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。

(未完待续)