僧残

This term means “involving the Community in the initial (ādi) and subsequent (sesa) acts.” It derives from the fact that the Community is the agent that initially calls on the bhikkhu who breaks any of the rules in this category to undergo the penalty (of mānatta, penance, and parivāsa, probation), subsequently reimposes the penalty if he does not properly carry it out, and finally lifts the penalty when he does. There are thirteen training rules here, the first nine entailing a saṅghādisesa immediately on transgression, the last four only after the offender has been rebuked three times as part of a Community transaction.

这个术语的意思是「让僧团参与初始 (ādi) 和后续 (sesa) 行为」。它源于这样一个事实，即僧团是最初要求违反此类戒条的比丘接受惩罚（ mānatta ，赎罪(摩那埵)，和 parivāsa ，别住(波利婆沙)）的代理，如果他没有正确执行，则随后重新施加惩罚，最终当他正确执行后解除惩罚。此处有十三个学处（训练戒条），前九个在违反时即犯《僧残》，最后四个只有在违反者作为僧伽羯磨的一部分被诃责三次之后才犯《僧残》。

1	一
Intentional emission of semen, except while dreaming, entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	故意排出精液（除非在做梦时），僧残。
The origin story to this rule is as follows:	本戒条的起源故事如下：
“Now at that time Ven. Seyyasaka was leading the celibate life dissatisfied. Because of this, he was thin, wretched, unattractive, and pale, his body covered with veins. Ven. Udāyin saw that Ven. Seyyasaka was thin… his body covered with veins. On seeing him, he said to him, ‘Seyyasaka, my friend, why are you thin… your body covered with veins? Could it be that you’re leading the celibate life dissatisfied?’	「尔时，施越尊者过著不满的梵行生活。是故，他形体枯瘦，容貌憔悴，筋脉悉现。优陀夷尊者看到了施越尊者形体枯瘦……筋脉悉现。一见到他，就对他说：『友！施越！，你为什么形体枯瘦…筋脉悉现？难道你对梵行生活不满意？』
“‘Yes, friend.’	「『是的，朋友。』
“‘In that case, eat as you like and sleep as you like and bathe as you like; and having eaten, slept, and bathed as you like, when dissatisfaction arises and lust assails the mind, emit semen having attacked (!) with your hand.’	「『既然如此，想吃就吃，想睡就睡，想沐浴就沐浴；随心所欲地饮食、睡眠、沐浴，当不满生起、欲念侵袭心时，就用手攻击（！）射出精液。』
“‘But is it okay to do that?’	「『但是这样做可以吗？』
“‘Of course. I do it myself.’	「『当然。我自己也这样做。』
“So then Ven. Seyyasaka ate as he liked and slept as he liked… and when dissatisfaction arose and lust assailed his mind, he would emit semen having attacked with his hand. Then it wasn’t long before he became attractive, with rounded features, a clear complexion, and very bright skin. So the bhikkhus who were his friends said to him, ‘Before, friend Seyyasaka, you were thin… your body covered with veins. But now you are attractive, with rounded features, a clear complexion, and very bright skin. Could it be that you’re taking medicine?’	「于是，施越尊者想吃就吃，想睡就睡……当不满生起，欲念侵袭心时，他就会用手攻击射出精液。然后没多久，他就变得很有魅力，五官圆润，容貌光泽。因此，他的朋友比丘们对他说：『以前，朋友施越，你形体枯瘦……筋脉悉现。但现在的你很有魅力，五官圆润，容貌光泽。难道是你在吃药？』
“‘No, I’m not taking medicine, my friends. I just eat as I like and sleep as I like… and when dissatisfaction arises and lust assails my mind, I emit semen having attacked with my hand.’	「『不，我没吃药，朋友们。我只是随心所欲地吃饭，随心所欲地睡觉……当不满生起，欲念侵袭心时，我用手攻击射出精液。』
“‘But do you emit semen having attacked with the same hand you use to eat the gifts of the faithful?’	「『但是，你以此手食信施，又以此手攻击射出精液？』
“‘Yes, my friends.’”	「『是的，我的朋友们。』」
This rule, in its outline form, is one of the simplest to explain. In its details, though, it is one of the most complex, not only because the subject is a sensitive matter but also because the Commentary deviates from the Vibhaṅga in its explanations of two of the three factors that constitute the full offense.	本戒条的大纲形式是最容易解释的戒条之一。然而，就其细节而言，它是最复杂的之一，不仅因为该主题是一个敏感问题，而且因为《义注》在对构成完整违犯的三个因素中的两个的解释中偏离了《经分别》。
The three factors are result, intention, and effort: emission of semen caused by an intentional effort. When all three factors are present, the offense is a saṅghādisesa. If the last two—intention and effort—are present, the offense is a thullaccaya. Any single factor or any other combination of two factors—i.e., intention and result without making a physical effort, or effort and result without intention—is not grounds for an offense.	这三个因素是结果、意图和努力：由于有意的努力而导致精液的排出。当这三个因素都存在时，该违犯就是《僧残》。如果最后两项——意图和努力——都存在，那么该违犯就是《偷兰遮》。任何单一因素或两个因素的任何其他组合——即没有做出肉体的努力的意图和结果，或没有意图的努力和结果——都不是犯戒。
It may seem strange to list the factor of result first, but I want to explain it first partly because, in understanding the types of intention and effort covered by this rule, it is necessary to know what they are aimed at, and also because result is the one factor where the Vibhaṅga and Commentary are in basic agreement.	首先列出结果因素似乎很奇怪，但我想先解释一下，部分原因是，在理解本戒条所涵盖的意图和努力类型时，有必要知道它们的目的是什么，也因为结果是《经分别》和《义注》基本上一致的因素之一。

Result	结果
The Vibhaṅga states that semen can come in ten colors—a classification derived from a diagnostic practice in ancient Indian medicine in which a doctor would examine his male patients’ ejaculates as a way of diagnosing their health. After presenting a long series of wheels based on these ten colors of semen, the Vibhaṅga arrives at the simple conclusion that the color and quality of the semen are irrelevant to the offense. This suggests that a bhikkhu who has had a vasectomy can still commit an offense under this rule, because he can still discharge the various components that go into seminal fluid—minus only the sperm—at orgasm.	《经分别》指出，精液有十种颜色，这种分类源自古印度医学的诊断实践，医生会检查男性患者的射精，以此作为诊断其健康状况的一种方式。在根据这十种颜色的精液提出了一长系列的轮子之后，《经分别》得出了一个简单的结论：精液的颜色和品质与犯戒无关。这表明，接受过输精管结扎手术的比丘仍然可以犯下这条戒条，因为他仍然可以在性高潮时排出进入精液的各种成分（仅除去精子）。
Although the Vibhaṅga adds that semen is discharged when it “falls from its base,” it does not discuss this point in any detail. The Commentary discusses three opinions as to precisely when this happens in the course of sexual stimulation. Although its discussion is framed in terms of the physiology of ejaculation as understood at the time, its conclusion is clear: Semen moves from its base when “having made the whole body shake, it is released and descends into the urinary tract”—in other words, at the point of orgasm. The Commentary further explains that semen falls from its base when it enters the urinary tract, because from that point on the process is irreversible. Thus if the process of sexual stimulation has reached this point, the factor of result has been fulfilled even if one tries to prevent the semen from leaving the body at orgasm by pinching the end of one’s penis. Once in the urinary tract, it has already fallen from its base, so whether it then leaves the body is irrelevant as far as the factors of the offense are concerned.	尽管《经分别》补充说，当精液「从基底落下」时，精液就会被排出，但它并没有详细讨论这一点。关于这种情况在性刺激过程中何时发生，《义注》讨论了三种观点。尽管它的讨论是以当时所理解的射精生理学为框架的，但它的结论很明确：当「使整个身体摇晃时，它被释放并下降到尿道」时，精液从其基底移动—换句话说，在性高潮的时候。《义注》进一步解释说，精液在进入尿道时会从其基底落下，因为从那时起，该过程是不可逆转的。因此，如果性刺激的过程达到了这一点，即使在性高潮时试图透过捏住阴茎末端来阻止精液离开身体，结果因素也已经满足。一旦进入尿道，它就已经从基底落下，因此就犯戒因素而言，它是否离开身体并不重要。
Although some sub-sub-commentaries have ventured a more cautious opinion than the Commentary’s—saying that semen counts as having fallen from its base when there appears a small amount of the clear alkaline fluid produced by the prostate and Cowper’s glands prior to ejaculation—there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to prove the Commentary wrong.	尽管一些《复注》的再注释提出了比《义注》更谨慎的观点，即当射精前的前列腺和考珀氏腺产生少量透明碱性液体时，精液就被视为从其基底落下。《经分别》中没有任何内容可以证明《义注》是错误的。

Intention	意图
The Vibhaṅga defines intentionally as “having willed, having made the decision knowingly and consciously.” The Commentary explains these terms as follows: Having willed means having willed, having planned, with the intention of enjoying bringing about an emission. Having made the decision means having summoned up a reckless mind state, “crushing” through the power of an attack. (These are the same terms it uses to explain the same phrase under Pr 3, Pc 61, and Pc 77. The meaning is that one is not simply toying with the idea. One has definitely made up one’s mind to overcome all hesitation by aggressively setting upon an action aimed at causing emission.) Knowingly means knowing that, “I am making an exertion”—which the Sub-commentary explains as knowing that, “I am making an exertion for the sake of an emission.” Consciously means being aware that one’s efforts are bringing about an emission of semen.	《经分别》将故意定义为「有意愿，明知地而且有意识地做出决定」。《义注》对这些术语的解释如下：有意愿，意思是已经愿意、已经计划、并且意图享受射精。做出决定，意思是唤起了不顾后果的精神状态，以攻击之力「碾碎」。（这些是它用来解释《波罗夷》三、《波逸提》六一和《波逸提》七七中相同措辞的相同术语。意思是，不仅玩弄这个想法。而是已经肯定地下定决心，克服所有犹豫，积极地采取旨在引起射精的行动。）明知意思是知道「我正在努力」——《复注》将其解释为知道「我正在为了射精而努力」。有意识意思是意识到自己的努力正在导致精液的排出。
The Commentary’s definition of “having willed” is where it deviates from the Vibhaṅga’s discussion of the factor of intention. The Vibhaṅga, throughout its analysis, expresses this factor simply as “aiming at causing an emission,” and it lists ten possible motives for wanting to bring the emission about:	《义注》对「有意愿」的定义与《经分别》对意图因素的讨论有所不同。《经分别》在其整个分析中仅仅将这一因素表述为「旨在引起射精」，并列出了想要引起射精的十种可能的动机：
for the sake of health,	为了健康，
for the sake of pleasure,	为了享乐，
for the sake of a medicine,	为了用药，
for the sake of a gift (to insects, says the Commentary, although producing semen as a gift to one’s partner in a tantric ritual would also come under this category),	为了礼物（《义注》中说，是给昆虫，尽管在密宗仪式中将精液作为礼物送给伴侣也属于这一类），
for the sake of merit,	为了功德，
for the sake of a sacrifice,	为了牺牲，
for the sake of heaven,	为了天界，
for the sake of seed (to produce a child—a bhikkhu who gave semen to be used in artificial insemination would fit in this category),	为了留种（为了生孩子－比丘捐出精液用于人工受孕就属于这一类），
for the sake of investigating (e.g., to diagnose one’s health), or	为了调查（例如，诊断某人的健康状况），或
for the sake of playfulness or fun.	为了好玩或有趣。
Each of these motives, the Vibhaṅga says, fulfills the factor of intention here. Thus for the Commentary to limit the question of “deliberate intention” strictly to the enjoyment of the act of bringing about an emission (numbers 2 and 10 in the Vibhaṅga’s list) has no basis in the Canon. This means that the factor of intention under this rule is defined by deliberateness and immediate aim—causing an emission of semen—regardless of impulse or motive.	《经分别》说，这些动机中的每一个都满足了这里的意图因素。因此，《义注》将「故意」问题严格限制为享受带来射精的行为（《经分别》列表中的第2和10号）在《圣典》中是没有根据的。这意味著本戒条下的意图因素是由故意和直接目标（导致精液排出）定义的，无论冲动或动机如何。
Given the way intention is defined, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who brings on an emission of semen—	考虑到意图的定义方式，对于比丘来说，导致射精的行为并不构成犯戒—
accidentally—e.g., toying with his penis simply for the pleasure of the contact, when it suddenly and unexpectedly goes off;	意外地－例如，仅仅为了接触的乐趣而玩弄他的阴茎，但它突然意外地出来了；
not knowing that he is making an effort—e.g., when he is dreaming or in a semi-conscious state before fully waking up from sleep;	不知道自己正在努力－例如，当他在做梦时或在从睡眠中完全醒来之前处于半意识状态时；
not conscious that his efforts are bringing about an emission of semen—e.g., when he is so engrossed in applying medicine to a sore on his penis that he doesn’t realize that he is bringing on an ejaculation;	没有意识到他的努力导致了精液的射出－例如，当他全神贯注地为阴茎上的疮口用药时，他没有意识到自己正在射精；
or when his efforts are motivated by a purpose other than that of causing an emission—e.g., when he wakes up, finds that he is about to have a spontaneous ejaculation, and grabs hold of his penis to keep the semen from soiling his robes or bedding.	或者当他的努力不是出于引起射精的目的时，例如，当他醒来时，发现他即将自然射精，抓住他的阴茎以防止精液弄脏他的袈裟或寝具。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga defines four types of effort that fulfill this factor: A bhikkhu causes an emission making an effort (1) at an internal object, (2) at an external object, (3) at both an internal and an external object, or (4) by shaking his pelvis in the air. It then goes on to explain these terms: The internal object is one’s own living body. External objects can either be animate or inanimate objects. The third type of effort involves a combination of the first two, and the fourth covers cases when one makes one’s penis erect (“workable”) by making an effort in the air.	《经分别》定义了满足此因素的四种类型的努力：比丘造成射精借由努力于：（1）内在所缘，（2）外在所缘，（3）内在所缘和外在所缘，或（4）透过在空中摇动骨盆。然后它继续解释这些术语：内在所缘是一个人自己的生命体。外在所缘可以是有生命的或无生命的所缘。第三种类型的努力涉及前两种的组合，第四种涵盖了透过在空中努力使阴茎勃起（「可行」）的情况。
The extremely general nature of these definitions gives the impression that the compilers of the Vibhaṅga wanted them to cover every imaginable type of bodily effort aimed at arousing oneself sexually, and this impression is borne out by the wide variety of cases covered in the Vinīta-vatthu. They include, among others, a bhikkhu who squeezes his penis with his fist, one who rubs his penis with his thumb, one who rubs his penis against his bed, one who inserts his penis into sand, one who bathes against the current in a stream, one who rubs his preceptor’s back in the bathing room, one who gets an erection from the friction of his thighs and robes while walking along, one who has his belly heated in the bathing room, and one who stretches his body. In each of these cases, if the bhikkhu aims at and succeeds in causing an emission, he incurs a saṅghādisesa.	这些定义极其笼统的性质给人的印象是，《经分别》的编撰者希望它们涵盖所有可以想像到的旨在唤起性欲的身体努力类型，而这种印象在《Vinīta-vatthu》中涵盖的各种案例中得到了证实。其中包括一位比丘用拳头挤压他的阴茎，一位比丘用拇指摩擦他的阴茎，一位比丘用床摩擦他的阴茎，一位将他的阴茎插入沙子中，一位在水流中逆流沐浴。一位是在浴房里摩擦戒师的背部，一位是走路时大腿和袈裟摩擦而勃起的，一位是在浴房里加热腹部的，一位是伸展身体的。在上述每一种情况下，如果比丘目的在于射精并成功，他就会犯《僧残》。
The Vinīta-vatthu also includes a case in which a bhikkhu, desiring to cause an emission, orders a novice to take hold of his (the bhikkhu’s) penis. He gets his emission and a saṅghādisesa to boot, which shows that getting someone else to make the effort for one fulfills the factor of effort here. Under the factor of consent, below, we will discuss a similar case from the Vinīta-vatthu to Pr 1 which indicates that simply lying still while allowing someone else to bring one to an orgasm fulfills the factor of effort here as well.	《Vinīta-vatthu》还包括一个例子，一位比丘想要射精，命令一位沙弥抓住他的（比丘的）阴茎。他得到了他的射精和《僧残》，这表明让别人为自己付出努力就满足了这里的努力因素。在下面的同意因素下，我们将讨论从《波罗夷》一的《Vinīta-vatthu》中的一个类似案例，该案例表明，仅仅只是不动地躺著，同时允许别人使自己达到高潮，也满足了这里的努力因素。
In discussing the factor of effort, though, the Commentary adds an additional sub-factor: that the effort must be directed at one’s own penis. If this were so, then a bhikkhu who succeeded in causing an emission by stimulating any of the erogenous zones of his body aside from his penis would incur no penalty. The Commentary itself actually makes this point, and the Sub-commentary seconds it, although the V/Sub-commentary says that such a bhikkhu would incur a dukkaṭa—what it bases this opinion on, it doesn’t say: perhaps a misreading of the Case of the Sleeping Novice, which we will discuss below.	然而，在讨论努力因素时，《义注》增加了一个额外的子因素：努力必须针对自己的阴茎。如果是这样的话，那么比丘如果透过刺激身体上除阴茎以外的任何性感带而成功地导致射精，就不会受到惩罚。《义注》本身实际上提出了这一点，而《复注》也同意这一点，尽管V/《复注》说这样的比丘会犯《突吉罗》—它并没有说明此观点基于什么：也许是对睡眠沙弥案例的误读，我们将在下面讨论。
At any rate, the Commentary in adding this last factor runs up against a number of cases in the Vinīta-vatthu in which the effort does not involve the penis: the bhikkhu warming his belly, the bhikkhu rubbing his preceptor’s back, a bhikkhu having his thighs massaged, and others. The Commentary deals with these cases by rewriting them, stating in most cases that the effort somehow had to involve the penis. This in itself is questionable, but when the Commentary actually contradicts the Vinīta-vatthu in the case of the bhikkhu who warms his belly, saying that this sort of effort could not involve an offense at all, even if one aims at and succeeds in causing an emission, the commentators have moved beyond the realm of commenting into the realm of rewriting the rule.	无论如何，《义注》在添加这最后一个因素时遭遇到了《Vinīta-vatthu》中的许多案例，其中努力不涉及阴茎：比丘温暖他的腹部，比丘摩擦他的戒师的背部，比丘让他的大腿被按摩，等等。《义注》透过改写来处理这些案例，指出在大多数情况下，努力必须以某种方式涉及阴茎。这本身是有问题的，但是当《义注》实际上与《Vinīta-vatthu》中比丘温暖腹部的案例相矛盾时，说这种努力根本不涉及犯戒，即使一个人的目的在于射精并成功，注释者已经超越了注释领域，进入了改写戒条的领域。
As stated in the Introduction, we have to go on the assumption that the compilers of the Vibhaṅga knew the crucial factors of each offense well enough to know what is and is not an offense, and were careful enough to include all the relevant facts when describing the precedents in the Vinīta-vatthu in order to show how the Buddha arrived at his judgments. Because the Commentary’s position—adding the extra factor that the physical effort has to involve one’s own penis—directly contradicts the Vibhaṅga on this point, the extra factor cannot stand.	如同引言中所述，我们必须继续假设，《经分别》的编纂者充分了解每种犯戒的关键因素，知道什么是犯戒，什么不是犯戒，并且在描述《Vinīta-vatthu》中的先例时足够小心，包括所有相关事实，以表明佛陀如何得出他的判断。因为《义注》的立场——增加了身体努力必须涉及自己的阴茎这一额外因素——在这一点上直接与《经分别》相矛盾，所以这个额外因素不能成立。
The question then is why the commentators added the extra factor in the first place. An answer may be found in one of the cases in the Vinīta-vatthu: the Case of the Sleeping Novice.	那么问题便是为什么注释者当初添加了额外的因素。在《Vinīta-vatthu》中的一个案例中或许可以找到答案：睡眠沙弥案例。
“On that occasion a certain bhikkhu grabbed hold of the penis of a sleeping novice. His semen was emitted. He felt conscience-stricken…. ‘Bhikkhu, there is no saṅghādisesa offense. There is a dukkaṭa offense.’”	「有一次，某个比丘抓住了一个熟睡的沙弥的阴茎。他的精液被射出。他感到良心不安…。『比丘，非《僧残》，乃《突吉罗》』」
The issue here is whose semen was emitted. Pali syntax, unlike English, doesn’t give us a clue, for there is no syntactical rule that the pronoun in one sentence should refer to the subject of the preceding sentence. There are many cases under Pr 3 that follow the form, “A stone badly held by the bhikkhu standing above hit the bhikkhu standing below on the head. The bhikkhu died. He felt conscience-stricken.” In these cases it is obvious from the context within the story which bhikkhu died and which one felt conscience-stricken, while with the sleeping novice we have to look for the context in other parts of the Vibhaṅga.	这里的问题是谁的精液被排出了。巴利语法与英语不同，没有给我们任何线索，因为没有语法规则要求一个句子中的代名词应该指前一个句子的主词。《波罗夷》三中有许多案例遵循这样的形式：「站在上面的比丘拙劣地握住一块石头，击中了站在下面的比丘的头部。比丘死了。他感到良心受到谴责。」在这些情况下，从故事的上下文中可以明显看出哪个比丘死了，哪个比丘感到良心受到打击，而对于睡眠的沙弥，我们必须在《经分别》的其他部分寻找上下文。
If the bhikkhu was the one who emitted semen, then perhaps there is a contradiction in the Vibhaṅga, and the Commentary is justified in saying that the effort must involve one’s penis, for otherwise the case would seem to fulfill the Vibhaṅga’s general definition for the factor of effort: The bhikkhu is making an effort at an outside body and has an emission. Following the general pattern of the rule, he would incur a saṅghādisesa if he intended emission, and no penalty at all if he didn’t. Yet—deviating from the standard pattern for the Vinīta-vatthu cases—the Buddha does not ask whether he aimed at emitting semen, and simply gives the bhikkhu a dukkaṭa, which suggests an inconsistency.	如果比丘是射出精液的人，那么《经分别》中也许存在矛盾，而《义注》说努力必须涉及自己的阴茎是合理的，否则这种情况似乎满足了《经分别》对努力因素的一般定义：比丘对对外部的身体施加努力并且射出精液。按照戒条的一般模式，如果他意图射精，就会犯《僧残》，如果他没有意图射精，则不会受到任何惩罚。然而，与《Vinīta-vatthu》案例的标准模式不同的是，佛陀并没有问他是否旨在射精，而只是给了比丘《突吉罗》，这表明了不一致。
If, however, the novice was the one who emitted, there is no inconsistency at all: The bhikkhu incurs his dukkaṭa for making lustful bodily contact with another man (see the discussion under Sg 2, below), and the case is included here to show that the full offense under this rule concerns instances where one makes oneself emit semen, and not where one makes others emit. (Other than this case, there is nothing in the rule or the Vibhaṅga that expressly makes this point. The rule simply mentions bringing about the emission of semen, without explicitly mentioning whose. This would explain the bhikkhu’s uncertainty as to whether or not he had committed a saṅghādisesa.) And the reason there is no mention of whether or not the bhikkhu intended to emit semen is because—as it comes under another rule—it is irrelevant to the case.	然而，如果沙弥是射出精液的人，则根本没有矛盾：比丘因与另一个男人进行淫荡的身体接触而犯《突吉罗》（参见下面《僧残》二的讨论），这个案例被包括在这里，以显示本戒条下的完全违犯涉及一个人使自己射出精液的情况，而不是使他人射出精液的情况。（除了这个例子之外，戒条或《经分别》中没有任何内容明确说明这一点。戒条只是提到导致精液的排出，而没有明确提及是谁的。这可以解释比丘不确定自己是否犯《僧残》。）之所以没有提及比丘是否有意射精，是因为——它属于另一条戒条——与本案例无关。
Thus, inasmuch as the second reading—the novice was the one who had an emission—does no violence to the rest of the Vibhaṅga, it seems to be the preferable one. If this was the case that led the commentators to add their extra factor, we can see that they misread it and that the Vibhaṅga’s original definition for the factor of effort still stands: Any bodily effort made at one’s own body, at another body or physical object, at both, or any effort made in the air—like shaking one’s pelvis or stretching one’s body—fulfills the factor of effort here.	因此，由于第二种读法——沙弥是射精的人——对《经分别》的其余部分没有冲突，所以它似乎是更好的读法。如果正是这种情况导致注释者添加他们的额外因素，我们可以看到他们误读了它，而《经分别》对努力因素的原始定义仍然有效：对自己的身体、对另一个身体或身体对象，或对两者皆是，还是在空中所做的任何努力——比如摇动一个人的骨盆或伸展一个人的身体——所做出的任何身体努力，都满足了这里的努力因素。
One case that does not fulfill the factor of effort, according to the Vinīta-vatthu, is when one is filled with lust and stares at the private parts of a woman or girl. In the case dealing with this contingency, the bhikkhu emits semen, but again the Buddha does not ask whether he intended to. Instead, he lays down a separate rule, imposing a dukkaṭa for staring lustfully at a woman’s private parts. This suggests that efforts with one’s eyes do not count as bodily efforts under this saṅghādisesa rule, for otherwise the penalty would have been a saṅghādisesa if the bhikkhu had intended emission, and no offense—not a dukkaṭa—if he hadn’t. And this also suggests that the dukkaṭa under this separate rule holds regardless of intention or result. The Commentary adds that this dukkaṭa applies also to staring lustfully at the genitals of a female animal or at the area of a fully-clothed woman’s body where her sexual organ is, thinking, “Her sexual organ is there.” At present we would impose the penalty on a bhikkhu who stares lustfully at a woman’s private parts in a pornographic photograph.	根据《Vinīta-vatthu》，一种不满足努力因素的情况是，当一个人充满欲望并盯著女人或女孩的私处时。在处理这种可能发生的情况时，比丘射出精液，但佛陀并没有问他是否有意这样做。相反地，他制定了一条单独的戒条，对充满欲望地凝视女性私处，处以《突吉罗》。这表明，在本《僧残》戒条下，用眼睛做的努力不算作身体的努力，否则，如果比丘有意射精，就会受到《僧残》的惩罚；如果他没有无意，则没有犯戒，而不是《突吉罗》。这也表明，无论意图或结果如何，这条单独戒条下的《突吉罗》都成立。《义注》补充说，这种《突吉罗》也适用于充满欲望地凝视雌性动物的生殖器，或盯著穿著衣服的女性身体的性器官所在的区域，心想：「她的性器官就在那里。」目前，我们会对在色情照片中充满欲望地凝视女性私处的比丘施以此惩罚。
As we will see under the non-offense clauses, there is no offense in a nocturnal emission. The Commentary, however, discusses the question of conscious efforts made prior to sleep aimed at a nocturnal emission, and arrives at the following verdicts: If a bhikkhu, “usurped” with lust while lying down, grabs his penis with his fist or thighs and drops off to sleep maintaining that position in hopes of inducing an emission, he incurs the full offense if the emission takes place. If, however, he suppresses his “lust-usurpation” by reflecting on the foulness of the body and then dozes off with a pure mind, he incurs no offense even if an emission later occurs. The analysis here seems to be that the bhikkhu’s change of mind would separate the emission from the earlier effort enough so that it would not be regarded as a direct result of that effort. The Sub-commentary adds that, in addition to suppressing the lust in his mind, he also has to discontinue his effort to be free of an offense in this way. And both texts have to be qualified by saying that the “no offense” would apply only to the emission, for the earlier intentional effort would incur a thullaccaya.	正如我们将在不犯条款中看到的，遗精并不构成犯戒。然而，《义注》讨论了在睡眠前为了遗精而有意识地努力的问题，并得出以下结论：如果比丘在躺下时被欲望「侵占」，用拳头或大腿抓住他的阴茎，入睡时保持该姿势以期引起遗精，如果发生遗精，他将完全违犯此戒条。然而，如果他透过反思身体的不净来抑制「欲望篡夺」，然后以清净的心入睡，即使后来发生遗精，他也不会犯戒。这里的分析似乎是，比丘改变心意，会将射精与先前的努力充分分开，这样它就不会被视为该努力的直接结果。《复注》又说，除了抑制内心的欲望之外，他还必须停止他的努力而免于以这种方式犯戒。这两篇文本都必须加以限定，即「不犯」仅适用于射精，因为更早之前的故意努力会犯《偷兰遮》。

Consent

同意

A special contingency covered by this rule occurs in two nearly identical cases in the Vinīta-vatthu for Pr 1: A woman approaches a bhikkhu and offers to make him emit semen by attacking with her hand (§). In both cases the bhikkhu lets her go ahead, and the Buddha says that he incurs a saṅghādisesa in doing so. The commentaries treat the cases as self-evident and offer no extra details. Thus, given the facts as we have them, it would seem that consent under this rule can be expressed physically simply by letting the act happen. A bhikkhu who acquiesces mentally when someone tries and succeeds in making him emit semen is not absolved from the full offense here even if he otherwise lies perfectly still throughout the event.

本戒条所涵盖的特殊意外情况发生在《波罗夷》一的《Vinīta-vatthu》中的两个几乎相同的案例中：一名妇女走近一位比丘，提出用手攻击让他射出精液（§）。在这两种情况下，比丘都让她继续，佛陀说他这样做会犯《僧残》。注释认为这些案例是不言而喻的，没有提供额外的细节。因此，鉴于我们所掌握的事实，似乎可以透过仅仅让该行为发生在身体上来表达本戒条下的同意。当有人试图并成功地让比丘射出精液时，比丘在精神上默许，即使他在整个事件中完全静止不动，也不能免除这里的完全违犯。

Derived offenses	衍生违犯
As stated above, a bhikkhu who fulfills all three factors—result, intention, and effort—incurs a saṅghādisesa. One who fulfills only the last two—intention and effort—incurs a thullaccaya.	如上所述，比丘满足了所有三个因素——结果、意图和努力——就犯了《僧残》。一个人只满足最后两项——意图和努力——就会犯了《偷兰遮》。
In discussing the case of a bhikkhu with fat thighs who develops an erection simply by walking along, the Commentary mentions that if one finds sensual “fever” arising in such a case, one must immediately stop walking and start contemplating the foulness of the body so as to purify the mind before continuing on one’s way. Otherwise, one would incur a thullaccaya simply for moving one’s legs. Sensual fever, here, probably refers to the desire to cause an emission, for there are several spots where the Commentary discusses bhikkhus who stimulate an erection simply for the enjoyment of the contact rather than to cause an emission, and the judgment is that they incur no penalty, even if an emission does inadvertently result.	在讨论一位大腿肥大的比丘，只要走路就勃起的案例时，《义注》提到，如果在这种情况下发现欲「烧」，必须立即停止行走，并开始观照身体的不净，以便在继续前进之前净化内心。否则，仅仅因为移动双腿就会招致《偷兰遮》。这里的欲烧可能是指想要引起射精的欲望，因为《义注》中有好几处讨论了比丘刺激勃起的原因，他们只是为了享受接触的乐趣而不是为了引起射精，而判决结果是，即使无意中造成了射精，他们也不会受到惩罚。
Aside from the thullaccaya, the Vibhaṅga assigns no other derived offenses under this rule. A bhikkhu who has an ejaculation while thinking sensual thoughts but without making any physical effort to cause it, incurs no penalty regardless of whether the idea crosses his mind that he would like to have an emission, and regardless of whether he enjoys it when it occurs. However, the Commentary notes here that even though there is no offense involved, one should not let oneself be overcome by sensual thoughts in this way. This point is borne out by the famous simile that occurred to Prince Siddhattha before his Awakening and that later, as Buddha, he related to a number of listeners:	除了《偷兰遮》之外，《经分别》在本戒条下没有指定任何其他衍生违犯。比丘在想性欲念头时射精，但没有付出任何身体努力来导致射精，无论他的心中是否有想要射精的念头，也无论当射精发生时他是否享受它，都不会受到惩罚。然而，《义注》在此指出，即使没有犯戒，也不应该这样让自己被欲念所征服。悉达多太子在成佛之前，后来成为佛陀时，对许多听众讲了一个著名的比喻，证实了这一点：
“‘Suppose there were a wet sappy piece of timber lying on dry ground far from water, and a man were to come along with an upper fire-stick, thinking, “I’ll light a fire. I’ll produce heat.” Now what do you think? Would he be able to light a fire and produce heat by rubbing the upper fire-stick in the wet sappy timber…?’	假如有一条潮湿的木柴，被人放在干地上，一个人拿著一支木燧走来，想用那条木柴来生热、取火。火种，你认为怎样，那个人能否用木燧和那条木柴来生热、取火呢？
“‘No, Master Gotama. And why is that? Because the wood is wet and sappy, even though it is lying on dry ground far from water. The man would reap only his share of weariness and disappointment.’	“乔答摩贤者，不能。这是什么原因呢？因为虽然那条木柴被人放在干地上，但仍是潮湿的。那个人只会为自己带来疲劳和苦恼。”
“‘So it is with any brahman or contemplative who lives withdrawn from sensuality only in body, but whose desire, infatuation, urge, thirst, and fever for sensuality is not relinquished and stilled within him: Whether or not he feels painful, racking, piercing feelings due to his striving (for Awakening), he is incapable of knowledge, vision, and unexcelled self-awakening.’”—MN 36	同样地，任何沙门婆罗门，如果不能从身体所带来的欲乐之中退却出来，不能善于舍弃和善于平息内心对贪欲的爱欲、爱著、迷恋、渴求、热爱的话，在感受到强烈、猛烈、激烈的苦受时，他们没有能力得到无上等正觉的知和见—《中部》36经

Non-offenses	不犯
In addition to the cases already mentioned—the bhikkhus who bring about emissions accidentally, not knowing that they are making an effort, not conscious that their efforts are bringing about an emission, whose efforts are motivated by a purpose other than that of causing an emission, or who without making any physical effort have an ejaculation while overcome by sensual thoughts—there is no offense for a bhikkhu who has an ejaculation while dreaming.	除了已经提到的情况外—比丘们无意中造成漏泄精液，他们不知道自己在努力，没有意识到自己的努力正在带来漏泄精液，他们的努力是出于除了造成漏泄精液之外的目的，或在没有做出身体努力的情况下，被欲念所控制而射精—比丘在梦中射精并不犯戒。
The Commentary notes that some interpreters had taken the idiomatic term in the rule translated as, “while dreaming (supinantā),” and read it as a compound meaning literally “at the end of a dream (supin’antā),” thus opening an allowance for intentional effort and emission when awakening from a soon-to-be-wet dream. However, the Commentary goes on to rule out this overly literal interpretation, stating that what happens in the mind while one is sleeping falls in the bounds of the Abhidhamma, but what happens after one awakens falls within the bounds of the Vinaya; and that there is no such thing as a misdeed performed when one is in a “non-negligible” state of mind that does not count as an offense. (Non-negligible, according to the Sub-commentary, means “normal.”)	《义注》指出，一些解释者将戒条中的惯用术语翻译为「做梦时 (supinantā)」，并将其解读为复合词，字面意思是「在梦的结尾 (supin'antā)」，从而开缘了当从即将遗精的春梦中醒来时，允许有意识的努力和泄精。然而，《义注》接著排除了这种过于字面的解释，指出睡著时内心发生的事情属于阿毘达摩的范围，而睡醒后发生的事情则属于戒律的范围。当一个人处于「不可忽略」的心态时，任何不端行为都算犯戒。（根据《复注》，不可忽略的意思是「正常」。）
In making the exception for what happens while asleep, the Buddha states that even though there may be the intention to cause an emission, it doesn’t count. The Commentary goes on to say, however, that if a bhikkhu fully awakens in the course of a wet dream, he should lie still and be extremely careful not to make a move that would fulfill the factor of effort under this rule. If the process has reached the point where it is irreversible and the ejaculation occurs spontaneously, he incurs no penalty regardless of whether he enjoys it. And as the Commentary quotes from the Kurundī, one of the ancient Sinhalese commentaries on which it is based, if he wakes up in the course of a wet dream and grabs hold of his penis to prevent the ejaculation from soiling his robes or bedding, there is no offense.	在对睡眠时发生的情况进行例外处理时，佛陀指出，即使可能有导致泄精的意图，但这不算数。然而，《义注》接著说，如果比丘在春梦中完全醒来，他应该静静地躺著，并且要非常小心，不要做出会满足本戒条下努力因素的举动。如果这个过程已经达到不可逆转的地步并且射精自然发生，那么无论他是否享受它，他都不会受到惩罚。正如《义注》引用的《Kurundī》（这是其所依据的古代僧伽罗注释之一）中的那样，如果他在春梦中醒来并抓住他的阴茎以防止射精弄脏他的袈裟或床上用品，那么并没有犯戒。
However, the Commentary’s two cases concerning nocturnal emissions, mentioned above, indicate that if a nocturnal emission occurs after a bhikkhu made a fully intentional effort toward an emission before falling asleep, he would incur the full offense under this rule unless the effort and intent were clearly stopped with a clear change of heart while he was still awake. This is because all three factors under this rule would be fully present: a conscious, unhesitating decision to cause an emission; a conscious effort based on that decision; and the resulting emission. Whether or not one was conscious while it occurred is of no account.	然而，上述《义注》中关于遗精的两个案例表明，如果比丘在入睡前完全有意地努力泄精，之后发生遗精，那么他将完全违犯本戒条下，除非在他还醒著的时候，由于心意的明显改变而明显地停止了努力和意图。这是因为本戒条下的所有三个因素都将完全存在：有意识地、毫不犹豫地决定引起泄精；基于该决定的有意识的努力；以及由此产生的泄精。事情发生时一个人是否有意识并不重要。
Summary: Intentionally causing oneself to emit semen, or getting someone else to cause one to emit semen—except during a dream—is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：故意使自己射出精液，或让别人使自己射出精液（除了在梦中），是《僧残》罪。

* * *

2	二
Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, engage in bodily contact with a woman, or in holding her hand, holding a lock of her hair, or caressing any of her limbs, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果任何比丘被贪欲所征服，以变易之心，与女人进行身体接触，或握住她的手，握住她的一绺头发，或爱抚她的任何肢体，僧残。
This rule has sometimes been viewed as a sign of prejudice against women. But, as the origin story makes clear, the Buddha formulated the rule not because women are bad, but because bhikkhus sometimes can be.	本戒条有时被视为对女性的偏见。但是，正如起源故事所表明的那样，佛陀制定这条戒条并不是因为女人不好，而是因为比丘有时是不好的。
“Now at that time, Ven. Udāyin was living in the wilderness. His dwelling was beautiful, attractive, and appealing. The inner chamber was in the middle, entirely surrounded by the outer chamber. The bed and bench, the mattress and pillow were well arranged, the water for washing and drinking well placed, the surrounding area well swept. Many people came to look at it. Even a certain brahman together with his wife went to Ven. Udāyin and on arrival said, ‘We would like to look at your dwelling.’	「尔时，优陀夷尊者住在林野里。他的住所美丽、迷人、吸引人。内室位于中间，完全被外室包围。床板凳、床垫、枕头都摆放整齐，洗用水及饮用水都摆放整齐，周围打扫得井井有条。很多人都过来观看。甚至有一位婆罗门与他的妻子一起去见优陀夷尊者，抵达后说：『我们想看看您的住所。』
“‘Very well then, brahman, have a look.’ Taking the key, unfastening the lock, and opening the door, he entered the dwelling. The brahman entered after Ven. Udāyin; the brahman lady after the brahman. Then Ven. Udāyin, opening some of the windows and closing others, walking around the inner room and coming up from behind, rubbed up against the brahman lady limb by limb.	「『那么，婆罗门，你看看吧。』他拿了钥匙，打开锁，打开门，进入了住宅。婆罗门跟随优陀夷尊者进入；婆罗门妇亦从婆罗门后而入。时，优陀夷尊者开一窗闭一窗，绕内屋而行，从后上来，触摩婆罗门妇其身。
“Then, after exchanging pleasantries with Ven. Udāyin, the brahman left. Delighted, he burst out with words of delight: ‘How grand are these Sakyan contemplatives who live in the wilderness like this! And how grand is Ven. Udāyin who lives in the wilderness like this!’	「然后，与优陀夷尊者寒暄一番后，婆罗门离开了。他大喜，脱口而出欣喜之言：『这些释迦沙门，如此生活在林野，是多么伟大啊！优陀夷尊者就这样生活在林野里，是多么伟大啊！
“When this was said, his wife said to him, ‘From where does he get his grandeur? He rubbed up against me limb by limb just the way you do!’	「如是说时，其妇言婆罗门曰：『他有何高贵？他就像你一样，用肢体摩擦我！』
“So the brahman criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘They’re shameless, these bhikkhus—immoral, liars!… How can this contemplative Udāyin rub up against my wife limb by limb? It isn’t possible to go with your family wives, daughters, girls, daughters-in-law, and female slaves to a monastery or dwelling. If family wives, daughters, girls, daughters-in-law, and female slaves go to a monastery or dwelling, the Sakyan-son monks will molest them!’”	「于是，婆罗门批评、抱怨、散播说：『这些比丘，他们无耻，不道德，骗子！…这个优陀夷沙门怎么能与我的妻子肢体接触呢？实不能与你的家庭妻子、女儿、女孩、媳妇和女奴一起去寺院或精舍。如果家中的妻子、女儿、女孩、媳妇、女奴到寺院或精舍去，沙门释子就会猥亵他们！』」
There are two ways in which a bhikkhu can come into contact with a woman: either actively (the bhikkhu makes the contact) or passively (the woman does). Because the Vibhaṅga uses different terms to analyze these two possibilities, we will discuss them separately.	比丘与女人接触有两种方式：主动（比丘接触）或被动（女人接触）。由于《经分别》使用不同的术语来分析这两种可能性，因此我们将分别讨论它们。

Active contact	主动接触
The full offense for active contact here is composed of four factors.	这里主动接触的完全违犯由四个因素组成。
1) Object: a living woman—“even one born on that very day, all the more an older one.” Whether she is awake enough to realize what is going on is irrelevant to the offense.	1）对象：一个活著的女人——「即使是当天出生者，何况更年长者。」她是否清醒地意识到正在发生的事情与犯戒无关。
2) Perception: The bhikkhu correctly perceives her to be a woman.	2）感知：比丘正确地察觉她是女性。
3) Intention: He is impelled by lust.	3）意图：他被欲望所驱使。
4) Effort: He comes into physical contact with her.	4）努力：他与她有身体接触。
Of these four factors, only two—intention and effort—require detailed explanation.	在这四个因素中，只有两个——意图和努力——需要详细解释。

Intention	意图
The Vibhaṅga explains the term overcome with lust as meaning “impassioned, desiring, a mind bound by attraction.” Altered, it says, can refer in general to one of three states of mind—passion, aversion, or delusion—but here it refers specifically to passion.	《经分别》将「被贪欲所征服」一词解释为「充满激情、渴望、被吸引力束缚的心」。它说，「变易」一般可以指三种心理状态之一──贪、瞋或痴──但这里它特指贪。
The Commentary adds a piece of Abhidhamma analysis at this point, saying that altered refers to the moment when the mind leaves its state of pure neutrality in the bhavaṅga under the influence of desire. Thus the factor of intention here can be fulfilled not only by a prolonged or intense feeling of desire, but also by a momentary attraction.	《义注》在此加了阿毘达摩的分析，说「变易」是指心在欲望的影响下，离开有分的清净中立状态的时刻。因此，这里的意图因素不仅可以透过持久或强烈的欲望感来实现，也可以透过瞬间的吸引来实现。
The Commentary also tries to limit the range of passion to which this rule applies, saying that it covers only desire for the enjoyment of contact. As we noted under Pr 1, the ancient commentators formulated a list of eleven types of lust, each mutually exclusive, and the question of which rule applies to a particular case depends on which type of lust provokes the bhikkhu’s actions. Thus if a bhikkhu lusting for intercourse touches a woman, it says, he incurs only a dukkaṭa as a preliminary to sexual intercourse under Pr 1. If he touches her through his lust for an ejaculation, he incurs a thullaccaya as a preliminary to causing an emission under Sg 1. Only if he touches her with the simple desire to enjoy the sensation of contact does he incur a saṅghādisesa under this rule.	《义注》也试图限制本戒条适用的激情范围，称它仅涵盖享受接触的欲望。正如我们在《波罗夷》一中所指出的，古代注释者列出了十一种贪欲的清单，每种贪欲都是相互排斥的，而哪种戒条适用于某个特定情况的问题取决于哪种类型的贪欲会激起比丘的行动。因此，如果一个欲求性交的比丘触摸一个女人，它说，他只会犯《突吉罗》，作为《波罗夷》一下性交的预备。如果他出于射精的欲望而触摸她，他就会犯《偷兰遮》，作为《僧残》一下引起射精的预备。只有当他怀著享受接触感觉的纯粹欲望去触碰她时，他才会根据本戒条犯《僧残》。
This system, though very neat and orderly, flies in the face of common sense and, as we noted under Pr 1, contradicts the Vibhaṅga as well, so there is no need to adopt it. We can stick with the Vibhaṅga to this rule and say that any state of passion fulfills the factor of intention here. The Commentary’s discussion, though, is useful in showing that the passion needn’t be full-scale sexual lust. Even a momentary desire to enjoy the sensation of physical contact—overwhelming enough that one acts on it—is enough to fulfill this factor.	这个系统虽然非常整洁有序，但却违背了常识，并且正如我们在《波罗夷》一中指出的那样，也与《经分别》相矛盾，因此没有必要采用它。我们可以遵循本戒条的《经分别》，并说任何激情状态都满足这里的意图因素。不过，《义注》的讨论有助于显示激情不一定是全面的性欲。即使是一瞬间想要享受身体接触的感觉——强烈到足以让人采取行动——也足以满足本因素。

Effort

努力

The Vibhaṅga illustrates the effort of making physical contact with a list of activities: rubbing, rubbing up against, rubbing downwards, rubbing upwards, bending down, pulling up, drawing to, pushing away, seizing hold (restraining or pinning down—abhiniggaṇhanā), squeezing, grasping, or touching. The Vinīta-vatthu includes a case of a bhikkhu giving a woman a blow with his shoulder: He too incurs a saṅghādisesa, which shows that the Vibhaṅga’s list is meant to cover all similar actions as well. If a bhikkhu with lustful mind does anything of this sort to a living woman’s body, perceiving her to be a woman, he incurs the full penalty under this rule. As noted under Pr 1, mouth-to-mouth penetration with any human being or common animal would incur a thullaccaya. If this act is accompanied by other lustful bodily contact, the thullaccaya would be incurred in addition to any other penalty imposed here.

《经分别》说明了透过一系列活动进行身体接触的努力：摩擦、偶然碰上、向下摩擦、向上摩擦、向下弯腰、向上拉、拉近、推开、抓住（限制或固定—abhiniggaṇhanā），挤压、抓握或触摸。《Vinīta-vatthu》中有一个比丘用肩膀碰女人的例子：他也犯了《僧残》，这表明《经分别》的清单也旨在涵盖所有类似的行为。如果一个比丘怀著贪欲的心，对一个活著的女人的身体做出这样的事情，并认为她是一个女人，那么他将根据本戒条受到完全的惩罚。如《波罗夷》一所述，与任何人类或普通动物进行口对口插入都会犯《偷兰遮》。如果此行为伴随著其他淫欲的身体接触，除了此处施加的任何其他惩罚外，还将犯《偷兰遮》。

Derived offenses	衍生违犯
Each of the factors of an offense allows a number of permutations that admit for different classes of offenses. Taken together, they form a complex system. Here we will consider each factor in turn.	犯戒的每个因素都允许多种排列，以适应不同类别的犯戒。它们结合在一起，形成了一个复杂的系统。这里我们将依序考虑每个因素。
Object	对象
Assuming that the bhikkhu is acting with lustful intentions and is perceiving his object correctly, he incurs a thullaccaya for making bodily contact with a paṇḍaka, a female yakkha, or a dead woman; and a dukkaṭa for bodily contact with a man (or boy), a wooden doll, or a male or female animal.	假设比丘怀著贪欲而行动，并且正确地感知他的对象，他会因与黄门（paṇḍaka）、女夜叉或死去的女人进行身体接触而犯《偷兰遮》；与男人（或男孩）、木娃娃、雄性或雌性动物的身体接触则犯《突吉罗》。
Paṇḍaka is usually translated as eunuch, but eunuchs are only one of five types of paṇḍakas recognized by the Commentary to Mv.I.61:	Paṇḍaka 通常被翻译为太监，但太监只是《大品》.一.61的《义注》所认可的五种黄门（paṇḍaka）之一：
1) An āsitta (literally, a “sprinkled one”)—a man whose sexual desire is allayed by performing fellatio on another man and bringing him to climax. (Some have read this as classing all homosexual males as paṇḍakas, but there are two reasons for not accepting this interpretation: (a) It seems unlikely that many homosexuals would allay their sexual desire simply by bringing someone else to climax through oral sex; (b) other homosexual acts, even though they were known in ancient India, are not included under this type or under any of the types in this list.)	1）āsitta（字面意思是「被注入者」）－透过对另一个男人口交并使他达到高潮来缓解性欲的男人。（有些人认为这是将所有同性恋男性归为黄门（paṇḍaka），但不接受这种解释有两个原因：（a）许多同性恋者似乎不太可能仅仅通过口交使别人达到高潮来减轻自己的性欲；（b）其他同性恋行为，即使它们在古印度为人所知，也不包含在此类型或此列表中的任何类型中。
2) A voyeur—a man whose sexual desire is allayed by watching other people commit sexual indiscretions.	2）窥淫癖者－透过观看其他人的不检点性行为来降低性欲的男人。
3) A eunuch—one who has been castrated.	3）太监－被阉割的人。
4) A half-time paṇḍaka—one who is a paṇḍaka only during the waning moon. (! — The Sub-commentary’s discussion of this point shows that its author and his contemporaries were as unfamiliar with this type as we are today. Perhaps this was how bisexuals were understood in ancient times.)	4）半月黄门（paṇḍaka）－仅在下弦月期间才是黄门（paṇḍaka）。（！－《复注》对这一点的讨论表明，它的作者和他的同时代人对这种类型和我们今天一样陌生。也许这就是古代对双性恋的理解。）
5) A neuter—a person born without sexual organs.	5）中性人－出生时没有性器官的人。
This passage in the Commentary further states that the last three types cannot take the Going-forth, while the first two can (although it also quotes from the Kurundī that the half-time paṇḍaka is forbidden from going-forth only during the waning moon (!).) As for the prohibition in Mv.I.61, that paṇḍakas cannot receive full ordination, the Commentary states that that refers only to those who cannot take the Going-forth.	《义注》中的这段话进一步指出，后三种不能出家，而前两种可以（尽管它也引用《Kurundī》，半月黄门仅在下弦月期间禁止出家（！）。）至于《大品》.一.61中的禁令，即黄门不能受具足戒，《义注》指出，这仅指那些不能出家的人。
However, in the context of this rule, and other rules in the Pāṭimokkha where paṇḍakas enter into the calculation of an offense, the Commentary does not say whether paṇḍaka covers all five types of paṇḍakas or only those not allowed to ordain. In other words, in the context of these rules do “sprinkled ones” and voyeurs count as paṇḍakas or men? In the context of this rule the practical implications of the distinction are minor: If counted as men, they would be grounds for a dukkaṭa; if paṇḍakas, grounds for a thullaccaya. However, under Pc 6, 44, 45, & 67, the distinction makes the difference between an offense and a non-offense, and so it is an important one to draw. There seems good reason to count them as men under all rules, for if they could ordain and yet were considered paṇḍakas under these rules, the texts would have been obliged to deal with the issue of how bhikkhus were to treat validly ordained paṇḍakas in their midst in the context of these rules. But they don’t. This shows that the issue never arose, which means that, for the purposes of all the rules, these two types of individuals count as men.	然而，在本戒条的脉络下，以及《波罗提木叉》中将黄门纳入犯戒计算的其他戒条中，《义注》并没有说明黄门是否涵盖所有五种类型的黄门或仅涵盖那些不允许出家的类型。换句话说，在这些戒条的脉络下，「被注入者」和窥淫癖者算是「黄门」还是「男人」？在本戒条的戒条下，这种区别的实际含义是较不重要的：如果被算作男人，他们将成为《突吉罗》的理由；如果是黄门，则为《偷兰遮》的理由。然而，在《波逸提》六、四四、四五和六七下，这一区别决定了犯戒和不犯之间的区别，因此这是一个重要的问题。似乎有充分的理由在所有戒条下将他们视为男人，因为如果他们能够出家，但在这些戒条下仍被视为黄门，那么文献就必须处理比丘如何对待他们之中的有效出家的黄门的问题。但文献没有。这表明这个问题从未出现过，这意味著，就所有戒条而言，这两类人都算是男性。
As for female yakkhas, the Commentary says that this also includes female devas. There is an ancient story in Chieng Mai of a bhikkhu who was visited by a dazzling heavenly maiden late one night while he was meditating alone in a cave at Wat Umong. She told him not to touch her, but he did—and went immediately out of his mind. The moral: This is one thullaccaya not to be taken lightly.	至于女夜叉，《义注》说，这也包括女天人。清迈有一个古老的故事，讲的是一位比丘在悟蒙寺的一个山洞里独自冥想时，有一天深夜，一位耀眼的天女拜访了他。她告诉他不要碰她，但他却碰了——然后立刻就失去了理智。寓意：这是不可掉以轻心的《偷兰遮》。
There is one exception to the dukkaṭa for lustful contact with an animal: Mv.V.9.3 states that a bhikkhu who touches the genitals of cattle incurs a thullaccaya.	对于与动物的淫欲接触犯《突吉罗》，但有一个例外：《大品》.五.9.3指出，触摸牛生殖器的比丘会犯《偷兰遮》。
Other information from the Commentary:	《义注》中的其他资讯：
1) The thullaccaya for lustfully touching female corpses applies only to those that would be grounds for a full offense under Pr 1, i.e., those with an anal, oral, or genital orifice intact enough for one to perform the sexual act. Female corpses decomposed beyond that point are grounds for a dukkaṭa here.	1）淫欲触摸女性尸体犯《偷兰遮》仅适用于那些根据《波罗夷》一构成完全犯戒的尸体，即肛门、口腔或生殖器口完好无损，足以让人进行性行为。在此之后腐烂的女性尸体在此犯《突吉罗》。
2) The dukkaṭa for lustfully touching wooden dolls (mannequins) applies also to any female form made out of other materials, and even to any picture of a woman.	2）淫欲地触摸木娃娃（人体模型）犯《突吉罗》，也适用于任何用其他材料制成的女性形象，甚至任何女性照片。
3) Female animals include female nāgas as well as any female offspring of a union between a human being and an animal.	3）雌性动物包括雌性龙（nāga）以及人类与动物结合的雌性后代。
For some reason, male yakkhas and devas slipped out of the list. Perhaps they should come under men.	由于某种原因，男性夜叉和天神被排除在名单之外。也许他们应该受男人管辖。

Perception

感知

The Vibhaṅga shows that misperception affects the severity of the offense only in the cases of women and paṇḍakas. A bhikkhu who makes lustful bodily contact with a woman while under the impression that she is something else—a paṇḍaka, a man, or an animal—incurs a thullaccaya. If he makes lustful bodily contact with a paṇḍaka while under the impression that the paṇḍaka is a woman, a man, or an animal, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. In the cases of men and animals, misperception has no effect on the severity of the case: Lustful bodily contact—e.g., with a male transvestite whom one thinks to be a woman—still results in a dukkaṭa.

《经分别》表明，只有在女人和黄门的情况下，错误感知才会影响犯戒的严重程度。比丘与女性进行淫欲的身体接触，同时又以为她是别的东西——黄门、男人或动物——犯《偷兰遮》。如果他在以为黄门是女人、男人或动物而与之进行淫欲的身体接触，则惩罚是《突吉罗》。对于男人和动物来说，错误感知对案件的严重性没有影响：淫荡的身体接触——例如，与被认为是女性的男性易装者——仍然犯《突吉罗》。

Intention	意图
The Vinīta-vatthu contains cases of a bhikkhu who caresses his mother out of filial affection, one who caresses his daughter out of fatherly affection, and one who caresses his sister out of brotherly affection. In each case the penalty is a dukkaṭa.	《Vinīta-vatthu》中记载了一位比丘出于孝爱抚摸母亲的例子，一位比丘出于父爱抚摸女儿的例子，还有一位比丘出于兄弟感情抚摸妹妹的例子。在每种情况下，惩罚都是《突吉罗》。
A bhikkhu who strikes a woman—or anyone else—out of anger would be treated under Pc 74. Both under that rule and in the context of Passive Contact under this rule, below, a bhikkhu who strikes or otherwise touches a woman out of a desire to escape from her commits no offense.	出于愤怒而殴打女人或任何其他人的比丘将受到《波逸提》七四的处理。无论是根据该戒条还是在下文中本戒条的被动接触，出于逃离女人的愿望而殴打或以其他方式触摸妇女的比丘并不构成犯戒。
Otherwise, the Vibhaṅga does not discuss the issue of bhikkhus who intentionally make active contact with women for purposes other than lust or affection—e.g., helping a woman who has fallen into a raging river—but the Commentary does. It introduces the concept of anāmāsa, things carrying a dukkaṭa penalty when touched; women and women’s clothing top the list. (See BMC2, Appendix V for the entire list.) It then goes into great detail to tell how one should behave when one’s mother falls into a raging river. Under no circumstances, it says, should one grab hold of her, although one may extend a rope, a board, etc., in her direction. If she happens to grab hold of her son the bhikkhu, he should not shake her off but should simply let her hold on as he swims back to shore.	除此之外，《经分别》并没有讨论比丘出于欲望或感情以外的目的而故意与女人主动接触的问题，例如帮助落入汹涌河流的女人，但《义注》却讨论了这一问题。它引入了 anāmāsa 的概念，即触摸时会受到《突吉罗》惩罚的事物；女人和女人的服装位居榜首。（完整清单请参见《佛教修道准则第二册》附录五）然后，它详细讲述了当母亲掉进汹涌的河流时应该如何行动。它说，在任何情况下，都不应抓住她，尽管可以向她的方向伸出一根绳子、一块木板等。如果她碰巧抓住了她的儿子比丘，他不应该把她甩开，而应该让她抓住，然后游回岸边。
Where the Commentary gets the concept of anāmāsa is hard to say. Perhaps it came from the practices of the brahman caste, who are very careful not to touch certain things and people of certain lower castes. At any rate, there is no direct basis for it in the Canon. Although the concept has received wide acceptance in Theravādin Communities, many highly respected Vinaya experts have made an exception right here, saying that there is nothing wrong in touching a woman when one’s action is based not on lust but on a desire to save her from danger. Even if there is an offense in doing so, there are other places where Buddhaghosa recommends that one be willing to incur a minor penalty for the sake of compassion (e.g., digging a person out of a hole into which he has fallen), and the same principle surely holds here.	很难说《义注》中的 anāmāsa 概念是从哪里得到的。也许这来自婆罗门种姓的习俗，婆罗门种姓非常小心，不接触某些低种姓的某些事物和人。无论如何，在《圣典》里并没有直接的依据。尽管这个概念在上座部僧团中得到了广泛接受，但许多德高望重的律宗专家却在这里破例，他们说，当一个人的行为不是基于欲望而是出于拯救她脱离危险的愿望时，触摸女性并没有什么错。即使这样做是犯戒的，佛音在其他地方也建议人们出于慈悲心而愿意受到轻微的惩罚（例如，将一个人从掉进的洞里挖出来），并且同样的原则在这里肯定成立。
The Vibhaṅga assigns no offense for touching a being other than a woman if one’s intentions are not lustful, although tickling is an offense under Pc 52.	《经分别》规定，如果一个人的意图不是淫欲，则触摸除女性以外的其他众生不会构成犯戒，但根据《波逸提》五二，挠痒痒是犯戒行为。

Effort	努力
Acts of lustful but indirect bodily contact with a woman one perceives to be a woman and a paṇḍaka one perceives to be a woman carry the following penalties:	与被认为是女性的女人，以及被认为是女性的黄门，进行淫荡但间接的身体接触的行为会受到以下惩罚：
For the woman: Using one’s body to make contact with an article connected to her body—e.g., using one’s hand to touch a rope or stick she is holding: a thullaccaya.	对于女人：用身体接触与她身体相连的物品，例如，用手触摸她拿著的绳子或棍子：《偷兰遮》。
Using an item connected with one’s body to make contact with her body—e.g., using a flower one is holding to brush along her arm: a thullaccaya.	使用与身体相连的物品来接触她的身体——例如，使用拿著的一朵花沿著她的手臂拂过：《偷兰遮》。
Using an item connected with one’s body to make contact with an item connected with her body: a dukkaṭa.	使用与身体相连的物品来接触与她身体相连的物品：《突吉罗》。
Taking an object—such as a flower—and tossing it against her body, an object connected with her body, or an object she has tossed: a dukkaṭa.	拿一个物体——比如一朵花——并将其扔到她的身体上，一个与她的身体相连的物体，或者一个她扔过的物体：《突吉罗》。
Taking hold of something she is standing or sitting on—a bridge, a tree, a boat, etc.—and giving it a shake: a dukkaṭa.	抓住她站立或坐在上面的东西——一座桥、一棵树、一艘船等——并摇晃它：《突吉罗》。
For the paṇḍaka one assumes to be a woman, the penalty in all the above cases is a dukkaṭa.	对于认为是女性的黄门来说，上述所有情况的惩罚都是《突吉罗》。
These penalties for indirect contact have inspired the Commentary to say that if a bhikkhu makes contact with a clothed portion of a woman’s body or uses a clothed portion of his body to make contact with hers, and the cloth is so thick that neither his body hairs nor hers can penetrate it, the penalty is only a thullaccaya because he is not making direct contact. Only if the contact is skin-to-skin, skin-to-hair, or hair-to-hair (as might be possible through thin cloth) does he commit the full offense. Thus a bhikkhu who fondles the breasts, buttocks, or crotch of a fully clothed woman would incur only a thullaccaya because the contact was indirect.	这些对间接接触的惩罚启发《义注》说，如果比丘接触女性身体的穿著部分，或者用自己身体的穿著部分接触她的身体，而且衣服很厚，以至于他跟她的身体上没有毛发可以穿透它，惩罚只是《偷兰遮》，因为他没有直接接触。只有当接触是皮肤对皮肤、皮肤对头发或头发对头发（可能透过薄布）时，他才构成完全犯戒。因此，比丘抚摸衣著整齐的女人的胸部、臀部或胯部时，只会犯《偷兰遮》，因为这种接触是间接的。
There is a certain logic to the commentators’ assertion here, but why they adopted it is unclear. Perhaps they drew a parallel to the following rule—concerning lustful remarks made to a woman—which also contains derived offenses for remarks directed at items “connected with the body.” In that case, defining connected with the body to include clothing worn by the woman does no violence to the nature of the activity covered by the rule, for it is possible to make remarks about a woman’s clothing without using words that touch on her body at all.	注释者的说法有一定的逻辑性，但为什么会这样，却不得而知。也许他们与以下戒条（关于对女性发表淫欲言论）进行了类比，该戒条还包含针对「与身体相连」的物品的言论的衍生违犯。在该情况下，将与身体相连的定义包括女性所穿的衣服并不违反戒条所涵盖的活动的性质，因为可以在不使用触及女性身体的词语的情况下对女性的衣服进行评论。
Here, however, the nature of the activity is different. If one pushes a woman, it does not matter how many layers of cloth lie between her body and one’s hand: One is pushing both the cloth and her. If one squeezes her fully clothed breasts, again, one is squeezing both the cloth and the breasts. To say that one is pushing or squeezing only the cloth is a denial of the true nature of the action. Also, if one stroked a woman’s fully clothed thigh, it is unlikely that the strength of her reaction would depend on whether her body hairs penetrated the cloth, or if one was wearing latex gloves that prevented her hair from touching one’s skin. Common linguistic usage reflects these facts, as does the law.	然而，这里的活动性质有所不同。如果一个人推著一个女人，不管她的身体和手之间有多少层布：一个人既在推布，也在推她。如果一个人挤压她穿著衣服的乳房，那么，一个人同时挤压了衣服和乳房。如果说一个人只推或挤压布料，那就是对这动作真实性质的否认。此外，如果有人抚摸一位女性穿著衣服的大腿，她的反应强度不太可能取决于她的体毛是否穿透了布料，或者是否戴著乳胶手套以防止她的头发接触自己的皮肤。常见的语言用法反映了这些事实，法律也是如此。
The question is, does the Vibhaṅga follow this common linguistic usage, and the answer appears to be Yes. In none of the Vinīta-vatthu cases concerning physical contact with women does the Buddha ever ask the bhikkhu if he made contact with the clothed or unclothed portions of the woman’s body. This suggests that the question of whether she was clothed or unclothed is irrelevant to the offense. In one of the cases, “a certain bhikkhu, seeing a woman he encountered coming in the opposite direction, was impassioned and gave her a blow with his shoulder.” Now, bhikkhus sometimes have their shoulders bared and sometimes robed; women walking along a road may have different parts of their body clothed or bared. If the presence or absence of a layer or two of cloth between the bhikkhu’s shoulder and the woman’s body were relevant to the severity of the offense, then given the Buddha’s usual thoroughness in cases like this he would have asked about the amount, location, and thickness of clothing on both the bhikkhu and the woman, to determine if the offense was a dukkaṭa, a thullaccaya, or a saṅghādisesa. But he didn’t. He simply penalized the bhikkhu with a saṅghādisesa, which again suggests that the presence or absence of cloth between the bhikkhu and the woman is irrelevant in all cases under this rule.	问题是，《经分别》是否遵循这种常见的语言用法，答案似乎是肯定的。在所有涉及与女性身体接触的《Vinīta-vatthu》案例中，佛陀都没有问过比丘是否接触过女性身体的有衣或无衣部分。这显示她是否穿衣服的问题与犯戒无关。在其中一个案例中，「一位比丘，看到他遇到的一位女人朝相反的方向走来，充满激情地用肩膀碰了她。」现在，比丘有时裸露肩膀，有时穿著袈裟；走在路上的女人可能会在身体的不同部位穿衣服或裸露。如果比丘的肩膀和女人的身体之间有或没有一层或两层布与犯戒的严重程度有关，那么鉴于佛陀在这种情况下一贯的彻底性，他会询问比丘和女人的衣服的数量、位置和厚度，以确定所犯的罪行是《突吉罗》、《偷兰遮》还是《僧残》。但他没有。他只是用《僧残》惩罚比丘，这再次表明，在本戒条下，比丘和女人之间有或没有衣服在所有情况下都是无关紧要的。
The only cases of indirect contact mentioned in the Vinīta-vatthu refer to contact of a much more remote sort: A bhikkhu pulls a cord of which a woman is holding the other end, pulls a stick of which she is holding the other end, or gives her a playful push with his bowl.	《Vinīta-vatthu》中提到的间接接触的唯一情况是指一种更遥远的接触：比丘拉一根绳子，而女人握住另一端，拉动一根棍子，而女人握住另一端，或者顽皮地用钵推了她一下。
Thus in the context of this rule the Vibhaṅga defines “object connected to the body,” through which indirect contact is made, with examples of things that the person is holding. The Vinaya-mukha adds things that are hanging from the person, like the hem of a robe or a dress. In this context, contact made through cloth that the person is wearing would be classed as direct. This would parallel Pr 1, in which the question of whether there is anything covering either of the organs involved in intercourse is completely irrelevant to the offense. Thus the concept of direct and indirect contact here would seem to follow general linguistic usage: If a woman is wearing a long-sleeved shirt, for instance, grabbing her by the arm and grabbing her by the cuff of her shirt are two different things, and would receive different penalties under this rule.	因此，在本戒条的脉络下，《经分别》定义了「与身体相连的物体」，透过它进行间接接触，并以人所持有的东西为例。《戒律入口》添加了悬挂在人身上的东西，例如袈裟或服装的折边。在这种脉络下，透过人所穿的衣服进行的接触将被归类为直接接触。这与《波罗夷》一类似，其中是否有任何东西覆盖涉及性交的器官的问题与犯戒完全无关。因此，这里直接和间接接触的概念似乎遵循一般语言用法：例如，如果一个女人穿著长袖衬衫，抓住她的手臂和抓住她衬衫的袖口是两个不同的事情，并根据本戒条受到不同的惩罚。
According to the Vibhaṅga, if a bhikkhu feels desire for contact with a woman and makes an effort that does not achieve even indirect contact—e.g., making a squeezing motion in the air near one of her breasts—the penalty is a dukkaṭa.	根据《经分别》，如果一个比丘感到想要与一位女性接触，并且做出了努力，但没有实现甚至间接的接触——例如，在靠近她的乳房的空气中做出挤压动作——惩罚是《突吉罗》。

Passive contact	被动接触
The Vibhaṅga’s analysis of passive contact—when the bhikkhu is the object rather than the agent making the contact—deals with only a limited number of variables.	《经分别》对被动接触的分析──当比丘是客体而非进行接触的主体时──只涉及有限数量的变数。
Agent:	媒介：
Either a woman the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, or a paṇḍaka he perceives to be a woman.	若非是比丘认为是女性的女人，则是他认为是女性的黄门。
The agent’s effort:	媒介的努力：
Any of the actions that fulfill the factor of effort for the full offense under active contact—rubbing, pulling, pushing, squeezing, etc.	任何在主动接触下满足完全违犯的努力因素的动作－摩擦、拉、推、挤等。
The bhikkhu’s aim	比丘的目标
The Vibhaṅga lists only two possibilities here: the desire to partake (of the contact) and the desire to escape (§). The Sub-commentary explains the first as desiring the pleasurable feeling of contact. It also states that if, in the course of receiving contact, one’s motives change from desiring contact to desiring escape, the second motive is what counts.	《经分别》在这里只列出了两个可能性：参与（接触）的欲望和逃避的欲望（§）。《复注》将第一个解释为渴望接触的愉快感觉。它也指出，如果在接受接触的过程中，一个人的动机从渴望接触转变为渴望逃避，那么第二个动机才是算数的。
Effort	努力
The bhikkhu either makes a physical effort or he doesn’t. The Commentary includes under this factor even the slightest physical movements, such as winking, raising one’s eyebrows, or rolling one’s eyes.	比丘若非做出身体的努力，则是没做。《义注》中在此因素甚至包括最轻微的身体动作，例如眨眼、扬眉或翻眼。
Result	结果
The bhikkhu either detects the contact or he doesn’t.	比丘要么察觉到接触，要么没有察觉。
The most important factor here is the bhikkhu’s aim: If he desires to escape from the contact, then no matter who the person making the contact is, whether or not the bhikkhu makes an effort, or whether or not he detects the contact, there is no offense. The Vinīta-vatthu gives an example:	这里最重要的因素是比丘的目标：如果他想逃避接触，那么无论接触的人是谁，无论比丘是否努力，或者无论他是否察觉到接触，都没有犯戒。《Vinīta-vatthu》给了一个例子：
“Now at that time, many women, pressing up to a certain bhikkhu, led him about arm-in-arm. He felt conscience-stricken…. ‘Did you consent, bhikkhu?’ (the Buddha) asked. ‘No, venerable sir, I did not.’ ‘Then there was no offense, bhikkhu, as you did not consent.’”	「当时，有许多女人，挤到某位比丘面前，挽著他的手牵著他。他感到良心不安… 『比丘，你同意了吗？』（佛陀）问。『不，大德，我没有。』『那么，比丘，没有犯戒，因为你不同意。』」
The Commentary mentions another example, in which a bhikkhu not desiring the contact is molested by a lustful woman. He remains perfectly still, with the thought, “When she realizes I’m not interested, she’ll go away.” He too commits no offense.	《义注》提到了另一个例子，一个不愿接触的比丘被一个好色的女人猥亵。他一动不动，心想：「当她意识到我不感兴趣时，她就会走开。」他也没有犯戒。
However, if the bhikkhu desires the contact, then the Vibhaṅga assigns offenses as follows:	然而，如果比丘欲望接触，《经分别》会按如下方式指定犯戒罪行：
The agent is a woman, the bhikkhu makes an effort and detects contact: a saṅghādisesa. He makes an effort but detects no contact: a dukkaṭa. He makes no effort (e.g., he remains perfectly still as she grasps, squeezes, and rubs his body): no offense regardless of whether or not he detects contact. One exception here, though, would be the special case mentioned under “Consent” in the preceding rule, in which a bhikkhu lets a woman—or anyone at all, for that matter—make him have an emission and he incurs a saṅghādisesa under that rule as a result.	媒介是一位女性，比丘做出努力并察觉到接触：《僧残》。他做出了努力，但没有察觉任何接触：《突吉罗》。他没有做出任何努力（例如，当她抓住、挤压和摩擦他的身体时，他保持完全静止）：无论他是否察觉到接触，都没有犯戒。不过，这里有一个例外，就是前一戒条中「同意」项下提到的特殊情况，即比丘让一位女性——或就此而言任何人——让他泄精，并因此根据该戒条犯《僧残》。
The agent is a paṇḍaka whom the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, the bhikkhu makes an effort and detects contact: a dukkaṭa. He doesn’t detect contact: a dukkaṭa (this point is included in the PTS edition, but not in the Sri Lankan or the Thai). Other possibilities—detected contact but no effort, no effort and no detected contact: no offense.	媒介是比丘认为是女性的黄门，比丘做出努力并察觉到接触：《突吉罗》。他没有察觉到接触：《突吉罗》（这一点包含在 PTS 版本中，但斯里兰卡或泰国版本中没有）。其他可能性——察觉到接触但没有努力，没有努力且没有察觉到接触：没有犯戒。

Other derived offenses for passive contact	其他因被动接触而衍生的犯戒
Other derived offenses for passive contact all deal with cases in which the bhikkhu desires contact and makes an effort. The variables focus on the agent, the agent’s effort, and the question of whether the bhikkhu detects contact or not, with the pattern of offenses following the pattern of derived offenses for active contact. In other words:	其他衍生的被动接触犯戒都涉及比丘渴望接触并做出努力的情况。这些变数集中在媒介、媒介的努力以及比丘是否察觉到接触的问题上，犯戒模式遵循主动接触的衍生犯戒模式。换句话说：
If the agent is a woman whom the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, then if she makes an effort at the bhikkhu’s body using something connected to her body, and the bhikkhu detects contact: a thullaccaya. If she makes an effort at something connected to the bhikkhu’s body using her body, and the bhikkhu detects contact: a thullaccaya. If she makes contact at something connected to the bhikkhu’s body using something connected to her body, and the bhikkhu detects contact: a dukkaṭa. If, in any of these cases, the bhikkhu does not detect contact, the offense is a dukkaṭa.	如果媒介是比丘认为是女性的女人，那么如果她使用与她身体相连的东西对比丘的身体做出努力，并且比丘察觉到接触：《偷兰遮》。如果她用自己的身体对与比丘的身体相连的东西做出努力，而比丘察觉到接触：《偷兰遮》。如果她用与她身体相连的东西接触与比丘身体相连的东西，而比丘察觉到接触：《突吉罗》。如果在上述任何一种情况下，比丘没有察觉到接触，则犯《突吉罗》。
If she tosses something at or on his body, something connected with his body, or something he has tossed, then the offense is a dukkaṭa regardless of whether he detects contact or not.	如果她向他的身体或身上扔东西，与他的身体相连的东西，或者他扔过的东西，那么无论他是否察觉到接触，都犯《突吉罗》。
If the agent is a paṇḍaka whom the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, the offense is a dukkaṭa in each of the above cases.	如果媒介是比丘认为是女性的黄门，则在上述每种情况下，都犯《突吉罗》。

Counting offenses	犯戒计算
According to the Vibhaṅga, if a bhikkhu has lustful bodily contact with x number of people in any of the ways that constitute an offense here, he commits x number of offenses. For example, if he lustfully rubs up against two women in a bus, he incurs two saṅghādisesas. If, out of fatherly affection, he hugs his two daughters and three sons, he incurs two dukkaṭas for hugging his daughters and no penalty for hugging his sons.	根据《经分别》，如果一个比丘以任何构成犯戒的方式与 x 人进行淫欲的身体接触，那么他就犯了 x 次戒。例如，如果他在公车上淫欲地与两个女人发生摩擦，他就会犯两次《僧残》。如果出于父爱，他拥抱了他的两个女儿和三个儿子，那么他会因为拥抱女儿而受到两次《突吉罗》的惩罚，而拥抱儿子则无惩罚。
The Commentary adds that if he makes lustful contact with a person x number of times, he commits x number of offenses. For instance, he hugs a woman from behind, she fights him off, and he strikes her out of lust: two saṅghādisesas.	《义注》补充说，如果他与某人发生淫欲接触 x 次，他就犯下了 x 次戒。例如，他从后面拥抱一个女人，她把他击退，他出于欲望而击打她：两个《僧残》。
The question of counting saṅghādisesas, though, is somewhat academic because the penalty for multiple offenses is almost identical with the penalty for one. The only difference is in the formal proclamations in the community transactions that accompany the penalty—e.g., when the Community places the offender under probation, when he informs others bhikkhus of why he is under probation, etc. For more on this point, see the concluding section of this chapter.	然而，计算《僧残》的问题有些学术性，因为对多重犯戒的惩罚几乎与单次犯戒的惩罚相同。唯一的区别在于伴随惩罚的僧伽羯磨中的正式公告（羯磨文）——例如，当僧团将犯戒者置于别住之下时，当他告知其他比丘他为何处于别住之下时，等等。想更多知道这点，请参阅本章的结论部分。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense for a bhikkhu who makes contact with a woman—	比丘与女性接触并不构成犯戒—
unintentionally—as when accidentally touching a woman while she is putting food in his bowl;	无意地——例如当一个女人把食物放进他的钵里时不小心碰到了她；
unthinkingly—as when a woman runs into him and, startled, he pushes her away;	不假思索地──例如当一个女人撞见他时，他吓了一跳，把她推开；
unknowingly—as when, without lust, he touches a tomboy he thinks to be a boy (this example is from the Commentary), when he doesn’t even know that he has run into a woman in a crowd, or when a woman touches him while he is asleep; or	未察觉地——比如当他在没有欲望的情况下触摸了一个他认为是男孩的假小子（这个例子来自《义注》），当他在人群中甚至不知道自己碰到了一个女人，或者当一个女人在他睡著的时候触摸；或者
when he doesn’t give his consent—as in the case of the bhikkhu led around arm-in-arm by a crowd of women.	当他不同意时——就像比丘被一群女人挽著手臂的情况一样。
For some reason, the non-offense clauses omit the non-offenses the Vibhaṅga lists under passive contact—i.e., there is no offense if:	由于某种原因，不犯条款忽略了《经分别》中被动接触下列出的不犯——即，如果满足以下条件，则不构成犯戒：
the bhikkhu does not desire contact or	比丘不欲接触或
he does desire contact and yet makes no effort.	他确实渴望接触，但却没有做出任何努力。
Summary: Lustful bodily contact with a woman whom one perceives to be a woman is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：与被认为是女性的女人进行淫欲的身体接触，是《僧残》罪。

* * *

3	三
Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, address lewd words to a woman in the manner of young men to a young woman alluding to sexual intercourse, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果任何比丘被贪欲所征服，以变易之心，以年轻男子对年轻女子暗示性交的方式对女子说出淫秽的话，僧残。
“Now at that time Ven. Udāyin was living in the wilderness. And on that occasion many women came to the monastery to look at his dwelling. They went to him and on arrival said to him, ‘Venerable sir, we would like to look at your dwelling.’ Then Ven. Udāyin, showing the dwelling to the women and referring to their genital and anal orifices, praised and criticized and begged and implored and asked and quizzed and advised and instructed and insulted them. Those of the women who were brazen, mischievous, and shameless giggled along with Ven. Udāyin, coaxed him on, laughed aloud, and teased him; while those of the women who had a sense of shame complained to the bhikkhus as they left: ‘It’s improper, venerable sirs, and unbecoming! Even by our husbands we wouldn’t want (to hear) this sort of thing said, much less by Master Udāyin.’”	「尔时，优陀夷尊者住在林野里。其时，许多女人来到寺院参观他的住所。他们去找他，抵达后对他说：『尊者，我们想看看您的住所。』于是优陀夷尊者向女人们展示住处，并提及她们的生殖器和肛门孔，赞美、批评、乞求、恳求、要求、询问、建议、指导、侮辱她们。那些厚颜无耻的女人，也随著优陀夷尊者一起咯咯地笑起来，哄他，大笑，戏弄他。而那些有羞耻感的女人则在离开时向比丘们抱怨道：『尊者，这是不恰当的，不合时宜的！即使是我们的丈夫，我们也不想（听到）这种话，更不用说大德优陀夷了。』」
The K/Commentary, summarizing the Vibhaṅga’s discussion, lists five factors for a full breach of this rule.	K/《义注》总结了《经分别》的讨论，列出了完全违反本戒条的五个因素。
1) Object: a woman, i.e., any female human being experienced enough to know what is properly said and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd.	1）对象：女人，即任何有足够经验的女性，知道什么是适当的言论，什么是不适当的言论，什么是淫秽的和不淫秽的。
2) Perception: The bhikkhu perceives her to be a woman.	2）感知：比丘认为她是女人。
3) Intention: He is impelled by lust. As in the preceding rule, we can take the Commentary’s definition of lust here as the minimum amount of lust to fulfill this factor: He wants to enjoy saying something lewd or improper.	3）意图：他被欲望所驱使。正如前一条戒条一样，我们可以将《义注》中对色欲的定义理解为满足这一因素的最低限度的色欲：他想要享受说一些淫秽或不适当的事。
4) Effort: He makes remarks praising, criticizing, begging, imploring, asking, quizzing, advising, instructing, or insulting with reference to her genitals or anus, or to her performing sexual intercourse.	4）努力：他对她的生殖器或肛门或她进行性交发表赞扬、批评、乞求、恳求、要求、询问、建议、指导或侮辱的言论。
5) Result: The woman immediately understands.	5）结果：女人立刻明白了。
The only factors requiring detailed explanation here are object, intention, effort, and result.	这里唯一需要详细解释的因素是对象、意图、努力和结果。

Object	对象
As the Commentary notes, a woman who does not know what is properly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd, may either be too young to know or, if she is an adult, too innocent or retarded to know. A woman who does not know the language in which one is speaking would also not fulfill the factor of object here.	正如《义注》所指出的，一个女人如果不知道什么是适当的言论和不适当的言论，什么是淫秽的和不淫秽的，可能要么太年轻而无法知道，要么，如果她是成年人，则太天真或太迟钝而无法知道。一个不懂对方所用语言的女性也无法满足这里的对象因素。

Intention	意图
The minimum level of desire required to fulfill this factor means that this rule covers cases where a bhikkhu simply gets a charge out of referring to a woman’s genitals, etc., in her presence, without necessarily having any desire actually to have sex with her.	满足这一因素所需的最低欲望水平意思是，本戒条涵盖了比丘只是因为在女人在场时提及女人的生殖器等而受到指控，而实际上不一定有与她发生性关系的任何欲望的情况。
The Vibhaṅga makes clear that this rule does not cover statements made in anger. Thus any insults a bhikkhu may direct at a woman out of anger rather than out of desire—even if they refer to her genitals, etc.—would come under Pc 2, rather than here.	《经分别》明确指出，本戒条不包括愤怒时所发表的言论。因此，比丘出于愤怒而不是出于欲望而对女性进行的任何侮辱——即使他们指的是她的生殖器等——都属于《波逸提》二，而不是这里。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga states that to incur the full penalty here when speaking to a woman, one must refer to her genitals, anus, or performing sexual intercourse (§).	《经分别》规定，在与女性交谈时，必须提及她的生殖器、肛门或进行性交（§），才会受到全额惩罚。
The Commentary goes further and asserts that to incur the full penalty one must make direct mention of one of these three things, or accuse her of being sexually deformed in a way that refers directly to her genitals. Otherwise, if one refers lustfully to these matters without directly mentioning them, there is no saṅghādisesa, although the Sub-commentary quotes ancient texts called the Gaṇṭhipadas as assigning a dukkaṭa for such an act.	《义注》进一步指出，要受到全额惩罚，必须直接提及这三件事之一，或者以直接涉及其生殖器的方式指控她性畸形。否则，如果一个人贪欲地谈起这些事情而不直接提及它们，则不犯《僧残》，尽管《复注》引用了称为《隐晦文句》（Gaṇṭhipada）的古代文献，将这种行为指定为《突吉罗》。
However, these assertions from the commentaries contradict the Vibhaṅga. After listing the ways of referring to the woman’s anus, genitals, and sexual intercourse that would entail the full penalty under this rule, it illustrates them with examples. Many of the examples, although referring to the woman’s private parts or to her performing sexual intercourse, do not actually mention those words: “How do you give to your husband?” “How do you give to your lover?” “When will your mother be reconciled (to our having sex)?” “When will you have a good opportunity?” Although all of these statements refer to sexual intercourse, and people in those days would have understood them in that light, none of them actually mentions it.	然而，注释书中的这些主张与《经分别》相矛盾。在列出了根据本戒条将导致全额惩罚的提及女性肛门、生殖器和性交的方式后，它举例说明了它们。许多例子虽然提到了女性的私处或和她性交，但实际上并没有提到这些字词：「你如何给你的丈夫？」「你如何给你的爱人？」「你妈妈什么时候才能接受（我们做爱）？」「什么时候有个好机会？」尽管所有这些说法都涉及性交，当时的人们也会从这个角度来理解它们，但实际上没有一个提到它。
Thus the Vibhaṅga’s examples indicate that if a bhikkhu is using slang expressions, euphemisms, or indirect statements to refer lustfully to the woman’s private parts or to her performing sexual intercourse, he fulfills this factor. There is no need for the euphemisms to be well known. If the speaker intends it as a reference to the forbidden topics, that fulfills the factor of effort. If his listener understands it as such, that fulfills the factor of result. Whether anyone else understands it as such is irrelevant to the offense.	因此，《经分别》的例子表明，如果比丘使用俚语、委婉语或间接的陈述来淫秽地提及女性的私处或她进行性交，他就满足了这个因素。委婉语不需要众所周知。如果说话者打算将其指涉禁忌话题，那就满足了努力的因素。如果他的听众如此理解它，那就满足了结果因素。其他人是否如此理解它与犯戒无关。
The K/Commentary notes that a hand gesture denoting the genitals, anus, or sexual intercourse of the person to whom it is directed would fulfill the factor of effort here as well.	K/《义注》指出，表示其所针对的人的生殖器、肛门或性交的手势也可以满足这里的努力因素。
None of the texts mention the case in which a bhikkhu talks to one person about another person’s private parts, etc. Thus it is apparently not an offense.	所有的文献都没有提到比丘与某一个人谈论另一个人的私处等等的情况。因此，这显然不构成犯戒。

Result

结果

The K/Commentary insists that the factor of result is fulfilled only if the woman immediately understands. As the Vibhaṅga points out, if she does not understand, the bhikkhu incurs a lesser offense, which will be discussed below. If she understands only later, that does not turn the lesser offense into a saṅghādisesa. The examples from the Vinīta-vatthu indicate that the woman’s immediate understanding can be known by her immediate response to one’s comments.

K/《义注》坚持认为，只有当女人立即理解时，结果因素才得以实现。正如《经分别》所指出的，如果她不了解，比丘会犯较轻的罪行，这将在下面讨论。如果她后来才明白，那不会将较轻的罪行变成《僧残》。《Vinīta-vatthu》中的例子表明，女人的立即理解可以透过她对评论的立即反应来得知。

Derived offenses	衍生违犯
The factors of effort, object, perception, and result, taken together, yield a number of permutations to which the Vibhaṅga assigns lesser offenses. As for the permutations of intention, see the section on non-offenses, below.	努力、对象、感知和结果的因素加在一起，产生了许多排列组合，《经分别》将这些排列组合指定为较轻的罪行。至于意图的排列组合，请参阅下面有关不犯的部分。

Effort	努力
A bhikkhu speaks to a woman he perceives to be a woman and refers lustfully to parts of her body—aside from her private parts—below her collarbones and above her knees, such as her breasts, buttocks, or thighs: a thullaccaya. He refers to parts of her body outside of that area, such as her face or hairdo, or to clothing or jewelry she is wearing: a dukkaṭa.	比丘对一位他认为是女人的女人说话，并贪欲地提到她身体的某些部位——除了她的私处——锁骨以下和膝盖以上，例如她的胸部、臀部或大腿：《偷兰遮》。他指的是她身体在该区域之外的部分，例如她的脸或发型，或她穿著的衣服或珠宝：《突吉罗》。

Object	对象
A bhikkhu speaks to a paṇḍaka (in this and the following cases we are assuming that he perceives his object correctly) and refers lustfully to his private parts or to his performing sexual intercourse: a thullaccaya (§). He refers lustfully to other parts of the paṇḍaka’s body, his clothing, etc.: a dukkaṭa (§).	比丘对黄门说话（在本例和以下情况中，我们假设他正确地感知了他的对象），并贪欲地提及他的私处或他进行的性交：《偷兰遮》（§）。他贪欲地提及黄门身体的其他部位、衣服等：《突吉罗》（§）。
A bhikkhu speaks to a man (or boy) and refers lustfully to any part of his listener’s body, clothing, etc.: a dukkaṭa (§). The same penalty holds for speaking lustfully to an animal—e.g., a nāga—about his/her body, ornaments, etc. (§).	比丘对一位男人（或男孩）说话，并贪欲地提及他听众的身体、衣服等的任何部分：《突吉罗》（§）。对动物－例如龙（nāga）－谈论他/她的身体、装饰品等，也会受到同样的惩罚（§）。
For some reason the PTS edition of the Canon omits these derived offenses related to object under this rule. The Burmese and Sri Lankan editions are non-committal on the topic, for the relevant paragraphs are filled with ellipses that have been read in two ways. The PTS edition of the K/Commentary reads the ellipses as including the thullaccaya and dukkaṭa for speaking lustfully to a paṇḍaka, but not the dukkaṭas for speaking lustfully to a man or animal. The editors of the Thai edition of the Canon have interpreted the parallelism with the similar paragraph in Sg 2 as indicating that “man” and “animal” would come under the ellipses, and so have included these cases in the text. This interpretation closes an important loophole and thus seems the more correct, so I have followed it here.	由于某种原因，《圣典》的 PTS 版本省略了与本戒条下的对象相关的这些衍生违犯。缅甸和斯里兰卡版本对此主题不置可否，因为相关段落充满了以两种方式解读的省略号。 K/《义注》的 PTS 版本将省略号解读为包括贪欲地对黄门说话的《偷兰遮》及《突吉罗》，但不包括贪欲地对人或动物说话的《突吉罗》。泰国版《圣典》的编辑者将《僧残》二中类似段落的对应解释为表明「人」和「动物」应该出现在省略号之下，因此将这些情况纳入了文献中。这个解释弥补了一个重要的漏洞，因此看起来更正确，所以我在这里遵循它。
None of the texts make any mention of speaking lustfully to a woman/girl too inexperienced to understand what is and is not lewd. Using the Great Standards, though, we might argue from the cases included in the Vinīta-vatthu—where bhikkhus make punning references to women’s private parts, and the women do not understand—that a bhikkhu incurs a thullaccaya for referring directly to her genitals, anus, or performing sexual intercourse in her presence, and a dukkaṭa for referring indirectly in her presence to such things.	这些文本都没有提到贪欲地对一位缺乏经验、无法理解什么是淫秽、什么不是淫秽的女人/女孩说话。然而，使用《四大教示》，我们可以从《Vinīta-vatthu》中包含的案例中论证——比丘们双关地提到女性的私处，而女性不理解——比丘因在她面前直接提及其生殖器、肛门或进行性交而犯《偷兰遮》，而在她面前间接提及此类事情犯《突吉罗》。

Perception

感知

A bhikkhu speaking to a woman whom he perceives to be something else—a paṇḍaka, a man, an animal—incurs a thullaccaya if he refers lustfully to her genitals, anus, or performing sexual intercourse. If he is speaking to a paṇḍaka, a man, or an animal he misperceives—e.g., he thinks the paṇḍaka is a woman, the man is a paṇḍaka, the animal is a man—he incurs a dukkaṭa if he refers lustfully to those topics (§). (Again, the PTS edition omits most of the cases in this last sentence and includes only the case of a bhikkhu speaking lustfully to a paṇḍaka he perceives to be a woman; the Thai edition seems more correct in including the remaining cases as well.)

比丘对一位他认为是非女人的女人——黄门、男人、动物——说话，如果他贪欲地提到她的生殖器、肛门或进行性交，犯《偷兰遮》。如果他在对黄门、男人或动物说话，他错误地感知——例如，他认为黄门是女人，男人是黄门，动物是男人——如果他贪欲地提及这些话题，犯《突吉罗》。（§）（同样，PTS 版本省略了最后一句中的大部分案例，仅包括比丘对他认为是女性的黄门贪欲地说话的案例；泰国版本包括了其余的案例似乎更正确。）

Result	结果
As mentioned above, the Vinīta-vatthu contains a number of cases where bhikkhus speaking to women make punning references to the women’s genitals that the women do not understand. In one case the penalty is a thullaccaya; in the others, a dukkaṭa. The Commentary takes no note of the difference; the Sub-commentary notes it but has trouble making sense of it. In fact, it maintains that the bhikkhu in the thullaccaya case should receive a thullaccaya if the woman does understand his pun, which—given the explicit nature of the pun—makes no sense at all.	如上所述，《Vinīta-vatthu》包含许多比丘与女性交谈时双关地提到女性生殖器的例子，而女性并不理解。在其中一个案例，惩罚是《偷兰遮》；其他则为《突吉罗》。《义注》没有关注其中的差异；《复注》注意到了这一点，但在理解它上有问题。事实上，它坚称，如果女人确实理解他的双关语，那么在《偷兰遮》案例中的比丘就应该受《偷兰遮》，但考虑到双关语的明确性质，这完全说不通。
There is, however, a pattern to the Vinīta-vatthu cases. The thullaccaya case is the only one in which the bhikkhu actually mentions a word for genitals or anus (magga, which also means road, the meaning the woman understood). In the dukkaṭa cases, bhikkhus either use euphemisms for sexual intercourse (“plowing,” “working”) or else they make statements in which the words genitals or anus are implied but not actually stated. From this pattern we can argue that if a bhikkhu speaking to a woman makes direct reference to her genitals or anus, and the woman doesn’t immediately understand that he is referring to those things, he incurs a thullaccaya. If he makes a euphemistic reference to sexual intercourse or an implied reference to her genitals or anus, and she doesn’t immediately understand what he is referring to, he incurs a dukkaṭa.	然而，《Vinīta-vatthu》案例有一个模式。《偷兰遮》案例是唯一一个比丘实际上提到了生殖器或肛门这个词（magga，也意指道路，女人所理解的意思）的案例。在《突吉罗》的案例中，比丘要么使用委婉说法来表示性交（「犁地」、「工作」），要么在陈述中隐含生殖器或肛门这些词，但实际上并未明说。从这个模式我们可以论证，如果比丘对女人说话时直接提到她的生殖器或肛门，而这个女人并没有立即明白他指的是那些东西，他犯《偷兰遮》。如果他委婉地提及性交或暗示提及她的生殖器或肛门，而她无法立即理解他所指的内容，他犯《突吉罗》。

Counting offenses

犯戒计算

A bhikkhu making a remark of the sort covered by this rule to x number of people commits x number of offenses, the type of offense being determined by the factors discussed above. Thus for a lustful remark to two women referring to their breasts, he would incur two thullaccayas; for a lustful remark to three men concerning their bodies, three dukkaṭas; for teasing a group of twenty old ladies about how their time for sexual performance is past, twenty saṅghādisesas.

比丘对 x 个人发表本戒条所涵盖的那种言论，就犯下了 x 次罪行，罪行的类型由上述讨论的因素决定。因此，如果他对两个女人说了一句淫秽的话，指的是她们的乳房，他就会犯两次《偷兰遮》。对三个男人发表关于他们身体的淫秽言论，三次《突吉罗》；取笑一个有二十位老太太的群体，说她们的性行为时间已经过去了，二十次《僧残》。

Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense for a bhikkhu who speaks aiming at (spiritual) welfare (attha—this can also mean the “meaning of the Dhamma”), aiming at Dhamma, or aiming at teaching. Thus, for example, if one is talking in front of women and has no lustful intent, one may recite or explain this training rule or go into detail on the topic of the loathsomeness of the body as a topic of meditation, all without incurring a penalty. The Commentary here adds an example of a bhikkhu addressing a sexually deformed woman, telling her to be heedful in her practice so as not to be born that way again. If, however, one were to broach any of these topics out of a desire to enjoy saying something lewd to one’s listeners, one would not be immune from an offense. The New K/Sub-commentary illustrates this point with an example: A bhikkhu, teaching the Vibhaṅga of this rule to a bhikkhunī, departs from a normal tone of voice and keeps sniggering while reciting the examples of lewd speech. This sort of behavior, it says, incurs the full offense here.	《经分别》指出，比丘以（精神）福祉为目的（attha－这也可指「法的意义」）、以法为目的或以教导为目的而发言，并不犯戒。譬如，若在女人面前说话，无淫欲意图，可持诵或解说本学处，或详述身可厌为禅修话题，皆不受惩罚。这里的《义注》增加了比丘对性畸形女人发言的例子，告诉她在修行时要小心，以免再重生为那样。然而，如果出于享受对听众说些淫秽话的欲望而提出这些话题，那么他就不能免于犯戒。新 K/《复注》用一个例子来说明这一点：一位比丘在向比丘尼教授此戒条的《经分别》时，在背诵淫秽话的例子时，语气偏离了正常的语气，一直在窃笑。它说，这种行为会导致完全违犯。
A bhikkhu who without intending to be lewd makes innocent remarks that his listener takes to be lewd commits no offense.	比丘无淫秽意图而发表无辜的言论，而他的听者认为是淫秽，这并不犯戒。
Summary: Making a lustful remark to a woman about her genitals, anus, or about performing sexual intercourse is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：对女性的生殖器、肛门或进行性交做出淫秽的言论，是《僧残》罪。

* * *

4	四
Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, speak in the presence of a woman in praise of ministering to his own sensuality thus: “This, sister, is the foremost ministration, that of ministering to a virtuous, fine-natured follower of the celibate life such as myself with this act”—alluding to sexual intercourse—it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	若有比丘，被贪欲所征服，以变易之心，在一位女人面前，称赞侍奉自己的色欲，如是说：「姊妹，以此行为来侍奉持戒、善行，像我这样的梵行生活的弟子，这是最上的侍奉。」——暗指性交——僧残。
“Now at that time a certain woman, a widow, was beautiful, attractive, and appealing. So Ven. Udāyin, dressing (§) early in the morning, taking his robe and bowl, went to her residence. On arrival, he sat on an appointed seat. Then the woman went to him and, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As she was sitting there, Ven. Udāyin instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged her with a talk on Dhamma. Then the woman—instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged with Ven. Udāyin’s talk on Dhamma—said to him, ‘Tell me, venerable sir, what I would be capable of giving you that you need: Robe-cloth? Almsfood? Lodgings? Medicines for the sick?’	「当时有一个寡妇，美丽、有吸引力、迷人。所以优陀夷尊者一大早就穿好衣服（§），带著袈裟和钵，去了她的住处。到达后，他坐在指定的座位。妇人走到他面前，向他顶礼，坐到一旁。当她坐在那里时，优陀夷尊者以佛法开示来指导、敦促、唤醒和鼓励她。然后，这位妇人—被优陀夷尊者的佛法开示指导、敦促、唤醒和鼓励—对他说：『请告诉我，大德，我能够给你什么你需要的东西：袈裟布？饮食？住处？病人的医药？』
“‘Those things aren’t hard for us to come by, sister…. Give just what is hard for us to come by.’	「『这些东西对我们来说并不难得到，姐妹…给我们难以获得的东西。』
“‘What, venerable sir?’	「『大德，是什么？』
“‘Sexual intercourse.’	「『性交』
“‘Is it a need, venerable sir?’	「『这是大德所需要的？』
“‘A need, sister.’	「『姐妹，这是我所需要的』
“‘Then come, venerable sir.’ Entering into an inner room, taking off her cloak, she lay back on a bed. Then Ven. Udāyin went to the woman and, on arrival, said, ‘Who would touch this vile, stinking thing?’ And he departed, spitting.	「『那就来吧，大德。』进入内室，脱下大衣，躺在床上。然后优陀夷尊者走到那个女人面前，一到就说：『谁会碰这个肮脏、恶臭的东西？』然后他吐口唾沫离开了。
“So the woman criticized and complained and spread it about… ‘How can this monk Udāyin, when he himself begged me for sexual intercourse, say, “Who would touch this vile, stinking thing?” and depart spitting? What’s evil about me? What’s stinking about me? In what am I inferior to whom?’”	「所以那位妇女批评、抱怨并散布这件事……『优陀夷沙门在亲自乞求我性交时，怎么能说：「谁会碰这个肮脏、恶臭的东西？」并吐痰离开？我有什么不好的？我身上有什么臭味？我在什么方面不如谁？』」
At first glance this rule might seem redundant with the preceding one, for what we have here is another case of a bhikkhu advising, begging, or imploring a woman to perform sexual intercourse. The Sub-commentary, borrowing the Commentary’s classification of types of lust, states that the rules differ in terms of the lust involved. According to it, only the desire to say something lewd would fall under the preceding rule; only the desire for sexual intercourse would fall here. However, as we have seen, the Commentary’s neat system for classifying desires contradicts some important passages in the Vibhaṅga, and so the Sub-commentary’s explanation has no ground on which to stand.	与前一条乍看之下，本戒条似乎是多余的，因为我们在这里看到的是比丘建议、乞求或恳求女人进行性交的另一个例子。《复注》借用《义注》对贪欲种类的分类，指出戒条在所涉及的贪欲方面有所不同。根据它，只有想说一些淫秽的话才属于前面的戒条；只有性交的欲望才会属于这里。然而，正如我们所看到的，《义注》对欲望的简洁分类系统与《经分别》中的一些重要段落相矛盾，因此《复注》的解释是没有根据的。
A more likely explanation for the need for this rule derives from some facts about language and belief in the Buddha’s time that might have led some people to feel that the behavior in the origin story here was a special case not covered by the preceding rule. To prevent this sort of misunderstanding, it gets separate treatment under this rule.	对于本戒条的必要性，更可能的解释来自于佛陀时代语言和信仰的一些事实，这些事实可能会让一些人觉得这里起源故事中的行为是前面的戒条未涵盖的特殊情况。为了防止这种误解，在本戒条下对其进行单独处理。
“Giving,” in the Buddha’s time, was a common euphemism for having sex. If a woman “gave” to a man, that meant that she willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with him. Now, Buddhism was not the only religion of the time to teach that gifts—of a more innocent sort—given to contemplatives produced great reward to those who gave them, and ultimately somebody somewhere came up with the idea that because sex was the highest gift, giving it to a contemplative would produce the highest reward. Whether this idea was first formulated by faithful women or by clever contemplatives is hard to say. Several cases in the Vinīta-vatthu to Pr 1 tell of bhikkhus approached or attacked by women professing this belief, which shows that it had some currency: Sex was somehow seen as a way to higher benefits through the law of kamma.	在佛陀时代，「给予」是性行为的常见委婉说法。如果一个女人「给予」一个男人，那就意味著她愿意与他发生性关系。现在，佛教并不是当时唯一的宗教教导说：给予沙门的布施（单纯的那种）会给那些给予布施的人带来巨大的回报，最终有人提出了这样的想法，因为性是最高的布施，将其给予沙门将产生最高的回报。很难说这个想法最初是由忠实的女性提出的，还是由聪明的沙门提出的。《波罗夷》一的《Vinīta-vatthu》中的几个案例讲述了比丘受到自称这种信仰的女人接近或攻击的情况，这表明它具有一定的流行性：性在某种程度上被视为透过业力法则获得更高利益的一种方式。
Because the preceding rule gives exemptions for bhikkhus speaking “aiming at (spiritual) welfare (attha), aiming at Dhamma,” some misguided souls who did not comprehend the Buddha’s teachings on sensuality might believe that welfare of this sort might fit under the exemption. The origin story alludes to this point in a punning way, in that the word for “need” is also attha, and perhaps the widow, in using the word, had both its meanings in mind: Her spiritual welfare would be enhanced by meeting a bhikkhu’s needs. Even today, although the rationale might be different, there are people who believe that having sex with spiritual teachers is beneficial for one’s spiritual well being. Thus we have this separate rule to show that the Buddha would have no part in such a notion, and that a bhikkhu who tries to suggest that his listener would benefit from having sex with him is not exempt from an offense.	因为前一戒条给予比丘「为了（精神）福祉（attha）、为了法」而说的豁免，一些不理解佛陀关于欲乐教义的被误导心灵可能会认为这种福祉可能属于豁免范围。起源故事以双关语的方式间接提到了这一点，因为「需要」这个词也是 attha，也许寡妇在使用这个词时考虑到了它的两种含义：她的精神福祉将通过满足比丘的需要而得到增强。即使在今天，尽管理由可能有所不同，但仍有人相信与灵性导师发生性关系对灵性健康有益。因此，我们有这条单独的戒条来表明佛陀不会参与这样的观念，而试图暗示听众会从与他发生性关系中受益的比丘也不能免于犯戒。
The K/Commentary lists five factors for the full offense here, but only four of them have a basis in the Vibhaṅga: object, perception, intention, and effort.	K/《义注》在这里列出了完整违犯的五个因素，但其中只有四个因素在《经分别》里有依据：对象、感知、意图和努力。

Object:	对象：
A woman experienced enough to know what is properly or improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd.	一个有足够经验的女人知道什么是适当的或不适当的，什么是淫秽和不淫秽。

Perception	感知
The bhikkhu perceives her to be a woman.	比丘察觉到她是个女人。

Intention

意图

He is impelled by lust. According to the K/Commentary, this means he is lustful for his listener to minister to his desire for sexual intercourse. However, the Vibhaṅga defines overcome with lust here in the same broad terms it uses under Sg 2 & 3. This suggests that the factor of intention here can be fulfilled simply by the desire to enjoy making such remarks in a woman’s presence—say, getting a charge out of testing her reaction, which appears to have been Ven. Udāyin’s impulse in the origin story—regardless of how one feels about actually having sex with her.

他被欲望所驱使。根据 K/《义注》，这意味著他渴望听者满足他的性交欲望。然而，《经分别》在这里用与《僧残》二和三中使用的相同广泛的术语定义了「被贪欲征服」。这表明，这里的意图因素可以仅仅透过享受在女人面前发表这样的言论的欲望来满足——比如，通过测试她的反应来获得兴奋，这似乎正是优陀夷尊者在起源故事中的冲动——无论对与她发生性关系的感觉如何。

Effort	努力
The bhikkhu speaks to the woman in praise of her ministering to his sensual needs, referring to sexual intercourse as a meritorious gift. The Commentary maintains that his remarks must directly mention sexual intercourse for this factor to be fulfilled, but the examples in the rule itself and in the Vibhaṅga contradict its assertion. Some of the examples in the Vibhaṅga state simply, “This is foremost. This is best. This is the utmost. This is highest. This is excellent.” These statements are followed by the explanation that they have to allude to or be connected with sexual intercourse. It does not say that the allusion has to be explicit.	比丘对女人说话，称赞她满足他的感官需要，并称性交为最有功德的布施。《义注》认为，他的言论必须直接提及性交才能满足这一因素，但戒条本身和《经分别》中的例子与其主张相矛盾。《经分别》中的一些例子仅仅说：「这是最重要的。这是最好的。这是最大的。这是最高的。这太棒了。」这些陈述之后是它们必须暗示性交或与性交有关的解释。它并没有说暗示必须是明确的。
Also, the Vinīta-vatthu contains a number of cases in which bhikkhus simply tell women to give the highest gift, sexual intercourse—and one in which a bhikkhu simply tells a woman that sexual intercourse is the highest gift—without explicitly saying to whom it should be given. The bhikkhus all earn saṅghādisesas for their efforts, which shows that the reference to oneself need not be explicit, either.	此外，《Vinīta-vatthu》包含许多比丘仅仅告诉女性给予最高布施——性交的案例，还有一个比丘仅仅告诉女性性交是最高布施的案例，但没有明确说明给予谁。比丘们都因自己的努力犯《僧残》，这表明提及自己也不必是明确的。
Both the Commentary and the K/Commentary state that a physical gesture—this would include writing a letter—can fulfill the factor of effort here as well.	《义注》和 K/《义注》都指出，身体示意动作（包括写一封信）也可以满足这里的努力因素。
The K/Commentary adds result as a fifth factor, saying that the woman must immediately understand one’s remark, but there is no basis for this in the Canon.	K/《义注》增加了结果作为第五个因素，说女人必须立即理解言论，但在《圣典》中没有这方面的依据。

Derived offenses	衍生违犯
The only factors with permutations leading to lesser offenses are object and perception.	唯一导致较轻罪行的排列因素是对象和感知。
Object	对象
A bhikkhu, correctly perceiving his object and impelled by lust, makes such a remark to a paṇḍaka: a thullaccaya. To a man or animal: a dukkaṭa (§). (As under the preceding rule, the PTS edition of the Canon omits all of these cases, and the K/Commentary omits the man and the animal. The Burmese and Sri Lankan editions of the Canon put the relevant passages in ellipses; the Thai edition seems to be correct in mentioning all of these cases explicitly.)	一位比丘，正确地认知他的对象，并受贪欲的驱使，对黄门作这样的言论：《偷兰遮》。对人或动物：《突吉罗》（§）。（正如同前一戒条，PTS版本的《圣典》省略了所有这些情况，而 K/《义注》省略了人和动物。缅甸和斯里兰卡版本的《圣典》将相关段落放在省略号中；泰国版本明确提及所有这些情况似乎是正确的。
Perception	感知
A bhikkhu, impelled by lust, makes such a remark to a woman he perceives to be something else—a paṇḍaka, man, or animal: a thullaccaya. To a paṇḍaka, a man, or an animal he perceives to be something else: a dukkaṭa (§). (Again, as under the preceding rule, the PTS edition omits most of the cases in this last sentence, including only the case of a bhikkhu speaking lustfully to a paṇḍaka he perceives to be a woman; the Thai edition seems more correct in including the remaining cases as well.)	一位比丘在贪欲的驱使下，对一位他认为是其他东西—黄门、男人或动物—的女人做出这样的言论：《偷兰遮》。对于他认为是其他东西的黄门、男人或动物：《突吉罗》（§）。（再次，正如同前一戒条，PTS版本省略了最后一句中的大部分案例，仅包括比丘对他认为是女性的黄门说淫秽语的案例；泰国版本似乎也更正确地包括了其余情况。）

Counting offenses	犯戒计算
Offenses are counted by the number of people to whom one makes such a remark.	罪行是根据对之发表此类言论的人数来计算的。

Non-offenses	不犯
The non-offense clauses in the Vibhaṅga, in addition to the blanket exemptions mentioned under Pr 1, read simply: “There is no offense if he speaks saying, ‘Support us with the requisites of robe-cloth, almsfood, lodgings, or medicines for the sick.’” The K/Commentary explains this as meaning that if one is motivated by a sensual desire for robe-cloth, etc., one may speak to a potential donor in praise of giving these things. In other words, given this sort of desire, this sort of statement is allowable. From this interpretation it can be argued that when a bhikkhu is speaking without any lust or sensual desire of any sort, he may make any of the remarks that would fulfill the factor of effort here in the presence of others without incurring an offense. A prime example would be when, while explaining this rule, he quotes examples of the remarks it forbids.	《经分别》中的不犯条款，除了《波罗夷》一中提到的总括性豁免之外，仅说：「如果他说：『以袈裟、施食、住宿或病人的医药等必需品来支持我们』，并没有犯戒」。 K/《义注》对此的解释是，如果出于对袈裟等感官欲望等等的动机，可以对潜在的布施者称赞给予这些东西。换句话说，鉴于这种愿望，这种说法是可以被允许的。从这个解释可以看出，当比丘在没有任何形式的贪欲或感官欲望的情况下说话时，他可以在他人面前发表任何能够满足此处努力因素的言论，而不犯戒。一个典型的例子是，在解释本戒条时，他引用了本戒条禁止的言论的例子。
Summary: Telling a woman that having sexual intercourse with a bhikkhu would be beneficial is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：告诉女人与比丘性交会有好处是《僧残》罪。

* * *

5	五
Should any bhikkhu engage in conveying a man’s intentions to a woman or a woman’s intentions to a man, proposing marriage or paramourage—even if only for a momentary liaison—it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果任何比丘向女人传达男人的意图，或向男人传达女人的意图，求婚或情人——即使只是为了短暂的联络——僧残。
There are two factors for a full offense under this rule: effort and object.	根据本戒条，完全违犯有两个因素：努力和对象。

Effort	努力
The Commentary says that to engage in conveying means to take on the role of a go-between. This includes helping to arrange not only marriages and affairs but also “momentary associations” that, from the way it describes them, could include anything from appointments with a prostitute to arrangements for X to be Y’s date.	《义注》说，从事传达，就是起牵线搭桥的作用。这不仅包括帮助安排婚姻和婚外情，还包括「暂时的联系」，从其描述的方式来看，这可包括从与妓女的约会到安排 X 与 Y 约会等任何事情。
The Vibhaṅga sets the component factors of a go-between’s role at three:	《经分别》将中间人角色的构成要素规定为三：
1) accepting the request of one party to convey a proposal;	1）接受一方传达提议的请求；
2) inquiring, i.e., informing the second party and learning his/her/their reaction; and	2）询问，即通知另一方并了解他/她/他们的反应；和
3) reporting what one has learned to the first party.	3）向第一方报告所了解到的事。
The penalties for these actions are: a dukkaṭa for performing any one of them, a thullaccaya for any two, and a saṅghādisesa for the full set of three. Thus a bhikkhu acting on his own initiative to sound out the possibility of a date between a man and a woman would incur a thullaccaya for inquiring and reporting. A bhikkhu planning to disrobe who asks a woman if she would be interested in marrying him after his return to lay life would incur a dukkaṭa for inquiring. If, on the way to inquire about a woman after accepting a man’s request to inquire about her, a bhikkhu asks people along the way of her whereabouts, that does not count as inquiring. If he goes no further in acting as a go-between, he incurs only a dukkaṭa.	对这些行为的处罚是：执行任何一项行为犯《突吉罗》，执行任意两项行为犯《偷兰遮》，全部三项行为犯《僧残》。因此，比丘主动探询男女约会的可能性时，会因询问和报告而犯《偷兰遮》。计划还俗的比丘如果问一位女子是否有兴趣在他还俗后嫁给他，他会因为询问而犯《突吉罗》。如果比丘在接受男子询问后，在询问女子的路上，向沿途的人询问她的行踪，这不算询问。如果他不再充当中间人，他只会犯《突吉罗》。
The penalties are the same if the bhikkhu, instead of acting as a go-between himself, gets someone else to act for him. Thus a bhikkhu who agrees to convey such a proposal but then gets a lay follower or another bhikkhu to do the inquiring and reporting would incur a saṅghādisesa all the same.	如果比丘没有亲自充当中间人，而是让其他人为他充当中间人，则惩罚是相同的。因此，比丘同意传达这样的提议，但随后请一位在家弟子或另一位比丘来询问和报告，仍然会犯《僧残》。
If a bhikkhu agrees to a man’s request to inquire about a woman, gets his student (§) to do the inquiring, and then the student of his own accord reports to the man, both the original bhikkhu and his student—assuming that he, too, is a bhikkhu—incur thullaccayas.	如果一个比丘同意一个男人询问一个女人的请求，让他的学生（§）去询问，然后他的学生自愿向这个男人报告，包括原来的比丘和他的学生——假设他，也是比丘——都犯《偷兰遮》。
If a group of bhikkhus are asked to act as go-betweens and they all accept, then even if only one of them performs any or all of the actions of a go-between, all the bhikkhus in the group incur the penalty for his actions.	如果一群比丘被要求充当中间人，而他们都接受了，那么即使只有其中一个人执行中间人的任何或全部行为，该群中的所有比丘都会因其行为而受到惩罚。
“Result” is not a factor here, so the Commentary mentions that whether the arrangements succeed has no bearing on the offense.	「结果」在此并不是一个因素，所以《义注》中提到，安排是否成功与犯戒无关。
“Intention” is also not a factor, which leads the Sub-commentary to raise the issue of a man who writes his proposal in a letter and then, without disclosing the contents, gets a bhikkhu to deliver it. Its conclusion, though, is that this case would not qualify as an offense under this rule, in that both the Vibhaṅga and the Commentary define the action of conveying as “telling”: Only if the bhikkhu himself tells the proposal—whether repeating it orally, making a gesture, or writing a letter—does he commit an offense here. Simply carrying a letter, not knowing its contents, would not fulfill the factor of effort under this rule.	「意图」也不是因素，因而导致《复注》提出这样一个问题：一个男人将他的提议写在一封信中，然后在没有透露内容的情况下让一位比丘将其传达。然而，它的结论是，根据本戒条，这种情况不构成犯戒，因为《经分别》和《义注》都将传达的行为定义为「告诉」：只有当比丘本人告诉该提议时——无论是口头重复、做一个手势、或写一封信──他才会犯本戒。仅仅携带一封信而不知道其内容，并不能满足本戒条下的努力因素。

Object	对象
The full offense is for acting as a go-between between a man and a woman who are not married to each other. If, instead of dealing directly with the man and woman, one deals with people speaking on their behalf (their parents, a pimp), one incurs the full penalty all the same.	完整的违犯是充当未婚男女之间的中间人。如果不是直接与这对男女打交道，而是与代表他们说话的人（他们的父母、皮条客）打交道，那么他仍然会受到全额惩罚。
There is no offense for a bhikkhu who tries to effect a reconciliation between an estranged couple who are not divorced, but a full offense for one who tries to effect a reconciliation between a couple who are. “Perception” is also not a factor here, which inspires the Commentary to note that even an arahant could commit an offense under this rule if he tried to effect a reconciliation between his parents whom he assumed to be separated when they were actually divorced.	对一位比丘来说，试图促成一对分居但未离婚的夫妻和解并没有什么罪过，但如果一个比丘试图促成一对已离婚的夫妻和解，那就完全违犯了。「感知」也不是这里的一个因素，这促使《义注》指出，即使是阿罗汉，如果他试图在他认为实际上离婚时分居的父母之间实现和解，也可能犯下本戒条。
Elsewhere, in its discussion of the five precepts, the Commentary includes couples who live as husband and wife without having gone through a formal ceremony under its definition of married, and the same definition would seem to apply here.	在其他地方，《义注》在讨论五戒时，根据其婚姻的定义，将未经过正式仪式而以夫妻身份生活的夫妇包括在内，同样的定义似乎也适用于此。
The Vibhaṅga assigns a thullaccaya for acting as a go-between for a paṇḍaka; according to the Commentary, the same penalty applies for acting as a go-between for a female yakkha or peta (!).	《经分别》指派《偷兰遮》给充当黄门的中间人；根据《义注》，为女性夜叉或饿鬼充当中间人也适用同样的惩罚（！）。

Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga states that, in addition to the usual exemptions, there is no offense if a bhikkhu conveys a message from a man to a woman or vice versa dealing with “business of the Community, of a shrine, or of a sick person.” The Commentary illustrates the first two instances with cases of a bhikkhu conveying a message dealing with construction work for the Community or a shrine; and the third with a case where a bhikkhu, acting on behalf of a fellow bhikkhu who is sick, is sent by a male lay follower to a female lay follower for medicine.	《经分别》规定，除了通常的豁免之外，如果比丘处理「僧团、圣坛或病人的事务」，将讯息从男性传达给女性，或反之亦然，则不会构成犯戒。《义注》以比丘传达关于僧团或圣坛建筑工程的讯息的案例来说明前两个例子；第三种情况是，一位比丘代表一位生病的同侪比丘，由一位男居士送去给一位女居士求药。
The Sub-commentary adds that any similar errand—i.e., not involving any sort of romantic liaison—is also exempt from penalty as long as it is not a form of subservience to lay people (see Sg 13, below).	《复注》补充说，任何类似的差事——即不涉及任何形式的浪漫关系——只要不是对居士的屈从，也可免受惩罚（见下文《僧残》十三）。
Summary: Acting as a go-between to arrange a marriage, an affair, or a date between a man and a woman not married to each other is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：充当中间人安排未婚男女之间的婚姻、私通或约会是《僧残》罪。

* * *

6	六
When a bhikkhu is having a hut built from (gains acquired by) his own begging (§)—having no sponsor and destined for himself—he is to have it built to the standard measurement. Here the standard is this: twelve spans, using the sugata span, in length (measuring outside); seven in width, (measuring) inside. Bhikkhus are to be assembled to designate the site. The site the bhikkhus designate should be without disturbances and with adequate space. If the bhikkhu should have a hut built from his own begging on a site with disturbances and without adequate space, or if he should not assemble the bhikkhus to designate the site, or if he should have the standard exceeded, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	当比丘用自己的乞讨（得到的所得）（§）建造一间小屋时（§）——没有资助者并且是为自己建造的——他应该按照标准尺寸建造小屋。这里的标准是这样的：长度（在外面测量）十二张手，使用善至张手；里面宽（测量）为七张手。比丘们应聚集起来指定地点。比丘们指定的地点应该没有干扰并且有合适的空间。如果比丘在一个干扰且没有合适空间的地点，以自己的乞讨建造一间小屋，或者如果他不召集比丘来指定地点，或者如果他超过标准，僧残。
“At that time the bhikkhus of Āḷavī were having huts built from their own begging—having no sponsors, destined for themselves, not to any standard measurement—that did not come to completion. They were continually begging, continually hinting: ‘Give a man, give labor, give an ox, give a wagon, give a knife, give an ax, give an adze, give a hoe, give a chisel, give rushes, give bamboo, give reeds, give grass, give clay.’ People, harassed with the begging, harassed with the hinting, on seeing bhikkhus would feel apprehensive, alarmed, would run away; would take another route, face another direction, close the door. Even on seeing cows, they would run away, imagining them to be bhikkhus.”	「当时，阿罗毘的比丘们靠自己的乞讨建造了小屋——没有资助者，为自己而建造，没有任何标准的尺寸——无所终止。他们不断地乞求、不断地暗示：『给人，给劳力，给牛，给车，给刀，给斧头，给锛子，给锄头，给凿子，给灯芯草，给竹子，给芦苇、给草、给泥土。』人们因乞讨而烦恼，因暗示而烦恼，一见到比丘就会感到害怕、惊慌、逃跑；会走另一条路，面向另一个方向，关上门。即使看到牛，他们也会逃跑，以为它们是比丘。」
There are three factors for a full offense under this rule.	根据本戒条，构成完全违犯需要三个因素。
Effort: One completes, or gets someone else to complete, through begging for its materials,	努力：透过乞求材料来完成或让别人完成，
Object: a hut that exceeds the standard mentioned in the rule or whose site has not been designated by the Community.	对象：超出戒条规定标准或未经僧团指定地点的小屋。
Intention: One intends the hut for one’s own use.	意图：打算将小屋供自己使用。
We will discuss these factors in reverse order.	我们将以相反的顺序讨论这些因素。

Intention	意图
The Canon repeatedly refers to two arrangements for the ownership of dwellings used by bhikkhus: They belong either to the Community or to an individual (or group of individuals). From the point of view of Community governance, the prior arrangement is preferable, for the Community can then allot the dwelling as it sees fit (see BMC2, Chapter 18). Also, a number of the rules governing the care and use of huts—such as Pc 15, 16, & 17—apply only to dwellings belonging to the Community.	《圣典》一再提到比丘所使用的住处的所有权有两种安排：它们要么属于僧团，要么属于个人（或个人团体）。从僧团治理的角度来看，事先安排是更可取的，因为僧团可以根据需要分配住处（参见《佛教修道准则第二册》第十八章）。此外，许多管理小屋维护和使用的戒条（例如《波逸提》十五、十六和十七）仅适用于属于僧团的住处。
The Vibhaṅga to this rule defines destined for himself as “for his own use.” On the surface this could mean that one plans to use the hut after handing ownership over to the Community, but the Commentary states that this is not so. To dedicate something for one’s own use, it says, is to claim ownership over it: In this case, one regards the dwelling as “mine.” The Commentary’s position is supported by the protocols followed by the lodging bestower and lodging assignor (see BMC2, Chapter 18) in allotting dwellings belonging to the Community: Outside of the Rains-residence, a bhikkhu could be moved from a Community dwelling at any time; during the Rains-residence, the bhikkhu who built a particular dwelling might find himself unable to stay there because many bhikkhus with more seniority or more pressing needs had decided to spend the Rains in that location. Thus if a bhikkhu planned the dwelling for his own use, he would not want it to be subject to the protocols governing Community dwellings.	本戒条的《经分别》将为自己建造定义为「供他自己使用」。从表面上看，这可能意味著计划在将所有权移交给僧团后使用小屋，但《义注》指出事实并非如此。它说，将某物奉献给自己使用，就是声称对其拥有所有权：在这种情况下，将住处视为「我的」。《义注》的立场得到了住宿赠予者和住宿分配者在分配属于僧团的住处时所遵循的行仪（参见《佛教修道准则第二册》第十八章）的支持：在雨安居之外，比丘可以随时从僧团住处搬走；在雨安居期间，建造特定住处的比丘可能会发现自己无法住在那里，因为许多戒腊较高或有更迫切需要的比丘决定在该地点度过雨安居。因此，如果比丘计划将住处供自己使用，他不希望它受到管理僧团住处的行仪的约束。
The Commentary’s interpretation thus suggests that this rule and the following one were intended to discourage bhikkhus from maintaining ownership over the huts they build, for as the non-offense clauses state, the stipulations in this rule do not apply to huts built for the use of others. As the Commentary notes, this exemption applies both to huts built for other people—such as one’s preceptor or mentor—or for the Community. This would open a loophole for one to build a hut for another bhikkhu and for him to claim ownership over it independently of the Community, all without following the stipulations under the rules, but apparently the compilers of the Vibhaṅga did not regard the act of building a hut as a gift for another bhikkhu as something they had the right to forbid.	因此，《义注》的解释表明，本戒条和以下一条戒条的目的是阻碍比丘保留对其所建造的小屋的所有权，因为正如不犯条款所规定的那样，本戒条中的规定不适用于为其他人使用而建造的小屋。正如《义注》所指出的，这项豁免适用于为其他人（例如戒师或导师）或为僧团建造的小屋。这将打开一个漏洞，让某人为另一位比丘建造一间小屋，并让他独立于僧团而声称拥有它的所有权，所有这些都没有遵守戒条的规定，但显然，《经分别》的编纂者并没有考虑建造一间小屋作为礼物送给另一位比丘的行为，因为他们有权禁止这样做。

Object	对象
This factor is divided into two main sub-factors: the hut and the procedures that need to be followed to get the Community’s permission for its construction.	此因素分为两个主要子因素：小屋和获得僧团许可建造小屋所需遵循的程序。
The hut. The Vibhaṅga defines a hut as “plastered inside, outside, or both.” It also states that this rule does not apply to a leṇa, a guhā, or to a grass hut. A leṇa, according to the Commentary, is a cave. A guhā it doesn’t define, except to say that guhās may be built out of wood, stone, or earth. And as for a grass hut, the Commentary says that this refers to any building with a grass roof, which means that even a dwelling with plastered walls but a grass roof would not count as a hut under this rule (although a hut whose roof has been plastered and then covered with grass would count as a hut here).	小屋。《经分别》将小屋定义为「内部、外部或两者都涂有灰泥」。它还指出，本戒条不适用于 leṇa 、 guhā 或草屋。根据《义注》， leṇa 是一个洞穴。它没有定义 guhā ，只是说 guhā 可以用木材、石头或泥土来建造。至于草屋，《义注》中说，这是指任何有草屋顶的建筑物，这意味著即使是抹灰墙但有草屋顶的住处，在本戒条下也不能算作小屋（虽然屋顶被抹灰然后覆盖草的小屋在这里也算是小屋）。
The Commentary goes on to stipulate that the plastering mentioned in the Vibhaṅga refers to a plastered roof, that the plaster must be either clay or white lime (plastering with cow dung or mud doesn’t count, although cement would probably come under “white lime” here), and that the plastering on the inside or outside of the roof must be contiguous with the plastering on the inside or outside of the walls. Thus if the builder leaves a gap in the plastering around the top of the wall so that the plastering of the roof and the plastering of the walls don’t touch at any point, the building doesn’t qualify as a hut and so doesn’t come under the rule.	《义注》接著规定，《经分别》中所提到的抹灰指的是抹灰的屋顶，抹灰必须是粘土或白石灰（用牛粪或泥土抹灰不算，尽管水泥可能属于此处的「白石灰」），且屋顶内侧或外侧的抹灰必须与墙壁内侧或外侧的抹灰互相连接。因此，如果建筑者在墙顶周围的抹灰中留下了一个间隙，使得屋顶的抹灰和墙壁的抹灰在任何一点都不会接触，那么该建筑就不符合小屋的资格，因此不受戒条约束。
The Sub-commentary treats the question raised by the Commentary’s emphasis on the plastering of the roof: Does this mean that a dwelling with a plastered roof but unplastered walls would also count as a hut? Arguing from the Commentary’s many references to making the roof-plastering contiguous with the wall-plastering, the Sub-commentary concludes that the answer is No: Both the roof and the walls must be plastered.	《复注》处理了《义注》中强调屋顶抹灰所提出的问题：这是否意味著屋顶抹灰但墙壁未抹灰的住处也算是小屋？根据《义注》中多次提及使屋顶抹灰与墙壁抹灰互相连接，《复注》得出的结论是答案是否定的：屋顶和墙壁都必须抹灰。
The commentaries’ stipulations on these points may seem like attempts to create gaping loopholes in the rule, but there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to prove them wrong. Perhaps in those days only buildings that were fully plastered, roof and all, were considered to be finished, permanent structures, while everything else was considered makeshift and temporary and thus not worth the fuss and bother of the procedures we will discuss below.	注释对这些要点的规定可能看起来像是试图在戒条中制造巨大的漏洞，但《经分别》中没有任何内容可以证明它们是错的。也许在那些时日里，只有完全抹灰的建筑物，包括屋顶和所有东西，才被认为是完成的、永久性的结构，而其他一切都被认为是临时凑合的，因此不值得我们在下面讨论的程序中大惊小怪和麻烦。
At another point in its discussions, the Commentary adds that any building three sugata spans wide or less is not big enough to move a bed around in and so does not count as a hut under this rule. The Commentary itself defines a sugata span as three times the span of a normal person, which would put it at approximately 75 cm. More recent calculations based on the fact that the Buddha was not abnormally tall set the sugata span at 25 cm.	在讨论的另一点上，《义注》补充说，任何宽度为三善至张手或更小的建筑物都不足以移动一张床，因此根据本戒条不算作小屋。《义注》本身将善至张手定义为正常人张手的三倍，即大约 75 公分。根据佛陀身高并无异常的事实，最近的计算将善至张手设定为 25 公分。
The maximum size of the hut, as the rule states, is no more than twelve spans long and seven spans wide, or approximately 3 x 1.75 meters. For some reason the Vibhaṅga states that the length of the hut is measured from the outside (excluding the plastering, says the Commentary), while the width is measured from the inside. Neither of these measurements may be exceeded even by the breadth of a hair. Thus a hut measuring ten by eight spans, even though it has less floor area than a twelve-by-seven-span hut, would exceed the standard width and so would be a violation of this rule.	依戒条，小屋的最大尺寸不得超过长十二张手、宽七张手，即约 3 x 1.75 公尺。由于某种原因，《经分别》规定，小屋的长度是从外部测量的（《义注》中说，不包括抹灰），而宽度是从内部测量的。即使是一根头发丝的宽度也不能超过这些尺寸。因此，一个十张手乘以八张手的小屋，即使其建筑面积比十二张手乘以七张手的小屋小，也会超出标准宽度，因此会违反本戒条。
The procedures. If, for his own use, a bhikkhu is planning to build a hut as defined in this rule, he must choose a site, clear it, and ask for a Community to inspect and approve it before he can go ahead with the actual construction.	程序。如果比丘打算按照本戒条建造一间小屋供自己使用，他必须选择一个地点，清理它，并请求僧团检查和批准，然后才能继续实际建造。
—The site must be free of disturbances and have adequate space.	—场地必须不受干扰并有合适的空间。
The Vibhaṅga gives a long list of “disturbances,” which for ease of understanding we can divide into three categories: A site free of disturbances is (1) not the abode of such creatures as termites, ants, or rats who might do harm to the building. (2) It is not the abode of those—such as snakes, scorpions, tigers, lions, elephants, or bears—who might do harm to its inhabitant. The Commentary states that the Vibhaṅga’s purpose in forbidding a bhikkhu from building on a site where termites and other small animals have their home is to show compassion to these and other small creatures like them by not destroying their nests. As for the stipulation against building where snakes and other dangerous animals live, this also extends, it says, to the areas where they regularly forage for food.	《经分别》列出了一长串「干扰」清单，为了便于理解，我们可以将其分为三类：没有干扰的场所是（1）不是白蚁、蚂蚁或老鼠等可能对建筑物造成损害的生物的住所。（2）它不是蛇、蝎子、老虎、狮子、大象或熊等可能伤害其居住者的动物的住所。《义注》指出，《经分别》禁止比丘在白蚁和其他小动物栖息的地方建造房屋的目的是为了表达对白蚁和其他小动物的慈悲，不破坏它们的巢穴。至于禁止在蛇等危险动物居住的地方建造建筑的规定，也适用于蛇等危险动物经常觅食的区域。
(3) The site is not near any places that will disturb the bhikkhu’s peace and quiet. Examples given in the Vibhaṅga are: fields, orchards, places of execution, cemeteries, pleasure groves, royal property, elephant stables, horse stables, prisons, taverns, slaughterhouses, highways, crossroads, public rest-houses, and meeting places.	（3）该地点不靠近任何会扰乱比丘安宁的地方。《经分别》中所举的例子有：田野、果园、刑场、墓园、游园、皇家地产、象厩、马厩、监狱、酒馆、屠宰场、高速公路、十字路口、公共休息室和聚会场所。
Adequate space means that there is enough room on the site for a yoked wagon or a man carrying a ladder to go around the proposed hut. The question arises as to whether this means that all trees within that radius of the hut must be cut down or simply that there must be enough land around the hut so that if the trees were not there it would be possible to go around the hut in the ways mentioned. The Sub-commentary states that the stipulation for adequate space is so that the hut will not be built on the edge of a precipice or next to a cliff wall, and the Vinaya-mukha notes that the Vibhaṅga here is following the Laws of Manu (an ancient Indian legal text) in ensuring that the dwelling not be built right against someone else’s property. Both of these statements suggest that there is no need to cut the trees down.	合适的空间意味著场地上有足够的空间供一辆有轭的马车或一个携带梯子的人在拟建造的小屋周围行走。问题是，这是否意味著小屋半径内的所有树木都必须被砍伐，或者只是小屋周围必须有足够的土地，这样如果没有树木，就可以在小屋周围以提到的方式行走。《复注》指出，对合适空间的规定如是，以至于小屋不能建在悬崖边缘或悬崖壁旁边，而《戒律入口》指出，这里的《经分别》遵循《摩奴法典》（古印度法律文本），以确保住处不会侵犯他人的财产。这两种说法都显示没有必要砍伐树木。
The Vinaya-mukha deduces further from the Vibhaṅga’s discussion that the procedures for getting the site approved are concerned basically with laying claim to unclaimed land and thus don’t need to be followed in locations where the Community already owns the land, such as in a monastery; if a bhikkhu in such Communities wishes to build a hut for his own use on monastery land, he need only get the approval of the abbot. Nothing in the ancient texts, however, supports this opinion.	《戒律入口》从《经分别》的讨论中进一步推断，获得场地批准的程序基本上涉及对无人认领的土地提出主张，因此不需要在僧团已经拥有土地的地方遵循，例如在寺院里；如果这样的僧团的比丘想在寺院土地上建造一间小屋供自己使用，他只需得到住持的批准即可。然而，古代文献中并没有任何内容支持这种观点。
—Clearing the site. Before notifying the local Community, the bhikkhu must get the site cleared—so says the Vibhaṅga, and the Commentary adds that he should get it leveled as well. In both cases, he should arrange to have this done in such a way that does not violate Pc 10 & 11. If one is planning to build the hut on monastery grounds, the wise policy would be to obtain permission from the abbot before clearing the site. Again, the question arises as to whether clearing the site means cutting down the trees on the spot where one proposes building the hut. In the origin story to the following rule, Ven. Channa caused an uproar by cutting down a venerated tree on a site where he planned to build, which led the Buddha to formulate the rule that the Community must inspect and approve the site to prevent uproars of this sort. This suggests that clearing the site here means clearing the underbrush so that the presence or absence of termites, etc., can be clearly determined. Only after the Community has approved the site should the necessary trees be cut down.	——清理场地。在通知当地僧团之前，比丘必须清理该场地——《经分别》如是说，《义注》补充说他也应该把它夷为平地。在这两种情况下，他都应该以不违反《波逸提》十和十一的方式进行安排。如果计划在寺院场地上建造小屋，明智的做法是在清理场地之前获得住持的许可。再次出现的问题是，清理场地是否意味著砍伐提议建造小屋的地点的树木。在下一条戒条的起源故事中，阐陀尊者在他计划建造的地方砍倒了一棵受人尊敬的树木，引起了轩然大波，这导致佛陀制定了戒条，要求僧团必须检查并批准该地点，以防止此类骚乱。这表明这里的清理场地意味著清理灌木丛，以便可以清楚地确定白蚁等的存在与否。只有在僧团批准该地点后，才能砍伐必要的树木。
—Getting the site inspected. The bhikkhu then goes to the Community and formally asks them to inspect the site. (The Pali passages for this and the remaining formal requests and proclamations are in the Vibhaṅga.) If all the members of the Community are able to go and inspect the site, they should all go. If not, the Community should select some of its members to go and inspect the site in its stead. The Vibhaṅga says that these inspectors should know what does and does not constitute a disturbance and adequate space, and requires that they be chosen by a formal motion with one proclamation. The Commentary says that they may also be chosen by a simple announcement (apalokana), but this opinion violates the principle set forth in Mv.IX.3.3 that if a shorter form is used for a transaction requiring a longer form, the transaction is invalid. Thus the Commentary’s opinion here cannot stand.	——检查场地。然后，比丘前往僧团并正式要求他们检查场地。（关于这一点的巴利段落以及其余的正式请求和羯磨文都在《经分别》中。）如果僧团的所有成员都能够去检查该地点，他们都应该去。如果不能，僧团应选择一些成员代替其前往现场检查。《经分别》说，这些检查员应该知道什么构成干扰、什么不构成干扰以及合适的空间，并要求通过正式的一白和一羯磨（白二羯磨）来挑选他们。《义注》说，也可以透过简单的求听（apalokana）来挑选他们，但这种意见违反了《大品》.九.3.3中规定的原则，即如果需要较长形式的羯磨使用较短的形式，则该羯磨无效。因此，《义注》的观点不能成立。
The inspectors then visit the site. If they find any disturbances or see that the site has inadequate space, they should tell the bhikkhu not to build there. If the site passes inspection, though, they should return and inform the Community that the site is free of disturbances and has adequate space.	检查员随后前往场地。如果他们发现任何干扰或发现该地点没有合适的空间，他们应该告诉比丘不要在那里建造。不过，如果该地点通过检查，他们应该返回并通知僧团该地点没有受到干扰并且有合适的空间。
—Getting the site approved. The bhikkhu returns to the Community and formally asks it to approve the site. The transaction statement involves a motion and one proclamation. Once this has passed, the bhikkhu may start construction.	——获得场地批准。比丘返回僧团并正式请求僧团批准该地点。羯磨文涉及一白和一羯磨（白二羯磨）。一旦通过，比丘就可以开始建造了。
Offenses. The Vibhaṅga allots the penalties related to the factor of object—a hut without a sponsor, for one’s own use, built without regard for the stipulations in this rule—as follows:	罪行。《经分别》指派与对象因素相关的惩罚—没有资助者，自用，不考虑本戒条的规定而建造的小屋—如下：
an oversized hut—a saṅghādisesa;	超过尺寸的小屋—《僧残》；
a hut on an unapproved site—a saṅghādisesa;	未批准场所的小屋—《僧残》；
a hut on a site without adequate space—a dukkaṭa;	没有合适空间的场所的小屋—《突吉罗》；
a hut on a site with disturbances—a dukkaṭa.	有干扰的场所的小屋—《突吉罗》；
These penalties are additive. Thus, for example, an oversized hut on an unapproved site would entail a double saṅghādisesa.	这些惩罚是累加的。因此，例如，在未经批准的场所建造一座超过尺寸小屋将犯两次《僧残》。
The wording of the training rule, though, suggests that building a hut without a sponsor, for one’s own use, on a site with disturbances and without adequate space would entail a saṅghādisesa; but the Sub-commentary says—without offering explanation—that to read the rule in this way is to misinterpret it. Because the penalty for a multiple saṅghādisesa is the same as that for a single one, there is only one case where this would make an appreciable difference: a hut of the proper size, built on an approved site that has disturbances or does not have adequate space. This is a case of a Community transaction improperly performed: Either the bhikkhus inspecting the site were incompetent, or the disturbances were not immediately apparent. Because the usual penalty for improperly performing a Community transaction is a dukkaṭa (Mv.II.16.4), this may be why the Vibhaṅga allots penalties as it does. As we noted in the Introduction, in cases where the Vibhaṅga is explaining the training rules that deal with Community transactions, it sometimes has to deviate from the wording of the rules to bring them in line with the general pattern for such transactions, a pattern that was apparently formulated after the rules and came to take precedence over them.	不过，学处的措辞表明，在没有资助者的情况下，在有干扰且没有合适空间的场所建造自用的小屋犯一次《僧残》；但《复注》说——没有提供解释——以这种方式解读本戒条是对它的误解。由于对多次《僧残》的惩罚与对单次《僧残》的惩罚相同，因此只有一种情况会产生明显的区别：一间大小合适的小屋，建在经批准的场地上，但有干扰或没有合适的空间。这是一个僧团羯磨执行不当的案例：要么是检查现场的比丘无能，要么是干扰没有立即显现出来。因为不当执行僧团羯磨的通常惩罚是《突吉罗》（《大品》.二.16.4），这可能是《经分别》如此分配惩罚的原因。正如我们在引言中指出的，在《经分别》解释处理僧团羯磨的学处的情况下，有时必须偏离戒条的措辞，以使它们符合此类羯磨的一般模式，这种模式显然是在戒条之后制定的，并且优先于戒条。
Usually, if a Community transaction has been improperly performed, it is invalid and unfit to stand even if the bhikkhus involved think that they are following the proper procedure. In other words, in the case just mentioned, the site would strictly speaking not count as approved, and the hut would involve a saṅghādisesa. However, the Vibhaṅga seems to be making a special exemption here in assigning only a dukkaṭa, perhaps so as not to punish unduly a bhikkhu who went to all the trouble to follow, as best he and his fellow bhikkhus knew how, the proper procedures prior to building his hut.	通常，如果僧团羯磨执行不当，即使相关比丘认为自己遵循了正确的程序，该羯磨也是无效且不适合成立的。换句话说，在刚才提到的情况下，严格来说，该地点不算被批准，而小屋将涉及《僧残》。然而，《经分别》似乎在这里做出了特殊的豁免，只指定了《突吉罗》，也许是为了不过度惩罚比丘，因为他和他的比丘同侪们都知道如何不辞辛劳地遵循建造小屋之前的正确程序。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga allots the derived penalties related to the factor of effort under this rule as follows: If the hut is such that when finished it will entail a saṅghādisesa or two, each act in its construction entails a dukkaṭa, until the next to the last act, which entails a thullaccaya.	《经分别》分配了与本戒条下的努力因素相关的衍生惩罚，如下：如果小屋在完成后将犯一次或两次《僧残》，则其建造中的每个行为都犯《突吉罗》，直到最后一个行为的前一个行为，犯《偷兰遮》。
If a bhikkhu, intending it for his own use, completes a hut that others have started, he is still bound by the stipulations given in this rule. In other words, the offenses here do not apply only to the original initiator of the hut’s construction.	如果比丘打算自用，而完成了别人已经开始建造的小屋，他仍然受本戒条的约束。换句话说，这里的犯戒不仅适用于小屋建造的原始发起人。
The Commentary mentions a special case in which two bhikkhus, building a hut for their own use but not to the stipulations under this rule, complete it without having decided which part of the hut will go to which bhikkhu. Because of their indecision, the Commentary states that neither of them incurs the full offense until he has laid claim to his part of the hut.	《义注》提到一个特殊的例子，两个比丘建造了一座自用的小屋，但不符合本戒条的规定，在没有决定小屋的哪一部分归哪位比丘的情况下完成了。由于他们尚未决定，《义注》指出，在他声称拥有自己的小屋部分之前，他们都不会完全违犯。
Getting others to build the hut. The Vibhaṅga states that if, instead of building the hut himself, a bhikkhu tells others, “Build this hut for me,” he must inform them of the four stipulations mentioned in this rule. If he neglects to inform them, and they finish the hut in such a way that it does not meet any or all of the stipulations, he incurs all the relevant offenses for the stipulations that he neglected to mention and that the builders violated. For example: He tells them to build a hut of the right size, but neglects to tell them to have the site approved. They build it to the right size, the site is without disturbances and has adequate space but is not approved, and he incurs a saṅghādisesa. Offenses in cases like this apply whether he gets them to start the hut’s construction or gets them to complete a hut that he has started.	让其他人建造小屋。《经分别》规定，如果比丘不是自己建造小屋，而是告诉别人：「为我建造这座小屋」，他必须告知他们本戒条中提到的四项规定。如果他疏忽通知他们，而他们以不符合任何或全部规定的方式完成小屋，他将因他疏忽提及和建造者违反的规定而承担所有相关违犯。例如：他告诉他们建造一个大小合适的小屋，但没有告诉他们让场地被批准。他们把它建得大小合适，场地没有干扰，有合适的空间，但没有得到批准，他犯《僧残》。无论他让他们开始建造小屋还是让他们完成他已经开始建造的小屋，这种情况下的犯戒都适用。
If, while the builders are still building the hut, he hears of what they are doing, he must either go himself or send a messenger to tell them of the stipulations he neglected to mention. If he does neither, he incurs a dukkaṭa, and when the hut is finished he incurs all the relevant offenses for the stipulations that he neglected to mention and that the builders violated.	如果在建造者还在建造小屋的时候，他听到了他们正在做的事情，他必须要么亲自去，要么派一个使者告诉他们他没有提到的规定。如果他两者都不做，他犯《突吉罗》，当小屋完工后，他会因他忽略提及而建造者违反的规定而招致所有相关的违犯。
If, while the hut is still unfinished, he returns to the site and discovers that the stipulations he neglected to mention are being violated, he must either have the hut torn down (to the ground, says the Commentary) and have it rebuilt in line with the stipulations, give it to another bhikkhu or the Community, or face the full penalty—when the hut is finished—for each of the stipulations that he neglected to mention and that the builders violated.	如果在小屋尚未完工时，他回到场地，发现他忽略提及的规定遭到违反，他必须要么将小屋拆掉（《义注》说是夷为平地），按规定重建它，交给另一个比丘或僧团，要不然当小屋完成时，就因他忽略提及和建造者违反的每一项规定而面临全额惩罚。
If the bhikkhu originally mentions the proper stipulations but later learns that the builders are ignoring them, he must go himself or send a messenger to reiterate the stipulations. Not to do so incurs a dukkaṭa. If, having been reminded of the stipulations, the builders still ignore them, the bhikkhu incurs no penalty; but they—if they are bhikkhus—incur a dukkaṭa for each of the three criteria regarding the site that they disobey. As for the standard measurement, they are not bound by it as they are building the hut for another’s use.	如果比丘最初提到了正确的规定，但后来得知建造者忽视了这些规定，他必须亲自去或派使者重申这些规定。不这样做就犯《突吉罗》。如果建筑者在被提醒注意这些规定后仍然忽视它们，比丘不会受到惩罚；但是，如果他们是比丘，他们就会因违反有关该场地的三个标准中的每一个而犯《突吉罗》。至于标准尺寸，他们不受它的约束，因为他们建造的小屋是供别人使用的。

Begging	乞讨
The Vibhaṅga to this rule does not go into any great detail on the issue of begging for construction materials. However, the Commentary contains a long discussion of what a bhikkhu may and may not beg for when building any kind of building, even those not covered by this rule. Because the Commentary’s discussion here is not based on the Canon, not all Communities regard these points as binding. Still, many of its suggestions merit serious consideration. Its main points are these:	本戒条的《经分别》并没有详细讨论乞讨建筑材料的问题。然而，《义注》包含了关于比丘在建造任何类型的建筑物时可以乞讨什么和不可以乞讨什么的长篇讨论，即使是那些不在本戒条范围内的建筑物。由于此处《义注》的讨论并非基于《圣典》，因此并非所有僧团都认为这些要点具有约束力。尽管如此，其中的许多建议仍值得认真考虑。其要点如下：
A bhikkhu may ask for people to give labor in any situation (although this point seems to conflict with the spirit of the origin story to this rule). Thus he may ask stone masons to carry stone posts to his construction site, or carpenters to carry boards there. If, after he has asked them to help with the labor, they volunteer to donate the materials as well, he may accept them without penalty. Otherwise, he has to reimburse them for the materials.	比丘在任何情况下都可以要求人们给予劳力（尽管这一点似乎与本戒条的起源故事的精神相冲突）。因此，他可以请石匠将石柱搬到他的建筑工地，或请木匠将木板搬到那里。如果他要求他们帮忙做工后，他们也自愿捐赠材料，他可以接受，不受惩罚。否则的话，他就得给他们补偿材料费。
As for tools, vehicles, and other things he will use in the process of construction, he may ask only to borrow them from other people and may not ask for them outright (except when asking from relatives or those who have made an offer). If the tools get damaged, he is responsible for getting them repaired before returning them to the owner. (This opinion, however, seems based on the Commentary’s concept of bhaṇḍadeyya, which we have already rejected under Pr 2.) The only things he needn’t return to the owner are light articles (lahubhaṇḍa), which the Sub-commentary identifies as things like reeds, rushes, grass, and clay—i.e., things having little or no monetary value at all.	对于施工过程中使用的工具、车辆等物品，只能向他人借用，不得直接索取（向亲戚或提出邀请者索取的除外）。如果工具损坏，他有责任修理好，然后再归还给所有者。（然而，这个观点似乎是基于《义注》的 bhaṇḍadeyya 概念，我们已经在《波罗夷》二中拒绝了这个概念。）他唯一不需要归还给所有者的东西是轻物品（lahubhaṇḍa），《复注》将其定为像芦苇、灯芯草、草和黏土这样的东西，即几乎没有或根本没有货币价值的东西。
This means that unless a bhikkhu is going to build his dwelling out of reeds, etc., or out of thrown-away scraps, he may not ask people in general for any of the materials that will actually go into the dwelling. Keep in mind that these rules were made during a period when wilderness was still plentiful, and solid building materials such as timber and stones were free for the taking. At present, unless a bhikkhu has access to unclaimed wilderness of this sort, to unclaimed garbage, or has enough funds on deposit with his steward (see NP 10) to cover the cost of materials, his only recourse if he wants a solid structure is either to rammed earth or to hinting.	这意味著，除非比丘要用芦苇等，或用废弃的废料来建造他的住所，否则他不能向一般人索取任何实际用于建造住所的材料。请记住，这些规则是在林野仍然充足、木材和石头等固体建筑材料可以免费取得的时期制定的。目前，除非比丘能够有权使用此类无人认领的荒野，无人认领的垃圾，或者在他的净人处存有足够的资金（参见《舍堕》十）来支付材料费用，否则如果他想要一个坚固的结构，他唯一的办法就是要夯土，不然就要暗示。
The Commentary notes that while hinting is not allowed with regard to food or cloth, it is allowed with regard to construction materials (although again, this point seems to conflict with the spirit of the origin story). One example it gives is asking, “Do you think this is a good place to build a hut? An ordination hall?” Another example is staking out a construction site in hope that someone will ask, “What are you planning to do here?” If people get the hint and offer the materials, the bhikkhu may accept them. If they don’t, he may not ask directly for any materials except the “light articles” mentioned above.	《义注》指出，虽然在食物或衣服方面不允许暗示，但在建筑材料方面却允许暗示（尽管这一点似乎与起源故事的精神相冲突）。它给出的一个例子是问：「你认为这是建造小屋的好地方吗？戒堂？」另一个例子是在一个建筑工地上立桩标出界线，希望有人会问：「你打算在这里做什么？」如果人们得到暗示并提供材料，比丘可以接受。如果没有，除了上述的「轻物品」之外，他不得直接要求任何材料。
From this it should be obvious that even in cases not covered by this rule—i.e., the dwelling he is building doesn’t qualify as a “hut,” or he is building something for other people to use—a bhikkhu engaged in construction work should not be burdensome to the laity. This is an important point, as the Buddha illustrated in a story he told to the bhikkhus at Āḷavī. A certain bhikkhu had once come to him with a complaint, and he reports the conversation as follows:	由此可见，即使在本戒条未涵盖的情况下，即他正在建造的住处不符合「小屋」的资格，或者他正在建造供其他人使用时，从事建筑工作的比丘不应成为俗人的负担。这是很重要的一点，正如佛陀在他向 Āḷavī 的比丘们讲述故事中所说明的那样。有一次，有一位比丘来向他抱怨，他将谈话的内容记述如下：
“‘Venerable sir, there is a large stand of forest on the slopes of the Himalayas, and not far from it is a broad, low-lying marsh. A great flock of birds, after feeding all day in the marsh, goes to roost in the forest at nightfall. That is why I have come to see the Blessed One—because I am annoyed by the noise of that flock of birds.’	「『大德，喜马拉雅山的山坡上有一大片森林，不远处有一片广阔的低洼沼泽。一大群鸟儿在沼泽地里觅食了一整天后，在夜幕降临时到森林里栖息。这就是我来见世尊的原因──因为我对那群鸟的噪音感到恼火。』
“‘Bhikkhu, do you want those birds not to come there?’	「『比丘，你不想那些鸟儿到那里去吗？』
“‘Yes, venerable sir, I want them not to come there.’	「『是的，大德，我希望他们不要来这里。』
“‘Then in that case, go back there, enter the stand of forest, and in the first watch of the night make this announcement three times: “Listen to me, good birds. I want a feather from everyone roosting in this forest. Each of you give me one feather.” In the second watch…. In the third watch of the night make this announcement three times: “Listen to me, good birds. I want a feather from everyone roosting in this forest. Each of you give me one feather”…. (The bhikkhu did as he was told.) Then the flock of birds, thinking, ‘The bhikkhu asks for a feather, the bhikkhu wants a feather,’ left the forest. And after they were gone, they never again returned. Bhikkhus, begging is unpleasant, hinting is unpleasant even to these common animals—how much more so to human beings?”	「『那么，既然如此，你就回到那里，进入林中，在初夜的时候，宣告三遍：『听我说，好鸟儿们。我想要栖息在这片森林里的每只鸟的一根羽毛。你们每只给我一根羽毛。在中夜......到后夜，宣告三次：「好鸟儿们，听我说。我想要栖息在这片森林里的每只鸟的一根羽毛。你们每只给我一根羽毛」… （比丘照他所吩咐的去做。）然后，群鸟心想：『比丘要一根羽毛，比丘要一根羽毛。』而他们离开之后，就再也没有回来过。比丘们，乞讨是不愉快的，暗示甚至对这些普通动物来说也是不愉快的，何况对人类呢？」

Non-offenses

不犯

The Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses mention, in addition to the usual exemptions, that there is no offense “in a leṇa, in a guhā, in a grass hut, in (a dwelling) for another’s use, or in anything other than a dwelling.” The Commentary explains that no offense here means that these cases are not subject to any of the four stipulations given in this rule. With regard to “another’s use,” it says that this could mean a dwelling that will belong to another individual—such as one’s preceptor or mentor—or to the Community. As for the last case, it explains that if a bhikkhu is building, e.g., a meeting hall, he is not bound by this rule, but if he plans to lay claim to it and use it as his dwelling as well, he is.

除一般的豁免外，《经分别》的不犯条款还提到，「在leṇa（山窟）、guhā（洞穴）、草屋、供他人使用的（住处）或住处除外的任何东西」均不构成犯戒。《义注》解释说，此处不犯意思是这些情况不受本戒条中四项规定中任何一项的约束。关于「他人使用」，它说这意味著属于另一个人（例如戒师或教授师）或僧团的住处。至于最后一个例子，它解释说，如果一个比丘正在建造，例如一个会议厅，他就不受本戒条的约束，但如果他打算声称拥有它并把它用作他的住所，他就受本戒条的约束。

Further restrictions and allowances	进一步的限制和开缘
Further restrictions and allowances concerning the construction of dwellings are discussed under Pc 19 and in BMC2, Chapters 6 and 18.	有关住处建设的进一步限制和开缘在《波逸提》十九和《佛教修道准则第二册》第六章和第十八章中讨论。
Summary: Building a plastered hut—or having it built—without a sponsor, destined for one’s own use, without having obtained the Community’s approval, is a saṅghādisesa offense. Building a plastered hut—or having it built—without a sponsor, destined for one’s own use, exceeding the standard measurements, is also a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在没有资助者的情况下建造或让人建造一座灰泥小屋，供自己使用，未经僧团批准，是《僧残》罪。在没有资助者的情况下建造或让人建造一座灰泥小屋，供自己使用，超过标准尺寸，也是《僧残》罪。

* * *

7	七
When a bhikkhu is having a large dwelling built—having a sponsor and destined for himself—he is to assemble bhikkhus to designate the site. The site the bhikkhus designate should be without disturbances and with adequate space. If the bhikkhu should have a large dwelling built on a site with disturbances and without adequate space, or if he should not assemble the bhikkhus to designate the site, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	当比丘要建造一座大住处时——有资助者并为自己而造——他要召集比丘们来指定地点。比丘们指定的地点应该没有干扰并且有合适的空间。如果比丘在有干扰且没有合适空间的地点建造一座大住处，或者如果他不召集比丘来指定地点，僧残。
The Vibhaṅga defines dwelling here with the same terms it uses for hut in the preceding rule. All explanations for this rule may be inferred from those above, the only difference being that, as the dwelling here has a sponsor, no begging is involved in its construction and so there is no need to limit its size.	《经分别》对这里的住处的定义与前面戒条中对小屋使用的术语相同。对本戒条的所有解释都可以从上面的内容中推断出来，唯一的区别是，这里的住处有资助者，建造过程中不涉及乞讨，因此不需要限制其尺寸。
None of the texts define sponsor aside from the Vibhaṅga’s statement that the sponsor can be a man or a woman, a householder or one gone forth. The Pali term for “sponsor” here, sāmika, can also mean “owner,” and this has led some to suggest that this rule covers only those cases where the donor maintains ownership over the dwelling even after the bhikkhu has finished it. This, however, would create a serious gap in the rules. Suppose a donor offers to provide all the materials for a bhikkhu to build himself a large hut and to hand ownership of the hut over to the bhikkhu when it is finished as well. This is an extremely common case, and yet it would not be covered by the preceding rule, for that rule deals only with instances where the bhikkhu has to beg for his materials. If sāmika under this rule were confined to the restrictive sense of “owner” given above, the case would not be covered by this rule, either.	除了《经分别》陈述资助者可以是男人或女人、居士或出家人之外，没有任何文字定义资助者。这里的巴利语「资助者」一词， sāmika ，也可以指「所有者」，这导致一些人认为，本戒条只适用于那些即使在比丘完工后，施主仍保留住处所有权的情况。然而，这将在戒条中造成严重漏洞。假设一位布施者愿意为一位比丘提供所有材料，让他自己建造一座大小屋，并在完工后将小屋的所有权移交给比丘。这是一个极其常见的情况，但它不会被前面的戒条涵盖，因为该戒条只涉及比丘必须乞讨材料的情况。如果本戒条下的 sāmika 仅限于上述「所有者」的限制性含义，则该情况也不会受到本戒条的管辖。
There is evidence in the Canon, though, that the word sāmika can have another meaning aside from “owner.” The non-offense clauses to NP 10 use the word sāmika to describe a person who creates a robe-fund for a bhikkhu but does not retain ownership of the robe once it has been given to the bhikkhu, and it seems reasonable to use the word in the same sense under this rule as well. Thus a sponsor here would be anyone—man or woman, ordained or not—who underwrites the cost of building a hut in such a way that the bhikkhu does not have to beg for his materials. Thus if a bhikkhu building a hut for his own use draws entirely on funds deposited with his steward for all materials and labor, the case would come under this rule as well.	不过，《圣典》中有证据表明，除了「所有者」之外， sāmika 一词还可以有其他意义。《舍堕》十的不犯条款使用 sāmika 一词来描述为比丘创建袈裟资金但一旦将袈裟交给比丘后并不保留其所有权的人，在本戒条下使用具有同样意义的该词似乎也是合理的。因此，这里的资助者可以是任何人——男人或女人，受具足戒与否——承担建造小屋费用的人，这样比丘就不必乞讨他的材料。因此，如果比丘建造一间小屋供自己使用，其所有材料和劳力都完全由其存放在净人的资金支付，则该情况也将受此戒条管辖。
Given the way the Commentary defines destined for oneself, if the sponsor maintained ownership of the finished hut, the case would not fall under this rule. If a sponsor is building a dwelling to give to a bhikkhu, and the bhikkhu is not involved in any way in building it or getting it built, this rule does not apply.	考虑到《义注》对为自己而造的定义，如果资助者保留了已完工小屋的所有权，则该情况将不属于本戒条的范围。如果资助者正在建造一所住处供给一位比丘，而该比丘没有以任何方式参与建造或令其被建造，则本戒条不适用。
Summary: Building a hut with a sponsor—or having it built—destined for one’s own use, without having obtained the Community’s approval, is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在未获得僧团批准的情况下，有资助者建造小屋——或者让人建造小屋——供自己使用，是《僧残》罪。

* * *

8	八
Should any bhikkhu—corrupt, aversive, disgruntled—charge a bhikkhu with an unfounded case entailing defeat, (thinking), “Perhaps I may bring about his fall from this celibate life,” then regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, if the issue is unfounded and the bhikkhu confesses his aversion, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果任何比丘——恶意、瞋恨、不满——以毫无根据的事由指控比丘犯波罗夷，（想）「也许我可以导致他从这梵行生活中退堕」，那么无论他是否稍后受到盘问，如果事由没有根据并且比丘承认他的瞋恨，僧残。
“Now at that time a householder who served fine food gave food to the Community on a regular basis, four bhikkhus every day…. (One day) he happened to go on some business to the monastery. He went to Ven. Dabba Mallaputta and on arrival bowed down to him and sat to one side…. Ven. Dabba Mallaputta roused… him with a Dhamma talk. Then the householder with fine food… said to Dabba Mallaputta, ‘To whom, venerable sir, is tomorrow’s meal in our house assigned?’	「尔时，一位提供精美食物的居士定期向僧团提供食物，每天有四位比丘… （有一天）他碰巧去寺院办事。他去找沓婆摩罗子尊者，抵达后向他顶礼并坐在一边…沓婆摩罗子尊者用佛法开示激励了……他。然后，有美味食物的居士……对沓婆摩罗子说：『大德，我们家里明天的饭菜是分配给谁的？』
“‘…To (the) followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja (§), householder.’ [Mettiya and Bhummaja were among the leaders of the group-of-six bhikkhus—so called because the group had six ringleaders—a faction notorious for its shameless behavior, and instigators of many of the situations that compelled the Buddha to formulate training rules.]	「『…居士，分配给慈和地（§）的弟子。』[慈和地是六群比丘的领导人之一——如此称呼是因为该群有六名头目——这个派别因其无耻的行为，以及许多情况的发起者迫使佛陀制定学处。]
“This upset the householder with fine food. Thinking, ‘How can these evil bhikkhus eat in our house?’ he returned home and ordered his female slave, ‘Hey. Those who are coming for a meal tomorrow: Prepare a seat for them in the gatehouse and serve them unhusked rice porridge with pickle brine.’	「这让有美味食物的居士感到不悦。他心想：『这些恶比丘怎么能在我们家里吃饭呢？』他回到家里，吩咐他的女婢：『嘿。明天来吃饭的人，在门房里为他们预备座位，给与屑米饭添加酸粥。』
“‘As you say, master,’ the female slave answered….	「『如您所说，主人。』女婢回答道…
“Then the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja said to one another, ‘Yesterday we were assigned a meal at the house of the householder with fine food. Tomorrow, attending with his wives and children, he will serve us. Some will offer rice, some will offer curry, some oil, and some condiments.’ Because of their joy, they didn’t sleep as much that night as they had hoped.	「然后，慈和地的弟子互相说道：『昨天，我们被安排去有美食的居士家里用餐。明天，他将带著妻子和孩子出席，为我们服务。有人会提供米饭，有人会提供咖哩、一些油和一些调味品。』由于高兴，他们那天晚上并没有像他们希望的那样睡得多。
“Early the next morning… they went to the home of the householder with fine food. The female slave saw them coming from afar. On seeing them, and having prepared them a seat in the gatehouse, she said to them, ‘Have a seat, honored sirs.’	「第二天一早……他们来到了有美食的居士家。女婢远远就看到他们过来了。看见他们后，就在门房给他们安排了座位，对他们说：『大德，请坐。』
“The thought occurred to the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja, ‘No doubt the food isn’t ready yet, which is why we’re being made to sit in the gatehouse.’	「慈和地的弟子心想，『毫无疑问，食物还没有准备好，这就是我们坐在门房里的原因。』
“Then the female slave presented them with unhusked rice porridge with pickle brine and said, ‘Eat, honored sirs.’	“然后，女婢给他们端上屑米饭添加酸粥，说道：『大德，吃吧。』
“‘Sister, we’re the ones here for the regular meal.’	「『姐妹，我们是来这里受常施食的。』
“‘I know you’re the ones here for the regular meal. But yesterday the householder ordered me, “Hey. Those who are coming for a meal tomorrow: Prepare a seat for them in the gatehouse and serve them unhusked rice porridge with pickle brine.” So eat, honored sirs.’	「『我知道你们是来这里受常施食的。但昨天，我家主人命令我说：「嘿。明天来吃饭的人，在门房里给他们预备座位，给他们吃屑米饭添加酸粥。所以请吃饭吧，大德。』
“Then the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja said to one another, ‘Yesterday the householder with fine food went to the monastery and met with Dabba Mallaputta. No doubt Dabba Mallaputta turned him against us.’ Because of their disappointment, they didn’t eat as much as they had hoped.	「然后，慈和地的弟子彼此说道：『昨天，那位拥有美味食物的居士去了寺院，并会见了沓婆摩罗子。毫无疑问，沓婆摩罗子让他背叛了我们。』由于失望，他们没有吃到他们希望的那么多。
“Then… they returned to the monastery and, putting away their robes and bowls, went outside the monastery gatehouse and sat with their outer robes holding up their knees (§)—silent, abashed, their shoulders drooping, their heads down, brooding, at a loss for words.	「然后……他们回到寺院，收起袈裟和钵，到寺院门房外，蹲坐于僧伽梨衣（§）——沉默、羞愧、垂肩、低头、忧郁，无言以对。
“Then Mettiyā Bhikkhunī approached them… and said to them, ‘I salute you, masters.’ But when she had said this, they didn’t respond. A second time… A third time she said, ‘I salute you, masters.’ And a third time they didn’t respond.	「然后，慈比丘尼走近他们……并对他们说：『我顶礼大德。』但是当她说出这句话时，他们没有回应。第二次……第三次她说：『我顶礼大德。』第三次他们没有回应。
“‘Have I offended you, masters? Why don’t you respond to me?’	「『我冒犯大德了吗？为什么不回应我？』
“‘Because you, sister, look on impassively while Dabba Mallaputta treats us like dirt.’	「『因为，姐妹，你冷漠地看著沓婆摩罗子对待我们就像对待泥土一样。』
“‘What can I do?’	「『我能做些什么？』
“‘If you want, you could get the Blessed One to expel Dabba Mallaputta right this very day.’	「『如果你愿意，你可以在今天就让世尊驱逐沓婆摩罗子。』
“‘What can I do? How could I do that?’	「『我能做些什么？我能怎么做呢？』
“‘Come, sister. Go to the Blessed One and say this: “It is unfitting, venerable sir, and improper. The quarter without dread, without harm, without danger, is (now) the quarter with dread, with harm, with danger. From where there was a calm, there is (now) a storm-wind. The water, as it were, is ablaze. I have been raped by Master Dabba Mallaputta.”’	「『来吧，姐妹。去向世尊说：「大德，这是不合适的，也是不恰当的。没有恐惧、没有伤害、没有危险的地区，（现在）是有恐惧、有伤害、危险的地区。原本风平浪静的地方，现在却刮起了狂风。水就像在燃烧一样。我被大德沓婆摩罗子强暴了。』
“‘As you say, masters.’ (And she went to carry out their bidding.)”	「『就如您所说，大德。』（她去执行他们的命令。）」
This is just the heart of the origin story to this rule, which is one of the longest and most controversial accounts in the Vinaya. After Mettiyā Bhikkhunī made her charge, the Buddha convened a meeting of the Saṅgha to question Ven. Dabba Mallaputta. The latter, who had attained arahantship at the age of seven, responded truthfully that he could not call to mind ever having indulged in sexual intercourse even in a dream, much less when awake. The Buddha then told the Saṅgha to expel Mettiyā Bhikkhunī and to interrogate (§) her instigators, after which he returned to his quarters. When the bhikkhus had expelled her, the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja told them, “Friends, don’t expel Mettiyā Bhikkhunī. She hasn’t done anything wrong. She was instigated by us, who were upset, dissatisfied, and wanted to see him fall.”	这只是本戒条起源故事的核心，也是戒律中最长、最具争议的记载之一。慈比丘尼提出指控后，佛陀召集僧伽会议质问沓婆摩罗子尊者。后者七岁时证得阿罗汉果，他如实回答说，即使在梦中，他也无法回忆起曾经沉迷于性交的经历，更不用说在醒时了。然后，佛陀吩咐僧团驱逐慈比丘尼，并审问（§）她的煽动者，然后他返回自己的住处。当比丘们驱逐她时，慈和地的弟子告诉他们：「朋友们，不要驱逐慈比丘尼。她没有做错任何事。她是被我们怂恿的，我们心烦意乱，不满，想看他退堕。」
“‘You mean you were charging Ven. Dabba Mallaputta with an unfounded case entailing defeat?’	「『你们的意思是你们以毫无根据的波罗夷案件指控沓婆摩罗子尊者？』
“‘Yes, friends.’	「『是的，朋友们。』
“So the bhikkhus criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja charge Ven. Dabba Mallaputta with an unfounded case entailing defeat?’”	「因此，比丘们批评、抱怨并散布这样的言论：『慈和地的弟子怎么能以毫无根据的波罗夷案件指控沓婆摩罗子尊者？』」
In the centuries after the Canon was composed, however, many people have criticized and complained more about the Buddha’s treatment of Mettiyā Bhikkhunī. According to the Commentary, her expulsion was one of the controversial points dividing the bhikkhus in the Abhayagiri Vihāra from those in the Mahāvihāra in the old Sri Lankan capital of Anurādhapura. Even modern scholars have objected to the Buddha’s treatment of Mettiyā Bhikkhunī and interpret this passage as a “monkish gloss,” as if the Buddha himself were not a monk, and the entire Canon not the work of monks and nuns. The Commentary maintains that the Buddha acted as he did because he knew if he treated her less harshly, the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja would never have volunteered the information that they had put her up to making the charge in the first place, and the truth would never have come out. This would have led some people to remain secretly convinced of Ven. Dabba Mallaputta’s guilt and—because he was an arahant—would have been for their long-term detriment and harm.	然而，在《圣典》形成后的几个世纪里，许多人对佛陀对待慈比丘尼的方式提出了更多的批评和抱怨。根据《义注》，她的驱逐是在斯里兰卡旧首都阿努拉德普勒的无畏山寺比丘与大寺比丘之间分裂的争议点之一。甚至现代学者也反对佛陀对慈比丘尼的处理，并将这段经文解释为「僧人的注释」，仿佛佛陀本人不是僧人，整部《圣典》也不是僧人和尼姑的作品。《义注》认为，佛陀这样做是因为他知道，如果他对待她不那么严厉，慈和地的弟子就永远不会自愿提供他们一开始就让她提出指控的信息，事实永远不会出来。这会导致一些人仍然暗中相信沓婆摩罗子尊者的罪行——因为他是阿罗汉——会对他们造成长久的危害和伤害。
At any rate, what concerns us here is that at some point after this rule was formulated, the Buddha put the Saṅgha in charge of judging accusations of this sort and gave them a definite pattern to follow to ensure that their judgments would be as fair and accurate as possible. Because the Vibhaṅga and Commentary to this rule are based on this pattern, we will discuss the pattern first before dealing with the special case—unfounded charges—covered by this rule.	无论如何，我们在这里关心的是，在本戒条制定后的某个时刻，佛陀让僧团负责判断此类指控，并给了他们一个明确的模式可遵循，以确保他们的判断是尽可能地公平和正确。由于本戒条的《经分别》和《义注》都是基于此模式，因此我们将首先讨论该模式，然后再处理本戒条所涵盖的特殊情况——毫无根据的指控。

Admonition	教诫
As the Buddha states in Sg 12, one of the ways bhikkhus may hope for growth in his teachings is through mutual admonition and mutual rehabilitation. If a bhikkhu commits an offense, he is responsible for informing his fellow bhikkhus so that they may help him through whatever procedures the offense may entail. Human nature being what it is, there are bound to be bhikkhus who neglect this responsibility, in which case the responsibility falls to the offender’s fellow bhikkhus who know of the matter to admonish him in private, if possible, or—if he is stubborn—to make a formal charge in a meeting of the Community.	正如佛陀在《僧残》十二中所说，比丘们希望在他的教义中成长的方法之一是透过相互教诫和相互恢复清净。如果比丘犯了戒，他有责任通知他的比丘同侪，以便他们可以通过该罪可能需要的任何程序来帮助他。人性就是这样，必然会有比丘忽视这一责任，在这种情况下，责任就落在了犯戒者的比丘同侪身上，他们知道此事，如果可能的话，私下教诫他，或者——如果他很顽固的话－在僧团会议上提出正式指控。
The pattern here is this: Before admonishing the bhikkhu, one must first make sure that one is qualified to admonish him. According to Cv.IX.5.1-2, this means knowing that:	这里的模式是这样的：在教诫比丘之前，首先必须确定自己有资格教诫比丘。根据《小品》.九.5.1-2，这意味著知道：
1) One is pure in bodily conduct.	1）身行清净。
2) One is pure in verbal conduct.	2）语行清净。
3) One is motivated by good will, not vindictiveness.	3）动机是出于善意，而不是出于报复。
4) One is learned in the Dhamma.	4）通达佛法。
5) One knows both Pāṭimokkhas (the one for the bhikkhus and the one for the bhikkhunīs) in detail.	5）详细了解两部波罗提木叉（比丘和比丘尼）。
Furthermore, one determines that:	此外，还确定：
1) I will speak at the right time and not at the wrong time.	1）我会在正确的时候说话，不在错误的时候说话。
2) I will speak about what is factual and not what is unfactual.	2）我会说事实，而不是非事实。
3) I will speak gently and not harshly.	3）我会柔软地说，不粗暴地说。
4) I will speak what is connected with the goal (attha) and not what is unconnected with the goal (this can also mean: what is connected with the case and not what is unconnected with the case).	4）我会说与目标（attha）相关的内容，而不是与目标无关的内容（这也可以意味著：与具体情况相关的内容，而不是与具体情况无关的内容）。
5) I will speak from a mind of good will and not from inner aversion.	5）我会出于慈心而不是瞋心的而说。
Cv.IX.5.7 and Pv.XV.5.3 add that one should keep five qualities in mind: compassion, solicitude for the other’s welfare, sympathy, a desire to see him rehabilitated, and esteem for the Vinaya.	《小品》.九.5.7和《附随》.十五.5.3补充说，应该牢记五种特质：慈悲、关心他人的福祉、同情、渴望看到他改过自新，以及尊重戒律。
If one feels unqualified in terms of these standards yet believes that another bhikkhu has committed an offense for which he has not made amends, one should find another bhikkhu who is qualified to handle the charge and inform him. Not to inform anyone in cases like this is to incur a pācittiya or a derived offense under Pc 64, except in the extenuating circumstances discussed under that rule.	如果觉得自己不符合这些标准，但又相信另一位比丘犯了戒，而他还没有改正，那么应该找到另一位有资格处理指控的比丘，并通知他。在此类情况下，不通知任何人将构成《波逸提》六四中的《波逸提》罪或衍生违犯，除了该戒条中讨论的情有可原的情况。
The next step, if one is qualified to make the charge, is to look for a proper time and place to talk with the other party—for example, when he is not likely to get embarrassed or upset—and then to ask his leave, i.e., to ask permission to speak with him: “Let the venerable one give me leave. I want to speak with you—Karotu āyasmā okāsaṁ. Ahan-taṁ vattukāmo.” To accuse him of an offense without asking leave is to incur a dukkaṭa (Mv.II.16.1).	如果有资格提出指控，下一步就是寻找适当的时间和地点与对方交谈——例如，当他不太可能感到尴尬或不安时——然后请求他的许可，即，请求允许与他交谈：「请尊者给予我许可。我想和你说话－Karotu āyasmā okāsaṁ. Ahan-taṁ vattukāmo.。」未经许可就指控他有罪，犯《突吉罗》（《大品》.二.16.1）。
As for the other party, he may give leave, or not, depending on his assessment of the individual asking for leave, for it is possible that someone might ask for leave without any real grounds, simply to be abusive. (This interpretation follows the Burmese edition on the relevant passage, Mv.II.16.3. In other editions, the same passage says that one is allowed to make another bhikkhu give leave after having assessed him. However, in the context of the allowance—some group-of-six bhikkhus ask leave of bhikkhus they know are pure—there seems no need to allow a bhikkhu to reflect on whether the person he plans to accuse might be pure. That is one of the accuser’s duties, as enforced by the present rule along with the following rule, Pc 76, and another passage in Mv.II.16.3. As for the case of asking leave of someone who might prove abusive, that is already covered in Mv.II.16.2, which says that even after another bhikkhu has given leave, one should assess him before leveling a charge against him. Thus, in context, the Burmese reading makes more sense: Having been asked to give leave, one is allowed to assess the person making the request before giving him leave to speak. If we did not follow the Burmese reading here, there would be no allowance in the Vibhaṅga or the Khandhakas not to give leave to an abusive accuser.) A bhikkhu who asks for leave with no grounds—i.e., he has not seen the other party commit the offense, has heard no reliable report to that effect, and has no reason to suspect anything to that effect—incurs a dukkaṭa (Mv.II.16.3).	至于对方，可以允许，也可以不允许，这取决于他对请求允许者的评估，因为有可能有人会无缘无故请求允许，只是为了施虐。（这一解释遵循缅甸版本的相关段落，《大品》.二.16.3。在其他版本中，同一段落说，可以在对另一位比丘进行评估后，再请求给予允许。然而，就开缘的脉络中——某六群比丘请求他们知道清净的比丘们的允许——似乎没有必要让比丘思考他打算指控的人是否清净，这是指控者的职责之一，由本戒条以及之后的《波逸提》七六戒条，和《大品》.二.16.3中的另一段落强制执行。至于向可能施虐的人请求许可的情况，这已在《大品》.二.16.2中涵盖，其中说，即使在另一位比丘给予许可之后，也应该在对他提出指控之前对其进行评估。因此，就上下文而言，缅甸的解读更合理：在被要求给予许可后，可以在允许他发言之前对提出请求的人进行评估。如果我们不遵循这里的缅甸的解读，那么《经分别》或《犍度》就不会允许不给予施虐的指控者许可。）比丘无缘无故请求允许──即，他没有看到对方犯戒，也没有听过可靠的举报，也没有理由怀疑任何与此有关的事情──犯《突吉罗》（《大品》.二.16.3）。
Pv.XV.4.7 gives further support to the Burmese reading here by suggesting that one should not give leave to a bhikkhu who:	《附随》.十五.4.7 进一步支持缅甸的解读，建议不应给予以下比丘许可：
1) is unconscientious,	1）无耻，
2) is ignorant,	2）愚痴，
3) is not in regular standing (e.g., he is undergoing penance for a saṅghādisesa offense or has been placed under a disciplinary transaction),	3）没有正常地位（例如，他正在因《僧残》罪而接受摩那埵或已受到治罪羯磨），
4) speaks intent on creating a disturbance, or	4）说话意图制造骚乱，或
5) is not intent on rehabilitating the bhikkhu he is accusing.	5）无意为他所指控的比丘恢复清净。
Pv.XV.5.4 suggests further that one should not give leave to a bhikkhu who:	《附随》.十五.5.4 进一步建议，不应给予以下比丘许可：
1) is not pure in bodily conduct,	1）身行不清净，
2) is not pure in verbal conduct,	2）语行不清净，
3) is not pure in his livelihood,	3）活命不清净，
4) is incompetent and inexperienced, or	4）无能力且缺乏经验，或
5) is unable to give a consistent line of reasoning when questioned.	5）在被询问时无法给予一致的论据。
If the bhikkhu is not unqualified in any of these ways, though, one should willingly give him leave to speak. Cv.IX.5.7 says that, when being admonished or accused, one should keep two qualities in mind: truth and staying unprovoked. The Pāṭimokkha also contains a number of rules imposing penalties on behaving improperly when one is being admonished formally or informally: Sg 12 for being difficult to admonish in general, Pc 12 for being evasive or refusing to answer when being formally questioned (see below), Pc 54 for being disrespectful to one’s accuser or to the rule one is being accused of breaking, and Pc 71 for finding excuses for not following a particular training rule.	然而，如果比丘在上述任何一方面都没有资格的话，应该愿意允许他发言。《小品》.九.5.7 说，当受到教诫或指控时，应牢记两个特质：真实和无忿怒。《波罗提木叉》也包含许多对在正式或非正式教诫时行为不当的处罚戒条：《僧残》十二是在一般情况下难以教诫，《波逸提》十二是在正式询问时回避或拒绝回答（见下文），《波逸提》五四是不尊重指控者或被指控违反的戒条，《波逸提》七一是为不遵守特定学处找借口。
If both sides act in good faith and without prejudice, accusations of this sort are easy to settle on an informal basis. If an accusation can’t be settled informally, it should be taken to a meeting of the Community so that the group as a whole may pass judgment. The procedures for this sort of formal meeting will be discussed under the aniyata and adhikaraṇa-samatha rules. If the issue is to be brought up at a Community meeting for the uposatha, there are extra procedures to be followed, which are discussed in BMC2, Chapter 15. If the issue is to be brought up at the Invitation at the end of the Rains, the procedures to be followed are discussed in BMC2, Chapter 16.	如果双方本著善意且不带偏见行事，此类指控很容易在非正式基础上解决。如果指控无法以非正式方式解决，则应提交僧团会议，以便整个团体做出判断。此类正式会议的程序将根据《不定》和《灭诤》戒条进行讨论。如果要在布萨的僧团会议上提出这个问题，则需要遵循额外的程序，这些程序在《佛教修道准则第二册》第十五章中讨论。如果要在雨安居结束时在自恣时提出该问题，则应遵循的程序将在《佛教修道准则第二册》第十六章中讨论。

Abuse of the system	滥用系统
As shown in the origin story to this rule, a bhikkhu making a charge against another bhikkhu might be acting out of a grudge and simply making up the charge. This rule and the following one cover cases where the made-up charge is that the other bhikkhu has committed a pārājika. Pc 76 covers cases where the made-up charge is that he has broken a less serious rule.	正如本戒条的起源故事所示，一位比丘对另一位比丘提出指控，可能是出于怨恨而只是编造指控。本戒条和接下来的戒条涵盖了捏造指控另一位比丘犯了《波罗夷》罪的情况。《波逸提》七六涵盖了捏造指控他违反了不太严重的戒条的案件。
The full offense under this rule involves four factors.	本戒条下的完整违犯涉及四个因素。
1) Object: The other bhikkhu is regarded as ordained.	1）对象：另一位被视为受戒的比丘。
2) Perception: One perceives him to be innocent of the offense one is charging him with.	2）感知：知道他没有犯下所指控的罪行。
3) Intention: One wants to see him expelled from the Saṅgha.	3）意图：希望看到他被逐出僧团。
4) Effort: One makes an unfounded charge in his presence that he is guilty of a pārājika offense.	4）努力：当著他的面毫无根据地指控他犯《波罗夷》罪。

Object	对象
The definition of this factor—the other bhikkhu is regarded as ordained—may sound strange, but it comes from the K/Commentary, which apparently extended the principle expressed in the factor of perception, explained below, that if one perceives the bhikkhu as innocent of the charge one is making, the fact of whether he is actually innocent is irrelevant to the offense under this rule. In the same way, the K/Commentary seems to be reasoning, if one perceives the bhikkhu to be a bhikkhu, the fact of whether he is actually a bhikkhu is irrelevant to this offense. The K/Commentary makes this point for a reason: In normal cases the object of this rule will be an innocent bhikkhu, but there may be cases where a bhikkhu has actually committed a pārājika offense that no one knows about; instead of disrobing, he acts as if he were still a bhikkhu, and everyone else assumes that he still is. Yet even a “bhikkhu” of this sort would fulfill this factor as far as this rule is concerned.	这个因素的定义——另一位比丘被认为是受戒的——可能听起来很奇怪，但它来自K/《义注》，它显然扩展了感知因素中表达的原则，如下所述，如果认为被指控的比丘是无罪的，他是否实际上是无辜的这一事实与本戒条下的犯戒无关。同样地，K/《义注》似乎在推理，如果认为该比丘是一位比丘，那么他实际上是否是比丘这一事实与此罪行无关。K/《义注》提出这一点是有原因的：在正常情况下，本戒条的对象是无辜的比丘，但也可能有比丘实际上犯了无人知晓的《波罗夷》罪的情况；他没有还俗，而是表现得好像他仍然是比丘，而其他人都认为他仍然是比丘。然而，就本戒条而言，即使是这样的「比丘」也能满足这个因素。
For example, Bhikkhu X steals some of the monastery funds, but no one knows about it, and he continues to act as if he were a bhikkhu. Bhikkhu Y later develops a grudge against him and makes an unfounded charge that he has had sexual intercourse with one of the monastery supporters. Even though X is not really a bhikkhu, the fact that people in general assume him to be one means that he fulfills this factor.	例如，X比丘偷走了一些寺院资金，但没有人知道，他继续表现得像比丘一样。Y比丘后来对他怀恨在心，并毫无根据地指控他与一名寺院支持者发生性关系。尽管 X 并不是真正的比丘，但人们普遍认为他是比丘这一事实就意味著他满足了这一因素。

Perception	感知
If one perceives the bhikkhu one is charging with a pārājika offense to be innocent of the offense, that is enough to fulfill this factor regardless of whether the accused is actually innocent or not. To make an accusation based on the assumption or suspicion that the accused is not innocent entails no offense.	如果认为被指控犯下《波罗夷》罪的比丘是无辜的，那么就足以满足这一因素，无论被告是否实际上是无辜的。基于被告非无辜的假设或怀疑而提出指控并不构成犯戒。

Intention	意图
The wording of the training rule suggests that this factor would have to be fulfilled by impulse—aversion—together with motive—desiring the other bhikkhu’s expulsion—but the Vibhaṅga consistently conflates these two sub-factors under motive. Thus all that is needed to fulfill this factor is the desire to see the other bhikkhu expelled. If one’s motive is simply to insult him, the Vibhaṅga says that one’s actions would come under Pc 2. If one’s motive is both to see him expelled and to insult him, one incurs both a saṅghādisesa and a pācittiya. The texts do not explicitly mention this point, but it would appear that if one has a strange sense of humor and is making the false charge as a joke with no intention of being insulting or taken seriously, one’s actions would come under Pc 1.	学处的措词表明，这个因素必须透过冲动（瞋恨）和动机（渴望驱逐另一位比丘）来满足，但《经分别》始终将这两个子因素合并在动机之下。因此，要满足这个因素，所需要的只是渴望看到另一位比丘被驱逐。如果动机只是为了侮辱他，《经分别》说，该行为算在《波逸提》二之下。如果动机既是为了看到他被驱逐又是为了侮辱他，那么就会同时犯《僧残》和《波逸提》。文本中没有明确提及这一点，但似乎如果有一种奇怪的幽默感，并将虚假指控当作一个笑话，无意侮辱或认真对待，那么该行为算在《波逸提》一之下。
According to the Vibhaṅga, confessing one’s aversion simply means admitting that the charge was empty or false. Thus the level of malice impelling one’s desire to see the other bhikkhu expelled need not be severe: If one wants to see him expelled just for the fun of it, that would fulfill the factor of intention here.	根据《经分别》的说法，承认自己的厌恶仅仅意味著承认指控是空洞的或错误的。因此，促使希望看到另一位比丘被驱逐的恶意程度不必太严重：如果只是为了好玩而想看到他被驱逐，那就满足了这里的意图因素。

Effort	努力
The act covered by this rule is that of making an unfounded charge of a pārājika in the accused’s presence. Whether one makes the charge oneself or gets someone else to make it, the penalty is the same. If that “someone else” is a bhikkhu and knows the charge is unfounded, he too incurs the full penalty.	本戒条所涵盖的行为是在被告在场的情况下提出毫无根据的《波罗夷》罪的指控。无论是自己提出指控或委托他人提出指控，惩罚都是一样的。如果那个「他人」是比丘并且知道指控毫无根据，他也会受到全额惩罚。
The Vibhaṅga defines an unfounded charge as one having no basis in what has been seen, heard, or suspected. In other words, the accuser has not seen the accused committing the offense in question, nor has he heard anything reliable to that effect, nor is there anything in the accused’s behavior to give rise to any honest suspicion.	《经分别》将毫无根据的指控定义为没有根据所看到、听到或怀疑的事实的指控。换句话说，指控者没有看到被指控者犯下相关罪行，也没有听到任何可靠的讯息，被指控者的行为也没有任何值得怀疑的地方。
Seeing and hearing, according to the Commentary, also include the powers of clairvoyance and clairaudience one may have developed through meditation. Thus if one charges X with having committed a pārājika offense on the basis of what one has seen clairvoyantly, this would not be an unfounded charge, although one should be careful to make clear from the very beginning what kind of seeing the charge is based on.	根据《义注》，看到和听到也包括透过禅修发展的天眼和天耳的能力。因此，如果根据自己的天眼所见而指控 X 犯《波罗夷》罪，那么这不是一项毫无根据的指控，尽管应该从一开始就小心地表达清楚该指控是基于哪种看到。
The Vibhaṅga adds that if there is some basis in fact, but one changes the status of the evidence, the penalty is the same. Changing the status means, e.g., saying that one saw something when in actuality one simply heard about it or suspected it, or that one saw it clearly when in actuality one saw it indistinctly.	《经分别》补充说，如果有一定的事实依据，但改变了证据的状态，惩罚是一样的。改变状态意味著，例如，说看到了某物，而实际上只是听说或怀疑它，或者说清楚地看到了它，而实际上是模糊地看到了它。
An example from the Commentary: Bhikkhu X goes into a grove to relieve himself. Ms. Y goes into the same grove to get something there. One sees them leaving the grove at approximately the same time—which could count as grounds for suspicion—but one then accuses Bhikkhu X, saying that one actually saw him having sex with Ms. Y. This would count as an unfounded charge. Another example: In the dark of the night, one sees a man stealing something from the monastery storehouse. He looks vaguely like Bhikkhu Z, but one can’t be sure. Still, one firms up one’s accusation by saying that one definitely saw Z steal the item. Again, this would count as an unfounded charge.	《义注》中的例子：比丘 X 到小树林解手。 Y 女士进入同一个小树林去拿东西。看到他们大约在同一时间离开树林——这可以算作怀疑的理由——但随后指责比丘 X，说实际上看到他与 Y 女士发生性关系。这算是毫无根据的指控。又如：夜深人静时，见一人在寺库中偷东西。他看起来有点像 Z 比丘，但无法确定。尽管如此，还是证实了自己的指控，说确实看到了 Z 偷了这件物品。同样，这算是毫无根据的指控。
The Commentary states that for an unfounded charge to count under this rule, it must state explicitly (a) the precise act the accused supposedly committed (e.g., having sexual intercourse, getting a woman to have an abortion) or (b) that the accused is guilty of a pārājika, or (c) that the accused is no longer a true bhikkhu. If one simply says or does something that might imply that the accused is no longer a bhikkhu—e.g., refusing to show him respect in line with his seniority—that does not yet count as a charge.	《义注》指出，要根据本戒条提出毫无根据的指控，必须明确说明 (a) 被指控者据称犯下的具体行为（例如，发生性交、让妇女堕胎）或 (b) 被指控者犯有《波罗夷》罪，或 (c) 被指控者不再是真正的比丘。如果只是说或做了一些可能暗示被指控者不再是比丘的事情——例如，拒绝根据他的戒腊向他表示尊重——那还不算是一项指控。
The Commentary adds that charging a bhikkhu with having committed an equivalent or derived pārājika, as discussed in the conclusion to the preceding chapter, would fulfill this factor as well. For instance, if one makes an unfounded charge accusing Bhikkhu A of having killed his father before his ordination, that would constitute a full offense here. The Vibhaṅga makes no mention of these equivalent pārājikas under this rule, but the Great Standards can be used to justify their inclusion here.	《义注》补充说，指控比丘犯了同等或衍生的《波罗夷》罪（如上一章结论中所讨论的那样）也可以满足这一因素。例如，如果毫无根据地指控比丘 A 在受具足戒前杀害了他的父亲，那么这里就构成了完全违犯。《经分别》没有提及本戒条下的这些同等的《波罗夷》罪，但是《四大教示》可以用来证明它们包含在这里是合理的。
All of the charges given as examples in the Vibhaṅga are expressed directly to the accused—“I saw you commit a pārājika offense,” “I heard you commit a pārājika offense”—and the Commentary concludes from this that the full offense occurs only when one makes the charge in the accused’s presence, in line with the pattern for admonition discussed above. To make an unfounded charge behind the accused’s back, it states, incurs a dukkaṭa.	《经分别》中作为例子给出的所有指控都是直接向被指控者表达的——「我看到你犯了《波罗夷》罪」，「我听说你犯了《波罗夷》罪」——《义注》由此得出结论，只有当被指控者在场的情况下提出指控时，才会构成完整违犯，这符合上述教诫的模式。它指出，在被指控者背后提出毫无根据的指控，犯《突吉罗》。
There is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to indicate that the Commentary is wrong here, aside from the consideration that—because the charge is unfounded—it could entail a pācittiya for deliberate lying. Some people, however, have objected to the Commentary’s position here, saying that a dukkaṭa or even a pācittiya is a very light penalty for backhanded character assassination. Nevertheless, we should remember that the correct procedures for making an accusation require that an earnest charge be made in the presence of the accused. If a bhikkhu spreads gossip about another bhikkhu, accusing him of having committed a pārājika, he should be asked whether he has taken up the matter with the accused. If he hasn’t, he should be told to speak to the accused before he speaks to anyone else. If he says that he doesn’t feel qualified or that he fears the accused will retaliate, he should be told to take the matter up with the bhikkhus who will be responsible for calling a meeting of the Community. If he refuses to do that, he shouldn’t be listened to.	《经分别》中没有任何内容表明《义注》在这里是错误的，除了考虑到——因为指控是没有根据的——它可能会因故意撒谎而犯《波逸提》罪。然而，有些人反对《义注》在此的立场，称《突吉罗》甚至《波逸提》对于隐含的人格谋杀来说是一种非常轻微的惩罚。然而，我们应该记住，提出指控的正确程序要求在被指控者在场的情况下提出认真的指控。如果一位比丘散布关于另一位比丘的流言蜚语，指控他犯了《波罗夷》罪，应该询问他是否已与被指控者讨论此事。如果他没有，应该告诉他在与其他人交谈之前先与被指控者交谈。如果他说他觉得自己没有资格，或者担心被指控者会报复，那么他应该被告知向负责召开僧团会议的比丘们提出此事。如果他拒绝这样做，就不应该听取他的意见。
For some reason, the Commentary maintains that a charge made in writing does not count, although a charge made by gesture—e.g., pointing at the accused when one is asked who committed the pārājika—does. Perhaps in those days written charges were regarded as too cowardly to take seriously.	出于某种原因，《义注》认为，以书面形式提出的指控不算数，但透过手势提出的指控（例如，当被问及谁犯了《波罗夷》时指著被指控者）则算在内。也许在当时，书面指控被认为太懦弱而无法认真对待。
The rule seems to require that the accuser confess that he was acting out of depraved impulses, although the Vibhaṅga states that this means simply that he admits the charge was a lie. The Commentary states further that here the rule is showing the point where the rest of the Community knows that the bhikkhu making the charge is guilty of a saṅghādisesa: He actually committed the offense when he made the charge.	本戒条似乎要求原指控者承认他的行为是出于堕落的冲动，尽管《经分别》指出这仅意味著他承认指控是谎言。《义注》进一步指出，这里的戒条表明，僧团的其他成员都知道提出指控的比丘犯了《僧残》罪：实际上他在提出指控时犯了戒。
The K/Commentary adds “result” as a further factor to the offense under this rule, saying that the accused must immediately understand the charge—but nothing in the Vibhaṅga supports this added factor.	K/《义注》将「结果」加入为本戒条下犯戒的进一步因素，表示被指控者必须立即理解指控，但《经分别》中没有任何内容支持此附加因素。
Whether anyone actually believes the charge is not a factor here.	是否有人真正相信该指控并不是这里的因素。

Non-offenses	不犯
If one understands the accused to be guilty of a pārājika and accuses him honestly on the basis of what one has seen, heard, or suspected, then—regardless of whether he is guilty or not—one has not committed an offense. Even in a case such as this, though, one incurs a dukkaṭa if making the charge without asking leave of the accused, and a pācittiya if making the charge so as to insult him.	如果理解被指控者犯有《波罗夷》罪，并根据自己的所见、所闻或所怀疑的情况诚实地指控他，那么无论他是否有罪，都没有犯戒。然而，即使在这样的情况下，如果未经被指控者许可而提出指控，就会犯《突吉罗》；如果提出指控是为了侮辱他，则会犯《波逸提》。
Summary: Making an unfounded charge to a bhikkhu that he has committed a pārājika offense, in hopes of having him disrobed, is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：：毫无根据地指控比丘犯了《波罗夷》罪，希望让他还俗，是《僧残》罪。

* * *

9	九
Should any bhikkhu—corrupt, aversive, disgruntled—using as a mere ploy an aspect of an issue that pertains otherwise, charge a bhikkhu with a case entailing defeat, (thinking), “Perhaps I may bring about his fall from this celibate life,” then regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, if the issue pertains otherwise, an aspect used as a mere ploy, and the bhikkhu confesses his aversion, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果任何比丘——恶意、瞋恨、不满——取其他事情的部分类似之处，指控比丘犯波罗夷，（想）「也许我可以导致他从这梵行生活中退堕」，那么无论他是否稍后受到盘问，如果取其他事情的部分类似之处，而且比丘承认了他的瞋恨，僧残。
“At that time the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja, descending from Vulture Peak Mountain, saw a billy-goat copulating with a nanny-goat. Seeing them, they said, ‘Look here, friends, let’s name this billy goat Dabba Mallaputta, and this nanny goat Mettiyā Bhikkhunī. Then we’ll phrase it like this: “Before, my friends, we accused Dabba Mallaputta on the basis of what we had heard, but now we have seen him with our very own eyes fornicating with Mettiyā Bhikkhunī!”’”	「尔时，慈和地的弟子从耆阇崛山下来，看到一只公山羊与一只母山羊交配。看到他们，他们说：『看这里，朋友们，我们把这只公山羊命名为沓婆摩罗子，把这只母山羊命名为慈比丘尼。然后我们会这样表述：「朋友们，以前我们根据所听到的情况指控沓婆摩罗子，但现在我们亲眼看到他与慈比丘尼私通！」』」
Some grudges die hard. This rule is almost identical with the preceding one and involves the same factors except for one of the sub-factors under “Effort”: “Unfounded charge” here becomes “a charge based on an issue (adhikaraṇa) that pertains otherwise.” The phrase sounds strange, but the origin story gives a perfect example of what it means.	有些恩怨难消。本戒条几乎与前一条相同，涉及相同的因素，除了「努力」下的一个子因素：「毫无根据的指控」在这里变成「基于与此相关的问题（adhikaraṇa）的指控」。这个表达方式听起来很奇怪，但起源故事完美地说明了它的意义。
The precise difference between the two rules is this: With an unfounded charge, one has neither seen, heard, nor suspected that an offense has been committed; or if one has, one changes the status of the evidence—e.g., one states something one has suspected as if one has heard it, or something one has heard as if one has seen it. In a charge based on an issue that pertains otherwise, one has seen an action that would be an offense if committed by a bhikkhu, and one does not change the status of the evidence, but one distorts the facts of the case.	这两条戒条的具体区别在于：无根据的指控，指的是既没有看到、听到、也没有怀疑过的犯戒行为；或者，如果有的话，就改变证据的状态——例如，陈述一个人怀疑的事情，就好像有人听过一样，或者陈述一个人听过的事情，就像有人看到过一样。在基于与此相关的问题的指控中，看到了如果由比丘实施的话将构成犯戒的行为，并且不改变证据的状态，但歪曲该情况的事实。
The Vibhaṅga lists ten factors that can be used as a ploy in distorting the facts this way. They are: birth (caste), name, clan (family name), physical characteristics, offenses, bowl, robe, preceptor, mentor, lodging. Given the way in which the Vibhaṅga illustrates these factors in action, they fall into two classes: (1) offenses and (2) the remaining nine factors.	《经分别》列出了十个因素，可以用作以这种方式扭曲事实的手段。它们是：出身（种姓）、名字、宗族（姓）、身体特征、犯戒、钵、袈裟、戒师、导师、住处。鉴于《经分别》在行动中阐述这些因素的方式，它们分为两类：（1）犯戒和（2）其余九个因素。
1) An example of using an offense as a ploy: One sees Bhikkhu Y actually committing an offense. Although one perceives it as a lesser offense, one magnifies the charge to a pārājika. For instance, one sees him get into an argument with Bhikkhu Z and in a fit of anger give Z a blow to the head. Z goes unconscious, falls to the floor, and suffers a severe concussion resulting in death. Because Y’s intention was simply to hurt him, not to kill him, he incurs only a pācittiya. If one realizes the nature of Y’s intention and the fact that the penalty is a pācittiya, and yet accuses him of having committed a pārājika, one would incur a saṅghādisesa under this rule. For ease of remembrance, this use of a ploy can be called “same person, different offense.”	1）以犯戒作为手段的例子：看到比丘 Y 实际上犯了戒。尽管认为这是一种较轻的犯戒，但却将这种指控放大到了《波罗夷》。例如，看到他与比丘 Z 发生争执，一怒之下就打了 Z 的头部。 Z 失去知觉，摔倒在地，并遭受严重脑震荡导致死亡。因为 Y 的意图只是伤害他，而不是杀死他，所以他只犯《波逸提》。如果知道到 Y 的意图的本质以及惩罚是《波逸提》的事实，但仍指控他犯了《波罗夷》，那么根据本戒条，就会犯《僧残》。为了便于记忆，这种手法的使用可以称为「同人异罪」。
2) An example of using any of the other nine factors as a ploy: X, who may or may not be a bhikkhu, has something in common with Bhikkhu Y—they are both tall, short, dark, fair, share the same name, are students of the same preceptor, live in the same dwelling, use similar looking bowls or robes, etc. One sees X committing an action that, if he were a bhikkhu, would amount to a pārājika offense; on the basis of the similarity between the two, one claims to have seen Bhikkhu Y committing a pārājika. For instance, X and Y are both very tall. Late at night one sees X—knowing that it is X—stealing tools from the monastery storeroom. One has a grudge against Y and so accuses him of being the thief, saying, “I saw this big tall guy stealing the tools, and he looked just like you. It must have been you.” For ease of remembrance, this use of a ploy can be called “same offense, different person.”	2）使用其他九个因素中的任何一个作为手段的例子：X，可以是也可以不是比丘，与比丘 Y 有一些共同点——他们都高、矮、黑、白，有相同的名字，是同一位戒师的弟子，住在同一住处，使用外观相似的钵或袈裟等。如果 X 是比丘的话，看到了他做出某种行为，相当于犯了《波罗夷》罪；基于两者之间的相似性，声称曾见过比丘 Y 犯下《波罗夷》罪。例如， X 和 Y 都很高。深夜，看到 X ——知道是 X ——从寺院储藏室偷工具。对 Y 有怨恨，就指责他是小偷，说：「我看到大高个子偷工具，他长得跟你一模一样。一定是你。」为了便于记忆，这种手段的使用可以称为「同罪异人」。
None of the texts mention the scenario of a double ploy—i.e., “different person, different offense”—but from the way the Vibhaṅga defines an issue that pertains otherwise, a double ploy would fit the definition as well. In other words, if—having seen X engage in lustful contact with a woman—one then accuses Bhikkhu Y, who shares the same family name with X, of engaging in sexual intercourse with the woman, the case would apparently come under this rule.	没有任何文本提到双重手段的场景，即「异人异罪」，但从《经分别》定义与此相关的问题的方式来看，双重手段也符合此定义。换言之，如果看到 X 与女性发生淫秽的接触，然后指控与 X 同姓的比丘 Y 与该女性发生性关系，那么该情况显然会算在本戒条之下。
A case that would not come under this rule is one based on seeing or hearing Y commit an action that bears some resemblance to an offense but is actually not. For instance, one overhears him teaching Vinaya to some new bhikkhus and quoting, by way of illustration, a few of the statements that would count as claims of superior human states. Because this does not constitute an offense, there is no issue (adhikaraṇa) pertaining otherwise that can be used as a ploy. In shorthand terms, this would count as “same person, no offense.” If, realizing the context, one later accuses him of having violated Pr 4, the accusation would count as an unfounded charge and so would come under the preceding rule.	不属于本戒条的情况是基于看到或听到 Y 实施与犯戒有些相似但实际上并非犯戒的行为。例如，无意中听到他向一些新比丘教授戒律，并以举例的方式引用了一些可以视为上人法主张的陈述。因为这并不构成犯戒，所以不存在可以用作手段的与此相关的问题（adhikaraṇa）。简而言之，这将被视为「同人无罪」。如果了解此来龙去脉，后来指控他违反了《波罗夷》四，则该指控将被视为毫无根据的指控，因此将算在前一戒条之下。
The remaining explanations for this rule are exactly the same as those for the preceding rule, except that in the non-offense clauses the Vibhaṅga states that if one makes a charge—or gets someone else to make a charge—against the accused based on what one actually perceives, there is no offense even if the issue turns out to pertain otherwise. For instance, from the examples already given: One sees X stealing tools in the dark and, because of his resemblance to Y, actually thinks Y is the thief. One sees Y give a fatal blow to Z and actually thinks that Y’s intention was to kill Z. In either of these cases, if one then accuses Y of a pārājika offense, one incurs no penalty regardless of how the case comes out, although—as under the preceding rule—one should be careful to ask Y’s leave before making the charge and to have no intention of insulting him.	本戒条的其余解释与前一条戒条的解释完全相同，除了在不犯条款中，《经分别》规定，如果根据自己的实际看法对被指控者提出指控（或让其他人提出指控），即使事实证明问题并非如此，也没有犯戒。例如，从已经给出的例子来看：看到 X 在黑暗中偷工具，并且由于他与 Y 相似，竟然认为 Y 是小偷。看到 Y 对 Z 给予致命一击，竟然认为 Y 的意图是杀死 Z。在这两种情况中的任何一种情况下，如果指控 Y 犯有《波罗夷》罪，则无论情况结果如何，都不会受到处罚，尽管——与前面的戒条一样，在提出指控之前，应该小心地征求 Y 的许可，并且不要有意侮辱他。
Summary: Distorting the evidence while accusing a bhikkhu of having committed a pārājika offense, in hopes of having him disrobed, is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：扭曲证据，指控比丘犯了波罗夷罪，以期让他还俗，是《僧残》罪。

* * *

十

Should any bhikkhu agitate for a schism in a united Community, or should he persist in taking up an issue conducive to schism, the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: “Do not, venerable sir, agitate for a schism in a united Community or persist in taking up an issue conducive to schism. Let the venerable one be reconciled with the Community, for a united Community, on courteous terms, without dispute, with a common recitation, dwells in peace.”

And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times for the sake of relinquishing that. If while being rebuked up to three times he relinquishes that, that is good. If he does not relinquish (that), it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

如果任何比丘在和合僧团中鼓动分裂，或者他坚持提出导致分裂之事，比丘们应这样告诫他：「尊者，不要在一个和合僧团中鼓动分裂，或者坚持提出导致分裂之事。愿尊者与僧团和解，因为僧团团结，以礼相待，无争，共同诵[戒]，安住。」

若该比丘受诸比丘如此告诫后，仍坚持如前，诸比丘应诃责他至多三遍，使他舍弃。如果被诃责至三次时，他就舍弃了，那很好。如果他不舍弃，僧残。

Schism	破和合僧
A schism is a serious division in the Community—so serious that, if achieved in a dishonest way, it ranks with matricide, patricide, killing an arahant, and maliciously shedding the Tathāgata’s blood as one of the five most heinous crimes a person can commit (AN 5:129).	破和合僧是僧团中的严重分裂，严重到如果以不诚实的方式实现，它会与弑母、弑父、杀阿罗汉、恶意出如来血一样，列为一个人可以犯下的五种最令人发指的罪行（五逆罪、五无间业）之一（《增支部》5:129经）。
To qualify as a schism, the division has to meet five criteria:	要成为破和合僧，该分裂必须满足五个标准：
1) The Community is originally united, which means that it is composed of bhikkhus of common affiliation living in the same territory.	1）僧团原本是和合的，是指由居住在同一界、共同羯磨的比丘所组成。
2) It contains at least nine bhikkhus.	2）至少有九位比丘。
3) It becomes involved in a dispute over any of eighteen grounds for a creating a schism. In other words, one of the sides advocates any of the following positions, explaining:	3）涉及十八项分裂理由中任何一项的争议。换句话说，其中一方主张以下任一立场，说：
Dhamma as not-Dhamma;	法为非法；
not-Dhamma as Dhamma;	非法为法；
Vinaya as not-Vinaya;	律为非律；
not-Vinaya as Vinaya;	非律为律；
what was not spoken by the Buddha as having been spoken by him;	非佛说为佛说；
what was spoken by the Buddha as not;	佛说为非佛说；
what was not regularly practiced by him as having been regularly practiced by him;	非如来常所行法为如来常所行法；
what was regularly practiced by him as not;	如来常所行法为非如来常所行法；
what was not formulated by him as having been formulated by him;	非如来制定者为如来制定者；
what was formulated by him as not;	如来制定者为非如来制定者；
an offense as a non-offense;	犯为非犯；
a non-offense as an offense;	非犯为犯；
a heavy offense as a light offense;	重罪为轻罪；
a light offense as heavy;	轻罪为重罪；
an offense leaving a remainder (i.e., not a pārājika) as an offense leaving no remainder (§);	有余罪（即，不是《波罗夷》）为无余罪（§）；
an offense leaving no remainder as an offense leaving a remainder (§);	无余罪为有余罪（§）；
a serious offense as not serious; or	粗罪为非粗；或者
a not-serious offense as serious.	非粗罪为粗。
4) There are at least four bhikkhus on either side.	4）双方之任何一方至少有四位比丘。
5) The dispute reaches the point where the two sides conduct separate Pāṭimokkha recitations, Invitation ceremonies, or other Community transactions within the same territory.	5）争议达到双方在同一界内分别进行诵《波罗提木叉》、自恣仪式、或其他僧团羯磨的程度。
The Canon tells of two schisms during the time of the Buddha, one involving the bhikkhus in the city of Kosambī, reported in Mv.X; and the other, Devadatta’s schism, reported in Cv.VII. The two schisms began from different motives, with both sides in Kosambī thinking that they were following the Dhamma and Vinaya, whereas Devadatta knew that he was not. The two schisms were also accomplished in different ways—unilaterally in the Kosambī case, bilaterally in Devadatta’s—and resolved in different ways as well, with a full reconciliation in the Kosambī case and only a partial one in Devadatta’s. As we will see below, the different patterns followed in these two schisms led to different patterns in the rules dealing with the topic of schism as a whole.	《圣典》讲述了佛陀时代的两次分裂，一次涉及憍赏弥城的比丘们，这在《大品》.十中有所记载；另一次是提婆达多的分裂，在《小品》.七中有记载。两次分裂是出于不同的动机，憍赏弥双方都认为自己在遵循法与律，而提婆达多知道自己并未遵循。这两次分裂也以不同的方式完成——在憍赏弥案中是单边的，在提婆达多案中是双边的——并且以不同的方式解决，在憍赏弥案中是完全和解，而在提婆达多案中只是部分和解。正如我们将在下面看到的，这两次分裂所遵循的不同模式导致了处理整个分裂主题的戒条的不同模式。
Schism is the result of a dispute, but not all disputes—even when prolonged—will lead to schism. An example is the dispute that led to the Second Council (Cv.XII). Even though it was bitterly fought, there was never a point when either faction thought of splitting off and conducting communal business separately in the same territory. Still, even minor disputes can be potentially schismatic. At the same time, as we will see below, it is possible to act in a divisive way prior to a dispute without yet broaching the questions around which a dispute could develop. This rule and the following one are designed to nip both sorts of behavior in the bud before they can become schismatic. Once a dispute has become a major issue, these rules cannot be used, for at that point the procedures given in Cv.IV.14.16-26—explained in Chapter 11—should be followed. Questions of how to behave once a schism has occurred and how it can be ended are discussed in BMC2, Chapter 21.	分裂是争议的结果，但并非所有争议——即使是旷日持久的——都会导致分裂。一个例子是导致第二次结集（《小品》.十二）的争议。尽管争吵很激烈，但任何一个派系都没有想过分裂，在同一界里分别进行公共事务。尽管如此，即使是很小的争议也可能导致分裂。同时，正如我们将在下面看到的，在争议发生之前，有可能以分裂的方式行事，而尚未提出可能引发争议的问题。本戒条和下一条戒条旨在将这两种行为消灭在萌芽状态，以免它们导致分裂。一旦争议成为重大问题，就不能使用这些戒条，因为此时应遵循《小品》.四.14.16-26中给出的程序（第十一章中进行了解释）。《佛教修道准则第二册》第二十一章讨论了分裂发生后如何行事以及如何结束分裂的问题。

The roots of schism	破和合僧的根源
According to Cv.IV.14.4, the act of taking a position in a dispute can be rooted either in unskillful mind states (covetous, corrupt, or confused) or in skillful ones (not covetous, not corrupt, not confused). Given the false nature of the grounds for a schism, the mind state of a bhikkhu agitating for schism must be unskillful. However, it is crucial to determine the way in which his impulses and motivations are unskillful, for this question determines his personal fate and the prospects for whether the schism can be successfully resolved.	根据《小品》.四.14.4，在争端中采取立场的行为可以源自于不善的心境（贪、瞋或痴）或善的心境（无贪、无瞋、无痴）。鉴于破和合僧理由的虚假性质，煽动破和合僧的比丘的心境一定是不善的。但关键是要确定他的冲动和动机是如何不善的，因为这个问题决定了他个人的命运以及破和合僧能否成功解决的前景。
Cv.VII.5.3 and Cv.VII.5.5-6 explain that a bhikkhu who accomplishes a schism in the following way is automatically consigned to hell for an eon. The Commentary to Mv.I.67 adds that as soon as the schism is accomplished he is no longer a bhikkhu and is to be expelled from the Saṅgha.	《小品》.七.5.3和《小品》.七.5.5-6解释说，以下列方式完成破和合僧的比丘会自动入地狱一劫。《大品》.一.67 的《义注》补充说，一旦破和合僧完成，他就不再是比丘，并且将被逐出僧团。
1) The Community, of common affiliation and living in the same territory, is united around a correct understanding of the Dhamma and Vinaya.	1）具有共同羯磨和生活在同一界的僧团，围绕著对法与律的正确理解而团结在一起。
2) The bhikkhu agitates for a schism, advocating any of the 18 grounds for creating a schism.	2）比丘煽动破和合僧，主张 18 种破和合僧理由中的任何一个。
3) He views his explanations or the act of a schism as not-Dhamma—i.e., he knows that what he is doing is contrary to the Dhamma—or he is doubtful about the matter.	3）他认为他的解释或破和合僧行为是非法——也就是说，他知道他所做的事情是与法相违背的——或者他对此事表示怀疑。
4) Nevertheless, he misrepresents his views and actions, claiming that they are Dhamma.	4）然而，他扭曲了自己的观点和行为，声称它们是正法。
If, however, a bhikkhu advocates any of the 18 grounds for creating a schism with the understanding that he is advocating the Dhamma and that the schism would be in line with the Dhamma, then even if he accomplishes a schism he is still a bhikkhu, he is not automatically consigned to hell, and there is the possibility that he can be reconciled with the Community and the schism resolved.	然而，如果一位比丘主张造成破和合僧的十八个理由中的任何一个，认为他是在提倡正法，并且认为破和合僧将符合正法，那么即使他完成了破和合僧，他仍然是比丘，他不会自动堕入地狱，他有可能与僧团和解并解决破和合僧。

Strategies for schism	破和合僧策划
The Cullavagga presents two patterns by which a schism may happen. The first pattern, derived from Devadatta’s schism and given in Cv.VII.5.1, states that schism occurs when a disagreement over the Dhamma, the Vinaya, or the Teacher’s instruction is put to a vote in a Community of at least nine bhikkhus with at least four on either side of the split. It further adds that all the bhikkhus involved must be bhikkhus of regular standing in affiliation with the group as a whole (e.g., they are not already of a separate affiliation, they haven’t been suspended from the Community), and they are living in the same territory (see BMC2, Chapter 13).	《小品》提出了两种可能发生破和合僧的模式。第一种模式源自于提婆达多的分裂，并在《小品》.七.5.1中给出，指出当对法、律、或师教的分歧在至少九名比丘组成的僧团中进行投票时，其中分裂双方至少有四名比丘，破和合僧就会发生。它还进一步补充说，所有涉及的比丘必须是与整个团体有共住的正规地位比丘（例如，他们没有别住，他们没有被从僧团中举罪），并且他们居住在同一界内（参见《佛教修道准则第二册》第十三章）。
If any of these qualifications is lacking—the issue goes to a vote in a Community of less than nine bhikkhus, one side or the other gains less than four adherents, or the bhikkhus involved are not of regular standing, are not of common affiliation, or are not in the same territory—the efforts at schism count as a crack (rāji) in the Community, but not as a full split (bheda).	如果缺乏任何这些资格——争论在少于九名比丘的僧团中进行投票，一方或另一方获得少于四名追随者，或所涉及的比丘没有正规地位，没有共住，或不在同一界内－破和合僧的努力算是僧团中的裂缝 (rāji) ，但不算完全分裂 (bheda) 。
A second pattern—which describes the Kosambī schism but is given in Cv.VII.5.2 (as well as in AN 10:35 & AN 10:37)—lists two steps by which a group becomes schismatic:	第二种模式——描述了憍赏弥的破和合僧，但在《小品》.七.5.2（以及《增支部》10:35经和《增支部》10:37经）中给出——列出了一个团体分裂的两个步骤：
1) The members of the group advocate one or more of the 18 grounds for creating schism.	1）该团体的成员主张 18 条导致破和合僧理由中的一项或多项。
2) On the basis of any of these 18 points, they draw themselves apart, performing a separate Pāṭimokkha recitation, a separate Invitation, (or) a separate Community transaction.	2）根据这 18 点中的任何一点，他们将自己分开，进行个别的诵《波罗提木叉》，个别的自恣，（或）个别的僧伽羯磨。
The Parivāra (XV.10.9), trying to collate these two patterns into one, lists five ways in which a schism can take place: discussion, announcement, vote, transaction, and recitation. The Commentary interprets the five ways as four steps in a single process (with the last two ways counting as alternative forms of a single step):	《附随》（十五.10.9）试图将这两种模式整合为一种，列出了破和合僧可能发生的五种方式：讨论、公告、投票、羯磨和背诵。《义注》将这五种方式解释为单一过程中的四个步骤（最后两种方式算作单一步骤的替代形式）：
1) Discussion. A bhikkhu aiming at schism advocates any of the 18 positions listed above.	1）讨论。一位旨在分裂的比丘主张上述 18 种立场中的任何一种。
2) Announcement. He announces that he is splitting off from the Community and asks other bhikkhus to take sides.	2）公告。他宣布他将脱离僧团并要求其他比丘选边站。
3) Vote. The issue goes to a vote in a Community of at least nine bhikkhus, with at least four on either side.	3）投票。这个争论需要在至少九名比丘组成的僧团中进行投票，双方至少各有四名比丘。
4) Transaction or recitation. The bhikkhus who side with the schismatic split from the others and recite the Pāṭimokkha or perform another Community transaction separately.	4）羯磨或背诵。站在分裂一边的比丘们从其他人中分裂出来，个别诵《波罗提木叉》或进行另一次僧伽羯磨。
According to the Commentary, the actual schism has not taken place until step 4, when the schismatic group conducts communal business separately within the same territory as the group from which it has split. This is in accordance with Cv.VII.5.2 but conflicts with Cv.VII.5.1, so the Commentary explains that if the vote is taken in a split-off meeting of the Community, steps 3 and 4 happen simultaneously, and the schism has been accomplished. Otherwise, if the vote is taken outside of the territory, the schism is not finalized until the split-off faction conducts Community transactions separately within the same territory as the other faction (Pv.VI.2 & XV.10.10).	根据《义注》，真正的破和合僧直到第四步才发生，此时分裂团体在与其分裂的团体同一界内分别进行公共事务。这符合《小品》.七.5.2，但与《小品》.七.5.1冲突，因此《义注》解释说，如果在僧团的分裂会议中进行投票，则步骤 3 和 4 同时发生，并且破和合僧已完成。否则，如果投票是在界外进行的，则直到分裂的派别与另一派别在同一界内分别进行僧团羯磨后，破和合僧才最终确定（《附随》.六.2及十五.10.10）。
However, it’s possible that the compilers of the Cullavagga intentionally listed two patterns for a schism because there are two ways in which it can happen: bilaterally and unilaterally. In a bilateral schism, the schismatic group meets with the group from which it is splitting and asks everyone to take sides. This is the pattern presented in Cv.VII.5.1. In a unilateral schism, the schismatic group meets on its own, announces that it has separated from the other bhikkhus in the same territory, and conducts Community transactions separately from them. This is the pattern presented in Cv.VII.5.2.	然而，《小品》的编撰者可能故意列出了两种破和合僧模式，因为破和合僧有两种可能发生的方式：双边和单边。在双边破和合僧中，分裂团体与它分裂的团体开会，并要求每个人都选边站。这是《小品》.七.5.1中呈现的模式。在单边破和合僧中，分裂团体自行集会，宣布与同一界的其他比丘分离，并与他们分别进行僧团羯磨。这是《小品》.七.5.2中呈现的模式。
The Vinaya-mukha, in trying to make the case that not all the canonical Vinaya reflects the Buddha’s intent, focuses on these detailed descriptions of schism as a case in point, arguing that they actually encourage schism by providing precise instructions for how to go about it. This, it says, is not the sort of thing an enlightened teacher would teach. This argument, however, misses the point of the descriptions. They are meant to provide well-meaning bhikkhus with a clear template so that they can recognize an attempt at schism when they see it.	《戒律入口》试图证明并非所有经典戒律都反映了佛陀的意图，重点关注这些对破和合僧的详细描述作为例证，认为它们透过提供如何进行的精确指示实际上鼓励了破和合僧。它说，这不是一位开悟的老师会教的东西。然而，这种论点并没有抓到描述的要点。它们的目的是为善意的比丘提供一个清楚的范本，以便他们在看到破和合僧企图时能够识别出来。

The factors for an offense	构成犯戒的因素
The K/Commentary analyzes the factors for an offense under this rule as one—effort—dividing it into several sub-factors. However, it also classifies this rule as sacittaka, which means that either perception or intention must play a role in the offense. Because the Vibhaṅga explicitly rules out perception as a factor, that leaves intention. The Sub-Commentary says that “intention” here refers to the offending bhikkhu’s intention not to relinquish his behavior after being rebuked by the Community. However, the Vibhaṅga’s definition of one of the first sub-factors of effort—agitating for a schism—includes intention as an integral part of the effort. Because the alternative sub-factor—persisting in taking up an issue conducive to schism—does not include intention in its definition, this rule is best explained as covering two separate but related offenses with different factors. (See Sg 2, NP 18, and NP 24 for other instances of this sort.)	K/《义注》将本戒条下的犯戒因素分析为一个——努力——并将其分为几个子因素。然而，它也将本戒条归类为 sacittaka ，这意味著感知或意图必须在犯戒中发挥作用。因为《经分别》明确排除了感知作为一个因素，所以只剩下意图。《复注》说，这里的「意图」指的是犯戒的比丘在受到僧团斥责后仍不放弃其行为的意图。然而，《经分别》对努力的第一个子因素之一的定义——煽动破和合僧——将意图作为努力的一个组成部分。因为替代的子因素——坚持提出导致破和合僧的争论——在其定义中不包括意图，所以本戒条最好解释为涵盖具有不同因素的两个独立但相关的犯戒。（有关此类的其他实例，请参阅《僧残》二、《舍堕》十八和《舍堕》二四。）
In the first offense, the factors are two.	在第一个犯戒中，因素有二。
1) Intention: Acting with the thought, “How might these be divided, how might they be separated, how might they become a faction?”	1）意图：以「如何分裂，如何分离，如何成为派别？」的想法来行动。
2) Effort: a) one agitates for a schism in a united Community—i.e., one of common affiliation in a single territory—	2）努力： a）在一个和合僧团中煽动破和合僧－即在同一界内共住的僧团－
b) even when rebuked three times in a properly performed Community transaction.	b）即使在正确执行的僧团羯磨中受到三次斥责。
In the second offense, there is only one factor, divided into two sub-factors.	第二个犯戒只有一个因素，分为两个子因素。
1) Effort: a) One persists in taking up an issue conducive to schism in a united Community—i.e., one of common affiliation in a single territory—	1）努力： a）坚持在和合僧团中提出导致破和合僧的争论——即，在同一界内共住的僧团——
b) even when rebuked three times in a properly performed Community transaction.	b）即使在正确执行的僧团羯磨中受到三次斥责。

Effort	努力
According to the Vibhaṅga, to agitate for a schism is to search for a partisan following or to bind together a group, with the above intention. To persist in taking up an issue conducive to schism is to take a stance on any of the 18 positions mentioned above. The two types of effort may overlap—a bhikkhu attempting to split off a schismatic faction could do so based on any of the 18 positions—but not necessarily. A bhikkhu might try to create a faction in other ways—for example, by arranging special meals exclusively for his friends (see Pc 32). A stubborn bhikkhu might refuse to abandon a position conducive to schism even if he is not yet aiming at schism. In fact, the use of this rule is most effective before the two activities have overlapped. Once a bhikkhu has succeeded in binding together a group around any of the 18 grounds for schism, the Community will have trouble achieving unanimity in rebuking him, for his group will be free to protest the transaction.	根据《经分别》的说法，煽动破和合僧就是为了达到上述目的而寻找党派追随者或将一个团体绑在一起。坚持提出导致破和合僧的争论就是对上述 18 个立场中的任何一个采取立场。这两种类型的努力可能会重叠——试图分裂分离派系的比丘可以基于 18 种立场中的任何一种来这样做——但非一定如此。比丘可能会尝试以其他方式建立一个派系－例如，专门为他的朋友安排特别的膳食（请参阅《波逸提》三二）。固执的比丘可能会拒绝放弃导致破和合僧的立场，即使他的目标还不是破和合僧。事实上，最有效使用本戒条是在两项活动重叠之前。一旦比丘成功地围绕 18 个破和合僧理由中的任何一个将一个团体绑在一起，僧团将很难达成一致谴责他，因为他的团体将可以自由地抗议这一羯磨。
Note that, unlike the definition of united Community in Cv.VII.5.3, the Vibhaṅga’s definition of a united Community here does not specify that it has to be united around a correct understanding of the Dhamma and Vinaya. This means, in the case of the first offense, that if a bhikkhu tries to create a partisan following by explaining Vinaya as Vinaya in a Community whose practice has gone astray, the Community could still legitimately rebuke him. If he did not abandon his behavior, he would incur the full offense. This further means that if one wants to establish a return to the genuine Dhamma and Vinaya in such a Community, one should aim at converting the entire Community and not just a clique. If the Community judges one’s efforts to be divisive, one can either search for help from other Communities, as explained in Chapter 11 and exemplified in the story of the Second Council, or simply leave the Community in search of a more conducive location to practice. If other bhikkhus in the Community, approving of one’s views, come to the new location of their own accord, well and good. Nevertheless, this rule indicates that one’s aim in expounding the Dhamma and Vinaya should never be to create a faction. Instead, it should be to convince all who are sincere to join in the pursuit of correct practice. Thus when leaving one’s original Community, one should do so in as amicable a way as possible so as not to alienate those whom one should be aiming to win over to one’s views.	请注意，与《小品》.七.5.3中的和合僧的定义不同，这里的《经分别》对和合僧的定义并没有指定它必须围绕对法和律的正确理解而和合。这意味著，在第一个犯戒的情况下，如果一位比丘试图在一个修行已误入歧途的僧团中借由说律为律来制造党派追随者，僧团仍然可以合法地谴责他。如果他不放弃自己的行为，他将完全违犯。这进一步意味著，如果想在这样一个僧团中回归真正的法与律，就应该以改变整个僧团而不仅仅是一个小集团为目标。如果该僧团认为该努力会造成分裂，那么可以向其他僧团寻求帮助，如第十一章中所解释的和第二次结集的故事中所例证的那样，或者干脆离开僧团去寻找一个更有利的实践地点。如果僧团中的其他比丘都赞同自己的观点，自愿来到新的住所，那就很好。然而，本戒条表明，弘扬法与律的目的绝不应该是为了制造派别。相反，它应该说服所有真诚的人加入追求正确修行的行列。因此，当离开原来的僧团时，应该以尽可能友好的方式这样做，以免疏远那些应该争取支持自己观点的人。

Procedure	程序
The Vibhaṅga states that if the bhikkhus see or hear of a bhikkhu who has begun agitating for a schism or persists in taking up an issue conducive to schism in a united Community, it is their duty to reprimand him three times. Otherwise, if he goes unreprimanded, he is free to continue with his efforts as he likes without incurring a penalty. If they neglect this duty, they each incur a dukkaṭa. The Commentary adds that this dukkaṭa applies to every bhikkhu within a half-yojana (five-mile/eight-kilometer) radius who learns of the instigator’s efforts. Furthermore, it says that one may fulfill one’s duty here only by going to him in person, and not by sending a letter or a messenger. (According to the Sub-commentary, any bhikkhu within the half-yojana radius who is ill or otherwise unable to go reprimand the instigator is not subject to this penalty.) As for any bhikkhu outside the half-yojana radius, even though he may not be subject to the penalty, the Commentary states that he should still regard it as his duty if he is able to go reprimand the instigator as well.	《经分别》规定，如果比丘们看到或听到某个比丘开始煽动破和合僧，或坚持在一个和合僧团中坚持提出导致破和合僧的争论，他们就有责任斥责他三次。否则，如果他没有受到斥责，他可以继续随心所欲地努力，而不会受到惩罚。如果他们疏忽了这项职责，他们每个人都会犯《突吉罗》。《义注》补充说，此《突吉罗》适用于半由旬（五英里/八公里）半径内的每一位了解煽动者行为的比丘。而且，它说，此处只能亲自找他来履行自己的职责，而不是透过写信或使者。（根据《复注》，半由旬范围内的比丘，若有病或因其他原因无法前去斥责煽动者，不受此惩罚。）至于半由旬范围之外的比丘，即使他可以不受到惩罚，《义注》说，如果他也能去斥责煽动者，他仍然应该认为这是他的职责。
If the attempt takes place during the Rains-residence, the Mahāvagga allows bhikkhus at other locations to cut short their stay at those locations and to come help end the attempt (Mv.III.11.6-9). It also allows a bhikkhu who has tried to prevent a schism, and yet sees that his efforts are likely to fail, to leave that Community even during the Rains-residence if he does not wish to be present for the turmoil that may follow (Mv.III.11.5).	如果该尝试发生在雨安居期间，《大品》允许在其他地方的比丘缩短在那些地点的停留时间，并前来帮助结束该尝试（《大品》.三.11.6-9）。它还允许一个试图阻止破和合僧但看到他的努力可能会失败的比丘，即使在雨居期间，如果他不希望参与随后可能发生的骚乱，也可以离开该僧团（《大品》.三.11.5）。
If, after being reprimanded three times, the instigator abandons his efforts—i.e., stops agitating for a schism or abandons his position with regard to the 18 issues conducive to a schism—he incurs no penalty and nothing further need be done.	如果煽动者在受到三次斥责后放弃努力，即停止煽动破和合僧或放弃对 18 个导致破和合僧的争论的立场，则不会受到任何惩罚，也无需再采取任何行动。
If he is still recalcitrant, though, he incurs a dukkaṭa. The next step is to take him into the midst of a formal meeting of the Community (seizing him by the hands and feet if necessary, says the Commentary) and admonish him formally three more times. If he abandons his efforts before the end of the third admonition, well and good. If not, he incurs another dukkaṭa. The next step is to recite a formal rebuke by mandate of the Community, using a formula of one motion and three proclamations (see Appendix VIII). If the instigator remains obstinate, he incurs an additional dukkaṭa at the end of the motion, a thullaccaya at the end of each of the first two proclamations, and the full saṅghādisesa at the end of the third. Once he commits the full offense, the penalties he incurred in the preliminary stages are nullified.	然而，如果他仍然顽抗，他就犯《突吉罗》。下一步是带他参加僧团的正式会议（《义注》说，如有必要，抓住他的手脚），并正式教诫他三次。如果他在第三次教诫结束之前放弃努力，那很好。如果没有，他就犯另一次《突吉罗》。下一步是根据僧团的授权，使用一白三羯磨（白四羯磨）的形式进行正式诃责（见附录八）。如果煽动者仍然固执，他会在白文结束时犯额外一次《突吉罗》，在前两次羯磨文每次结束时犯一次《偷兰遮》，并在第三次羯磨文结束时完全违犯《僧残》。一旦他完全违犯，他在初步阶段受到的惩罚就无效。

Perception	感知
The Vibhaṅga states that if the rebuke transaction is carried out properly—i.e., the bhikkhu really is looking for a faction or taking up an issue conducive to schism, and the various other formal requirements for a valid transaction are fulfilled—then if he does not abandon his efforts, he incurs the full saṅghādisesa regardless of whether he perceives the transaction to be proper, improper, or doubtful. If the transaction is improperly carried out, then regardless of how he perceives its validity, he incurs a dukkaṭa for not abandoning his efforts (§).	《经分别》指出，如果诃责羯磨正确地执行，即比丘确实在寻找一个派别或提出导致破和合僧的争论，并且满足了有效羯磨的各种其他正式要求，那么如果他不放弃他的努力，无论他认为羯磨是正确的、不正确的还是可疑的，他都会完全违犯《僧残》。如果羯磨执行不当，那么无论他如何看待其有效性，他都会因不放弃努力而犯《突吉罗》（§）。
The fact that the bhikkhu is not free from an offense in the latter case is important: There are several other, similar points in the Vinaya—such as the Buddha’s advice to the Dhamma-expert in the controversy at Kosambī (Mv.X.1.8)—where for the sake of the harmony of the Community in cases that threaten to be divisive, the Buddha advises bhikkhus to abandon controversial behavior and to yield to the mandate of the Community even if it seems unjust.	在后一种情况下，比丘并非免于犯戒，这一事实很重要：戒律中还有其他几个类似的要点——例如佛陀在憍赏弥争论中对佛法专家的建议（《大品》.十.1.8）——为了在可能造成分裂的情况下维持僧团和谐，佛陀建议比丘们放弃有争议的行为，并服从僧团的命令，即使这看起来不公正。

Non-offenses	不犯
The non-offense clauses, in addition to the usual exemptions, state that there is no offense if the bhikkhu is not reprimanded or if he gives up his efforts (prior to the end of the third reprimand).	除通常的豁免外，不犯条款规定，如果比丘没有受到训斥或放弃努力（在第三次训斥结束之前），则不构成犯戒。

Further steps	更进一步步骤
If the bhikkhu is so stubborn that he refuses to abandon his schismatic efforts even through the third rebuke, he will probably not acknowledge that the Community has acted properly, in which case he will not admit that he has incurred a saṅghādisesa offense or that he has to make amends for it. This gives the Community clear grounds, if it sees fit, for suspending him then and there (see BMC2, Chapter 20). In fact, this may have been the original intention behind the protocols outlined in this and the remaining three saṅghādisesa rules: to give the Community a clear opportunity to test how stubborn a divisive or recalcitrant bhikkhu is and to end his affiliation with them if he proves this stubborn. For this reason, a Community planning to impose any of these rules on one of its members should be prepared to recite the transaction statement for suspension against him as well.	如果比丘如此顽固，即使经过第三次诃责，他也拒绝放弃他的分裂努力，他可能不会承认僧团的行为是正确的，在这种情况下，他不会承认他犯了《僧残》罪，或者他必须赔罪。这为僧团提供了明确的理由，如果它认为合适的话，可以当场举罪之（见《佛教修道准则第二册》第二十章）。事实上，这可能是本戒条和剩余三项《僧残》戒条中所概述的协议背后的初衷：给僧团一个明确的机会来测试一个分裂或顽固的比丘有多么顽固，如果他证明了这一点，就结束与他共住。因此，计划对其一名成员实施任何这些戒条的僧团也应准备好背诵针对该成员的举罪羯磨文。
Once the offender’s affiliation with the Community is ended, he may not accost—go up to talk to—any member of the Community at all. Technically speaking, the fact that he is no longer in affiliation means that he can cause no more than a crack, rather than a full split, in the Saṅgha. This, of course, may not end his schismatic efforts, but the fact that the Community met to deal with his case should be enough to alert well-meaning bhikkhus that he is following a wrong course of action, and this should help unite the Community against his efforts. If they deem it necessary—to keep the laity from being swayed by his arguments—they may authorize one or more of their members to inform the lay community that the schismatic has committed this offense (see Pc 9) and explain why. If, unrepentant, he leaves to go elsewhere, they may send word to any Community he tries to join. Of course, if it turns out that the schismatic was actually in the right in his explanation of the Dhamma and Vinaya, the efforts of the original Community will call unflattering attention to its own behavior. This means that a Community is well advised to reflect on its own practice before bringing this rule to bear.	一旦犯戒者与僧团不共住，他就不得与僧团的任何成员搭话——上前交谈。从技术上讲，他不再共住的事实意味著他只能在僧伽中造成裂缝，而不是完全破和合僧。当然，这可能不会结束他的分裂努力，但僧团开会处理他的案件这一事实应该足以提醒善意的比丘，他正在采取错误的行动方针，这应该有助于团结僧团反对他的努力。如果他们认为有必要——为了防止居士被他的论点所动摇——他们可以授权一名或多名成员通知居士团体，分裂者犯下了这一罪行（见《波逸提》九）并解释原因。如果他不悔改，离开去其他地方，他们可以向他试图加入的任何僧团发送讯息。当然，如果事实证明分裂者对法与律的解释实际上是正确的，那么原本僧团的努力将引起对其自身行为的不当关注。这意味著，建议僧团在实施此戒条之前反思自己的做法。
All of this shows why schism is regarded so seriously: As the Buddha states in the second discourse on future dangers (AN 5:78), it is difficult to find time to practice when the Community is embroiled in controversy this way.	这一切都显示了为什么破和合僧被如此严肃地对待：正如佛陀在关于未来危险的第二次开示中所说的那样（《增支部》5:78经），当僧团卷入这样的争议时，很难找到时间去修行。
Summary: To persist—after the third proclamation of a formal rebuke in the Community—in trying to form a schismatic group or in taking up a position that can lead to schism is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在僧团中第三次正式诃责之后，继续试图形成分裂团体或采取可能导致分裂的立场是《僧残》罪。

* * *

11	十一
Should bhikkhus—one, two, or three—who are followers and partisans of that bhikkhu, say, “Do not, venerable sirs, admonish that bhikkhu in any way. He is an exponent of the Dhamma. He is an exponent of the Vinaya. He acts with our consent and approval. He knows, he speaks for us, and that is pleasing to us,” the bhikkhus are to admonish them thus: “Do not say that, venerable sirs. That bhikkhu is not an exponent of the Dhamma and he is not an exponent of the Vinaya. Do not, venerable sirs, approve of a schism in the Community. Let the venerable ones’ (minds) be reconciled with the Community, for a united Community, on courteous terms, without dispute, with a common recitation, dwells in peace.” And should those bhikkhus, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke them up to three times for the sake of relinquishing that. If while being rebuked up to three times they relinquish that, that is good. If they do not relinquish (that), it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果比丘——一位、两位或三位——是该比丘的追随者和拥护者，说：「尊者，不要以任何方式劝诫该比丘。他是法说者。他是律说者。他的行为是经过我们的同意和批准的。他知道，他为我们说话，这令我们高兴。」比丘们应如此劝诫他们：「那个比丘不是法说者，也不是律说者。尊者，不要赞成僧团的分裂。愿诸尊者（心）与僧团和解，僧团和合，以礼相待，无争执，共同念诵，安住。」若那些比丘受比丘们如此劝诫，仍坚持如前，比丘们应诃责他们至多三遍，使其放弃。如果当被诃责到三次就放弃了，那很好。如果他们不放弃，僧残。
If the schismatic mentioned in the preceding rule begins to attract adherents, they are to be treated under this rule—and quickly, before the schismatic gains a fourth adherent. The reasons are these:	如果前一戒条中提到的破和合僧者开始吸引追随者，他们将根据本戒条处理——而且很快，在破和合僧者获得第四个追随者之前。原因如下：
1) One Community cannot impose a penalty on another Community (four or more bhikkhus) in any one transaction (Mv.IX.2).	1）一个僧团不能在任一羯磨中对另一个僧团（四名或更多比丘）施加惩罚（《大品》.九.2）。
2) Penalties of this sort may be imposed only with the unanimous agreement of all the bhikkhus present in the meeting. If there is a fourth adherent present in the meeting, his protest can invalidate the rebuke.	2）此类惩罚只有在所有出席会议的比丘一致同意的情况下才可以实施。如果会议中有第四位追随者出席，他的抗议可以使诃责无效。
3) As the Sub-commentary points out, once the adherents of a potential schismatic have reached four, they are in a position to go ahead with the schism even if he is observing penance under the preceding rule.	3）正如《复注》所指出的，一旦潜在破和合僧者的追随者达到四人，即使他正在按照前一戒条进行摩那埵，他们也可以继续破和合僧。
The procedures for dealing with these partisans—reprimanding them in private, admonishing and rebuking them in the midst of the Community—are the same as under the preceding rule. The formula for the rebuke is given in Appendix VIII.	处理这些拥护者的程序──私下训斥他们，在僧团中劝诫和诃责他们──与前一戒条相同。附录八给了诃责的公式。
As noted under the preceding rule, the procedures to follow once the schismatics have succeeded in creating a schism are discussed in BMC2, Chapter 21.	如前一戒条所述，一旦破和合僧者成功制造破和合僧，应遵循的程序将在《佛教修道准则第二册》第二十一章中讨论。
Summary: To persist—after the third proclamation of a formal rebuke in the Community—in supporting a potential schismatic is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在僧团中第三次正式诃责羯磨文之后，继续支持潜在的破和合僧者是《僧残》罪。

* * *

12	十二
In case a bhikkhu is by nature difficult to admonish—who, when being legitimately admonished by the bhikkhus with reference to the training rules included in the (Pāṭimokkha) recitation, makes himself unadmonishable, (saying,) “Do not, venerable ones, say anything to me, good or bad; and I won’t say anything to the venerable ones, good or bad. Refrain, venerable ones, from admonishing me”—the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: “Let the venerable one not make himself unadmonishable. Let the venerable one make himself admonishable. Let the venerable one admonish the bhikkhus in accordance with what is right, and the bhikkhus will admonish the venerable one in accordance with what is right; for it is thus that the Blessed One’s following is nurtured: through mutual admonition, through mutual rehabilitation.” And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times for the sake of relinquishing that. If while being rebuked up to three times he relinquishes that, that is good. If he does not relinquish (that), it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果比丘生来难以劝诫，当比丘们根据（《波罗提木叉》）念诵中所包含的学处合法地劝诫他时，他使自己不可劝诫，（说：）「诸位尊者，不要对我说任何事情，无论好坏；我不会对尊者们说什么，无论好坏。诸位尊者，请不要劝诫我」－比丘们应这样劝诫他：「请尊者不要让自己不受劝诫。请尊者让自己接受劝诫吧。请尊者如法地劝诫比丘，比丘们就会如法地劝诫尊者。因为世尊的追随者就是这样培养的：透过相互劝诫，透过相互出罪。若该比丘受比丘们如此劝诫，仍坚持如前，比丘们应诃责他至多三遍，使其放弃。如果当被诃责到三次就放弃了，那很好。如果他不放弃，僧残。
If a bhikkhu breaks any of the rules of the Vinaya without undergoing the penalties they entail, the other bhikkhus have the duty of admonishing him, as explained under Sg 8. If he is difficult to admonish, he is subject to additional penalties: under Pc 12 if he is evasive or uncooperative while being admonished, under Pc 54 if he shows disrespect, and under Pc 71 if he tries to excuse himself from training in the rule in question. If he becomes so difficult to admonish that he will accept criticism from no one at all, he is to be treated under this rule.	如果比丘违反了戒律中的任何规定而没有受到相应的惩罚，则其他比丘有义务教诫他，如《僧残》八所述。若他难以教诫，他将受到额外惩罚：如果他被教诫时回避或不合作，则按《波逸提》十二规定；如果他表现出不尊重，则按《波逸提》五四规定；如果他试图借口不接受有关戒条的培训，则按《波逸提》七一规定。如果他变得如此难以教诫，以至于他根本不接受任何人的批评，那么他就应该受到本戒条的处理。
The Commentary defines difficult to admonish as “impossible to speak to” and adds that a bhikkhu difficult to admonish is one who cannot stand being criticized or who does not mend his ways after his faults are pointed out to him. It quotes from the Anumāna Sutta (MN 15) a list of traits, any one of which makes a bhikkhu difficult to admonish: He has evil desires; exalts himself and degrades others; is easily angered; because of this he harbors ill will, holds a grudge, utters angry words; accused, he throws a tantrum (literally, “explodes”); accused, he is insulting; accused, he returns the accusation; he evades back and forth; he does not respond; he is mean and spiteful; jealous and possessive; scheming and deceitful; stubborn and proud; attached to his own views, obstinate, unable to let them go.	《义注》将难以教诫定义为「无法与之交谈」，并补充说，难以教诫的比丘是指不能忍受批评或被指出过错后仍不改正的比丘。它引用了《反思经》（《中部》15经）中的一系列特征，其中任何一个都使比丘难以教诫：他有邪恶的欲望；抬高自己，贬低别人；容易生气；因此，他怀有恶意，怀恨在心，说出瞋恨的话。被指控时，他会发脾气（字面意思是「爆炸」）；被指控时，他是侮辱性的；被指控时，他指控回去；他来回躲避；他没有回应；他很卑鄙、充满恶意；嫉妒和占有欲强；诡计多端、诡诈多端；固执而骄傲；执著于自己的观点，固执己见，无法放下。
A fair number of these traits are exemplified by Ven. Channa—according to tradition, the Buddha’s horseman on the night of the great Going Forth—in the origin stories to Pc 12, 54, and 71, and especially in the origin story to this rule.	阐陀尊者体现了其中相当多的特征——根据传统，是佛陀在伟大出家之夜的骑手——出现在《波逸提》十二、五四和七一的起源故事中，尤其是本戒条的起源故事中。
“You think you are to admonish me? It is I who should admonish you! The Buddha is mine, the Dhamma is mine, it was by my young master that the Dhamma was realized. Just as a great wind when blowing would gather up grass, sticks, leaves, and rubbish, or a mountain-born river would gather up water weeds and scum, so you, in going forth, have been gathered up from various names, various clans, various ancestries, various families. You think you are to admonish me? It is I who should admonish you!”	「你以为你是来教诫我的吗？该教诫你的应该是我！佛是我的，法是我的，法是由我少师证悟的。就如大风吹来，会聚起草木、树叶、垃圾，山中的河流会聚起水草和浮渣，你们出家，是来自不同的名字、不同的宗族、不同的血统、不同的家庭被聚集起来的。你以为你是来教诫我的？是我该教诫你的！
The procedures to follow when a bhikkhu is difficult to admonish—reprimanding him in private, admonishing and rebuking him in a formal meeting of the Community—are the same as under Sg 10, beginning with the fact that a bhikkhu who, hearing that Bhikkhu X is being difficult to admonish, incurs a dukkaṭa if he does not reprimand him. The question of perception and the non-offenses are also the same as under that rule. The formula for the rebuke is given in Appendix VIII.	当比丘难以教诫时，应遵循的程序——私下训斥他，在僧团的正式会议上教诫和诃责他——与《僧残》十中的相同，首先是一个比丘听到比丘 X 很难教诫，如果不训斥他，就会犯《突吉罗》。感知和不犯的问题也与该戒条下的相同。附录八给了诃责的公式。
If the bhikkhu difficult to admonish carries on as before, even after incurring the full penalty under this rule, the Community may perform a banishment transaction (pabbājanīya-kamma) against him for speaking in dispraise of the Community (Cv.I.13—see BMC2, Chapter 20). If he refuses to see that he has committed this saṅghādisesa offense or to undergo the penalty, the Community may exclude him from participating in the Pāṭimokkha and Invitation ceremonies (Mv.IV.16.2; Cv.IX.2—see BMC2, Chapters 15 and 16) or suspend him from the entire Saṅgha (Cv.I.26; Cv.I.31—see BMC2, Chapter 20).	如果难以教诫的比丘继续像以前一样，即使在根据本戒条受到全额惩罚之后，僧团可以对他进行驱出羯磨（pabbājanīya-kamma），因为他发表了诽谤僧团的言论（《小品》.一.13-见《佛教修道准则第二册》第二十章）。如果他拒绝承认自己犯了《僧残》罪行或接受惩罚，僧团可以禁止他参加《波罗提木叉》和自恣仪式（《大品》.四.16.2；《小品》.九.2 — 参见《佛教修道准则第二册》第十五章和第十六章）或暂停他在整个僧伽中的资格（《小品》.一.26；《小品》.一.31——见《佛教修道准则第二册》第二十章）。
Summary: To persist—after the third proclamation of a formal rebuke in the Community—in being difficult to admonish is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在僧团中第三次正式诃责羯磨文之后，仍坚持难以教诫是《僧残》罪。

* * *

13	十三
In case a bhikkhu living in dependence on a certain village or town is a corrupter of families, a man of depraved conduct—whose depraved conduct is both seen and heard about, and the families he has corrupted are both seen and heard about—the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: “You, venerable sir, are a corrupter of families, a man of depraved conduct. Your depraved conduct is both seen and heard about, and the families you have corrupted are both seen and heard about. Leave this monastery, venerable sir. Enough of your staying here.” And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, say about the bhikkhus, “The bhikkhus are biased through desire, biased through aversion, biased through delusion, biased through fear, in that for this sort of offense they banish some and do not banish others,” the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: “Do not say that, venerable sir. The bhikkhus are not biased through desire, are not biased through aversion, are not biased through delusion, are not biased through fear. You, venerable sir, are a corrupter of families, a man of depraved conduct. Your depraved conduct is both seen and heard about, and the families you have corrupted are both seen and heard about. Leave this monastery, venerable sir. Enough of your staying here.” And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times for the sake of relinquishing that. If while being rebuked up to three times he relinquishes that, that is good. If he does not relinquish (that), it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.	如果依附于某个村庄或城镇而生活的比丘，是一个污家者，一个恶行者——他的恶行是被看见和被听到的，而他所污的诸家也是被看见和听见的－－比丘们应如此劝告那个比丘：「尊者，你是污家者，恶行者。你的恶行是有目共睹的，你所污的诸家也是有目共睹的。离开这座寺院，尊者。你在这里待够了。」若该比丘受诸比丘如此训诫，对诸比丘说：「诸比丘是随欲者，随瞋者，随痴者，随怖者。对同样的罪，驱出一些人，而不驱出一些人。」诸比丘应如此劝告那个比丘：「尊者，请不要这样说。诸比丘不是随欲者，不是随瞋者，不是随痴者，不是随怖者。尊者，你是污家者、恶行者。你的恶行是被看见和被听到的，你所污的诸家也是被看见和听见的。离开这座寺院，尊者。你在这里待够了。」若该比丘受诸比丘如此劝诫，仍坚持如前，诸比丘应诃责他至多三遍，使其放弃。如果当被诃责到三次就放弃了，那很好。如果他不放弃，僧残。
A corrupter of families is a bhikkhu who—behaving in a demeaning, frivolous, or subservient way—succeeds in ingratiating himself to lay people to the point where they withdraw their support from bhikkhus who are earnest in the practice and give it to those who are more ingratiating instead. This is illustrated in the origin story of this rule, in which the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu (leaders of one faction of the group of six) had thoroughly corrupted the lay people at Kīṭāgiri.	污家者是指比丘以贬低、轻浮或恭顺的方式行事，成功地讨好在家人，以致他们撤回对热心修行的比丘的支持，转而给予那些更讨好的比丘。本戒条的起源故事说明了这一点，其中马师和满宿（六群中的一个派系的领导人）的追随者彻底腐蚀了鸡咤山邑的俗人。
“Now at that time a certain bhikkhu, having finished his Rains-residence among the people of Kāsi and on his way to Sāvatthī to see the Blessed One, arrived at Kīṭāgiri. Dressing (§) early in the morning, taking his bowl and (outer) robe, he entered Kīṭāgiri for alms: gracious in the way he approached and departed, looked forward and behind, drew in and stretched out (his arm); his eyes downcast, his every movement consummate. People seeing him said, ‘Who is this weakest of weaklings, this dullest of dullards, this most snobbish of snobs? Who, if this one approached (§), would even give him alms? Our masters, the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu, are compliant, genial, pleasing in conversation. They are the first to smile, saying, “Come, you are welcome.” They are not snobbish. They are approachable. They are the first to speak. They are the ones to whom alms should be given.’”	「尔时，有一位比丘，结束了在迦尸人民中的雨安居，在前往舍卫城去见世尊的路上，到达了鸡咤山邑。清晨，他穿好衣服（§），带著钵和（外）袈裟，进入鸡咤山邑托钵：他的接近和离开、向前和向后、收缩和伸出（他的手臂）的方式都整齐端庄；他的目光低垂，他的每一个动作都完美无缺。人们看到他说：『这个最弱的弱者、这个最迟钝的笨蛋、这个最势利的势利者是谁？如果这个人接近（§），谁还会给他施舍钵食呢？我们的尊者，马师和满宿的追随者，个性温顺、和蔼可亲、谈话愉快。他们最先微笑著说：「来吧，不客气。」他们并不势利。他们平易近人。他们是最先发言的。他们才是应该施舍钵食的人。』」
The Vibhaṅga lists the ways of corrupting a family as giving gifts of flowers, fruit, etc., practicing medicine, and delivering messages—although the Commentary qualifies this by saying there is no harm in delivering messages related to religious activities, such as inviting bhikkhus to a meal or to deliver a sermon, or in conveying a lay person’s respects to a senior bhikkhu.	《经分别》列出了污家的方式，包括送花、水果等礼物、行医以及传递信息——尽管《义注》对此进行了限定，称传递与宗教活动有关的讯息，例如邀请比丘吃饭或讲经，或向年长比丘表达在家人的敬意，并没有什么害处。
Depraved conduct the Vibhaṅga defines merely as growing flowers and making them into garlands, but this, the Commentary says, is a shorthand reference to the long list of bad habits mentioned in the origin story, which includes such things as presenting garlands to women, eating from the same dish with them, sharing a blanket with them; eating at the wrong time, drinking intoxicants; wearing garlands, using perfumes and cosmetics; dancing, singing, playing musical instruments, directing musical performances (§); playing games, performing stunts; learning archery, swordsmanship, and horsemanship; boxing and wrestling. (For the full list, see BMC2, Chapter 10.) Any one of these actions taken in isolation carries only a minor penalty—a dukkaṭa or a pācittiya (see Cv.V.36)—but if indulged in habitually to the point where its bad influence becomes “seen and heard about,” i.e., common knowledge, it can become grounds for the offender’s fellow bhikkhus to banish him from their particular Community until he mends his ways.	《经分别》将恶行仅仅定义为种植鲜花并将其制成花环，但《义注》说，这是对起源故事中提到的一长串坏习惯的速记，其中包括像向女人赠送花环、和他们吃同一道菜、与他们共用一条毯子；在错误的时间进食、饮酒；戴花环、使用香水和化妆品；跳舞、唱歌、演奏乐器、指挥音乐表演 (§)；玩游戏、表演特技；学习射箭、剑术、马术；拳击和摔角。（完整列表，请参见《佛教修道准则第二册》第十章。）单独采取的任何一项行为都只会带来轻微的惩罚——《突吉罗》或《波逸提》（参见《小品》.五.36）——但如果习惯性地沉迷到当它的不良影响变得「被看到和听到」这样的程度，即众所周知时，它可以成为犯戒者的比丘同侪将他驱逐出他们的特定僧团的理由，直到他改过自新。
The Cullavagga, in a section that begins with the same origin story as the one for this rule (Cv.I.13-16), treats the banishment transaction in full detail, saying that a Community of bhikkhus, if it sees fit, has the authority to perform a banishment transaction against a bhikkhu with any of the following qualities:	《小品》在以与本戒条（《小品》.一.13-16）相同的起源故事开头的部分中，详细讨论了驱出羯磨，称比丘僧团如果认为合适，可以对具有下列特点之一的比丘进行驱出羯磨的权力：
1) He is a maker of strife, disputes, quarrels, and issues in the Community.	1）他是僧团中冲突、争端、争吵和问题的制造者。
2) He is inexperienced, incompetent, and indiscriminately full of offenses (§).	2）他缺乏经验，无能，并且任意地充满犯戒（§）。
3) He lives in unbecoming association with householders.	3）他与居士生活在不恰当的交往中。
4) He is defective in his virtue, conduct, or views.	4）他的戒行、行为或观点有缺陷。
5) He speaks in dispraise of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha.	5）他诽谤佛、法、僧。
6) He is frivolous in word, deed, or both.	6）他在言语、行为或两者上都很轻率。
7) He misbehaves in word, deed, or both.	7）他在言语、行为或两者上都有不当。
8) He is vindictive in word, deed, or both.	8）他在言语、行为或两者上都怀有报复心理。
9) He practices wrong modes of livelihood.	9）他行邪命。
This last category includes such practices as:	最后一类包括以下做法：
a) running messages and errands for kings, ministers of state, householders, etc. A modern example would be participating in political campaigns.	a）为国王、国务大臣、户主等传递讯息和办事。一个现代的例子是参加政治竞选。
b) scheming, talking, hinting, belittling others for the sake of material gain, pursuing gain with gain (giving items of small value in hopes of receiving items of larger value in return, making investments in hopes of profit, offering material incentives to those who make donations). (For a full discussion of these practices, see Visuddhimagga I.61-82.)	b）为了物质利益而算计、言谈、暗示、贬低他人、以利取利（给予小价值的物品，希望得到大价值的回报、进行投资以获利、对捐赠者给予物质奖励）。（有关这些修行的完整讨论，请参阅《清净道论》一.61-82。）
c) Practicing worldly arts, e.g., medicine, fortune telling, astrology, exorcism, reciting charms, casting spells, performing ceremonies to counteract the influence of the stars, determining propitious sites, setting auspicious dates (for weddings, etc.), interpreting oracles, auguries, or dreams, or—in the words of the Vibhaṅga to the the bhikkhunīs’ Pc 49 & 50—engaging in any art that is “external and unconnected with the goal.” The Cullavagga (V.33.2) imposes a dukkaṭa on studying and teaching worldly arts or hedonist doctrines (lokāyata). (For extensive lists of worldly arts, see the passage from DN 2 quoted in BMC2, Chapter 10. For the connection between lokāyata and hedonism (e.g., the Kāma Sūtra), see Warder, Outline of Indian Philosophy, pp. 38-39.)	c）从事世俗技艺，例如医学、算命、占星、驱魔、念咒、施咒、举行仪式以抵消星象的影响、确定吉利地点、设定吉日（婚礼等）、解释神谕、占卜、梦境，或者——用《经分别》对比丘尼的《波逸提》四九和五十的话来说——从事任何「外在的、与目标无关的」技艺。《小品》（五.33.2）对学习和教授世俗技艺或享乐主义教义（lokāyata）施加了《突吉罗》。（有关世俗技艺的详细列表，请参阅《佛教修道准则第二册》第十章中引用的《长部》2经中的段落。有关 lokāyata 与享乐主义（例如《欲经》）之间的联系，请参阅渥德尔，《印度哲学大纲》，第38-39页。
A bhikkhu banished for indulging in any of these activities is duty-bound to undergo the observances listed in Cv.I.15 (see BMC2, Chapter 20) and to mend his ways so that the Community will revoke the banishment transaction.	因沉迷于任何这些活动而被驱出的比丘有义务遵守《小品》.一.15中列出的正行（见《佛教修道准则第二册》第二十章）并改正自己的行为，以便僧团撤销驱出羯磨。
Two of those duties are that he not criticize the act of banishment or those who performed it. If he does not observe either of those two, he is subject to this rule. The procedure to follow in dealing with him—reprimanding him in private, admonishing and rebuking him in a formal meeting of the Community—is the same as under Sg 10, beginning with the fact that a bhikkhu who, hearing that Bhikkhu X is criticizing the act of banishment, incurs a dukkaṭa if he does not reprimand X. The question of perception and the non-offenses are also the same as under that rule. The formula for the rebuke is given in Appendix VIII. As with the preceding three rules, if the offender does not respond to the rebuke or recognize that he has a saṅghādisesa offense for which he must make amends, the Community would then have grounds to suspend him as well.	其中两项职责是他不得批评驱出行为或执行该行为的人。如果他不遵守这两条规则中的任何一条，他就受本戒条的约束。处理他所遵循的程序——私下斥责他，在僧团的正式会议上教诫和诃责他——与《僧残》十中的相同，首先是一位比丘听到比丘 X 批评驱出行为，如果他不斥责 X ，就会犯《突吉罗》。感知和不犯问题也与该戒条下的相同。附录八给了诃责的公式。与前三条戒条一样，如果犯戒者没有对诃责作出回应，或者没有认识到他有必须改正的《僧残》罪，那么僧团也有理由举罪他。
Summary: To persist—after the third proclamation of a formal rebuke in the Community—in criticizing a banishment transaction performed against oneself is a saṅghādisesa offense.	摘要：在僧团中第三次正式诃责羯磨文之后，仍坚持批评针对自己进行的驱出羯磨是《僧残》罪。

* * *

A bhikkhu who commits any one of these thirteen saṅghādisesa offenses is duty-bound to inform a fellow bhikkhu and to ask a Community of at least four bhikkhus to impose a six-day period of penance (mānatta) on him. (The Canon says, literally, a six-night period: At the time of the Buddha, the lunar calendar was in use and, just as we using the solar calendar count the passage of days, they counted the passage of nights; a 24-hour period, which is a day for us, would be a night for them, as in the Bhaddekaratta Sutta (MN 131), where the Buddha explicitly says that a person who spends a day and night in earnest practice has had an “auspicious night.”)

犯了这十三种《僧残》罪行中的任何一种的比丘，有义务通知一位同侪比丘，并要求至少由四名比丘组成的僧团对其实施六天的赎罪(摩那埵)（mānatta）。（《圣典》中，字面意思是六夜：在佛陀时代，使用阴历，就像我们用阳历计算白天的流逝一样，他们计算夜晚的流逝；一个24小时的周期，对我们来说是一天，对他们来说就是一夜，正如在《一夜贤者经》（《中部》131经）中，佛陀明确表示，一个人花上一天一夜的时间认真修行，就获得了「吉祥之夜」。

Penance	赎罪(摩那埵)
Penance does not begin immediately, but only at the convenience of the Community giving it. During his period of penance, the offender is partially stripped of seniority and must observe 94 restrictions (Cv.II.5-6), discussed in detail in BMC2, Chapter 19. The four most important are:	摩那埵不会立即开始，而是在僧团方便时才开始。在摩那埵期间，犯戒者将被部分剥夺戒腊，并且必须遵守 94 条限制（《小品》.二.5-6），详细讨论见《佛教修道准则第二册》第十九章。最重要的四个是：
1) He must not live under the same roof as a regular bhikkhu.	1）他不得与正规比丘住在同一屋簷下。
2) He must live in a monastery with at least four regular bhikkhus.	2）他必须居住在至少有四名正规比丘的寺院里。
3) If he goes anyplace outside the monastery, he must be accompanied by four full-fledged bhikkhus unless (a) he is going to escape dangers or (b) he is going to another place where there are regular bhikkhus of the same affiliation and he can reach it in one day’s time.	3）如果他去寺院以外的任何地方，他必须有四名正式比丘陪同，除非 (a) 他要逃离危险，或 (b) 他要去另一个有共同羯磨的正规比丘的地方，并且他一天之内就能到达。
4) Every day he must inform all the bhikkhus in the monastery of the fact that he is observing penance and the precise offense for which the penance was imposed. If visiting bhikkhus come to the monastery, he must inform them as well; if he goes to another monastery, he must inform all the bhikkhus there, too.	4）每天他必须告知寺院里的所有比丘他正在遵行摩那埵的事实以及实施摩那埵的具体罪行。如果来访的比丘来到寺院，他也必须通知他们；如果他去另一座寺院，他也必须通知那里的所有比丘。
If, on any day of his penance, the bhikkhu neglects to observe any of these four restrictions, that day does not count toward the total of six. In addition, he incurs a dukkaṭa each time he fails to observe any of the 94 restrictions.	如果比丘在摩那埵的任何一天忽略遵守这四种限制中的任何一种，那么这一天不会计入六天的总数中。此外，每当他不遵守 94 条限制中的任何一条时，他犯《突吉罗》。
Once the bhikkhu has completed his penance, he may ask a Community of at least 20 bhikkhus to give him rehabilitation. Once rehabilitated, he returns to his previous state as a regular bhikkhu in good standing.	一旦比丘完成了他的摩那埵，他可以要求至少有 20 名比丘组成的僧团帮助他出罪清净。一旦出罪清净，他就会恢复到以前的状态，成为一个信誉良好的正规比丘。

Probation	别住(波利婆沙)
If a bhikkhu who commits a saṅghādisesa offense conceals it from his fellow bhikkhus past dawnrise of the day following the offense, he must observe an additional period of probation (parivāsa) for the same number of days as he concealed the offense. Only after he has completed his probation may he then ask for the six-day period of penance.	如果比丘犯了《僧残》罪，在犯戒当天黎明时分过后对同侪比丘隐瞒此事，他必须行与他隐瞒犯戒相同天数的额外别住(波利婆沙)（parivāsa）。只有在别住结束后，他才可以请求六天的摩那埵。
The Commentary to Cv.III sets the factors of concealment at ten, which may be arranged in five pairs as follows:	《小品》.三的《义注》将隐藏因素设为十种，可排列为五对如下：
1) He has committed a saṅghādisesa offense and perceives it as an offense (i.e., this factor is fulfilled even if he thinks it is a lesser offense).	1）他犯了《僧残》罪，并将其视为罪行（即，即使他认为这是较轻的罪行，也满足了此因素）。
2) He has not been suspended and perceives that he has not been suspended. (If a bhikkhu has been suspended, he cannot accost other bhikkhus, and thus he cannot tell them until after his suspension has been lifted.)	2）他没有被举罪并且认为他没有被举罪。（如果一位比丘被举罪，他就不能与其他比丘搭话，因此在他的举罪解除之前他不能告诉他们。）
3) There are no obstacles (e.g., a flood, a forest fire, dangerous animals) and he perceives that there are none.	3）没有障碍（例如洪水、森林火灾、危险动物），而且他认为没有障碍。
4) He is able to inform another bhikkhu (i.e., a fellow bhikkhu suitable to be informed lives in a place that may be reached in that day, one is not too weak or ill to go, etc.) and he perceives that he is able. (According to Cv.III.34.2, going insane after committing the offense (!) would count as “not being able to inform another bhikkhu.”) A bhikkhu suitable to be informed means one who is—	4）他能够告知另一位比丘（即，一位适合被告知的同侪比丘住在当天可以到达的地方，没有太虚弱或病得不能去，等等），并且他认为他能告知。（根据《小品》.三.34.2，犯戒后发狂（！）将被视为「无法通知其他比丘。」）适合被告知的比丘是指：
a) of common affiliation,	a）共同羯磨，
b) in good standing (e.g., not undergoing penance, probation, or suspension himself), and	b）信誉良好（例如，本人没有行摩那埵、别住或被举罪），且
c) not on uncongenial terms with the offender.	c）并未与犯戒者有不友好的的关系。
If any of these factors are lacking, there is no penalty for not informing another bhikkhu that day. For instance, the following cases do not count as concealment:	如果缺少其中任何一个因素，当天没有通知其他比丘不会受到惩罚。例如，下列情形不属于隐瞒行为：
A bhikkhu does not suspect that he has committed an offense and realizes only much later, after reading or hearing about the rules in more detail, that he has incurred a saṅghādisesa.	比丘并不怀疑自己犯了戒，直到很久以后，在阅读或听到更详细关于该戒条之后，才意识到他已经犯了《僧残》。
A bhikkhu lives alone in a forest and commits a saṅghādisesa in the middle of the night. Afraid of the snakes or other wild animals he might encounter in the dark, he waits until daylight before going to inform a fellow bhikkhu.	一位比丘独自住在森林里，并在半夜犯了《僧残》。由于害怕在黑暗中遇到蛇或其他野生动物，他等到天亮才去通知同侪比丘。
A bhikkhu lives alone in a forest, but the only other bhikkhu within one day’s traveling time is a personal enemy who, if he is informed, will use this as an opportunity to smear the offender’s name, so the offender travels another day or two before reaching a congenial bhikkhu whom he informs.	一位比丘独自住在森林里，但在一天的旅行时间内，唯一的另一位比丘是一个仇敌，如果他被告知，他会利用这个机会来抹黑犯戒者的名字，所以犯戒者旅行了一两天去通知一位友好的比丘。
A bhikkhu intends to tell another bhikkhu before dawn but falls asleep and either wakes up too late or else wakes up in time but remembers his offense only after dawnrise has past.	一位比丘打算在黎明前告诉另一位比丘，但他睡著了，若非醒得太晚，就是及时醒来，但直到黎明过去才记起他的罪行。
Once all of the first eight factors are complete, though, one must inform another bhikkhu before dawn of the next day or else incur a dukkaṭa and undergo the penalty for concealment.	然而，一旦前八个因素全部完备后，必须在第二天黎明之前通知另一位比丘，否则会犯《突吉罗》并受到隐瞒罪行的惩罚。
A bhikkhu who commits a lesser offense that he thinks is a saṅghādisesa and then conceals it, incurs a dukkaṭa (Cv.III.34.1).	比丘犯下较轻的罪行，但他认为是《僧残》，然后隐瞒它，犯《突吉罗》（《小品》.三.34.1）。
The restrictions for a bhikkhu undergoing probation—and the other possible steps in the rehabilitation process—are similar to those for one undergoing penance and are discussed in detail in BMC2, Chapter 19.	对接受别住的比丘的限制——以及出罪清净过程中其他可能的步骤——与对接受摩那埵的比丘的限制相似，并在《佛教修道准则第二册》第十九章中详细讨论。
Saṅghādisesas are classified as heavy offenses (garukāpatti), both because of the seriousness of the offenses themselves and because the procedures of penance, probation, and rehabilitation are burdensome by design, not only for the offender but also for the Community of bhikkhus in which he lives—a fact intended to act as added deterrent to anyone who feels tempted to transgress.	《僧残》被列为重罪（garukāpatti），既因为罪行本身的严重性，也因为摩那埵、别住和出罪清净的程序在设计上是繁重的，不仅对犯戒者来说，而且对他所在的比丘僧团来说也是如此——这一事实意图对任何想要犯戒的人起到额外的威慑作用。。