尼萨耆波逸提（《舍堕》）

Two: The Silk Chapter

第二蚕丝品

11	十一
Should any bhikkhu have a felt (blanket/rug) made of a mixture containing silk, it is to be forfeited and confessed.	如果任何比丘拥有由丝绸混合物制成的敷具，尼萨耆波逸提。
Santhata, translated here as a felt blanket/rug, is a type of cloth described in the texts simply by its method of manufacture. Instead of being woven, it is made by strewing threads over a smooth surface, sprinkling them with a glue-like mixture made from boiled rice, using a roller to roll it smooth, and then repeating the process until the felt is thick and strong enough for one’s purposes. Although felt made like this has a number of uses, its major use in the time of the texts seems to have been as a small personal rug for sitting or lying down, or as a rough blanket for wearing around oneself when sick or cold. Blankets/rugs like this are still made and used in parts of India even today, and as the non-offense clauses to this and the following rules show, it is precisely to this type of blanket/rug that these rules apply.	Santhata，这里翻译为敷具，是一种在文献中仅通过其制造方法描述的布料。它不是编织的，而是通过将线撒在光滑的表面上，撒上由煮米制成的胶状混合物，用滚筒将其滚平滑，然后重复该过程，直到敷具足够厚且坚固，为了自己的目的而使用。虽然这样制成的敷具有多种用途，但在文献的年代，它的主要用途似乎是作为坐著或躺著的小个人地毯，或作为生病或寒冷时穿在身上的粗糙毯子。即使在今天，这样的敷具仍在印度部分地区制造和使用，正如本戒条和以下戒条的不犯条款所示，这些戒条正是适用于这种类型的敷具。
There are three factors for the full offense here.	这里的完整犯戒有三个因素。
1) Object: a felt blanket/rug containing silk threads and intended for one’s own use.	1）物品：含有丝线且供个人使用的敷具。
2) Effort: One either makes it oneself, gets someone else to make it, finishes what others have left unfinished, or gets someone else to finish what one has left unfinished.	2）努力：自己制作，让别人制作，完成别人未完成的，或让别人完成自己未完成的。
3) Result: One obtains it after it is finished (or finishes it, if one is making it oneself).	3）结果：完成它后获得它（如果是自己做的，则是完成时）。
The Vibhaṅga does not mention intention or perception as mitigating factors here. Noting this fact, the Commentary concludes if one is making a felt blanket/rug, and silk threads happen to float in on the breeze and land in the felt, one commits an offense all the same. Perhaps the Commentary’s interpretation here is why bhikkhus no longer use felt rugs, for there is no way of knowing whether there are any stray silk filaments in them that would make them unsuitable for use.	《经分别》在这里没有提到意图或感知作为减轻惩罚的因素。注意到这一事实，《义注》得出结论，如果正在制作敷具，而丝线碰巧在微风中漂浮并落在敷具上，那么仍然犯了戒。也许《义注》在这里的解释是比丘们不再使用敷具的原因，因为无法知道敷具中是否有杂丝，导致它们不适合使用。
The Vibhaṅga assigns a dukkaṭa for the effort of making a blanket/rug with silk mixed in it, or for having it made. Once it is obtained (or finished, if one is making it oneself), it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and receiving the blanket/rug in return are the same as under the preceding rules on robe-cloth.	《经分别》指出，为制作混有丝绸的敷具，或使之被制作，而付出的努力犯了《突吉罗》。一旦获得时（或完成时，如果是自己制作的话），它需被舍出并忏悔《舍堕》罪。舍出、忏罪、返还敷具的程序与上述袈裟布的戒条相同。
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is a dukkaṭa in making a blanket/rug with silk mixed in it for another’s use. If one obtains a blanket/rug with silk mixed in it made by another (§)—not at one’s instigation—then using it entails a dukkaṭa.	根据《经分别》，用丝绸混合制作敷具供他人使用犯《突吉罗》。如果获得了另一个人（§）制作的混有丝绸的敷具（不是在自己的怂恿下），那么使用它犯《突吉罗》。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense in making felt with silk mixed in it to use as a canopy, a floor-covering, a wall screen, a mattress/cushion, or a kneeling mat. None of the texts discuss the issue, but there is apparently also no offense in getting such an item made.	用丝绸混合制成的敷具用作天篷（顶罩）、地板覆盖物、墙屏、床垫/垫子或跪垫并没有犯戒。没有任何文献讨论这个问题，但使这样的物品被制作显然也没有犯戒。
Summary: Making a felt blanket/rug with silk mixed in it for one’s own use—or having it made—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.	摘要：制作混有丝绸的敷具供自己使用，或使其被制作，是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。

* * *

12	十二
Should any bhikkhu have a felt (blanket/rug) made of pure black wool, it is to be forfeited and confessed.	如果任何比丘拥有纯黑羊毛制成的敷具，尼萨耆波逸提。
The origin story to this rule indicates that a pure black felt blanket/rug was considered stylish at that time, and thus inappropriate for a bhikkhu’s use. This is a recurrent theme throughout the Vinaya: that stylish, luxurious, or elegant articles are not in keeping with the bhikkhus’ way of life.	本戒条的起源故事表明，纯黑色敷具在当时被认为是时尚的，因此不适合比丘使用。这是整个戒律中反复出现的主题：时尚、奢华或优雅的物品不符合比丘的生活方式。
The Vibhaṅga notes that black wool here covers both wool that is naturally black and wool that has been dyed that color.	《经分别》指出，这里的黑色羊毛既包括天然黑色的羊毛，也包括染成黑色的羊毛。
All other explanations for this training rule are the same as for the preceding rule, simply replacing “a felt blanket/rug made with silk mixed in it” with “a felt blanket/rug made entirely of black wool.”	此学处的所有其他解释与前述戒条相同，只是将「混有丝绸的敷具」替换为「完全由黑色羊毛制成的敷具」。
Summary: Making a felt blanket/rug entirely of black wool for one’s own use—or having it made—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.	摘要：完全用黑色羊毛制作敷具供自己使用，或使其被制作，是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。

* * *

13	十三
When a bhikkhu is having a new felt (blanket/rug) made, two parts of pure black wool are to be incorporated, a third (part) of white, and a fourth of brown. If a bhikkhu should have a new felt (blanket/rug) made without incorporating two parts of pure black wool, a third of white, and a fourth of brown, it is to be forfeited and confessed.	当比丘制作新敷具时，要加入两部分纯黑羊毛，第三（部分）白色，第四棕色。如果比丘拥有一块新敷具，但未使用两部分纯黑羊毛、第三白色和第四棕色制成，尼萨耆波逸提。
This is a continuation of the preceding rule. Its purpose is to set the maximum amount of black wool a bhikkhu may include when making his felt blanket/rug or having it made for his own use. The Vibhaṅga gives precise amounts for how much black, white, and brown wool one should use in making the rug, but the Commentary says that these quantities are relative: As long as black wool constitutes no more than half the total amount of wool used, the bhikkhu making the rug commits no offense.	这是前一条戒条的延续。其目的是设定比丘在制作自用的敷具或使其被制作时，可以包含的黑色羊毛的最大数量。《经分别》给出了制作敷具时应使用多少黑色、白色和棕色羊毛的精确数量，但《义注》说这些数量是相对的：只要黑色羊毛不超过所用羊毛总量的一半，制作敷具的比丘没有犯戒。
As in the preceding rules, the Vibhaṅga assigns a dukkaṭa for making, for another person’s use, a felt blanket/rug that is more than one-half black wool. If one obtains a felt blanket/rug that is more than one-half black wool made by another—not at one’s instigation—then using it entails a dukkaṭa as well (§).	与前面的戒条一样，《经分别》说，制作供他人使用，黑色羊毛超过二分之一的敷具，犯《突吉罗》。如果获得的敷具，黑色羊毛超过二分之一，且由另一个人制作（而不是在自己的怂恿下），那么使用它也犯《突吉罗》（§）。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense if the rug is one-quarter or more white wool and one-quarter or more brown wool, or if it is made entirely of white wool or of brown. There is also no offense in felt that is more than one-half black wool if one is making the felt—or having it made—for a canopy, a floor-covering, a wall screen, a mattress/cushion, or a kneeling mat.	如果敷具的白色羊毛占四分之一或更多而且棕色羊毛占四分之一或更多，或如果完全由白色羊毛或棕色羊毛制成，则没有犯戒。如果制作或让人制作用于天篷（顶罩）、地板覆盖物、墙屏、床垫/坐垫或跪垫的敷具，那么敷具的黑色羊毛超过二分之一也没有犯戒。
Summary: Making a felt blanket/rug that is more than one-half black wool for one’s own use—or having it made—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.	摘要：制作黑色羊毛超过二分之一的敷具供自己使用（或让人制作），是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。

* * *

14	十四
When a bhikkhu has had a new felt (blanket/rug) made, he is to keep it for (at least) six years. If after less than six years he should have another new felt (blanket/rug) made, regardless of whether or not he has disposed of the first, then—unless he has been authorized by the bhikkhus—it is to be forfeited and confessed.	当比丘制作了新敷具时，他必须保留（至少）六年。如果在不到六年的时间里，他再制作另一块新敷具，无论他是否已经处理掉第一块敷具，那么——除非他得到比丘们的授权——尼萨耆波逸提。
“Now at that time bhikkhus were (each) having a new felt blanket/rug made every year. They were constantly begging, constantly hinting, ‘Give wool. We need wool.’ People criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks have a new felt blanket/rug made every year?… The felt blanket/rugs we make for ourselves last five or six years, even though our children wet them and soil them, and they get chewed on by rats. But these Sakyan-son monks have a new felt blanket/rug made every year and are constantly begging, constantly hinting, ‘Give wool. We need wool.’”	「那时，比丘们（每人）每年都会制作一条新敷具。他们不断地乞求、不断地暗示，『给羊毛吧。我们需要羊毛。』人们批评、抱怨、传播：『这些沙门释子怎么能每年都有新敷具呢？我们为自己制作的敷具可以使用五到六年，尽管我们的孩子弄湿了它们并弄脏了它们，并且它们被老鼠啃咬了。但这些沙门释子每年都会制作一条新敷具，并且不断地乞求、不断地暗示：『给羊毛吧。我们需要羊毛。』」
There are three factors for the full offense here.	这里的完整违犯有三个因素。
1) Object: a new felt blanket/rug for one’s own use.	1）对象：一条自用的新敷具。
2) Effort: (a) One either makes it oneself, gets someone else to make it, finishes what others have left unfinished, or gets someone else to finish what one has left unfinished (b) less than six years after one’s last one was made, (c) even though one has not been formally authorized by the bhikkhus to do so.	2）努力：(a) 自己做，让别人做，完成别人未完成的，或让别人完成自己未完成的 (b) 上一个完成后不到六年 (c) 即使没有得到比丘们的正式授权这样做。
3) Result: One obtains the rug after it is finished (or finishes it, if one is making it oneself).	3）结果：完成后获得敷具（如果是自己制作，则完成时）。
The texts are silent on the factor of perception here, which suggests that if a bhikkhu miscounts the passage of years—making a new rug when six years haven’t passed even though he thinks they have—he fulfills the factor of effort all the same.	这里的文献没有提及感知的因素，这表明，如果比丘错误地计算了岁月的流逝——六年还没有过去，他就制作了一张新敷具，尽管他认为六年已经过去了——他仍然满足了努力因素。
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is a dukkaṭa in the effort of making the rug or having it made. When all three factors of the offense are fulfilled, the rug is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and receiving the blanket/rug in return are the same as under the preceding rules.	根据《经分别》，在制作敷具或让人制作之的努力过程中犯《突吉罗》。当犯戒的所有三个因素都满足时，敷具须被舍出，并且忏悔《舍堕》罪。舍出、忏罪、返还敷具的程序与前述戒条相同。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense if a bhikkhu makes a new felt blanket/rug (or, apparently, if he has one made) after six or more years have passed; if he makes one or has one made for another’s use; if, having obtained one made by (§) someone else—not at his instigation—he uses it; or if he makes felt to use as a canopy, a floor-covering, a wall screen, a mattress/cushion, or a kneeling mat.	如果比丘在六年或更长时间过去后制作了一条新的敷具（或者，显然，如果他已经制作了一条），并没有犯戒；如果他制造了一个或制造了一个供他人使用；如果他获得了由（§）其他人的制作——并非在他的怂恿下——他使用之；或者他制作敷具用作天篷（顶罩）、地板覆盖物、墙屏、床垫/垫子或跪垫。
Also, as the rule indicates, there is no offense if within less than six years he makes a felt blanket/rug for his own use after being authorized to do so by the bhikkhus. The Vibhaṅga explains this by saying that the Community, if it sees fit, may formally give this authorization—a transaction with a motion and one proclamations (ñatti-dutiya-kamma) —to a bhikkhu who is too ill to do without a new felt blanket/rug before his six years are up. This authorization is best explained by noting that there is no exemption under this rule for a bhikkhu whose felt blanket/rug is snatched away, lost, or destroyed. Had there been such an exemption, bhikkhus might have abused it by intentionally ridding themselves of their existing felt blanket/rugs in order to get new ones. In the absence of such exemptions, if a bhikkhu’s blanket/rug is snatched away, lost, or destroyed, the Community—if they are satisfied that he did not intentionally lose it, destroy it, or put it in a place where it might easily get stolen—can give him the authorization to get a new one made.	此外，正如戒条所表明的，如果他在得到比丘们的授权后，在不到六年的时间里制作了一条敷具供自己使用，也不算犯戒。《经分别》解释说，如果僧团认为合适，可以正式给予这项授权——白二羯磨（一白一羯磨）（ñatti-dutiya-kamma）——给一位病得太重而无法在在没有新敷具的情况下做事的比丘。这项授权的最佳解释是，根据本戒条，对于敷具被抢走、丢失或毁坏的比丘来说，没有任何豁免。如果有这样的豁免，比丘们可能会滥用它，故意扔掉自己现有的敷具，以获得新的。在没有此类豁免的情况下，如果比丘的敷具被抢走、丢失或毁坏，僧团——如果他们确信他不是故意丢失、毁坏它或将其放在容易被盗的地方——可以授权他制作新的。
Summary: Unless one has received authorization to do so from the Community, making a felt blanket/rug for one’s own use—or having it made—less than six years after one’s last one was made is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.	摘要：除非获得佣团的授权，否则在制作最后一张敷具后不到六年内制作供自己使用的敷具（或让人制作），是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。

* * *

15	十五
When a bhikkhu is having a felt sitting rug made, a piece of old felt a sugata span (25 cm.) on each side is to be incorporated for the sake of discoloring it. If, without incorporating a piece of old felt a sugata span on each side, a bhikkhu should have a new felt sitting rug made, it is to be forfeited and confessed.	当比丘制作敷具坐垫（尼师坛）时，应在每一边加入一善至张手（25公分）的旧敷具，以使其坏色。如果比丘制作一张新敷具坐垫，没有在每一边加入一善至张手的旧敷具，尼萨耆波逸提。
The full offense here has three factors:	这里的完整违犯包含三个因素：
1) Object: a felt sitting rug made without incorporating a piece of old felt a sugata span on each side and intended for one’s own use.	1）对象：敷具坐垫（尼师坛），每一边没有加入一善至张手旧敷具，供自己使用。
2) Effort: One either makes it oneself, gets someone else to make it, finishes what others have left unfinished, or gets someone else to finish what one has left unfinished.	2）努力：自己做，让别人做，完成别人未完成的，或让别人完成自己未完成的。
3) Result: One obtains it after it is finished (or finishes it, if one is making it oneself).	3）结果：完成后获得（如果是自己制作，则在完成时）。

Object	对象
Object is the only factor requiring explanation here.	对象是这里唯一需要解释的因素。
A sitting cloth—for protecting his robes from getting soiled by any place where he sits down, and for protecting any place where he sits down from being soiled by him—is one of the requisites a bhikkhu is allowed to have (Mv.VIII.16.1). In fact, if he goes without one for more than four months, he incurs a dukkaṭa (Cv.V.18). Pc 89 gives stipulations for its size and for the requirement that it should have at least one border piece.	坐布－为了保护他的袈裟不被他所坐的任何地方弄脏，以及为了保护他所坐的任何地方不被他弄脏－是比丘被允许拥有的必需品之一（《大品》.八.16.1）。事实上，如果他超过四个月没有坐布，他就会犯《突吉罗》（《小品》.五.18）。《波逸提》八九对其尺寸和至少有一个边框片的要求做出了规定。
There is some question as to whether the felt sitting rug described in this rule counts as a sitting cloth. The Commentary to Pc 89 says Yes, the Sub-commentary No. The Vibhaṅga’s definition for sitting cloth under that rule, however, states simply that it “has a border,” and because the felt sitting rug also “has a border,” it would seem to come under that definition, too. Thus the Commentary’s appears to be the correct position here.	关于本戒条中所描述的敷具坐垫（尼师坛）是否算作坐布存在一些疑问。《波逸提》八九的《义注》说是，《复注》说否。然而，《经分别》在该戒条下对坐布的定义仅指出它「有一个边界」，并且因为敷具坐垫也「有一个边界」，所以它似乎也符合该定义。因此，《义注》的立场似乎是正确的。
The Commentary to Pc 89 describes the border piece of a felt sitting rug as follows: “Having made a felt rug, then on one end in an area of one sugata span, cutting it at two points, one makes three border pieces.” Whether these three pieces are to be left flapping or are to be sewn back together, it doesn’t say.	《波逸提》八九的《义注》对敷具坐垫（尼师坛）边界片的描述是这样的：「作了敷具，然后在一善至张手的区域的一端，在两点切割，就制成了三个边界片。」这三块是要继续飘动，还是要缝合在一起，它并没有说。
According to the Vibhaṅga, when one is making a felt sitting rug, one should take a piece of old felt—at least one span in diameter or one span square—and then either place it down in one part of the new felt as is, or else shred it up and scatter the pieces throughout the new felt. This, it says, will help to strengthen the new felt.	根据《经分别》，当制作敷具坐垫（尼师坛）时，应该取一块旧敷具——至少一跨直径或一跨正方形——然后将其按原样放在新敷具的一部分上，或者将其撕碎并将碎片散布在新敷具上。它说，这将有助于加强新敷具的强度。
Old felt the Vibhaṅga defines as worn wrapped around oneself at least once: This is one of the few places indicating that felt was commonly used as a blanket. The Commentary rewords the Vibhaṅga’s definition, saying “sat on or lied down upon at least once,” which—at least in the days of the commentators—was the more common usage. The Commentary adds that, in addition to wanting to discolor the new felt sitting rug and make it stronger, one of the Buddha’s purposes in formulating this rule was to teach bhikkhus how to make good use of old, used requisites so as to maintain the good faith of those who donated them.	旧敷具，《经分别》将其定义为至少缠绕穿在自己身上一次：这是少数表明敷具通常用作毯子的地方之一。《义注》重新表述了《经分别》的定义，说「至少坐过或躺过一次」，这是更常见的用法，至少在注释者的时代是这样。《义注》补充说，佛陀制定本戒条，除了想让新敷具坐垫（尼师坛）坏色、使其更坚固外，其目的之一是教导比丘们如何善用旧的、用过的必需品，以维持布施者的信心。

Offenses

犯戒

As with the previous rules, there is a dukkaṭa for the bhikkhu who makes a sitting rug—or has one made—that violates this rule, whether it is for his own use or for that of another; and a nissaggiya pācittiya offense when he obtains the rug thus made for his own use (or finishes it, if he is making it himself). The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and receiving the rug in return are the same as under the preceding rules.

与先前的戒条一样，对于制作或令人制作了违反此戒条的坐垫的比丘，无论是为自己使用还是为他人使用，都犯《突吉罗》；当他获得如此制作的坐垫供自己使用（或完成它时，如果他自己制作）时，则犯《舍堕》罪。舍出、忏罪、返还坐垫的程序与前述戒条相同。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense if, being unable to find a large enough piece of old felt to provide the one-span piece, one includes a smaller piece of old felt in the sitting rug; if, being unable to find any old felt at all, one does not include any old felt in the rug; if, having obtained a felt sitting rug made by (§) another without old felt—not at one’s instigation—one uses it; or if one is making a canopy, a floor-covering, a wall screen, a mattress/cushion, or a kneeling mat. It seems logical that there would also be no offense for the bhikkhu making a felt blanket that does not have any border pieces and that he is not planning to use for sitting, but for some reason none of the texts mention this point.	如果无法找到一块足够大的旧敷具来提供一跨度片段，那么可以在坐垫上放一块较小的旧敷具，并没有犯戒。如果根本找不到任何旧敷具，则坐垫中不包含任何旧敷具；如果获得了由（§）另一个人制作的没有旧敷具的敷具坐垫（不是在自己的怂恿下）而使用它；或者如果有人正在制作天篷（顶罩）、地板覆盖物、墙屏、床垫/垫子或跪垫。比丘制作没有任何边界片的敷具并且他不打算用来坐著，逻辑上似乎也没有犯戒，但出于某种原因，没有任何文献提到这一点。
Summary: Making a felt sitting rug for one’s own use—or having it made—without incorporating a one-span piece of old felt is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.	摘要：制作一张自用的敷具坐垫（尼师坛）—或让人制作—而不加入一块一跨度旧敷具是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。

* * *

16	十六
Should wool accrue to a bhikkhu as he is going on a journey, he may accept it if he so desires. Having accepted it, he may carry it by hand—there being no one else to carry it—three yojanas (48 km.=30 miles) at most. If he should carry it farther than that, even if there is no one else to carry it, it is to be forfeited and confessed.	如果比丘在旅途中获得了羊毛，如果他愿意的话，他可以接受它。接受之后，他可以用手拿著它——没有其他人可以拿著它——最多三由旬（48公里=30英里）。如果他把它拿得更远，即使没有其他人拿著它，尼萨耆波逸提。
“At that time wool accrued to a bhikkhu as he was on the road in the Kosalan districts, going to Sāvatthī. So, tying the wool into a bundle with his upper robe, he went along his way. People who saw him teased him, ‘How much did you pay for it, venerable sir? How much will the profit be?’”	「当时，一位比丘在拘萨罗地区前往舍卫城的路上，获得了羊毛。于是，他用上衣将羊毛捆成一捆，就上路了。众人见了，都戏笑他：『大德，你花了多少钱买的？利润是多少？』」
There are three factors for an offense here: object, effort, and intention.	这里的犯戒有三个因素：对象、努力和意图。

Object	对象
Wool, under this rule, refers to wool that has not been made into goods (§). The Commentary explains that wool here thus does not include woolen cloth, woolen felt, woolen yarn, or even raw wool tied up with a thread, although this last point is in contradiction to the origin story, where the bhikkhu carried his wool tied up with a robe.	羊毛，根据本戒条，是指尚未制成商品的羊毛（§）。因此，《义注》解释说，这里的羊毛不包括羊毛布、羊毛毡、羊毛纱，甚至不包括用线捆扎的原始羊毛，尽管最后一点与起源故事相矛盾，在故事中，比丘携带捆扎在袈裟的羊毛。
The Commentary goes on to say, though, that wool here does refer to even small quantities of “unmade” wool, such as wool placed in the ear when one has an earache, or wrapped around scissors in their sheath to protect them from rusting, so a bhikkhu should be careful not to travel more than three yojanas with such items.	不过，《义注》接著说，这里的羊毛确实指的是即使是少量的「未加工」的羊毛，例如当人们耳痛时放在耳朵里的羊毛，或者包裹在剪刀鞘中以防止它们生锈的羊毛，因此，比丘应该小心，不要携带这些物品旅行超过三个由旬。
For wool to “accrue,” the Vibhaṅga states, means that one obtains it either from a Community, from a group, from relatives, from friends, from what has been thrown away, or from one’s own resources.	《经分别》指出，羊毛的「获得」意味著可以从僧团、群体、亲戚、朋友、被丢弃的东西或自己的资源中获得羊毛。
The wording of the rule seems to indicate that it applies to wool acquired only when one is on a journey. However, the non-offense clauses do not grant an exception for wool acquired under other circumstances, and from this fact the Sub-commentary concludes that this rule applies to wool acquired anywhere.	本戒条的措辞似乎表明它仅适用于在旅途中获得的羊毛。然而，不犯条款并未对在其他情况下获得的羊毛给予例外，根据这一事实，《复注》得出结论，本戒条适用于在任何地方获得的羊毛。

Effort	努力
Effort includes not only carrying unmade wool more than three yojanas oneself, but also placing it in a bundle or vehicle belonging to someone else without his/her knowing about it, and then letting him/her take it more than three yojanas. Perception is not a mitigating factor here: If one travels more than three yojanas, even if one thinks one hasn’t, that fulfills this factor all the same.	努力不仅包括自己携带三由旬以上的未加工羊毛，还包括在他人不知情的情况下将其放在他人的捆包或车辆中，然后让他/她拿三由旬以上。在这里，感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素：如果旅行超过三个由旬，即使认为自己没有超过，仍然满足本因素。
The Vibhaṅga adds that if one has not traveled more than three yojanas with the wool but perceives that one has or is in doubt about the matter, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. Whether this penalty applies to carrying the wool further or to using it, none of the texts say. Arguing from the Commentary’s interpretation of a parallel passage under NP 1, this penalty would apply to using the wool.	《经分别》补充说，如果带著羊毛旅行不超过三个由旬，但认为已经超过或者对此事有疑问，则惩罚是《突吉罗》。任何文献都没有说明此惩罚是否适用于将羊毛带得更远或使用它。从《义注》对《舍堕》一下的对应段落的解释来看，此惩罚将适用于使用羊毛。

Intention	意图
The Vibhaṅga says that there is no offense for the bhikkhu who, after traveling three yojanas, cannot find a proper place to stay and so carries his wool further until finding a proper place. Thus the offense under this rule is only for a bhikkhu who carries wool past the three-yojana mark for motives other than looking for a place to stay.	《经分别》说，比丘在旅行了三个由旬之后，找不到合适的住处，所以继续携带羊毛，直到找到合适的地方，这并没有犯戒。因此，本戒条下的犯戒只针对那些出于寻找住宿以外的动机而携带羊毛超过三由旬标准的比丘。

Non-offenses	不犯
In addition to the issue of intention just mentioned, the non-offense clauses say that there is no offense for the bhikkhu who carries wool three yojanas or less; for the bhikkhu traveling more than three yojanas who is carrying wool that he has received back after it was snatched away; for the bhikkhu traveling more than three yojanas who is carrying wool that he has received back after having forfeited it (in line with this rule, the Commentary implies); for the bhikkhu who carries the wool three yojanas and then carries it back; or for the bhikkhu who gets someone else to agree to carry the wool for him.	除了刚才提到的意图问题外，不犯条款规定，携带三由旬或以下羊毛的比丘，不构成犯戒；比丘旅行三由旬以上，携带被抢走之后又收回的羊毛；比丘旅行三由旬以上，携带了他在舍出后又收回的羊毛（根据《义注》暗示，与本戒条一致）；比丘携带羊毛三由旬，然后又把它带回来；或比丘让别人同意替他携带羊毛。
Summary: Carrying wool that has not been made into cloth or yarn for more than three yojanas is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.	摘要：携带未制成布料或纱线的羊毛超过三由旬是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。

* * *

17	十七
Should any bhikkhu have wool washed, dyed, or carded by a bhikkhunī unrelated to him, it is to be forfeited and confessed.	如果任何比丘让非亲戚比丘尼洗涤、染色或梳理羊毛，尼萨耆波逸提。
The reason behind this rule is expressed succinctly in the following conversation from the origin story:	本戒条背后的原因在起源故事中的以下对话中得到了简洁的表达：
“Then Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, bowed to him and stood to one side. As she was standing there, the Blessed One said to her, ‘I trust, Gotamī, that the bhikkhunīs remain heedful, ardent, and resolute?’	「那时，摩诃波阇波提瞿昙弥至世尊处，一到就向他顶礼，并站在一旁。当她站在那里时，世尊对她说：『我相信，瞿昙弥，比丘尼们会保持谨慎、热心和坚定吗？』
“‘From where, venerable sir, is there heedfulness among the bhikkhunīs? The masters—the group-of-six bhikkhus—keep having the bhikkhunīs wash, dye, and card wool. The bhikkhunīs, washing, dyeing, and carding wool, neglect… the training in heightened virtue, the training in heightened mind, and the training in heightened discernment.’”	「『世尊，比丘尼们如何得热心呢？大德们——六群比丘——不断地让比丘尼洗涤、染色和梳理羊毛。比丘尼们，洗涤、染色、梳理羊毛，忽视了……增上戒、增上心、增上慧。』」
Wool, here, as under the preceding rule, refers to wool that has not been made into cloth or yarn. Thus there is no offense for a bhikkhu who gets a bhikkhunī unrelated to him to wash woolen cloth or yarn that has not yet been used (see NP 4).	羊毛，在此处，如同前述戒条，是指尚未制成布或纱的羊毛。因此，比丘请一位非亲戚比丘尼来清洗尚未使用过的羊毛布或纱线，并没有犯戒（见《舍堕》四）。
Otherwise, all the explanations for this training rule are identical with those for NP 4, except that here “beating” is replaced by “carding.”	除此之外，本学处的所有解释与《舍堕》四的解释相同，只是在此处「搥打」被「梳理」取代。
Summary: Getting an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash, dye, or card wool that has not been made into cloth or yarn is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.	摘要：让非亲戚比丘尼清洗、染色或梳理未制成布料或纱线的羊毛是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。

* * *

18	十八
Should any bhikkhu accept gold and silver, or have it accepted, or consent to its being deposited (near him), it is to be forfeited and confessed.	如果任何比丘接受金银，或令接受金银，或同意将其存放（在他附近），则该金银将被舍出并忏悔。
As mentioned under NP 10, one of the purposes of this rule is to relieve a bhikkhu of the burden of ownership that comes as the result of accepting gifts of money or having them accepted in one’s name. The discourses contain passages, though, indicating other purposes for this rule as well:	正如《舍堕》十中所提到的，本戒条的目的之一是减轻比丘因接受金钱布施或令其以自己的名义接受而产生的所有权负担。不过，经文中所包含的段落也显示了本戒条的其他目的：
“For anyone for whom gold and silver are allowable, the five strings of sensuality are also allowable. For anyone for whom the five strings of sensuality are allowable, gold and silver are allowable (reading yassa pañca kāmaguṇā kappanti tassa-pi jātarūpa-rajataṁ kappati with the Thai edition). That you can unequivocally recognize as not the quality of a contemplative, not the quality of one of the Sakyan sons.”—SN 42:10	「凡金银许可之人，五欲亦许可。凡五欲许可之人，金银亦许可（泰文版读作 yassa pañca kāmaguṇā kappanti tassa-pi jātarūpa-rajataṁ kappati）。你可以明确地识别这不是沙门法，也不是释迦子法之一。」—《相应部》42:10经
“Bhikkhus, there are these four obscurations of the sun and moon, obscured by which the sun and moon don’t glow, don’t shine, don’t dazzle. Which four? Clouds… Fog…. Smoke and dust… Rāhu, the king of the asuras (believed to be the cause of an eclipse) is an obscuration, obscured by which the sun and moon don’t glow, don’t shine, don’t dazzle…. In the same way, there are four obscurations of contemplatives and brahmans, obscured by which some contemplatives and brahmans don’t glow, don’t shine, don’t dazzle. Which four? There are some contemplatives and brahmans who… do not refrain from drinking alcohol and fermented liquor… who do not refrain from sexual intercourse… who do not refrain from accepting gold and silver… who do not refrain from wrong livelihood…. Because of these obscurations, some brahmans and contemplatives… covered with darkness, slaves to craving, led on, swell the terrible charnel ground, grab at further becoming.”—AN 4:50	「诸比丘，日月有四种障蔽，日月不明亮、不光芒、不光辉。哪四种？云……雾……烟尘……罗睺，阿修罗之王（据信是日食的原因）是遮蔽物，被它遮蔽，日月不明亮、不光芒、不光辉……。同样地，沙门和婆罗门也有四种障蔽，有些沙门和婆罗门被这四种障蔽所遮蔽，不明亮、不光芒、不光辉。哪四种？有沙门、婆罗门……不远离饮酒及发酵饮料……不远离淫欲法……不远离接受金银……不远离邪命……。由于这些障蔽，有些婆罗门和沙门…被黑暗所笼罩，成为贪爱的奴隶，被牵引，扩大了可怖的坟场，执取后有。」—《增支部》4:50经
Bhikkhus, in abandoning the use of money, make real their abandonment of worldly pursuits and show others by example that the struggle for wealth is not the true way to find happiness.	比丘们放弃使用金钱，就真正放弃了世俗的追求，并以身作则向他人表明，为财富而奋斗并不是寻找幸福的真正方法。
The factors for an offense under this rule are two: object and effort. However, because “object” is defined in one way for the first two actions stated in the rule, and in another way for the third, it seems best to analyze this rule as covering two separate but related offenses.	根据本戒条，犯戒的因素有两个：对象和努力。然而，由于「对象」以一种方式定义为戒条中规定的前两种行为，而第三种行为则以另一种方式定义，因此似乎最好将本戒条分析为涵盖两种独立但相关的犯戒。
In the first offense the factors are:	在第一种犯戒中，因素是：
1) Object: gold or silver.	1）对象：金或银。
2) Effort: One accepts or gets someone else to accept it.	2）努力：接受或让别人接受它。
In the second offense they are:	在第二种犯戒中，他们是：
1) Object: gold or silver intended for one.	1）对象：供使用的金或银。
2) Effort: One consents to its being placed down next to one.	2）努力：同意将其放在旁边。

Object	对象
The Vibhaṅga defines gold so as to include anything made of gold. Silver it defines to cover coins made of silver, copper, wood, or lac, or whatever is used as a currency. The Commentary adds such examples as bones, pieces of hide, fruit, and seeds of trees used as currency, whether they have been stamped with a figure or not. At present, the term would include coins and paper currency, as well as money orders and cashiers checks not made out to a specific payee, as these meet all three requirements of a currency: (1) They are a generally accepted medium of exchange; (2) they are of standard recognized value; and (3) they are presentable by any bearer. The following items, because they do not fulfill all three of these requirements, would not count as “silver” under this rule: money orders and cashier’s checks made out to a specific payee; personal checks and travelers’ checks; credit cards and debit cards; gift cards, phone cards, frequent flyer miles; food stamps; and promissory notes.	《经分别》对金的定义包括所有黄金制成的东西。它定义的「银」包括由银、铜、木头、树胶或任何用作货币的物质制成的硬币。《义注》添加了用作货币的骨头、兽皮碎片、水果和树种等例子，无论它们是否带有数字印记。目前，该术语包括硬币和纸币，以及未开给特定收款人的汇票和银行本票，因为它们满足货币的所有三个要求：（1）它们是普遍接受的交换媒介；（2）具有标准认可价值；（3）任何持有者均可出示。以下物品，因为不符合所有这三个要求，因此根据本戒条不能算作「银」：开给特定收款人的汇票和银行本票；个人支票和旅行支票；信用卡和金融卡；礼品卡、电话卡、飞行常客哩程；食品券；和期票（本票）。
Because the word silver here functionally means “money,” that is how I will translate it for the remainder of the discussion of this rule.	因为这里的“银”这个词在功能上意味著“金钱”，所以我将在本戒条的其余讨论中对其进行翻译。
The Vibhaṅga indicates that perception is not a mitigating factor in either offense. Thus if a bhikkhu receives gold or money, even if he perceives it as something else—as when accepting a closed envelope not knowing that it contains money, or consenting to a bolt of cloth’s being placed near him, unaware that money has been placed inside it—he commits the full offense all the same. The same holds true if he is in doubt about what the envelope or bolt of cloth contains. This may seem a harsh penalty for a bhikkhu acting in complete innocence, but we must remember that, having received the money even unknowingly, he is now in possession of it and must dispose of it in a proper way. The protocols under this rule give directions for precisely how to do that.	《经分别》指出，感知并不是这两种犯戒的减轻因素。因此，如果比丘收到黄金或金钱，即使他将其视为其他东西，例如当他接受一个封闭的信封时，并不知道里面装有金钱，或者同意将一块布匹放在他附近，但不知道里面已经放入金钱了，他仍然完全违犯此戒。如果他对信封或布匹的内容有疑问，这同样成立。对于一个完全无辜的比丘来说，这似乎是一个严厉的惩罚，但我们必须记住，即使在不知情的情况下收到了这笔钱，他现在也拥有了这笔钱，并且必须以适当的方式处置它。本戒条下的行仪给出了具体如何做到这一点的指示。
If a bhikkhu accepts or consents to the placing of something that is not gold or money and yet he perceives it to be gold or money or is in doubt about its status, he incurs a dukkaṭa.	如果比丘接受或同意放置非黄金或金钱的东西，但他认为它是黄金或金钱或对其状态有疑问，他就会犯《突吉罗》。
Gold Buddha images and gold items given to Buddha images, relics, or stūpas are not mentioned in the texts in connection with this rule. Over the centuries the common practice has been not to regard them as fulfilling the factor of object here, probably because Buddha images, stūpas, and relics, strictly speaking, cannot be owned by anyone. Similarly with items given to a Buddha image, etc.: Technically, these belong to the image, etc., and not to the monastery in which it may be located. Thus, as long as a bhikkhu realizes that he cannot assume ownership of any of these things, he may handle them without incurring an offense under this rule.	文献中没有提到与此戒条相关的金佛像和供养佛像、舍利或塔的黄金物品。几个世纪以来，普遍的做法是不认为它们满足了这里的对象因素，可能是因为严格来说，佛像、佛塔和舍利不能为任何人所拥有。与给予佛像等的物品类似：从技术上讲，这些物品属于佛像等，而不属于它所在的寺院。因此，只要比丘意识到他不能拥有这些物品中的任何一件，他就可以处理它们，而不会触犯本戒条。
As mentioned under NP 10, the Commentary derives from the Canon a list of items that it says carry a dukkaṭa when accepted by a bhikkhu. These include pearls and precious stones; 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. For convenience’s sake, we will refer to these items from here on as dukkaṭa objects (dukkaṭa-vatthu), or D.O. for short.	正如《舍堕》十中所提到的，《义注》源自《圣典》的一份物品列表，它说当比丘接受时会犯《突吉罗》。其中包括珍珠和宝石；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。为了方便起见，我们从这里开始将这些物品称为《突吉罗》物件(dukkaṭa-vatthu)，或缩写成 D.O. 。

Effort	努力
This factor may be fulfilled by any of three actions: accepting gold or money, having it accepted, or consenting to its being deposited. As noted above, the factors of the offense differ among the three: In the first two, the question of whether the bhikkhu consents to the gold or money does not enter into the definition of the act, nor does the donor’s intention as to who the gold or money is for. Only in the third act is the bhikkhu’s consent required to fulfill the action, and only there is it required that the donor intend the gold or money for the bhikkhu himself.	这个因素可以透过以下三种行为中的任何一种来实现：接受黄金或金钱、让其被接受，或同意将其存放。如上所述，这三种犯戒的因素有所不同：在前两种情况下，比丘是否同意黄金或金钱的问题不属于该行为的定义，布施者对于黄金或金钱是给谁的意图也不属于。只有在第三种行为中，才需要比丘同意才能完成该行动，并且只有在布施者打算将黄金或金钱送给比丘本人时才需要。
1) Accepting	1) 接受
According to the K/Commentary, this includes receiving gold or money offered as a gift or picking up gold or money left lying around ownerless. (As the non-offense clauses show, this factor does not cover cases where one picks up money left lying around the monastery or a house where one is visiting if one’s purpose is to keep it in safekeeping for the owner. See Pc 84.) According to the Commentary, a bhikkhu who accepts money wrapped up in a bolt of cloth would also commit an offense here, which shows that this act includes receiving or taking the money not only with one’s body, but also with items connected with the body. Thus accepting money in an envelope or having it placed in one’s shoulder bag as it hangs from one’s shoulder would fulfill this factor as well.	根据 K/《义注》，这包括接收作为布施提供的黄金或金钱，或拾取无主的黄金或金钱。（如不犯条款所示，此因素不包括以下情况：如果目的是为所有者妥善保管，捡起留在寺院或正在参观的房屋周围的钱的情况。参阅《波逸提》八四。）根据《义注》，比丘接受用布包裹的金钱也犯了本戒，这表明此行为不仅包括用自己的身体接受或拿走金钱，还包括用与身体相连的物品。因此，接受装在信封里的钱或把它放在挂在肩上的肩包里也可以满足此因素。
The K/Commentary adds the stipulation that in the taking there must be some movement of the gold or money from one place to another. It offers no explanation for this point, but it may refer to cases where the gold or money is forced on a bhikkhu. (Because the presence or absence of the bhikkhu’s consent does not enter into the definition of the act of accepting, this means that when gold or money is forced on him, the act has been accomplished.) A typical example where this stipulation is useful is when a bhikkhu is on alms round and a lay donor, against the bhikkhu’s protestations, places money in his bowl. The stipulation allows the bhikkhu simply to stand there until he gets the donor or someone else to remove the money, and he would be absolved of an offense under this rule.	K/《义注》增加了这样的规定：在取得过程中，黄金或金钱必须有从一处到另一处的某种移动。它没有对这一点作出解释，但它可能指的是黄金或金钱被强加给比丘的情况。（因为比丘的同意与否并不属于接受行为的定义，这意味著当黄金或金钱被强加给他时，该行为就已经完成了。）这一规定有用的典型例子是当一位比丘托钵时，一位在家人不顾比丘的抗议，将钱放入他的钵中。该规定允许比丘简单地站在那里，直到他让施主或其他人取走钱，根据本戒条，他将被免除犯戒。
The commentaries add intention as an extra factor—the full offense is entailed only if the bhikkhu is taking the gold or money for his own sake—but there is no basis for this in the Vibhaṅga. The bhikkhu’s intention in accepting the money does not enter into the Vibhaṅga’s discussions of any of the three actions covered by this rule, the donor’s intent does not enter into the Vibhaṅga’s definition of this action, and the non-offense clauses do not allow for a bhikkhu to accept money for others, so the added factor seems unwarranted. Whether the bhikkhu accepts gold or money for himself or for others is thus not an issue here.	注释书中加入了意图作为一个额外的因素——只有当比丘为了自己的利益而获取黄金或金钱时，才构成完全的犯戒——但在《经分别》中没有这方面的依据。比丘接受金钱的意图不属于《经分别》对本戒条所涵盖的三种行为中任何一种的讨论，布施者的意图不属于《经分别》对此行为的定义，并且不犯条款不允许比丘为他人接受金钱，所以增加的因素似乎没有根据。因此，比丘是否为自己或他人接受黄金或金钱在这里并不是问题。

2) Having gold or money accepted	2) 让黄金或金钱被接受
Having gold or money accepted, according to the K/Commentary, includes getting someone else to do any of the actions covered under accepting, as described above. Examples from the commentaries, which draw on the protocols under NP 10, include such things as telling the donor to give the money to a steward, telling the donor that so-and-so will take the money for him; telling the steward to take the money, to put it in a donation box, to “do what he thinks appropriate,” or any similar command.	根据 K/《义注》，接受黄金或金钱包括让其他人执行接受所涵盖的任何行动，如上所述。注释书中的例子借鉴了《舍堕》十下的行仪，包括告诉布施者将钱交给净人、告诉布施者某某会替他拿走这笔钱；告诉净人拿走钱，将其放入捐款箱（功德箱），「做他认为合适的事情」，或任何类似的命令。
Anything that falls short of a command, though, would not fulfill this factor, as we have already seen under NP 10. Thus simply telling the donor that X is the bhikkhus’ steward—or that the monastery’s stewards have placed a donation box in such-and-such a place—would not be a factor for an offense here. Also, if the donor—over the bhikkhu’s protestations—leaves money, say, on a table as a gift for a bhikkhu, then if the bhikkhu tells his steward what the donor did and said, without telling the steward to do anything with the money—letting the steward figure things out on his/her own—this too would not entail a penalty. The Commentary’s discussion of stewards under the next point shows that while a bhikkhu who tells a volunteer steward to put such a donation in a donation box would incur a penalty, a bhikkhu who simply points out the donation box would not.	然而，任何不符合命令的事情都不会满足这个因素，正如我们在《舍堕》十中已经看到的那样。因此，仅仅告诉施主 X 是比丘的净人──或是寺院的净人在某处放置了一个捐款箱（功德箱）──在这里并不会构成犯戒的因素。另外，如果施主不顾比丘的抗议，比如说，将钱留在桌上作为给比丘的布施，那么如果比丘告诉他的净人，施主做了什么和说过什么，但没有告诉净人如何处理这笔钱——让净人自己解决问题——这也不会带来惩罚。《义注》在下一点中对净人的讨论表明，虽然比丘告诉志愿者净人将此类捐款放入捐款箱（功德箱）会受到处罚，但比丘只是指出捐款箱（功德箱）则不会受到处罚。
As with the act of accepting, the questions of the bhikkhu’s consent, his intent in accepting, and the donor’s intent in giving do not enter into the definition of this action.	与接受行为一样，比丘的同意、接受的意图以及布施者布施的意图等问题不属于该行为的定义。

3) Consenting to gold or money’s being deposited	3) 同意存放黄金或金钱
The Vibhaṅga defines this action as follows: “He (the donor), saying, ‘This is for the master,’ deposits it, and the bhikkhu consents (§).” According to the K/Commentary, depositing covers two sorts of situations:	《经分别》对此行为的定义如下：「他（布施者）说：『这是给大师的』，将其存入，比丘同意（§）。」根据 K/《义注》，存放分为两种情况：
1) The donor places gold or money anywhere in the bhikkhu’s presence, and says, “This is for the master,” or	1) 布施者将黄金或金钱放在比丘面前的任何地方，并说：「这是给大师的」，或
2) The donor tells him, “I have some gold or money deposited in such-and-such a location. It’s yours.” (One of the implications of this second case is that any monastery with a donation box should make clear that money left in the box is being placed with the steward. Because NP 10 allows a donor to place gold or money intended for a bhikkhu’s needs with a steward, the act of placing money with such a person in a bhikkhu’s presence does not count as “depositing” here.)	2) 布施者告诉他：「我在某处存放了一些黄金或金钱。是你的。」（此第二个案例的含义之一是，任何设有捐款箱（功德箱）的寺院都应明确表示，箱中的钱存放在净人那里。因为《舍堕》十允许布施者将用于比丘需要的黄金或金钱存放在净人处，当比丘在场的情况下向这样的人放置金钱的行为在此不算作「存放」。
Consenting in either of these cases, says the Commentary, means that one does not refuse either in thought, word, or deed. Refusing in thought means thinking, “This is not proper for me.” Refusing in word means telling the donor that such a gift is not allowable. Refusing in deed means making a gesture to the same effect. If one refuses in any of these ways—e.g., one wants to accept the gold or money, but tells the donor that it is not allowable; or one says nothing, but simply reminds oneself that such gifts are not proper to accept—one avoids the penalty here.	《义注》说，在这两种情况下，同意意味著一个人在思想、言语或行为（身口意）上都没有拒绝。思想（意）上的拒绝意味著想：「这不适合我。」口头（口）拒绝是指告诉布施者这样的布施是不被允许的。行为（身）拒绝意味著做出同样效果的示意动作。如果以任何一种方式拒绝——例如，想接受黄金或金钱，但告诉布施者这是不允许的；或是甚么也没说，只是提醒自己这样的布施不适合接受──这样就可以避免受到惩罚。
The question of whether it is best to express one’s refusal outwardly lies beyond the scope of the Vinaya and often depends on the situation. Ideally, one should inform the donor so that he/she will know enough not to present such gifts in the future, but there are cases where the donor is still new to the idea of rules and will simply be offended if the bhikkhu objects to what he/she means as a well-intentioned gesture. This is thus a matter where a bhikkhu should use his discretion.	是否最好从外表上表达拒绝的问题超出了戒律的范围，而且往往取决于具体情况。理想情况下，应该告知布施者，以便他/她知道将来不要做此类布施，但在某些情况下，布施者对戒条的概念仍然很陌生，如果比丘反对他/她所表达的善意行动，布施者只会感到被冒犯。因此，这是比丘应该运用自己的判断力的问题。
The Commentary contains a long discussion of what a bhikkhu should do if, after he refuses such a donation, the donor goes off leaving it there anyway. If someone else comes along and asks the bhikkhu, “What is this?”, the bhikkhu may tell him/her what he and the donor said, but may not ask him/her to do anything about it. If the person volunteers to put the gold or money into safekeeping, the bhikkhu may point out a safe place but may not tell him/her to put it there.	《义注》中有一个长篇大论的讨论，如果比丘在拒绝这样的布施后，布施者却把它留在那里，他应该怎么做。如果其他人走过来问比丘：「这是什么？」，比丘可以告诉他/她他和施主所说的话，但不能要求他/她对此做任何事情。如果此人自愿将黄金或金钱保管起来，比丘可以指出一个安全的地方，但不能告诉他/她把它放在那里。
Once the gold or money is in a safe place, one may point it out to other people—one’s steward, for instance—but may not tell anyone to take it. The Commentary gives directions for how to arrange an exchange with gold or money in such a case so as not to violate NP 19 & 20, but I will save that part of the discussion until we come to those rules.	一旦黄金或金钱到达安全的地方，可以将其指出给其他人（例如净人），但不得告诉任何人拿走它。《义注》给出了在这种情况下如何安排黄金或金钱兑换的指示，以免违反《舍堕》一九和二十，但我将保留这部分讨论，直到我们遇到这些戒条。
However, the Vibhaṅga’s definition of “depositing” gold or money for a bhikkhu indicates that the question of who the donor intends the money for does make a difference under this action, because the nature of the donor’s action is defined by what he or she says. If the donor means the money for the bhikkhu and the bhikkhu consents to its being placed nearby, that fulfills the factor here. This covers cases where the donor says, “This is for you,” or “This is for you to give to X.”	然而，《经分别》对为比丘「存放」黄金或金钱的定义表明，布施者打算将钱送给谁的问题在这一行为中确实产生了影响，因为布施者行为的性质是由他或她所说的来定义的。如果布施者的意思是给比丘钱，而比丘同意将钱放在附近，那就满足了这里的因素。这包括布施者说「这是给你的」或「这是让你给 X 的」的情况。
In cases where the donor says, “This is for the Community,” or “This is for Bhikkhu Y,” and Bhikkhu X consents to its being placed down near him, the Commentary—drawing on the Great Standards—says that X incurs a dukkaṭa. It does not say, though, what should be done with the money, aside from stating that any bhikkhu who uses anything bought with it also incurs a dukkaṭa. Its discussion of the following rule, though, would seem to imply that it should be returned to the original donor.	如果布施者说：「这是给僧团」或「这是给比丘 Y」，并且比丘 X 同意将其放置在他附近，则《义注》根据《四大教示》说 X 会犯《突吉罗》。然而，它并没有说应该用这些钱做什么，只是说任何比丘使用用它购买的任何东西也会犯《突吉罗》。然而，它对以下戒条的讨论似乎意味著它应该退还给最初的布施者。
If money for Bhikkhu Y is placed near Bhikkhu X in this way, and Y in turn consents to the donation, then Y would incur the full penalty here as well. The Commentary’s discussion under NP 10 indicates that if money for the Community is placed near Bhikkhu X, the Community is said to have consented to it only when all members of the Community unanimously consent to it. If one member refuses consent, he saves all the other members from committing an offense—except for X, who still has his dukkaṭa.	如果比丘 Y 的钱以这种方式放在比丘 X 附近，而 Y 又同意该布施，那么 Y 也会在这里遭受全额惩罚。《舍堕》十下的《义注》讨论表明，如果僧团的资金放在 X 比丘附近，只有当僧团的所有成员一致同意时，才被认为是僧团同意的。如果一位成员拒绝同意，他会阻止所有其他成员犯戒——除了 X，他仍然犯《突吉罗》。
The Commentary here also says that a bhikkhu who consents to monetary donations “placed nearby” him for monastery buildings incurs a dukkaṭa as well. This refers to cases where the donor says, “This is for the Community to use in building such-and-such,” and places the money down next to the bhikkhu. As the Commentary itself says under NP 10, if the donor does not mention the name of the bhikkhu or the Community as custodians or recipients of the funds, the donations are not to be refused. Rather, they are to be left there and the steward told of what the donor said.	这里的《义注》还说，一位比丘同意将金钱捐赠放在他「附近」来建造寺院建筑，也会犯《突吉罗》。这是指布施者说：「这是供僧团用于建造某物的」，并将钱放在比丘旁边。正如《义注》本身在《舍堕》十下所说，如果布施者没有提及作为资金保管人或接受者的比丘或僧团的名称，则布施不得被拒绝。相反，他们应该被留在那儿，告诉净人布施者所说的话。

Forfeiture & confession	舍出 & 忏罪
A bhikkhu who commits either offense under this rule must forfeit the gold or money in the midst of a formal meeting of the Community before confessing the offense. The formulae and procedures for forfeiture and confession are given in Appendix VI. This is one of the few NP rules where the offender may not forfeit the item in question to an individual bhikkhu or to a group of less than four. Once he has forfeited the gold or money and confessed his offense, the Community may not return it to him, as there is no way a bhikkhu is allowed to possess these things.	犯下本戒条的比丘必须在忏罪之前在僧团的正式会议中舍出黄金或金钱。舍出和忏罪的公式和程序请见附录六。这是为数不多的《舍堕》戒条之一，犯戒者不得将相关物品舍出给单一比丘或少于四人的团体。一旦他舍出了黄金或金钱并忏悔了自己的罪行，僧团不得将其归还给他，因为比丘不能拥有这些东西。
If a lay person comes along after the gold or money has been forfeited, the bhikkhus may tell him, “Look at this.” If he asks, “What should be bought with this?”, the bhikkhus are not to tell him to buy anything (as that would violate NP 20), although they may tell him what in general is allowable for bhikkhus, such as the five tonics, as under NP 23, below. If he takes the gold or money and purchases any proper items, all the bhikkhus except the one who originally accepted the gold or money may make use of them. If the lay person does not volunteer to buy anything with the gold or money, the bhikkhus should tell him to get rid of it.	如果在黄金或金钱被舍出后，有居士出现，比丘们可以告诉他：「看看这个。」如果他问：「应该用这个买什么？」，比丘们不要告诉他买任何东西（因为这会违反《舍堕》二十），尽管他们可以告诉他一般来说对比丘们而言什么是允许的，例如五种补品（译注：七日药），如《舍堕》二三所示。如果他拿走黄金或金钱并且购买任何适当的物品，除最初接受黄金或金钱的比丘外，所有比丘都可以使用它们。如果居士不自愿用黄金或金钱购买任何东西，比丘们应该告诉他要把它摒弃掉。
If he does not get rid of it, they are to choose one of the bhikkhus present as the “money-disposer,” by means of the transaction statement—a motion and one proclamation (ñatti-dutiya-kamma)—given in Appendix VI. The money-disposer must be free of the four forms of bias—based on desire, aversion, delusion, or fear—and must know when money is properly disposed of and when it is not. His duty is to throw the money away without taking note of where it falls. If he does take note, he incurs a dukkaṭa. The Commentary recommends that, “Closing his eyes, he should throw it into a river, over a cliff, or into a jungle thicket without paying attention to where it falls, disinterested as if it were a bodily secretion (gūthaka).”	如果他不摒弃它，他们将通过在附录六中的羯磨声明——一项动议和一份公告[译注：一白与一羯磨]（ñatti-dutiya-kamma [译注：白二羯磨]）——选择在场的比丘之一作为「金钱处置者」。金钱处置者必须免于四种形式的偏见——基于欲望、嗔恨、愚痴、或恐惧——并且必须知道何时金钱被正确地处置，何时不正确。他的职责就是把钱丢掉，而不注意它落到哪里。如果他确实注意到了，他犯《突吉罗》。《义注》建议：「闭上眼睛，将其扔进河里、悬崖上或丛林中，而不注意它落到哪里，漠不关心，就好像它是身体的分泌物（gūthaka）一样。」
None of the texts mention what a bhikkhu is to do with dukkaṭa objects he has received, but as we shall see under the following rule, the Commentary would seem to suggest that he return them to their donors.	没有任何文字提到比丘如何处理他收到的《突吉罗》物件，但正如我们将在以下戒条中看到的，《义注》似乎建议他将这些物品归还给施主。

Non-offenses	不犯
As mentioned above, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who, finding gold or money lying around the monastery or in a house he is visiting, puts it away in safe keeping for the owner. This point is discussed in detail under Pc 84.	如上所述，比丘在寺院周围或他所拜访的房屋中发现黄金或金钱，为其所有者将其妥善保管，这并没有犯戒。这一点在《波逸提》八四中有详细讨论。

Checks	支票
There is some controversy over the status of checks under this rule. In legal terms, a check is a notice to a bank to provide funds for the payee. Because banks are corporate individuals and not “places,” a check made out to a bhikkhu is thus equivalent to a notice from a donor to a steward to provide funds on the bhikkhu’s behalf. Because the funds in question do not change ownership until the recipient cashes the check, this strengthens the similarity to funds placed with a steward: The funds still belong to the donor until they are used, and the steward is responsible if they become lost in the meantime. Thus the simple act of receiving a check counts not as an act of receiving money but as an acknowledgement of the notice. In passing the notice to someone else, one is simply informing them of the donor’s arrangement. Only if a bhikkhu cashes a check or gives an order to someone else to do so does he commit an offense under this rule.	对于本戒条下的支票的地位存在一些争议。从法律角度来说，支票是银行向收款人提供资金的通知。因为银行是法人个体而非「场所」，所以开给比丘的支票相当于布施者向净人发出的代替比丘提供资金的通知。由于相关资金在收款人兑现支票之前不会改变所有权，因此这增强了存放与净人的资金的相似性：资金在使用之前仍属于布施者，如果资金在使用过程中丢失，则净人负责。因此，仅接收支票的行为不算是接收金钱的行为，而是对通知的确认。将通知传递给其他人时，只是告知他们布施者的安排。只有当比丘兑现支票或命令其他人这样做时，他才犯下本戒条。
A bhikkhu who uses a check as a means of barter commits an offense under NP 20. The most he is allowed to do when receiving a check is to hand it over to his steward—being careful not to say anything that would violate the etiquette of kappiya vohāra (“wording things right”) under this rule or NP 10, 19, & 20—and to let the steward make whatever arrangements he/she sees fit.	使用支票作为以物易物的比丘犯了《舍堕》二十罪。当他收到支票时，他最多可以做的就是将其交给他的净人，注意不要说出任何违反本戒条或《舍堕》十、一九、二十规定的 kappiya vohāra （「措辞正确」）礼仪的内容——并让净人做出他/她认为合适的任何安排。

Summary: Accepting gold or money, having someone else accept it, or consenting to its being placed down as a gift for oneself is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.

摘要：接受黄金或金钱、让别人接受它或同意将其作为布施送给自己都是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。

* * *

19	十九
Should any bhikkhu engage in various types of monetary exchange, it (the income) is to be forfeited and confessed.	如果任何比丘从事各种类型的金钱兑换，则其（收入）将被舍出并忏悔。
There are two factors for an offense here: object and effort.	这里的犯戒有两个因素：对象和努力。

Object	对象
The Vibhaṅga defines money in the same terms it uses to define gold and silver in the preceding rule: any type of gold, whether shaped into an ornament or not; and any coins or other items used as currency.	《经分别》对金钱的定义与前一个戒条中定义金银的术语相同：任何类型的黄金，无论是否被制成装饰品；以及任何硬币或其他用作货币的物品。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga’s description of the kind of exchange covered by this rule differs from that given in the Commentary, so they are best discussed separately.	《经分别》对本戒条所涵盖的兑换类型的描述与《义注》中的描述不同，因此最好将它们分开讨论。

The Vibhaṅga’s interpretation	《经分别》的解释
Monetary exchange refers primarily to the type of business and speculation a gold dealer would engage in—exchanging currency, trading gold ore for gold shaped into ornaments or vice versa, trading gold ore for gold ore, or gold ornaments for gold ornaments—but the Vibhaṅga’s discussion of the factor of perception shows that the factor of effort here includes any exchange in which the bhikkhu ends up with gold or money as a result of the exchange. Thus it would cover cases where a bhikkhu sells any kind of item—allowable or unallowable—for money.	金钱兑换主要是指黄金交易商从事的业务和投机买卖类型——兑换货币、用金矿石换黄金饰品，反之亦然、用金矿石换金矿石、或者用金饰品换金饰品——但《经分别》对感知因素的讨论表明，这里的努力因素包括比丘最终得到黄金或金钱作为交换结果的任何交换。因此，它涵盖了比丘为了金钱而出售任何种类的物品——无论是允许的还是不允许的——的情况。
At first glance, this rule would seem redundant with the preceding rule against receiving money and the following rule against engaging in trade, but actually it closes a number of loopholes in those rules. In the preceding rule, a bhikkhu may point out a steward to a person who brings money intended for him; and in the following rule he can, if he words it right, propose a trade or tell a steward to arrange a trade for him. Thus, given just those two rules, it would be possible for a bhikkhu using “proper” procedures to have his steward engage in currency speculation and other money-making activities without committing an offense.	乍看之下，与前面的禁止接受金钱的戒条和后面的禁止从事贸易的戒条，本戒条似乎是多余的，但实际上它弥补了这些戒条中的一些漏洞。在前条戒条中，比丘可以向为他带来金钱的人指出一名净人；在后面的戒条中，如果他表达正确，他可以提出交易或告诉净人为他安排交易。因此，只有这两条戒条，比丘就有可能使用「适当」的程序让他的净人从事货币投机买卖和其他赚钱活动而不犯戒。
This rule, though, includes no such exceptions for “wording things right (kappiya-vohāra),” and so closes those loopholes as far as this type of trading is concerned. As a result, a bhikkhu may not express a desire to his steward that he/she sell something belonging to him or take funds dedicated for his use and invest them for monetary return. If the bhikkhu is going abroad, he must leave it up to his steward to figure out that any funds donated for his use may have to be exchanged for foreign currency if they are going to serve any purpose.	不过，本戒条不包括「措辞正确（kappiya-vohāra）」的例外情况，因此就此类交易而言，堵住了这些漏洞。结果，比丘不能向他的净人表达，让他/她出售属于他的东西，或拿专用于他的资金并投资以获取金钱回报的愿望。如果比丘要出国，他必须让他的净人自己弄清楚，供他使用的任何布施资金如果要发挥任何作用，可能必须兑换成外币。
According to the K/Commentary, the item offered in exchange must be one’s own if the exchange is to fall under this rule, but the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses make no exemptions for a bhikkhu who engages in monetary exchange using items belonging to anyone else. Thus if a bhikkhu were to arrange a monetary exchange using goods belonging to his family, he would have to forfeit any proceeds from the exchange that they might offer to him.	根据 K/《义注》，如果交换符合本戒条，则提供的交换物品必须是自己的，但《经分别》的不犯条款对于使用属于其他人的物品进行金钱兑换的比丘没有豁免。因此，如果比丘要使用属于他家人的物品进行金钱兑换，他将不得不放弃他们可能提供给他的任何兑换收益。
Perception is not a factor here. Thus, when receiving gold or money, even if he perceives it as something else or is in doubt about the matter, he would still be fulfilling the factor of effort. When receiving something other than gold or money, if he perceives it as gold or money or is in doubt about it, the penalty would be a dukkaṭa.	感知不是这里的因素。因此，当他收到黄金或金钱时，即使他认为这是其他东西或对此有疑问，他仍然满足了努力的因素。当收到黄金或金钱以外的东西时，如果他认为它是黄金或金钱或对此有疑问，则会受到《突吉罗》的惩罚。

The Commentary’s interpretation	《义注》的解释
According to the Commentary, monetary exchange refers to any trade in which money is involved—whether as the item the bhikkhu brings into the trade, gets out of the trade, or both. Buddhaghosa states that this interpretation is based on a passage that is not in the Vibhaṅga but logically should be. The Sub-commentary supports him, explaining that if monetary exchange covers trades in which money forms one side of the trade, it shouldn’t matter which side of the trade it is on.	根据《义注》，金钱交换是指任何涉及金钱的交易——无论是比丘将物品带入交易、带出交易，或两者兼而有之。佛音指出，这种解释所依据的一段话不在《经分别》中，但逻辑上应该是。《复注》支持他，解释说如果金钱交换涵盖金钱构成交易一方的交易，那么金钱属于交易的哪一方并不重要。
This, however, contradicts a number of points in the Vibhaṅga. (1) Its table of the possible actions covered by this rule includes only cases where the outcome of the trade for the bhikkhu is money. As we noted in the Introduction, we have to trust that the Vibhaṅga arrangers knew what was and was not an offense under a certain rule, and that if they had meant the rule to cover more than the alternatives listed in the table they would have included them. (2) In the Vibhaṅga’s discussion of how the forfeiture is to be conducted, it consistently refers to the offender as the “one who purchased money” and to the bhikkhu who throws the forfeited object away as the “money-disposer.” (3) If monetary exchange covers cases where the bhikkhu uses money to buy allowable things, then the discussion of how a bhikkhu could get his steward to use money rightfully placed with the steward to buy such things would have been included under this rule; instead, it is included under the following rule. All of this seems to indicate that the Commentary is on shaky ground when it tries to force its interpretation on the Vibhaṅga here.	然而，这与《经分别》中的许多观点相矛盾。（1）本戒条涵盖的可能行动表格仅包括比丘交易的结果是金钱的情况。正如我们在引言中指出的，我们必须相信《经分别》编排者知道在特定戒条下什么是犯戒，什么不是犯戒，并且如果他们想让该戒条涵盖比表格中列出的替代方案更多的内容，他们就会包括他们。（2）《经分别》在讨论如何进行舍出时，始终将犯戒者称为「购买金钱的人」，并将扔掉舍出物品的比丘称为「金钱处置者」。（3）如果金钱兑换涵盖比丘用金钱购买允许的物品的情况，那么比丘如何让他的净人使用正确存放在净人那里的金钱来购买这些物品的讨论就包含在本戒条中；相反，它包含在下一个戒条中。所有这些似乎都表明，当《义注》试图将其解释强加于此处的《经分别》时，它的基础是不稳固的。
Still, the Commentary’s interpretation is widely followed and fairly complex, so it will be good to discuss it in some detail.	尽管如此，《义注》的解释仍被广泛遵循并且相当复杂，因此最好对其进行一些详细讨论。
As under the preceding rule, the Commentary divides articles into three sorts:	如同上一个戒条，《义注》将物件分为三类：
nissaggiya objects (N.O.), i.e., articles such as gold and money, which entail a nissaggiya pācittiya when accepted;	《尼萨耆》物件（N.O.），即黄金和金钱等物品，在接受时犯《舍堕》；
dukkaṭa objects (D.O.), articles such as pearls, precious stones; uncooked grain, raw meat; women and girls, male and female slaves; goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, steeds, and mares; fields and property, any of which entail a dukkaṭa when accepted;	《突吉罗》物件（D.O.），珍珠、宝石等物品；未煮熟的谷物、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，其中任何一项在被接受时都会带来《突吉罗》；
allowable objects (A.O.), articles that a bhikkhu may rightfully accept and possess.	允许物件（A.O.），比丘可以正当地接受和拥有的物品。
It then works out the following scheme to cover all possible trades involving these objects:	然后，它制定出以下方案来涵盖所有涉及这些物件的可能的交易：

Using to buy results in

N.O. → N.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya

N.O. → D.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya

N.O. → A.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya

D.O. → N.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya

D.O. → D.O. a dukkaṭa*

D.O. → A.O. a dukkaṭa*

A.O. → N.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya

A.O. → D.O. a dukkaṭa*

A.O. → A.O. a nissaggiya pācittiya under NP 20

使用		去买	造成
《尼萨耆》物件	→	《尼萨耆》物件	《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）
《尼萨耆》物件	→	《突吉罗》物件	《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）
《尼萨耆》物件	→	允许物件	《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）
《突吉罗》物件	→	《尼萨耆》物件	《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）
《突吉罗》物件	→	《突吉罗》物件	《突吉罗》*
《突吉罗》物件	→	允许物件	《突吉罗》*
允许物件	→	《尼萨耆》物件	《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）
允许物件	→	《突吉罗》物件	《突吉罗》*
允许物件	→	允许物件	《舍堕》二十下《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）

The trades marked with asterisks point out one of the anomalies of the Commentary’s interpretation: Why trades involving D.O. should entail only a dukkaṭa, while A.O. → A.O. trades should entail a nissaggiya pācittiya is hard to fathom.	标有星号的交易指出了《义注》解释的异常之一：为什么涉及允许物件的交易会只犯《突吉罗》，而允许物件→允许物件交易会涉及《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）是很难理解的。
At any rate, to continue with the Commentary’s explanations: N.O. → A.O. trades cover two possible cases, depending on whether the money was obtained properly or improperly under the preceding rule. If improperly, the object bought with the money is unallowable for all bhikkhus. This holds whether the bhikkhu makes the purchase himself or a steward makes it for him. The only way the item can be made allowable is to have an equal sum of money returned to the original donor and the item returned to the person who sold it, and then arrange for a proper exchange as allowed under the following rule. (At first glance, it may seem strange for the Commentary to insist that the price of the A.O. be returned to the original donor of the N.O., as the bhikkhus are in no way in his/her debt; but this is probably the Commentary’s way of ensuring that if the seller returns the purchase price of the A.O. to the bhikkhus’ steward, it is not used to repurchase the A.O.)	无论如何，继续《义注》的解释：《尼萨耆》物件→ 允许物件交易涵盖两种可能的情况，取决于根据上一个戒条是否适当地或不适当地获得金钱。如果不适当，用金钱购买的物品对于所有比丘来说都是不允许的。无论是比丘自己购买还是净人为他购买，这都是成立的。使该物品获得允许的唯一方法是将等额的钱退还给原始布施者，并将该物品退还给出售该物品的人，然后根据下一个戒条安排适当的交换。（乍看之下，《义注》坚持将允许物件的价格归还给《尼萨耆》物件的原来布施者似乎很奇怪，因为比丘们绝不欠他/她的债；但这可能是《义注》的方式，以确保如果卖方将允许物件的购买价格退还给比丘的净人，则该金额不会用于重新购买该允许物件）
If, however, a bhikkhu engages in a N.O. → A.O. trade using money obtained properly under the preceding rule, the item bought is unallowable only for him, but allowable for other bhikkhus once he has forfeited it. If N.O. → A.O. exchanges really were covered by this rule, though, this would contradict the Vibhaṅga, which insists that the item obtained as a result of this rule either has to be given to a lay person or thrown away. Thus it seems better to follow the Vibhaṅga in treating cases of this sort under the following rule.	然而，如果比丘从事《尼萨耆》物件→ 允许物件交易，使用根据上一个戒条适当地获得的金钱时，所购买的物品仅对他来说是不允许的，但一旦他舍出了该物品，其他比丘就可以使用。尽管，如果《尼萨耆》物件→ 允许物件交换确实被本戒条涵盖，但这与《经分别》相矛盾，《经分别》坚持认为，由于本戒条而获得的物品要么必须给予居士，要么被扔掉。因此，在对待此类案例时，最好遵循下一个戒条的《经分别》。
The Commentary makes no mention of what should be done with items resulting from trades that carry a dukkaṭa here, but its discussion of how to “undo” a trade so as to make the item allowable suggests the following scheme:	《义注》中没有提及应该如何处理带有《突吉罗》的交易所产生的物品，但它对如何「还原」交易以使该物品被允许的讨论建议了以下方案：
For a D.O → D.O. trade: Return the object bought to the person who sold it, return the original object to the donor, and confess the offense.	对于《突吉罗》物件→《突吉罗》物件交易：将购买的物品归还给出售者，将原来的物品归还给布施者，并忏悔罪行。
For a D.O. → A.O. trade: Return the object bought to the person who sold it, return the original object to the donor, and confess the offense. If one wants to, one may then approach the person who sold the allowable object and arrange a proper trade in accordance with the following rule.	对于《突吉罗》物件→允许物件交易：将购买的物品归还给出售者，将原来的物品归还给布施者，并忏悔罪行。如果愿意，可以联系出售允许物品的人，并根据下一个戒条安排适当的交易。
For an A.O. → D.O. trade: Return the object bought to the person who sold it and confess the offense.	对于允许物件→《突吉罗》物件交易：将购买的物品归还给出售者并忏悔罪行。
As an intellectual exercise, the Commentary considers the question of a trade that results in an A.O. that can never be made allowable, and comes up with the following scenario: A bhikkhu takes money improperly obtained under the preceding rule, uses it to get iron mined, smelted, and made into a bowl. Because there is no way to undo these transactions—the iron can never be returned to its state as ore—there is no way any bhikkhu may ever properly make use of the iron no matter what is done with it.	作为一项智力练习，《义注》考虑了导致永远不能被获得允许的允许物件的交易问题，并提出了以下情况：一位比丘拿了根据上一个戒条不适当获得的金钱，用它来开采、熔炼铁，并制成钵。因为没有办法还原这些处置——铁永远无法恢复到矿石状态——所以任何比丘都无法适当地使用该铁，无论用它做了什么。
As mentioned above, the Commentary’s explanations here contradict the Vibhaṅga on a number of points, and contain several anomalies as well. It seems preferable to treat a number of cases it mentions here—N.O. → D.O., N.O. → A.O., D.O. → D.O., D.O. → A.O., A.O. → D.O., or in other words, any trade resulting in an allowable or a dukkaṭa object—under the following rule instead.	如上所述，《义注》在此的解释在许多方面与《经分别》相矛盾，也包含一些异常之处。似乎最好按照下一个戒条来处理在此提到的一些情况——《尼萨耆》物件→《突吉罗》物件、《尼萨耆》物件→允许物件、《突吉罗》物件→《突吉罗》物件，《突吉罗》物件→允许物件，允许物件→《突吉罗》物件，或者换句话说，任何导致允许物件或《突吉罗》物件的交易。

Forfeiture & confession	舍出 & 忏罪
When a bhikkhu has obtained gold or money in violation of this rule he is to forfeit it in the midst of a formal meeting of the Community, following the procedures explained under the preceding rule. The Pali formulae for forfeiture and confession are in Appendix VI.	当比丘违反本戒条而获得黄金或金钱时，他应在僧团正式会议期间，按照前一条戒条解释的程序，将其舍出。巴利文的舍出与忏悔罪行公式请见附录六。

Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses contain nothing but the blanket exemptions mentioned under Pr 1.	《经分别》的不犯条款只包含《波罗夷》一中提到的总括性豁免。

Summary: Obtaining gold or money through trade is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.

摘要：透过贸易获取黄金或金钱是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。

* * *

20	二十
Should any bhikkhu engage in various types of trade, it (the article obtained) is to be forfeited and confessed.	如果任何比丘从事各种类型的贸易，那么它（获得的物品）将被舍出并忏悔。
“Now at that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan had become accomplished at making robes. Having made an outer robe of cloak-scraps, having dyed it well and stitched it nicely, he wore it. A certain wanderer, wearing a very expensive cloak, went to him and on arrival said to him, ‘Your outer robe is beautiful, my friend. Give it to me in exchange for this cloak.’	「尔时，释迦族优波难陀在制作袈裟方面颇有造诣。他用外衣布片做了一件僧伽梨，染好，缝好，就穿上了。有一个游行者，穿著一件非常昂贵的外衣，来到他那里，到达后对他说：『我的朋友，你的僧伽梨很漂亮。把它给我来换取这件外衣。』
“‘Do you know (what you’re doing), my friend?’	「『你知道（你在做什么）吗，我的朋友？』
“‘Yes, I know.’	「『是的，我知道。』
“‘Okay, then.’ And he gave him the robe.	「『那么，好吧。』然后他把袈裟给了他。
“Then the wanderer went to the wanderers’ park wearing the outer robe. The other wanderers said to him, ‘Your outer robe is beautiful, friend. Where did you get it?’	「然后，游行者穿著僧伽梨去了游行者公园。其余的游行者对他说：『朋友，你的僧伽梨很漂亮。你在哪里得到它？』
“‘I got it in exchange for my cloak.’	「『我用我的外衣换取了它。』
“‘But how long will this outer robe last you? That cloak of yours was better.’	「『但是这件僧伽梨能让你穿多久呢？你的那件外衣比较好。』
“So the wanderer, thinking, ‘It’s true what the wanderers said. How long will this outer robe last me? That cloak of mine was better,’ went to Ven. Upananda the Sakyan and on arrival said, ‘Here is your outer robe, my friend. Give me my cloak.’	「所以，游行者心想：『游行者所说的是真的。这件僧伽梨能穿多久？我的那件外衣比较好。』至释迦族优波难陀处，到达后说：『这是你的僧伽梨，我的朋友。把我的外衣给我。』
“‘But didn’t I ask you, “Do you know (what you’re doing)?” I won’t give it to you.’	「『但我不是问过你，「你知道（你在做什么）吗？」我不会给你的。』
“So the wanderer criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘Even a householder will give to another householder who regrets (a trade). How can one who has gone forth not give (the same courtesy) to one who has gone forth?’”	「于是游行者批评并抱怨，散播说：『即使是一个居士，也会给另一个后悔（交易）的居士。出家人怎么能不给出家人（同样的礼遇）呢？』」
As we noted under NP 10, one of the purposes of this rule is to relieve bhikkhus of the responsibilities that come with making trades—the responsibility of having to get a fair price for one’s goods and at the same time offering a fair deal to the person receiving them.	正如我们在《舍堕》十中所指出的，本戒条的目的之一是解除比丘们进行交易的责任——必须为自己的商品获得公平的价格，同时向收受者提供公平的交易。
The factors for an offense here are two: object and effort.	这里的犯戒因素有两个：对象和努力。

Object	对象
The Vibhaṅga defines various types of trade as covering deals involving the four requisites, “even a lump of powder, tooth wood, or unwoven thread”—these being its standard examples of objects with the least possible material value. The Commentary interprets this definition as limiting this rule to deals involving nothing but allowable objects (A.O. → A.O.), but there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to suggest that this is necessarily so. The emphasis in the Vibhaṅga seems to be that this rule covers even allowable objects of the least possible value, and all the more so more valuable and restricted objects. In fact, as the Vibhaṅga explicitly limits the preceding rule to trades that result in money for the bhikkhu (N.O. → N.O.; D.O. → N.O.; A.O. → N.O.), it seems best to interpret this rule as covering all types of trade not covered in that rule:	《经分别》将各种类型的贸易定义为涵盖涉及四种必需品的交易，「甚至是一块粉末、牙木或未编织的线」——这些是其物质价值最低的物品的标准范例。《义注》将此定义解释为限制本戒条仅涉及允许物件的交易（允许物件→允许物件），但《经分别》中没有任何内容表明这必然如此。《经分别》中的重点似乎是，本戒条甚至涵盖了价值最低的允许物件，更有价值和受限制的物件就更是如此。事实上，由于《经分别》明确地将前一条戒条限制为为比丘带来金钱的交易（《尼萨耆》物件→《尼萨耆》物件；《突吉罗》物件→《尼萨耆》物件；允许物件→《尼萨耆》物件），似乎最好将本戒条解释为涵盖在该戒条所有未涵盖的交易类型。
N.O. → D.O.; N.O. → A.O.;	《尼萨耆》物件→《突吉罗》物件; 《尼萨耆》物件→允许物件;
D.O. → D.O.; D.O. → A.O.;	《突吉罗》物件→《突吉罗》物件; 《突吉罗》物件→允许物件;
A.O. → D.O.; and A.O. → A.O.	允许物件→《突吉罗》物件; 以及允许物件→允许物件
The Vibhaṅga, in its description of what constitutes a trade, makes reference to “one’s own” object going to the hand of the other, and the other’s object going to one’s own hand. From this, the K/Commentary deduces that the object given in trade has to be one’s own personal possession. This deduction, however, is mistaken for several reasons: (1) The Vibhaṅga’s protocols under NP 10 do not allow one to tell a steward to use the funds placed in his care to buy or barter for anything, and yet these funds do not belong to the bhikkhu. (2) The Vibhaṅga’s protocols for disposing of money under NP 18 & 19 do not allow a bhikkhu to tell a lay person to buy anything with the money forfeited by the offender under those rules, and again this money does not belong to the bhikkhu. (3) The non-offense clauses to this rule make no exemptions for a bhikkhu who trades using goods belonging to someone else. Thus it would appear that the phrase, “one’s own” goods, in the Vibhaṅga’s description of a trade, is defined simply in opposition to the phrase, “the other person’s” goods prior to the trade. In other words, it would cover anything that starts out on one’s side before the trade, whether those items are one’s own personal possessions or another person’s possessions that have been placed in deposit for one’s use (such as funds placed with a steward) or in one’s keeping (such as monastery funds placed under the supervision of a monastery official).	《经分别》在描述贸易的组成时，提到了「自己的」物品到达另一个人的手中，以及另一个人的物品到达自己的手中。由此，K/《义注》推论出交易中所给予的物品必须是自己的个人财产。然而，这种推论是错误的，原因如下：（1）《舍堕》十下的《经分别》行仪不允许告诉净人使用放在他照料下的资金来购买或交换任何东西，甚至这些资金不属于至比丘。（2）根据《舍堕》一八和一九的《经分别》规定的金钱处置行仪不允许比丘告诉在家人用犯戒者根据那些戒条舍出的钱来购买任何东西，而且这笔钱也不属于比丘。（3）本戒条的不犯条款对于使用属于他人的货物进行交易的比丘没有豁免。因此，在《经分别》对贸易的描述中，在交易之前，此用语「自己的」货物的定义似乎与「他人的」货物的用语相对立。换句话说，它涵盖交易前，某一方开始的任何物品，无论那些物品是自己的个人财产，还是他人存放供自己使用的财产（例如存放在净人处的资金）或由某人保管（例如由寺院执事监督的寺院资金）。

Effort	努力
Engaging in trade, according to the Vibhaṅga, involves two steps:	根据《经分别》的说法，从事贸易涉及两个步骤：
1) The bhikkhu proposes an exchange, saying, “Give this for that,” or “Take this for that,” or “Exchange this for that,” or “Purchase this with that.” Because the non-offense clauses make no exemption for exchanges conducted by gesture, any gesture—including a written message or sign language—that clearly makes this proposal would fulfill this step.	1）比丘提议交换，说：「以这个换那个」，或者「拿这个换那个」，或者「用这个换那个」，或者「用那个买这个」。因为不犯条款并没有豁免透过示意动作进行的交流，任何明确提出这项建议的示意动作（包括书面讯息或手语）都将完成这一步骤。
2) The goods exchange hands, the bhikkhu’s goods ending up with the other person, and the other person’s goods ending up with the bhikkhu.	2）物品交换，比丘的物品归于他人，他人的物品归于比丘。
The first step entails a dukkaṭa; both steps together, a nissaggiya pācittiya. Perception is not a mitigating factor here: If a bhikkhu manages an exchange in a way that he thinks avoids a penalty under this rule but in fact doesn’t (see below), he commits the full offense all the same. If, on the other hand, he manages an exchange in such a way that would avoid a penalty under this rule but he thinks that it falls under the rule or else is in doubt about the matter, he incurs a dukkaṭa.	第一步犯《突吉罗》；两个步骤都完成，则犯《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）。在这里，感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素：如果比丘以一种他认为可以避免根据本戒条受到惩罚的方式管理交易，但实际上却没有（见下文），那么他仍然完违犯本戒条。另一方面，如果他以避免根据本戒条受到惩罚的方式管理交易，但他认为该交易属于本戒条的范围，或者对此事有疑问，那么他犯《突吉罗》。

Forfeiture & confession	舍出 & 忏罪
Once a bhikkhu has received an article from a trade, he is to forfeit it either to an individual bhikkhu, to a group of two or three, or to a full Community of four or more. Only then may he confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and the return of the article are the same as under NP 1. The Pali formula for forfeiture is in Appendix VI.	一旦比丘从交易中收到一件物品，他就应将其舍出给单一比丘、二人或三人的团体，或四人以上的完整僧团。只有这样他才能忏悔罪行。舍出、忏罪及归还物品的程序与《舍堕》一相同。巴利语舍出公式见附录六。
The Vibhaṅga makes no mention of what the bhikkhu may and may not do with the article after receiving it in return, and so it appears that he may keep it as he likes. However, if an individual bhikkhu has used nissaggiya or dukkaṭa objects in a trade, he might—as a wise policy—want to prevent any suspicions that he is trying to “launder” them, and so he may take a page from the Commentary to the preceding rule as his own personal protocol, as follows:	《经分别》没有提及比丘在收到归还后可以或不可以对物品做什么，因此看来他可以随心所欲地保留它。然而，如果某个比丘在交易中使用了《尼萨耆》或《突吉罗》物件，他可能——作为明智之举——想要防止任何人怀疑他试图「洗钱」它们，因此他可以从《义注》中抄取一页上一条戒条作为他自己的个人行仪，如下：
If the exchange was N.O. → D.O., he should return the D.O. to its seller. If the N.O. was properly obtained under NP 18 (e.g., it was placed with a steward), there is nothing further to be done. If not, the bhikkhu should confess the offense for violating that rule. (If the seller offers to refund the purchase price, the bhikkhu should not accept it. If he does, he must forfeit it in the midst of the Community. If he doesn’t accept it, he should simply confess the pācittiya offense for originally accepting the N.O.)	如果交换是《尼萨耆》物件→《突吉罗》物件，他应该归还《突吉罗》物件给其卖家。如果《尼萨耆》物件已根据《舍堕》一八适当地获得（例如，它放在净人处），无需再做任何事情。如果没有，比丘应该忏悔违反该戒条的罪行。（如果卖家提出退还货款，比丘不应接受。如果他接受了，他必须在僧团中舍出它。如果他不接受，他仅应忏悔最初犯下接受的《尼萨耆》物件的《波逸提》罪。）
If the exchange was N.O. → A.O., then if the N.O. was obtained in violation of NP 18, no bhikkhu may make use of the A.O. unless it is returned to the seller, the price of the article is turned over to the original donor of the money, and the A.O. is then repurchased in a way that does not violate this rule. (Again, if the seller refunds the purchase price, the bhikkhu should not accept it. If he does, he must forfeit it in the midst of the Community. If he doesn’t accept it, he should simply confess the pācittiya offense for originally accepting the N.O.)	如果交换是《尼萨耆》物件→允许物件，那么如果《尼萨耆》物件是在违反《舍堕》一八的情况下获得的，任何比丘都不得使用该允许物件，除非将其退还给卖家，物品货款转交给资金的原来布施者，并且该允许物件之后以不违反本戒条的方式购回。（再次强调，如果卖家退还货款，比丘不应该接受。如果他接受了，他必须在僧团中舍出它。如果他不接受，他仅应忏悔最初犯下接受的《尼萨耆》物件的《波逸提》罪。）
If the N.O. in this case was properly obtained, then the purchased article is allowable for other bhikkhus but not for the offender. (This case covers the instances mentioned under NP 10 where a bhikkhu tells his steward to purchase an article with the fund placed in the steward’s trust for the bhikkhu’s needs. Some might object that if the N.O. was properly obtained it should be treated as A.O., but we must remember that a bhikkhu who orders his steward to use money to buy an object is assuming ownership of the money, which goes against the spirit of NP 10 & 18 and the protocol of having a steward in the first place.)	如果《尼萨耆》物件在这种情况下是正当地获得的，那么购买的物品可以给其他比丘使用，但不能给犯戒者使用。（这个案例涵盖了《舍堕》十中提到的情况，其中比丘告诉他的净人，用净人信托中的资金购买物品，以满足比丘的需要。有些人可能会反对，如果《尼萨耆》物件是正当地获得的，那么它应该被视为允许物件，但我们必须记住，比丘命令他的净人用钱购买物品，就等于假定了该钱的所有权，这违背了《舍堕》十和一八的精神，也违背了首先要有净人的行仪。
If the exchange was D.O. → D.O., the bhikkhu should return the purchased article to the seller and the original article (if the seller returns it to him) to the original donor.	如果交换是《突吉罗》物件→《突吉罗》物件，比丘应将购买的物品归还给卖家，并将原来的物品（如果卖家将其归还给他）归还给最初的布施者。
If the exchange was D.O. → A.O., the purchased article is not allowable for any bhikkhu unless it is returned to the seller, the D.O. is returned to the original donor, and the A.O. is then repurchased in a way that does not violate this rule.	如果交换是《突吉罗》物件→允许物件，购买的物品不允许任何比丘使用，除非该物品被退还给卖家，《突吉罗》物件被归还给最初的布施者，并且允许物件之后以不违反本戒条的方式回购。
If the exchange was A.O. → D.O., the bhikkhu should return the purchased article to the seller.	如果交换是允许物件→《突吉罗》物件，比丘应将购买的物品退还给卖家。
If the exchange was A.O. → A.O., the bhikkhu may make use of the article as he likes.	如果交换是允许物件→允许物件，比丘可以随心所欲地使用该物品。
If the exchange was wages in payment for services rendered, the Commentary notes that there is no way the bhikkhu can rightfully get the payment back, so he should simply confess a pācittiya offense.	如果交换是为了支付所提供的服务而支付的工资，《义注》指出，比丘不可能合法地收回付款，因此他仅应忏悔《波逸提》罪。
All of these protocols derived from the Commentary are optional, however, for—as noted above—the Vibhaṅga places no restrictions on what the bhikkhu may or may not do with the article after having forfeited it and received it in return.	所有这些源自《义注》的行仪都是非强制的，然而，正如上面所指出的，《经分别》并没有限制比丘在舍出物品并收到归还后可以或不可以对物品做什么。

Non-offenses	不犯
In the origin story to NP 5, the Buddha allows bhikkhus to trade allowable articles with other bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, female trainees, and male or female novices. The present rule thus covers trades made only with people who are not one’s co-religionists.	在《舍堕》五的起源故事中，佛陀允许比丘与其他比丘、比丘尼、式叉摩那以及沙弥或沙弥尼进行允许物件的交易。因此，现行戒条仅适用于与非同一宗教徒进行的交易。
As for trades with people who are not one’s co-religionists, the Vibhaṅga here adds that a bhikkhu commits no offense—	至于与非同一宗教徒的人进行交易，《经分别》在此补充说，比丘并无犯戒——
if he asks the price of an object;	如果他问物品的价格；
if he tells a steward;	如果他告诉净人；
if he tells the seller, “I have this. I have need of such-and-such,” and then lets the seller arrange the exchange as he/she sees fit. This last point may seem like mere hair splitting, but we must remember that if a trade is arranged in this way, the bhikkhu is absolved from any responsibility for the fairness of the deal, which seems to be the whole point of the rule.	如果他告诉卖家：「我有这个。我需要某某」，然后让卖家按照他/她认为合适的方式安排交换。最后一点可能看起来只是吹毛求疵，但我们必须记住，如果交易以这种方式安排，比丘就免除了对交易公平性的任何责任，这似乎是戒条的全部要点。
The Commentary, in discussing these exemptions, raises the following points:	《义注》在讨论这些豁免时提出了以下几点：
1) A bhikkhu who tries to avoid the technicalities of what is defined as engaging in trading by saying simply, “Give this. Take that,” may do so only with his parents. Otherwise, telling a lay person to take one’s belongings as his/her own is to “bring a gift of faith (saddhā-deyya) to waste”—i.e., to misuse the donations that lay supporters, out of faith, have sacrificed for the bhikkhu’s use (see Mv.VIII.22.1; BMC2, Chapter 10). On the other hand, telling an unrelated lay person to give something is a form of begging, which carries a dukkaṭa unless the lay person is related or has invited one to ask in the first place. (From this we may deduce that bhikkhus should not bargain after having asked the price of goods or services—e.g., a taxi fare—even in situations where bargaining is the norm.)	1）比丘试图透过仅仅说：「给这个。拿那个」，来避免参与交易的技术细节，只可对他的父母这样做。否则，告诉在家人将自己的财物据为己有，就是「浪费信施（saddhā-deyya）」，即滥用在家人出于信仰牺牲而为比丘使用的捐款。（见《大品》.八.22.1；《佛教修道准则第二册》第十章）。另一方面，告诉非亲戚的在家人给予东西是一种乞讨的形式，除非该居士有亲戚关系或一开始就邀请自己提出请求，否则就会犯《突吉罗》。（由此我们可以推断，即使在讨价还价是常态的情况下，比丘在询问商品或服务的价格（例如计程车费）后也不应该讨价还价。）
2) Under the previous rule, the Commentary mentioned that a bhikkhu engaging in an otherwise allowable trade for profit incurs a dukkaṭa. Here it says that if a bhikkhu, proposing a trade by wording it right (kappiya-vohāra), deceives the seller as to the value of his goods, he is to be treated under Pr 2. However, as the Vibhaṅga to Pr 2 indicates, goods received through deceit are to be treated not under that rule but under Pc 1.	2）根据先前的戒条，《义注》提到，比丘从事其他允许的获利贸易会犯《突吉罗》。这里它说，如果一个比丘以正确的措辞（kappiya-vohāra）提出交易，在其货物的价值上欺骗卖家，他将根据《波罗夷》二来处理。然而，正如《波罗夷》二的《经分别》所指出的那样，透过欺骗收到的货物不应根据该戒条处理，而应根据《波逸提》一来处理。
3) In the case of “telling a steward,” both the Commentary and K/Commentary deem it allowable to tell the steward, “Having gotten that with this, give it (to me).” This, however, is a clear violation of the protocols set forth by the Vibhaṅga under NP 10, according to which a bhikkhu is not allowed to speak in the imperative, giving the command, “Give,” to a steward, much less a command to barter or buy. Instead, he is allowed to speak only in the declarative: “I have need of such-and-such,” or “I want such-and-such.” Declarative statements of this sort would thus appear to be the only statements allowed under this non-offense clause as well.	3）在「告诉净人」的情况下，《义注》和 K/《义注》都认为可以告诉净人，「用这个得到了那个，把它（给我）。」然而，这明显违反了《经分别》在《舍堕》十下制定的行仪，根据该行仪，比丘不得以命令方式说话，向净人发出「给予」的命令，更不用说以物易物或购买的命令。相反地，他只能用陈述句说话：「我需要某某」或「我想要某某」。因此，此类声明性陈述似乎也是本不犯条款下唯一允许的陈述。
4) If a bhikkhu goes with his steward to a store and sees that the steward is getting a bad deal, he may simply tell the steward, “Don’t take it.”	4）如果比丘和他的净人去一家商店，发现净人的交易很糟糕，他可以坦白地告诉净人：「不要拿。」
5) The Commentary to NP 10 describes how a bhikkhu may make a purchase when his steward has left funds in safe-keeping on the bhikkhu’s premises but is not present to arrange a trade when, say, a bowl-seller comes along. The bhikkhu may tell the seller, “I want this bowl, and there are funds of equal value here, but there is no steward to make them allowable.” If the seller volunteers to make them allowable, the bhikkhu may show him where they are but may not tell him how much to take. If the seller takes too much, the bhikkhu may cancel the sale by saying, “I don’t want your bowl after all.”	5）《舍堕》十的《义注》描述了当比丘的净人将资金留在比丘的处所保管，却没有在场安排交易时，比丘可以如何进行购买，例如说，当卖钵的人出现时。比丘可以告诉卖家：「我想要这个钵，这里有等值的资金，但没有净人使它们成为允许的。」如果卖家自愿使它们成为允许的，比丘可以告诉他它们在哪里，但不可告诉他要拿多少。如果卖家拿走太多，比丘可以取消买卖，说：「我还是不要你的钵。」
In general it is not a wise policy to have funds left for safe-keeping on one’s premises—a Community allowing this exposes itself to the dangers of robbery and assault—but the Commentary here seems less interested in describing ideal behavior than in simply drawing the line between what is and is not an offense.	一般来说，将资金留在自己的处所保管不是一个明智之举——一个允许这样做的僧团会让自己面临抢劫和袭击的危险——但这里的《义注》似乎对描述理想行为不太感兴趣，而仅仅只是区分什么是犯戒和什么不是犯戒。

Special cases	特别案例
1) The Bhikkhunīs’ NP rules 4-10 show that if a lay donor gives money to a storeowner to pay for whatever a bhikkhunī will request from the store, the bhikkhunī may avail herself of the arrangement. If the donor stipulates that this arrangement applies only to certain items, or to items worth a certain amount, she may request only what falls under the stipulation: This is the point of the rules. In effect, what this is doing is making the storeowner her steward. Such an arrangement would thus also seem allowable for bhikkhus as long as they word their requests to the storeowner properly, as advised under NP 10.	1）比丘尼的《舍堕》戒条四-十表明，如果在家布施者给店主钱以支付比丘尼向商店提出的任何要求，比丘尼可以利用这种安排。如果布施者规定这种安排只适用于某些物品，或价值一定金额的物品，她只可以要求符合规定的物品：这是戒条的要点。实际上，这样做是让店主成为她的净人。因此，这样的安排对比丘来说似乎也是被允许的，只要他们按照《舍堕》十的建议，用适当的措辞向店主表达他们的要求。
2) As mentioned under NP 18, checks, credit cards, debit cards, and traveler’s checks do not count as gold or money. However, any trade arranged with them would come under this rule.	2）如《舍堕》一八所述，支票、信用卡、金融卡和旅行支票不算黄金或金钱。然而，用他们安排的任何交易都将受到本戒条的约束。
In cases where an actual physical item is handed over to the seller in the course of such a trade, the trade is accomplished in the physical exchange, with no need to wait for funds to enter the seller’s account for the offense to be incurred. This is because “object” under this rule can be fulfilled by an item of the least inherent monetary value.	如果在交易过程中将实体物品移交给卖方，交易是在实体交易所完成的，无需等待资金进入卖方帐户即可算犯戒。这是因为本戒条下的「对象」可以透过内在货币价值最低的物品来实现。
For instance, if a bhikkhu hands a check to a seller—or tells his steward to hand it over—in exchange for goods or services in the manner specified by this rule, he would commit the full offense the moment the check and goods change hands.	例如，如果比丘将一张支票交给卖家，或告诉他的净人将其交给卖家，以按照本戒条所述的方式换取货物或服务，那么在支票和货物易手的那一刻，他就完全违犯本戒。
Similarly with credit cards: The offense is committed when the bhikkhu hands the signed credit card receipt—or has it handed—to the seller and receives goods or services in return. The receipt is an acknowledgement of the goods or services received from the seller, which in the context of the cardholder’s agreement with the credit card company is his promise to repay the loan he is taking out with the company. This promise is what the bhikkhu is trading with the seller, who will then use it to draw funds from the company’s account.	信用卡也类似：当比丘将签署的信用卡收据（或令其）交给卖方并收到商品或服务作为回报时，即构成犯戒。收据是对从卖方收到的商品或服务的确认，在持卡人与信用卡公司达成协议的背景下，收据是持卡人偿还向该公司借出的贷款的承诺。这个承诺就是比丘与卖家交易的东西，然后卖家将用它从公司的帐户中提取资金。
If, however, no physical item is handed over to the seller, the trade is not accomplished until funds enter the seller’s account. An example would be a debit card: The full offense is committed only when, after pushing the personal identification number (PIN)—which is his order to the bank to pay the seller—the bhikkhu receives goods and services from the seller, and funds are transferred to the seller’s account from his.	但是，如果没有将实物移交给卖方，则在资金进入卖方帐户之前交易不会完成。签帐金融卡（debit card）就是这样的例子：只有当比丘输入个人识别码（PIN）（这是他命令银行付款给卖方）后，比丘从卖方收到商品和服务，以及资金从他的帐户转入卖家的帐户时，才构成完整犯戒。

Summary: Engaging in trade with anyone except one’s co-religionists is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.

摘要：与同一宗教徒以外的任何人进行交易都是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。