尼萨耆波逸提（《舍堕》）

The term nissaggiya, used in connection with training rules, means “entailing forfeiture.” Used in connection with articles, it means “to be forfeited.” Pācittiya is a word of uncertain etymology. The Parivāra gives a didactic derivation—that it means letting skillful qualities fall away (patati) with a deluded mind (citta)—but the term is more likely related to the verb pacinati (pp. pacita), which means to discern, distinguish, or know. nissaggiya 一词与学处一起使用，意思是「导致舍出」。与物品一起使用时，它的意思是「被舍出」。 Pācittiya 是一个字源不确定的字。《附随》给了一个说教性的推导－它意味著让善巧的品质随著迷惑的心（citta）而消失（patati）－但这个术语更可能与动词 pacinati （过去分词 pacita ）相关，意思是辨别、区分、或知道。
Each of the rules in this category involves an item that a bhikkhu has acquired or used wrongly, and that he must forfeit before he may “make the offense known”—confess it—to a fellow bhikkhu, a group of bhikkhus, or to the Community as a whole. This confession is what clears him of the offense. In most cases, the forfeiture is symbolic. After his confession, the offender receives the item in return so that, as a donor’s gift, it does not go to waste. Even under the three rules requiring that the offender give up the item for good, the forfeiture protocols allow for the Community to benefit from the item, again as a way of preserving the donor’s faith. 此类别中的每条戒条都涉及比丘错误获得或使用的物品，并且他必须舍出该物品，然后才能向一位同侪比丘、一群比丘或向整个僧团「坦白罪行」——忏悔之。此坦白忏悔使他洗清了罪行。在大多数情况下，舍出是象征性的。犯戒者忏悔后，会收到该物品作为回报，这样，作为施主的布施，它就不会被浪费。即使根据要求犯戒者永久放弃该物品的三项戒条，舍出行仪也允许僧团从该物品中受益，这也是维护施主信心的一种方式。
There are thirty rules in this category, divided into three chapters (vagga) of ten rules each. 此类别有三十条戒条，分为三品（vagga），每品十条。
One: The Robe-cloth Chapter 第一 衣品
1 一
When a bhikkhu has finished his robe and the frame is dismantled (his kaṭhina privileges are ended), he is to keep extra robe-cloth ten days at most. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
当比丘完成他的袈裟并且框架被拆除时（他的功德衣方便利益结束），他最多可以保留额外的袈裟布十天。超过此者，尼萨耆波逸提。
The origin story for this rule is retold as part of a longer narrative in the Mahāvagga (VIII.13.4-8). Because the context provided by the longer narrative is what makes it interesting, that is the version translated here. 本戒条的起源故事 作为《大品》中较长叙述的一部分被重述（八.13.4-8）。因为较长的叙述提供的上下文使它变得有趣，所以这就是这里翻译的版本。
“(The Buddha addresses the bhikkhus:) ‘As I was traveling on the road from Rājagaha to Vesālī, I saw many bhikkhus coming along loaded down with robe-cloth, having made a mattress of robe-cloth on their heads and a mattress of robe-cloth on their backs/shoulders and a mattress of robe-cloth on their hips. Seeing them, I thought, “All too quickly have these worthless men been spun around into abundance in terms of robe-cloth. What if I were to tie off a boundary, to set a limit on robe-cloth for the bhikkhus?”
「（佛陀对比丘们说：）『当我从王舍城到毘舍离的路上，我看到许多比丘带著袈裟走过来，他们的头上叠衣，背部/肩膀上束衣，腰间束衣。看到他们，我想：「这些无用的人过速堕衣奢侈。如果我划定界限，为比丘的袈裟布设定限制，会怎么样？」
“‘Now at that time, during the cold winter middle-eight nights (the four nights on either side of the full moon in February, the coldest time of the year in northern India) when snow was falling, I sat in the open air wearing one robe and was not cold. Toward the end of the first watch I became cold. I put on a second robe and was not cold. Toward the end of the middle watch I became cold. I put on a third robe and was not cold. Toward the end of the final watch, as dawn rose and the night smiled, I became cold. I put on a fourth robe and was not cold. The thought occurred to me, “Those in this doctrine and discipline who are sons of respectable families—sensitive to cold and afraid of the cold—even they are able to get by with three robes. Suppose I were to tie off a boundary, to set a limit on robe-cloth for the bhikkhus and were to allow three robes.” Bhikkhus, I allow you three robes: a double-layer outer robe, a single-thickness upper robe, and a single-thickness lower robe (thus, four layers of cloth).’
「当时，在寒冷的冬季中八夜（二月满月前后的四个晚上，印度北部一年中最冷的时间），下著雪，我坐在露天穿著一件袈裟，并不冷。初夜快结束时，我感到冷。我穿上了第二件袈裟，而不感到冷。中夜快结束时，我感到冷。我穿上了第三件袈裟，而不感到冷。后夜快结束时，黎明升起，夜色明，我感到冷。我穿上第四件袈裟，就不冷了。我心里想：「此法与律中，彼诸族姓子，对寒冷敏感、怕冷，连三件袈裟也能过。假设我要划定界限，为比丘的袈裟设限制，并允许穿三件袈裟。诸比丘，我允许你们三件袈裟：双层外衣、单层上衣、单层下衣（即四层布）。」
“Now at that time extra robe-cloth accrued to Ven. Ānanda, and he wanted to give it to Ven. Sāriputta, but Ven. Sāriputta was at Sāketa. He thought, ‘… Now what line of conduct should I follow?’ He told this matter to the Blessed One, (who said,) ‘But how long is it, Ānanda, before Sāriputta will come here?’
「当时，阿难尊者获得了额外的袈裟布，他想把它送给舍利弗尊者，但是舍利弗尊者在娑竭陀。他想：『…现在我应该遵循什么行为准则？』他把这件事告诉世尊，（世尊说：）『但是，阿难，舍利弗要多久才能来到这里呢？』
“‘Nine days or ten.’
「『九天或十天。』
“Then the Blessed One… addressed the bhikkhus, ‘I allow that extra robe-cloth to be kept at most ten days.’
「然后世尊……对比丘们说：『我允许那件额外的袈裟布最多保留十天。』
“Now at that time extra robe-cloth accrued to the bhikkhus. They thought, ‘Now what line of conduct should we follow?’ They told this matter to the Blessed One, (who said,) ‘I allow that extra robe-cloth be placed under shared ownership.’”
「那时，比丘们获得了额外的袈裟。他们想，『现在我们应该遵循什么行为准则？』他们把这件事告诉了世尊，（世尊说）『我允许将额外的袈裟布置于共享所有权之下。』」
The offense under this rule involves two factors. 本戒条下的违犯涉及两个因素。
1) Object: a piece of extra robe-cloth, i.e., a piece of cloth suitable to be made into a robe or other cloth requisite, measuring at least four by eight inches (fingerbreadths), that has not been formally determined for use or placed under shared ownership. This category includes finished requisites as well as simple pieces of cloth, but does not include robe-cloth belonging to the Community. 1）对象：一块额外的袈裟布，即一块适合制成袈裟或其他布料必需品的布料，尺寸至少为四乘八英寸（指宽），尚未正式决意使用或置于共享所有权之下。此类别包括成品必需品以及单纯的布料，但不包括属于僧团的袈裟布。
2) Effort: One keeps it for more than ten days (except during the allowed period) without determining it for use, placing it under shared ownership, abandoning it (giving or throwing it away); and without the cloth’s being lost, destroyed, burnt, snatched away, or taken by someone else on trust within that time. 2）努力：储存十天以上（允许期限内除外）而未决意使用、置于共享所有权之下、放弃（赠送或丢弃）；在此期间，布料没有丢失、毁坏、烧毁、被抢走或被其他信任的人拿走。
Object 对象
According to Mv.VIII.3.1, six kinds of cloth are suitable for making into cloth requisites: linen, cotton, silk, wool, jute (§), or hemp (§). The Sub-commentary adds that cloth made of any mixture of hemp with any of the other types of thread would be allowed under “hemp.” Applying the Great Standards, nylon, rayon, and other synthetic fibers would count as suitable as well. Unsuitable materials—such as cloth made of hair, horse-hair, grass, bark, wood-shavings, or antelope hide (and by extension, leather)—do not come under this rule. (For a full list of unsuitable materials, see Mv.VIII.28—BMC2, Chapter 2.) Mv.VIII.29 gives a list of colors—such as black, blue, and crimson—and patterns that are not suitable for robes but that, according to the Commentary, are suitable for things like bed sheets or for linings (inside layers?) in double-layer robes (see BMC2, Chapter 2). Pieces of cloth dyed these colors or printed with these patterns would come under this rule. 根据《大品》.八.3.1，六种布料适合制作布料必需品：麻布、棉花、丝绸、绵、黄麻（§）或火麻（§）。《复注》补充说，由火麻与任何其他类型的线的任何混合物制成的布料都可以算在「火麻」的允许下。应用《四大教示》，尼龙、人造丝和其他合成纤维也算适合。不适合的材料——例如由头发、马毛、草、树皮、刨花或羚羊皮（以及延伸而来的皮革）制成的布料——不属于本戒条的范围。（有关不适合材料的完整列表，请参阅《大品》.八.28 — 《佛教修道准则 第二册》第二章。）《大品》.八.29列出了不适合袈裟的颜色（例如黑色、蓝色和深红色）和图案，但根据《义注》，它适合床单或双层袈裟的衬里（内层？）（参见《佛教修道准则 第二册》第二章）。染有这些颜色或印有这些图案的布料会受本戒条管辖。
Mv.VIII.21.1 states that if a bhikkhu receives a piece of suitable cloth measuring four by eight fingerbreadths or more but does not yet plan to use it, he may place it under shared ownership (vikappana) until he has need for it. Once he decides to make use of the cloth, he must rescind the shared ownership (see Pc 59) before making it into a finished requisite (if it isn’t already). Once it is finished, he may then determine it for use (adhiṭṭhāna) or place it under shared ownership again, depending on the nature of the article: 《大品》.八.21.1规定，如果比丘收到一块四乘八指宽或更大的适合的布，但尚未计划使用它，他可以将其置于共享所有权（vikappana）之下，直到他需要为止。一旦他决定使用这块布料，他必须在将其制成成品必需品（如果还没有）之前取消共享所有权（参见《波逸提》五九）。完成后，他可以决意使用它（adhiṭṭhāna）或再次将其置于共享所有权之下，具体取决于物品的性质：
Each of the three basic robes, handkerchiefs, bed sheets, and the sitting cloth are to be determined, and may not be placed under shared ownership.
三衣中任何一件、手帕、床单、坐布必须决意，不得置于共享所有权之下。
A rains-bathing cloth (see NP 24) may be determined for the four months of the rainy season and is to be placed under shared ownership for the remainder of the year.
雨浴衣（参见《舍堕》二四）可以在雨季四个月内的决意，并在一年中的剩余时间内置于共享所有权之下。
Other items of cloth may be determined as “requisite cloths.”
其他布料可以被决意为「必需布」。
(The procedures for determining and placing under shared ownership are given in Appendices IV & V.) （决意以及置于共享所有权的程序请参阅附录四和五。）
Any cloth made of any of the suitable materials and of the requisite size counts as an extra cloth if— 由任何适合材料制成且具有所需尺寸的任何布料，如果满足以下条件，则视为额外布料：
it has not been determined for use or placed under shared ownership,
尚未决意使用或置于共享所有权之下，
it has been improperly determined or placed under shared ownership, or
它被不正确地决意或置于共享所有权之下，或
its determination or shared ownership has lapsed.
其决意或共享所有权已失效。
Many of the cases in which determination and shared ownership lapse also exempt the cloth from this rule: e.g., the owner disrobes or dies, he gives the cloth away, it gets snatched away, destroyed (bitten by things such as termites, says the Commentary), burnt, lost, or someone else takes it on trust. There are a few cases, however, where determination and shared ownership lapse and the cloth does fall under this rule. They are— 许多决意和共享所有权失效的情况也使布料不受本戒条的约束：例如，所有者还俗或死亡，他将布料送人，布料被抢走，毁坏（《义注》说，被白蚁等东西咬）、烧毁、遗失或被其他人基于信任拿走。然而，在少数情况下，决意和共享所有权失效，布料确实属于本戒条的范围。他们是——
Under shared ownership: The first owner takes the cloth on trust, or the second owner formally rescinds the shared ownership. 在共享所有权下：第一个所有者基于信任拿到布料，或第二个所有者正式撤销共享所有权。
Under determination: The owner rescinds the determination, or (if the cloth has been determined as one of the three basic robes) the cloth develops a hole. This latter case comes in the Commentary, which gives precise standards for deciding what kind of hole does and does not make the determination of the robe lapse: 在决意之下：拥有者撤销决意，或（如果该布料已被决意为三衣之一）布料出现破洞。后一种情况出现在《义注》中，它给出了确定什么样的洞使或不使袈裟失效的精确标准：
1) Size. The hole has to be a full break (through both layers of cloth, if in the outer robe) at least the size of the nail on one’s little finger. If one or more threads remain across the hole, then the hole makes the determination lapse only if either of the two “halves” divided by the thread(s) is the requisite size.
1）尺寸。洞必须是一个完整的破洞（如果是在僧伽黎，则要穿过两层布），至少要达到小指指甲的大小。如果一个或多个线仍然穿过该洞，则仅当被线划分的两个「半部」中的任何一个达到所需尺寸时，该洞才会使决意失效。
2) Location. On an upper robe or outer robe, the hole has to be at least one span (25 cm.) from the longer side and eight fingerbreadths from the shorter; on a lower robe, at least one span from the longer side and four fingerbreadths from the shorter. Any hole closer to the edge of the robe than these measurements does not make the determination lapse.
2）位置。在郁多罗僧或僧伽黎上，该洞距离较长边至少一跨（25公分），距离较短边至少八指宽；在安陀会上，距离较长边至少一跨，距离较短边至少四指宽。任何比这些测量值更靠近袈裟边缘的洞都不会导致决意失效。
Because of these stipulations, the Commentary notes that if one is patching a worn spot—not a hole as defined above—more than the maximum distance away from the edge of one’s robe, the determination lapses if one cuts out the worn spot before applying the patch, but not if one applies the patch before cutting out the worn spot. If the determination lapses, it is an easy matter to re-determine the robe, but one must be mindful to do it within the time span allotted by this rule. 由于这些规定，《义注》指出，如果正在修补磨损的地方（不是上面定义的洞），超过距离袈裟边缘的最大距离，并且在缝上补丁之前剪掉磨损的地方，则该决意失效。但如果在剪掉磨损的地方之前缝上补丁，则不会。如果决意失效，重新决意袈裟是一件容易的事情，但必须注意在本戒条规定的时间内进行。
Effort 努力
According to the Vibhaṅga, if one keeps a piece of extra robe-cloth past the eleventh dawnrise (except when the robe-season privileges are in effect), one commits the full offense under this rule. The Commentary explains this by saying that the dawnrise at the morning of the day on which one receives the cloth, or lets its determination/shared ownership lapse, counts as the first dawn. Thus the eleventh dawnrise would actually be the tenth dawnrise after one receives, etc., the cloth. 根据《经分别》的规定，如果在第十一个黎明[明相]过后后保留一块额外的袈裟布（除了当袈裟季节特权[方便利益]有效时），那么就完全违犯了本戒条。《义注》解释说，在收到布料，或使其决意/共享所有权失效的那天早晨的黎明[明相]，算作第一个黎明[明相]。因此，第十一次黎明[明相]实际上是在收到布等等之后的第十次黎明[明相]。
Because neither the Canon nor the Commentary gives a precise definition of dawn or dawnrise, their exact meaning is a controversial point. The clearest definition of dawnrise—and the one that seems most consistent with the Canon’s use of the term—is in a sub-commentary called the Vinayālaṅkāra, which states that at dawnrise “a red band in the eastern direction and a whiteness in the remaining directions, due to the diffusion of sunlight, can be discerned.” In modern terminology, this corresponds to the onset of civil twilight. This is the definition followed in this book. Further, dawnrise is apparently the moment at which dawn begins, although this is a controversial point. For further discussion, see Appendix I. 因为《圣典》和《义注》都没有给出黎明或黎明升起的精确定义，所以它们的确切含义是一个有争议的点。黎明升起最清晰的定义——而且该定义似乎与《圣典》对该术语的使用最一致——出现在名为《律庄严》的复注中，其中指出黎明升起时「由于阳光的扩散，可以看出东边有一条红色带，其余方向则有一条白色带」。用现代术语来说，这对应于民用曙暮光的开始。这就是本书所遵循的定义。此外，黎明升起显然是黎明开始的时刻，尽管这是一个有争议的点。进一步讨论请参阅附录一。
Mv.V.13.13 states that if one is informed of a gift of robe-cloth, the counting of the time span does not begin until the cloth has reached one’s hand. The Commentary to that passage insists that this means either when physically coming to one’s possession or when one is informed by the donors that the robe-cloth is with so-and-so or when one is informed by another to the same effect. However, this interpretation seems to directly contradict the passage it is commenting on, which expressly says, “There is no counting of the time span as long as it has not come to his hand”—“his” in this case meaning the bhikkhu’s. 《大品》.五.13.13规定，如果某人被告知一件袈裟布的布施，则直到布料到达某人的手时，才开始计算时间跨度。这段落的《义注》坚持认为，这意味著若非当某人实际到手拥有时，不然就是当某人被布施者告知袈裟布与某某人在一起时，或者当某人被另一个人告知同样的效果时。然而，这种解释似乎与它所注解的段落直接矛盾，该段落明确表示：「只要它没有到达他的手中，就不计算时间跨度」——这里的「他的」指的是比丘的。
Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if one miscounts the days or perceives a robe to be determined when it actually is not, one is not immune from the offense. The robe is to be forfeited and the offense confessed. 在这里，感知并不是减轻处罚的因素。即使算错了日数，或认为一件袈裟已被决意，而实际上并非如此，也不能幸免于犯戒。袈裟需被舍出，罪行需被忏悔。
If, before it has been forfeited, one uses a robe or piece of robe-cloth that deserves to be forfeited under this rule, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. This is one of only six nissaggiya pācittiya rules where the Vibhaṅga mentions this penalty—the others are NP 2, 3, 21, 28, & 29—but the K/Commentary extends the principle to all nissaggiya pācittiya rules: To use an unforfeited item that deserves to be forfeited incurs a dukkaṭa in every case. (We should add, though, that the use of gold or money acquired in defiance of NP 18 or 19 would carry a nissaggiya pācittiya if used in defiance of NP 19 or 20.) 如果在被舍出之前，使用了根据本戒条应被没收的袈裟或袈裟布，则惩罚为《突吉罗》。这是《经分别》中仅有的提到了这种惩罚的六条《舍堕》戒条之一——其他的是《舍堕》二、三、二一、二八和二九——但K/《义注》将该原则扩展到所有《舍堕》戒条：使用应该被舍出但未舍出的物品在任何情况下，都会犯《突吉罗》。（不过，我们应该补充一点，如果使用违反《舍堕》一八或一九的规定而获得的黄金或金钱，则如果用于违反《舍堕》一九或二十的规定，则将带来《舍堕》。）
The Vibhaṅga also states that, in the case of an extra robe that has not been kept more than ten days, if one perceives it to have been kept more than ten days or if one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. This can be interpreted in one of two ways: There is a dukkaṭa simply in continuing to keep the robe, or a dukkaṭa in using it. The Commentary opts for the second interpretation. 《经分别》还规定，一件额外的袈裟在没有保存超过十天的情形下，如果认为它已经保存了超过十天或有疑问，则惩罚是《突吉罗》。这可以用以下两种方式之一来解释：继续保留袈裟是《突吉罗》，或者使用它是《突吉罗》。《义注》选择了第二种解释。
Robe-season privileges 袈裟季节方便利益
The fourth lunar month of the rainy season—beginning the day after the first full moon in October and lasting to dawnrise of the day following the next full moon—is termed the robe season, a period traditionally devoted to robe-making. In the early days, when most bhikkhus spent the cold and hot seasons wandering, and stayed put in one place only during the Rains-residence, this would have been the ideal period for them to prepare robes for their wandering, and for lay people who had come to know the bhikkhus during the Rains-residence to show their gratitude and respect for them by presenting them with gifts of cloth for this purpose. 阴历雨季的第四个月的——从十月第一个满月后的第二天开始，一直持续到下一个满月日的次日黎明升起——被称为袈裟季节，这是传统上专门制作袈裟的时期。早期，大多数比丘在寒热季节都在游方，只有在雨安居期间才待在一个地方，此时正是他们为游方准备袈裟的理想时期，而对于雨安居期间认识比丘的在家人为了表达对比丘的感激和尊敬，为此目的向比丘布施布料。。
During this robe season, five of the training rules—NP 1 & 3; Pc 32, 33, & 46—are relaxed to make it more convenient for the bhikkhus to make robes. Also, any cloth accruing to a particular monastery during this period may be shared only among the bhikkhus who spent the Rains-residence there, and not with any incoming visitors. 在这个袈裟季节，有五个学处－《舍堕》一 以及 三；《波逸提》三二、三三、四六－被放宽规定，以便比丘们更方便地制作袈裟。此外，在此期间，特定寺院获得的任何布料只能与在那里度过雨安居的比丘们分享，而不能与任何到来的访客分享。
Under certain circumstances (see BMC2, Chapter 17) bhikkhus who have spent the Rains-residence are also entitled to participate in a kaṭhina ceremony in which they receive a gift of cloth from lay people, bestow it on one of their members, and then as a group make it into a robe before dawnrise of the following day. (Kaṭhina means frame, and refers to the frame over which the robe-cloth is stretched while sewing it, much like the frame used in America to make a quilt.) After participating in this ceremony, the bhikkhus may extend their robe season for an additional four lunar months, up to the dawn after the full-moon day that ends the cold season in late February or early-to-mid March (called Phagguna in Pali). During this period they may also take advantage of the additional privilege of not having to observe NP 2. However, a bhikkhu’s kaṭhina privileges may be rescinded—and his robe season ended—earlier than that for either of two reasons: 在某些情况下（参见《佛教修道准则 第二册》第十七章），度过雨安居的比丘也有权参加功德衣[kaṭhina]仪式，在仪式中，他们从在家人那里接受布料的布施，将其赠予其中一位成员，然后在第二天黎明升起前，群体将其制成袈裟。（ Kaṭhina 的意思是框架，指的是缝制袈裟布时将其拉伸的框架，很像美国用来制作被子的框架。）参加此仪式后，比丘们可以将他们的袈裟季节延长额外四个阴历月，直到二月底或三月初至中旬，寒冷季节结束的满月日之后的黎明（巴利语称为Phagguna）。在此期间，他们还可以利用不必遵守《舍堕》二的额外方便利益[特权]。然而，比丘的功德衣方便利益可能会在此之前被取消——并且他的袈裟季节结束，出于以下两个原因之一：
1) He participates in a meeting in which all the bhikkhus in the monastery, as a Community transaction, voluntarily relinquish their kaṭhina privileges. (This act is discussed under bhikkhunīs’ Pc 30—see BMC2, Chapter 17 and Appendix I.)
1）他参加了一次僧团羯磨会议，寺院里的所有比丘自愿放弃他们的功德衣方便利益。（此行为在比丘尼的《波逸提》三十中讨论——参见《佛教修道准则 第二册》第十七章和附录一。）
2) He comes to the end both of his constraint with regard to the monastery (āvāsa-palibodha) and of his constraint with regard to making a robe (cīvara-palibodha). (See Mv.VII.1.7; Mv.VII.2 & Pv.XIV.6.)
2）他结束了对寺院（āvāsa-palibodha）的约束和对制作袈裟（cīvara-palibodha）的约束。（参见《大品》.七.1.7；《大品》.七.2和《附随》.十四.6。）
a) A constraint with regard to a monastery ends when either of the following things happens:
a）当下列任一情况发生时，对寺院的约束结束：
—One leaves the monastery without intending to return.
—离开寺院，不打算再回来。
—One has left the monastery, planning to return, but learns that the bhikkhus in the monastery have formally decided to relinquish their kaṭhina privileges.
—离开寺院，打算返回，却得知寺院的比丘们已正式决定放弃他们的功德衣方便利益。
b) A constraint with regard to making a robe ends when any of the following occurs:
b）当下列任一情况发生时，对制作袈裟的约束结束：
—One finishes making one’s robe(s).
—完成了制作自己的袈裟。
—One decides not to make a robe.
—决定不制作袈裟。
—One’s robe-cloth gets lost, snatched away, or destroyed.
—袈裟布遗失、被抢走或被毁坏。
—One expects to obtain robe-cloth, but—after not obtaining it as expected—one abandons one’s expectation.
—期望得到袈裟布，但—在未如期望得到之后—放弃期望。
Only if Point 1 happens, or both Points 2a and 2b happen, do one’s kaṭhina privileges lapse before the dawn after the full moon day marking the end of the cold season. 只有当第 1 点发生，或第 2a 点和第 2b 点同时发生时，功德衣方便利益才会在标志著寒冷季节结束的满月日后的黎明之前失效。
During the robe season, one may keep an extra piece of robe-cloth for more than ten days without committing an offense under this rule. Once these privileges lapse, though, one must determine the cloth, place it under shared ownership, or abandon it within ten days. If one fails to do so by the eleventh dawnrise after the privileges lapse, the cloth is to be forfeited and the offense confessed. 在袈裟季节期间，得多留一件袈裟十日以上，不犯本戒条规定。然而，一旦这些方便利益失效，就必须决意这块布料，将其置于共享所有权之下，或在十天内将其放弃。如果在方便利益失效后的第十一个黎明升起之前未能这样做，那么布料将被舍出，并且罪行将被忏悔。
Forfeiture & confession 舍出 & 忏罪
To be absolved of the offense under this rule, one must first forfeit the robe-cloth kept more than ten days and then confess the offense. This may be done in the presence of one other bhikkhu, a group of two or three, or a Community of four or more. After confessing the offense, one receives the robe-cloth in return. This is the pattern followed under all the nissaggiya pācittiya rules except for the few in which forfeiture must be done in the presence of a full Community and under which the article may not be returned to the offender. (We will note these rules as we come to them.) 欲免除本戒条的罪行，须先舍出十日以上的袈裟布，然后忏悔罪行。这可以在另一位比丘在场的情况下进行，也可以是两比丘或三比丘的团体，或是四比丘或更多比丘的僧团。忏悔罪行后，会收到袈裟布作为回报。这是所有《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）戒条所遵循的模式，除了少数戒条外，舍出必须在全体僧团在场的情况下进行，并且物品不得返还给犯戒者。（当我们遇到这些戒条时，我们会谈到它们。）
The Pali formulae to use in forfeiture, confession, and return of the article for this and all the following rules are given in Appendix VI. We should note, though, that according to the Commentary one may conduct these procedures in any language at all. 附录六中给出了本戒条以及以下所有戒条用于舍出、忏罪和归还物品的巴利语公式。但我们应该注意到，根据《义注》，可以用任何语言执行这些程序。
In this and every other rule under which the article may be returned to the offender, it must be returned to him. According to the Vibhaṅga, a bhikkhu who receives the article being forfeited without returning it incurs a dukkaṭa. The Commentary qualifies this by saying that this penalty applies only to the bhikkhu who assumes that, in receiving an article being forfeited in this way, it is his to take as he likes. For the bhikkhu who knows that it is not his to take, the offense is to be treated under Pr 2, with the penalty determined by the value of the article. In passing this judgment, the Commentary is treating the act of accepting the forfeited article as a species of accepting an object placed in safekeeping. However, it has neglected to note that the act of forfeiture is worded in such a way that the offender is actually giving up ownership of the cloth; because the cloth then has no owner, it would not fulfill the factors for an offense under Pr 2. Thus it seems preferable to stick with the Vibhaṅga in saying that, in all cases, a bhikkhu who does not return the article being forfeited incurs a dukkaṭa. 在本戒条以及所有其他可以将物品退还给犯戒者的戒条中，必须将其退还给他。根据《经分别》，比丘收到被舍出的物品而没有归还，犯《突吉罗》。《义注》对此进行了限定，说这种惩罚只适用于比丘认为在收到以这种方式舍出的物品时，该物是他的可以随心所欲地拿走。对于知道该物品不属于他的比丘，该犯戒应根据《波罗夷》二处理，并根据该物品的价值确定惩罚。在作出这项判决时，《义注》将接受舍出物品的行为视为接受保管物品的一种行为。然而，它忽略了舍出行为的措辞方式，即犯戒者实际上放弃了布料的所有权；因为布料没有主人，所以它不符合《波罗夷》二下的犯戒因素。因此，似乎最好坚持《经分别》的说法，即在所有情况下，不归还被舍出物品的比丘犯《突吉罗》。
A bhikkhu who has received the robe-cloth in return after forfeiting it and confessing the offense may use it again without penalty, unless he keeps it as a piece of extra robe-cloth beyond ten more dawns. Thus the wise policy is to determine the cloth or place it under shared ownership immediately after receiving it in return. 比丘在舍出袈裟布并忏悔罪行后收到归还，可以再次使用它而不受惩罚，除非他将其作为额外的袈裟布保留超过十个黎明。因此，明智之举是在收到归还后立即决意布料或将其置于共享所有权之下。
Non-offenses 不犯
In addition to the allowance to keep extra robe-cloth more than ten days during the robe season, the Vibhaṅga says that there is no offense if within ten days the cloth is determined, placed under shared ownership, lost, snatched away, destroyed, burnt, taken by someone else on trust, thrown away, or given away. 除了在袈裟季节保留额外袈裟布超过十天的开缘外，《经分别》说，如果在十天内，布料被决意、置于共享所有权之下、遗失、被抢走、毁坏、烧毁，被其他人基于信任拿走、丢弃或被给予出去，则没有犯戒。
In connection with this last point, the Commentary discusses proper and improper ways of giving things away. The article counts as having been properly given if one says, “I give this to you,” or “I give this to so-and-so,” or “Take this, it’s yours,” but not if one says things like, “Make this yours,” or “May this be yours.” Apparently, if one simply hands the article over without saying anything to show that one is transferring ownership, it again does not count. As we noted above, perception is not a mitigating factor under this rule. If one gives extra robe-cloth away in an improper manner, then even though one may assume that the cloth has been given away it still counts as one’s own extra robe-cloth under this rule. 关于最后一点，《义注》讨论了适当和不适当的给予东西的方式。如果有人说「我把这个给你」或「我把这个给某某人」或「拿著这个，它是你的」，那么该物品就被认为是适当地给出的，但如果有人说这样的话：「让它成为你的」或「愿这是你的」，则不算是适当地给予的。显然，如果只是仅仅交出该物品，而没有说什么来表明正在转让所有权，那么它就不算数。正如我们上面所指出的，根据本戒条，感知不是减轻惩罚的因素。如果以不适当的方式赠送额外的袈裟布，那么即使也许认为该布已经被给予出去，但根据本戒条，它仍然算作自己的额外袈裟布。
Current practice 目前做法
As the origin story shows, the purpose of this rule was to prevent bhikkhus from having more than one set of the three robes at any one time. With the passage of time, though, gifts of cloth to the Community became more numerous, and the need for stringency in this matter became less and less felt. Exactly when spare robes became accepted is not recorded, although a passage in the pupil’s duties to his preceptor (Mv.I.25.9) shows that the practice of having a spare lower robe was already current when that part of the Canon was compiled (see Appendix X). Mv.VII.1 also mentions a group of wilderness dwelling bhikkhus who were “wearers of the three robes,” as if this were a special distinguishing characteristic. A number of passages in the Canon—including SN 16:8 and Thag&16:7—mention the practice of using only one set of three robes as special, and the Visuddhimagga (5th century C.E.) classes this practice as one of the thirteen optional dhutaṅga (ascetic) practices. 正如起源故事所示，本戒条的目的是防止比丘们在任何时候拥有多于一套三衣。然而，随著时间的推移，向僧团布施的布料变得越来越多，越来越感觉不到在这件事上严格执行的必要性。备用袈裟被接受的确切时间没有记录，尽管弟子对其戒师的义务（《大品》.一.25.9）中的一段话表明，在编纂《圣典》的该部分时，拥有备用下衣的做法已经存在（参见附录十）。《大品》.七.1也提到一群住在林野的比丘，他们「著三衣」，好像这是一个特殊的显著特征。《圣典》中的许多段落（包括《相应部》16:8经和《长老偈》&16:7）都提到仅使用一套三衣的修行是特殊的，《清净道论》（公元五世纪）将这种修行归为十三种可选的头陀（dhutaṅga）行之一。
As we will see below, Pc 92 suggests that in the early days the under, upper, and outer robes were all nearly the same size, so there would have been no difficulty in washing one robe and using the other two while the first one dried. Later, when the compilers of the ancient commentaries greatly enlarged the size of the upper and outer robes after deciding that the Buddha was of superhuman height, getting by with just one set of three robes became less convenient. Thus many teachers at present suggest that even a frugal bhikkhu, when staying in monasteries, should use one spare lower robe or a spare lower and upper robe—so that he will have no trouble keeping his robes clean and presenting an acceptable appearance at all times—and save the three-robe dhutaṅga practice for when he is alone in the wilderness. 正如我们将在下面看到的，《波逸提》九二表明，在早期，下衣、上衣和外衣的尺寸几乎相同，因此清洗一件袈裟并当其干燥时使用另外两件是没有困难的。后来，当古代注释书的编纂者认为佛陀具有超人的高度后，大大增加了上衣和外衣的尺寸，仅一套三衣就变得不太方便了。因此，目前许多导师建议，即使是节俭的比丘，在寺院居住时，也应该使用一件备用的下衣，或者一件备用的下衣和上衣—这样他就可以毫无困难地保持袈裟清洁，并在任何时候都呈现出可接受的外观—并将三衣头陀行保留到他独自在林野时。
At any rate, because only one set of three robes may be determined as such, spare robes—once they became generally accepted—were determined as “requisite cloths.” This point may be inferred from the Commentary’s explanation of this rule, and the Sub-commentary’s explanation of NP 7. The Commentary even contains a discussion of the views of various elders as to whether a bhikkhu who wishes to avoid the special rules surrounding the use of the three robes (such as the following rule) may determine his basic set as requisite cloths as well. The majority opinion—with only one dissenting voice—was Yes, although at present many Communities do not agree with this opinion. 无论如何，由于只有一套三件袈裟可以被决意为这样，所以备用袈裟一旦被普遍接受，就被决意为「必需布」。这一点可以从《义注》对本戒条的解释以及《复注》对《舍堕》七的解释中推断出来。《义注》甚至包含了对不同长老的观点的讨论，关于希望避免有关使用三衣的特殊戒条（例如接下来的戒条）的比丘是否也可以将他的基本三衣决意为必需布。大多数意见（只有一个反对声音）是「可以」，尽管目前许多僧团不同意这一意见。
The Sub-commentary suggests an alternative way of dealing with spare robes: placing them under shared ownership and—because none of the three robes may be placed under shared ownership—calling them simply “cloth” (cīvara). This, however, plays havoc with Pc 59 and the general purpose of shared ownership in the Canon as a way of keeping cloth that is not being used. Thus the previous method—determining spare robes as requisite cloth—seems preferable. 《复注》提出了另一种处理备用袈裟的方法：将它们置于共享所有权之下，并且——因为这三衣都不能置于共享所有权之下——仅称它们为「布料」（cīvara）。然而，这对《波逸提》五九和《圣典》中共享所有权的一般用途（作为保留不使用的布料的一种方式）造成了严重混乱。因此，先前的方法——将备用袈裟决意为必需布——似乎更可取。
In any event, ever since spare robes have been accepted, the effect of this rule has been mainly to deter a bhikkhu from hoarding up robe-cloth in secret and from letting a hole in any of his basic set of three robes go unmended for more than ten days. Nevertheless, the spirit of the rule makes it incumbent on each bhikkhu to keep his cloth requisites to a minimum. 无论如何，自从备用袈裟被接受以来，本戒条的作用主要是阻止比丘秘密囤积袈裟布，以及防止他的基本三衣中的任何一件出现破洞超过十天而不修补。然而，本戒条的精神使得每个比丘有责任将自己的布料必需品保持在最低限度。
Summary: Keeping a piece of robe-cloth for more than ten days without determining it for use or placing it under shared ownership—except when the robe-season privileges are in effect—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：将一块袈裟布保存十天以上，而没有决意使用或将其置于共享所有权之下（除非袈裟季节方便利益仍有效），是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
2 二
When a bhikkhu has finished his robe and the frame is dismantled (his kaṭhina privileges are ended): If he dwells apart from (any of) his three robes even for one night—unless authorized by the bhikkhus—it is to be forfeited and confessed.
当比丘完成他的袈裟并且框架被拆除时（他的功德衣方便利益结束）：如果他与他的（任何一件）三衣分开居住，即使是一晚—除非得到比丘们的授权—尼萨耆波逸提。
In the origin story here, a number of bhikkhus went off on tour, leaving their outer robes with their friends at the monastery. Eventually the robes became moldy, and the bhikkhus at the monastery were burdened with having to sun them to get rid of the mold. The Buddha thus formulated this rule so that bhikkhus would be responsible for looking after their own robes. 在起源故事的中，一些比丘外出旅行，把外衣留给了在寺院的朋友。最终，袈裟发霉了，在寺院的比丘们不得不将它们晒干以除去霉菌。佛陀因此制定了本戒条，好让比丘们负责照顾自己的袈裟。
The offense here consists of two factors: object and effort. 这里的违犯由两个因素组成：对象和努力。
Object: 对象：
Any one of the robes that a bhikkhu has determined as his basic set of three—the antaravāsaka (lower robe), uttarāsaṅga (upper robe), and saṅghāṭi (outer robe). This rule thus does not apply to spare robes or other cloth requisites. 比丘决意为基本三衣中的任何一件— 安陀会 antaravāsaka （下衣）、 郁多罗僧 uttarāsaṅga （上衣）和 僧伽黎 saṅghāṭi （外衣）。因此，本戒条不适用于备用袈裟或其他布料必需品。
Effort: 努力：
Greeting dawnrise at a place outside of the zone in which any of one’s robes are located, except when the exemptions mentioned in the rule are in effect. 在任何袈裟所在区域之外的地方迎接黎明升起[明相]，除非戒条中提到的豁免生效。
Dawnrise, as stated under the preceding rule, corresponds to the onset of civil twilight. In Thailand, this point is often measured in a practical way by looking at the palm of one’s hand as it is held out at full arm’s length: Dawnrise is the point in time when the major lines of the hand are visible by natural light. On a bright moonlit night, dawnrise is measured by looking at the foliage of trees: Dawnrise is the point when one can detect the green in the color of the leaves. For further discussion of some of the controversies surrounding dawn and dawnrise, see Appendix I. 黎明升起[明相]，如前一条戒条所述，对应于民用曙暮光的开始。在泰国，这一点通常是透过观察伸出全臂长度时的手掌来实际测量的：黎明升起是在自然光下可以看到手部主要线条的时间点。在明亮的月光之夜，黎明升起的出现是透过观察树叶来衡量的：黎明升起是人们可以看到树叶颜色呈现绿色的时刻。有关黎明和黎明升起的一些争议的进一步讨论，请参阅附录一。
Zones 区域
This is the most complex facet of this rule. The zone where a bhikkhu must be at dawnrise depends on the type of location where his robes are placed, whether the property around the location is enclosed, and—if it is enclosed—whether it belongs to one or more than one kula. 这是本戒条最复杂的方面。比丘在黎明升起[明相]时必须所处的区域取决于他放置袈裟的地点类型、该地点周围的所有物是否被封闭，以及——如果是封闭的——它是否属于一个或多个 kula 。
“Enclosed,” according to the Commentary, means surrounded with a wall, a fence, or a moat. The Sub-commentary adds that a river or lake would also qualify as a type of enclosure, under the term moat. 根据《义注》，「封闭」是指被墙、栅栏或护城河包围。《复注》补充说，河流或湖泊也符合护城河一词下的一种封闭类型。
The term kula normally means clan or family, but in the context of this rule it has different meanings for the different types of locations. According to the Commentary, a village is single-kula if ruled by a single ruler, and multi-kula if ruled by a council—as in the case of Vesālī and Kusinārā during the time of the Buddha. (In the time of the Canon and Commentary, rulers were assumed to “own” or have the right to “consume” the territories they ruled.) At present, towns governed under a social contract—such as a town charter—would count as multi-kula even if the highest authority in the government is invested in a single individual. kula 一词通常指氏族或家庭，但在本戒条的上下文中，它对于不同类型的地点具有不同的含义。根据《义注》，如果一个村庄由单一统治者统治，则为单kula；如果由议会统治，则为多kula—就像佛陀时代的毗舍离和拘尸那罗的情况一样。 （在《圣典》和《义注》时代，统治者被认为「拥有」或有权「消费」他们统治的领土。）目前，根据社会契约（例如城镇宪章）管理的城镇算是多kula，即使政府的最高权力集中在一个人身上。
A building, a vehicle or a piece of land is single-kula if it belongs to one family, and multi-kula if it belongs to more than one (as in an apartment house). 若一栋建筑物、一辆车或一块土地属于一个家庭，则为单kula；如果属于多个家庭（如公寓），则为多kula。
According to the Sub-commentary, a monastery is single-kula if the people who initiated it belong to one kula—of either type, apparently—and multi-kula if they belong to several. 根据《复注》，如果发起寺院的人属于一个kula（显然是任何一种类型），则该寺院是单kula；如果他们属于多个kula，则该寺院是多kula。
In some of the cases, the Vibhaṅga states that one should greet dawnrise within a particular area “or not more than a hatthapāsa (1.25 meter) away.” Unfortunately, it does not explicitly state what the hatthapāsa is measured from—the robes or the area—so there are different opinions as to what this passage means. The Commentary’s position is that in cases where the Vibhaṅga says that if the robes are kept in a certain area, one should either stay in that area or not more than a hatthapāsa away, the hatthapāsa is measured from the outside boundary of the area. For instance, if the robes are kept in a house in an unenclosed village, one is allowed to greet dawnrise anywhere in the house or in an area one hatthapāsa around the house. (This would allow for a bhikkhu to go outside to relieve himself at dawn without having to carry along his full set of robes.) However, in cases where the Vibhaṅga does not mention that one should stay in a certain area, and instead says simply that one should not be more than a hatthapāsa away—as in an unenclosed field or under a multi-kula tree—the hatthapāsa is measured from the robes themselves. 在某些情况下，《经分别》规定，应该在特定区域内「或不超过一个伸手所及 hatthapāsa （1.25 公尺）远」迎接黎明。不幸的是，它没有明确说明伸手所及 hatthapāsa 是从袈裟或区域来测量的，因此对于这段落的含义有不同的看法。《义注》的立场是，在《经分别》说如果袈裟存放在某个区域的情况下，那么若非留在该区域，不然就是远离该区域不超过一个伸手所及，该伸手所及是从该区域的外部边界开始测量的。例如，如果袈裟存放在一个未封闭村庄的房子里，那么就可以在房子的任何地方或房子周围一个伸手所及的区域迎接黎明。（这将允许比丘在黎明时外出解手，而不必携带全套袈裟。）然而，如果《经分别》没有提及应该留在某个区域的情况下，而是仅仅说距离不得超过一个伸手所及—例如在一片未封闭的田野中或一棵多kula树下—该伸手所及是从袈裟本身开始测量的。
Some have objected to the Commentary’s position as inconsistent and serving no purpose, and have proposed instead that the hatthapāsa be measured from the robes in every case. This, however, leads to redundancies: If, for instance, the robes are kept in a room and one is allowed (1) to stay in the room or (2) to be no further than a hatthapāsa from the robes, then either (2) negates (1)—in other words, one must stay within a hatthapāsa of the robes and not go elsewhere in the room—or else (1) makes (2) superfluous: One may stay anywhere in the room, without worrying about precisely where in the room the robes are located. In contrast, the Commentary’s position not only avoids these redundancies but also actually serves a purpose. In addition to the convenience mentioned above, there is another convenience in a multi-kula dwelling or a larger multi-kula building: If there is a small bathroom next to the room where the robes are kept, one may use the bathroom at dawn without having to take one’s robes into the bathroom. For these reasons, we will stick to the Commentary’s interpretation here. 有些人反对《义注》的立场，认为其不一致且没有任何作用，并建议在任何情况下都应从袈裟来测量伸手所及。然而，这会导致冗余：例如，如果将袈裟放在一个房间里，被允许（1）留在房间里或（2）距离袈裟不超过一个伸手所及，那么若非（2）否定（1）—换句话说，必须留在距离袈裟一个伸手可及内，而不能去房间的其他地方—否则（1）就使（2）变得冗余：可以留在房间的任何地方，而不必担心袈裟在房间里的确切位置。相较之下，《义注》的立场不仅避免了这些冗余，而且实际上也达到了目的。除了上述的便利性之外，在多kula住所或较大的多kula建筑物中还有另一个便利：如果存放袈裟的房间旁边有一个小浴室，那么可以在黎明时使用浴室，而无需带袈裟进入浴室。出于这些原因，我们在这里将坚守《义注》的解释。
1. A village:
一、村庄：
a. Enclosed and single-kula: Having kept the robes within the enclosure, greet dawnrise in the enclosure. (The Vibhaṅga actually says, “in the village,” but as the Commentary to Mv.II.12.3 notes, when a village is enclosed, everything in the enclosure counts as “village,” and that is the most sensible interpretation for the Vibhaṅga’s statement here. This is the pattern followed throughout all cases of “enclosed and single-kula.”)
a. 封闭且单kula：将袈裟存放在封闭区域内，在封闭区域内迎接黎明升起。（《经分别》实际上说「在村庄里」，但正如《大品》.二.12.3的《义注》所指出的，当一个村庄被围起来时，封闭区域内的所有东西都算作「村庄」，这是对《经分别》此处的陈述最明智的解释。这是所有「封闭且单kula」情况中所遵循的模式。
b. Enclosed and multi-kula: Greet dawnrise in the house where the robes are kept, in the public meeting hall, at the town gate, or one hatthapāsa around any of these places (§). If the robes are kept within a hatthapāsa of the path going to the public meeting hall, greet dawnrise in the public meeting hall, at the town gate, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two. If the robes are kept in the public meeting hall, greet dawnrise in the public meeting hall, at the town gate, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two.
b. 封闭且多kula：在存放袈裟的房子、公共会议厅、城门，或这些地方周围的一个伸手可及处（§）迎接黎明升起。如果袈裟存放在通往公共会议厅的道路的一个伸手可及处之内，在公共会议厅、城门，或两者中任何一处周围的一个伸手可及处的区域内迎接黎明升起。如果袈裟存放在公共会议厅，则在公共会议厅、城门，或两者中任何一处周围的一个伸手可及处的区域内迎接黎明升起。
c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise in the house where the robes are kept or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§). (See 2 & 3 below for further details.)
c. 未封闭：在存放袈裟的房子里或在它周围的一个伸手可及处（§）的区域内迎接黎明升起。（更多详情请参阅下面的 2 和 3。）
2. A dwelling with a yard:
二、有院子的住处：
a. Enclosed and single-kula: Having kept the robes within the enclosure, greet dawnrise within the enclosure.
a. 封闭且单kula：将袈裟存放在封闭区域内，在封闭区域内迎接黎明升起。
b. Enclosed and multi-kula: Greet dawnrise in the room where the robes are kept, at the entrance to the enclosure, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two (§).
b. 封闭且多kula：在存放袈裟的房间、封闭区域入口处，或在两者之任一处周围的一个伸手可及处（§）的区域内迎接黎明升起。
c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise in the room where the robes are kept, or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§).
c. 未封闭：在存放袈裟的房间内，或在其周围的一个伸手可及处（§）的区域内迎接黎明升起。
3. A monastic dwelling (vihāra—according to the Sub-commentary, this includes entire monasteries):
三、寺院住所（vihāra—根据《复注》，这包括整个寺院）：
a. Enclosed and single-kula: Having kept the robes within the enclosure, greet dawnrise within the enclosure.
a. 封闭且单kula：将袈裟存放在封闭区域内，在封闭区域内迎接黎明升起。
b. Enclosed and multi-kula: Greet dawnrise in the dwelling where the robes are kept, at the entrance to the enclosure, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two (§).
b. 封闭且多kula：在存放袈裟的住所、封闭区域入口处，或在两者之任一处周围的一个伸手可及处（§）的区域内迎接黎明升起。
c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise in the dwelling where the robes are kept or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§).
c. 未封闭：在存放袈裟的住所内，或在其周围的一个伸手可及处（§）的区域内迎接黎明升起。
4. A field, orchard, garden (park), or threshing floor:
四、田地、果园、花园（公园）、打谷场：
a. Enclosed and single-kula: Having kept the robes within the enclosure, greet dawnrise within the enclosure.
a. 封闭且单kula：将袈裟存放在封闭区域内，在封闭区域内迎接黎明升起。
b. Enclosed and multi-kula (e.g., many fields, etc., within a single enclosure): Having kept the robes within the enclosure, greet dawnrise in the enclosure, at the entrance to the field, etc., where the robe is kept, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either (§).
b. 封闭且多kula（例如，许多田地等，在单一封闭区域内）：将袈裟存放在封闭区域内，在封闭区域、田地入口等存放袈裟的地方，或在两者之任一处周围的一个伸手可及处（§）的区域内迎接黎明升起。
c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise within one hatthapāsa of the robes.
c. 未封闭：距离袈裟一个伸手可及处接黎明升起。
5. Buildings with no yard (such as a fortress or city apartment block):
五、没有庭院的建筑物（例如堡垒或城市公寓大楼）：
a. Single-kula: Having kept the robes within the building, greet dawnrise within the building.
a. 单kula：将袈裟存放在建筑物内，在建筑物内迎接黎明升起。
b. Multi-kula: Greet dawnrise within the room where the robes are kept, at the entrance (to the building), or in the area one hatthapāsa around either (§).
b. 多kula：在存放袈裟的房间内，在（建筑物）入口，或在两者之任一处周围的一个伸手可及处（§）的区域内迎接黎明升起。
6. A boat (and by extension, other vehicles):
六、船（以及推而广之，其他交通工具）：
a. Single-kula: Having kept the robes within the vehicle, greet dawnrise within the vehicle.
a. 单kula：将袈裟存放在交通工具内，在交通工具内迎接黎明升起。
b. Multi-kula (as in a commercial airplane or bus): Greet dawnrise in the room where the robes are kept or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§). (For this reason, a bhikkhu traveling in an airplane overnight should wear his complete set of robes or have it with him in his cabin baggage, rather than in his checked baggage.) The Thai edition of the Canon, unlike the others, adds that one may also greet dawnrise at the entrance to the boat or in the area one hatthapāsa around it.
b. 多kula（如在商用飞机或巴士内）：在存放袈裟的房间内，或其周围的一个伸手可及处的区域内迎接黎明升起（§）。（因此，搭飞机过夜的比丘应该穿著整套袈裟，或者将其带在随身行李中，而不是放在托运行李中。）与其他版本不同，泰国版的《圣典》补充道：也可以在船的入口处或船周围的一个伸手可及处的区域内迎接黎明升起。
7. A caravan (according to the Sub-commentary, this includes groups traveling by foot as well as by cart; group hiking trips would thus be included here):
七、房车（根据《复注》，这包括步行和乘车旅行的团体；因此此处包括团体徒步旅行）：
a. Single-kula: Having kept the robes within the caravan, greet dawnrise anywhere up to seven abbhantaras (98 meters) in front of or behind the caravan, and up to one abbhantara (14 meters) to either side.
a. 单kula：将袈裟留在房车内，在房车前后最多七个 abbhantara （98 公尺）以及两侧最多一个 abbhantara （14 公尺）的任何地方迎接黎明升起。
b. Multi-kula: Having kept the robes within the caravan, greet dawnrise within one hatthapāsa of the caravan.
b. 多kula：将袈裟留在房车内，在房车的一个伸手可及处内迎接黎明升起。
8. At the foot of a tree:
八、在树下：
a. Single-kula: Having kept the robes within the area shaded by the tree at noon, greet dawnrise within that area. According to the Commentary, this doesn’t include spots where sunlight leaks through gaps in the foliage, but many Communities regard this stipulation as excessive.
a. 单kula：将袈裟留在中午时分树荫下的区域内，在该区域内迎接黎明升起。根据《义注》，这不包括阳光从树叶缝隙泄漏的地方，但许多僧团认为这项规定太过度。
b. Multi-kula (e.g., a tree on the boundary between two pieces of land): Greet dawnrise within one hatthapāsa of the robes.
b. 多kula（例如，两块土地边界上的一棵树）：在袈裟的一个伸手可及处内迎接黎明升起。
9. In the open air (according to the Vibhaṅga, this means a wilderness area where there are no villages; the Commentary adds that this includes dense forests and uninhabited islands):
九、在露天（根据《经分别》的说法，这代表没有村庄的荒野地区；《义注》补充说，这包括茂密的森林和无人居住的岛屿）：
  • Greet dawnrise within a seven-abbhantara (98 meter) radius of the robes. (Some have argued that this allowance should apply only when one is staying outside of a dwelling in the wilderness; as for a hut in the wilderness, they say, the zone under (3) should apply. The problem with this interpretation is what it would mean in practice: If a bhikkhu keeping his robes in a wilderness hut wanted to greet dawnrise in the open air, he would have to take his robes out of the hut. Then he would be free to wander 98 meters away from them. This would actually expose the robes to more dangers than if they were left in the hut. Thus it seems preferable to stick with the Vibhaṅga’s definition for this zone: any wilderness area where there are no villages.)
  • 在袈裟半径七个 abbhantara （98 公尺）内迎接黎明升起。（有些人认为，这项开缘只应适用于住在荒野中的住处外的情况；至于荒野中的小屋，他们说，应适用第（3）项下的区域。这种解释的问题在于它在实践中意思是什么：如果一个比丘将袈裟放在荒野小屋里，想要在露天迎接黎明升起，他就必须将袈裟带出小屋。然后他就可以自由地在距离袈裟 98 公尺的地方徘徊了。这实际上会让袈裟比留在小屋里面临更多的危险。因此，似乎最好坚持《经分别》对这个区域的定义：任何没有村庄的荒野地区。）
Exemptions 豁免
1) As with the preceding rule, this rule is not in force when the kaṭhina privileges are in effect. However—unlike the preceding rule—it is in force during the first month after the Rains-residence unless one has participated in a kaṭhina. 1）与前一戒条一样，当功德衣方便利益有效时，本戒条不生效。然而，与前一戒条不同的是，除非参加过功德衣，否则它在雨安居后的第一个月内有效。
2) In the origin story to this rule, the Buddha gives permission for a Community of bhikkhus to authorize an ill bhikkhu to be separated from his robes at dawnrise throughout the course of his illness without penalty. (The procedure and transaction statement for this authorization are given in Appendix VIII.) 2）在本戒条的起源故事中，佛陀允许比丘僧团授权生病的比丘在他患病期间在黎明升起时与袈裟分开，而不受惩罚。（本授权的程序和羯磨文请见附录八。）
The Commentary discusses how long this authorization lasts, and concludes that once the bhikkhu has recovered he should make every reasonable effort to get back to his robes as soon as possible without jeopardizing his health. The authorization then automatically subsides, with no further transaction being required to rescind it. If his illness returns, the authorization is automatically reinstated. 《义注》讨论了这种授权的持续时间，并得出结论，一旦比丘康复，他应该尽一切合理努力尽快回到他的袈裟，而不危及他的健康。然后授权会自动消退，无需进一步的羯磨即可取消之。如果他的病情复发，授权将自动恢复。
3) In Mv.II.12.1-3, the Buddha directs the bhikkhus to declare a sīmā—or territory in which Community transactions are enacted—as a ticīvara-avippavāsa, which means that if a bhikkhu’s robes are anywhere within the territory, he may greet dawnrise at any other part of that territory without committing an offense under this rule. In the early days, when such a territory might cover many monasteries (the maximum allowable size is 3x3 yojanas, approximately 48x48 kilometers), this was a definite convenience for bhikkhus who had to leave their monastery to join in Community meetings at another monastery in the same territory. Because it was possible for such territories to include villages and homes as well, the Buddha added the extra stipulation that robes left in the houses of lay people lying in such a territory were not covered by this exemption. For further details, see BMC2, Chapter 13. 3）在《大品》.二.12.1-3中，佛陀指示比丘们宣告 sīmā —进行僧团羯磨之界—为 ticīvara-avippavāsa ，这意味著如果比丘的袈裟位于该界内的任何地方，他可在该界的任何其他地方迎接黎明升起，而不犯本戒条所订的罪行。在早期，当这样的界可能涵盖许多寺院时（允许的最大面积为 3x3 由旬，大约 48x48 公里），这对于必须离开寺院前往同一界内另一寺院参加僧团会议的比丘来说绝对是一个方便。因为这些界也可能包括村庄和住家，所以佛陀添加了额外的规定，即留在此类界内的居士家中的袈裟不属于这项豁免范围。有关更多详细信息，请参阅《佛教修道准则 第二册》第十三章。
At present the custom is to designate much smaller areas as territories—usually only a fraction of the land in one monastery—and although these can also be designated as ticīvara-avippavāsa, this arrangement in such cases is not the great convenience it is in the larger territories. 目前的习俗是将较小的区域指定为界——通常只是一座寺院土地的一小部分——虽然这些也可以指定为 ticīvara-avippavāsa ，但在这种情况下，这种安排并不像在较大的界内中那样方便。
Forfeiture & confession 舍出 & 忏罪
If a bhikkhu greets dawnrise outside of the zone where any one of his three determined robes is placed—except when the exemptions are in effect—the robe is to be forfeited and the offense confessed. Perception and intention are not mitigating factors here. If he thinks that he is in the same zone when he actually isn’t, if he thinks the robe is not determined when it actually is, or if he means to be in the same zone when circumstances prevent him, he incurs the penalty all the same. If he then uses the robe before forfeiting it and confessing the offense, he incurs a dukkaṭa. 如果比丘在放置决意的三衣中任何一件的区域外迎接黎明升起——除非豁免生效——该袈裟将被舍出并忏罪。在这里，感知和意图并不是减轻惩罚的因素。如果他认为自己在同一个区域，但实际上并不在同一个区域，如果他认为袈裟没被决意但实际上已决意的，或者如果他在情况不允许的情况下仍打算在同一个区域，那么他将受到所有惩罚相同。如果他在舍出并忏罪之前使用了袈裟，他就犯《突吉罗》。
The Vibhaṅga adds that, with regard to a robe that hasn’t been apart from one, if one perceives it to have been apart or one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. The Commentary does not explain these statements, but from the parallel situations under NP 1 it would seem that the dukkaṭa here is for using the robe. 《经分别》补充说，对于一件尚未分开的袈裟，如果认为它已经分开或有怀疑，则惩罚是《突吉罗》。《义注》没有解释这些陈述，但从《舍堕》一下的类似情况来看，这里的《突吉罗》似乎是因为使用了袈裟。
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe are the same as in the preceding rule. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiture, see Appendix VI. Once the robe has been forfeited, its determination lapses, so when the bhikkhu receives it in return he must re-determine it for use or give it away within ten days so as not to commit an offense under the preceding rule. 舍出、忏罪、返还袈裟的程序，与前一戒条相同。有关舍出中使用的巴利公式，请参阅附录六。一旦袈裟被舍出，它的决意就失效了，所以当比丘收到它时，他必须在十天内重新决意它以供使用或放弃它，以免犯前一戒条的罪行。
Non-offenses 不犯
In addition to the above-mentioned exemptions, there is no offense if, before dawn, the robe is lost, destroyed, burnt, or snatched away; if someone else takes it on trust; or if the bhikkhu gives it away or rescinds its determination. Because of this last allowance, the Commentary recommends that if a bhikkhu realizes he will not be able to get back to his robe before dawn, he should rescind the robe’s determination before dawnrise so as to avoid an offense, and then re-determine the robe after dawnrise has passed. 除上述豁免外，天亮前，袈裟遗失、被破坏、被烧毁或被抢走者，不犯；如果其他人基于信任拿走它，不犯；或如果比丘放弃或撤销其决意，不犯。由于这最后的开缘，《义注》建议，如果比丘意识到他无法在黎明前回到他的袈裟处，他应该在黎明升起前撤销袈裟的决意，以避免犯戒，然后在黎明升起过后重新决意袈裟。
A note on Thai practice 泰国做法注意事项
The author of the Vinaya-mukha missed the Sub-commentary’s discussion of monastic residences under this rule and so came to the conclusion that none of the texts discuss the question of zones in a monastery. As a result, he formulated his own system, treating each separate monastic dwelling as a lay dwelling with a yard. Furthermore, he neglected to discuss the question of what counts as single-kula and multi-kula in such a dwelling. In the absence of any other standard, Thai bhikkhus have come to view a dwelling of two or more bhikkhus, in which the bhikkhus come from different families, as a multi-kula dwelling. If the bhikkhus live in separate rooms, then the room where the robes are placed, plus a radius of one hatthapāsa around it, is the bhikkhu’s zone. If two or more bhikkhus are spending the night in a single room, each bhikkhu must greet dawnrise within one hatthapāsa of his robes. 《戒律入口》的作者错过了《复注》对本戒条下寺院住所的讨论，因此得出的结论是，没有任何文献讨论寺院区域的问题。于是，他制定了自己的制度，将每一个单独的寺院住所视为有院子的俗家。此外，他忽略了讨论在这样的住所中什么算是单kula和多kula的问题。在没有其他标准的情况下，泰国比丘们开始将来自不同家庭的两个或两个以上比丘的住所视为多kula住所。如果比丘住在不同的房间，那么放置袈裟的房间，加上周围一个伸手可及处的半径，就是该比丘的区域。如果两个或两个以上的比丘在单一个房间里过夜，每个比丘必须在他的袈裟的一个伸手可及处内迎接黎明升起。
Although there is no basis in the Canon or commentaries for this practice, it is so widely accepted in Thailand that the wise policy for anyone spending the night in the same dwelling or the same room with a Thai bhikkhu is to be aware of it and abide by it, to avoid the useless controversies that can arise over minor matters like this. 虽然这种做法在《圣典》或注释书中没有依据，但它在泰国被广泛接受，因此对于任何与泰国比丘在同一住处或同一房间过夜的人来说，明智之举是意识到这一点并遵守之，以避免因此类小事而引起的无用争议。
Summary: Being in a separate zone from any of one’s three robes at dawnrise—except when one’s kaṭhina privileges are in effect or one has received formal authorization from the Community—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：黎明升起时分，与三衣中的任何一件处于不同的区域——除非功德衣方便利益有效或已获得僧团的正式授权——是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
3 三
When a bhikkhu has finished his robe and the frame is dismantled (his kathina privileges are ended): Should out-of-season robe-cloth accrue to him, he may accept it if he so desires. Having accepted it, he is to make it up immediately (into a cloth requisite). If it should not be enough (§), he may lay it aside for a month at most when he has an expectation for filling the lack. If he should keep it beyond that, even when he has an expectation (for further cloth), it is to be forfeited and confessed.
当比丘完成他的袈裟并且框架被拆除时（他的功德衣方便利益结束）：如果他得到了非时的袈裟布，如果他愿意的话，他可以接受。他接受了之后，应立即将其做成（成为布料必需品）。如果不够（§），当他期望填补不足时，他最多可以将其搁置一个月。如果他保留的超出了这个范围，即使他有（更多布料）的期望，尼萨耆波逸提。
There are two factors for an offense here. 这里的犯戒有两个因素。
1) Object: (a) out-of-season robe-cloth, made of any of the proper six kinds of material, in pieces measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths; 1）对象： （a）非时的袈裟布，由六种适当材料中的任何一种制成，尺寸至少为四乘八指宽；
(b) the cloth is not enough to make the cloth requisite one has in mind, but one expects to receive more. （b）布料不足以制做成心中要的布料必需品，但期望收到更多。
2) Effort: One keeps the cloth for more than 30 days, except when the kaṭhina privileges are in effect. 2）努力：将布料保留超过 30 天，除非当功德衣方便利益生效。
Object 对象
The Vibhaṅga defines in-season robe-cloth as any robe-cloth accruing to a bhikkhu—either from the Community, from a group, from relatives, from friends, from cast-off cloth, or from his own resources—during the first month after the Rains-residence if he has not yet participated in a kaṭhina, or during the time when his kaṭhina privileges are in effect if he has. Thus out-of-season cloth is any cloth accruing to him at any other time. However, the Vibhaṅga also notes that cloth accruing to a bhikkhu during the one-month or five-month robe season can count as out-of-season cloth if the donors dedicate it to that purpose. There are two reasons why they might want to do so. 《经分别》将当季袈裟布定义为比丘获得的任何袈裟布料——无论是来自僧团、团体、亲戚、朋友、废弃的布料，还是他自己的资源——如果他还没有参加过功德衣，则在雨安居后的第一个月内，或者如果他参加过，则在其功德衣方便利益生效期间。因此，非时的袈裟布是指他在任何其他时间获得的任何布料。然而，《经分别》也指出，如果施主将其专门用于该目的，比丘在一个月或五个月的袈裟季节期间获得的布料可以算是非时的袈裟布。他们想要这样做有两个原因。
1) Given the way “extra robe-cloth” is defined under NP 1, a gift of in-season robe-cloth can be kept—if it is neither determined nor placed under shared ownership—for ten days after the robe season ends. However, if the cloth is not enough to make into a robe, it cannot be kept—if neither determined nor placed under shared ownership—for the month allowed by this rule. However, as the K/Commentary to NP 24 notes, a gift of out-of-season cloth can be kept for the extra month under this rule. Thus if the donors want to provide the recipient(s) with that extra amount of time—which would be especially useful if they give the cloth toward the end of the robe season—they can dedicate the cloth given in-season as out-of-season cloth. 1）鉴于《舍堕》一中「额外袈裟布料」的定义方式，当季袈裟布料的布施可以在袈裟季节结束后保留十天（如果既没有决意也没有置于共享所有权之下）。然而，如果布料不足以制作成袈裟，则在本戒条允许的月份内，如果既没有决意也没有置于共享所有权之下，则不能保留它。然而，正如《舍堕》二四的 K/《义注》所指出的，根据本戒条，非时的布料的布施可以保留额外的一个月。因此，如果施主想为接受者（们）提供额外的时间（如果他们在袈裟季节结束时提供布料，这将特别有用），他们可以将当季给予的布料供养为非时的布料。
2) According to Mv.VIII.24-25, in-season cloth given to a Community may be shared among only the bhikkhus who spent the Rains-residence in that particular Community, and not among any visiting bhikkhus. The bhikkhunīs’ NP 2 tells of a case where well-behaved but shabbily dressed bhikkhunīs visited a Community of bhikkhunīs when the robe-season privileges were in effect; lay donors, wishing to help them, gave cloth to the Community with the stipulation that it be treated as out-of-season robe-cloth so that the visiting bhikkhunīs would also have a share. 2）根据《大品》.八.24-25，给予某个僧团的当季布料只能由在该特定僧团中度过雨安居的比丘分享，而不是与任何来访的比丘分享。比丘尼的《舍堕》二讲述了一个案例，在袈裟季节方便利益生效期间，行为端正但衣著破旧的比丘尼拜访了比丘尼社团；在家布施者希望帮助他们，向僧团捐赠布料，并规定将其视为非时的袈裟布料，以便来访的比丘尼也能分享。
Out-of-season cloth, if it is enough to make the cloth requisite one has in mind, is treated as extra robe-cloth under NP 1: During the period outside of the robe season it can be kept for at most ten days. If, however, it is not enough, and one expects to get further cloth from any source—again, from the Community, from a group, from relatives, from friends, from cast-off cloth, or from one’s own resources—it may be kept for up to 30 days with no need to be determined or placed under shared ownership. 非时的布料，如果足以制作成心中要的布料必需品，则被视为《舍堕》一下的额外袈裟布料：在袈裟季节之外的时期内，最多可以保留十天。然而，如果这还不够，而且期望从任何来源获得更多布料——同样，从僧团、从团体、从亲戚、从朋友、从废弃的布料，或从自己的资源——它可能最多保留三十天，无需决意或置于共享所有权之下。
The further cloth, when received, has a life span of ten days, as under NP 1, and one must finish making one’s requisite within the time period determined by whichever cloth has the shorter life span. Thus, if one obtains the expected cloth during the first 20 days, the requisite must be made within ten days, this being the life span of the second cloth. If one obtains it after the 21st day, the requisite must be made before the original 30 days are up. 收到后的另一块布料的使用寿命为十天，如《舍堕》一所示，并且必须在由寿命较短的布料决定的时间内完成必需品的制作。因此，如果在前二十天内获得了预期的布料，则必须在十天内制作必需品，这就是第二块布料的寿命。如果在第二十一天之后获得，则必须在原来的三十天结束之前制作成必需品。
If the second cloth turns out to be of different quality from the first, one is under no compulsion to put the two cloths together to make up the requisite if one does not want to, and may continue waiting for further cloth, if one has further expectation of cloth, as long as the life span of the first cloth allows. The Commentary recommends that if the second cloth is of poorer quality than the first, one may determine it as requisite cloth; if the second cloth is of better quality, one may determine the first cloth as requisite cloth and start a new 30-day countdown from the day of receiving the second cloth. 如果第二块布的品质与第一块布的品质不同，如果不愿意，则没有强迫将两块布放在一起来制作成必需品，并且可以继续等待更多的布（如果有期望更多的布），只要第一块布料的寿命允许。《义注》建议，如果第二块布的品质比第一块布的品质差，则可以将其决意为必需布；如果第二块布的品质更好，则可以将第一块布决意为必需布，并从收到第二块布之日起开始新的三十天倒数计时。
Effort 努力
Days are counted by dawns. If, by the 30th dawnrise after one receives the original cloth, one has not determined it, placed it under shared ownership, or abandoned it, it is to be forfeited and the offense confessed. The Sub-commentary adds that if at any time after the first ten days have elapsed one abandons any expectation for further cloth, one must determine the original cloth, place it under shared ownership, or abandon it before the following dawnrise. Otherwise, one commits an offense under NP 1. 日子是按黎明计算的。若在收到原始布料后第30天黎明升起时未决意、置其于共享所有权之下、或放弃，则需舍出并忏罪。《复注》补充说，如果在前十天过去后的任何时候，放弃了对更多布料的任何期望，则必须决意原始布料，将其置于共享所有权之下，或者在下一个黎明升起之前将其放弃。否则，即构成《舍堕》一下的犯戒。
As noted under NP 1, Mv.V.13.13 states that if one is informed of a gift of robe-cloth, the counting of the time span does not begin until the cloth has reached one’s hand. 正如《舍堕》一中所指出的，《大品》.五.13.13规定，如果被告知一件袈裟布的布施，则直到布料到达该人的手里时才开始计算时间跨度。
As in the preceding rules, perception is not a mitigating factor. If one miscounts the dawns or thinks the cloth is properly determined, etc., when in fact it isn’t, there is an offense all the same. The Vibhaṅga states that, with regard to a robe that has not been kept beyond the allowable time, if one perceives it to have been kept beyond that time or if one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. As under the preceding rules, this penalty apparently applies to using the robe. 正如前面的戒条一样，感知不是减轻处罚的因素。如果错误地计算了黎明，或者认为布料是正确被决意的，等等，而事实上并非如此，这仍然是犯戒。《经分别》规定，对于一件没有超过允许时间保存的袈裟，如果认为它的保存时间超过了该时间，或者如果对此有疑问，则惩罚是《突吉罗》。与前述戒条一样，这种惩罚显然适用于使用袈裟。
As for out-of-season cloth received shortly before the beginning of the robe season, the countdown would begin when it is received, would be suspended throughout the robe season, and would resume at the robe season’s end. 对于在袈裟季节开始前不久收到的非时布料，倒数计时将从收到时开始，在整个袈裟季节期间暂停，并在袈裟季节结束时恢复计时。
However, as with many of the above issues, this situation rarely comes up in practice, as it is a simple enough matter to determine the original cloth as requisite cloth or place it under shared ownership until one has enough cloth to make one’s requisite, remove it from those arrangements to make the requisite, and so avoid having to worry about this rule at all. 然而，与上述许多问题一样，这种情况在实践中很少出现，因为决意原始布料为必需布或将其置于共享所有权之下是一件足够简单的事情，直到有足够的布料来制作自己的必需品，从这些安排中移除它来制作必需品为止，因此根本不必担心本戒条。
Forfeiture & confession 舍出 & 忏罪
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth, see Appendix VI. Once the cloth is received in return and is now enough for the requisite one has in mind, it is classed as extra robe-cloth under NP 1. If not, the 30-day countdown starts all over again. 舍出、忏罪、返还布料的程序同前述戒条。关于舍出布料时所使用的巴利语公式，请参阅附录六。一旦收到返还的布料并且现在足以制成心中所需的必需品，它就会被归类为《舍堕》一下的额外袈裟布料。如果不足，30 天倒数将重新开始。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if, before the 30 days are up, the original cloth is lost, destroyed, burnt, or snatched away; if someone else takes it on trust; or if the owner determines it for use, places it under shared ownership, or abandons it. And, as stated above, this rule does not apply when the robe-season privileges are in effect. 若在 30 天结束前，原始布料遗失、毁损、烧毁，或被抢走，并不构成犯戒；如果其他人基于信任拿走它；或者如果所有者决意它来使用、将其置于共享所有权之下，或放弃它。并且，如上所述，当袈裟季节方便利益生效时，本戒条不适用。
Summary: Keeping out-of-season robe-cloth for more than 30 days when it is not enough to make a requisite and one has expectation for more—except when the robe-season privileges are in effect—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：在不足以制成必需品且期望获得更多的情况下，将非时的袈裟布料保留超过 30 天（除非袈裟季节方便利益有效时），是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
4 四
Should any bhikkhu have a used robe washed, dyed, or beaten by a bhikkhunī unrelated to him, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果任何比丘用过的袈裟被非亲戚的比丘尼清洗、染色或搥打，尼萨耆波逸提。
The origin story here is one of the classics of Vinaya literature, although it is hard to say which is more memorable—the dry, matter-of-fact style with which the narrative relates the improbable events, or the reaction of the bhikkhunīs when they hear what has happened. 这里的起源故事是戒律文献的经典之一，虽然很难说哪一个更令人难忘—是用枯燥乏味的、实事求是的叙述方式讲述不可能发生的事件，还是比丘尼当听到发生什么事时的反应。
“Now at that time Ven. Udāyin’s wife had gone forth among the bhikkhunīs. She often went to his place, and he often went to hers. One day he went to her place for a meal-donation. Dressing (§) early in the morning, taking his bowl and (outer) robe, he went to her and on arrival sat down in front of her, exposing his penis. She sat down in front of him, exposing her vagina. He, impassioned, stared at her vagina. Semen was released from his penis (§). He said to her, ‘Go and fetch some water, sister. I’ll wash my lower robe.’
「尔时，优陀夷尊者的妻子出家于比丘尼之中。她常去他那里，他也常去她那里。有一天，他去她的地方给食。一大早就穿好衣服（§），拿著钵和（外）衣，他去她那里，到达后坐在她面前，露出他的阴茎。她在他面前坐下，露出自己的阴道。他热情地盯著她的阴道。精液从他的阴茎泄出来（§）。他对她说：『妹，取水来。我要洗我的下衣。』
“‘Give it here, master. I’ll wash it.’
「『把它放这里，大德。我来洗它。』
“Then she took some of the semen (§) in her mouth and inserted some of it in her vagina. With that, she conceived a child.
「然后她将一些精液（§）放入口中，并将其中一些精液插入阴道。就这样，她怀了一个孩子。
“The bhikkhunīs said, ‘This bhikkhunī has been practicing unchastity. She’s pregnant.’
「比丘尼们说：『这位比丘尼一直在行非梵行。她怀孕了。』
“‘It’s not that I’ve been practicing unchastity.’ And she told them what had happened. The bhikkhunīs criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can this Master Udāyin get a bhikkhunī to wash his used robe?’”
「『并不是我一直在行非梵行。』她告诉她们发生了什么事。比丘尼们批评、抱怨、散布：『这位优陀夷大德怎么能让比丘尼来洗他用过的袈裟呢？』
There are three factors for an offense here: object, effort, and result. 这里的犯戒有三个因素：对象、努力和结果。
Object: 对象：
A used robe. Robe, here, according to the Commentary, means any robe that has been dyed and properly marked (see Pc 58). This is its way of saying that the robe must be a finished cloth requisite of the type suitable for wearing, but need not be determined as one of one’s basic three robes. In other words, it could also be as yet undetermined, or a spare robe determined as a requisite cloth. 一件用过的袈裟。根据《义注》，此处的袈裟是指任何经过染色并适当地标记的袈裟（参见《波逸提》五八）。这是说，袈裟必须是适合穿著的成品布料必需品，但不必决意为基本三衣之一。换句话说，它也可能尚未决意，或者一件备用袈裟被决意为必需布。
Used, according to the Vibhaṅga, means worn around the body at least once. According to the Commentary, it can mean used in other ways—e.g., rolled up as a pillow or worn draped over the shoulder or head—as well. 根据《经分别》的说法，用过意味著至少在身体上穿著一次。根据《义注》，它也可以意味著以其他方式使用，例如卷起来作为枕头或披在肩膀或头上。
The Vibhaṅga adds that sitting cloths and bed sheets are grounds for a dukkaṭa; other requisites, grounds for no offense. 《经分别》补充说，坐布和床单则犯《突吉罗》；其他必需品，不犯。
Effort 努力
One tells an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash, dye, or beat the robe. 吩咐一位非亲戚比丘尼清洗、染色或捶打袈裟。
A bhikkhunī, here, means one who has received the double ordination, first in the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and secondly in the Bhikkhu Saṅgha (see BMC2, Chapter 23). A bhikkhunī who has received only her first ordination is grounds for a dukkaṭa. Female trainees and female novices are not grounds for an offense. 此处，比丘尼是指已二部受戒的人，首先在比丘尼僧团受戒，其次在比丘僧团受戒（见《佛教修道准则 第二册》第二十三章）。只受第一部戒的比丘尼则犯《突吉罗》。式叉摩那和沙弥尼则不犯。
Unrelated is explained by the Vibhaṅga as meaning unrelated back through seven grandfathers, either on the father’s or the mother’s side. The Commentary explains further that this means seven generations counted back starting from one’s grandfather. Thus all descendants of one’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers are counted as one’s relatives. In-laws, however, are not. This definition of unrelated applies wherever the Vibhaṅga mentions the word. At the time of the Buddha, perceived ties of kinship extended more widely than they do today, and a bhikkhu at present would be well advised to regard as his relatives only those blood-relations with whom ties of kinship are actually felt. 《经分别》将非亲戚解释为非系属追溯到七代，无论是父亲那边还是母亲那边。《义注》进一步解释说，这意味著从祖父开始计算七代。因此，曾曾曾曾曾曾曾祖父的所有后裔都被算作亲戚。然而，姻亲却不是。此非亲戚的定义适用于《经分别》中提到该字的任何地方。在佛陀时代，人们所感知到的亲属关系比今天更广泛，现在的比丘最好只将那些真正感受到亲属关系的血亲视为他的亲戚。
Perception is not an issue here. If a bhikkhu perceives a bhikkhunī as related when in fact she isn’t, he is subject to the full penalty all the same. If he perceives a related bhikkhunī as unrelated, or if he is in doubt as to whether she is related, he incurs a dukkaṭa in getting her to wash, etc., a robe. 感知在这里无关。如果比丘认为比丘尼有亲属关系，而事实上她没有亲属关系，那么他仍然要受到全额惩罚。如果他认为一位有血缘关系的比丘尼没有血缘关系，或怀疑她是否有血缘关系，他就会因为让她洗袈裟等而犯《突吉罗》。
Telling, according to the Commentary, includes gesturing as well. Thus if a bhikkhunī is washing her robes, and a bhikkhu throws his used robe down next to her, that would fulfill the factor here. 吩咐，根据《义注》，也包括示意动作。因此，如果一位比丘尼正在清洗她的袈裟，而一位比丘将他用过的袈裟扔到她旁边，那就满足了这里的因素。
Result 结果
The bhikkhunī washes, dyes, or beats the robe as requested. 比丘尼依要求清洗、染色或捶打袈裟。
Offenses 犯戒
A bhikkhu who tells an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash, etc., his used robe incurs a dukkaṭa in the telling. (For every effort she then makes toward washing it, the Commentary adds, he incurs an extra dukkaṭa, but there is no basis for this opinion in the Vibhaṅga.) If he tells her to wash it, then when the robe is washed it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. If he tells her to dye it, then when the robe is dyed it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. If he tells her to beat it, then when she has beaten the robe at least once with a stick or her hand, it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The bhikkhu incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya and a dukkaṭa if he gets her to do two of the three actions mentioned in the rule—e.g., washing and dyeing the robe; and a nissaggiya pācittiya and two dukkaṭas if he gets her to do all three. 比丘吩咐非亲戚比丘尼洗涤等，他用过的袈裟会在吩咐时招致《突吉罗》。（《义注》补充道，对于她随后为清洗它所做的每一次努力，他都会招致额外的《突吉罗》，但这种观点在《经分别》中没有任何基础。）如果他告诉她清洗它，那么当袈裟被清洗时，它需被舍出并忏悔《舍堕》罪。如果他告诉她要染色，那么当袈裟被染色时，它需被舍出并忏悔《舍堕》罪。如果他告诉她要搥打它，那么当她用棍子或她的手至少打过一次袈裟时，它需被舍出并忏悔《舍堕》罪。如果比丘让比丘尼做戒条中提到的三种行为中的两种，例如洗涤和染色袈裟，他就会招致一次《舍堕》和一次《突吉罗》。如果他让她做所有这三件事的话，一次《舍堕》和两次《突吉罗》。
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe are the same as under the preceding rules. Once the robe is returned, it counts as an extra robe-cloth under NP 1. 舍出、忏罪、归还袈裟的程序，如同前述戒条。一旦袈裟被归还，它就被视为《舍堕》一之下的额外袈裟布料。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if the bhikkhunī is related to the bhikkhu, if an unrelated bhikkhunī washes the robe unasked, if an unrelated bhikkhunī helps a related bhikkhunī wash it, if the robe has not yet been used, if one gets an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash another type of requisite (aside from a robe, a sitting cloth, or a bed sheet), or if one gets an unrelated female trainee or female novice to wash a used robe. 如果比丘尼与该比丘有亲属关系，如果一个无血缘关系的比丘尼未经要求就洗了袈裟，如果一个无血缘关系的比丘尼帮助有血缘关系的比丘尼洗了它，如果袈裟还没有被使用过，如果让一个没有血缘关系的比丘尼清洗另一种必需品（除了袈裟、坐布或床单）或找一个无血缘关系的式叉摩那或沙弥尼来洗一件用过的袈裟，这并没有犯戒。
The Commentary discusses the case of a bhikkhu who gives a used robe to a female trainee to wash: She takes it, becomes ordained as a bhikkhunī in the meantime, and then washes it. The verdict: He incurs the full penalty under this rule. For the fun of it, the Commentary then discusses the case of a bhikkhu who gives his used robe to a lay man to wash. The lay man undergoes a spontaneous sex change and becomes a bhikkhunī before washing the robe, and again, the bhikkhu incurs the full penalty. What lesson is intended here is hard to say. 《义注》讨论了一位比丘将一件用过的袈裟交给式叉摩那清洗的案例：她接受了它，同时受戒为比丘尼，然后清洗它。判决：根据本戒条，他将受到全额惩罚。为了好玩，《义注》接著讨论了一位比丘将他用过的袈裟交给一位在家男居士清洗的案例。在家男居士在洗袈裟之前经历自发性的变性并成为比丘尼，而同样地，比丘遭受全额惩罚。很难说这里的教训到底是什么。
Summary: Getting an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash, dye, or beat a robe that has been used at least once is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：让非亲戚比丘尼清洗、染色或搥打至少使用过一次的袈裟是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
5 五
Should any bhikkhu accept robe-cloth from the hand of a bhikkhunī unrelated to him—except in exchange—it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果任何比丘从非亲戚比丘尼手中接受袈裟布—除非作为交换—尼萨耆波逸提。
The reason behind this rule is expressed by a single sentence in the origin story: ‘It’s hard for us women to come by things.’ In the original version of the rule, the Buddha made no allowance for accepting robe-cloth in exchange, but this point was later added at the request of the bhikkhunīs. They had tried to exchange robe-cloth with the bhikkhus, who refused because of the rule as it stood at that time, and this upset the bhikkhunīs. As the Commentary explains, their poverty was what made them complain, ‘If the Masters are not on familiar terms with us even to this extent, how are we supposed to keep going?’ 本戒条背后的原因可以用起源故事中的一句话来表达：「我们女人很难得到东西。」在最初版本的戒条中，佛陀不允许接受袈裟作为交换，但这一点是后来应比丘尼的要求而加上去的。她们试图与比丘们交换袈裟，但比丘们因为当时的规定而拒绝了，这让比丘尼们很不高兴。正如《义注》所解释的那样，她们的贫困使她们抱怨，「如果大德与我们的关系不熟悉到这种程度，我们该如何继续前进？」
The offense under this rule is composed of two factors: object and effort. 本戒条下的犯戒由两个因素组成：对象和努力。
Object: 对象：
Any piece of robe-cloth of the six suitable kinds, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. Other requisites are not grounds for an offense. 任何六种适合的袈裟布，尺寸至少为四乘八指宽。其他必需品不犯戒。
Effort 努力
The bhikkhu receives such cloth from an unrelated bhikkhunī and does not give her anything in exchange. 比丘从一位非亲戚的比丘尼那里得到这样的布料，但没有给她任何东西作为交换。
Unrelated bhikkhunī here is defined in the same terms as under the preceding rule: a bhikkhunī who has received the double ordination and is not related to the bhikkhu back through their great x 7 grandfathers. A bhikkhunī who has received only her first ordination, from the bhikkhunīs, is grounds for a dukkaṭa. Female trainees and female novices are not grounds for an offense. 此处非亲戚比丘尼的定义与前一条戒条中的术语相同：已二部受戒的比丘尼，与该比丘的七代曾祖父没有血缘关系。从比丘尼们那里已一部受戒的比丘尼，犯《突吉罗》。式叉摩那和沙弥尼则不犯。
Perception here is not a mitigating factor: According to the Vibhaṅga, even if a bhikkhu perceives an unrelated bhikkhunī as related he is still subject to the penalty. If he perceives a related bhikkhunī as unrelated or if he is in doubt about whether she is related, he incurs a dukkaṭa in receiving a robe from her. 此处感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素：根据《经分别》，即使比丘认为一位非亲戚比丘尼有亲属关系，他仍然会受到惩罚。如果他认为一位亲戚比丘尼没有血缘关系，或者怀疑她是否有血缘关系，他从她那里接受袈裟时就会犯《突吉罗》。
The Commentary adds that even if one does not know that the robe comes from a bhikkhunī—as when many donors place robes in a pile for a bhikkhu, and one of the donors, unbeknownst to him, is a bhikkhunī—this factor is fulfilled all the same. If a bhikkhunī gives robe-cloth to someone else to present to a bhikkhu, though, the bhikkhu commits no offense in accepting it. 《义注》补充说，即使不知道袈裟来自比丘尼——就像许多布施者将袈裟堆成一堆送给比丘，而其中一位布施者在他不知情的情况下是比丘尼——仍然满足了此一因素。然而，如果比丘尼将袈裟交给别人，让其送给比丘，比丘接受它并没有犯戒。
The Commentary also states that receiving need not be hand-to-hand. If a bhikkhunī simply places robe-cloth near a bhikkhu as her way of giving it to him and he accepts it as given, this factor is fulfilled. 《义注》也指出，接收不一定是手对手。如果比丘尼只是将袈裟布放在比丘附近作为布施给比丘的方式，而比丘接受它作为布施，那么这个因素就满足了。
As for the item given in exchange for the cloth, the Vibhaṅga states that it can be worth much more than the cloth or much less. Buddhaghosa quotes the Mahā Paccarī, one of the ancient commentaries, as saying that even if, in return for the cloth, the bhikkhu gives the bhikkhunī a piece of yellow myrobalan—a medicinal fruit, one of the cheapest things imaginable in India—he escapes the penalty under this rule. 至于用布料换取的物品，《经分别》指出，它的价值可能比布料高得多，也可能比布料低很多。佛音引用古代注释书之一《Mahā Paccarī》的话说，即使比丘为了换取布，给比丘尼一块黄色的诃子——一种药用水果，是印度能想像到的最便宜的东西之一——他也逃脱了本戒条的处罚。
Offenses 犯戒
In making an effort to receive robe-cloth from an unrelated bhikkhunī without offering anything in return, a bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa. Once he has obtained the cloth, he must forfeit it and confess the nissaggiya pācittiya offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under the preceding rules. 当比丘试图从非亲戚比丘尼那里接受袈裟布而不提供任何回报时，比丘犯《突吉罗》。一旦他获得了布料，他就必须舍出它并忏悔《舍堕》罪。舍出、忏罪、返还布料的程序同前述戒条。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense: 没有犯戒：
if the bhikkhunī is related; 如果比丘尼有亲属关系；
if the bhikkhunī is not related but the bhikkhu gives her something in exchange; 如果比丘尼没有亲属关系，但比丘给她某物作为交换；
if the bhikkhu takes the cloth on trust; 如果比丘基于信任拿走布料；
if he borrows the cloth; 如果他借布料；
if he accepts a non-cloth requisite; or 如果他接受非布料必需品；或者
if he accepts robe-cloth from a female trainee or female novice. 如果他接受式叉摩那或沙弥尼的袈裟布。
Exchange 交换
The origin story to this rule is where the Buddha explicitly gives permission for bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, female trainees, male novices, and female novices to trade items with one another. NP 20 forbids bhikkhus from trading items with lay people and people ordained in other religions. 本戒条的起源故事，佛陀明确地允许比丘、比丘尼、式叉摩那、沙弥和沙弥尼互相交易物品。《舍堕》二十禁止比丘与俗人和其他宗教出家的人进行物品交易。
Summary: Accepting robe-cloth from an unrelated bhikkhunī without giving her anything in exchange is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：接受非亲戚比丘尼的袈裟布而不给她任何东西作为交换，是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
6 六
Should any bhikkhu ask for robe-cloth from a man or woman householder unrelated to him, except at the proper occasion, it is to be forfeited and confessed. Here the proper occasion is this: The bhikkhu’s robe has been snatched away or destroyed. This is the proper occasion here.
如果任何比丘向非亲戚男女居士索取袈裟布，除非在适当的场合，尼萨耆波逸提。此处适当的场合是：比丘的袈裟被抢走或毁坏。这是这里的适当场合。
“Now at that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan was accomplished in giving Dhamma talks. A certain financier’s son went to him and, on arrival, bowed down to him and sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Upananda the Sakyan instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged him with a Dhamma talk. Then the financier’s son… 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?’
「尔时，优波难陀尊者释迦子在说法方面颇有成就。一位金融家的儿子走到他面前，一到就向他敬礼，坐在一边。当他坐在那里时，优波难陀尊者释迦子以佛法开示教导、督促、唤醒和鼓励他。然后金融家的儿子……对他说：『大德，请告诉我，我能为您提供您需要的东西：袈裟布？钵食？住处？病资具药物？』
“‘If you want to give me something, friend, then give me one of those cloths (you are wearing).’
「『如果你想给我一些东西，朋友，那就给我一件（你穿的）衣服。』
“‘I’m the son of a good family, venerable sir. How can I go about wearing one cloth? Wait till I go home. After going home, I will send you one of these cloths or a more beautiful one.’
「『大德，我是一位良家子。我怎能只穿一件衣服呢？等我回家吧。回家后，我会给你送一件这样的衣服，或者一件更漂亮的衣服。』
“A second time… A third time, Ven. Upananda said to him, ‘If you want to give me something, friend, then give me one of those cloths.’
「第二次……第三次，优波难陀尊者对他说：『朋友，如果你想给我什么东西，就给我其中一件衣服吧。』
“‘I’m the son of a good family, venerable sir. How can I go about wearing one cloth? Wait till I go home. After going home, I will send you one of these cloths or a more beautiful one.’
「『大德，我是一位良家子。我怎能只穿一件衣服呢？等我回家吧。回家后，我会给你送一件这样的衣服，或者一件更漂亮的衣服。』
“‘What’s with this offer without wanting to give, friend, in that having made the offer you don’t give?’
「『朋友，提出了不想给予的邀请，但不想给予的这个邀请是怎么回事？』
“So the financier’s son, being pressured by Ven. Upananda, left having given him one cloth. People seeing him said to him, ‘Why, master, are you going around wearing only one cloth?’
「所以金融家的儿子，受到了优波难陀尊者的压力，给了他一件衣服就离开了。人们看见他就问他：『贤者，你为什么只穿一件衣服到处走？』
“He told them what had happened. So the people criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘They’re arrogant, these Sakyan-son monks, and malcontent. It’s no simple matter to make a reasonable offer to them. How can they, after being made a reasonable offer by the financier’s son, take his cloth?’”
「他告诉他们发生了什么事。于是人们批评、抱怨、传播：『这些释迦子僧人傲慢，不满。向他们提出合理的邀请并不是一件简单的事。在金融家的儿子提出合理的邀请后，他们怎么能拿走他的衣服呢？』」
The factors for an offense here are three. 这里的犯戒因素有三。
1) Object: a piece of any of the six suitable kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. 1）对象：六种合适的袈裟布料中的任何一种，尺寸至少为四乘八指宽。
2) Effort: One asks, except at the proper time, for such cloth from a lay person who is not related back through one’s great x 7 grandfathers. Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if one perceives the lay person to be related when in fact he/she isn’t, that fulfills the factor here. 2）努力：除非在适当的场合之外，向一位与自己的七代祖父没有血缘关系的在家人索取这样的布料。在这里，感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素。即使认为在家人有血缘关系，但实际上他/她没有血缘关系，这也满足了这里的因素。
3) Result: One obtains the cloth. 3）结果：获得布料。
The proper occasions 适当的场合
Snatched away, according to the Vibhaṅga, refers to a robe snatched by anyone at all, even a king. This would cover cases not only where the robe has been stolen but also where it has been confiscated by a government official. Destroyed means burnt, carried away by water, eaten by such things as rats or termites, or worn out by use—although the Sub-commentary adds here that worn out by use means worn to the point where the robe can no longer offer proper covering for the body. 根据《经分别》的说法，被抢走是指被任何人，甚至国王，抢走的袈裟。这不仅涵盖袈裟被盗的情况，还包括袈裟被政府官员没收的情况。毁坏是指被烧毁、被水冲走、被老鼠或白蚁之类的东西吃掉，或者因使用而磨损——尽管《复注》在这里补充说，因使用而磨损是指磨损到袈裟不再能提供适当遮盖身体的程度。
If all of a bhikkhu’s robes are snatched away or destroyed, the Vibhaṅga says that he is not to “come” naked, which apparently means that he should not approach other people while naked. To do so incurs a dukkaṭa (as opposed to the thullaccaya Mv.VIII.28.1 imposes on a bhikkhu who chooses to go about naked when he has robes to wear). If a bhikkhu with no cloth to cover his body happens on an unoccupied Saṅgha residence, he is permitted to take any cloth he finds there—robes, sheets, mats, pillow cases, or whatever—to wear as a makeshift robe as long as he has the intention of returning it when he obtains a proper robe. Otherwise he should make a covering of grass and leaves. 如果比丘的所有袈裟都被抢走或毁坏，《经分别》说他不应该赤身裸体『来』，这显然意味著他不应该赤身裸体接近其他人。这样做犯《突吉罗》（与《大品》.八.28.1中相反，当比丘有袈裟时，他选择赤身裸体，犯《偷兰遮》）。如果比丘没有衣服遮盖自己的身体，碰巧在无人居住的僧伽住处，他可以拿走那里找到的任何衣服——袈裟、床单、垫子、枕头套或任何东西——作为临时袈裟穿著，只要当他获得一件合适的袈裟时，他打算归还它。否则他应该用草和树叶覆盖。
The Commentary adds several points here: 《义注》在此补充了几点：
1) If one picks leaves or cuts grass to make a covering for oneself under these circumstances, one is exempt from the penalty for damaging plant life under Pc 11. In other words, the allowance here takes precedence over the prohibition in that rule, rather than vice versa. (The Vibhaṅga does not clearly state which takes precedence over which.) Other bhikkhus are also exempt from that penalty if they pick grass and leaves to help make a covering for a bhikkhu whose robes have been snatched away or destroyed.
1）如果在这种情况下采摘树叶或割草为自己做遮盖物，则可以免除《波逸提》十一规定的破坏植物生命的惩罚。换句话说，这里的开缘优先于该戒条中的禁止，而不是反之亦然。（《经分别》并没有明确说明哪个比哪个优先。）其他比丘如果摘草和树叶来帮助袈裟被抢走或毁坏的比丘做遮蔽物，也可以免受该惩罚。
2) If, after getting one’s makeshift robe from an unoccupied Saṅgha residence, one has to go a great distance before getting a proper robe, one may leave the makeshift robe with any convenient monastery as property of the Saṅgha.
2）如果从无人居住的僧伽住处获得临时袈裟后，必须走很远的距离才能获得合适的袈裟，则可以将临时袈裟留在任何方便的寺院，作为僧团的财产。
3) If, under these circumstances, one asks lay people for cloth and receives cloth of a type or color that normally is not allowed, there is no offense in wearing it until one can obtain suitable cloth.
3）在这种情况下，如果向在家人要衣服，却收到了通常不允许的类型或颜色的衣服，那么在获得合适的衣服之前，穿著它并没有犯戒。
4) If one’s robes have been taken on trust by another bhikkhu or novice, they count as “snatched away” for the purpose of this and the following rule.
4）如果袈裟基于信任被另一位比丘或沙弥拿走，就本戒条和以下戒条而言，它们被视为「被抢走」。
The following rule adds extra stipulations on how much cloth one may ask for in circumstances like this. 以下戒条在这种情况下可以要求多少布料添加了额外的规定。
Offenses 犯戒
The act of asking for robe-cloth from an unrelated lay person not at the proper time entails a dukkaṭa. The cloth, once obtained, is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under the preceding rules. The Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth is given in Appendix VI. 在适当的场合向非亲戚居士索取袈裟布的行为犯《突吉罗》。布料一旦获得，将被舍出，并忏悔《舍堕》罪。舍出、忏罪、返还布料的程序同前述戒条。附录六给出了用于舍出布料的巴利语公式。
If one perceives a related householder as unrelated, or if one is in doubt about whether he/she is related, one incurs a dukkaṭa in asking for and receiving a robe from him/her. 如果认为一位有亲属关系的居士没有亲属关系，或者怀疑他/她是否有亲属关系，那么向他/她索要及接受一件袈裟时，各犯一次《突吉罗》。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if— 根据《经分别》，如果符合以下条件，则不犯戒—
one asks at the right time,
在适当的时候要求，
one asks from one’s relations,
向自己的亲戚要求，
one asks from people who have invited one to ask for cloth,
向已邀请自己的人索取布料，
one obtains cloth through one’s own resources, or
透过自己的资源获得布料，或者
one asks for the sake of another. (None of the texts state specifically whether another here includes only other bhikkhus, or bhikkhunīs and novices as well. We will assume that all co-religionists are covered under this exemption.)
为了另一个人而要求。（没有任何文献具体说明这里的另一个是否只包括其他比丘，或者也包括比丘尼和沙弥。我们假设所有同宗教者都包含在这项豁免范围内。）
The Commentary explains that this last point means two things: One may ask for cloth for the sake of another (co-religionist) (1) from one’s own relations or from people who have invited one to ask for cloth or (2) from the relatives of that (co-religionist) or from people who have invited him/her to ask. This point applies for all rules where one is allowed to ask for the sake of another. 《义注》解释说，最后一点意味著两件事：可以为了另一个人（同宗教者）索取布料（1）从自己的亲戚或邀请自己索要布料的人，或者（2）从该人（同宗教者）的亲戚或邀请他/她要求的人。这一点适用于所有允许为另一个人请求的戒条。
On the surface, it would seem that the allowance to ask for another should mean that one should also be allowed to ask from anyone for the sake of another bhikkhu whose robe has been snatched away or destroyed. However, the origin story to the following rule shows why this is not so: Lay donors can be extremely generous when they learn that a bhikkhu’s robes have been snatched away or destroyed, and it is important to place limits on how much cloth can be requested, and on how many bhikkhus can do the requesting, so as not to take unfair advantage of that generosity. 从表面上看，允许为了另一个比丘要求似乎意味著，也应该允许为了另一位袈裟被抢走或毁坏的比丘而向任何人请求。然而，以下戒条的起源故事表明了为什么事实并非如此：当在家布施者得知比丘的袈裟被抢走或毁坏时，他们可能会非常慷慨，并且重要的是对可以请求的布料数量进行限制，以及有多少比丘可以提出请求，以免不公平地利用这种慷慨。
As for obtaining cloth through one’s own resources, the Sub-commentary notes that one should be careful to do it in such a way as not to commit an offense under NP 20. Again, this applies to all rules that contain this exemption. 至于透过自己的资源获得布料，《复注》指出，应该小心行事，以免触犯《舍堕》二十下的罪行。同样，这适用于包含此豁免的所有戒条。
Summary: Asking for and receiving robe-cloth from an unrelated lay person, except when one’s robes have been snatched away or destroyed, is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：向非亲戚的在家人索取和接受袈裟，除非他的袈裟被抢走或毁坏，是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
7 七
If that unrelated man or woman householder presents the bhikkhu with many robes (pieces of robe-cloth), he is to accept at most (enough for) an upper and a lower robe. If he accepts more than that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果那位非亲戚的男居士或女居士向比丘献上许多袈裟（袈裟布），他最多接受（足够）一件上衣和一件下衣。如果他接受的超过该数量，尼萨耆波逸提。
This rule is a continuation of the preceding one, dealing with the protocol in asking for robe-cloth when one’s robes have been snatched away or destroyed. The origin story is as follows: 本戒条是前一条戒条的延续，处理当袈裟被抢走或毁坏时索要袈裟的行仪（礼节）。故事的起源是这样的：
“At that time some group-of-six bhikkhus, having approached bhikkhus whose robes had been snatched away, said, ‘Friends, the Blessed One has allowed those whose robes are snatched away or destroyed to ask an unrelated man or woman householder for robe-cloth. Ask for robe-cloth, friends.’
「尔时，有六群比丘，接近袈裟被抢走的比丘，说道：『诸位朋友，世尊允许那些袈裟被抢走或毁坏的比丘，向非亲戚的男女居士索要袈裟布。朋友们，索要袈裟布。』
“‘Never mind, friends. We have already received (enough) robe-cloth.’
「『没关系，朋友们。我们已经收到了（足够的）袈裟布。』
“‘We are asking for your sake, friends’ (§—reading āyasmantānaṁ atthāya with the Thai and Sri Lankan editions of the Canon).
「『朋友们，我们为你们索要』（§—在泰文版和斯里兰卡版的《圣典》拼读为 āyasmantānaṁ atthāya ）。
“‘Then go ahead and ask.’
「『那就去问吧。』
“So the group-of-six bhikkhus, having approached unrelated householders, said, ‘Bhikkhus have come whose robes were snatched away. Give robe-cloth for them.’ And they asked for a lot of robe-cloth. Then a certain man, sitting in a meeting hall, said to another man, ’Master, bhikkhus have come whose robes were snatched away. I gave robe-cloth for them.’
「于是，六群比丘来到非亲戚的在家人面前，说：『袈裟被抢走的比丘们来了。给他们袈裟布。』并且他们要了很多袈裟布。那时，有一个人坐在集会处里，对另一个人说：『贤者，袈裟被抢走的比丘们来了。我给了他们袈裟布。』
“And he said, ‘I gave, too.’
「他说，『我也给了。』
“And another said, ‘I gave, too.’
「另一位说，『我也给了。』
“So they criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks, not knowing moderation, ask for a lot of robe-cloth? Will the Sakyan-son monks deal in the cloth business? Or will they set up a shop?’”
「于是他们批评、抱怨、散播：『这些沙门释子不知节制，怎么能要那么多袈裟布呢？沙门释子将做布料生意吗？或者他们会开一家商店吗？』」
Protocol 行仪
The Vibhaṅga states that when a bhikkhu’s robes are snatched away or destroyed, the amount of cloth he may ask for and accept from an unrelated householder who has not previously invited him to ask for cloth depends on the number of robes snatched away or destroyed. If three, he may ask for and accept only enough for two. If two, he may ask for and accept only enough for one. If one, he should not ask for any cloth at all. 《经分别》规定，当比丘的袈裟被抢走或毁坏时，他可以向先前未曾邀请他索要布料的非亲戚居士索要和接受布匹的数量，取决于被抢走或毁坏的袈裟的数量。如果是三件，他可以要求并只接受足够两件的份量。如果是两件，他以要求并只接受足够一件的量。如果是一件，他根本不该索取任何布料。
The K/Commentary mentions that these stipulations apply only when robes from one’s determined set of three are snatched away or destroyed. The way it phrases this restriction suggests that if one’s spare robes are snatched away or destroyed, one has no right to ask for robe-cloth at all. The Sub-commentary, though, interprets this restriction not as a restriction but as an allowance opening a loophole so that if one loses any of one’s spare robes, one may ask for as much cloth as one likes. It then accuses the K/Commentary of contradicting the Canon and Commentary, and of ignoring the purpose of the rule, which is to teach moderation and fewness of wants. Its conclusion: The protocol applies when any of one’s robes are snatched away or destroyed—whether undetermined, determined as the basic set of three, or determined as requisite cloths. K/《义注》提到，这些规定仅适用于决意的三衣被抢走或毁坏的情况。这种限制的措辞方式表明，如果备用袈裟被抢走或毁坏，那么他根本没有权利索要袈裟布。然而，《复注》将这一限制解释为不是一种限制，而是一种开缘，打开了一个漏洞，这样如果丢失了任何一件备用袈裟，想要求多少布料都可以。然后，它指责K/《义注》与《圣典》和《义注》相矛盾，并忽略了本戒条的目的，即教导节制和少欲。结论是：当任何一件袈裟被抢走或毁坏时，本行仪都适用——无论是未决意的、决意为基本三衣，还是决意为必需布。
If, however, we recall that originally each bhikkhu had only one set of three robes, and that the allowance in the preceding rule was to relieve the hardship of having little or nothing to wear, we can agree with the K/Commentary’s interpretation: that the allowance in the preceding rule applies only when robes from one’s basic set of three are snatched away or destroyed, and that this is the case we are concerned with here. If one’s spare robes get snatched away or destroyed, one may not make use of the allowance to ask for robe-cloth at all. 然而，如果我们记得最初每个比丘只有一套三衣 ，而前述戒条中的开缘是为了减轻几乎没有或没有衣服可穿的困难，我们就可以同意K/《义注》的解释：前述戒条中的开缘仅适用于基本的三衣被抢走或毁坏时，这就是我们这里关注的情况。如果备用袈裟被抢走或毁坏，根本不可以用这个开缘来索取袈裟布。
The Vibhaṅga states further that if the householder presents one with a great deal of cloth, with the invitation to take as much as one likes, one should take only enough cloth to make the allowable number of robes. The non-offense clauses add that one may take excess cloth if one promises to return the excess when one has finished making one’s robe(s). And if the donor tells one to keep the excess, one may do so without penalty. 《经分别》进一步指出，如果居士赠送大量布料，并邀请拿取任意数量的布料，则应该只拿足够制作允许袈裟数量的布料。不犯条款还补充说，如果承诺在完成袈裟制作后归还多余的布料，则可以拿走多余的布料。如果布施者告诉说保留多余的部分，则可以这样做而不会受到惩罚。
The factors of the offense for overstepping the bounds of this protocol are three. 违反本行仪规定的犯戒行为的要素有三。
1) Object: any piece of the six kinds of suitable robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. 1）对象：六种合适的袈裟布中的任何一件，尺寸至少为四乘八指宽。
2) Effort: One asks for more than the allowable amount of robe-cloth from an unrelated householder who has not previously made an invitation to ask. Perception is not a mitigating factor here: Even if one perceives the householder to be related when in fact he/she isn’t—or feels that he/she would be happy to offer the excess cloth even though he/she has given no previous invitation to ask—this factor is fulfilled all the same. 2）努力：向一位没有亲属关系的居士索取超过允许数量的袈裟布，而该居士以前没有提出过邀请询问。在这里，感知不是一个减轻惩罚的因素：即使认为居士有亲戚关系，但实际上他/她没有，或者感觉他/她很乐意提供多余的布料，即使他/她以前没有提出过邀请询问——这个因素仍然得到满足。
3) Result: One obtains the excess robe-cloth. 3）结果：获得过量的袈裟布。
The offenses here are as follows: a dukkaṭa for asking in the way that fulfills the factor of effort, and a nissaggiya pācittiya when all three factors are fulfilled. The procedures to follow in forfeiture, confession, and receiving the cloth in return are the same as under the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth, see Appendix VI. 这里的犯戒如下：以满足努力因素的方式索取，犯《突吉罗》，以及当所有三个因素都满足时，犯《舍堕》。舍出、忏罪、返还布料时所遵循的程序，与前述戒条相同。关于舍出布料时所使用的巴利语公式，请参阅附录六。
If one perceives a related householder as unrelated, or if one is in doubt about whether he/she is related, one incurs a dukkaṭa in asking for and obtaining excess robe-cloth from him/her. 如果认为一位有亲属关系的居士没有亲属关系，或怀疑他/她是否有亲属关系，那么向他/她索取及获得过量的袈裟布时，各犯一次《突吉罗》。
Non-offenses 不犯
In addition to the two cases mentioned above—one takes excess cloth with the promise to return the excess when one has finished one’s robe(s), and the donors tell one to keep the excess—there is no offense in taking excess cloth if: 除了上述两种情况——拿走过量的布，并承诺在完成袈裟后归还过量的部分，布施者告诉说保留过量的部分——在以下情况下，拿过量的布并没有犯戒：
the donors are offering cloth for reasons other than that one’s robes were snatched away or destroyed (e.g., they are impressed with one’s learning, says the Commentary);
布施者提供布料的原因并非是袈裟被抢走或毁坏（例如，《义注》说，他们对某人的学识印象深刻）；
one is asking from one’s relatives or people who have previously made one an invitation to ask for cloth (before one’s robes were snatched away or destroyed, says the Sub-commentary);
向自己的亲戚或以前提出邀请询问的人索取布料（《复注》说，在袈裟被抢走或毁坏之前）；
or one obtains the cloth by means of one’s own resources.
或以自己的资源获得布料。
The Commentary calls attention to the fact that the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses make no mention of asking for the sake of another. It then draws the conclusion, based on the fact that the rule was formulated in response to bhikkhus’ requesting excess cloth for the sake of others, that in the circumstances mentioned in this rule, one may not ask for excess cloth for the sake of others. The Sub-commentary takes issue with this, and presents three arguments for its case, with the third argument being the most compelling: If asking for another’s sake is not allowable here, it should also not be allowable in the preceding rule. However, the Sub-commentary misses the point of the origin story, which is that lay donors can be especially generous when they learn that a bhikkhu’s robes have been snatched away or lost. If all other bhikkhus could request cloth for his sake, there is no limit to the amount of cloth they could request, and this would be an unfair exploitation of the donors’ generosity. 《义注》提醒注意这样一个事实，即《经分别》的不犯条款没有提及为他人而请求。基于本戒条是针对比丘为他人索取多余布匹而制定的事实，得出结论：在本戒条所述的情况下，不得为他人索取多余布匹。《复注》对此提出了异议，并提出了三个论点，其中第三个论点最引人注目：如果这里不允许为他人请求，那么在前面的戒条中也应该不允许。然而，《复注》忽略了起源故事的要点，即当在家布施者得知比丘的袈裟被抢走或丢失时，他们会特别慷慨。如果所有其他比丘都可以为他索取布匹，那么他们可以索取布匹的数量就没有限制，这将是对布施者慷慨行为的不公平剥削。
Summary: Asking for and receiving excess robe-cloth from unrelated lay people when one’s robes have been snatched away or destroyed is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：当袈裟被抢走或毁坏时，向非亲戚的在家人索要并接受多余的袈裟布料，是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
8 八
In case a man or woman householder unrelated (to the bhikkhu) prepares a robe fund for the sake of a bhikkhu, thinking, “Having purchased a robe with this robe fund, I will clothe the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe”: If the bhikkhu, not previously invited, approaching (the householder) should make a stipulation with regard to the robe, saying, “It would be good indeed, sir, if you clothed me (with a robe), having purchased a robe of such-and-such a sort with this robe fund”—out of a desire for something fine—it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果（与比丘）非亲戚的男女居士为比丘准备袈裟资金，心想：「用此袈裟资金购买了袈裟后，我将给名叫某某的比丘穿上袈裟。」：如果比丘，未经事先邀请，来（居士）对袈裟作出规定，说道：「先生，如果您用这个袈裟资金，购买了一件这样或那样袈裟，给我穿上（袈裟），那就太好了。」出于对美好事物的渴望，尼萨耆波逸提。
“Now at that time a certain householder said to his wife, ‘I will clothe Master Upananda with a robe.’ A certain bhikkhu on his alms round overheard the man saying this. So he went to Ven. Upananda the Sakyan and on arrival said to him, ‘You have a lot of merit, friend Upananda. In that place over there a certain man said to his wife, ‘I will clothe Master Upananda with a robe.’
「尔时，有一位居士对他的妻子说：『我要给优波难陀大德穿上袈裟。』有一位正在托钵的比丘无意中听到那人这样说。于是他就去找释迦子优波难陀尊者，抵达后对他说：『朋友优波难陀，你有很多功德。在那里，有一个人对他的妻子说：『我要给优波难陀大德穿上袈裟。』
“‘He’s my supporter, my friend.’
「『他是我的支持者（檀越），我的朋友。』
“So Ven. Upananda the Sakyan went to the man and on arrival said to him, ‘My friend, is it true that you want to clothe me with a robe?’
「所以释迦子优波难陀尊者来到那人那里，一到就对他说：『我的朋友，你真的想给我穿袈裟吗？』
“‘Now, wasn’t I just thinking, “I will clothe Master Upananda with a robe”?’
「『现在，我不是在想：「我要给优波难陀大德穿上袈裟」吗？』
“‘Well, if you want to clothe me with a robe, clothe me with a robe like this. What use is it to me to be clothed with a robe I won’t use?’
「『好吧，如果你想给我穿上一件袈裟，就给我穿上这样的一件袈裟吧。穿一件我不会用的袈裟对我来说有什么用呢？』
“So the man criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘They’re arrogant, these Sakyan-son monks, and malcontent. It’s no simple matter to clothe them with a robe. How can this Master Upananda, without having first been invited by me, make a stipulation concerning a robe?’”
「于是，那个人批评、抱怨并传播：『这些沙门释迦子很傲慢，而且不知足。给他们穿上袈裟可不是一件简单的事。这位优波难陀大德，未经我事先邀请，怎能对袈裟做出规定呢？』
The situation covered by this rule is this: An unrelated lay person has put aside resources for purchasing robe-cloth to present to a bhikkhu but without yet asking the bhikkhu what kind of cloth he wants. The factors for the offense here are four. 本戒条所涵盖的情况是这样的：一个非亲戚的居士已经拨出资源购买袈裟布来供养比丘，但还没有询问比丘他想要什么样的布。这里的犯戒因素有四个。
Object 对象
The Vibhaṅga here does not specify a minimum size for the cloth, nor does it list the types of thread from which the cloth has to be made. Because the primary focus of its discussion is on the price of the cloth, the size and type of cloth are apparently irrelevant. Any piece of cloth of any type, no matter how small, would fulfill this factor. 此处《经分别》没有指定布料的最小尺寸，也没有列出制作布料的线的类型。因为讨论的主要焦点是布料的价格，所以布料的尺寸和类型显然无关紧要。任何类型的任何一块布，无论多小，都可以满足这个因素。
The texts also do not mention whether funds for other requisites would be grounds for a lesser offense or no offense under this rule, although given the spirit of the rule it would be a wise policy for a bhikkhu not to make stipulations, when uninvited, to a lay person who has prepared funds for purchasing any kind of requisite for his use. 文献也没有提及用于其他必需品的资金是否会成为本戒条下较轻犯戒或不犯戒的理由，尽管考虑到本戒条的精神，对于比丘来说，明智之举是，在未经邀请的情况下，不要对已准备好资金购买任何必需品供他使用的在家人作出规定。
Intention 意图
One wants to get a better piece of cloth than the lay person is planning to buy. The Vibhaṅga defines better as “better quality, higher price.” The Commentary, for some reason, limits better to “higher price,” but there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to support this. 想要得到一块比在家人打算购买的更好的布。《经分别》将更好的定义为「更好的品质，更高的价格」。由于某种原因，《义注》将更好的限制为「更高的价格」，但《经分别》中没有任何内容可以支持这一点。
Effort 努力
One requests the unrelated lay person to improve the cloth. Example statements in the Vibhaṅga are: “Make it long, make it broad, make it tightly-woven, make it soft.” As in the previous rules, perception is not a factor here. Even if one perceives the lay person to be related when he/she actually isn’t, that would fulfill the factor here all the same. 请求非亲戚在家人改进布料。《经分别》中的范例语句是：「使其长，使其宽，使其紧密编织，使其柔软。」与之前的戒条一样，感知在这里不是一个因素。即使认为在家人有血缘关系，而他/她实际上没有血缘关系，那仍然会满足这里的因素。
Result 结果
One obtains the long, broad, etc., cloth that the householder bought in line with one’s request. The way the Vibhaṅga defines this factor suggests that whether the lay person actually spends more on the cloth than he/she actually planned is not an issue here. 获得居士依照自己的要求购买的长的、宽的等布料。《经分别》定义这个因素的方式表明，在家人实际上在布料上花费的钱是否比他/她实际计划的多，在这里是无关的。
Offenses 犯戒
When the donor buys the cloth in line with one’s request, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. When one obtains the cloth it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The procedures to follow in forfeiture, confession, and receiving the cloth in return are the same as in the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth, see Appendix VI. 当布施者依照要求购买布料时，惩罚是《突吉罗》。当获得这块布时，该布料须被舍出，并忏悔《舍堕》罪。舍出、忏罪、返还布料所遵循之程序，与前述戒条相同。关于舍出布料时所使用的巴利语公式，请参阅附录六。
If one perceives a related householder as unrelated, or if one is in doubt about whether he/she is related, one incurs a dukkaṭa in making a request and receiving cloth from him/her in the manner forbidden by this rule. 如果认为一个有亲属关系的居士没有亲属关系，或者如果怀疑他/她是否有亲属关系，那么以本戒条禁止的方式提出请求并从他/她那里接受布料，犯《突吉罗》。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if: 根据《经分别》，如果满足以下条件之一，则不犯戒：
the lay person is a relative or has invited one to ask for cloth; 在家人是亲戚或已经提出邀请索取布料；
one asks for another’s sake; 为另一个人要求；
one is getting the robe with one’s own resources; or 以自己的资源获得袈裟；或者
one gets the lay person, who originally wanted to purchase a more expensive piece of cloth, to purchase a less expensive one. 让原本想要购买更昂贵的布料的在家人购买比较不昂贵的布料。
The Commentary adds that there is also no offense if one’s request to improve the cloth results in a cloth equal in price to the cloth the lay person had in mind—but, as noted above, the Vibhaṅga does not support the Commentary here. 《义注》补充说，如果要求改进布料，结果得到的布料与在家人心目中的布料价格相同，也没有犯戒——但是，如上所述，《经分别》不支持这里的《义注》。
The Vibhaṅga’s Word-commentary to this rule also indicates that there would be no offense if, after one has asked for a better piece of cloth, the lay person ignores the request, buying and presenting the cloth he/she originally had in mind. 《经分别》对本戒条的单字注释也表明，如果要求一件更好的布料后，在家人不理睬这个要求，购买并供养他/她最初心目中的布料，也不犯戒。
Summary: When a lay person who is not a relative is planning to get robe-cloth for one but has yet to ask one what kind of cloth one wants: Receiving the cloth after making a request that would improve it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：当非亲戚的在家计划为自己获取袈裟布时，但尚未询问自己想要哪种布料时：在提出改善布料的请求后收到布料，是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
9 九
In case two householders—men or women— unrelated (to the bhikkhu) prepare separate robe funds for the sake of a bhikkhu, thinking, “Having purchased separate robes with these separate robe funds of ours, we will clothe the bhikkhu named so-and-so with robes”: If the bhikkhu, not previously invited, approaching (them) should make a stipulation with regard to the robe, saying, “It would be good indeed, sirs, if you clothed me (with a robe), having purchased a robe of such-and-such a sort with these separate robe funds, the two (funds) together for one (robe)”—out of a desire for something fine—it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果两位（与比丘）没有血缘关系的居士——男性或女性——为比丘准备了不同的袈裟资金，心想：「用我们这些不同的袈裟资金购买了不同的袈裟后，我们将给名叫某某的比丘穿上衣服。」：如果比丘在未事先邀请的情况下接近（他们），对袈裟作出规定，说道：「先生们，如果您用这些不同的袈裟资金，这两个（资金）合在一起为一件（袈裟），购买了某某类型的袈裟，给我穿上（袈裟），那就太好了。」——出于对美好事物的渴望——尼萨耆波逸提。
Explanations for this training rule are the same as those for the preceding one, the only difference being in the factor of effort: One asks the two donors to put their funds together to purchase one piece of cloth. The question of whether the request would raise the amount of money they would have to spend is not an issue here. A piece of cloth equal in price to the original two pieces would still fulfill the factor of effort here. However, the Vibhaṅga says that if one gets the donors to provide a piece of cloth less expensive than they had originally planned, there is no offense. 本学处的解释与前一条相同，唯一的区别在于努力因素：要求两位布施者将他们的资金放在一起购买一块布料。该要求是否会增加他们必须花费的资金的问题在此处无关。一块布的价格与原来的两块布相同，在这里仍然会满足努力因素。然而，《经分别》表示，如果让布施者提供比他们最初计划的价格较不昂贵的布，并没有犯戒。
The Commentary adds that, under the conditions mentioned here, making requests of three or more people to combine their robe funds into one is also covered by this rule. 《义注》补充说，在此提到的条件下，提出三人或三人以上将其袈裟资金合并为一笔的请求也适用于本戒条。
Summary: When two or more lay people who are not one’s relatives are planning to get separate pieces of robe-cloth for one but have yet to ask one what kind of cloth one wants: Receiving cloth from them after asking them to pool their funds to get one piece of cloth—out of a desire for something fine—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：当两位或两位以上非亲戚的居士计划为自己获取不同件袈裟布时，但尚未询问自己想要哪种布时：请他们集资来获取单一件布料后，从他们那里收到布料—出于对美好事物的渴望—是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
10 十
In case a king, a royal official, a brahman, or a householder sends a robe fund for the sake of a bhikkhu via a messenger, (saying,) “Having purchased a robe with this robe fund, clothe the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe”: If the messenger, approaching the bhikkhu, should say, “This is a robe fund being delivered for the sake of the venerable one. May the venerable one accept this robe fund,” then the bhikkhu is to tell the messenger: “We do not accept robe funds, my friend. We accept robes (robe-cloth) as are proper according to season.”
若国王、王官、婆罗门、居士透过使者为比丘送衣资，（说：）「用此衣资购买衣后，送衣给某某比丘披著」：如果使者接近比丘时如此说：「这是为尊者而交付的衣资。愿尊者接受此衣资。」然后，比丘要告诉使者：「我们不接受衣资，我的朋友。我们接受根据季节合适的衣（衣布料）。」
If the messenger should say to the bhikkhu, “Does the venerable one have a steward?” then, bhikkhus, if the bhikkhu desires a robe, he may indicate a steward—either a monastery attendant or a lay follower—(saying,) “That, my friend, is the bhikkhus’ steward.”
若使者对比丘如此说：「尊者有净人吗？」那么，比丘们，如果比丘想要一件衣，他可以指示一位净人——或者是寺院侍者，或者是在家人——（说：）「我的朋友，那是比丘的净人。」
If the messenger, having instructed the steward and going to the bhikkhu, should say, “I have instructed the steward the venerable one indicated. May the venerable one go (to him) and he will clothe you with a robe in season,” then the bhikkhu, desiring a robe and approaching the steward, may prompt and remind him two or three times, “I have need of a robe.” Should (the steward) produce the robe after being prompted and reminded two or three times, that is good.
如果使者在交代了净人之后，前往比丘那里，如此说：「我已经交代了尊者所指示的净人。愿尊者前往，他会在适当的时候送衣给您披著。」然后，比丘想要衣，就到净人那里，可以催促、提醒他两三遍：「我需要衣。」如果在两、三次催促、提醒时获得该衣，这实在很好。
If he should not produce the robe, (the bhikkhu) should stand in silence four times, five times, six times at most for that purpose. Should (the steward) produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has stood in silence for that purpose four, five, six times at most, that is good.
如果没有获得，那么（比丘）就应该默立四次、五次、至多六次。如果（净人）在（比丘）为此目的而默立四次、五次、至多六次之后，获得该衣，这实在很好
If he should not produce the robe (at that point), should he then produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has endeavored further than that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
假如没有获得衣（此时），如果在（比丘）更努力之后获得衣，尼萨耆波逸提。
If he should not produce (the robe), then the bhikkhu himself should go to the place from which the robe fund was brought, or a messenger should be sent (to say), “The robe fund that you, venerable sirs, sent for the sake of the bhikkhu has given no benefit to the bhikkhu at all. May you be united with what is yours. May what is yours not be lost.” This is the proper course here.
如果没有获得（衣），那么比丘就应该亲自到衣资带来的地方，或者派一个使者（说）：「尊敬的先生们，你们曾指定为比丘所送去的衣资根本没有给比丘带来任何利益。愿属于你的回归于你。愿属于你的不失去。这于此是如法的。
The protocols surrounding gifts of money and their proper use are quite complex—much more complex than even this long training rule would indicate—and require a detailed explanation. What follows is an attempt to make them clear. If it seems long and involved, remember that the purpose of the protocols is to free bhikkhus from the even more bothersome worries and complexities that come with participating in buying, selling, and monetary matters in general. 围绕金钱赠礼及其正确使用的行仪相当复杂——甚至比这个冗长的学处所表明的还要复杂得多——并且需要详细的解释。接下来是试著让它们变得清晰。如果它看起来又长又复杂，请记住，这些行仪的目的是让比丘摆脱参与一般买卖和货币事务所带来的更麻烦的担忧和复杂性。
This rule is one of four nissaggiya pācittiya rules covering a bhikkhu’s proper relationship to money. The others are NP 18, 19, & 20. Although they sometimes seem to be splitting hairs, they focus precisely on the two acts involving money that are most burdensome to a sensitive mind: In the act of accepting money, or having it accepted in one’s name, one is accepting all the cares, responsibilities, and dangers that come with its ownership; in the act of arranging a trade, one is accepting responsibility for the fairness of the trade—that it undervalues neither the generosity of the person who donated the money nor the goods or services of the person receiving the money in exchange. 本戒条是四个涉及比丘与金钱的适当关系的《尼萨耆波逸提》戒条之一。其他的是《舍堕》一八、一九和二十。尽管他们有时似乎在吹毛求疵，但他们恰恰聚焦于对敏锐的心来说最繁重的两种涉及金钱的行为：在接受金钱或以个人名义接受金钱的行为中，也接受了所有的担心和责任，以及其所有权所带来的危险；在安排交易的行为中，也接受了对交易公平性的责任——既不低估捐赠金钱者的慷慨，也不低估接受金钱作为交换的人的商品或服务。
Thus to protect a bhikkhu from these mental burdens, this rule sets up protocols so that lay donors may have the convenience of dedicating amounts of money and other valuables to provide for a bhikkhu’s needs, and so that the bhikkhu may benefit from such gifts without having to bear the responsibilities of ownership or of having to arrange fair trades. 因此，为了保护比丘免受这些精神负担，本戒条制定了行仪，以便在家布施者可以方便地奉献大量的金钱和其他贵重物品来满足比丘的需要，这样比丘就可以从这些赠礼中受益，而无需承担所有权责任或必须安排公平交易。
If a bhikkhu follows the protocols recommended here, the money placed with the steward still belongs to the donor, and the responsibility for making a fair trade lies with the steward. The bhikkhu’s only responsibility is to inform the original donor if, after a reasonable number of promptings, the steward entrusted with the money does not provide him with the requisite the donor had in mind, and then let the donor look after the matter if he/she cares to. 如果比丘遵循这里推荐的行仪，放在净人那里的钱仍然属于施主，而公平交易的责任则由净人承担。比丘的唯一责任是，如果经过合理次数的提示后，受托金钱的净人没有向他提供施主心目中的必需品，则通知原始施主，然后让施主处理此事，如果他/她在乎。
Although the rule itself mentions only funds for robe-cloth intended for individual bhikkhus, we should note from the outset that the Commentary uses the Great Standards to extend it to cover all funds—composed of money, jewels, commodities, land, livestock, or other valuables that bhikkhus are not allowed to accept—not only for an individual bhikkhu’s robe-cloth but also for any type of requisite. And it further extrapolates from this rule to cover funds for Communities and groups of bhikkhus, as well as impersonal funds for such things as buildings and—in the modern world—the printing of books. 虽然戒条本身只提到了供个别比丘使用的衣资，但我们从一开始就应该注意，《义注》使用《四大教示》将其扩展到涵盖所有资金，包括金钱、珠宝、商品、土地、牲畜或其他比丘不准接受的贵重物品－不仅是比丘个人的衣，也包括任何类型的必需品。它进一步从本戒条推断出涵盖僧团和比丘团体的资金，以及用于比如建筑物和（在现代世界）书籍印刷等项目的非个人资金。
The money rules & allowances: an overview 金钱戒及开缘：概述
NP 18 forbids a bhikkhu from accepting gifts of money, from getting others to accept them, and from consenting to gifts of money meant for him being placed down next to him. NP 19 & 20 forbid him from engaging in buying, selling, or bartering, regardless of whether it involves money. Mv.VI.34.21, however, contains the following allowance, called the Meṇḍaka Allowance, after the donor who inspired it: 《舍堕》一八禁止比丘接受金钱赠礼，禁止让他人接受金钱赠礼，以及禁止同意将本应为他准备的金钱赠礼放在他旁边。《舍堕》一九和二十禁止他从事买卖或以物易物，无论是否涉及金钱。 然而，《大品》.六.34.21包含以下开缘，称为 Meṇḍaka 开缘，以发起它的施主的名字命名：
“There are people of conviction and confidence, bhikkhus, who place gold in the hand of stewards, (saying,) ‘With this, give the master whatever is allowable.’ I allow you, bhikkhus, to accept whatever is allowable coming from that. But in no way at all do I say that gold or silver is to be accepted or sought for.”
「比丘们，有一些有信念和信心的人，他们把黄金放在净人的手中，（说）『用这个，给尊者任何允许的东西。』我允许你们，比丘们，接受来自那里的任何允许的东西。但我绝不是说金银应该被接受或寻求。」
Even given this allowance, though, it is important that the bhikkhu, in his dealings with the steward, does not say or do anything that would transgress NP 18-20. At the same time, it is important that he not abuse the steward’s services. Otherwise the steward will never want to perform this service for bhikkhus again. This is the main point of the origin story to this rule: 然而，即使给予了这种开缘，比丘在与净人打交道时，不要说或做任何违反《舍堕》一八至二十的事情，这一点很重要。同时，重要的是他不能滥用净人的服务。否则，净人将永远不想再为比丘做这服务。这是本戒条起源故事的要点：
“Then Ven. Upananda the Sakyan approached the lay follower (his steward) and on arrival said, ‘My friend, I have need of a robe.’
「时，释迦族优波难陀尊者来到优婆塞（他的净人）处，抵达后说道：『我的朋友，我需要一件衣。』
“‘Wait for the rest of today, venerable sir. Today there is a town meeting, and the town has made an agreement that whoever comes late is fined 50 (kahāpaṇas).’
「『大德，请等待今天剩下的时间。今天有镇会议，镇里达成了协议，谁迟到，罚款50（kahāpaṇa）。』
“‘Friend, give me the robe this very day!’ (Saying this,) he grabbed hold of him by the belt. So the lay follower, being pressured by Ven. Upananda the Sakyan, purchased a robe for him and came late. The people said to the lay follower, ‘Why, master, have you come late? You’ve lost 50!’ So he told them what had happened. They criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘They’re arrogant, these Sakyan-son monks, and malcontent. It’s no simple matter even to render them a service. How can Upananda the Sakyan, being told by a layman, “Wait for the rest of today, venerable sir,” not wait?’”
「『朋友，今天就把衣给我吧！』（这么说）他抓住了他的腰带。因此，优婆塞受到了释迦族优波难陀尊者的压力，为他买了一件衣，但迟到了。人们对优婆塞说：『大德，你怎么来晚了？你已经损失了 50 块！』所以他告诉他们发生的事情。他们批评、抱怨、传播：『这些释迦子僧人太傲慢了，而且不知足。即使是为他们提供服务也不是一件简单的事。释迦族优波难陀在优婆塞的劝告下，「尊者，请稍等今日」，怎不能等呢？』」
Stewards 净人
According to the Commentary, there are three types of steward with whom money might be placed: (1) indicated by the bhikkhu, (2) indicated by the donor or his/her messenger, and (3) indicated by neither. 根据《义注》，可以放置金钱的净人有三类：（1）由比丘指定，（2）由施主或其使者指定，以及（3）两者都没有指定。
1) Indicated by the bhikkhu covers two sorts of cases: 1) 比丘指定涵盖两种情况：
a) The donor asks the bhikkhu who his steward is, and the bhikkhu points him/her out, as mentioned in the training rule. a) 施主询问比丘谁是他的净人，比丘指出他/她，如学处所述。
b) The donor, knowing that a particular lay person has volunteered to act as a steward or is on familiar terms with the bhikkhu, gives the money to the lay person and informs the bhikkhu—or has someone else inform him—either before or after the fact. b) 施主知道某个在家人自愿担任净人或与比丘关系熟悉时，将钱交给该在家人，并在之前或之后通知该比丘——或让其他人通知他。
2) Indicated by the donor covers cases where the donor chooses one of his/her own friends or employees to act as the steward for that particular gift, and informs the bhikkhu—or has someone else inform him—either before or after the fact. 2）由施主指定，包括施主选择他/她自己的一位朋友或雇员作为该特定布施的净人，并在事前或事后通知比丘－或让其他人通知他的情况。
3) Indicated by neither covers two separate cases: 3) 两者都没有指定涵盖两种不同的情况：
a) The donor asks the bhikkhu who his steward is, and the bhikkhu says that he has none. Another person happens to overhear the conversation and volunteers—in the presence of both—to act as the steward for that particular gift. a) 施主问比丘谁是他的净人，比丘说他没有。另一个人碰巧无意中听到了谈话，并在两人都在场的情况下自愿担任该特定布施的净人。
b) The donor gives the gift to the lay person who is normally the bhikkhu’s steward or is on familiar terms with the bhikkhu, but does not inform the bhikkhu or have him informed of the fact. b) 施主将该布施给在家人，通常是比丘的净人或与比丘关系熟悉的人，但没有通知比丘或让他知道这一事实。
According to the Commentary, this training rule covers only cases of the first sort—the steward is indicated by the bhikkhu—but not of the other two. This, however, is a controversial point. To understand the controversy, though, we will first have to discuss the protocols for accepting funds and obtaining requisites from stewards as set forth in this rule. Then we will revisit this issue in the section, “range of application,” below. 根据《义注》，本学处只涵盖第一种情况──净人由比丘指定──而不包括其他两种情况。然而，这是一个有争议的观点。不过，为了理解这项争议，我们首先必须讨论本戒条中规定的接受资金和从净人那里获取必需品的行仪。然后我们将在下面的「适用范围」部分中重新讨论这个议题。
The protocol in accepting 接受的行仪
The Vibhaṅga gives the following guidelines: 《经分别》给出了以下指导方针：
If donors offer money, they are to be told that bhikkhus do not accept money. 如果布施者提供金钱，他们应该被告知比丘不接受金钱。
If they ask who the bhikkhus’ steward is, one may point out any lay person at all, saying, “That’s the steward.” One is not to say, “Give it to him/her,” or “He/she will keep (the money),” for that would be to accept ownership and responsibility for the money, and thus be an infraction of the rule against accepting money. Also, one is not to say, “He/she will buy (the requisite),” or “He/she will get it in exchange,” for even this much would be an infraction of the rule against trading. 如果他们问谁是比丘的净人，可以指著任何一个在家人说：「那就是净人。」 不要说「把钱给他/她」或「他/她会保管（钱）」，因为那样就等于接受了钱的所有权和责任，从而违反禁止接受金钱的戒条。此外，也不能说「他/她会购买（必需品）」或「他/她会得到它作为交换」，因为即使是这样也将违反禁止交易的戒条。
The K/Commentary adds that if the donor asks, “To whom should I give this?” or “Who will keep this?” one is not to point anyone out. It doesn’t say what one may do in such a situation, although a wise policy would be to broach the topic of stewards so that the donor will ask a question to which one may give an allowable answer. K/《义注》补充说，如果布施者问：「我应该把这个给谁？」或「谁会保管这个？」不要指出任何人。它没有说明在这种情况下可以做什么，尽管明智之举是提出净人的话题，以便布施者提出一个可以给出允许答案的问题。
The protocol in obtaining requisites from the fund 从资金取得必需品的行仪
The rule states that a bhikkhu may give his steward up to three verbal and six silent promptings in order to get a requisite from the fund. The Vibhaṅga works out an arrangement whereby he may exchange two silent promptings for one verbal prompting, which leads the Commentary to lay out the following scheme: A bhikkhu may make up to— 戒条规定，比丘可以向他的净人发出最多三次口头提示和六次无声提示，以便从资金中获得必需品。《经分别》制定了一种安排，使他可以将两次无声提示改为一次口头提示，这导致《义注》提出以下方案：比丘可以做到——
6 verbal & 0 silent promptings 6次 口头 及 0次 无声提示
5 verbal & 2 silent promptings 5次 口头 及 2次 无声提示
4 verbal & 4 silent promptings 4次 口头 及 4次 无声提示
3 verbal & 6 silent promptings 3次 口头 及 6次 无声提示
2 verbal & 8 silent promptings 2次 口头 及 8次 无声提示
1 verbal & 10 silent promptings, or 1次 口头 及 10次 无声提示，或
0 verbal & 12 silent promptings 0次 口头 及 12次 无声提示
The Vibhaṅga adds that when giving a verbal prompting, one may say only, “I need a robe (or whatever the requisite may be),” or statements to that effect. One may not say, “Give me a robe,” “Get me a robe,” “Buy me a robe,” or “Get a robe in exchange for me,” for these last two statements in particular would incur a penalty under NP 20. 《经分别》补充说，当给予口头提示时，只能说：「我需要一件衣（或任何必要的东西）」，或类似的陈述。不能说，「给我一件衣」，「拿给我一件衣」，「买给我一件衣」，或者「交换一件衣给我」，因为最后两种说法尤其会招致《舍堕》二十的惩罚。
According to the Commentary, promptings are counted not by the number of visits to the steward but by the number of times the bhikkhu states his need/desire for the requisite. Thus if, in one visit, he states his need for a robe three times, that counts as three verbal promptings. 根据《义注》，提示不是根据拜访净人的次数来计算的，而是根据比丘陈述他对必需品的需要/渴望的次数来计算的。因此，如果他在一次拜访中三次表示需要一件衣，那就算是三次口头提示。
As for silent promptings—or “standings”—the bhikkhu merely stands in the steward’s presence. If the steward asks, “What have you come for?’ the bhikkhu should say, “You know,” or “You should know.” 至于无声提示——或「站立」——比丘只是站在净人面前。如果净人问：「你来做什么？」比丘应该说：「你知道」或「你应该知道」。
The Vibhaṅga also notes that during the period when a bhikkhu has yet to receive the requisite, he should not accept an invitation to sit down at the steward’s place, to accept alms, or to teach Dhamma there. If he does any of these things, that cuts back his number of allowed standings. The Sub-commentary raises the question as to what precisely this means: When a bhikkhu does several of these actions in one visit, does each action take away one standing, or is just that one visit struck from his allowed number of standings? After a long discussion, it sides with the decision in the Three Gaṇṭhipadas: Each time a bhikkhu sits, receives alms, or teaches one sentence of Dhamma (see Pc 7) under these circumstances, even in one visit, he cuts down his allowed number of standings by one. 《经分别》也指出，在比丘尚未领受必需品期间，他不应接受坐在净人处的邀请、接受施舍，或在那里教导佛法。如果他做了任何这些事情，就会减少他允许的站立次数。《复注》提出了一个问题，即这到底意味著什么：当比丘在一次拜访中做了数个这样的行为时，是否每一个行为都会减少一个站立，或者只是那一次拜访从他允许的站立次数中减去？经过冗长的讨论，它支持《Three Gaṇṭhipada》中的决定：每当比丘在这种情况下坐著、接受施舍，或教导一句佛法（参见《波逸提》七）时，即使是一次拜访，他也会在允许的站立次数中减去一次。
The Vibhaṅga states that if one obtains the requisite after making the allowable number of verbal and silent promptings—or fewer—there is no offense. If one does not obtain the requisite after the maximum allowable number of promptings, one should inform the original donor and then leave the issue up to him/her. If the donor, being informed, then makes arrangements to get the requisite for the bhikkhu, there is no offense. 《经分别》指出，如果在进行了允许次数的口头和无声提示（或更少）后获得了必需的东西，那么就没有犯戒。如果在最大允许次数的提示后仍未获得必需品，则应通知原始施主，然后将问题留给他/她。如果施主得知情况后，作出安排，为比丘取得必需品，这并没有犯戒。
The Commentary adds that not to inform the donor here entails a dukkaṭa on the grounds that one is neglecting a duty. This statement, however, should be qualified to apply only in cases where one knows which donor gave which fund to which steward. If a single fund administered by a steward contains donations from many donors, one is unlikely to be in a position to inform all the donors if the steward does not respond to one’s request. In such cases one should be duty bound to inform only one of the donors. 《义注》补充说，不通知施主会犯《突吉罗》，理由是疏忽了职责。然而，这个说法仅适用于知道哪位施主向哪位净人提供哪项资金的情况。如果净人管理的单一资金包含许多施主的捐款，如果净人不回应请求，则不太可能通知所有施主。在这种情况下，有义务只通知其中一位施主。
Range of application 适用范围
As mentioned above, the Commentary maintains that this rule applies only in the first of the three cases listed there: The steward has been indicated by the bhikkhu. As for the second case—the steward has been indicated by the donor—it maintains that one may make any number of promptings without committing an offense. If the article is not forthcoming, one may get another lay person to handle the issue (although one should be careful to phrase one’s request to this lay person so as not to transgress the rules against accepting money or trading). If the article is not forthcoming, one is not duty-bound to inform the original donor. Although there is nothing in the Canon to contradict any of these points, there is nothing to confirm them, either. Simple etiquette would suggest that one not harass the steward excessively and that one should inform the donor if the article is not forthcoming, so as to let the donor decide what, if anything, should be done. Thus it would make sense, using the Great Standards, to apply this rule even in cases of this sort. 如上所述，《义注》认为本戒条仅适用于所列三种情况中的第一种：净人已由比丘指定。至于第二种情况──净人已由施主指定──它认为可以做出任意次数的提示而不构成犯戒。如果没有提供物品，可以找另一位居士来处理这个议题（尽管应该小心地向这位居士表达自己的请求，以免违反禁止接受金钱或交易的戒条）。如果没有提供物品，则没有义务通知原始施主。尽管《圣典》中没有任何内容与这些观点相矛盾，但也没有任何内容可以证实它们。简单的建议礼节是，不要过度骚扰净人，如果没有提供物品，应该通知施主，以便让施主决定应该做什么（如果有的话）。因此，即使在这种情况下，使用《四大教示》来适用本戒条也是有意义的。
As for the third case, in which the steward is not indicated either by the donor or by a bhikkhu, the Commentary says that, as far as that fund is concerned, the steward should be treated as a person who is not related and has not made an invitation to ask. In other words, one may not make any requests of the steward at all unless he/she happens to invite one to make a request. The Commentary gives no reasons for these positions, and they are hard to infer. In the first of the two instances under this sub-category—the volunteer temporary steward—the Commentary depicts the steward as volunteering in the presence of both the bhikkhu and the donor, and this would seem to place the steward under some obligation to both. Thus the bhikkhu would seem to have the right to make a reasonable number of promptings; and the donor, the right to know if the article is not forthcoming. 至于第三种情况，即施主或比丘均未指明净人的情况，《义注》指出，就该资金而言，净人应被视为无亲属关系且与尚未发出询问邀请的人。换句话说，除非净人碰巧邀请提出请求，否则根本不能向净人提出任何要求。《义注》没有给出这些立场的理由，很难推论。在这个子类别下的两个例子中的第一个——志愿临时净人——《义注》中将净人描述为同时在比丘和施主面前做志愿者，这似乎使净人对双方都负有某种义务。因此，比丘似乎有权做出合理次数的提示；而施主，则有权知道该物品是否被提供。
As for the second of the two instances—the donor gives the gift to the bhikkhu’s normal steward but does not inform the bhikkhu or have him informed—the steward can either inform the bhikkhu or not. If he/she chooses to inform the bhikkhu, then according to the Commentary the bhikkhu would have the right to make any number of promptings, as the steward now counts as having given an invitation. Thus the steward would not be protected by the protocol under this rule, which doesn’t seem proper. If, however, the steward chooses not to inform the bhikkhu, there are two further possibilities: Either the bhikkhu never learns of the arrangement, in which case the issue is moot; or else he learns through a third party, in which case the bhikkhu would seem to have the right to ask the steward if the third party’s report is true. If the steward lies and says No, then that’s the steward’s kamma. If the steward truthfully reports Yes, then it would seem reasonable to apply the protocol under this rule. 至于这两种情况中的第二种情况──施主将布施给比丘的正常净人，但没有通知比丘或让他被通知──净人可以通知比丘，也可以不通知。如果他/她选择通知比丘，那么根据《义注》，比丘将有权做出任意次数的提示，因为净人现在被视为已发出邀请。因此，根据本戒条，净人将不受行仪的保护，这似乎不合适。然而，如果净人选择不通知比丘，则还有两种可能性：要么比丘永远不知道这一安排，在这种情况下，这议题就没有意义了；否则，他透过第三者得知，在这种情况下，比丘似乎有权询问净人第三者的报告是否属实。如果净人撒谎并说「否」，那么这就是净人的业力。如果净人如实报告「是」，那么适用本戒条下的行仪似乎是合理的。
Thus, given these considerations, there would seem to be little reason to limit the protocols under this rule to cases where the steward is indicated by the bhikkhu, and stronger reason, using the Great Standards, to apply the protocols to all three cases: where the steward is indicated by the bhikkhu, by the donor, or by neither. 因此，鉴于这些考虑，似乎没有什么理由将本戒条下的行仪限制于比丘指定净人的情况，并且更有理由使用《四大教示》将行仪适用于所有三种情况：净人由比丘、施主指定，或两者都没有指定。
As we will note under NP 18, a bank can serve as a steward for a bhikkhu. However, because of the protocols surrounding a bhikkhu’s relationship to his steward, he may not sign a check—which is an order to pay money to the order of the payee—even if the check draws on an account set up in his name. Nor may he present the bank with a withdrawal statement to remove money from the account. 正如我们将在《舍堕》一八中指出的，银行可以充当比丘的净人。然而，由于比丘与净人关系的行仪，即使支票是从以他的名义开设的帐户中提取的，他不能签署支票（这是按照收款人的指示付款的命令）。他也不得向银行提供提款声明以从帐户中提取资金。
The factors of an offense 犯戒因素
The factors of an offense here are three. 在此处犯戒因素有三个。
1) Object: a fund for the purchase of robe-cloth left with a steward. As noted above, the Commentary extends this factor to cover any fund set aside for one’s own requisites. 1）对象：留给净人购买衣的资金。如上所述，《义注》将这一因素扩展到涵盖为自己的必需品预留的任何资金。
2) Effort: One makes an excessive number of promptings. 2）努力：做出过度的提示。
3) Result: One obtains the requested requisite. 3）结果：获得所要求的必需品。
There is a dukkaṭa for the excessive promptings. The requisite, when obtained, is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and receiving the requisite in return are the same as under the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiture, see Appendix VI. 过度的提示犯《突吉罗》。当必需品被获得时，将被舍出并忏悔《尼萨耆波逸提》罪。舍出、忏悔、和领回必需品的程序，与前项戒条相同。有关舍出里使用的巴利文公式，请参阅附录六。
If one has not given excessive promptings but perceives that one has, or is in doubt about the matter, the penalty for accepting the requisite is a dukkaṭa. 如果没有给予过度的提示，但认为自己已经过度提示，或对此事有疑问，那么接受必需品的惩罚是《突吉罗》。
Other funds 其他资金
The Commentary includes a long discussion of how this rule applies to funds other than those intended for an individual bhikkhu’s requisites, such as funds for Community or group requisites, building funds, etc. (book-printing funds would come under here). Some have suggested that because this rule applies only to funds for one’s own use, the Commentary has erred in discussing other funds in this context, and that they should instead be discussed under Pc 84, the rule dealing with valuables that lay people have left behind in the monastery. However, because the Canon does not discuss such funds at all, they must be treated under the Great Standards, which means that they must be treated in line with the rule(s) that cover situations bearing the greatest similarity to them. The protocols under Pc 84 deal with the issue of how to return lost articles safely to an owner who did not intend them as a gift and still claims ownership of them; the protocols here deal with how to get the money to a steward and how to get the steward to provide what is needed with the money. Because these latter issues are the ones most relevant to the proper management of these other funds, there seems every reason to agree with the Commentary’s discussing them under this rule. 《义注》中对本戒条如何适用于除用于个别比丘必需品的资金之外的其他资金进行了长篇讨论，例如僧团或团体必需品的资金、建筑资金等（书籍印刷资金将归入此处）。有些人建议，由于本戒条仅适用于自用资金，因此《义注》在这种脉络下讨论其他资金是错误的，而应该在《波逸提》八四下讨论它们，该戒条涉及居士留下的贵重物品在寺院里。然而，由于《圣典》根本没讨论此类基金，因此必须根据《四大教示》来处理它们，这意味著必须按照涵盖与它们最相似的情况的戒条来处理它们。《波逸提》八四下的行仪处理如何将遗失的物品安全归还给不打算将其作为赠礼且仍声称拥有这些物品的所有者的议题；这里的行仪涉及如何将钱交给净人以及如何让净人用钱提供所需的东西。因为后面这些议题与这些其他资金的妥善管理最相关，所以似乎有充分的理由同意《义注》在本戒条下对它们进行讨论。
A few of the more relevant cases in the Commentary’s discussion: 《义注》讨论中一些更相关的案例：
Monetary funds for Saṅgha or group requisites 僧伽或团体必需品的货币资金
If a donor comes with a gift of money and says that it is being offered to the Saṅgha or to a group for whatever purpose, one should follow the protocol for accepting as under this rule. For instance, if the donor says, “I’m giving this to the Saṅgha for you to make use of the four requisites,” one may not accept it in any of the three ways covered by NP 18. (For details, see the discussion under that rule.) There is also a dukkaṭa, says the Sub-commentary, for every bhikkhu who uses any article bought with the money. 如果施主带著金钱赠礼前来，并表示出于任何目的将其捐赠给僧团或某个团体，则应遵循本戒条下的接受行仪。例如，如果施主说：「我将这个给僧团，让你使用四种必需品」，那么不可以《舍堕》一八所涵盖的三种方式中的任何一种来接受它。（有关详细信息，请参阅该戒条下的讨论。）《复注》说，对于每一个使用任何用金钱购买的物品的比丘，还犯《突吉罗》。
If, however, the donor says, “The money will be with your steward” or “with my people” or “with me: All you need to do is make use of the four requisites,” then there is no offense in accepting and making use of this arrangement. The etiquette to follow in obtaining requisites depends on who the money is left with: If the bhikkhus’ steward, follow the protocol under this rule; if the donor’s workers, one may make any number of promptings; if the donor, follow the guidelines under Pc 47. (In the first two cases here, the Commentary is following its decision, discussed above, that the protocols to be followed with the donor’s workers are different from those to be followed with one’s own steward. In light of our above discussion, however, both cases would come under the protocols stipulated by this rule.) 然而，如果施主说：「这笔钱将在你的净人那里」或「在我的人那里」或「在我那里：你所需要做的就是利用这四种必需品」，那么接受并利用此安排并没有犯戒之处。取得必需品时所遵循的规范取决于钱留给谁：如果是比丘的净人，则遵循本戒条下的行仪；如果是施主的员工，可以做出任意次数的提示；如果是施主，遵循《波逸提》四七下的准则。（在这里的前两个情形中，《义注》遵循上面讨论的决定，即施主的员工应遵循的行仪与自己的净人应遵循的行仪不同。然而，根据我们上面的讨论，两种情况将受到本戒条规定的行仪的管辖。）
Non-monetary funds for Saṅgha or group requisites 僧伽或团体必需品的非货币资金
DN 2 contains a list of other articles that a bhikkhu consummate in virtue does not receive. The Commentary—perhaps in light of the general rule against misbehavior (Cv.V.36)—imposes a dukkaṭa on the act of receiving any of them. These articles include uncooked grain and raw meat; women and girls; male and female slaves; goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, steeds, and mares; fields and property. Extrapolating from the Vibhaṅga to Pc 84, which forbids bhikkhus from picking up pearls and precious stones except in certain circumstances—and which does not allow such items to be taken on trust, borrowed, or picked up with the perception that they have been thrown away—the Commentary also assigns a dukkaṭa for receiving these items. These two lists of objects will surface again under NP 18 & 19; for ease of reference, we will call them dukkaṭa objects. 《长部》2经包含了戒德圆满的比丘不接受的其他物品列表。《义注》－也许是根据反对不当行为的一般戒条（《小品》.五.36）－对接受其中任何一项的行为则犯《突吉罗》。这些物品包括未煮熟的谷物和生肉；女人和女孩；男性和女性奴隶；山羊和绵羊、家禽和猪、大象、牛、马和母马；土地和财产。从《波逸提》八四的《经分别》来推断，该戒条禁止比丘拾取珍珠和宝石，除非在某些情况下，并且不允许以信托方式取走此类物品、借用、或以察觉到它们已被丢弃拾取这些物品。《义注》也指称接收这些物品犯《突吉罗》。这两个物件列表将在《舍堕》一八和一九下再次出现；为了方便参考，我们将它们称为《突吉罗》物件。
If a donor wants to make a gift of such things to the Saṅgha, the Commentary says, the question of whether they may be accepted depends on how the donation is phrased. If the donor says, “I’m giving this to the Saṅgha,” for whatever the purpose, the gift may not be accepted. As in the previous case, there is a dukkaṭa for whoever receives it and also for whoever uses an article obtained from proceeds coming from the gift. 《义注》说，如果施主想向僧伽赠送此类物品，是否可以接受的问题取决于捐赠的措词。如果施主说：「我要把这个给僧团」，无论出于何种目的，该赠礼都不可被接受。就像前面的情况一样，无论谁收到它，也无论谁使用从赠礼收益中获得的物品，都会犯一次《突吉罗》。
If the donor says, “This is for the purpose of the four requisites,” or “Accept whatever is allowable coming from this,” without mentioning the Saṅgha or any bhikkhu as custodians or recipients of the unallowable object, the arrangement may be accepted without penalty. For instance, if a donor wants to present a herd of cows, saying, “These are for the purpose of milk products for the Saṅgha,” this is an acceptable arrangement: Cows are not acceptable for bhikkhus to receive, whereas milk products are. But if the donor says, “I am giving these cows to the Saṅgha to provide milk products for the Saṅgha,” then it is not. 如果施主说：「这是为了四种必需品的目的」，或者「接受由此而来的一切允许的东西」，而没有提及僧伽或任何比丘作为不允许的物品的保管人或接受者，则可以接受安排，而不犯戒。例如，如果施主想要供养一群牛，并说：「这些是为了给僧团提供乳制品」，这是一个可以接受的安排：比丘不能接受乳牛，但可以接受乳制品。但如果施主施主说：「我将这些乳牛送给僧团，为僧团提供乳制品」，那就不可接受。
If a donor proposes to give pigs, chickens, or other animals used only for their meat to the Saṅgha, the bhikkhus are to say, “We can’t accept gifts like this, but we will be glad to set them free for you.” 如果施主提议将猪、鸡或其他仅供食用的动物送给僧团，比丘们要说：「我们不能接受这样的赠礼，但我们很乐意为你将它们放生。」
If, after setting up an allowable arrangement, the donor asks the bhikkhus to appoint a steward to look after it, they may. If not, they are to do nothing about the arrangement at all. 如果在允许的安排成立之后，施主要求比丘指定一名净人来管理，他们可以。如果没有，他们就不对该安排采取任何行动。
How the proceeds from such arrangements are to be used depends on what they are: If money, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, “Use this money to buy such-and-such,” no bhikkhu may make use of what is bought with the money. If the proceeds are commodities, such as unhusked rice, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, “Use this rice to trade for such-and-such,” the bhikkhu who makes the order may not use whatever is obtained from the trade, but other bhikkhus may without incurring a penalty. If the proceeds are allowable goods, such as fruit, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, “Use this fruit to trade for such-and-such,” the Commentary says that any bhikkhu may use what is obtained from the trade. 如何使用这些安排的收益取决于它们是什么：如果是钱，并且比丘告诉净人：「用这笔钱购买某物」，则没有比丘可以使用用钱购买的东西。如果收益是商品，例如未去壳的大米，而比丘告诉净人：「用此大米来交易某物」，下令的比丘不得使用从交易中获得的任何东西，但其他的比丘们则可以使用而不会受到惩罚。如果收益是允许的商品，例如水果，而比丘告诉净人：「用这种水果来交易某物」，《义注》说任何比丘都可以使用从交易中获得的东西。
Apparently the Commentary views this arrangement as acceptable because of its interpretation that NP 20 applies only to cases where the bhikkhu tells a steward to conduct a trade with the bhikkhu’s own personal resources. However, as we will note in the discussion of that rule, this interpretation seems mistaken, and the rule applies to any funds for which a bhikkhu assumes responsibility. This means that, in the context of this last arrangement, the bhikkhu who orders the steward would have to forfeit the proceeds of the trade, but all bhikkhus could use them after the forfeiture. 显然，《义注》认为这种安排是可以接受的，因为它解释说《舍堕》二十仅适用于比丘告诉净人用比丘自己的个人资源进行交易的情况。然而，正如我们将在讨论该戒条时注意到的那样，这种解释似乎是错误的，并且该戒条适用于比丘承担责任的任何资金。这意味著，在最后安排的脉络中，命令净人的比丘必须舍出交易收益，但所有比丘在舍出后都可以使用它们。
Impersonal funds 非个人资金
If a donor comes with money or any other unallowable gift and says, “I’m giving this to the Saṅgha for the meditation hall (or any other impersonal purpose, such as a book fund or a general building fund),” the gift may not be accepted. But if the donor says, “I am giving this to (or for) the meditation hall,” without mentioning any individual bhikkhu, group of bhikkhus, or the Saṅgha as custodians or recipients of the gift, then this arrangement is not to be refused, and the monastery steward is to be informed of what the donor said. 如果施主携带金钱或任何其他不允许的布施，并说：「我将其送给僧团，用于禅堂（或任何其他非个人目的，例如图书资金或一般建筑资金）」，该布施不可被接受。但如果施主说：「我将把这个布施给（或为了）禅堂」，而没有提及任何个别比丘、比丘团体或僧团作为布施的保管人或接受者，那么这种安排就不能被拒绝，并将施主所说的话告知寺院净人。
In the context of NP 18, this means that the bhikkhus are not to take the money directly, or to get anyone else to take it, but may consent to its being placed next to them, as it is not meant as a gift for them. 在《舍堕》一八的脉络下，这意味著比丘们不能直接拿走金钱，或者让其他人拿走它，但可以同意将其放在他们旁边，因为这并不意味著作为给他们的布施。
Many monasteries have donation boxes, and there is a question as to whether the bhikkhus may tell a donor in this case to put the money in the box. The Commentary to NP 18 states that when a donation has been placed down for a bhikkhu—over his protests—and someone aside from the donor offers to put it in a safe place, the bhikkhu may point out a safe place to put the money but may not tell him/her to put it there, as that would imply that he is accepting responsibility for the money. If this stipulation also applies to funds given “to a building,” then the bhikkhus should be able to say to the donor of such funds, “The donation box is over there,” but not, “Put it there.” 许多寺院都有捐款箱（功德箱），有一个问题是，在这种情况下，比丘们是否可以告诉施主把钱放进箱里。《舍堕》一八的《义注》指出，当给比丘的捐赠被放下时—不顾他（比丘）的抗议—而施主以外的其他人提出将其放在安全的地方时，比丘可以指出一个安全的地方来放置这笔钱，但不可以告诉他/她把钱放在那里，因为这意味著他接受对这笔钱的责任。如果这个规定也适用于给予「建筑物」的资金，那么比丘们应该能够对此类资金的施主说：「捐款箱（功德箱）在那边」，而不是「把它放在那里」。
After the donor has placed the money, the bhikkhus may then tell the monastery steward what the donor said, but are not to tell him/her to take the money, as this would violate NP 18. They are also to follow the protocol in this rule when telling the steward of their need for building materials, wages for the workers, and other necessities that come up in the course of the building’s construction or maintenance. 施主放置金钱后，比丘们可以告诉寺院净人施主所说的话，但不要告诉他/她拿走这笔钱，因为这会违反《舍堕》一八。当告诉净人他们对建筑材料、工人工资以及建筑物建造或维护过程中出现的其他必需品的需求时，他们也应遵循本戒条中的行仪。
The Commentary mentions two other acceptable arrangements: 《义注》中提到了另外两种可接受的安排：
1) The donor places the money with the workmen and tells the bhikkhus that their only responsibility is to check on whether the work is being done poorly or well. 1）施主把钱交给工人，并告诉比丘们，他们唯一的责任是检查工作做得好还是不好。
2) The donor says that the money will be kept with him/her or with his/her employees and that the bhikkhus’ only responsibility is to inform them of whom the money is to be given to. 2）施主说，这笔钱将由他/她或他/她的雇员保管，比丘们唯一的责任是告知他们这笔钱将给谁。
This second arrangement, however, essentially makes the bhikkhu responsible for arranging a trade: He is telling the donor or his/her employees who deserves to be paid in exchange for goods or labor, which again would be a violation of NP 20. At most, a bhikkhu may tell the donor, etc., how much work the laborers did or what construction materials were delivered to the site, and leave it up to the donor, etc., to figure out who deserves to be paid how much. Also, if a checking account is set up for impersonal purposes such as the construction and upkeep of monastery buildings, a bhikkhu may not sign a check drawing on the account. 然而，第二种安排本质上是让比丘负责安排交易：他告诉施主或他/她的雇员谁应该得到报酬以换取货物或劳动力，这又违反了《舍堕》二十。比丘最多可以告诉施主等，工人做了多少工作，或运到工地的建筑材料是什么，然后让施主等决定谁应该得到多少报酬。此外，如果支票帐户是为了非个人目的而设立的，例如建造和维护寺院建筑，比丘不可在该帐户上签署支票。
The Commentary says that because the steward in arrangements (1) and (2) is indicated by the donor, the bhikkhus may make as many requests as they like—i.e., in the first case, telling the workers what to do; in the second case, telling the steward or donor who is to be paid—but as we noted above, there seems no reason to follow the Commentary in making this allowance. 《义注》说，由于安排（1）和（2）中的净人是由施主指定的，所以比丘们可以提出任意次数的请求——即在第一种情况下，告诉工人该做什么；在第二种情况下，告诉净人或施主谁应该得到报酬——但正如我们上面指出的，似乎没有理由遵循《义注》来提供这种开缘。
In addition to building funds, it would seem that any charitable fund for schools, hospitals, etc.—such as some wealthy monasteries have—would come under the category of impersonal funds, as long as the fund is not for requisites for the Saṅgha, either as a group or individually. 除了建筑资金之外，任何为学校、医院等等设立的慈善资金——例如一些富裕的寺院所有——似乎都属于非个人资金的范畴，只要该资金不是用于僧伽的必需品，无论是作为一个团体还是个人。
Fund management 资金管理
The Commentary states that if a Community fund has been set up for a particular requisite, it should as a general principle be used to buy only that requisite. If, however, the Community has enough of one kind of lahubhaṇḍa—goods that may be shared among the bhikkhus—but not enough of another, the fund for the first kind may be diverted to the second kind by an apalokana-kamma: a Community transaction in which the motion is phrased in one’s own words and unanimously accepted. 《义注》指出，如果为特定必需品设立了僧团资金，则作为一般原则，该资金应仅用于购买该必需品。然而，如果僧团有足够的一种 lahubhaṇḍa（可以在比丘之间共享的物品），但没有足够的另一种，第一种的资金可以通过 apalokana-kamma 转移到第二种：动议（白文、提案文）是用自己的话表达并获得一致接受的僧团羯磨。
Funds for lodgings and furniture, though, because they are garubhaṇḍa (heavy or expensive goods that may not be shared among the bhikkhus), may not be diverted to lahubhaṇḍa at all. But if Saṅgha furniture is going unused and is in danger of deteriorating before it gets used, the Community may arrange to have it exchanged—using the procedure allowed under NP 20, and making sure not to let it go for less than its full value—and then use the proceeds for lahubhaṇḍa. The Commentary adds that proceeds of this sort should be used “frugally, just enough to keep life going.” In other words, if the Community is not in straitened circumstances, the proceeds should not be used for lahubhaṇḍa at all, and instead should be reserved for garubhaṇḍa as the need arises. If, however, the Community is suffering from such catastrophes as disease or famine, they may allow the proceeds to be used for lahubhaṇḍa as needed, but not to splurge on anything excessive. 然而，用于住宿和家具的资金，因为它们是 garubhaṇḍa（不能在比丘之间共享的重或昂贵物品），不可转移到 lahubhaṇḍa。但是，如果僧团家具闲置并且在使用之前有损坏的危险，僧团可以安排交换它——使用《舍堕》二十中允许的程序，并确保不以低于其全部价值的价格出售——然后将所得收益用于 lahubhaṇḍa。《义注》补充说，此类收益应该「节俭地使用，仅足以维持生活」。换句话说，如果僧团没有陷入困境，收益根本不应该用于 lahubhaṇḍa，而应该在需要出现时保留给 garubhaṇḍa。然而，如果僧团正遭受疾病或饥荒等灾难，他们可以允许将收益用于需要时的 lahubhaṇḍa，但不要过度挥霍。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if: 若符合以下条件，则不构成犯戒：
the steward gives the item after the bhikkhu has given the allowable number of promptings or less; or 净人在比丘给予允许次数或更少的提示后，给予物品；或者
if the donors(s) give the item after they have been informed that the steward has not given the item after having been prompted the allowable number of times. 如果施主（们）在被告知净人在经过允许的次数提示后仍未提供物品后，才提供物品。
Note that the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses do not make an exemption for relatives or people who have invited one to ask. This means that even when the donor(s) or the steward or both are related to the bhikkhu or have given him an invitation to ask, he must follow the protocol under this rule. 请注意，《经分别》的不犯条款并不免除亲戚或邀请询问的人。这意味著，即使施主或净人或两者，与比丘有亲属关系或已邀请他询问，他也必须遵守本戒条下的行仪。
Summary: When a fund for one’s individual use has been set up with a steward, obtaining an article from the fund as a result of having prompted the steward more than the allowable number of times is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：当供个人使用的资金已与净人一起设立时，由于提示净人超过允许次数而从该资金获取物品是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。