet somehow were unable to put what they really meant to say into the Canon itself. Although exponents of each extreme can cite traditional sources in their defense, neither extreme complies with the two sets of Great Standards—the one mentioned above, the other below—that the Buddha formulated for judging what is and is not allowable under the Vinaya, and what does and does not count as Dhamma-Vinaya in the first place. 至于《义注》与《经分别》的矛盾，这是一个比较有争议的领域，有两个极端的想法。一是完全拒绝《义注》，因为它不是佛陀的教言，因为现代历史学术已经明确地表明，它所包含的材料可以追溯到佛陀入灭后数百年。另一个极端是接受《义注》完全取代《经分别》，这与围绕它产生的传统信仰是一致的：它是在第一次结集时撰写的，旨在表达那些撰写《经分别》的人的真实意图，但不知何故无法做到把他们真正想说的话放进《圣典》本身。虽然每个极端的倡导者都可以引用传统资料来为自己辩护，但两个极端都不符合《四大教示》中的两项教示——上文已提到一项，下文将提到另一项——《四大教示》是佛陀起初为判断戒律所允许的和不允许的，以及符不符合法与律而制定的
In support of the first extreme, it is possible to cite the origin story to NP 15, which quotes the Buddha as saying, “What has not been formulated (as a rule) should not be formulated, and what has been formulated should not be rescinded, but one should dwell in conformity and in accordance with the rules that have been formulated.” 为了支持第一种极端，可以引用《舍堕》一五的起源故事，其中引用了佛陀的话说：「未制不得制，已制不得坏，随所制之戒而持住。」
From this statement, it is possible to argue that the Commentary has no legislative authority at all. One of its most controversial aspects—and this applies to the Sub-commentary as well—is a tendency not only to explain passages in the Canon but also to extrapolate from them, assigning prohibitions and allowances in areas that the Canon did not cover. This would appear to be in violation of the above statement. However, we must remember that the rules formulated by the Buddha include not only prohibitions but also allowances. As the Dhamma-Vinaya has spread to many nations, encountering new cultures, and has endured over time, encountering new technologies, the question has often arisen: Is everything not allowed prohibited? Is everything not prohibited allowed? Either position carried to its extreme would create huge problems in the practice. To say that everything not allowed is prohibited would prevent bhikkhus from utilizing many harmless conveniences; to say that everything not prohibited is allowed would give countless defilements free rein. 从这个说法来看，可以说《义注》根本没有制戒权。它最具争议性的方面之一（这也适用于《复注》）是倾向于不仅解释《圣典》中的段落，而且还从中进行推断，在《圣典》未涵盖的领域中指定禁止和许可。这似乎违反了上述声明。然而，我们必须记住，佛陀制定的戒条不仅包括禁止，还包括允许。随著法与律传播到许多国家，遇到新的文化，并随著时间的推移，遇到新科技，经常出现这样的问题：是不是一切不允许的事情都被禁止了？一切不被禁止的事情都是允许的吗？任何一种走向极端的立场都会在实践中产生巨大的问题。如果说一切不被允许的事情都是被禁止的，就会阻止比丘们利用许多无害的方便；如果说一切不被禁止的事情都是允许的，就会让无数的烦恼肆意妄为。
The Buddha, however, had enough foresight to see that, over the course of many centuries, new situations would arise that had not existed in his lifetime, and there would be a need to extend the principles of the Vinaya to cover those situations as well. Thus, Mv.VI.40.1 reports that he established the following four guidelines for judgment—called the Great Standards (not to be confused with the Great Standards given in DN 16 and mentioned above)—for judging cases not mentioned in the rules: 然而，佛陀有足够的远见，他看到，在许多个世纪的时间推移，将会出现他有生之年中不存在的新情况，因此需要扩展戒律的原则以涵盖这些情况。因此，《大品》.六.40.1记述说，他制定了以下四项判断指南——称为《四大教示》（不要与《长部》16经中给出的《四大教示》和上面提到的混淆）——用于判断戒条中未提及的情况：

“Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if it conforms with what is not allowable, if it goes against [literally, “preempts”] what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.

“Whatever I have not objected to, saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if it conforms with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you.

“And whatever I have not permitted, saying, ‘This is allowable,’ if it conforms with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.

“And whatever I have not permitted, saying, ‘This is allowable,’ if it conforms with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you.”—Mv.VI.40.1

「诸比丘！如此，我虽未禁曰：『不相应。』若顺不相应事，违相应事者，此，汝等为不相应也。

诸比丘！如此，我虽未禁曰：『不相应。』若随顺相应事，违不相应事者，此，汝等为相应也。

诸比丘！如此，我虽未许曰：『相应。』若顺不相应事，违相应事者，此，汝等为不相应也。

诸比丘！如此，我虽未许曰：『相应。』若顺相应事，违不相应事者，此，汝等为相应也。」——《大品》.六.40.1
Thus it is easy to see that the Commentary and Sub-commentary, in extrapolating from the rules in the Canon to assign new prohibitions and allowances, are simply exercising their right to apply these Great Standards. The question in weighing these commentaries, then, is not whether they have the right to extrapolate from the Canon to formulate prohibitions and allowances, but whether they have applied these Standards in a wise and appropriate way. We ourselves will have recourse to these Standards in the course of this book, both to evaluate the judgments of the commentaries and to determine how the principles of Vinaya apply to new situations today. 由此容易看出，《义注》和《复注》从《圣典》的戒条中推断出新的禁止和许可，只是在行使其适用这《四大教示》的权利。那么，权衡这些注释的问题不在于他们是否有权从《圣典》中推断以制定禁止和许可，而在于他们是否以明智和适当的方式应用了这《四大教示》。在本书的过程中，我们自己也会依靠这《四大教示》，既用以评估注释的判断，并且也决定戒律的原则如何应用于当今的新情况。
The second extreme, however, argues that we have no right to pass judgment on the authority of the Commentary at all. This position, however, runs counter to the principle of consistency espoused in the Great Standards mentioned in DN 16 (and discussed above) for judging what is and isn’t the word of the Buddha. Just as variant readings in the Canon should be judged for consistency with what is already known of the Canon, explanations of the Canon given by later teachers have to be judged for their consistency with the known Canon as well. 然而，第二种极端则认为我们根本没有权利对《义注》的权威性做出判断。然而，这个立场违背了《长部》16经中提到的《四大教示》（以及上面讨论的）中所奉行的一致性原则，用于判断什么是佛陀之言，什么不是佛陀之言。正如《圣典》中的不同拼读应被判断是否与已知的经典一致一样，后来的导师们对《圣典》的解释也必须被判断是否与已知的《圣典》一致。
This point is borne out by three important passages in the texts. One is the narrative of the Second Council, during which the bhikkhus of Vesālī defended ten practices on the grounds that they had learned them from their teachers. The elders who judged the case, though, insisted on evaluating the practices in terms of whether they adhered to the Canon. The primary point of controversy—the question of whose authority was greater, the Canon’s or the teachers’—was point six: 文本中的三个重要段落证实了这一点。第一个段落是第二次结集的叙述，在结集期间，毘舍离的比丘们以从他们的导师们那里学到的十事为由进行辩护。然而，审理此事的长老们坚持以是否遵守《圣典》来评定这些事。主要争议点——《圣典》和导师谁的权威更大——是第六点：

“‘The practice of what is habitual, sir—is it allowable?’

“‘What is the practice of what is habitual, my friend?’

“‘To practice (thinking), this is the way my preceptor habitually practiced; this is the way my teacher habitually practiced—is this allowable?’

“‘The practice of what is habitual is sometimes allowable, sometimes not.’”—Cv.XII.2.8

「大德！常法，净耶？」

「友！何者为常法净耶？」

「大德！言：此我和尚之常法，此我阿阇梨之常法而行之，净耶？」

「友！常法一分净、一分不净也。」——《小品》.一二.2.8

(上面取自元亨寺汉译南传大藏经，以下从英文直译)

「大德，习惯性的做法可以吗？」

「友，习惯的做法是什么？」

「这是我的戒师习惯修行的方式；这是我依止师习惯修行的方式，依照而行，这样允许吗？」

「习惯性的做法有时是允许的，有时是不允许的。」
What this means, as the elders showed in their conduct of the meeting, is that one’s teacher’s and preceptor’s practices are to be followed only when in accordance with the Canon. 正如长老们在会议的主持中所表明的那样，这意味著只有在符合《圣典》的情况下才能遵循依止师（古译：阿阇梨）和戒师（古译：和尚）的做法。
The second passage is the discussion of the Great Standards in the Commentary to DN 16, which concludes that the commentaries are to be accepted only where they are in agreement with the Canon. Apparently the teachers who compiled the ancient commentaries took a more modest view of their authority than did the elders of the Mahāvihāra at the time of Buddhaghosa, and did not pretend to supersede the Canon as the final word on what is and is not true Dhamma and Vinaya. 第二个段落是针对《长部》16经的《义注》中《四大教示》的讨论，其结论是注释只有在与《圣典》一致的情况下才被接受。显然，编纂古代注释的导师们比佛音时代大寺（Mahāvihāra）的长老们对自己的权威持更为谦虚的态度，并且没有装作取代《圣典》去为什么是或不是真正的法与律下最终定论。
The third passage, a discussion in the Commentary to Pr 1, further elaborates this point by listing four levels of Vinaya, in descending order of authority: the level found in the Canon, the level based on the four Great Standards given in Mv.VI.40.1, the level found in the Commentary, and the level based on one’s personal opinion. Any disagreement among these sources, this passage notes, should be settled by siding with the opinion of the higher authority. Thus the Commentary to the Vinaya puts itself only on the third level of authority, adding that not all of the Commentary qualifies even for that level. The opinions of Vinaya experts after the first generation of commentators, even though included in the Commentary, count only as personal opinion. At present there is no way of knowing for sure which opinions are first-generation and which are not, although the opinions of Sri Lankan Vinaya experts named in the Commentary would obviously fall in the latter category. 第三个段落是针对《波罗夷》一的《义注》中的讨论，进一步阐述了这一点，按照权威性由高到低，列出了戒律的四个阶层：《圣典》中找到的层级，基于《大品》.六.40.1给出的《四大教示》的层级，《义注》中找到的层级，以及基于个人意见的层级。这段话指出，这些来源之间的任何分歧都应该以更高权威的意见为准。因此，戒律的《义注》仅将自己置于第三级权威，并补充说，并不是所有的《义注》都符合这一级别。第一代论师之后的戒律专家的意见，即使包含在《义注》中，也仅算作个人意见。目前无法确定哪些观点是第一代，哪些不是，尽管《义注》中点名的斯里兰卡戒律专家的观点显然属于后一类。
Some may object that to pass judgment on the Commentary is to lack respect for the tradition, but actually it is because of respect for the compilers of the Vibhaṅga that I make the following assumptions in checking the Commentary against the Vibhaṅga: 也许有人会反对说，对《义注》进行评判是缺乏对传统的尊重，但实际上，正是出于对《经分别》编撰者的尊重，我在对照《经分别》来检查《义注》时做出了以下假设：
  1. The compilers of the Vibhaṅga were intelligent enough to be consistent within the discussion of each rule. Any explanation based on the premise that they were not consistent should give way to an explanation showing that they were.
 1）《经分别》的编纂者足够聪慧，能够在每条戒条的讨论中保持一致。任何基于它们不一致的前提的解释都应该被表明它们一致的解释取代。
  1. The compilers were well enough acquainted with the contingencies surrounding each rule that they knew which factors were and were not crucial in determining what is and is not an offense. Any explanation that adds or subtracts factors from those mentioned in the Vibhaṅga should give way to one that follows the Vibhaṅga’s analysis. Also, any attempt to use the Great Standards in taking the explanations for one rule and applying them to override the explanations given for another rule should be rejected, inasmuch as those Standards are meant solely for issues where nothing has already been explicitly forbidden or allowed.
 2） 编纂者非常熟悉每条戒条可能发生的事，他们知道哪些因素对于决定什么是犯戒、什么不是犯戒至关重要。任何对《经分别》中提到的因素进行添加或删减的解释都应该被遵循《经分别》分析的解释取代。此外，任何试图使用《四大教示》来将一条戒条的解释应用于推翻另一条戒条的解释都应该被拒绝，因为《四大教示》仅适用于尚未明确禁止或允许的议题。
  1. The compilers, in reporting the precedents in the Vinīta-vatthu—the cases the Buddha judged against an existing rule—were careful enough to include all the important factors bearing on the judgment. Any explanation that requires rewriting the precedents, adding extra details extraneous to the Vibhaṅga to account for the judgment, should give way to an explanation that can make sense out of the precedents as they are reported and in terms of the analyses presented elsewhere in the Vibhaṅga.
 3）编纂者在记述《Vinīta-vatthu》中的先例（佛陀根据现有戒条做出判决的案例）时，足够谨慎地包括了与判决有关的所有重要因素。任何需要修订先例、添加与《经分别》无关的额外细节以说明判决的解释，都应该被可以从记述的先例中以及根据《经分别》中其他地方提出的分析的合理解释取代。
It’s not that I take any joy in arguing with the Commentary. In fact, wherever possible, I have been happy to give it the benefit of the doubt, and on many points I am very much in its debt. Still, now that Buddhism is coming to the West, I feel it is time to stop and take stock of the commentarial tradition and to check it against the earliest sources. This is especially important in a way of thought and life that, from the very beginning, has appealed to reason and investigation rather than to blindly accepted authority. In doing this, I am simply following a pattern that has repeated itself through the history of the Theravādin tradition: that of returning to the original principles whenever the religion reaches an historic turning point. 我并不是以与《义注》争论为乐。事实上，只要有可能，我都乐意姑且先相信它，并且在很多方面我都非常感激它。尽管如此，既然佛教正在传入西方，我觉得是时候停下来全面盘点注释传统，并根据最早的来源进行检查。这对于从一开始就诉诸理性和调查而不是盲目接受权威的思想和生活方式来说尤其重要。 在这样做时，我只是遵循了上座部传统历史中不断重复的模式：每当宗教达到历史转折点时，就回到最初的原则。
There is, of course, a danger in being too independent in interpreting the tradition, in that strongly held opinions can lead to disharmony in the Community. Thus in evaluating the Commentary against the Canon, I do not want to imply that my conclusions are the only ones possible. Important points may have slipped my attention or escaped my grasp. For this reason, even in instances where I think that the Commentary does not do justice to the Vibhaṅga, I have tried to give a faithful account of the important points from the Commentary so that those who wish to take it as their authority may still use this book as a guide. If there are any points on which I am mistaken, I would be pleased if knowledgeable people would correct me. 当然，过度独立地解释传统是有危险的，因为强烈的观点可能会导致僧团的不和谐。因此，在根据《圣典》来评估《义注》时，我不想暗示我的结论是唯一的可能。我可能没注意到或理解到重要的点。因此，即使在我认为《义注》没有公正地对待《经分别》的情况下，我也尽力忠实地叙述《义注》中的要点，以便那些希望将其视为权威的人仍然可以使用本书作为指南。如果我有任何错误的地方，请知识渊博的人纠正我，我将很高兴。
At the same time, I hope that this book will show that there are many areas on which the Vibhaṅga is unclear and lends itself to a variety of equally valid interpretations. For proof of this, we need only look at the various traditions that have developed in the different Theravādin countries, and even within each country. For some reason, people who may be very tolerant of different interpretations of the Dhamma can be very intolerant of different interpretations of the Vinaya, getting into heated arguments over minor issues having very little to do with the training of the mind. 同时，我希望这本书能够表明，《经分别》有许多不清楚的领域，并且各种同样有效的解释都适用。为了证明这一点，我们只需要看看不同上座部国家、甚至每个国家内部发展出来的各种传统。出于某种原因，那些对法的不同解释非常宽容的人，可能对律的不同解释却非常不宽容，他们会因为一些与修心无关的小问题而陷入激烈的争论。
I have tried to make the point throughout this book that any interpretation based on a sound reading of the Canon should be respected: that each bhikkhu should follow the interpretations of the Community in which he is living, as long as they do not conflict with the Canon, so as to avoid conflict over minor matters in daily life; and that he should also show respect for the differing interpretations of other Communities where they too do not conflict with the Canon, so as to avoid the pitfalls of pride and narrow-mindedness. 我在本书中试图指出，任何基于对《圣典》的正确解读的解释都应该受到尊重：每个比丘都应该遵循他所居住的僧团的解释，只要它们不与《圣典》相冲突，以避免因日常生活中的小事发生冲突；他也应该尊重其他僧团的不同解释，只要这些解释也不与《圣典》相冲突，以避免陷入骄傲和心胸狭隘的陷阱。
This is especially true now that monasteries of different nationalities are taking root in close proximity to one another in the West. In the past, Thais, Burmese, and Sri Lankans could look down on one another’s traditions without causing friction, as they lived in separate countries and spoke different languages. Now, however, we have become neighbors and have begun to speak common languages, so we must be especially careful not to waste what little time we have in the celibate life on minor disagreements. 这在现在尤其为真，不同民族的寺院正在西方彼此毗邻的地方扎根。过去，泰国人、缅甸人和斯里兰卡人可以互相看不起对方的传统，而不会造成摩擦，因为生活在不同的国家，讲不同的语言。然而，现在我们已经成为邻居，开始说共同语言，所以我们必须特别小心，不要把梵行生活中仅有的一点时间浪费在一些小分歧上。
My aim throughout this book has been practical. I have avoided dealing with academic issues concerning the authenticity and reliability of the tradition, and instead have tried simply to report and explain what the tradition has to say. Of course, I have had to be selective. Whatever the unconscious factors that have influenced my choice of material, the conscious considerations shaping this book are briefly as follows: 我贯穿本书的目标都是实际的。我避免处理有关传统的真实性和可靠性的学术问题，而是试图仅只记述和解释传统的内容。当然，我必须有所选择。无论有哪些无意识因素影响了我对材料的选择，塑造本书的有意识的考量简要如下：
We are dealing primarily with rules, but rules are not the only way to express disciplinary norms, and the texts we are surveying express their norms in a variety of forms: as rules, principles, models, and virtues. The different forms are best suited for different purposes. Principles, models, and virtues are meant as personal, subjective standards and tend to be loosely defined. Their interpretation and application are left to the judgment of the individual. Rules are meant to serve as more objective standards. To work, they must be precisely defined in a way acceptable to the Community at large. The compilers of the Canon, recognizing this need, provided definitions for most of the terms in the rules, and the authors of the commentaries continued this task, carrying it out with even greater thoroughness. Thus much of this book, in reporting these texts, is concerned with the definition of terms. 我们主要处理的是戒条，但戒条并不是表达戒律规范的唯一方式，我们正在审视的文本以多种形式表达其规范：戒条、原则、模型和美德。不同的形式最适合不同的目的。原则、模型和美德被视为个人的、主观的标准，并且往往被松散地定义。它们的解释和应用取决于个人的判断。戒条旨在作为更客观的标准。为了发挥作用，必须以整个僧团可接受的方式对它们进行精确定义。《圣典》的编纂者认识到这一需要，为戒条中的大多数术语提供了定义，而注释的作者们则继续这项任务，并更加彻底地执行它。因此，本书在记述这些文本时，大部分内容都与术语的定义有关。
This need for precision, though, accounts for the weakness of rules in general as universal guides to behavior. First, there is the question of where to draw the line between what is and is not an infraction of the rule. A clear break-off point is needed because rules—unlike principles—deal in two colors: black and white. In some cases, it is difficult to find a clear break-off point that corresponds exactly to one’s sense of what is right and wrong, and so it is necessary to include the areas of gray either with the white or the black. In general, but not always, the Vibhaṅga’s position is to include the gray with the white, and to rely on the principles of the Dhamma to encourage the individual bhikkhu to stay away from the gray. 然而，这种对精确性的需求解释了一般戒条作为普遍行为指南的弱点。首先，存在一个问题：在哪里划清什么是或不是犯戒的界线。需要一个明确的分界点，因为戒条（与原则不同）涉及两种颜色：黑色和白色。在某些情况下，很难找到一个明确的分界点来准确地对应一个人的是非观念，因此有必要将灰色地带若非与白色就是与黑色包含在一起。一般而言，但并非总是如此，《经分别》的立场是将灰色与白色包含在一起，并依靠法的原则来鼓励个别比丘远离灰色。
Take, for instance, the rule against masturbation. The Vibhaṅga limits this rule to forbidding only those forms of masturbation that aim at ejaculation, for if it had drawn the line anywhere else, it would have become an offense for a bhikkhu simply to scratch himself. Thus self-stimulation that does not aim at ejaculation is not an offense, although in many cases it is clearly against the spirit of the Dhamma. The Vinaya-mukha notes, disapprovingly, a number of older Vinaya guides that like to dwell on these areas of gray and seem to delight in figuring out ways to avoid an offense by working around the letter of the rules. In this book I am taking a different tack: Under those rules that include large areas of gray with the white, I have noted a few relevant principles from the Dhamma to spell out a wise policy with regard to the gray areas—not to reformulate the rule, but simply as a reminder that, as noted above, the Vinaya without the Dhamma does not suffice as a guide to the goal. 以禁止自慰的戒条为例。《经分别》将这条戒条限制为仅禁止以射精为目的的自慰形式，因为如果它在其他地方划定界限，那么比丘仅仅抓挠自己就会成为一种犯戒。因此，不以射精为目的的自我刺激并不构成犯戒，尽管在许多情况下这显然违背了法的精神。《戒律入口》（ Vinaya-mukha ）不以为然地指出，一些较老的戒律指南喜欢老是想著这些灰色地带，并且似乎乐于通过绕过戒条的字面意义来找出避免犯戒的方法。在这本书中，我采取了不同的策略：在那些包含大片灰色地带和白色的戒条下，我说明了一些来自法的相关原则，以阐明有关灰色地带的明智方针，而不是重新制定戒条，但只是在提醒，如上所述，没有法的律不足以作为目标的指南。
Second, there is the drawback that a large body of rules demands two tactics of interpretation that can, on occasion, prove mutually exclusive. On the one hand there is the need for logical consistency in applying basic principles across all the rules so as to lend authority to the system as a whole, at the same time making it easy to understand and memorize. On the other hand there is the need to give reasonable weight to the particular constellation of factors surrounding each individual rule. The first approach runs the risk of sacrificing common sense and the human context of the rules; the second, the risk of appearing inconsistent and arbitrary. Although the compilers of the Vibhaṅga are consistent within the discussion of each rule, they take each rule on a case-by-case basis and do not always come to the same conclusions when analyzing rules that, on the surface, might seem to merit parallel treatment. In other words, when the demands of reasonableness conflict with the demands of logical consistency in a narrow sense, their consistency lies in consistently choosing the reasonable approach. Under the major rules, they provide enough examples in the Vinīta-vatthu to bolster the case for their interpretive strategy. Under the minor rules, they leave it to the reader to ponder their strategy for himself. This approach places heavy demands on each bhikkhu, in that a reasonable system is harder to memorize than a narrowly logical one, but in the long run it aids in the maturity and sensitivity of the bhikkhu who is willing to learn from the Vibhaṅga, and in the livability of the Vinaya as a whole. 其次，有一个缺点，即大量戒条需要两种解释手法，有时可能会相互排斥。一方面，在所有戒条中应用基本原则时需要逻辑上的一致性，以赋予整体系统权威性，同时使其易于理解和记忆。另一方面，需要对围绕每条戒条的特定一连串因素给予合理的重视。第一种方法存在牺牲常识和戒条的人文背景的风险；第二种则有出现不一致和随意武断的风险。尽管《经分别》的编纂者在每条戒条之中的讨论是一致的，但他们对待每条戒条是根据逐条的具体情况而定，并且在分析表面上似乎值得类似对待的戒条时，并不总是得出相同的结论。换句话说，当合理性的要求与狭义的逻辑一致性的要求发生冲突时，它们的一致性在于始终选择合理的方法。在主要戒条之下，他们在《Vinīta-vatthu》里提供了足够的例子来支持他们的解释策略。在次要戒条之下，他们让读者自己思考他们的策略。这种方法对每个比丘的要求很高，因为一个合理的系统比一个狭隘的逻辑系统更难记住，但从长远来看，它有助于愿意学习《经分别》的比丘的成熟度和敏感度，并有助于戒律作为一个整体的宜居性。
A third drawback resulting from the need for precision in rules is that the more precisely a rule is defined to suit a particular time and place, the less well it may fit other times and places. The compilers of the Canon, in order to make up for this weakness, thus provided the origin stories and precedents to show the type of situation the rule was intended to prevent, providing principles and models that indicate the spirit of the rule and aid in applying it to differing contexts. In writing this book I have often made reference to these stories, to give this added dimension. 由于戒条需要精确性而产生的第三个缺点是，为适应特定时间和地点而定义的戒条越精确，它就越不适合其他时间和地点。为了弥补这一弱点，《圣典》的编撰者提供了起源故事和先例来展示该戒条旨在防止的情况类型，提供了表明该戒条精神的原则和模型，并有助于应用在不同的上下文。在写这本书时，我经常参考这些故事，以给予此增广的层面。
However, I have also found it important not to make the origin stories the principle guide in interpreting the rules, for in many cases the range of circumstances they cover is narrow, whereas the range of the rules they introduce is much broader. The first rule, for instance, was formulated when a bhikkhu had sex with a former wife, and was amended when another bhikkhu had sex with a monkey, but the rule is not limited to cases where monkeys and former wives are a bhikkhu’s partner in sex. In some instances—such as the origin story dealing with the establishment of the Invitation ceremony—the incidents leading up to the formulation of a rule were only tangentially connected to the rule; in others—such as the origin story for the establishment of the kaṭhina ceremony—the story reports no wrong-doing on anyone’s part. These indicate that in some cases the Buddha had specific rules in mind and was simply waiting for the slightest pretext to formulate them. Thus the origin stories can at most help fill in the blanks in the explanatory material. They can never be trusted as guides for overriding the explicit information that that material provides. 然而，我还发现，不要将起源故事作为解释戒条的原则指南是重要的，因为在许多情况下，它们所涵盖的情况范围很窄，而它们介绍的戒条范围却要广泛得多。例如，第一条戒条是在一位比丘与前妻发生性行为时制定的，而在另一位比丘与猴子发生性关系时则被修改，但该戒条并不限于猴子和前妻是比丘的性对象的情况。在某些情况下，例如关于自恣仪式建立的起源故事，导致制定戒条的事件与戒条仅略微相关；在其他故事中，例如建立功德衣仪式的起源故事，故事记述没有任何人有任何不当行为。这些表明，在某些情况下，佛陀心里已有特定的戒条，只是等待最轻微的借口来制定它们。因此，起源故事最多只能帮助填补解释材料中的空白。它们永远不能被信任为指南，用来推翻该材料提供的明确资讯。
Admittedly, the stories do not always make for inspiring reading. For example, instead of reading about bhikkhus accepting a meal at a donor’s house and then uplifting the donor with a talk on Dhamma, we read about Ven. Udāyin accepting a meal at the dwelling of a bhikkhunī who was his former wife, and the two of them sitting there exposing their genitals to each other. Still, the stories do remind us that the more inspiring stories we read in the discourses took place in a very real human world, and they also reveal the insight and understated wit of those who framed and interpreted the rules. The element of wit here is especially important, for without it there is no true understanding of human nature, and no intelligent system of discipline. 诚然，这些故事并不总是能让人读起来鼓舞人心。例如，我们读到的不是比丘在施主家里接受一顿饭，然后透过开示佛法来提升施主的道德境界，而是读到了优陀夷(Udāyin)尊者在一位比丘尼（他的前妻）的住所接受了一顿饭，两人坐在那里，彼此暴露了生殖器。尽管如此，这些故事确实提醒我们，我们在经文中读到的更鼓舞人心的故事发生在一个非常真实的人类世界中，它们也揭示了那些制定和解释规则的人的洞察力和低调朴素的智慧。智慧的元素在此尤其重要，因为没有它，就没有对人性的真正理解，也就没有智慧的戒律体系。
Finally, in compiling this book, I have tried to include whatever seems most worth knowing for the bhikkhu who aims at fostering the qualities of discipline in his life—so as to help train his mind and live in peace with his fellow bhikkhus—and for anyone who wants to support and encourage the bhikkhus in that aim. 最后，在编写本书的过程中，我试图包含那些对于旨在培养生活中戒律品质的比丘来说似乎最值得了解的内容，以帮助训练他的心，并与他的比丘同侪和睦相处。以及包含对任何想要支持和鼓励比丘实现这一目标的人值得了解的内容。