尼萨耆波逸提（《舍堕》）

Three: The Bowl Chapter 第三 钵品
21 二十一
An extra alms bowl may be kept ten days at most. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
多余的钵最多可以保留十天。超过此限者，尼萨耆波逸提。
The offense under this rule involves two factors. 本戒条下的犯戒涉及两个因素。
1) Object: an alms bowl fit to be determined for use. 1）对象：一个适合决意使用的钵。
2) Effort: One keeps it for more than ten days without determining it for use, placing it under shared ownership, abandoning it (giving or throwing it away); and without its being lost, destroyed, burnt, snatched away, or taken by someone else on trust within that time. 2）努力：保留十天以上而未决意使用、置于共享所有权之下、放弃（赠送或丢弃）；并且在此期间没有丢失、毁坏、烧毁、抢走或被其他人基于信任拿走。
Alms bowls 钵
According to the Commentary, an alms bowl fit to be determined for use must be— 根据《义注》，适合决意使用的钵必须符合以下条件：
1) made of the proper material; 1）由适当的材料制成；
2) the proper size; 2）合适的尺寸；
3) fully paid for; 3）已全额付款；
4) properly fired; and 4）适当地熏烧；和
5) not damaged beyond repair. 5）未出现无法修复的损坏。
Material 材料
Cv.V.8.2 allows two kinds of alms bowls: made either of clay or of iron. Cv.V.9.1 forbids eleven: made either of wood, gold, silver, pearl, beryl, crystal, bronze, glass, tin, lead, or copper. Using the Great Standards, the Council of Elders in Thailand has recently decided that stainless steel bowls are allowable—because, after all, they are steel—but aluminum bowls not, because they share some of the dangers of tin. In the time of the Buddha, clay bowls were the more common. At present, iron and steel bowls are. 《小品》.五.8.2允许使用两种钵：用黏土或铁制成。《小品》.五.9.1禁止十一种：由木材、金、银、珍珠、绿柱石、水晶、青铜、玻璃、锡、铅或铜制成。根据《四大教示》，泰国长老会最近决定允许使用不锈钢钵——因为毕竟它们是钢制的——但不允许使用铝制钵，因为它们具有锡的一些危险。佛陀时代，黏土钵（陶钵）较为普遍。目前则是铁钵和不锈钢钵。
Size 尺寸
The Vibhaṅga contains a discussion of three proper sizes for a bowl—the medium size containing twice the volume of the small, and the large twice the volume of the medium—but they are based on measurements that are not known with any precision at present. The author of the Vinaya-mukha reports having experimented with various sizes of bowls based on a passage in the story of Meṇḍaka in the Dhammapada Commentary. His conclusion: A small bowl is just a little larger than a human skull, and a medium bowl approximately 27 1/2 English inches (70 cm.) in circumference, or about 8.75 inches (22.5 cm.) in diameter. He did not try making a large bowl. Any size larger than the large size or smaller than the small is inappropriate; any size between them falls under this rule. 《经分别》讨论了钵的三种适当尺寸——中号钵的体积是小号钵的两倍，大号钵的体积是中号钵的两倍——但它们所基于的测量结果目前还没有已知的任何精确度。《戒律入口》的作者报告说，他根据《法句经》《义注》中 Meṇḍaka 故事的一个段落，尝试了各种尺寸的钵。他的结论是：小钵只比人的头骨大一点，中钵的周长约为 27 又 1/2 英寸（70 公分），直径约为 8.75 英寸（22.5 公分）。他没有尝试做一个大钵。任何大于大号或小于小号的尺寸都是不合适的；它们之间的任何大小都属于符合本戒条。
Fully paid for 已全额付款
According to the Commentary, if a bowl-maker makes a gift of a bowl, it counts as fully paid for. If a bowl has been delivered to a bhikkhu but has yet to be fully paid for, it may not be determined and does not come under this rule until paid for in full. 根据《义注》，如果制钵者制作了一个钵作为布施，则视为已全额付款。如果钵已交付给比丘但尚未全额付款，则在全额付款之前，它不可被决意，并且不属于本戒条范畴。
Fired 熏烧
The Commentary states that a clay bowl must be fired twice before it can be determined, to make sure it is properly hardened; and an iron bowl five times, to prevent it from rusting. Because stainless steel does not rust it need not be fired, but a popular practice is to find some way to make it gray—either by painting it on the outside or firing the whole bowl with leaves that will give it a smoky color—so that it will not stand out. 《义注》指出，黏土钵（陶钵）必须烧制两次才能决意，以确保其适当硬化；铁钵五次，防止生锈。因为不锈钢不会生锈，所以不需要烧制，但一种流行的做法是找到某种方法使其变灰色——若非在外面涂漆，不然就是用叶子烧制整个钵，使其呈现烟熏色——这样它就不会显眼突出。
Not damaged beyond repair 未出现无法修复的损坏
The Vibhaṅga to the following rule says that a bhikkhu may ask for a new bowl if his current bowl has five mends or more, the space for a mend (§) being two inches (fingerbreadths). The Commentary explains this first by saying that a bowl with five mends or more is damaged beyond repair, and thus loses its determination as a bowl. It then expands on the Vibhaṅga’s statements as follows: A clay bowl is damaged beyond repair if it has at least ten inches of cracks in it, the smallest of the cracks being at least two inches long. Cracks less than two inches long are said not to merit mending—this is the meaning of the Vibhaṅga’s phrase, “space for a mend”—and so do not count. As the K/Commentary notes, whether the cracks are actually mended is not an issue here. If a bowl has fewer cracks than that, they should be mended either with tin wire, sap (but for some reason not pure pine sap), or a mixture of sugar cane syrup and powdered stone. Other materials not to be used for repair are beeswax and sealing wax. If the total length of countable cracks equals ten inches or more, the bowl becomes a non-bowl, and the owner is entitled to ask for a new one. 下一条戒条的《经分别》指出，如果比丘目前的钵有五处修补或更多，则比丘可以要求一个新钵，而修补的空间（§）为两英寸（指宽）。《义注》首先解释说，钵修补五次以上，就已经损坏到无法修复的程度，从而失去了其决意为钵。然后，它对《经分别》的叙述进行了如下扩展：如果一个粘土钵（陶钵）上有至少十英寸的裂缝，其中最小的裂缝至少有两英寸长，那么它就被损坏到无法修复的程度。小于两英寸长的裂缝据说不值得修补——这就是《经分别》的措辞「用来修补的空间」的含义——所以不算数。正如 K/《义注》所指出的，裂缝是否真正得到修补在此并不是问题。如果钵的裂缝比那少，则应使用锡丝、树液（但由于某种原因不是纯松树液）或甘蔗糖浆和石粉的混合物来修补。其他不能用于修复的材料是蜂蜡和密封蜡。如果可数裂缝的总长度等于或超过十英寸，则该钵就不再是钵，主人有权要求换一个新的。
As for iron and steel bowls, a hole in the bowl large enough to let a millet grain pass through is enough to make the determination lapse, but not enough to make the bowl a non-bowl. The bhikkhu should plug the hole—or have a blacksmith plug it—with powdered metal or a tiny metal plug polished smooth with the surface of the bowl and then re-determine the bowl for use. 对于铁钵、不锈钢钵来说，钵上有一个足以让一粒小米粒通过的孔，足以使决意失效，但不足以使该钵成为非钵。比丘应该用金属粉末或与钵表面打磨光滑的小金属塞塞住这个洞，或者请铁匠塞住，然后重新决意钵来使用。
If the hole is small enough to be plugged in this way, then no matter how many such holes there are in the bowl they do not make it a non-bowl. The bhikkhu should mend it and continue using it. If, however, there is even one hole so large that the metal used to plug it cannot be polished smooth with the surface of the rest of the bowl, the tiny crevices in the patch will collect food. This makes it unfit for use, and the owner is entitled to ask for a new one to replace it. 如果这个洞够小，可以用这种方式堵住，那么无论钵里有多少个这样的洞，都不会使它成为一个非钵。比丘应该修补它并继续使用它。然而，即使只有一个孔太大，以至于用于堵塞它的金属无法与钵其余部分的表面抛光光滑，修补片上的微小缝隙就会积聚食物。这将导致其不适合使用，所有者有权要求更换新的。
An extra alms bowl, according to the Vibhaṅga, is any that has not yet been determined for use or placed under shared ownership. Because a bhikkhu may have only one bowl determined for use at any one time, he should place any additional bowls he receives under shared ownership if he plans to keep them on hand. (The procedures for placing bowls under determination and shared ownership, and for rescinding their determination and shared ownership, are given in Appendices IV & V.) 根据《经分别》，额外的钵是指尚未决意使用或置于共享所有权之下的任何钵。因为比丘在任何时候只可以有一个钵决意使用，所以如果他打算将收到的任何额外的钵放在手边，他应该将它们置于共享所有权之下。（将钵决意和置于共享所有权之下以及撤销其决意和共享所有权的程序参见附录四和五。）
Effort 努力
According to the Commentary, once a bowl belonging to a bhikkhu fulfills all the requirements for a determinable bowl, he is responsible for it even if he has not yet received it into his keeping—in other words, the countdown on the time span begins. For example, if a blacksmith promises to make him a bowl and to send word when it is finished, the bhikkhu is responsible for the bowl as soon as he hears word from the blacksmith’s messenger that the bowl is ready, even if he has yet to receive it. If the blacksmith, prior to making the bowl, promises to send it when it is done, then the bhikkhu is not responsible for it until the blacksmith’s messenger brings it to him. (All of this assumes that the bowl is already fully paid for.) 根据《义注》，一旦比丘拥有的钵满足了可决意钵的所有要求，即使他还没有收到它，他也要对它负责——换句话说，时间跨度开始倒数。例如，如果铁匠答应为他制作一个钵，并在完成后通知他，一旦比丘听到铁匠的使者说钵已准备好，他就要对钵负责，即使他还没有收到它。如果铁匠在制作钵之前承诺完成后将其送出，那么在铁匠的使者将钵带给比丘之前，比丘不对此负责。（所有这些都假设钵已经全额付款。）
However, all of this runs contrary to the principle given at Mv.V.13.13, in which the countdown for a robe’s time span (see NP 1) does not begin until the robe reaches one’s hand. It would seem that the same principle should apply here. 然而，所有这些都违背了《大品》.五.13.13中给出的原则，其中袈裟的时间跨度（参见《舍堕》一）的倒数计时直到袈裟到达手中时才开始。同样的原则似乎也适用于此。
The Vibhaṅga states that if within ten days after receiving a new bowl a bhikkhu does not determine it for use, place it under shared ownership, abandon it (give it or throw it away); and if the bowl is not lost, snatched away, damaged beyond repair, or taken on trust, then on the tenth dawnrise after receiving it he incurs the full penalty under this rule. If he then uses the bowl without having forfeited it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. 《经分别》规定，如果比丘在收到新钵后十天内不决意它来使用，置于共享所有权之下，放弃它（给予或扔掉）；而且如果钵没有遗失、被抢走、损坏到无法修复或被基于信任拿走，那么在收到钵后的第十天黎明时，根据本戒条他将承担全部惩罚。如果他随后使用了钵而没有舍出它，则惩罚是《突吉罗》。
Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if the bhikkhu thinks that ten days have not passed when they have, or if he thinks that the bowl is damaged beyond repair or placed under shared ownership, etc., when it isn’t, he incurs the penalty all the same. 在这里，感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素。即使比丘认为十天还没过，但实际上已经过十天了，或认为钵已损坏无法修复或置于共享所有权之下，但事实并非如此，他仍然会受到惩罚。
The Vibhaṅga also states that, in the case of an extra bowl 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. As under NP 1, this dukkaṭa is apparently for then using the bowl. 《经分别》还规定，多余的钵没有保存超过十天，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》。与《舍堕》一中一样，这个《突吉罗》显然是为了使用钵。
Forfeiture & confession 舍出 & 忏罪
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the bowl are the same as under NP 1. For the Pali formulae to use in forfeiting and returning the bowl, see Appendix VI. As with the rules concerning robe-cloth, the bowl must be returned to the offender after he has confessed his offense. Not to return it entails a dukkaṭa. Once the bowl is returned, the ten-day countdown starts all over again. 舍出、忏罪和返还钵的程序与《舍堕》一中的相同。舍出和归还钵时使用的巴利语公式，请参阅附录六。与有关袈裟布的戒条一样，在犯戒者忏罪后，必须将钵归还给犯戒者。不归还它会犯《突吉罗》。一旦钵归还后，十天倒数又重新开始。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if within ten days the bhikkhu determines the bowl for use, places it under shared ownership, or abandons it; or if the bowl is lost, destroyed, broken, or snatched away; or if someone else takes the bowl on trust. With regard to “destroyed” and “broken” here, the Commentary’s discussion indicates that these terms mean “damaged beyond repair,” as defined above. 若比丘在十天内决意使用该钵、将其置于共享所有权之下，或将其放弃，并不犯戒；或者如果钵遗失、毁坏、破损或被抢走；或者如果其他人基于信任拿走钵。关于这里的「毁坏」和「破损」，《义注》的讨论表明这些术语的意思是「损坏到无法修复』，如同上文所定义。
Summary: Keeping an alms bowl for more than ten days without determining it for use or placing it under shared ownership is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：保留钵十天以上，而未决意使用或置于共享所有权之下，是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
22 二十二
Should any bhikkhu with an alms bowl having fewer than five mends ask for another new bowl, it is to be forfeited and confessed. The bowl is to be forfeited by the bhikkhu to the company of bhikkhus. That company of bhikkhus’ final bowl should be presented to the bhikkhu, (saying,) “This, bhikkhu, is your bowl. It is to be kept until broken.” This is the proper course here.
如果任何比丘的钵少于五处修补，要求另一个新钵，尼萨耆波逸提。比丘应将钵舍出给比丘同伴。比丘同伴最后的钵应给比丘，（说：）「比丘，这是你的钵。必须保留它，直到损坏为止。」这于此是如法的。
“Now at that time a certain potter had invited the bhikkhus, saying, ‘If any of the masters needs a bowl, I will supply him with a bowl.’ So the bhikkhus, knowing no moderation, asked for many bowls. Those with small bowls asked for large ones. Those with large ones asked for small ones. (§) The potter, making many bowls for the bhikkhus, could not make other goods for sale. (As a result,) he could not support himself, and his wife and children suffered.”
「尔时，有一个陶匠邀请了比丘们，说：『如果哪位大德需要一个钵，我就供给他一个钵。』于是，比丘们毫无节制地要了很多钵。那些有小钵的人要求大钵。那些有大钵的要求小钵。（§）陶匠为比丘们制作了许多钵，无法制作其他物品来出售。（结果）他无法养活自己，他的妻子和孩子也受苦了。」
Here the full offense involves three factors: 这里，完整的违犯涉及三个因素：
1) Effort: Before one’s alms bowl is beyond repair, one asks for 1）努力：在钵无法修复之前，要求
2) Object: a new almsbowl fit to be determined for use. 2）对象：一个适合决意使用的新钵。
3) Result: One obtains the bowl. 3）结果：获得钵。
According to the Commentary, the phrase, a bowl “having fewer than five mends” refers to one that is not beyond repair, as explained under the preceding rule. Thus this rule allows a bhikkhu whose bowl is beyond repair to ask for a new one. 根据《义注》，该措辞，钵「少于五处修补」，是指未至不可修复的钵，如前述戒条所解释。因此，本戒条允许比丘的钵为无法修复时可以要求换一个新的。
A bhikkhu whose bowl is not beyond repair incurs a dukkaṭa in asking for a new bowl, and a nissaggiya pācittiya in receiving it. 当比丘的钵没有无法修复时，会因索取新钵而犯《突吉罗》，并在接受新钵时犯《舍堕》。
Forfeiture, confession, & bowl exchange 舍出、忏罪和交换钵
Once a bhikkhu has obtained a bowl in violation of this rule, he must forfeit it in the midst of the Community and confess the offense. (See Appendix VI for the Pali formulae used in forfeiture and confession.) He then receives the Community’s “final bowl” to use in place of the new one he has forfeited. 一旦比丘违反本戒条获得了钵，他必须在僧团中舍出它并忏悔罪行。（请参阅附录六，用于舍出和忏罪的巴利语公式。）然后，他收到僧团的「最后钵」来使用，以代替他舍出的新钵。
The Community’s final bowl is selected in the following way: Each bhikkhu coming to the meeting to witness the offender’s forfeiture and confession must bring the bowl he has determined for his own use. If a bhikkhu has an inferior bowl in his possession—either extra or placed under shared ownership—he is not to determine that bowl and take it to the meeting in hopes of getting a more valuable one in the exchange about to take place. To do so entails a dukkaṭa. 僧团的最后钵是按下列方式选出的：每一位来参加集会见证犯戒者舍出和忏罪的比丘必须携带他已决意供自己使用的钵。如果比丘拥有一个较差的钵——无论是额外的还是置于共享所有权之下——他都不能决意该钵并将其带到集会上，希望在即将举行的交换中得到一个更有价值的钵。这样做犯《突吉罗》。
Once the bhikkhus have assembled, the offender forfeits his bowl and confesses the offense. The Community, following the pattern of a motion and one proclamation (ñatti-dutiya-kamma) given in Appendix VI, then chooses one of its members as bowl exchanger. As with all Community officials, the bowl exchanger must be free of the four types of bias: based on desire, based on aversion, based on delusion, based on fear. He must also know when a bowl is properly exchanged and when it’s not. His duty, once authorized, is to take the forfeited bowl and show it to the most senior bhikkhu, who is to choose whichever of the two bowls pleases him more—his own or the new one. If the new bowl is preferable to his own and yet he does not take it out of sympathy for the offender, he incurs a dukkaṭa. The K/Commentary and Sub-commentary add that if he does not prefer the new bowl, there is no offense in not taking it. The Commentary states that if he does prefer the new bowl but, out of a desire to develop the virtue of contentment with what he has, decides not to take it, there is also no offense. 一旦比丘们聚集在一起，犯戒者舍出他的钵并忏悔罪行。僧团按照附录六中给出的一项动议和一项公告[译注：一白与一羯磨] (ñatti-dutiya-kamma [译注：白二羯磨]) 的模式，选择其中一名成员作为钵交换者。与所有僧团执事一样，钵交换者必须摆脱四种类型的偏见：基于贪、基于嗔、基于痴、基于恐惧。他还必须知道何时正确交换钵，何时不正确。一旦获得授权，他的职责就是将被舍出的钵拿给戒腊最高的比丘看，后者要选择两个钵中他更喜欢的一个——他自己的钵或新的钵。如果新钵比他自己的钵更好，但他出于对犯戒者的同情而没有拿走它，他犯《突吉罗》。 K/《义注》和《复注》补充说，如果他不喜欢新钵，不接受它并没有犯戒。《义注》指出，如果他确实喜欢新钵，出于培养满足于自己所拥有的美德的愿望，决定不接受它，也没有犯戒。
To continue with the Vibhaṅga: Once the most senior bhikkhu has taken his choice, the remaining bowl is then shown to the bhikkhu second in seniority, who repeats the process, and so on down the line to the most junior bhikkhu. The bowl exchanger then takes the bowl remaining from this last bhikkhu’s choice—the least desirable bowl belonging to that company of bhikkhus—and presents it to the offender, telling him to determine it for his use and to care for it as best he can until it is no longer useable. 继续讲《经分别》：一旦戒腊最高的比丘做出了选择，剩下的钵就会呈给戒腊第二高的比丘，重复这个过程，依此类推，依次递给戒腊最低的比丘。然后，钵交换者将最后一位比丘选择的剩余钵——属于比丘同伴们最不合意的钵——交给犯戒者，告诉他决意来使用并尽其所能地照料它，直到它不可用为止。
If the offender treats it improperly—putting it in a place where it might get damaged, using it in the wrong sort of way (on both of these points, see BMC2, Chapter 3)—or tries to get rid of it (§), thinking, “How can this bowl be lost or destroyed or broken,” he incurs a dukkaṭa. 如果犯戒者对待它不当——将其放在可能损坏的地方，以错误的方式使用它（这两点，请参阅《佛教修道准则 第二册》第三章）——或试图摆脱它（§），心想：「这个钵怎么才会遗失、毁坏或破碎呢？」
Non-offenses 不犯
A bhikkhu whose bowl is not beyond repair incurs no penalty if he asks for a new bowl from relatives or from people who have invited him to ask, or if he gets a new bowl with his own resources. He is also allowed to ask for a bowl for the sake of another, which—following the Commentary to NP 6—would mean that Bhikkhu X may ask for a bowl for Y only if he asks from his own relatives or people who have invited him to ask for a bowl OR if he asks from Y’s relatives or people who have invited Y to ask. Asking for and receiving a bowl for Y from people other than these would entail the full offense. 比丘的钵尚未无法修复时，如果他向亲戚或邀请他的人索取新钵，或者用自己的资源得到新钵，则不会受到惩罚。他也被允许为另一个人要一个钵，这——根据《舍堕》六的《义注》——意味著比丘 X 只有在向自己的亲戚或邀请他的人索取时，或者向 Y 的亲戚或邀请 Y 的人索取时，才可以为 Y 要一个钵。向这些人以外的人索取并为 Y 接受的钵将构成完全违犯。
Summary: Asking for and receiving a new alms bowl when one’s current bowl is not beyond repair is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：当现有的钵尚未无法修复时，索取并接受新的钵是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
23 二十三
There are these tonics to be taken by sick bhikkhus: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses. Having been received, they are to be used from storage seven days at most. Beyond that, they are to be forfeited and confessed.
生病的比丘可以服用以下补充品：酥油、新鲜奶油、油、蜂蜜、糖/糖蜜。收到后，最多可储藏使用七天。超过此限者，尼萨耆波逸提。
The factors for a full offense here are two. 完全违犯的因素有二。
1) Object: any of the five tonics. 1）对象：五种补品中的任何一种。
2) Effort: One keeps the tonic past the seventh dawnrise after receiving it. 2）努力：在接受补品后将其保留到第七次黎明（明相）。
Object 对象
The five tonics mentioned in this rule form one of four classes of edibles grouped according to the time period within which they may be eaten after being received. The other three—food, juice drinks, and medicines—are discussed in detail at the beginning of the Food Chapter in the pācittiya rules. Here is the story of how the tonics came to be a special class: 本戒条中提到的五种补品属于四类食品之一，根据收到后可以食用的时间段进行分组。其他三种——食物、果汁饮料和药物——在《波逸提》戒条的食物品开头详细讨论。以下是补品如何成为一类特殊类别的故事：
“Then as the Blessed One was alone in seclusion, this line of reasoning occurred to his mind: ‘At present the bhikkhus, afflicted by the autumn disease, bring up the conjey they have drunk and the meals they have eaten. Because of this they are thin, wretched, unattractive, and pale, their bodies covered with veins. What if I were to allow medicine for them that would be both medicine and agreed to be medicine by the world, and serve as food, yet would not be considered gross (substantial) food.’
「当世尊独自隐居时，他心中生起这样的推理：『现在，诸比丘，受秋病之苦，呕吐出他们所喝的粥和所吃的饭菜。因此，他们瘦弱、可怜、毫无吸引力、脸色苍白，全身布满青筋。如果我允许为他们提供药物，这种药物既是药物，又被世人认为是药物，又可以作为食物，但又不会被视为粗劣（大量）食物。」
“Then this thought occurred to him: ‘There are these five tonics—ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses—that are both medicine and agreed to be medicine by the world, and serve as food yet would not be considered gross food. What if I were now to allow the bhikkhus, having accepted them at the right time (from dawnrise to noon), to consume them at the right time’….
「然后他想到：『有这五种滋补品——酥油、新鲜奶油、油、蜂蜜、糖/糖蜜——既是药物，又被世人认为是药物，作为食物却不会被认为是粗劣食物。如果我现在允许比丘们，在正确的时间（从黎明到中午）接受它们，在正确的时间食用，会怎么样」…。
“Now at that time bhikkhus, having accepted the five tonics at the right time, consumed them at the right time. Because of this they could not stomach even ordinary coarse foods, much less rich, greasy ones. As a result, afflicted both by the autumn disease and this loss of appetite for meals, they became even more thin and wretched…. So the Blessed One, with regard to this cause, having given a Dhamma talk, addressed the bhikkhus: ‘Bhikkhus, I allow that the five tonics, having been accepted, be consumed at the right time or the wrong time (from noon to dawnrise).’”—Mv.VI.1.2-5
「那时，诸比丘们，在适当的时候接受了五种补品，在适当的时候食用了它们。因此，他们连普通的粗粮都吃不了，更别说油腻的了。结果，在秋病和食欲不振的双重折磨下，他们变得更加瘦弱……。为此，世尊在说法之后，对比丘们说：『比丘们，我允许接受之后，在正确的时间或错误的时间（从中午到黎明）服食五种补品。』」—《大品》.六.1.2-5
The Vibhaṅga defines the five tonics as follows: 《经分别》对五种补品的定义如下：
Ghee means strained, boiled butter oil made from the milk of any animal whose flesh is allowable for bhikkhus to eat (see the introduction to the Food Chapter in the pācittiya rules). 酥油是指任何允许比丘食用其肉的动物的奶制成的过滤煮沸的奶油（参见《波逸提》戒条中食物品的介绍）。
Fresh butter must be made from the milk of any animal whose flesh is allowable. None of the Vinaya texts go into detail on how fresh butter is made, but MN 126 describes the process as “having sprinkled curds in a pot, one twirls them with a churn.” Fresh butter of this sort is still made in India today by taking a small churn—looking like an orange with alternate sections removed, attached to a small stick—and twirling it in curds, all the while sprinkling them with water. The fresh butter—mostly milk fat—coagulates on the churn, and when the fresh butter is removed, what is left in the pot is diluted buttermilk. Fresh butter, unlike creamery butter made by churning cream, may be stored unrefrigerated in bottles for several days even in the heat of India without going rancid. 新鲜奶油必须由任何允许食用其肉的动物的奶制成。律藏文献中没有详细介绍如何制作新鲜奶油，但《中部》126经将这一过程描述为「将凝乳撒在锅中，然后用搅拌器旋转它们」。如今，这种新鲜奶油在印度仍然是通过取一个小搅拌器（看起来像一个被去除了交替部分的橙子，连接到一根小棍子上）并将其与凝乳一起旋转，同时在凝乳中撒上水来制作的。新鲜奶油（主要是乳脂）在搅拌器上凝固，当新鲜奶油被取出时，锅中剩下的就是稀释的酪乳。与搅拌奶油制成的乳清奶油不同，新鲜奶油即使在印度炎热的天气下也可以在不冷藏的情况下在瓶子中保存几天而不会变质。
Arguing by the Great Standards, creamery butter would obviously come under fresh butter here. A more controversial topic is cheese. 按照《四大教示》，乳清奶油显然属于新鲜奶油。一个更有争议的话题是起司。
In Mv.VI.34.21, the Buddha allows bhikkhus to consume five products of the cow: milk, curds, buttermilk, fresh butter, and ghee. Apparently, cheese—curds heated to evaporate their liquid content and then cured with or without mold—was unknown in those days, but there seems every reason, using the Great Standards, to include it under one of the five. The question is which one. Some have argued that it should come under fresh butter, but the argument for classifying it under curds seems stronger, as it is closer to curds in composition and is generally regarded as more of a substantial food. Different Communities, however, have differing opinions on this matter. 在《大品》.六.34.21中，佛陀允许比丘食用五种奶牛产品：牛奶、凝乳、酪乳、新鲜奶油和酥油。显然，起司——加热蒸发其液体成分的凝乳，然后在有或没有霉菌的情况下固化——在当时还不为人所知，但使用《四大教示》，似乎有充分的理由将其纳入此五种之一。问题是哪一个。有些人认为它应该归类为新鲜奶油，但将其归类为凝乳的论点似乎更强烈，因为它的成分更接近凝乳，并且通常被认为是更大量的食物。然而，不同的僧团对此问题有不同的看法。
Oil, according to the Vibhaṅga, includes sesame oil, mustard seed oil, “honey tree” oil, castor oil, and oil from tallow. The Commentary adds that oil made from any plants not listed in the Vibhaṅga carries a dukkaṭa if kept more than seven days, although it would seem preferable to use the Great Standards and simply apply the full offense under this rule to all plant oils that can be used as food; and to class as medicines (see BMC2, Chapter 5) any aromatic plant oils—such as tea-tree oil or peppermint oil—made from leaves or resins that qualify as medicines that can be kept for life. 油，根据《经分别》，包括芝麻油、芥菜籽油、「蜜树」油、蓖麻油和动物脂油。《义注》补充说，由任何未列入《经分别》中的植物制成的油，如果保存超过七天，犯《突吉罗》，尽管使用《四大教示》似乎更合适，并且只需将本戒条下的完全违犯适用于所有可当食物使用的植物油；并将任何由可以作为可以终生保存药物的叶子或树脂制成的芳香植物油（例如茶树油或薄荷油）归类为药物（参见《佛教修道准则 第二册》第五章）。
Mv.VI.2.1 allows five kinds of tallow: bear, fish, alligator, pig, and donkey tallow. Because bear meat is one of the kinds normally unallowable for bhikkhus, the Sub-commentary interprets this list as meaning that oil from the tallow of any animal whose flesh is allowable—and from any animal whose flesh, if eaten, carries a dukkaṭa—is allowable here. Because human flesh, if eaten, carries a thullaccaya, oil from human fat is not allowed. 《大品》.六.2.1允许使用五种动物脂：熊脂、鱼脂、鳄鱼脂、猪脂和驴脂。因为熊肉是比丘通常不允许食用的种类之一，所以《复注》解释了这个清单，意思是来自任何食用其肉是允许的动物的脂油——以及来自任何如果食用其肉犯《突吉罗》的动物——是这里允许。因为如果食用人肉，犯《偷兰遮》，因此不允许使用人类脂肪制成的油。
Mv.VI.2.1 adds that tallow of any allowable sort may be consumed as oil if received in the right time (before noon, according to the Commentary), rendered in the right time, and filtered in the right time. (The PTS and Thai editions of the Canon use the word saṁsaṭṭha here, which usually means “mixed together”; the Sri Lankan edition reads saṁsatta, or “hung together.” Whichever the reading, the Commentary states that the meaning here is “filtered,” which best fits the context.) According to Mv.VI.2.2, if the tallow has been received, rendered, or filtered after noon, the act of consuming the resulting oil carries a dukkaṭa for each of the three activities that took place after noon. For example, if the tallow was received before noon but rendered and filtered after noon, there are two dukkaṭas for consuming the resulting oil. 《大品》.六.2.1补充说，如果在正确的时间（根据《义注》，在中午之前）接受、在正确的时间提炼并在正确的时间过滤，任何允许种类的动物脂都可以作为油食用。（《圣典》的 PTS 和泰国版本在这里使用 saṁsaṭṭha 这个词，通常意味著「混合在一起」；斯里兰卡版本读作 saṁsatta ，「悬挂在一起」。无论哪种读法，《义注》都指出这里的含义是「过滤」，这最适合上下文。）根据《大品》.六.2.2，如果动物脂在中午之后被接受、提炼或过滤，那么食用所得的油的行为就会为中午之后发生的三项活动中的每一项犯《突吉罗》。例如，如果在中午之前收到动物脂，但在中午之后提炼和过滤，则食用所得的油犯两次《突吉罗》。
Whether the Great Standards can be used to include gelatin under the category of “oil” here is a controversial topic. The argument for including it is that, like oil from tallow, it is rendered from a part of an animal’s body that the Commentary would include under “flesh,” and—on its own—it does not serve as substantial food. Different Communities, however, have differing opinions on this matter. 是否可以依照《四大教示》将明胶纳入「油」范畴，这是一个有争议的议题。支持将其包括在内的论点是，就像来自动物脂中的油一样，它是从动物身体的一部分提炼出来的，《义注》将其纳入「肉」中，并且它本身并不能作为大量的食物。然而，不同的僧团对此问题有不同的看法。
Honey means the honey of bees, although the Commentary lists two species of bee—cirika, long and with wings, and tumbala, large, black and with hard wings—whose honey it says is very viscous and ranks as a medicine, not as one of the five tonics. 蜂蜜的意思是蜜蜂的蜂蜜，尽管《义注》列出了两种蜜蜂—— cirika ，长且有翅膀，和 tumbala ，大，黑色，翅膀坚硬——它说它们的蜂蜜非常黏稠，可以作为药物，而不是作为五种补品之一。
Sugar/molasses the Vibhaṅga defines simply as what is extracted from sugar cane. The Commentary interprets this as meaning not only sugar and molasses, but also fresh sugar cane juice, but this contradicts Mv.VI.35.6, which classes fresh sugar cane juice as a juice drink, not a tonic. The Commentary also says that sugar or molasses made from any fruit classed as a food—such as coconut or date palm—ranks as a food and not as a tonic, but it is hard to guess at its reasoning here, as sugar cane itself is also classed as a food. The Vinaya-mukha seems more correct in using the Great Standards to say that all forms of sugar and molasses, no matter what the source, would be included here. Thus maple syrup and beet-sugar would come under this rule. 糖/糖蜜，《经分别》仅将其定义为从甘蔗中提取的物质。《义注》将其解释为不仅指糖和糖蜜，还指新鲜甘蔗汁，但这与《大品》.六.35.6相矛盾，后者将新鲜甘蔗汁归类为果汁饮料，而不是补品。《义注》还说，由任何被归类为食物的水果（例如椰子或椰枣）制成的糖或糖蜜都属于食物，而不是补品，但很难猜测其原因，因为甘蔗本身就是也被归类为食物。《戒律入口》似乎更正确地使用《四大教示》来说所有形式的糖和糖蜜，无论来源是什么，都包括在这里。因此，枫糖浆和甜菜糖算在本戒条之下。
The Vinaya-mukha—arguing from the parallel between sugar cane juice, which is a juice drink, and sugar, which is made by boiling sugar cane juice—maintains that boiled juice would fit under sugar here. This opinion, however, is not accepted in all Communities. 《戒律入口》——从甘蔗汁（一种果汁饮料）和糖（通过煮沸甘蔗汁制成）之间的相似性出发——认为煮沸的果汁可以算在此处的糖之下。然而，这项意见并未被所有僧团接受。
According to Mv.VI.16.1, even if the sugar has a little flour mixed in with it simply to make it firmer—as sometimes happens in sugar cubes and blocks of palm sugar—it is still classed as a tonic as long as it is still regarded simply as “sugar.” If the mixture is regarded as something else—candy, for instance—it counts as a food and may not be eaten after noon of the day on which it is received. 根据《大品》.六.16.1，即使糖中混有少量面粉，只是为了使其更坚硬（有时会发生在方糖和棕榈糖块中），只要它仍然仅被视为「糖」，它仍然被归类为补品。如果混合物被视为其他东西（例如糖果），则它被视为食物，并且在接受的当天中午之后不得食用。
Sugar substitutes that have no food value would apparently not be classed as a food or a tonic, and thus would come under the category of life-long medicines. 没有食用价值的糖替代品显然不会被归类为食品或补品，因此将属于终身药物的范畴。
Proper use 适当使用
According to Mv.VI.40.3, any tonic received today may be eaten mixed with food or juice drinks received today, but not with food or juice drinks received on a later day. Thus, as the Commentary points out, tonics received in the morning may be eaten with food that morning; if received in the afternoon, they may not be eaten mixed with food at all. 根据《大品》.六.40.3，今天接受的任何补品可以与今天接受的食物或果汁饮料混合食用，但不能与稍后的日子接受的食物或果汁饮料混合食用。因此，正如《义注》所指出的，早上接受的补品可以与当天早上的食物一起吃；如果是下午接受的，则根本不可与食物混合食用。
Also, the Commentary to this rule says at one point that one may take the tonic at any time during those seven days regardless of whether one is ill. At another point, though—in line with the Vibhaṅga to Pc 37 & 38, which assigns a dukkaṭa for taking a tonic as food—it says that one may take the tonic after the morning of the day on which it is received only if one has a reason. This statement the Sub-commentary explains as meaning that any reason suffices—e.g., hunger, weakness—as long as one is not taking the tonic for nourishment as food. In other words, one may take enough to assuage one’s hunger, but not to fill oneself up. 此外，本戒条的《义注》中曾提到，在这七天内，无论是否生病，都可以随时服用补品。然而，在另一点上，与《波逸提》三七和三八的《经分别》一致，它为服用补品作为食物指定了《突吉罗》，它说，只有在有理由的情况下，才可以在接受补品的当天早上之后服用补品。《复注》解释这句话的意思是，任何原因都可以──例如饥饿、虚弱──只要不以服用补品滋补作为食物。换句话说，可以吃足够的东西来缓解饥饿，但不能填饱自己。
Mv.VI.27, however, contains a special stipulation for the use of sugar. If one is ill, one may take it “as is” at any time during the seven days; if not, then after noon of the first day one may take it only if it is mixed with water. 然而，《大品》.六.27对糖的使用有特殊规定。如果生病了，可以在七天内的任何时间「照原样」服用；如果没有，那么第一天中午之后，只有与水混合后才可以服用。
Effort 努力
If a bhikkhu keeps a tonic past the seventh dawnrise after it has been received—either by himself or another bhikkhu—he is to forfeit it and confess the nissaggiya pācittiya offense. Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if he thinks that seven days have not yet passed when they actually have—or thinks that the tonic is no longer in his possession when it actually is—he incurs the penalty all the same (§). 如果一位比丘在接受补品后，无论是他自己还是其他比丘，在第七次黎明（明相）之后仍保留补品，他将舍出该补品并忏悔《舍堕》罪。在这里，感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素。即使他认为还没有过去七天，但实际上七天已经过去了——或者认为补品已经不在他手中了，而实际上仍在——他仍然会受到惩罚（§）。
Offenses 犯戒
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the tonic are the same as under NP 1. The formula to use in forfeiting the tonic is given in Appendix VI. Once the bhikkhu receives the tonic in return, he may not use it to eat or to apply to his body, although he may use it for other external purposes, such as oil for a lamp, etc. Other bhikkhus may not eat the tonic either, but they may apply it to their bodies—for example, as oil to rub down their limbs. 舍出、忏罪和返还补品的程序与《舍堕》一中的相同。附录六给出了舍出补品的公式。一旦比丘收到补药作为回报，他就不能用它来吃或涂在身体上，尽管他可以将它用于其他外部用途，例如灯油等。其他比丘也不可吃该补品，但他们可将其涂在身体上——例如，作为油擦在四肢上。
The Vibhaṅga states that, in the case of a tonic that has not been kept more than seven days, if one perceives it to have been kept more than seven days or if one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. As under NP 1, this dukkaṭa is apparently for using the tonic. 《经分别》指出，对于未保存超过七天的补品，如果认为它已保存超过七天或有疑问，则惩罚为《突吉罗》。与《舍堕》一中一样，这个《突吉罗》显然是因为使用补品。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if within seven days the tonic gets lost, destroyed, burnt, snatched away, or taken on trust; or if the bhikkhu determines it for use, abandons it, or—having given it away to an unordained person, abandoning desire for it—he receives it in return and makes use of it (§). 根据《经分别》，如果补品在七天内遗失、毁坏、烧毁、被抢走或基于信任被拿走，并没有犯戒；或者，如果比丘决意使用它，放弃它，或者—将它给予未受具足戒的人，放弃对它的渴望—他收到它作为回报并使用它（§）。
The Commentary contains an extended discussion of these last three points. 《义注》包含对最后三点的扩展讨论。
1) Determining the tonic for use means that within the seven days the bhikkhu determines that he will use it not as an internal medicine, but only to apply to the outside of his body or for other external purposes instead. In this case, he may keep the tonic as long as he likes without penalty.
1）决意使用补品，是指比丘在七日内决意不将其用作内服药，而只用于涂抹身体外部或作其他外用。在这种情况下，他可以随心所欲地保留补品，而不会受到惩罚。
2) Unlike the other rules dealing with robe-cloth or bowls kept x number of days, the non-offense clauses here do not include exemptions for tonics placed under shared ownership, but the Commentary discusses abandons it as if it read “places it under shared ownership.” Its verdict: Any tonic placed under shared ownership may be kept for more than seven days without incurring a penalty as long as the owners do not divide up their shares, but after the seventh day they may not use it for internal purposes. The Sub-commentary adds that any tonic placed under shared ownership may not be used at all until the arrangement is rescinded.
2）与其他处理袈裟布或钵保存 x 天数的戒条不同，这里的不犯条款不包括对共享所有权下的补品的豁免，但《义注》讨论放弃它，就好像它读作「将其置于共享所有权之下」。其判决：只要所有者不分割其份额，任何共享所有权下的补品都可以保留超过七天，而不会受到处罚，但在第七天之后，他们不得将其用于内用目的。《复注》补充说，在取消该安排之前，任何共享所有权下的补品都不得使用。
3) The Commentary reports a controversy between two Vinaya experts on the meaning of the last exemption in the list—i.e., “having given it away to an unordained person, abandoning possession of it in his mind, he receives it in return and makes use of it.” Ven. Mahā Sumanatthera states that the phrase, “if within seven days” applies here as well: If within seven days the bhikkhu gives the tonic to an unordained person, having abandoned possession of it in his mind, he may then keep it and consume it for another seven days if the unordained person happens to return it to him.
3）《义注》记述了两位戒律专家之间关于列表中最后一项豁免的含义的争议，即「将它给予未受具足戒的人，在心中放弃了对它的拥有，他收到它作为回报并使用它」。摩诃Sumanatthera尊者指出，该措辞「若在七日内」也适用于此：如果在七日内，比丘将补品给予一位未受具足戒的人，并在心中放弃了对它的拥有，如果未受具足戒的人碰巧将其归还给他，那么他可以保留它并继续食用七天。
Ven. Mahā Padumatthera disagrees, saying that the exemption abandons it already covers such a case, and that the exemption here refers to the situation where a bhikkhu has kept a tonic past seven days, has forfeited it and received it in return, and then gives it up to an unordained person. If the unordained person then returns the tonic to him, he may use it to rub on his body. 摩诃Padumatthera尊者不同意，他说，放弃它的豁免已经涵盖了这种情况，这里的豁免是指比丘保留补品超过七天，已经舍出并收到它作为回报，然后给予一位未受具足戒的人的情况。如果未受具足戒者随后将补品归还给他，他可以用它来涂抹身体。
The K/Commentary agrees with the latter position, but this creates some problems, both textual and practical. To begin with, the phrase, “if within seven days,” modifies every one of the other non-offense clauses under this rule, and there is nothing to indicate that it does not modify this one, too. Second, every one of the other exemptions refers directly to ways of avoiding the full offense and not to ways of dealing with the forfeited article after it is returned, and again there is nothing to indicate that the last exemption breaks this pattern. K/《义注》同意后一种观点，但这造成了一些问题，包括文字和实际问题。首先，「如果在七天之内」这句话修改了本戒条下的所有其他不犯条款，并且没有任何迹象表明它不会修改这条。其次，其他每项豁免都直接提到了避免完全违犯的方式，而不是提到归还舍出物品后的处理方式，而且没有任何迹象表明最后一项豁免打破了这种模式。
On the practical side, if the exemption abandons it covers cases where a bhikkhu may give up the tonic to anyone at all and then receive it in return to use for another seven days, bhikkhus could spend their time trading hoards of tonics among themselves indefinitely, and the rule would become meaningless. But as the origin story shows, it was precisely to prevent them from amassing such hoards that the rule was formulated in the first place. 从实际角度来看，如果放弃它的豁免涵盖了比丘可以将补品给予任何人，然后再收到补药以供使用七天的情况，比丘们可以无限期地花时间在他们之间交易补品，那么本戒条就变得毫无意义了。但正如起源故事所示，最初制定本戒条正是为了防止他们累积如此多的东西。
“Then Ven. Pilindavaccha went to the residence of King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha and, on arrival, sat down on a seat made ready. Then King Seniya Bimbisāra… went to Ven. Pilindavaccha and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Pilindavaccha addressed him: ‘For what reason, great king, has the monastery attendant’s family been imprisoned?’
「于是，毕陵伽婆蹉尊者来到摩揭陀斯尼耶频毘娑罗王的住所，一到那里，就在准备好的座位上坐下。然后，斯尼耶频毘娑罗王… 去找毕陵伽婆蹉尊者，到达后，向他敬礼，然后坐在一旁。当他坐在那里时，毕陵伽婆蹉尊者问他：『伟大的国王，寺院净人一族因何被监禁？』
“‘Venerable sir, in the monastery attendant’s house was a garland of gold: beautiful, attractive, exquisite. There is no garland of gold like it even in our own harem, so from where did that poor man (get it)? It must have been taken by theft.’
「『尊者，寺院净人一族有一串金花环：美丽、迷人、精巧。就连我们自己的后宫中都没有这样的金花环，那么，那个可怜的男人是从哪里得到它的呢？它肯定是被偷了。』
“Then Ven. Pilindavaccha willed that the palace of King Seniya Bimbisāra be gold. And it became made entirely of gold. ‘But from where did you get so much of this gold, great king?’
「时，毕陵伽婆蹉尊者用意念将斯尼耶频毘娑罗王的宫殿变成黄金。它变成完全由黄金制成。『但是，伟大的国王，您从哪里得到这么多的黄金？』
“(Saying,) ‘I understand, venerable sir. This is simply the master’s psychic power’ (§—reading ayyass’ev’eso with the Thai edition of the Canon)’ he had the monastery attendant’s family released.
「（说）『我明白了，尊者。这只是大德的神通力』（§—泰国版《圣典》拼读成 ayyass’ev’eso）』他释放了寺院净人一族。
“The people, saying, ‘A psychic wonder, a superior human feat, they say, was displayed to the king and his retinue by the master Pilindavaccha,’ were pleased and delighted. They presented Ven. Pilindavaccha with the five tonics: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and sugar.
「人们说：『据说，毕陵伽婆蹉大德向国王和他的随从示现神通不可思议之过人法，』他们很开心高兴。他们为毕陵伽婆蹉尊者持来五种补品：酥油、新鲜奶油、油、蜂蜜和糖。
“Now ordinarily Ven. Pilindavaccha was already a receiver of the five tonics (§), so he distributed his gains among his company, who came to live in abundance. They put away their gains, having filled pots and pitchers. They hung up their gains in windows, having filled water strainers and bags. These kept oozing and seeping, and their dwellings were crawling and creeping with rats. People, engaged in a tour of the dwellings and seeing this, criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘These Sakyan-son monks have inner storerooms like the king….’”
「现在毕陵伽婆蹉尊者已获得五种补品（§），因此他将所得分配给他的随从，使他们过得富足。他们把所得装满了罐子和水壶，然后存了起来。他们把所得装满滤水器和水袋，挂在窗户上。这些地方不断有液体渗出，他们的住处到处都是老鼠。人们在参观住处时看到这种情况，便批评、抱怨并四处传播：『这些沙门释子与国王一样拥有内部储藏室……。』」
Thus it seems more likely that the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses should be interpreted like this: A bhikkhu is no longer held responsible for a tonic if he abandons it or gives it away—no matter to whom he gives it, or what his state of mind—but he may receive it in return and use it another seven days only if within the first seven days he has given it to an unordained person, having abandoned all possession of it in his mind. 因此，《经分别》的不犯条款似乎更有可能被这样解释：如果比丘放弃或赠送补品，他不再对补品负责——无论他给谁，或他的心理状态如何——但他可以接受其归还并再使用七天，只有当前提是，在前七天里，他必须将其给予一个未受具足戒的人，并在心中放弃对它的所有权。
Summary: Keeping any of the five tonics—ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, or sugar/molasses—for more than seven days, unless one determines to use them only externally, is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：将酥油、新鲜奶油、油、蜂蜜或糖/糖蜜这五种补品中的任何一种保存超过七天，除非决意只外用，否则是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
24 二十四
When a month is left to the hot season, a bhikkhu may seek a rains-bathing cloth. When a half-month is left to the hot season, (the cloth) having been made, may be worn. If when more than a month is left to the hot season he should seek a rains-bathing cloth, (or) when more than a half-month is left to the hot season, (the cloth) having been made should be worn, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
当离炎热季节还有一个月的时候，比丘可寻求一件雨浴衣。离炎热季节还有半个月，（衣）做好了，可以穿了。如果距离炎热季节还超过一个月，他寻求一件雨浴衣，（或）距离炎热季节还超过半个月，（衣）已经做好了并穿上，尼萨耆波逸提。
Bhikkhus in the time of the Buddha commonly bathed in a river or lake. Passages in the Canon tell of some of the dangers involved: They had to watch over their robes to make sure they weren’t stolen or washed away by the river, and at the same time make sure they didn’t expose themselves. (SN 2:10 tells of a female deva who, seeing a young bhikkhu bathing, became smitten with the sight of him wearing only his lower robe. She appeared to him, suggesting that he leave the monkhood to take his fill of sensual pleasures before his youth had passed, but fortunately he was far enough in the practice to resist her advances.) A further danger during the rainy season was that the rivers would become swollen and their currents strong. During this time, then, bhikkhus would bathe in the rain. 佛陀时代的比丘通常在河流或湖泊中沐浴。《圣典》中的段落讲述了其中涉及的一些危险：他们必须看管好自己的袈裟，确保它们不会被偷走或被河水冲走，同时确保他们不会暴露自己。（《相应部》2:10经讲述了一位女天神看到一位年轻的比丘沐浴，被他只穿著下衣袈裟所吸引。她出现在他面前，建议他还俗，在他的青春已逝之前尽情享受感官愉悦，但幸运的是，他的修行已经足够深入，可以抵抗她的追求。）雨季的另一个危险是河水上涨且水流湍急。在这段时间里，比丘们会在雨中沐浴。
Rains-bathing cloth 雨浴衣
Mv.VIII.15.1-7 tells the story of a servant girl who went to a monastery and—seeing bhikkhus out bathing naked in the rain—concluded that there were no bhikkhus there, but only naked ascetics. She returned to tell her mistress, Lady Visākhā, who realized what was actually happening and made this the occasion to ask permission of the Buddha to provide rains-bathing cloths for the bhikkhus, because as she put it, “Nakedness is repulsive.” He granted her request, and at a later point (Mv.VIII.20.2) stated that a rains-bathing cloth could be determined for use during the four months of the rainy season—beginning with the day after the full moon in July, or the second if there are two—and that at the end of the four months it was to be placed under shared ownership. This training rule deals with the protocol for seeking and using such a cloth during the rains and the period immediately preceding them. 《大品》.八.15.1-7 讲述了一个女仆去寺院的故事，她看到比丘们在雨中裸体沐浴，于是得出结论，那里没有比丘，只有裸体的苦行僧。她回去告诉了女主人，毘舍佉夫人，毘舍佉夫人意识到了事情的真相，并借此机会向佛陀请求允许为比丘们提供雨浴衣，因为用她的话来说，「裸体是令人厌恶的」。他答应了她的请求，并在后来的某个时刻（《大品》.八.20.2）表示，可以在雨季的四个月内决意使用雨浴衣——从七月满月后的次日开始，或者如果有两个满月的话，则是第二个满月后的次日开始——并且在四个月结束后，将其置于共享所有权之下。本学处涉及在雨季和雨季之前寻求和使用这种衣物的行仪。
The protocol as sketched out in the Vibhaṅga—together with details from the Commentary in parentheses and my own comments in brackets—is as follows: During the first two weeks of the fourth lunar month of the hot season—[the lunar cycle ending with the full moon in July, or the first full moon if there are two]—a bhikkhu may seek a rains-bathing cloth and make it (if he gets enough material). (However, he may not yet use it or determine it for use because it may be determined for use only during the four months of the rainy season—[see Mv.VIII.20.2].) 《经分别》中概述的行仪——包括圆括号中的《义注》细节和方括号中我自己的评论——如下：在炎热季节的第四个阴历月的前两周——[以七月满月结束的月亮周期，或如果有两个满月，则为第一个满月]——比丘可以寻求雨浴衣并制作它（如果他获得足够的材料）。（然而，他还不能使用它或决意使用它，因为它只可以在雨季的四个月内被决意使用——[见《大品》.八.20.2]。）
In seeking the cloth he may directly ask for it from relatives or people who have invited him to ask, or he may approach people who have provided rains-bathing cloths in the past and give them such hints as: “It is the time for material for a rains-bathing cloth,” or “People are giving material for a rains-bathing cloth.” As under NP 10, he may not say, “Give me material for a rains-bathing cloth,” or “Get me…” or “Exchange for me…” or “Buy me material for a rains-bathing cloth.” (If he asks directly from people who are not relatives or who have not invited him to ask, he incurs a dukkaṭa; if he then receives cloth from them, he incurs the full penalty under NP 6. If he gives hints to people who have never provided rains-bathing cloths in the past, he incurs a dukkaṭa [which the Commentary assigns on the general principle of breaking a duty].) 在寻求布料时，他可以直接向亲戚或邀请他来询问的人索取，或者他可以接近过去曾提供过雨浴衣服的人，并给他们这样的暗示：「现在是需要雨浴衣材料的时候了」或「人们正在提供用于雨浴衣的材料」。根据《舍堕》十，他不得说「给我一件雨浴衣的材料」，或「给我拿来…」或「给我换来…」或「给我买一件雨浴衣的材料」。（如果他直接向非亲属或没有邀请他来询问的人索取，他犯《突吉罗》；如果他随后从他们那里接受布，他会遭受《舍堕》六规定的全部惩罚。如果他向过去从未提供过雨浴衣的人暗示，他犯《突吉罗》[《义注》中对违反义务的一般原则的规定]。
During the last two weeks of the fourth lunar month of the hot season he may now begin using his cloth (although he may not yet determine it for use). [This shows clearly that this rule is providing an exemption to NP 1, under which he otherwise would be forced to determine the cloth within ten days after receiving it.] (If he has not yet received enough material, he may continue seeking for more in the way described above and make himself a cloth when he receives enough.) 在炎热季节的第四个阴历月的最后两周，他现在可以开始使用他的布料了（尽管他可能还没有决意使用）。[这清楚地表明，本戒条为《舍堕》一提供了豁免，否则他将被迫在收到布料后十天内决意布料。]（如果他还没有得到足够的材料，他可以继续按照上面描述的方式寻求更多的材料，当他得到足够的材料时，他可以为自己做一件衣。）
(When the first day of the rainy season arrives, he may determine the cloth. If he does not yet have enough material to make his rains-bathing cloth, he may continue seeking it throughout the four months of the rains.) If he bathes naked in the rain when he has a cloth to use, he incurs a dukkaṭa. (However, he may bathe naked in a lake or river without penalty. If he has no cloth to use, he may also bathe naked in the rain.) （当雨季的第一天到来时，他可以决意布料。如果他还没有足够的材料来制作雨浴衣，他可以在四个月的雨季里继续寻求。）如果他有衣服可用，却在雨中赤裸裸地洗澡，他犯《突吉罗》。（然而，他可以在湖泊或河流中裸浴而不受惩罚。如果他没有衣服可用，他也可以在雨中裸浴。）
(At the end of the four months, he is to wash his cloth, place it under shared ownership, and put it aside if it is still usable. He may begin using it again the last two weeks of the last lunar month before the next rainy season and is to re-determine it for use on the day the rainy season officially begins.) （在四个月结束时，他要洗净他的衣，将其置于共享所有权之下，如果还能用的话，就把它放在一边。他可以在下一个雨季前最后一个阴历月的最后两周再次开始使用它，并在雨季正式开始之日重新决意使用之。）
Toward the end of his discussion of this rule, Buddhaghosa adds his own personal opinion on when a rains-bathing cloth should be determined for use if it is finished during the rains—on the grounds that the ancient commentaries do not discuss the issue—one of the few places where he overtly gives his own opinion anywhere in the Commentary. His verdict: If one receives enough material to finish the cloth within ten days, one should determine it within those ten days. If not, one may keep what material one has, undetermined and throughout the rainy season if need be, until one does obtain enough material and then determine the cloth on the day it is completed. 在讨论本戒条的最后，佛音补充了他自己的观点，关于如果雨季期间完成了雨浴衣，应该何时决意使用之——理由是古代注释没有讨论这个问题——在《义注》中，他少数几次公开发表自己的观点。他的结论是：如果收到足够的材料，可以在十天内完成衣物，那么他就应该在这十天内做出决意。如果不够，如有必要的话则可以在整个雨季保留现有的材料不做决意，直到获得足够的材料，然后在完成的那天决意衣物。
Offenses 犯戒
As the K/Commentary points out, this rule covers two separate offenses whose factors are somewhat different: the offense for seeking a rains-bathing cloth at the wrong time and the offense for using it at the wrong time. 正如 K/《义注》指出的那样，本戒条涵盖两项不同的罪行，其因素略有不同：在错误的时间寻求雨浴衣的罪行和在错误的时间使用雨浴衣的罪行。
Seeking 寻求
The factors here are three: object, effort, and result. The bhikkhu is looking for material for a rains-bathing cloth, he makes hints to people during the time he is not allowed to make hints, and he receives the cloth. 这里的因素有三：对象、努力、结果。比丘在寻找雨浴衣的材料，他在不允许暗示的时间向人们暗示，并得到了布料。
Using 使用
The factors here are two: object—he has a rains-bathing cloth—and effort—he has other robes to use, there are no dangers, and yet he wears the cloth during the period when he is not allowed to wear it. (The conditions here are based on the non-offenses clauses, which we will discuss below.) 这里的因素有两个：对象—他有一件雨浴衣—而努力—他有其他袈裟可用，也没有危险，但他却在禁止穿雨浴衣的期间里穿著它。（这里的条件是基于不犯条款，我们将在下面讨论。）
In neither of these cases is perception a mitigating factor. Even if a bhikkhu thinks that the right time to hint for the cloth or to wear it has come when it actually hasn’t, he is not immune from an offense. 在这两种情况下，感知都不是减轻惩罚的因素。即使比丘认为暗示衣物或穿戴衣物的正确时机已到，但实际上并未到，他仍不能免于犯戒。
A bhikkhu who has committed either of the two full offenses here is to forfeit the cloth and confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1. 比丘若完全违犯了此处所述的两种罪行，则须舍出衣物并忏悔罪行。舍出、忏罪及归还衣物的程序与《舍堕》一相同。
If a bhikkhu seeks or uses a rains-bathing cloth during the permitted times and yet believes that he is doing so outside of the permitted times, or if he is in doubt about the matter, he incurs a dukkaṭa. 如果比丘在允许的时间内寻求或使用雨浴衣，然而却相信他是在允许的时间之外这样做，或者如果他对此事有怀疑，他犯《突吉罗》。
Non-offenses 不犯
As the rule states, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who hints for a rains-bathing cloth within the last lunar month of the hot season, or for one who wears his rains-bathing cloth during the last two weeks of that month. 根据本戒条所述，在炎热季节的最后一个阴历月内暗示雨浴衣的比丘，或在该月的最后两周内穿著雨浴衣的比丘，均不构成犯戒。
The Vibhaṅga then refers to a situation that occasionally happens under the lunar calendar: The four months of the hot season end, but the Rains-residence is delayed another lunar cycle because a thirteenth lunar month has been added at the end of the hot season or the beginning of the rainy season to bring the lunar year back into line with the solar year. In this case, it says that the rains-bathing cloth—having been sought for during the fourth month and worn during the last two weeks of the hot season—is to be washed and then put aside. When the proper season arrives, it may be brought out for use (§). 《经分别》接著提到了阴历中偶尔发生的情况：四个月的炎热季节结束了，但雨安居又推迟了一个阴历周期，因为在炎热季节结束或者雨季的开始时又增加了第十三个阴历月，使得阴历年与阳历年重新保持一致。在这种情况下，它说，在炎热季节的第四个月寻求并在最后两周穿著的雨浴衣需要清洗然后放在一边。当适当的季节到来时，就可以拿出来使用（§）。
The Commentary adds that there is no need to determine the cloth in this period until the day the Rains-residence officially starts, but it doesn’t say when the proper season for using it begins. Having made use of the two-week allowance for using the undetermined bathing cloth at the end of the hot season, is one granted another two-week allowance prior to the Rains-residence, or can one begin using it only when the Rains-residence begins? None of the texts say. It would make sense to allow the bhikkhu to begin using the cloth two weeks before the Rains-residence, but this is simply my own opinion. 《义注》补充道，直到雨安居正式开始的那一天为止，不需要决这段时期的衣物，但没有说明使用它的适当季节从何时开始。在炎热季节结束时，已经使用了两周开缘的未决意浴衣，在雨安居之前，是否还获得另外两周的开缘，或者只能在雨安居时开始时才能开始使用？没有任何文献提及。允许比丘在雨安居前两周开始使用衣物算是合理的，但这只是我个人的看法。
The Vibhaṅga then adds three more exemptions: There is no offense for a “snatched-away-robe” bhikkhu, a “destroyed-robe” bhikkhu, or when there are dangers. Strangely enough, the Commentary and the K/Commentary—although both were composed by Buddhaghosa—give conflicting interpretations of these exemptions. The Commentary interprets “robe” here as meaning rains-bathing cloth, and says that these exemptions apply to the dukkaṭa offense for bathing naked in the rain. A bhikkhu whose rains-bathing cloth has been snatched away or destroyed may bathe naked in the rain without incurring a penalty, as may a bhikkhu with an expensive bathing cloth who would rather bathe naked because of his fear of cloth thieves. 然后，《经分别》又增加了三种豁免：「被夺走袈裟」的比丘、「被毁坏袈裟」的比丘，或当有危险时，则不犯戒。奇怪的是，尽管《义注》和 K/《义注》都是由佛音编纂的，但对这些豁免的解释却相互矛盾。《义注》将这里的「袈裟」解释为雨浴衣，并表示这些豁免适用于在雨中裸浴的《突吉罗》罪。比丘的雨浴衣被抢走或毁坏，可以在雨中裸体沐浴而不受惩罚；如果比丘有一件昂贵的浴衣，但是由于害怕盗衣贼，他宁愿裸体沐浴，那么他也可以不受惩罚。
The K/Commentary, however, makes the Vibhaṅga’s exemptions refer also to the full offense. If a bhikkhu’s other robes have been snatched away or destroyed, he may wear his rains-bathing cloth out of season. The same holds true when, in the words of the K/Commentary, “naked thieves are plundering,” and a bhikkhu decides to wear his rains-bathing cloth out-of-season in order to protect either it or his other robes from being snatched away. 然而，K/《义注》使《经分别》的豁免也涉及完全违犯。如果比丘的其他袈裟被夺走或毁坏，他可以在非时季节穿著雨浴衣。同样的情况也适用于，用 K/《义注》的话来说，「赤身裸体的盗贼正在掠夺」，而比丘决定在非时季节穿他的雨浴衣，以保护它或其他袈裟不被抢走。
Because the non-offense clauses usually apply primarily to the full offense, it seems appropriate to follow the K/Commentary here. 由于不犯条款通常主要适用于完全违犯，因此遵循此处的 K/《义注》似乎是适当的。
At present, much of this discussion is purely academic, inasmuch as most bhikkhus—if they use a bathing cloth—tend to determine it for use as a “requisite cloth” so as to avoid any possible offense under this rule. 目前，这方面的讨论大多是纯粹学术性的，因为大多数比丘——如果他们使用雨浴衣——倾向于将其决意为「必需布」，以避免本戒条下的任何可能罪行。
Summary: Seeking and receiving a rains-bathing cloth before the fourth month of the hot season is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：在炎热季节的第四个月之前寻求并接受雨浴衣是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
Using a rains-bathing cloth before the last two weeks of the fourth month of the hot season is also a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 在炎热季节第四个月的最后两周之前使用雨浴衣也是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
25 二十五
Should any bhikkhu—having himself given robe-cloth to (another) bhikkhu and then being angered and displeased—snatch it back or have it snatched back, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果任何比丘将袈裟布给了（另一个）比丘，然后感到愤怒和不悦，将其夺回，或让别人将其夺回，尼萨耆波逸提。
“At that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan said to his brother’s student, ‘Come, friend, let’s set out on a tour of the countryside.’
「尔时，释迦族的优波难陀尊者对其兄弟的学生说：『朋友，走吧，我们去游行诸方吧。』
“‘I can’t go, venerable sir. My robe is threadbare.’
「『我不能去，大德。我的袈裟已经破烂了。』
“‘Come, friend, I’ll give you a robe.’ And he gave him a robe. Then that bhikkhu heard, ‘The Blessed One, they say, is going to set out on a tour of the countryside.’ The thought occurred to him: ‘Now I won’t set out on a tour of the countryside with Ven. Upananda the Sakyan. I’ll set out on a tour of the countryside with the Blessed One.’
「『来吧，朋友，我给你一件袈裟。』于是他就给了他一件袈裟。然后那位比丘听到说：『他们说，世尊要去游行诸方。』他心里想：『现在我不和释迦族的优波难陀尊者去游行诸方了。我要和世尊去游行诸方。』
“Then Ven. Upananda said to him, ‘Come, friend, let’s set out on that tour of the countryside now.’
「然后，优波难陀尊者对他说：『来吧，朋友，我们现在就去游行诸方吧。』
“‘I won’t set out on a tour of the countryside with you, venerable sir. I’ll set out on a tour of the countryside with the Blessed One.’
「『我不会和您去游行诸方，大德。我要和世尊去游行诸方。』
“‘But the robe I gave you, my friend, will set out on a tour of the countryside with me.’ And angered and displeased, he snatched the robe back.”
「『但是我给你的袈裟，我的朋友，会和我去游行诸方。』他既生气又不高兴，把袈裟抢了回去。」
As the Commentary points out, this rule applies to cases where one perceives the robe-cloth as being rightfully one’s own even after having given it away, as when giving it on an implicit or explicit condition that the recipient does not later fulfill. Thus the act of snatching back here does not entail a pārājika. If, however, one has mentally abandoned ownership of the robe to the recipient and then for some reason snatches it back, the case would come under Pr 2. 正如《义注》所指出的，本戒条适用于这样的情况：即使在将袈裟布赠予他人之后，仍认为袈裟布理应属于自己，例如在赠予袈裟时附加了隐含或明确的条件，而接受者后来没有履行该条件。因此，此处的夺回行为并不涉及《波罗夷》。然而，如果在心里已经放弃了袈裟的所有权，将其交给了接受者，然后又因为某种原因把它夺了回来，这种情况就属于《波罗夷》二的情况。
The factors for an offense here are three. 此处的犯戒因素有三。
Object: 对象：
A piece of any of the six allowable kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. 六种允许使用的袈裟布中的任一种，尺寸至少为四指乘八指宽。
Effort 努力
One has given the cloth to another bhikkhu on one condition or another and then either snatches it back or has someone else snatch it back. In the latter case, one incurs a dukkaṭa in giving the order to snatch the robe, and the full offense when the robe is snatched. If one’s order is to snatch a single robe but the person ordered snatches and delivers more than one robe, they are all to be forfeited. 在某个条件下把布给了另一个比丘，然后若非把它夺回来，则是让别人把它夺回来。在后一种情况下，如果下令抢夺袈裟，则犯《突吉罗》，而当袈裟被抢走，则会完全违犯。如果命令是抢夺一件袈裟，但被命令的人抢夺并交付了多件袈裟，则所有袈裟都将被舍出。
Perception (with regard to the recipient/victim) is not a mitigating factor here. If he actually is a bhikkhu, then the offense is a pācittiya regardless of whether one perceives him to be so. If he is not a bhikkhu, the offense is a dukkaṭa, again regardless of whether one perceives him as a bhikkhu or not. 在此，感知（对接受者/受害者而言）不是减轻处罚的因素。如果他实际上是一位比丘，那么无论别人是否认为他是比丘，罪行都是《波逸提》。如果他不是比丘，罪行都是《突吉罗》，不管是否认为他是比丘。
Intention 意图
One is impelled by anger or displeasure. The displeasure here, however, need not be great, as the Vibhaṅga makes an exemption for only one sort of intention under this rule, that of taking the cloth on trust (§). 被愤怒或不满所驱使。然而，这里的不满不必太大，因为《经分别》只对本戒条下的一种意图进行了豁免，那就是基于信任地拿走布料（§）。
Forfeiture & confession. 舍出及忏罪
A bhikkhu who has obtained robe-cloth in violation of this rule is to forfeit it and confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1. The formula to use in forfeiting the cloth is given in Appendix VI. 违反本戒条而获得袈裟布的比丘应予舍出并忏悔其罪行。舍出、忏罪及归还布料的程序与《舍堕》一相同。舍出布料所使用的公式请见附录六。
Lesser offenses 较轻罪行
There is a dukkaṭa for angrily snatching back from a bhikkhu requisites other than cloth; and for angrily snatching back any kind of requisite—cloth or otherwise—that one has given to someone who is not a bhikkhu. The Sub-commentary adds that to give robe-cloth to a layman planning to be ordained, and then to snatch it back in this way after his ordination, entails the full offense. 愤怒地从比丘手中夺回布料以外的其他必需品，《突吉罗》；愤怒地夺回给予非比丘之人的任何必需品（布料或其他物品）。《复注》补充说，将袈裟布送给即将受具足戒的俗人，然后在受具足戒之后再以此方式将其夺回，犯全部罪行。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if the recipient returns the robe of his own accord or if the donor takes it back on trust (§). The Commentary’s discussion of the first exemption shows that if the recipient returns the robe after receiving a gentle hint from the donor—“I gave you the robe in hopes that you would study with me, but now you are studying with someone else”—the donor incurs no penalty. However, if the donor’s hint shows anger—“I gave this robe to a bhikkhu who would study with me, not to one who would study with somebody else!”—he incurs a dukkaṭa for the hint, but no penalty when the recipient returns the robe. 根据《经分别》，如果接受者自愿归还袈裟，或捐赠者基于信任而收回袈裟（§），则不犯戒。《义注》对第一项豁免的讨论表明，如果接受者在收到捐赠者的温和暗示后归还袈裟——「我给你袈裟是希望你跟我学习，但现在你却在跟别人学习」——那么捐赠者不会受到任何惩罚。然而，如果捐赠者的暗示表现出愤怒——「我把这件袈裟给一个要和我一起学习的比丘，而不是给一个和别人一起学习的比丘！」——他会因这个暗示而犯《突吉罗》，但当接受者归还袈裟时不会受到惩罚。
Summary: Having given another bhikkhu a robe on a condition and then—angry and displeased—snatching it back or having it snatched back is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：在有条件的情况下给予另一位比丘袈裟，然后——生气和不满——将其夺回或令其被夺回，是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
26 二十六
Should any bhikkhu, having requested thread, have robe-cloth woven by weavers, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
若比丘自己乞线后，请织匠们织袈裟布者，尼萨耆波逸提。
This rule covers two actions—asking for thread and getting weavers to weave it into robe-cloth—but the Vibhaṅga is often unclear as to which action its explanations refer to. It barely touches on the first action explicitly, and even its treatment of the second action is extremely terse, leaving many questions unanswered. For these reasons, the compilers of the Commentary felt called upon to clarify the references and fill in the blanks even more than is normally the case. The Vibhaṅga’s discussion does make clear that the factors for an offense here are three—object, effort, and result—so the following discussion will focus on each factor in turn, stating what the Vibhaṅga does and doesn’t say about that factor, giving the Commentary’s further explanations, at the same time evaluating those further explanations as to their cogency. 本戒条涵盖两个行动 - 索取线和让织匠将其织成袈裟布 - 但《经分别》通常不清楚其解释指的是哪个行动。它几乎没有明确涉及第一个行动，甚至对第二个行动的处理也非常简洁，留下许多未解答的问题。基于这些原因，《义注》的编纂者感到有必要比平常更澄清参考文献并填补空白。《经分别》的讨论确实明确指出，此处的犯戒因素有三个——对象、努力和结果——因此，以下的讨论将依次关注每个因素，说明《经分别》对该因素说了什么和没有说什么，给出《义注》的进一步解释，同时评估这些进一步解释的说服力。
Object: 对象：
Thread or yarn of the six allowable types for robe-cloth that a bhikkhu has himself requested from others. Because the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses give an exemption “to sew a robe,” the Commentary is apparently right in stating that, to fulfill this factor, the thread or yarn has to have been requested for the purpose of making robe-cloth. And because the non-offense clauses also state, “from relatives or people who have invited one to ask,” the Commentary also seems right in stating that thread requested from these two types of people would not fulfill this factor. However, none of the texts explicitly assign a penalty for requesting thread that would not fall under the exemptions. Perhaps it would entail a dukkaṭa under the catch-all rule against misbehavior (Cv.V.36). 比丘向他人乞求的、可用于制作袈裟布料的六种允许类型的线或纱。因为《分别经》的不犯条款豁免了「缝制袈裟」，所以《义注》显然正确地指出，要满足这一因素，线或纱必须是为了制作袈裟布而乞求的。而且，由于不犯条款还规定「来自亲戚或已经邀请询问者」，因此《义注》似乎正确地指出，向这两类人乞求线不会满足这一因素。但是，没有任何文献明确规定对请求不属于豁免范围的线进行惩罚。也许，根据针对不当行为包含所有的戒条（《小品》.五.36），这将犯《突吉罗》。
Effort 努力
One gets weavers to weave robe-cloth using the thread. Again, because of the exemptions regarding relatives and people who have invited one to ask, the Commentary seems correct in saying that any weavers who fall into either of these categories would not fulfill this factor. 让织匠用线织成袈裟布。同样，由于亲戚和邀请询问者有豁免，《义注》似乎正确地指出，任何属于这两类的织匠都不会满足这一因素。
The Vibhaṅga does not give a minimum size for the robe-cloth. The Commentary, following the pattern from other NP rules, states that any cloth measuring four by eight fingerbreadths or larger would fulfill this factor. However, several of the items allowed in the non-offense clauses would be larger than that measurement, so it seems preferable to interpret robe-cloth here as robe—as the Commentary does under Pc 58, where again the Vibhaṅga gives no minimum size for the cloth. In other words, the penalty is for getting the weavers to weave a wearable robe. 《经分别》并没有规定袈裟布的最小尺寸。《义注》遵循其他《舍堕》戒条的模式，指出任何尺寸为四乘八指宽或更大的布料都满足这一因素。然而，不犯条款中允许的几件物品会比该尺寸更大，因此，似乎最好将袈裟布解释为袈裟——正如《义注》在《波逸提》五八中所做的那样，其中《经分别》也没有给出布料的最小尺寸。换句话说，惩罚是针对让织匠织出一件可穿的袈裟。
The Vibhaṅga states that there is a dukkaṭa in the effort of getting the weavers to weave the robe-cloth, which the Commentary explains by saying that the first dukkaṭa is incurred with the weavers’ first effort toward actually making the cloth, with additional dukkaṭas incurred for each additional effort they make. In other words, the dukkaṭa is for successfully getting the weavers to act on one’s request. It may seem strange not to allot a dukkaṭa for the request itself, but the Vibhaṅga to the following rule clearly states that the bhikkhu, in a similar case, incurs a dukkaṭa only when the weavers act on his request to improve a robe. The Vibhaṅga for this rule simply uses the causative—the form of verb describing the act of getting someone else to do something—which is ambiguous, for it could mean either trying to get the weavers to weave the cloth or successfully getting the weavers to weave the cloth. To clear up the ambiguity, the Commentary seems justified in applying the pattern from the following rule here. However, it seems excessive to impose multiple dukkaṭas on the bhikkhu for what, from his point of view, was a single action. There are many rules—such as Pc 10, Pc 20, and Pc 56—where a single request carries only one offense even if the person requested does the action many times. 《经分别》中说，在让织匠织造袈裟布的努力，会犯一次《突吉罗》，而《义注》则解释说，第一次《突吉罗》是在织匠第一次努力实际织造布料时发生的，而额外的《突吉罗》则发生在他们每一次额外的努力。换句话说，《突吉罗》是针对成功地让织匠按照自己的要求采取行动。请求本身不犯《突吉罗》似乎很奇怪，但以下戒条的《经分别》明确指出，在类似情况下，只有当织匠根据他的要求改善袈裟时，比丘才会犯《突吉罗》。本戒条的《经分别》仅使用使役动词——描述让别人做某事的行为的动词形式——这是模棱两可的，因为它可能意味著试图让织匠织布，也可能意味著成功地让织匠织布。为了消除歧义，《义注》似乎有理由在此套用以下戒条的模式。然而，从比丘的角度来看，对于一个单一的行动而犯多次《突吉罗》似乎太过度了。有许多戒条（例如《波逸提》十、《波逸提》二十和《波逸提》五六），其中单次要求只会构成一次犯戒，即使被要求的人多次执行该行动。
None of the texts discuss this point further, but the Commentary’s interpretation of the causative verb here apparently holds for other rules as well in which the Vibhaṅga imposes a penalty on a bhikkhu for improperly getting someone else to make an item for him, such as NP 11-15 and Pc 86-92: no offense for the request itself, but a dukkaṭa if the request successfully persuades the other person to act in line with it. Only when the Vibhaṅga explicitly states that there is an offense in the request—as under Pc 26, the rule concerned with sewing a robe or having one sewn for a bhikkhunī—does the request carry an offense even if the person requested does not follow it. 没有任何文献进一步讨论这一点，但《义注》对此处使役动词的解释显然也适用于其他戒条，其中《经分别》对比丘因不适当地让别人为自己制作物品而施加惩罚，例如《舍堕》十一至十五和《波逸提》八六至九二：请求本身并不犯戒，但如果请求成功说服另一方按照其行事，则犯《突吉罗》。只有当《经分别》明确指出请求中有犯戒之处时——如《波逸提》二六关于缝制袈裟或为比丘尼缝制袈裟的戒条——即使被请求者不遵照行事，该请求仍构成犯戒。
Result 结果
One obtains the cloth. According to the Commentary, the cloth counts as “obtained” when the weavers have completed weaving four by eight fingerbreadths of cloth. It also states that there is an extra NP offense for each added four-by-eight-fingerbreadths section they complete. Neither of these explanations has a precedent anywhere in the Canon. Mv.V.13.13 states clearly that the countdown on the time span of robe-cloth begins only when it is delivered to one’s hand, and the same principle would surely apply here: The full offense is incurred when the robe-cloth is delivered to one’s hand. As for the second explanation, the Vibhaṅga assigns only one full offense for receiving the cloth, which means that a larger piece of cloth would not carry more offenses than a smaller one. 得到了布料。根据《义注》，当织匠织完四乘八指宽的布料时，布料就算「获得」。它还规定，他们每完成一个额外的四乘八指宽的部分，就会被犯一次额外的《舍堕》。这两种解释在《圣典》中都没有任何先例。《大品》.五.13.13明确指出，袈裟布的时间跨度倒数计时只有当它被送到手中时才开始，同样的原则肯定也适用于这里：当袈裟布被送到手中时，就会完全违犯。至于第二种解释，《经分别》规定接受布料时只完全违犯一次，这意味著一块大布料不会比一块小布料犯更多次戒。
Perception is not a factor here. The Vibhaṅga states if the cloth was woven as a result of one’s request, then even if one perceives it as not having been woven at one’s request or if one is in doubt about the matter, one incurs the full offense. If, on the other hand, the cloth was not woven at one’s request and yet one perceives it as having been woven at one’s request—or one is in doubt about the matter—the penalty on obtaining it is a dukkaṭa. 在此处，感知不是一个因素。《经分别》规定，如果这块布是应自己的要求而织成的，那么即使认为它不是应自己的要求而织成的，或者对该事情有怀疑，也会完全违犯。另一方面，如果这块布不是应自己的要求而织成的，而却认为它是应自己的要求而织成的——或者对此事有怀疑——那么对获得它的惩罚就是《突吉罗》。
Forfeiture & confession 舍出 & 忏罪
Robe-cloth received in a way that entails the full offense under this rule is to be forfeited and the offense confessed, following the procedure under NP 1. 以构成本戒条所规定完全违犯的方式收到的袈裟布须被舍出，并忏悔罪行，按照《舍堕》一中的程序进行。
Derived offenses 衍生违犯
To provide a complete treatment of the various combinations of proper and improper behavior related to the two actions covered by this rule, the Commentary gives a table working out the possible combinations of offenses based on two variables: thread properly or improperly received, and weavers proper or improper for the bhikkhu to ask. Thread properly received is any that the bhikkhu has requested from people who are related to him or have invited him to ask. Similarly, weavers proper for him to ask are any who are related to him or have offered him their services. 为了全面处理与本戒条涵盖的两种行为相关的适当和不适当行为的各种组合，《义注》提供了一张表格，根据两个变数计算出可能的犯戒组合：以适当或不适当的方式接受线，以及适合或不适合比丘要求的织匠。适当接受的线是比丘向与他有亲戚关系的人或邀请他询问的人要求的任何线。同样，适合他要求的织匠是任何与他有亲戚关系或为他提供服务的人。
If both the thread and the weavers are classed as not proper, the penalty is a dukkaṭa in getting them to weave cloth, and a nissaggiya pācittiya when the cloth is obtained. 如果线和织匠都被归类为不合适，那么在让他们织布时要受到《突吉罗》的惩罚，而在获得布时要受到《舍堕》的惩罚。
There is a dukkaṭa in obtaining the cloth if the thread is proper, but the weavers not; OR if the thread is not proper, but the weavers are. (For ease of remembrance: a dukkaṭa if one variable is proper and the other not.) 如果线合适，织匠不合适，当获得布时犯《突吉罗》；或如果线不合适，但织匠合适。（为了方便记忆：如果一个变数合适而另一个变数不合适，则为《突吉罗》。）
If both variables are proper, there is no offense. 如果两个变数都合适，则不犯戒。
The Commentary then has a field day working out the permutations if two different weavers—one proper and one improper—work on the cloth, or if proper and improper thread are used in the cloth—proper warp and improper woof, or alternating strands of proper and improper thread—which if nothing else provides an insight into the commentators’ minds. 然后，《义注》开始花一整天时间研究如果两个不同的织匠（一位合适，一位不合适）在织布，或者如果在布中使用了合适的和不合适的线（合适的经线和不合适的纬线，或交替使用合适的线），会出现什么样的排列组合。这至少能让我们洞察注释者的想法。
Non-offenses 不犯
The Vibhaṅga says that there is no offense “to sew a robe; in (§) a knee strap (§), in a belt, in a shoulder strap, in a bag for carrying the bowl, or in a water-strainer; from relatives or people who have invited one to ask; for the sake of another; or by means of one’s own resources.” 《经分别》说，以下不犯「缝制袈裟；在（§）膝带（§）中、腰带中、肩带中、装钵的袋子中，或滤水器中；向亲戚或邀请的人询问；为了他人的利益；或利用自己的资源。」
The Commentary interprets the first exemption as applying to the first action mentioned in the rule, meaning that there is no offense in asking anyone at all for thread or yarn to sew a robe. This seems right, as the grammatical form of the exemption is unusual for a non-offense clause, and does not follow the pattern the Vibhaṅga would have used if the exemption were for getting the weavers to sew a robe. 《义注》将第一项豁免解释为适用于本戒条中提到的第一个行动，这意味著向任何人索取线或纱线来缝制袈裟都没有犯戒。这似乎是正确的，因为豁免的语法形式对于不犯条款来说是不寻常的，而且如果豁免是为了让织匠缝制袈裟，并不遵循《经分别》所采用的模式。。
The Commentary also states that the exemptions for a knee strap and the other small items also apply to the first action. In other words, one may request thread or yarn from anyone to make these items, but may not get weavers to weave them. This explanation seems designed to support the Commentary’s position that a piece of cloth measuring four by eight fingerbreadths would be grounds for a full offense under this rule. Here, however, the grammatical form of the relevant exemptions does not support the Commentary’s assertion, for it follows a pattern typical throughout the Vibhaṅga for non-offenses related to the main action covered by a rule. Thus there would be no offense in providing weavers with thread with which to make small items of this sort. Because these articles can be quickly woven, this may have been a common courtesy that weavers extended to contemplatives in the Buddha’s time. 《义注》也指出，膝带和其他小件物品的豁免也适用于第一个行动。换句话说，可以向任何人要求线或纱来制作这些物品，但不能让织匠来编织它们。这个解释似乎是设计来支持《义注》的观点，即一块尺寸为四指乘以八指宽的布料将构成本戒条规定的完全违犯行为的理由。然而，这里相关豁免的语法形式并不支持《义注》的断言，因为它遵循了整个《经分别》中关于与戒条涵盖的主要行为相关的不犯的典型模式。因此，向织匠提供用于制作此类小物件的线并不犯戒。由于这些物品可以快速编织完成，这可能是佛陀时代织匠对沙门的常见礼遇。
As for the exemptions for relatives and people who have invited one to ask, we have already noted that the Commentary seems correct in applying them to both actions: asking for thread and getting weavers to weave cloth. 至于亲戚和邀请询问者的豁免，我们已经注意到，《义注》似乎正确地将其应用于两种行为：要求线和让织匠织布。
Following the Commentary’s explanation under NP 6 & 22, for the sake of another here would mean that one may ask from one’s own relatives or from those who have invited one to ask OR from relatives of the other person or people who have invited him to ask. Asking for his sake from people other than these would entail the full offense. 按照《义注》中《舍堕》六和二十二的解释，这里的「为了他人」是指可以向自己的亲戚或邀请自己询问者要求，或者向他人的亲戚或邀请他人询问者要求。向除这些人之外的人为了他人而要求会构成完全违犯。
If the cloth is obtained by means of one’s own resources—i.e., one arranges to pay for the thread and hire the weavers—the Commentary states that one is responsible for the cloth as soon as it is finished and fully paid for, regardless of whether it is delivered into one’s possession. One must therefore determine it for use within 10 days of that date so as not to commit an offense under NP 1. (Alternatively, the Commentary suggests, one may avoid this difficulty by not giving full payment for the cloth until it is delivered.) If, after one has given full payment for the cloth, the weavers promise to send word when the cloth is done, one’s responsibility starts when one receives word from their messenger; if they have promised to send the cloth when done, one’s responsibility begins when their messenger delivers it. At any rate, as with its explanation of “obtaining cloth” under this rule, the Commentary’s statements here conflict with the principle in Mv.V.13.13, in which the countdown on the time span of the cloth begins only when it is delivered to one’s hand. 如果布料是透过自己的资源获得的——即自己安排支付线的费用并雇用织匠——《义注》指出，只要布料完成并全额付款，就应对布料负责，无论它是否已被交付到手中。因此，必须在该日期后的十天内决意使用，以免违反《舍堕》一。（或者，《义注》建议，可以透过在布料交付之前不支付全额款项来避免这种困难。）如果在支付了布料的全部款项之后，织匠承诺在布料完成后捎来消息，那么责任就从他收到信使的消息时开始；如果他们承诺完成后会把布料送来，那么当信使送达时，责任就开始了。无论如何，正如对本戒条下「获得布料」的解释一样，《义注》中的陈述与《大品》.五.13.13中的原则相冲突，在该原则中，布料时间跨度的倒数计时仅在布料交付到手中才开始。
Summary: Taking thread that one has asked for improperly and getting weavers to weave cloth from it—when they are unrelated and have not made a previous offer to weave—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：获得自己不适当地索取的线，并让织匠用它来织布——如果织匠与自己没有血缘关系，而且之前也没有提出过编织邀请——是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
27 二十七
In case a man or woman householder unrelated (to the bhikkhu) has robe-cloth woven by weavers for the sake of a bhikkhu, and if the bhikkhu, not previously invited (by the householder), having approached the weavers, should make stipulations with regard to the cloth, saying, “This cloth, friends, is being woven for my sake. Make it long, make it broad, make it tightly woven, well woven, well spread, well scraped, well smoothed, and perhaps I may reward you with a little something”; and should the bhikkhu, having said that, reward them with a little something, even as much as almsfood, it (the cloth) is to be forfeited and confessed.
如果一位（与比丘）无血缘关系的男或女居士，让织匠为比丘织布，而比丘事先没有受到（居士）邀请，就去前往织匠处，对衣作指示，说道：「朋友们，这块布是为我织的。把它弄长、弄宽、织得紧密、织得好、铺得好、刮得好、抚平得好，也许我可以给你一点奖励」；如果比丘说了这样的话，以一点东西奖励他们，即使是钵食之量，（布料）尼萨耆波逸提。
The origin story here starts like the origin story for NP 8—a donor plans to clothe Ven. Upananda with a robe—but it contains two differences: Ven. Upananda interferes in the process of making the robe while it is still cloth being woven; and he addresses his stipulations, not to the donors, but to the weavers. The Buddha could have used this occasion as a chance to expand that rule, but he didn’t—perhaps because the change in details required new definitions for the factors of effort and object. Under NP 8, “object” is fulfilled only by a finished robe; here, it is fulfilled simply by the cloth made by the weavers, whether sewn into a finished robe or not. 这里的起源故事 与《舍堕》八的起源故事一样——一位施主计划为优波难陀尊者提供袈裟——但它有两个不同之处：当袈裟还是一块正在编织的布时，优波难陀尊者就介入了袈裟的制作过程；他不是针对施主，而是针对织匠说出的自己明确的要求。佛陀本可以利用这次机会来扩展本戒条，但他没有这样做——也许是因为细节的改变需要对努力和对象因素有新的定义。根据《舍堕》八，「对象」仅由一件完成的袈裟来满足；在这里，它仅透过织匠制作的布料来实现，无论是否缝制成成品袈裟。
The factors for an offense here are three. 此处构成犯戒的因素有三。
Object: 对象：
A piece of any of the six allowable types of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths, which is being made for one’s sake by the arrangement of a donor who is unrelated and has not given an invitation to ask. 六种允许使用类型的袈裟布中的任一种，尺寸至少为四指乘八指宽，由无亲属关系且未发出邀请询问的施主安排为自己制作，。
Effort 努力
One approaches the weavers and gets them to improve the cloth in any of the seven ways mentioned in the rule. Although the rule seems to indicate that the factor of effort is completed only when the weavers receive the promised reward, the Vibhaṅga says simply that it is completed when, as a result of one’s statement, the weavers improve the cloth as requested. In addition, the non-offense clauses give no exemption for a bhikkhu who does not give the promised reward. Thus, the bhikkhu does not have to give the reward for this factor to be fulfilled. The commentaries follow the Vibhaṅga on this point, and add that the bhikkhu’s statement need not even include a promise of a reward. As the Commentary puts it, the bhikkhu’s words quoted in the rule are meant simply as an example of any way in which one might get them to add more thread to the cloth. The Sub-commentary, however, notes that of the seven ways of improving the cloth, only the first three involve added thread. Its implied conclusion is that any statement that succeeds in getting the weavers to improve the cloth in any of these seven ways would fulfill the factor of effort here, regardless of whether the improvement involves adding more thread. 联系织匠并让他们按照戒条中提到的七种方法中的任何一种方法来改进布料。虽然戒条似乎表明，只有当织匠收到承诺的奖励时，努力的因素才算完成，但《经分别》仅说，当织匠根据陈述，按照要求改进布料时，努力的因素就完成。此外，不犯条款并未给予没有承诺奖励的比丘任何豁免。因此，比丘不必给予奖励就满足这个因素。注释书在这一点上遵循了《经分别》，并补充说，比丘的陈述甚至不需要包括奖励的承诺。正如《义注》中所说，戒条中引用的比丘的话只是为了举例说明如何让他们在布上添加更多的线。然而，《复注》指出，在七种改良布料的方法中，只有前三种需要添加线。其隐含的结论是，任何成功地让织匠以这七种方式中的任何一种来改进布料的陈述都可以满足这里的努力因素，不管这种改进是否涉及添加更多的线。
As for the promised reward, the Vibhaṅga defines almsfood as covering anything of even the slightest material value—food, a lump of powder, tooth wood, unwoven thread, or even a phrase of Dhamma. (For example, the bhikkhu might try to get the weavers to improve the cloth by promising to describe the merit they will gain by doing so.) Note, however, that almsfood is defined as the minimal amount of reward. There is no maximum on what might be promised. Thus, even if the bhikkhu promises to pay in full for any added materials or time that the weavers might devote to the robe, he does not escape fulfilling this factor of the offense. (Some have objected that it should be all right for the bhikkhu to pay in full for the improvements in the robe, but remember that to do so would be an insult to the donors.) 至于承诺的奖励，《经分别》将钵食定义为任何具有最微小物质价值的东西，如食物、一块粉末、牙木、未编织的线、甚至一句佛法。（例如，比丘可能会试图让织匠改善布料，并承诺描述他们这样做将获得的功德。）但请注意，钵食被定义为最低限度的奖励。对于承诺之物没有上限。因此，即使比丘承诺全额支付织匠为制作袈裟所花费的任何额外材料或时间，他仍然逃脱不了满足本戒的此因素。（有些人反对，认为比丘全额支付改善袈裟的费用是可以的，但请记住，这样做是对施主的侮辱。）
Result 结果
One obtains the cloth. 获得该布料。
Offenses 犯戒
The bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa when the weavers improve the cloth in line with his instructions, and the full offense when he obtains it. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1. The role of perception—regarding whether the donors are one’s relatives or not—is the same as under NP 8. 当织匠按照比丘的指示改进布料时，比丘犯《突吉罗》；而当他得到布料时，则完全违犯。舍出、忏悔罪行、归还布料的程序与《舍堕》一相同。感知的角色——关于施主是否是自己的亲戚——与《舍堕》八中相同。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if— 若符合以下情况则不构成犯戒：
the donors are relatives, 施主是亲戚，
they have invited one to ask, 他们已经邀请询问，
one asks for the sake of another, 为了另一个人要求，
one gets the weavers to make the cloth less expensive than the donors had ordered, or 让织匠以低于施主订购的价格织出布料，或者
it is by means of one’s own resources. (This last point refers only to cases where the bhikkhu was the one who had the weavers hired in the first place.) 借由利用自己的资源。（最后一点仅指比丘为首先雇用织匠者的情况。）
Summary: When donors who are not relatives—and have not invited one to ask—have arranged for weavers to weave robe-cloth intended for one: Receiving the cloth after getting the weavers to improve it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：当非亲戚的布施者—也不曾邀请询问—安排织匠为自己编织袈裟布时：在让织匠改进布料后再接受布料，是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
28 二十八
Ten days prior to the third-month Kattika full moon, should robe-cloth offered in urgency accrue to a bhikkhu, he is to accept it if he regards it as offered in urgency. Once he has accepted it, he may keep it throughout the robe season. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
咖底咖第三个月满月前十天，若有袈裟布被紧急供养给比丘，则比丘若认为此袈裟布为紧急供养，则应接受。一旦他接受了它，他可以在整个袈裟季节保留它。存放超过此者，尼萨耆波逸提。
The third-month Kattika full moon is the full moon in October, or the first if there are two. This is the final day of the first Rains-residence, and the day before the beginning of the robe season. 咖底咖第三个月满月是十月的满月，或者如果有两个满月的话，则是第一个满月。这是前雨安居的最后一天，也是袈裟季节开始的前一天。
Robe-cloth offered in urgency is any piece of the six allowable kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths, offered under the following conditions: The donor is someone who wants the greater merit that some people believe accrues to a gift of cloth given during the robe season, but who does not want to wait until the robe season to make an offering, either because his/her survival is in doubt—as when a soldier is going into war, a traveler is about to set out on a journey, or a woman has become pregnant—or because he/she has developed new-found faith in the religion. At any time from the fifth through the fifteenth day of the waxing moon at the end of the first Rains-residence (see BMC2, Chapter 11) he/she sends a messenger to the bhikkhus, saying, “May the venerable ones come. I am giving a Rains-residence (cloth).” (The Commentary adds that the donor can also simply bring the cloth to the bhikkhus him- or herself.) Out of compassion for the donor, the bhikkhus should accept the cloth and then, before putting it aside, mark it as robe-cloth offered in urgency. The cloth can then be kept throughout the robe season—the first month after the Rains if the kaṭhina is not spread; and the period during which the kaṭhina privileges are in effect if it is. 紧急供养的袈裟布是六种允许类型的袈裟布中的任一种，尺寸至少为四指宽乘以八指宽，供养条件如下：供养者是想要获得更大功德的人，有些人认为，在袈裟季节布施布料可以增加功德，但不想等到袈裟季节再去供养，要么是因为他/她怀疑是否能活到那时—例如当士兵奔赴战场，旅人即将启程，或妇女怀孕时—或者因为他/她对宗教建立了新的信仰。在前雨季居结束时从上弦月的第五天到第十五天的任何时间（见《佛教修道准则 第二册》第十一章），他/她派遣使者去见比丘们，说道：「愿尊者们到来。我正在布施雨安居（布料）。（《义注》补充说，布施者也可以自己把布带给比丘。）出于对布施者的慈悲，比丘应该接受布，然后在放在一边之前，将其标记为紧急供养的袈裟布。然后，可以在整个袈裟季节（雨季后的第一个月，如果没有敷展功德衣；如果有敷展的话，功德衣方便利益的有效期限）保留这块布料。
The question is, why mark it? 问题是，为什么要标记它？
The Commentary argues that, because the cloth counts as Rains-residence cloth, it can appropriately be shared out only among bhikkhus who have kept the Rains-residence up to that point. If any other bhikkhu receives such a piece of cloth, he must give it back, as it belongs to the Community. Thus the mark is for the purpose of recognizing it as such. However, if this were the rationale, there would be no reason to treat the cloth any differently from other gifts of Rains-residence cloth. A more likely rationale for the mark is suggested by a later passage in the Commentary: Other gifts of cloth received during the last ten days of the Rains-residence carry a life span that can, under NP 1 or 3, extend past the end of the robe season. If, for instance, the cloth is offered five days before the end of the Rains, then after the end of the robe season, it can be kept—without determining it or placing it under shared ownership—for an additional five days; if it is not enough to make a robe, it can be kept for up to an additional 25. Robe-cloth offered in urgency, however—as the Vibhaṅga makes clear—carries a life-span that cannot extend past the end of the robe season. Thus, on receiving such a gift of cloth, one should mark it as such before putting it away so as not to forget its status when the end of the robe season approaches. 《义注》认为，因为这块布料算是雨安居布料，所以只有在雨安居期间一直保留著住处的比丘们之间才能适当地分配它。如果任何其他比丘收到这样的一块布，他必须归还，因为它属于僧团。因此，该标记的目的在于使其被识别。然而，如果这是理由的话，就没有理由将这块布料与其他雨安居布料的布施区别对待了。《义注》后面的一段话提出了这个标记更可能存在的理由：雨安居最后十天收到的其他布料布施的寿命，根据《舍堕》一或三，可以延续到袈裟季节结束后。例如，如果在雨季结束前五天布料被供养了，那么在袈裟季节结束后，它可以被再保留五天——无需决意它或将其置于共享所有权之下；如果不够制作一件袈裟，还可以再保留二十五天。然而，正如《经分别》明确指出的，紧急供养的袈裟布的使用寿命不会超过袈裟季节的结束。因此，在收到这样的布料布施时，应该在放在一边之前做好标记，以免在袈裟季节结束到来时忘记它的状态。
The factors for an offense 犯戒因素
The factors for an offense here are two: object—robe-cloth offered in urgency; and effort—one keeps it past the end of the robe season: the dawnrise after the full moon one month after the end of the first Rains-residence if one does not participate in a kaṭhina, or the end of one’s kaṭhina privileges if one does. 这里的犯戒因素有两个：对象—紧急供养的袈裟布；和努力—将其保留到袈裟季节结束后：如果不参加功德衣，那么在前雨安居结束后的一个月，满月后的黎明时分；如果参加了，那么在功德衣方便利益结束时。
Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Thus the Vibhaṅga states that if, at the end of the robe season, one perceives a piece of robe-cloth offered in urgency as something else—say, as ordinary out-of-season cloth—and keeps it for the amount of time allowed for ordinary out-of-season cloth under NP 3, one commits the full offense all the same. The same penalty holds if the cloth has not been determined or placed under shared ownership and yet one keeps it past the end of the robe season, perceiving that it has. 在这里，感知并不是一个减轻惩罚的因素。因此，《经分别》规定，如果在袈裟季节结束时，将紧急供养的一块袈裟布视为其他东西—比如说，普通的非时布料—并将其保留至《舍堕》三规定的普通非时布料允许保留的时间，则其同样完全违犯。如果布料尚未决意或尚未置于共享所有权之下，但在袈裟季节结束后仍保留它，并认为它已经决意或置于共享所有权之下，则将受到同样的惩罚。
As for robe-cloth that has not been offered in urgency, if one perceives it as having been offered in urgency or is in doubt about the matter, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. Arguing from the Commentary’s explanation of the similar situation discussed under NP 1, the dukkaṭa here would be for using the cloth without having forfeited it after the robe season is ended. 对于没有紧急供养的袈裟布，如果认为它是紧急供养的，或者对此事有怀疑，则惩罚是《突吉罗》。根据《义注》对《舍堕》一中讨论的类似情况的解释，此处的《突吉罗》是指在袈裟季节结束后，使用布料而没有舍出它。
The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1. See Appendix VI for the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth. 舍出、忏悔罪行、归还布料的程序与《舍堕》一相同。请参阅附录六，以了解舍出布料所使用的巴利语公式。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if, before the robe season is over, one determines the cloth, places it under shared ownership, or abandons it (gives it away or throws it away); if it is lost, destroyed, burnt, or snatched away; or if someone else takes it on trust. 如果在袈裟季节结束之前，决意了布料，将其置于共享所有权之下，或者放弃它（赠送或扔掉），则不构成犯戒；如果遗失、毁坏、烧毁或被抢走；或者如果其他人基于信任拿走它。
Summary: Keeping robe-cloth offered in urgency past the end of the robe season after having accepted it during the last eleven days of the Rains-residence is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：在雨安居最后十一天接受了紧急供养的袈裟布，但在袈裟季节结束后仍继续保留，是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
29 二十九
There are wilderness lodgings that are considered dubious and risky. A bhikkhu living in such lodgings after having observed the Kattika full moon may keep any one of his three robes in a village if he so desires. Should he have any reason to live apart from the robe, he may do so for six nights at most. If he should live apart from it beyond that—unless authorized by the bhikkhus—it is to be forfeited and confessed.
有些荒野住所被认为是可疑和有风险的。居住在此类住所的比丘在奉行咖底咖月满月之后，如果愿意的话，可以将他的三衣中的任何一件留在村庄里。如果他因为任何原因离该衣生活，那么最多只能六个晚上。如果他离开生活超过此者，除非得到比丘们的授权，尼萨耆波逸提。
The Vibhaṅga explains the phrase, “after having observed the Kattika full moon,” as meaning that, having completed the first Rains-residence, one is now in the fourth month of the rainy season. As we noted under NP 2, that rule—unlike NP 1 & 3—is not automatically rescinded during this month. However, the origin story to this rule indicates that this period was a dangerous time for bhikkhus living in wilderness areas, as thieves were active—perhaps because they knew that bhikkhus had just received new requisites, or simply because now that roads had become passable it was time to get back to their work. This rule was thus formulated to provide a bhikkhu living in a dangerous wilderness area with a safe place to keep a robe away from his lodging as long as certain conditions are met. The Commentary notes that this rule would be of special use to bhikkhus who have completed their robes, ended their kaṭhina privileges, and so want to settle down in the wilderness to meditate. If it so happens that a bhikkhu’s kaṭhina privileges are still in effect, he has no need for the allowance under this rule because NP 2 is automatically rescinded as part of those privileges, which means that he can keep his robes in a safe place away from his lodging as long as he wants. 《经分别》解释道，「在奉行咖底咖月满月之后」这句话的意思是，已经完成前雨安居，现在正处于雨季的第四个月。正如我们在《舍堕》二中提到的，与《舍堕》一和三不同，该戒条不会在此月自动失效。然而，本戒条的起源故事表明，对于生活在荒野地区的比丘来说，这个时期是一段危险的时期，因为小偷很活跃——也许是因为他们知道比丘刚刚收到新的必需品，或者只是因为现在道路已经可以通行，是时候回去工作了。制定本戒条的目的是，只要满足某些条件，为生活在危险荒野地区的比丘提供一个远离他的住处的安全地方存放袈裟。《义注》指出这条戒条对那些已完成袈裟、结束功德衣方便利益，并因此想要在荒野定居禅修的比丘特别有用。如果比丘的功德衣方便利益仍然有效，那么他就不需要根据本戒条获得开缘，因为《舍堕》二作为这些方便利益的一部分已自动失效，这意味著只要他愿意，他可以将他的袈裟放在远离他的住所的安全地方。
The Commentary defines the situation covered by this rule in terms of four factors: 《义注》从四个因素定义了本戒条所涵盖的情况：
1) A bhikkhu has spent the first Rains-residence (see BMC2, Chapter 11) without break.
1）比丘度过了前雨安居（见《佛教修道准则 第二册》第十一章）而未破安居。
2) He is staying in a wilderness lodging, defined in the Vibhaṅga as one at least 500 bow-lengths, or one kilometer, from the nearest village, this distance being measured by the shortest walkable path between the two and not as the crow flies. At the same time, he is not so far from a village that he cannot go for alms there in the morning and then return to eat in his lodging before noon.
2）他住在荒野住所，《经分别》将其定义为距离最近的村庄至少 500 弓长或 1 公里的住所，此距离以两村之间最短的步行路径测量，而非直线距离。同时，他离村庄也不太远，早上他可以去那里托钵，然后在中午之前返回住处吃饭。
3) The lodging is dubious and risky. According to the Vibhaṅga, dubious means that signs of thieves—such as their eating, resting, sitting, or standing places—have been seen within it or its vicinity; risky means that people are known to have been hurt or plundered by thieves there. Unlike other rules occurring later in the Pāṭimokkha that mention the vicinity of a lodging—such as Pc 15 & 84—none of the texts define precisely how far the vicinity extends for the purpose of this rule. This lack of a precise definition also occurs in the other rule dealing with dangerous wilderness lodgings, Pd 4. Given the risks inherent in such places, perhaps it was felt unwise to delimit the area in too precise a manner. Thus, in the context of this rule, the “vicinity” of the lodging can be stretched to include any area where the presence of thieves leads to a common perception that the lodging is dangerous.
3）住所可疑，有风险。根据《经分别》的说法，可疑的意思是，在其内部或其附近发现了小偷的迹象，例如他们吃饭、休息、坐著或站立的地方；危险意味著已知有人在那里受到盗贼伤害或抢劫。与《波罗提木叉》里后期出现的提到了住所的附近区域的其他戒条不同——例如《波逸提》十五和八四——没有任何文献为本戒条精确地定义附近区域延伸到多远。这种缺乏精确定义的现象也出现在另一个处理危险荒野住所的戒条，《应悔过》四。因此，在本戒条的背景下，住所的「附近」可以扩大到包括任何因小偷的存在而导致人们普遍认为住所很危险的区域。
4) The time period for the extension is one month beginning the day after the end of the first Rains-residence.
4）延长期间为一个月，从前雨安居结束的次日开始。
A bhikkhu living in the situation complying with these four factors may keep one robe of his set of three anywhere in the village where he normally goes for alms, and—if he has a reason—may stay apart from it six nights at most. As usual, nights are counted by dawns. 符合上述四个条件的比丘，可以将他的三衣中的一件保留在他通常去托钵的村庄的任何地方，并且——如果他有理由的话——最多可以六夜离开它。照常，夜晚是以黎明（明相）来计算的。
The factors for an offense 犯戒因素
The factors for an offense here are two: object—any one robe of a bhikkhu’s basic set of three; and effort—staying away from the robe for seven straight dawns (i.e., six straight dawns after first leaving it). Perception is not a mitigating factor here: Even if one thinks that the seventh dawnrise has not arrived when it actually has, one is not immune from the offense. 这里构成犯戒的因素有二：对象－比丘基本三衣中的任一件；和努力－连续七个黎明（明相）离开袈裟（即第一次离开袈裟后连续六个黎明）。在这里，感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素：即使认为第七次黎明尚未到来，而实际上它已经到来，他也无法免于犯戒。
As the Sub-commentary points out, the Commentary and K/Commentary differ in their definition of the factor of effort here—in particular, as to what it means to be apart from one’s robe. The difference centers on how the two commentaries interpret one of the non-offense clauses: “Having been apart for six nights, having entered the village territory (gāma-sīmā) again, having stayed there (to greet dawnrise), he departs.” The K/Commentary interprets this as meaning that if, at the seventh dawnrise, one is in one’s wilderness dwelling, one incurs the full offense, but if one enters the village territory for the seventh dawnrise, one can then leave the robes there for another six dawns. This means that the bhikkhu counts as being apart from his robe when it is placed in the village and he is in his wilderness lodging. 正如《复注》所指出的，《义注》和 K/《义注》对这里的努力因素的定义有所不同——特别是对于离开袈裟的含义。差异在于两部注释书如何解释其中一条不犯条款：「离开六夜，进入村界（gāma-sīmā），住于彼处（迎接黎明），他离开。」 K/《义注》将此解释为，如果在第七个黎明时分，在自己的荒野住所，那么就完全违犯，但是，如果他在第七个黎明时分进入村界，那么他可以把袈裟留在那里另外六个黎明。这意味著，当比丘将他的袈裟放在村庄里并且他自己在荒野住所时，他就算是与他的袈裟离开了。
The Commentary, however, interprets the non-offense clause as covering a different and very particular situation: The bhikkhu is away from both the village and the lodging, and as the seventh dawnrise approaches he is closer to the village than the lodging. The non-offense clause allows him to enter the village, stay in the public hall or any other spot in the village, check up on his robe, and then return to his dwelling, free from an offense. From this interpretation, the Sub-commentary, following Bhadanta Buddhadatta Thera, concludes that the bhikkhu is not counted as apart from his robe when it is placed in the village and he is staying in his lodging. Thus he can leave the robe in the village for the entire fourth month of the rainy season, but if he leaves that lodging on business and lets his robe remain in the village, he may stay away from the lodging or the village only six dawns at a stretch. 然而，《义注》将不犯条款解释为涵盖一种不同的、非常特殊的情况：比丘远离村庄和住处，随著第七个黎明的临近，他距离村庄比距离住处更近。不犯条款允许他进入村庄，留在公共大厅或村庄的任何其他地方，检查他的袈裟，然后返回他的住所，而不犯戒。根据这种解释，《复注》遵循了佛授长老的结论，认为当比丘的袈裟被放置在村落中并且比丘住在住处时，他不算与袈裟分开。因此，他可以在雨季的整个第四个月将袈裟留在村子里，但是，如果他因事离开住处，而将袈裟留在村子里，那么他只可连续六个黎明离开住处或村庄。
There are minor problems with both interpretations. The Commentary’s explanation of the non-offense clause seems forced, but the K/Commentary’s interpretation ignores the Vibhaṅga’s definition of “any reason”—i.e., “any business”—which under other rules indicates situations where a bhikkhu would be away from his lodging. The reason for this rule, as suggested by the origin story, was similar to that for NP 2: When the bhikkhus were away from their robes, the robes “were lost, destroyed, burned, eaten by rats.” If the bhikkhu is staying in his lodging and going for alms in the village, he may check up on his robe every day to make sure that it is safe and sound. The Commentary’s interpretation seems preferable, but both interpretations would fulfill what seems to be the purpose for the rule, so the question of which interpretation to follow is up to each Community. 这两种解释都存在一些小问题。《义注》对不犯条款的解释似乎有些牵强，但 K/《义注》的解释忽略了《经分别》对「任何原因」的定义——即「任何事务」——在其他戒条下，这表示比丘离开住处的情况。起源故事表明，这条戒条的原因与《舍堕》二的原因类似：当比丘们离开他们的袈裟时，袈裟「会遗失、被毁坏、被烧毁、被老鼠吃掉」。如果比丘住在住处并去村里托钵，他可以每天检查他的袈裟，以确保其安全无虞。《义注》的解释似乎更可取，但两种解释似乎都可以实现该戒条的目的，因此遵循哪种解释的问题取决于每个僧团。
None of the texts, by the way, define village territory in the context of this exemption. Apparently it has the same meaning as the village territory mentioned in Mv.II.12.7 which, according to the Commentary to that rule, includes not only the built-up area of the village but also any surrounding areas—such as land under cultivation—from which it collects taxes (see BMC2, Chapter 13). 顺便说一句，没有任何文献在这一豁免的背景下对村界进行定义。显然，它与《大品》.二.12.7中提到的村界具有相同的含义，根据该戒条的《义注》，它不仅包括村庄的建成区，还包括村庄的任何从中征税的周边区域（例如耕地）（参见《佛教修道准则 第二册》第十三章）。
Forfeiture & confession 舍出 & 忏罪
A bhikkhu under these conditions who has been away from his robe for seven dawns is to forfeit it and confess the offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe are the same as under NP 1. The Pali formula for forfeiting the robe is in Appendix VI. 处于此种情形的比丘若已离开其袈裟达七个黎明（明相），则须舍出其袈裟并忏悔其罪行。舍出、忏悔罪行及归还袈裟的程序与《舍堕》一相同。舍出袈裟的巴利语公式在附录六。
If seven dawns have not yet passed, and yet one thinks that they have or one is in doubt about the matter, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. As under NP 1, this penalty is apparently for using the robe. 如果七次黎明尚未过去，但却认为已经过去，或者对此事存有疑问，则惩罚是《突吉罗》。根据《舍堕》一，这个惩罚显然是针对使用袈裟的。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense for a bhikkhu who has stayed away from his robe six dawns or fewer than six; or 若比丘已经六次黎明或少于六次黎明没有离开他的袈裟，则不犯戒；或者
if, having been apart from his robe six dawns, he enters the village territory again, stays there (to greet dawnrise), and departs;
如果他已经离开他的袈裟六个黎明，再次进入村界，留在那里（迎接黎明升起），然后离开；
if, within the six nights, he rescinds the determination of the robe, abandons it; or the robe gets lost, destroyed, burnt, snatched away, or taken by someone else on trust; or
如果在六夜之内，他撤销了袈裟的决意，放弃了它；或袈裟遗失、毁坏、烧毁、被抢走，或被他人基于信任拿走；或者
if he has been authorized by the Community to be apart from his robe. (This, according to the Commentary, refers to the authorization discussed under NP 2.)
如果他已得到僧团的授权，可以离开袈裟。（根据《义注》，这指的是《舍堕》二下讨论的授权。）
As mentioned above, a bhikkhu is immune from an offense under this rule as long as his kaṭhina privileges are in effect, no matter how many nights he is away from any of his robes. 如上所述，只要比丘的功德衣方便利益仍然有效，无论他有多少个夜晚离开袈裟，他都不犯本戒条。
Summary: When one is living in a dangerous wilderness lodging during the month after the Rains-residence and has left one of one’s robes in the village where one normally goes for alms: Being away from the lodging and the village for more than six nights at a stretch—except when authorized by the Community—is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. 摘要：如果在雨安居后的一个月内居住在危险的荒野住所，并将自己的一件袈裟留在其通常去托钵的村子里：除非得到僧团的批准，否则，离开住所和村庄连续超过六个晚上，是《尼萨耆波逸提》（《舍堕》）罪。
* * *
30 三十
Should any bhikkhu knowingly divert to himself gains that had been allocated for a Community, they are to be forfeited and confessed.
如果任何比丘明知故犯地将分配给僧团的所获挪作己用，尼萨耆波逸提。
In AN 3:58, the Buddha states that a person who prevents a donor from giving a gift where intended creates three obstacles: one for the donor’s merit, one for the intended recipient’s gains, and one for himself. There are many ways of creating these obstacles, one of them being to convince the donor to give, not to the recipient originally intended, but to someone else. This is one of two rules— Pc 82 is the other—aimed at preventing a bhikkhu from creating obstacles of this sort. 在《增支部》3:58经中，佛陀指出，如果阻止布施者将礼物赠予指定的人，那么将制造三种障碍：一种是布施者的功德障碍，一种是受施者的利益障碍，一种是他自己的障碍。设置这些障碍的方法有很多种，其中之一就是说服布施者将布施对象改为其他人，而不是布施给原本打算接受者的人。这是两条戒条之一（另一条是《波逸提》八二），旨在防止比丘制造此类障碍。
The origin story here is this: 起源故事如下：
“Now in Sāvatthī at that time a certain guild had prepared a meal with robe-cloth for the Community, (thinking,) ‘Having fed (the bhikkhus), we will clothe them with robe-cloth.’
「当时，在舍卫城，有一个行会为僧团准备了一顿饭以及袈裟布，（他们想）『供养（比丘们）食物之后，我们将为他们提供袈裟布。』
“Then some group-of-six bhikkhus went to the guild and on arrival said, ‘Give us these robe-cloths, friends.’
「然后，六群比丘来到行会，一到就说：『朋友们，把这些袈裟布给我们吧。』
“‘We can’t, venerable sirs. We arrange alms with robe-cloth for the Community (like this) on a yearly basis.’
「『我们不能给，大德。我们每年都会为僧团准备施食和袈裟布（就像这样）。』
“‘Many are the Community’s donors, my friends. Many are the Community’s supporters. It’s in dependence on you, looking to you, that we live here. If you won’t give to us, then who is there who will? Give us these robe-cloths, friends.’
「『我的朋友们，很多人都是僧团的施主。很多人都是僧团的支持者。我们依靠您、仰望您，才能在这里生存。如果你不给我们，那还有谁会给我们呢？把这些袈裟布给我们吧，朋友们。』
“So the guild, pressured by the group-of-six bhikkhus, gave them what robe-cloth they had prepared and then served the meal to the Community. The bhikkhus who knew that a meal with robe-cloth had been prepared for the Community, but not that the cloth had been given to the group-of-six bhikkhus, said to the guild: ‘Present the robe-cloth to the Community, friends.’
「于是，在六群比丘的压力下，行会将他们准备好的袈裟布给了他们，并为僧团提供了餐食。那些比丘们知道已经为僧团准备了带有袈裟布的餐食，但不知道已经将袈裟布送给了六群比丘，于是他们对行会说道：『朋友们，请将袈裟布赠送给僧团。』
“‘There isn’t any, venerable sirs. What robe-cloth we had prepared, the masters—the group-of-six bhikkhus—have diverted to themselves.’
「『没有，大德。我们所准备的袈裟布，却被那六群比丘的大德们回入为己有了。』
“Those bhikkhus who were modest… criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘How can these group-of-six bhikkhus knowingly divert to themselves gains allocated for the Community?’”
「那些少欲的比丘们......批评、抱怨并散布：『这六位比丘怎么能明知故犯地将分配给僧团的所获回入为己有呢？』」
Here there are four factors for an offense. 这里有四个构成犯戒的因素。
Object: 对象：
Any requisite—“robe-cloth, almsfood, lodgings, medicine, even a lump of powder, tooth wood, or unwoven thread”—that donors have indicated by word or gesture that they intend to give to a Community. As the Commentary notes, donors here include not only lay people in general, but also one’s fellow bhikkhus and relatives—even one’s own mother. The fact that a gift is allocated for a Community overrides all other considerations, even when one is ill. 任何必需品——「袈裟布、施食、住所、药品，甚至一块粉末、牙木或未编织的线」——施主透过言语或示意动作表示他们打算布施给僧团。正如《义注》所指出的，这里的施主不仅包括一般的俗人，还包括自己的比丘同侪和亲戚——甚至是自己的母亲。分配给僧团这一事实超越了所有其他考虑，即使自己生病了。
Perception 感知
One perceives that the donors have allocated the requisite for a Community. (§—The various editions of the Canon differ with regard to the role of perception under this rule. The PTS edition essentially holds that perception is not a factor here, saying that if one diverts to oneself an item that has actually been allocated to a Community, then whether one perceives the item as allocated or not allocated or is doubtful about the matter, one incurs the full offense in every case. This reading is clearly mistaken, as it does not account for the word knowingly in the rule. The Burmese and Sri Lankan editions list the penalties for the same cases as follows: perceiving it as allocated, the full offense; in doubt about the matter, a dukkaṭa; perceiving it as not allocated, a dukkaṭa. The Thai edition lists the penalties as follows: perceiving it as allocated, the full offense; in doubt about the matter, a dukkaṭa; perceiving it as not allocated, no offense. This last reading is most consistent with the word knowingly in the rule and the Vibhaṅga’s general treatment of rules that include this word. In particular, it corresponds to the parallel passage under Pc 82 as given in all four major editions, and is also supported by the K/Commentary to this rule even in its PTS edition. Thus we will adopt it here.) 认为施主已经将必需品分配给了僧团。（§—《圣典》的不同版本对于本戒条下感知的作用有不同的看法。 PTS 版本基本上认为感知在这里不是一个因素，并说如果将一个实际上已经分配给僧团的东西转移给自己，那么无论他是否认为该东西已分配或未分配，或者对此事有疑问，他在每种情况下都会完全违犯。这种解读显然是错误的，因为它没有交待戒条中的「明知」一词。缅甸和斯里兰卡版本对相同情况的惩罚规定如下：视其为已分配，完全违犯；对该事有疑问，《突吉罗》；认为它没有分配，《突吉罗》。泰国版本对惩罚的规定如下：视其为已分配，完全违犯；对该事有疑问，《突吉罗》；认为它没有分配，不犯。最后的解读与戒条中的「明知」一词以及《经分别》对包含该词的戒条的一般处理最为一致。尤其是，它相符于所有四个主要版本中给出的《波逸提》八二下的相对应的段落，并且甚至在其 PTS 版本中也得到了该戒条的 K/《义注》的支持。因此我们将在此采用它。）
All the editions of the Canon agree that if the item is not allocated for a particular recipient, there is a dukkaṭa for diverting it to oneself or anyone else if one perceives it as allocated or is doubtful about the matter, and no offense if one perceives it as not allocated. 所有版本的《圣典》都同意，如果某件物品没有分配给特定的接收者，而自己认为该物品已被分配或对此事有疑问，则将其转移给自己或他人犯《突吉罗》，如果认为该物品未被分配，则不犯。
This is the only NP rule where perception is a factor in the full offense. 这是唯一一条将感知作为完全违犯的因素的《舍堕》戒条。
Effort 努力
One tries to persuade them that they should give it to oneself instead. (The texts make no allowance for kappiya-vohāra here.) This in itself, following on the second factor, entails a dukkaṭa. 试图说服他们应该把它给自己。（此处文献没有对 kappiya-vohāra 开缘。）这本身，按照第二个因素，导致了《突吉罗》。
Result 结果
One obtains the article from the donors. This entails the full offense. 从施主那里获得了物品。这构成完全违犯。
Forfeiture & confession 舍出 & 忏罪
Any gains obtained in violation of this rule are to be forfeited and the offense confessed. The procedures here are the same as under NP 1. The Pali formula for forfeiting the gains is in Appendix VI. 违反本戒条所获得的一切收益均须舍出，并忏悔罪行。此处的程序与《舍堕》一相同。舍出所获的巴利公式见附录六。
Related offenses 相关违犯
If one knowingly tries to divert gains allocated for a Community to oneself, but the donors go ahead and give the gains to the Community anyway, then the Commentary says that one should not have a share in them. If one does receive a share from the Community, one should return it. If, instead of returning it, one shares it among lay people, the case is to be treated under Pr 2. This, however, seems unnecessarily harsh, for in the case where the donors do give the item to the bhikkhu who tries to divert it to himself, he can receive it back after having forfeited it and then use it as he likes. To impose a heavier penalty on a bhikkhu for not being successful in diverting items to himself seems unfair, and the Vibhaṅga’s judgment here seems preferable: that the penalty in this case would simply be a dukkaṭa for fulfilling the factor of effort. 如果明知故犯地试图将分配给僧团的收益挪为自己所有，但施主仍然将收益捐给僧团，那么《义注》说，不应该分享这些收益。如果确实从僧团获得了一份收益，应该归还它。如果不归还，而是与俗人分享，则应根据《波罗夷》二处理此情况。然而，这似乎没有必要那么严厉，因为在施主确实将物品给了试图将其挪作己用的比丘的情况下，他可以在舍出物品后将其接受回来，然后按照自己的喜好使用它。因为比丘未能成功将物品转移给自己而对其施加更重的惩罚似乎不公平，而《经分别》在此的判断似乎更可取：在这种情况下的惩罚仅仅是因履行努力因素而犯《突吉罗》。
To divert items allocated for a Community to another individual entails a pācittiya under Pc 82. To divert items allocated for one Community of bhikkhus to another Community or to a shrine (cetiya) entails a dukkaṭa. The same holds true for diverting items allocated for a shrine to a Community, to an individual, or to another shrine; and for diverting items allocated for an individual to a Community, to a shrine, or to another individual. In all of these cases, there is no preliminary offense for the effort. The offense is incurred only when—assuming all the other factors are present—the factor of result is fulfilled. 将分配给僧团的物品回入给另一个人，根据《波逸提》八二犯《波逸提》。将分配给比丘僧团的物品回入给另一个僧团或支提（cetiya），犯《突吉罗》。将分配给支提的物品回入给僧团、个人或其他支提也是如此；以及将分配给个人的物品回入给僧团、支提或其他个人。在所有这些情况中，都没有因努力的初步违犯。只有当（假设所有其他因素均存在）结果因素已满足时，才会犯戒。
The Commentary states that the term individual here can mean common animals as well as human beings, and that this last case thus includes even such things as saying, “Don’t give it to that dog. Give it to this one.” This point is well-taken: A bhikkhu has no business interfering with the gains that are to be freely given to another being, no matter what that being’s current status (see AN 3:58). 《义注》指出，这里的「个人」一词既可以指普通动物，也可以指人类，因此最后一种情况甚至包括这样的话：「不要把它给那只狗。把它给这只。」这一点很有道理：比丘无权干涉其他众生自由给予的所获，无论该众生目前的状态如何（参阅《增支部》3:58经）。
The Sub-commentary holds that once an item has been presented by a donor, there is nothing wrong in diverting it elsewhere. Thus, it says, taking flowers presented to one shrine and placing them at another—or chasing a dog away from food that has been given to it so that another dog can have a share—would be perfectly all right, but the Thai editors of the Sub-commentary state in a footnote that they disagree. 《复注》认为，一旦施主已经赠予了某件物品，那么将其转移到其他地方并没有什么不妥。因此，文中说，把供奉在一个支提的鲜花带到另一个支提，或者把一只狗从已经喂过的食物旁赶走，以便另一只狗能分得一份，这些都完全没有问题，但《复注》的泰国编辑者在注脚中表示他们不同意。
Non-offenses 不犯
The Vibhaṅga discusses the non-offenses under this rule in two different contexts. As we noted above, in its passage on perception it says that if one perceives a planned donation as not yet allocated for a particular recipient, one incurs no offense in diverting it to oneself or to others. In the non-offense clauses, however, aside from the standard exemptions, the Vibhaṅga states simply that if one is asked, “Where do we give (this)?” one may answer, “Give wherever your gift would be used, or would be well-cared for, or would last long, or wherever your mind feels inspired.” 《经分别》从两个不同的脉络讨论了本戒条下的不犯。正如我们上面提到的，在关于感知的段落中，它说，如果认为计划中的捐献尚未分配给特定的接受者，那么将其转移给自己或他人并不会犯戒。然而，在不犯条款中，除了标准豁免之外，《经分别》仅规定，如果被问到，「我们应该把（这个）布施给哪里？」可以回答：「布施给任何被需要用到的地方，或会被精心保管的地方，或会长久保存的地方，或让你感到受到启发的地方。」
The question is, why the exemption for perception was not included in the non-offense clauses. The apparent answer is that that exemption absolves one from an offense under this rule, but not from offenses under other rules concerning inappropriate requests. In particular, as we have noted above, this rule contains no exemption for diverting an item perceived as allocated even when the donors are relatives or people who have invited one to ask. However, if one perceives the item as not allocated, it would not come under this rule, and so one can request it from people such as these or in other instances where requests for items of that sort are allowed. Aside from these instances, though, one may still not request the item even when perceiving it as not allocated. In other words, perceiving an item as not allocated does not give carte blanche to divert it as one likes. 问题是，为什么感知豁免没有被列入不犯条款。显而易见的答案是，该豁免可以免除根据本戒条所犯的罪行，但不能免除根据其他戒条有关不适当要求所犯的罪行。特别是，正如我们上面提到的，即使施主是亲属或邀请其询问的人，本戒条也不包含转移被视为已分配物品的豁免。然而，如果认为该物品尚未被分配，就不属于本戒条，因此可以向这些人提出请求，或在允许此类物品请求的其他情况下提出请求。但是，除了这些情况之外，即使认为物品尚未被分配，仍然不可要求该物品。换句话说，认为物品未被分配并不代表可以随心所欲地转移它。
As for the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clause, it is similar to a passage in SN 3:24, where King Pasenadi asks the Buddha where a gift should be given, and the Buddha replies, “Wherever the mind feels inspired.” This is an important point of bhikkhu etiquette. Throughout the early texts, the act of generosity is treated as an expression of the donor’s freedom of choice and an illustration of the principle of action. If there were no freedom of choice, actions would be predetermined and there would be no motivation to follow a path of action leading to the end of suffering. When a donor gives a gift, he/she is experiencing a moment of freedom from the claims of greed and possessiveness, and gaining direct experience of the benefits of exercising that freedom. For this reason, the Buddha was careful never to infringe on that freedom by suggesting that there was an obligation to give gifts. When King Pasenadi, in the same sutta, asked the Buddha where a gift, when given, bears great fruit, the Buddha stated that this was a different question entirely, and one that he could answer directly: “What is given to a virtuous person—rather than to an unvirtuous one—bears great fruit.” 至于《经分别》中的不犯条款，与《相应部》3:24经中的一段话类似，波斯匿王问佛陀应该布施在哪里，佛陀回答说：「心受到启发的地方。」这是比丘威仪的重要一点。在早期文献中，慷慨行为被视为施主选择自由的表达和行动原则的体现。如果没有选择的自由，行动就会被预先决定，就没有动机去遵循一条导致苦的止息的行动之道。当施主布施时，他/她会体验到摆脱贪婪和占有欲束缚的自由，并直接体验到行使这种自由的好处。基于这个原因，佛陀非常小心，从不建议有布施的义务来侵犯这种自由。在同一部经中，当波斯匿王问佛陀，什么样的布施能够结出大果报时，佛陀表示，这是一个完全不同的问题，他可以直接回答：「给予有德之人，而非无德之人，才会结出大果报。」

(未完待续)