波逸提

As explained in the preceding chapter, this term is most probably related to the verb pacinati, “to know,” and means “to be made known” or “to be confessed.” There are 92 rules in this category, divided into eight chapters of ten, and one of twelve. 如同上一章节所解释的，这个术语很可能与动词 pacinati （「知道」）有关，意思是「须被公开」或「须忏悔」。此类别中有 92 条戒条，分为八品各十条和一品十二条。
One: The Lie Chapter 第一 虚妄语品
1 一
A deliberate lie is to be confessed.
故意说谎，波逸提。
“Now at that time Hatthaka the Sakyan had been overthrown in debate. In discussions with adherents of other religions, he conceded points after having denied them, denied them after having conceded, evaded one question with another, told deliberate lies, made an appointment (for a debate) but then didn’t keep it. The adherents of other religions criticized and complained and spread it about….
「尔时，喝陀伽释子已在辩论中被推翻。在与其他宗教信徒的讨论中，他先否认后承认，先承认后否认，用一个问题回避另一个问题，故意撒谎，约定（辩论）时间后又食言。其他宗教的信徒对此提出批评、抱怨并广为传播…
“The bhikkhus heard them… and having approached Hatthaka the Sakyan, asked him: ‘Is it true, friend Hatthaka, that in discussions with adherents of other religions, you conceded points after having denied them, denied them after having conceded, evaded one question with another, told deliberate lies, made an appointment (for a debate) but then didn’t keep it?’
「比丘们听了这些话……便去见喝陀伽释子，问他：『喝陀伽朋友，在与其他宗教信徒讨论时，你先否认后承认，先承认后否认，用一个问题回避另一个问题，故意撒谎，约定（辩论）时间却不遵守，这是真的吗？』
“‘Those adherents of other religions have to be beaten in some way or another. You can’t just give them the victory!’”
「『必须用某种方式击败那些其他宗教的信徒。你不能直接把胜利送给他们！』」
A deliberate lie is a statement or gesture made with the aim of misrepresenting the truth to someone else. The K/Commentary, summarizing the long “wheels” in the Vibhaṅga, states that a violation of this rule requires two factors: 故意说谎是为了向别人歪曲事实而做出的言论或动作。 K/《义注》总结了《经分别》中的长「轮」，指出违反此戒条需要两个因素：
1) Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and 1）意图：以歪曲事实为目的；和
2) Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to communicate based on that aim. 2）努力：为了达到这个目的，努力使另一个人了解自己想要传达的讯息。
Intention 意图
The aim to misrepresent the truth fulfills this factor regardless of what one’s motives are. Thus “white lies”—made with benevolent intentions (e.g., to a person whose state of mind is too weak to take the truth)—would fall under this rule, so a bhikkhu who wants to shield an emotionally weak person from harsh truths has to be very skillful in phrasing his statements. Also, outrageous lies meant as jokes—to amuse rather than to deceive—would fall under this rule as well, a point we will discuss further in the non-offense section. 无论动机是什么，歪曲事实的目的都符合这个因素。因此，「善意的谎言」——出于善意而说的谎言（例如，对一个精神状态太弱而无法接受真相的人说的谎言）——就属于本戒条，所以，如果比丘想保护一个情感脆弱的人免受残酷真相的伤害，他就必须非常巧妙地措辞。此外，出于玩笑目的（为了逗乐而不是欺骗）的离谱谎言也属于本戒条的范畴，我们将在不犯部分进一步讨论这一点。
Effort 努力
According to the Vibhaṅga, to misrepresent the truth means to say that one has seen X when one hasn’t, that one hasn’t seen X when one has, or that one has seen X clearly when one is in doubt about the matter. This pattern holds for the other senses—hearing, smell, taste, touch, and ideation—as well. Thus to repeat what one has heard, seen, etc., even if it actually is misinformation, does not count as a misrepresentation of the truth under this rule, as one is truthfully reporting what one has seen, etc. If, however, one says that one believes in such misinformation—when one actually doesn’t—one’s statement would count as a misrepresentation of the truth and so would fulfill this factor. 根据《经分别》，歪曲事实的意思是说，当他没有看到X时，却说他看到了它；当他看到了X时，却说他没有看到它；或者当他对该事有疑问时，却说他清楚地看到了X。这种模式也适用于其他感官——听觉、嗅觉、味觉、触觉和思考。因此，重复自己所听到、所看到等内容，即使它实际上是错误的信息，也不算本戒条下的歪曲事实，因为是在如实地报道自己所看到等等。然而，如果说自己相信这些错误讯息──而实际上自己并不相信──那么他的话就算是歪曲了事实，因此就满足了这个因素。
According to the Commentary, effort here covers falsehoods conveyed not only by speech but also by writing or gesture. As for falsehoods conveyed by silence: Mv.II.3.3 states that if, while listening to the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha, one remembers that one has an unconfessed offense and yet remains silent about it, that counts as a deliberate lie; Mv.II.3.7 then goes on to impose a dukkaṭa for this kind of lie, which suggests that remaining silent in a situation where silence conveys a false message does not fulfill this factor for the full offense here. 根据《义注》，这里的努力不仅包括透过言语传达的谎言，还包括透过写作或示意动作传达的谎言。至于透过沉默传达的谎言：《大品》.二.3.3规定，如果在聆听《波罗提木叉》时，想起自己有未忏悔的罪过，但却保持沉默，那就算是故意撒谎；然后，《大品》.二.3.7继续对这种谎言施加《突吉罗》，这表明在沉默传达错误讯息的情况下保持沉默并不能满足此处完全违犯的本因素。
Result is not a factor under this rule. Thus whether anyone understands the lie or is deceived by it is irrelevant to the offense. 根据本戒条，结果不是影响因素。因此，是否有人理解谎言或被谎言欺骗，与犯戒无关。
In cases where a particular lie would fall under another rule—such as Pr 4, Sg 8 or 9, Pc 13, 24, or 76—the penalties assigned by that rule take precedence over the ones assigned here. For instance, making a false but unspecific claim to a superior human state would entail a thullaccaya under Pr 4; falsely accusing another bhikkhu of a pārājika offense would entail a saṅghādisesa under Sg 8; falsely accusing him of a saṅghādisesa would entail a pācittiya under Pc 76; and falsely accusing him of a lesser offense would entail a dukkaṭa under that rule. 当特定谎言属于另一条戒条时（例如《波罗夷》四、《僧残》八或九、《波逸提》十三、二四或七六），该戒条指定的惩罚优先于此处指定的惩罚。例如，对上人法作出虚假但不明确的主张，将导致《波罗夷》四下的《偷兰遮》；虚假地指控另一位比丘犯了《波罗夷》罪，将导致《僧残》八下的《僧残》；虚假地指控他犯《僧残》，将导致《波逸提》七六下的《波逸提》；而根据该戒条，虚假地指控他犯下轻罪，将导致《突吉罗》。
The Vinaya-mukha argues that this rule should take precedence in cases where a particular lie would entail only a dukkaṭa under any of the other rules—as in the last example—but this contradicts the Vibhaṅga. 《戒律入口》认为，当某个谎言根据其他任何戒条只会导致《突吉罗》时（如最后一个例子），本戒条应该优先于其他任何戒条，但这与《经分别》相矛盾。
Non-offenses 不犯
A bhikkhu who misrepresents the truth unintentionally commits no offense under this rule. The Vibhaṅga gives two examples: speaking quickly and saying one thing while meaning another. Its word for “quickly”—davāya—can also mean “in fun,” but the Vibhaṅga itself, in a passage unusual for the non-offenses clauses, defines the term, limiting its meaning specifically to “hurriedly.” In doing so, it conforms to a famous passage from MN 61 where the Buddha shows an empty water dipper to Rāhula, his son, telling him that anyone who feels no shame at uttering a deliberate lie is as empty of the virtues of a contemplative as the dipper is empty of water, and then advises Rāhula to train himself: “I will not utter a deliberate lie, even for a laugh.” 根据本戒条，无意地歪曲事实的比丘并不犯戒。《经分别》举了两个例子：说话过快，以及说某件事但意思却是另一件事。其中表示「快速」的单字 davāya 也可以表示「开玩笑」，但《经分别》本身在一段不常见于不犯条款的段落中对该术语进行了定义，将其含义明确限制为「匆忙地」。这样做符合《中部》61经中的著名段落，佛陀向他的儿子罗睺罗展示了一个空水勺，告诉他，如果有人故意撒谎而毫无羞耻，那么他就缺乏沙门的美德，就像水勺里没有水一样，然后佛陀建议罗睺罗要自我训练：「我不会故意撒谎，哪怕是为了开玩笑。」
The Commentary explains the Vibhaṅga’s two exemptions as follows: Speaking quickly means speaking before one has carefully considered the matter. Saying one thing while meaning another means making a slip of the tongue, either out of stupidity or carelessness. It also seconds the Vibhaṅga in not exempting inaccurate statements made in fun from a penalty under this rule. It illustrates this point with several stories that convey a sense of what passed for humor among the less scrupulous bhikkhus of its time. In the first, a novice asks a bhikkhu, “Have you seen my preceptor?” and the bhikkhu, teasing the novice, responds, “Your preceptor’s probably gone, yoked to a firewood-cart.” In the second story, a novice, hearing the yapping of hyenas, asks a bhikkhu, “What’s making that noise?” and the bhikkhu replies, “That’s the noise of those who are lifting the stuck-in-the-mud wheel of the carriage your mother’s going in.” In addition, the Commentary quotes a few statements that today would be classified as exaggeration or sarcasm, saying that these, too, are forbidden by this rule. 《义注》对《经分别》的两项豁免作如下解释：说话过快意味著在仔细考虑事情之前就说话。说某件事但意思却是另一件事，意味著由于愚蠢或粗心而说错话。它也同意《经分别》不免除因玩笑而做出的不准确言论的惩罚。它用几个故事说明了这一点，这些故事传达了当时不太严谨的比丘们所认为的幽默感。第一个是，一位沙弥问一位比丘：「你见过我的戒师吗？」比丘就取笑沙弥，回答说：「你的戒师可能被驾到柴车上走了。」在第二个故事中，一位沙弥听到鬣狗的吠叫声，便问一位比丘：「是什么发出了这种声音？」比丘回答说：「那是那些抬起你母亲所乘车辆陷在泥里的车轮的人发出的声音。」此外，《义注》也引用了一些在今天看来会被视为夸张或讽刺的言论，并表示这些言论也是本戒条所禁止的。
Whatever humor these jokes originally contained has been so dulled by time that the statements now seem obviously unworthy of a bhikkhu. A bhikkhu at present whose sense of humor tends toward misrepresentation and exaggeration would do well to develop a similar perspective on his own jokes. This is not to deny the value or potential wisdom of humor; simply to note that a bhikkhu’s sense of humor should be kept in service to his values, and that the most memorable wit is memorable precisely because it tells the straight truth. 这些笑话原本包含的任何幽默，已经随著时间的流逝而变得如此暗淡，以至于这些话现在看起来显然不适合比丘说。目前，如果一位比丘的幽默感倾向于扭曲和夸张，他最好对自己的笑话培养类似的看法。这并不是否认幽默的价值或潜在的智慧；只是要注意，比丘的幽默感应该服务于他的价值观，最令人难忘的智慧之所以令人难忘，正是因为它说出了直截了当的事实。
As we noted above, a bhikkhu who speaks from mistaken assumptions—truthfully reporting any mistaken information he may have received or mistaken beliefs he may have thought up—does not come under this rule. 正如我们上面提到的，如果比丘基于错误的假设而讲话——如实报告他可能收到的任何错误讯息或他可能想到的错误信念——则不犯本戒条。
Broken promises 违背承诺
Mv.III.14.1-14 imposes a dukkaṭa on the act of making a promise with pure intentions but later breaking it. Because the texts make no mention of any circumstances beyond one’s control that would exempt one from that penalty, a bhikkhu should be very careful of how he states his plans for the future. A special instance of breaking a promise—accepting an invitation to a meal but then not going—is treated, not under Mv.III.14.1-14, but under Pc 33. 《大品》.三.14.1-14对出于纯洁意图作出承诺但后来却违背承诺的行为施加《突吉罗》。因为文献中没有提到任何超出个人控制范围的情况可以免除这种惩罚，所以比丘应该对如何陈述他对未来的计划非常小心。违背承诺的一个特殊例子——接受了用餐邀请但后来却不去——不是在 《大品》.三.14.1-14中处理，而是在《波逸提》三三中处理。
Summary: The intentional effort to misrepresent the truth to another individual is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：故意向他人扭曲事实，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
2 二
An insult is to be confessed.
侮辱，波逸提。
An insult is a gesture or statement, written or spoken, made with the malicious intent of hurting another person’s feelings or of bringing him/her into disgrace. The Vibhaṅga analyzes the full offense under this rule in terms of three factors: 侮辱是一种书面或口头的手势或言论，目的是恶意伤害他人感情或使他人蒙羞。《经分别》从三个因素分析了本戒条下的完全违犯：
1) Effort: One insults a person directly to his face, touching on any one of the ten topics for abuse (akkosa-vatthu) listed below. 1）努力：当面侮辱某人，触及下面列出的十个辱骂主题（akkosa-vatthu）中的任何一个。
2) Object: The person is a bhikkhu. 2）对象：该人是比丘。
3) Intention: One’s motive is to humiliate him. 3）意图：动机是羞辱他。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga lists ten ways a verbal insult can be phrased: making remarks about the other person’s: 《经分别》列出了十种言语侮辱的表达方式：对他人进行以下的评论：
race, class, or nationality (You nigger! You bum! You Frenchman!);
种族、阶级或国籍（你这个黑鬼！你这个流浪汉！你这个法国人！）；
name (You really are a Dick!);
名字（你真是个混蛋！）；
family or lineage (You bastard! You son of a bitch!);
家族或血统（你这个混蛋！你这个狗娘养的！）；
occupation (You pimp! You capitalist pig!);
职业（你这个皮条客！你这个资本主义猪！）；
craft (What would you expect from a guy who crochets?);
技艺（您对钩针编织的人有什么期望？）；
disease or handicap (Hey, Clubfoot! Spastic!);
疾病或残障（嘿，马蹄足！痉挛！）；
physical characteristics (Hey, Fatty! Beanpole! Shrimp! Hulk!);
身体特征（嘿，胖子！瘦高个！虾米！绿巨人！）；
defilements (You control freak! Fool! Queer! Breeder!);
亵渎（你这个控制狂！傻瓜！同性恋！繁殖狂！）
offenses (You liar! You thief!); or
冒犯（你这个骗子！你这个小偷！）；或者
using an abusive form of address, such as, “You camel! You goat! You ass! You penis! You vagina!” (§) (All five of these come from the Vibhaṅga.)
用辱骂性的称谓，如「你这只骆驼！你这个山羊！你这个混蛋！你这个阴茎！你这个阴道！（§）（此五句皆出自《经分别》。）
(The category of “offense”—which literally means “falling”—contains an interesting sub-category, in that the noble attainment of stream-entry is, literally, “falling into the stream.” Thus an insult along the lines of, “Some stream-winner you are!” would also fit under this category as well.) （「冒犯」这个类别的字面意思是「堕落」，它包含一个有趣的子类别，即入流的圣成就，字面意思是「堕入果位」。因此，类似「你真是个果位获得者！」这样的侮辱也属于这一类别。）
These ten topics are called the akkosa-vatthu—topics for abuse—and appear in the following training rule as well. 这十个主题被称为 akkosa-vatthu（辱骂主题），也出现在以下学处中。
As the examples in the Vibhaṅga show, the remark that fulfills the factor of effort here must touch on one of these topics for abuse and must be made directly to the listener: “You are X.” It may be phrased either as sarcastic praise or as out-and-out abuse. The Commentary and Sub-commentary say that any insulting remark not listed in the Vibhaṅga would only be grounds for a dukkaṭa, but the Vibhaṅga defines the topics for abuse in such a general way that any term related to them in any way would fulfill this factor here. 正如《经分别》中的例子所示，这里满足努力因素的言论必须涉及这些辱骂主题之一，并且必须直接对听者说：「你是 X 」。它既可以表现为讽刺性的赞扬，也可以表现为彻头彻尾的辱骂。《义注》和《复注》说，任何未在《经分别》中列出的侮辱性言论都只能成为《突吉罗》的理由，但《经分别》对辱骂的主题进行了非常笼统的定义，以至于任何与它们相关的术语都可以满足此处的这个因素。
Remarks made in an indirect or insinuating manner, though, would not fulfill this factor. Indirect remarks are when the speaker includes himself together with the target of his insult in his statement (“We’re all a bunch of fools”). Insinuating remarks are when he leaves it uncertain as to whom he is referring to (“There are camels among us”). Any remark of either of these sorts, if meant as an insult, entails a dukkaṭa regardless of whether the target is a bhikkhu or not. 然而，以间接或影射的方式发表的言论并不能满足这一因素。间接言论是指说话者在言论中将自己与被侮辱的对象连结在一起（「我们都是一群傻瓜」）。影射言论是指当他不明确指出是谁时，（「我们中间有骆驼」）。任何上述言论，如果意在侮辱，无论对象是否为比丘，都会犯《突吉罗》。
All of the insults mentioned in the Vibhaṅga take the form of remarks about the person, whereas insults and verbal abuse at present often take the form of a command—Go to hell! F— off! etc.—and the question is whether these too would be covered by this rule. Viewed from the standpoint of intent, they fit under the general definition of an insult; but if for some reason they would not fit under this rule, they would in most cases be covered by Pc 54. 《经分别》中提到的所有侮辱都是对人的评价，而当今的侮辱和言语虐待常常以命令的形式出现－去死吧！滚！等等－问题是这些是否也包含在本戒条中。从意图的角度来看，它们符合侮辱的一般定义；但如果由于某种原因它们不符合本戒条，则大多数情况下它们将符合《波逸提》五四。
Insulting remarks made about someone behind his/her back are dealt with under Pc 13. 在背后对某人发表的侮辱性言论将根据《波逸提》十三处理。
Object 对象
To insult a bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya; to insult an unordained person—according to the Commentary, this runs the gamut from bhikkhunīs to all other living beings—a dukkaṭa. 侮辱比丘犯《波逸提》；侮辱未受具足戒的人——根据《义注》，这适用于从比丘尼到所有其他生物——《突吉罗》。
Intention 意图
The Vibhaṅga defines this factor as “desiring to jeer at, desiring to scoff at, desiring to make (him) abashed.” If, with no insult intended, a bhikkhu jokes about another person’s race, etc., he incurs a dubbhāsita, regardless of whether the person is lay or ordained, mentioned outright or insinuatingly, and regardless of whether he/she takes it as a joke or an insult. This is the only instance of this class of offense. 《经分别》将此因素定义为「想要嘲笑、想要嘲弄、想要让（他）羞愧」。如果比丘开玩笑地谈论别人的种族等，而无意冒犯，则无论此人是在家人还是出家人，是直接提及还是暗示，也无论他/她将其视为玩笑还是侮辱，他犯《恶说》（dubbhāsita）。这是此类犯戒的唯一例子。
The K/Commentary adds result as a fourth factor—the target of one’s insult knows, “He’s insulting me”—but there is no basis for this in either the Vibhaṅga or the Commentary. If one makes an insulting remark under one’s breath, not intending to be heard—or in a foreign language, not intending to be understood—the motive would be to let off steam, which would not qualify as the intention covered by this rule. If one truly wants to humiliate someone, one will make the necessary effort to make that person hear and understand one’s words. But if for some reason that person doesn’t hear or understand (a loud noise blots out one’s words, one uses a slang term that is new to one’s listener), there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to indicate that one would escape from the full penalty. K/《义注》加入了结果作为第四个因素，即被侮辱的人知道「他在侮辱我」——但在《经分别》和《义注》都没有任何此依据。如果低声说出侮辱性言论，而无意让别人听到，或用外语说出侮辱性言论，而无意让别人理解，其动机可能是为了发泄，这不属于本戒条所涵盖的意图。如果真正想羞辱某人，他就会尽一切努力让那个人听到并理解他的话。但如果由于某种原因，那个人没有听见或听不懂（巨大的噪音遮住了话语，使用了听众不熟悉的俚语），《经分别》中没有任何内容表明可以逃脱全部惩罚。
For this reason, whether the person addressed actually feels insulted by one’s remarks is irrelevant in determining the severity of the offense. If one makes a remark to a fellow bhikkhu, touching on one of the topics for abuse and meaning it as an insult, one incurs a pācittiya even if he takes it as a joke. If one means the remark as a joke, one incurs a dubbhāsita even if the other person feels insulted. 因此，听者是否真的觉得被自己的言论侮辱，与判断犯戒的严重程度无关。如果对一位比丘同侪发表言论，触及辱骂主题之一，且意图侮辱，那么即使他只当做笑话，也会犯《波逸提》。如果言论意图只是开玩笑，那么即使另一方感觉受到了侮辱，犯《恶说》。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, a bhikkhu who mentions another person’s race, etc., commits no offense if he is “aiming at Dhamma, aiming at (the person’s) benefit (attha—this can also mean “the goal”), aiming at teaching.” The Commentary illustrates this with a bhikkhu saying to a member of the untouchable caste: “You are an untouchable. Don’t do any evil. Don’t be a person born into misfortune and going on to misfortune.” 根据《经分别》，如果比丘「旨在于法、旨在于（该人的）利益（attha——这也可以表示「目标」）、旨在于教导」，那么当他提及他人的种族等时，并不构成犯戒。《义注》中以一位比丘对贱民种姓成员所说的话为例：「你是贱民。莫做恶事。不要做一个生来不幸、走向不幸的人。」
Another example would be of a teacher who uses insulting language to get the attention of a stubborn student so that the latter will bring his behavior in line with the Dhamma. This would entail no offense, but one should be very sure of the purity of one’s motives and of the beneficial effect of one’s words before using language of this sort. 另一个例子是，一位老师使用侮辱性的语言来引起顽固学生的注意，以便后者的行为符合法。这并不犯戒，但是在使用此类语言之前，我们应该非常确定自己动机的纯洁性以及言语的有益效果。
Summary: An insult made with malicious intent to another bhikkhu is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：怀著恶意侮辱另一位比丘，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
3 三
Divisive tale-bearing among bhikkhus is to be confessed.
在比丘之间分裂性的搬弄是非，波逸提。
Divisive tale-bearing is described in the Vibhaṅga with a series of examples in the following form: X makes remarks about Y touching on his race, name, or any of the other ten akkosa-vatthu listed in the explanation to the preceding rule. Z, hearing these remarks, goes to tell someone else—either W or Y himself—in hopes of causing a rift between X and his listener or of winning favor with his listener in case there is already a rift between the two. For example: 《经分别》以下列形式举了一系列例子来描述分裂性的搬弄是非： X 对 Y 的种族、姓名或在前一条戒条的解释中列出的其他十个 akkosa-vatthu 发表言论。 Z 听到这些言论后，便去告诉其他人（ W 或 Y 本人），希望能引起 X 和他的听者之间的裂痕，或者在两人之间已经有裂痕的情况下赢得听者的好感。例如：
a) X calls Y a bastard behind his back. Z tells Y, in hopes of ingratiating himself with Y.
a）X 背地里骂 Y 是混蛋。 Z 告诉 Y，希望能讨好 Y。
b) X makes racist remarks about Y to his face. Z knows that W is a friend of Y and hates racists, and so tells W what X said, in hopes of causing a rift between W and X.
b）X 当面对 Y 发表种族主义言论。 Z 知道 W 是 Y 的朋友，并且讨厌种族主义者，所以就把 X 说的话告诉了 W，希望借此挑起 W 和 X 之间的裂痕。
Bhikkhu Z commits the full offense here when three factors are fulfilled: object, effort, and intent. 当满足三个因素时，比丘 Z 就犯了全部罪行：对象、努力和意图。
1) Object: Both Z’s listener and X are bhikkhus; X has made remarks about Y that qualify as a direct insult under the preceding rule—or, if he didn’t make them in Y’s presence, remarks that would have qualified as a direct insult had he done so. (Note that under case (b) above, Y would not have to be a bhikkhu for this factor to be fulfilled.)
1）对象： Z 的听者和 X 都是比丘； X 对 Y 发表的言论根据前一条戒条可视为直接侮辱；或者，如果他没有在 Y 面前发表这些言论，他真的这么说了属于直接侮辱的言论。（请注意，在上述情况 (b) 中，Y 不必是比丘即可满足此因素。）
2) Effort: Z reports X’s remarks to his listener verbally or by gesture (as in writing a letter),
2）努力： Z 透过口头或示意动作（如写信）向他的听者传达 X 的言论，
3) Intent: with the intent of ingratiating himself with his listener, or of causing a rift between his listener and X.
3）意图：意图讨好听者，或造成听者与 X 之间的裂痕。
The K/Commentary adds a fourth factor—Z’s listener understands what he is saying—but, as with the preceding rule, there is no basis for this in the Vibhaṅga. K/《义注》增加了第四个因素—— Z 的听众理解他在说什么——但是，与前一条戒条一样，在《经分别》中没有这一点的依据。
Object 对象
If either X or Z’s listener—or both—are not bhikkhus, then the penalty for Z is a dukkaṭa. 如果 X 或 Z 的听者（或两者）不是比丘，那么 Z 的惩罚就是《突吉罗》。
If X’s remarks qualified only as an indirect insult under the preceding rule—e.g., he said with reference to Y that, “There are camels among us”—then Z incurs a dukkaṭa if he reports them with the intent to ingratiate himself or cause a rift, regardless of whether his listener or X are bhikkhus or not. 如果 X 的言论根据前一条戒条仅属于间接侮辱——例如，他对 Y 说，「我们之间有骆驼」——那么如果 Z 以讨好或制造裂痕为目的报道这些言论，无论听者或 X 是否是比丘，犯《突吉罗》。
The Sub-commentary states that there is a dukkaṭa for bearing tales dealing with matters other than remarks about the ten akkosa-vatthu—i.e., telling Y about things said or done by X, to make X appear in a bad light in hopes of winning favor or causing a rift—although some cases of this sort would come under Pc 13. 《复注》指出，除了关于十种 akkosa-vatthu 的言论之外，其他事项的搬弄是非犯《突吉罗》—即，告诉 Y 有关 X 所说或所做的事情，使 X 看起来很糟糕，希望赢得好感或造成裂痕—虽然有些这种情况属于《波逸提》十三。
Effort 努力
This rule is sometimes translated as dealing with slander—false tale-bearing—but as the examples in the Vibhaṅga show, it actually deals with true tale-bearing: X really does say insulting things about Y, and Z gives a true report. The Vinaya-mukha notes that if Z engages in false tale-bearing, then regardless of whether X and Z’s listener are bhikkhus, Z incurs the full penalty under Pc 1. 本戒条有时被翻译为处理诽谤——虚假的搬弄是非——但正如《经分别》中的例子所示，它实际上处理的是真实的搬弄是非：X 确实说了关于 Y 的侮辱性的话，而 Z 给出了真实的报道。《戒律入口》指出，如果 Z 散布虚假的搬弄是非，那么无论 X 和 Z 的听者是否是比丘，Z 完全违犯《波逸提》一。
Intent 意图
To give a true report of such matters with motives other than those of winning favor or causing a rift entails no offense. Examples of this would include: 如果真实地报道这些事情并且不是为了赢得好感或制造裂痕，则并不构成犯戒。例如：
informing a senior bhikkhu when one bhikkhu has accused another of a serious offense, so that an inquiry can be made for the sake of harmony in the Community; or
当一个比丘指控另一个比丘犯有严重罪行时，要通知一位资深比丘，以便为了僧团的和合而进行调查；或者
telling a senior bhikkhu about a student of his who is making racist remarks, so that the senior bhikkhu can put a stop to it.
告诉一位资深比丘，他的一位弟子正在发表种族主义言论，以便这位资深比丘可以阻止这种行为。
Summary: Telling a bhikkhu about insulting remarks made by another bhikkhu—in hopes of winning favor or causing a rift—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：为了博取好感或制造裂痕，向一位比丘讲述另一位比丘的侮辱性言论，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
4 四
Should any bhikkhu have an unordained person recite Dhamma line by line (with him), it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘让未受具足戒的人（与他）逐行诵读佛法，波逸提。
This is an offense with two factors: 这是有两个因素的罪行：
1) Effort: One gets a student to recite Dhamma line-by-line with oneself (which, as we shall see below, means to train the student to be a skilled reciter of a Pali Dhamma text).
1）努力：让弟子与自己一起一行一行地背诵佛法（正如我们将在下文中看到的，这意味著训练弟子成为熟练的巴利语佛法诵读者）。
2) Object: The student is neither a bhikkhu nor a bhikkhunī.
2）对象：弟子既不是比丘，也不是比丘尼。
Only the first factor needs explanation, and is best treated under two headings: Dhamma and reciting line-by-line. 只有第一个因素需要解释，最好用两个标题来处理：佛法和逐行背诵。
Dhamma 佛法
Dhamma the Vibhaṅga defines as “a saying made by the Buddha, his disciples, seers, or heavenly beings, connected with the teaching or connected with the goal.” The Commentary devotes a long discussion to these terms, coming to the conclusion that connected with the Dhamma refers to the Pali Canon—in Pali, not in translation—as agreed on in the first three councils, while connected with the goal (attha) refers to the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā, the most revered ancient commentary (only in its original Pali version, the Sub-commentary says). 《经分别》将佛法定义为「佛陀、其弟子、先知或天人所说的与教义或目标相关的话」。《义注》对这些术语进行了长讨论，得出结论：与佛法相关指的是巴利《圣典》（巴利语，而非翻译），正如前三次结集所达成的一致意见，而与目标（attha）相关指的是《Mahā Aṭṭhakathā》，即最受尊敬的古代注释（《复注》称仅限其原始巴利语版本）。
The ancient commentaries disagreed as to what other works would fit under this category, but Buddhaghosa’s conclusion seems to be that—in the Milinda Pañhā, for example—Ven. Nāgasena’s quotes of the Buddha’s words would count, but not his own formulations of the teaching, and the same principle holds for other texts quoting the Buddha’s words as well. The ancient commentaries are unanimous, though, in saying that Dhamma does not cover the Mahāyāna sūtras or any compositions (this would include translations) dealing with the Dhamma in languages other than Pali. 古代注释对于哪些其他作品可以归入这一类别意见不一，但佛音的结论似乎是——例如在《弥兰王问经》中——龙军尊者所引述的佛陀话语可以算在内，但他自己对教义的表述则不算数，同样的原则也适用于引用佛陀话语的其他文献。然而，古代注释一致认为，佛法并不涵盖大乘经典或任何巴利语以外的语言论述佛法的作品（这包括翻译作品）。
This interpretation, identifying Dhamma with particular Pali texts, has caused no controversy in the context of this rule—although it seems unlikely that the compilers of the Vibhaṅga would have had the commentaries in mind when they said, “connected with the goal”—but it has met with disagreement in the context of Pc 7, and so we will discuss it in more detail there. 这种将佛法与特定的巴利文献联系起来的解释，在本戒条的脉络下没有引起任何争议——尽管《经分别》的编纂者在说「与目标相关」时似乎不太可能想到注释——但它确实在《波逸提》七的脉络下遭到了反对，因此我们将在那里更详细地讨论它。
Reciting line-by-line 逐行背诵
To make someone recite line by line means to train him/her by rote to be a skilled reciter of a text. 让某人一行一行地背诵意味著透过死记硬背来训练他/她成为文献的熟练背诵者。
Bhikkhus in the days of the Buddha committed the teachings in the Canon to memory to preserve them from generation to generation. Although writing was in use at the time—mainly for keeping accounts—no one used it to record teachings either of the Buddha or of any other religious teacher. The Pali Canon was not written down until approximately 500 years after the Buddha’s passing away, after an invasion of Sri Lanka had threatened its survival. 佛陀时代的比丘们将《圣典》中的教义铭记于心，以便代代传承。尽管当时已经使用文字（主要用于记帐），但没有人用它来记录佛陀或其他宗教导师的教义。直到佛陀圆寂约 500 年后，由于斯里兰卡遭到入侵，巴利《圣典》的存亡受到威胁，才写成文字成书。
The Vibhaṅga lists four ways in which a person might be trained to be a reciter of a text: 《经分别》列出了四种训练一个人成为背诵者的方法：
1) The teacher and student recite in unison, i.e., beginning together and ending together.
1）师生同声背诵，即一起开始，一起结束。
2) The teacher begins a line, the student joins in, and they end together.
2）老师开始某一行，学生加入，最后他们一起结束。
3) The teacher recites the beginning syllable of a line together with the student, who then completes it alone.
3）老师和学生一起背诵某一行的首个音节，然后学生独自完成。
4) The teacher recites one line, and the student recites the next line alone.
4）老师背诵某一行，学生单独背诵下一行。
At present, reciters of the Vedas still use these methods when practicing their texts. 目前，吠陀的背诵者在练习他们的文献时仍会使用这些方法。
The origin story states that the Buddha forbade these methods of training unordained people because they caused the lay students to feel disrespect for the bhikkhus. The Vinaya-mukha explains this by noting that if a teacher made a slip of the tongue while teaching in this way, his students would look down on him for it. If this were the right explanation, though, the non-offense clauses would have listed “proper” ways of training novices and lay people to recite the Dhamma, but they don’t. 起源故事说，佛陀禁止这些训练非受具足戒者的方法，因为它们导致在家学生对比丘感到不尊重。《戒律入口》对此的解释是：如果老师以这种方式教学时口误，他的学生就会因此看不起他。如果这是正确的解释，那么不犯条款就会列出训练沙弥和俗人背诵佛法的「适当」方法，但它并未列出。
A more likely explanation is that at the time of the Buddha the duty of memorizing and reciting the texts was considered the province of the bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs. Although some lay people memorized discourses (Mv.III.5.9), and bhikkhus of course taught the Dhamma to lay people, there was apparently the feeling that to teach non-ordainees to become skilled reciters of the texts was not good for the relationship between bhikkhus and the unordained. There are three possible reasons for this: 更可能的解释是，在佛陀时代，记忆和背诵经文被认为是比丘和比丘尼的职责。虽然有些在家众会记忆经文（《大品》.三.5.9），而比丘当然也会向在家众宣讲佛法，但是显然人们觉得，教导非受具足戒者成为熟练的文献背诵者，不利于比丘与非受具足戒者之间的关系。可能的原因有三：
1) People may have felt that the bhikkhus were shirking their responsibilities by trying to pass their duty off onto others.
1）人们或许觉得比丘们试图将自己的职责推给别人，从而逃避自己的责任。
2) Brahmans at the time were very strict in not allowing anyone outside their caste to memorize the Vedas, and their example may have led lay people to feel disrespect for bhikkhus who were not equally protective of their own tradition.
2）当时的婆罗门非常严格，不允许其种姓之外的任何人背诵吠陀，他们的例子可能导致俗人对那些没有同样保护自己传统的比丘感到不尊重。
3) A bhikkhu acting as a tutor for a lay person wishing to memorize the Dhamma might, over time, come to be seen as the lay person’s hireling.
3）一位比丘担任一位想要记忆佛法的俗人的导师，随著时间的推移，可能会被视为这位俗人的雇工。
At present, the entire Canon is available in print, and even bhikkhus rarely commit it to memory, although they do frequently memorize parts of it, such as the Pāṭimokkha, the major discourses, and other passages chanted on ceremonial occasions. To train a lay person or novice to become skilled in reciting such teachings by rote would entail the full penalty under this rule. 目前，整部《圣典》均已印刷出版，即使是比丘也很少将其牢记在心，尽管他们经常会记住其中的部分内容，例如《波罗提木叉》、主要经文和其他在仪式场合朗诵的段落。根据本戒条，训练一名俗人或沙弥熟练地背诵这些教义，将完全违犯本戒条。
Offenses are counted as follows: If teaching an unordained person to recite line-by-line, one incurs a pācittiya for each line; if teaching syllable-by-syllable, a pācittiya for each syllable. 犯戒的次数如下：若教未受具足戒者一行一行背诵，则每行犯一次《波逸提》；如果逐个音节地教学，则每个音节犯一次《波逸提》。
Intention is not a mitigating factor here. Thus if a bhikkhu is training a mixed group of bhikkhus and novices, he incurs a pācittiya even if his intention is to train only the bhikkhus in the group. 意图在此不是一个减轻惩罚的因素。因此，如果一位比丘正在训练一个由比丘和沙弥组成的混合团体，那么即使他的意图只是训练该团体中的比丘，他也犯《波逸提》。
Perception is also not a mitigating factor. If the person being trained is unordained, the bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya if he perceives him as unordained, a pācittiya if he is in doubt about the matter, and a pācittiya if he perceives him as ordained. If the person is ordained, then the bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa if he perceives him as unordained and a dukkaṭa if he is in doubt about the matter. Only if the person is ordained and the bhikkhu perceives him as ordained is he not grounds for an offense. This pattern of six possibilities—three pācittiyas, two dukkaṭas, and one non-offense—is standard in many of the pācittiya rules where perception is not a mitigating factor. We will note other rules in this chapter where this pattern also applies, but explain it in detail only here. 感知也不是一个减轻惩罚因素。若受训练者尚未受具足戒，且比丘认为该人尚未受具足戒，则犯《波逸提》；若比丘对此事有所怀疑，则犯《波逸提》；若比丘认为该人已受具足戒，则犯《波逸提》。如果该人已受具足戒，而比丘认为该人未受具足戒，则犯《突吉罗》；如果比丘对此事有所怀疑，则犯《突吉罗》。只有当该人已受具足戒，且比丘认为该人已受具足戒时，才不构成犯戒。此六种可能性的模式——三《波逸提》、两《突吉罗》和一不犯——是许多《波逸提》戒条的标准，在这些戒条中，感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素。我们将在本章中指出此模式也适用的其他戒条，但仅在此详细解释。
Non-offenses 不犯
Because this rule is aimed at methods of teaching, the Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense “for one made to recite in unison.” This, says the Commentary, refers to a young bhikkhu who, in the process of learning a text, is told by his teacher to recite together with a novice who is also the teacher’s student. 因为本戒条针对的是教学方法，所以《经分别》规定「让一个人齐声朗诵」并无犯戒。《义注》说，这指的是一位年轻比丘在学习一部经文的过程中，被老师要求与另一位沙弥（也是老师的学生）一起背诵。
Also, according to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if a bhikkhu corrects an unordained person who has memorized most of a passage or who is reciting in a confused manner; or if a bhikkhu “rehearses” a passage in unison with unordained people. In the time of the Canon, this meant the practice of reciting a passage one had already memorized. At present, this would include the practice of bhikkhus reciting together with lay people who are reading from a text or reciting from memory—for example, during the evening chanting—and are not learning the text from the bhikkhus. The Commentary extends this allowance to include cases of bhikkhus learning a text from an unordained person, probably on the model of the Itivuttaka, which—according to its Commentary—the bhikkhus first learned from a servant woman who had memorized some of the Buddha’s teachings that the bhikkhus had overlooked. 此外，根据《经分别》的规定，如果比丘纠正一个没有受具足戒的人，而该人已经记住了大部分经文，或者以混乱的方式诵读，这并不构成犯戒；或比丘与未受具足戒的众人一同「排练」一段经文。在《圣典》时代，这意味著背诵已经记住的段落的做法。目前，这包括比丘与正在阅读经文或背诵记忆的俗人一起诵读的做法（例如，在晚课诵经时），而不是从比丘那里学习经文。《义注》将这种开缘扩展到包括比丘从未受具足戒者那里学习经文的情况，可能是以《如是语经》为模型，根据《如是语经》的《义注》，比丘首先从一名女仆那里学习，这名女仆记住了比丘们忽略的一些佛陀教义。
Summary: To train a novice or lay person to recite passages of Dhamma by rote is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：训练沙弥或俗人死记硬背诵佛经，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
5 五
Should any bhikkhu lie down together (in the same dwelling) with an unordained person for more than two or three consecutive nights, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘与未受具足戒者（在同一住所）同寝超过连续两三个夜晚，波逸提。
As the Vinaya-mukha comments, “The Buddha originally laid down the rule forbidding the act of sleeping in the same dwelling with an unordained person so that lay people would not see the unsightly attitudes a bhikkhu might assume while asleep. But then when novices came into being they were classed as unordained people and so had no place to stay. The Buddha therefore relaxed the rule, allowing bhikkhus to sleep in the same dwelling with an unordained person no more than three nights running, thus also opening the way for them to sleep in the same dwelling with ordinary lay men.” 正如《戒律入口》所说：「佛陀最初制定本戒条，禁止与未受具足戒的人同睡在同一住处，是为了让俗人看不到比丘在睡觉时可能呈现的难看姿态。但当沙弥开始出现时，他们就被归类为未受具足戒者，因此无处可居。因此，佛陀放宽了戒条，允许比丘与未受具足戒者同睡在同一住所，但不得超过三个连续夜晚，这也为比丘与普通俗人同睡在同一住所开辟了道路。」
The occasion for the first formulation of the rule was this: 本戒条首次制定的场合如下：
“Now at that time, lay men came to the monastery to hear the Dhamma. After the Dhamma had been taught, each of the elder bhikkhus went to his own dwelling, while the newer bhikkhus went to sleep right there in the assembly hall with the lay men—with muddled mindfulness, unalert, naked, mumbling, and snoring. The lay men criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can their reverences go to sleep with muddled mindfulness, unalert, naked, mumbling, and snoring?’”
「当时，很多俗人来到寺院听法。教导完佛法之后，各位长老比丘各自回自己的住处，而新比丘则就在集会堂里与俗人一起睡觉——失正念、毫无警觉、赤身裸体、喃喃自语、鼾声不断。俗人批评、抱怨并四处传播：『大德怎么能失正念、毫无警觉、赤身裸体、喃喃自语、打鼾地睡觉呢？』」
The occasion for the final formulation was this: 最终制定的场合如下：
“The bhikkhus said to Ven. Rāhula (who was a novice at the time), ‘There is a training rule laid down by the Blessed One that (a bhikkhu) should not lie down together with an unordained person. Find yourself a place to sleep.’ So Ven. Rāhula, not finding a place to sleep, went to sleep in the restroom. Then the Blessed One, getting up toward the end of the night, went to the restroom and on arriving cleared his throat. Ven. Rāhula cleared his throat.
「比丘们对罗睺罗尊者（当时是沙弥）说：『世尊有制定学处，即（比丘）不得与未受具足戒者同寝。自己找个地方睡觉。』罗睺罗尊者找不到地方睡觉，所以就到厕所睡觉。然后，世尊在夜晚将结束时起床，前往厕所，一到那儿就清了清喉咙。罗睺罗尊者也清了清喉咙。
“‘Who’s there?’
「『谁在那里？』
“‘It’s me, venerable sir—Rāhula.’
「『是我罗睺罗，大德。』
“‘Why are you lying there?’ (§—reading nipanno’sīti with the Thai edition)
「『为什么你躺在那里？』（§—泰国版读写成 nipanno’sīti ）
“So Ven. Rāhula told him what had happened.”
「所以罗睺罗尊者就将所发生的事告诉他。」
There are two factors for the full offense here: 此处的完全违犯有两个因素：
1) Object: an unordained person. 1）对象：未受具足戒者。
2) Effort: (a) lying down, (b) together in the same dwelling with the unordained person, (c) for four nights running. 2）努力：（a）躺下，（b）与未受具足戒者同一住处，（c）连续四夜。
Object 对象
The Vibhaṅga defines unordained person as anyone other than a bhikkhu. The Sub-commentary, citing the Three Gaṇṭhipadas, notes that this means males but not females, as there is another training rule, following immediately on this one, dealing specifically with females. According to the Commentary, unordained person includes not only human beings but also any animal large enough to have intercourse with. Again, the Sub-commentary would qualify this as “male animals” for the same reason. 《经分别》将未受具足戒者定义为比丘以外的任何人。《复注》引用了《Three Gaṇṭhipadas》，指出这指的是男性，而不是女性，因为紧接著本戒条还有另一条学处，专门针对女性。根据《义注》，未受具足戒者不仅包括人类，还包括任何大到可以进行性交的动物。再一次，由于同样的原因，《复注》将其限定为「雄性动物」。
Perception as to whether the other person is ordained is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 对于对方是否已受具足戒的感知在此并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
Lying down 躺下
To be lying down together with someone else means to be lying down at the same time as the other person is lying down within the area defined as a dwelling (see below). This factor is fulfilled whether the bhikkhu lies down when the other person is already lying there, or vice versa, or both lie down at the same time. Although there are other training rules where lying down is included under the term sitting, sitting is not included under the term lying down here. Whether the bhikkhu or the other person falls asleep is of no account. 与他人一起躺下意味著与他人在被定义为住处的区域内同时躺下（见下文）。无论比丘在另一个人已经躺下时躺下，或反之亦然，或两人同时躺下，此因素均已满足。虽然在其他学处中，躺下也包含在坐下一词中，但这里坐下并不包含在躺下一词中。无论比丘还是其他人是否睡著了都无关紧要。
If both parties get up and then lie down again, the bhikkhu incurs another pācittiya. 若双方都起身又再次躺下，则比丘将犯另一次《波逸提》。
Dwelling 住处
The Vibhaṅga defines the dwelling that can be grounds for a pācittiya here as a place fully roofed and fully walled, or mostly roofed and mostly walled. A place half-roofed and half-walled, it says, is grounds for a dukkaṭa, while a place (a) fully roofed but with no wall (e.g., an open pavilion), (b) fully walled but with no roof (e.g., a corral), or (c) less than half-roofed and less than half-walled, is not grounds for an offense. 《经分别》将构成《波逸提》罪的住所定义为完全覆盖屋顶和完全覆盖墙壁的地方，或大部分覆盖屋顶和大部分覆盖墙壁的地方。它称，半覆盖屋顶和半覆盖墙壁的地方构成《突吉罗》罪，而 (a) 完全覆盖屋顶但没有墙壁的地方（例如，开放式亭子），(b) 完全覆盖墙壁但没有屋顶的地方（例如，畜栏），或 (c) 屋顶覆盖少于一半和墙壁覆盖少于一半的地方，不构成犯戒。
Buddhaghosa quotes the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā, the major ancient commentary, as filling in all the other possibilities: 佛音引述了主要的古代注释《Mahā Aṭṭhakathā》，以补充所有其他可能性：
Grounds for a pācittiya:
构成《波逸提》罪：
a place— 该地方—
fully roofed and mostly walled, 完全覆盖屋顶和大部分覆盖墙壁，
fully roofed and half-walled, 完全覆盖屋顶和半覆盖墙壁，
mostly roofed and half-walled, 大部分覆盖屋顶和半覆盖墙壁，
mostly roofed and fully walled, 大部分覆盖屋顶和完全覆盖墙壁，
half-roofed and fully walled, or 半覆盖屋顶和完全覆盖墙壁，或者
half-roofed and mostly walled. 半覆盖屋顶和大部分覆盖墙壁。
Grounds for a dukkaṭa:
构成《突吉罗》罪：
a place— 该地方—
fully roofed and less than half-walled, 完全覆盖屋顶和墙壁覆盖少于一半，
mostly roofed and less than half-walled, 大部分覆盖屋顶和墙壁覆盖少于一半，
less than half-roofed and fully walled, or 屋顶覆盖少于一半和完全覆盖墙壁，或者
less than half-roofed and mostly walled. 屋顶覆盖少于一半和大部分覆盖墙壁。
Grounds for no offense:
不构成犯戒：
a place— 该地方—
half-roofed and less than half-walled, 半覆盖屋顶和墙壁覆盖少于一半，
less than half-roofed and half-walled, or 屋顶覆盖少于一半和半覆盖墙壁，或者
less than half-roofed and less than half-walled. 屋顶覆盖少于一半和墙壁覆盖少于一半。
The Commentary notes that tents would fit under the definition of “place” here, and it would seem that vehicles—caravans in the time of the Buddha; automobiles, trains, buses, and airplanes in ours—would fit here as well. 《义注》指出，帐篷符合这里「住处」的定义，而且似乎交通工具——佛陀时代的大篷车；我们生活中的汽车、火车、巴士和飞机——在此处也同样符合。
The same dwelling 同一住处
Unfortunately, the Vibhaṅga does not say how far the boundary of a “single dwelling” would extend. For example, would each separate room in a house count as a separate dwelling? Would the entire house? Would an entire apartment building be a single dwelling? The Commentary tries to remedy this omission by introducing the factor of “having a single common entrance” or “being part of the same enclosure.” (The Pali word it uses, ek’ūpacāra, has both meanings, and the Commentary makes use of both in its discussion.) 不幸的是，《经分别》并没有说明「单一住处」的边界延伸到多远。例如，房屋中的每个独立房间是否算是独立住处？整个房子算是吗？整栋公寓大楼会是单一住处吗？《义注》试图透过引入「拥有单一公共入口」或「属于同一封闭区域」的因素来弥补这一遗漏。（其中所使用的巴利单字 ek’ūpacāra 兼具这两种意义，《义注》在讨论中也运用了这两种意义。）
What it says is this: Even a seven-story palace or a building with 100 rooms would count as a single dwelling if all the rooms make use of a common entrance. If there are several buildings in a single enclosure, and one can go from one to another without stepping on outside ground, they would count as part of the same dwelling. If there is a building divided into units that are not connected by internal doorways, each unit having a separate entrance, the different units would count as separate dwellings. Locking or closing a door does not close off the doorway. Only if the door opening is bricked up or otherwise permanently sealed off does it no longer count as a doorway. 它所说的是这样的：即使是七层宫殿或拥有 100 个房间的建筑物，如果所有房间都使用一个公共入口，将算作单一住处。如果单一封闭区域内有多座建筑物，并且可以从一栋建筑物走到另一栋建筑物而不需要踩踏外面的地面，那么这些建筑物将算作同一住处的一部分。如果一座建筑物被分成多个单元，且这些单元之间没有内部门口连接，每个单元都有单独的入口，则不同的单元将被视为单独的住处。锁门或关门并不会关闭门口。只有当门口被砖头砌起来或以其他方式永久封闭时，它才不再算作门口。
The Commentary admits that the “single entrance” factor is not mentioned in the Canon in connection with this rule but is borrowed from the idea of “single enclosure” in the Vibhaṅga to NP 2. It argues, though, that this factor is unavoidably bound up in the concept of “walled and roofed” and illustrates its point as follows: There is a two-room dwelling, composed of an antechamber through which one must pass to get to the inner chamber. A bhikkhu is sleeping in the inner chamber, and an unordained person in the antechamber. Now suppose that a stubborn Vinaya student maintains that if the door between the two rooms is closed, the bhikkhu is sleeping in a separate dwelling from the unordained person, while if the door is open, they are in the same dwelling. His teacher then asks him, “Why are they in the same dwelling if the door is open?” 《义注》承认，在与本戒条相关的《圣典》中没有提到「单一入口」因素，而是借用了《舍堕》二的《经分别》的「单一封闭区域」的概念。不过，它认为这个因素不可避免地与「覆盖墙壁和覆盖屋顶」的概念紧密相连，并这样说明其观点：有一个两房间的住宅，由一个前室组成，必须经过前厅才能到达内室。一位比丘在内室睡觉，一位未受具足戒的人在前室。现在假设一位顽固的戒律学生坚持认为，如果两个房间之间的门关闭，比丘就与未受戒者睡在不同的住处，而如果门打开，他们就在同一个住处。他的老师问他：「如果门开著，为什么他们会在同一个住处？」
“Because the two rooms share the same roof and walls.” 「因为这两个房间共用一个屋顶和墙壁。」
“And if the door is closed, does that destroy the roof and walls they had in common?” 「如果门关上了，那是否会破坏他们共同的屋顶和墙壁？」
“No, of course not. But the enclosure in which the bhikkhu is sleeping is marked by the door.” 「不，当然不会。不过比丘睡觉的封闭区域有门作为标记。」
This, the Commentary says, shows that the notion of enclosure is part and parcel of the concept of dwelling, and that the stubborn student has defeated his own argument. Its reasoning here is probably more convincing in Pali than in English—because as we noted above, Pali uses the same word for enclosure and entrance—but even so the illustration does not carry much force when applied to such places as separate apartments in an apartment building and so leaves the issue unsettled as far as they are concerned. 《义注》说，这表明封闭区域的概念是住处概念的一部分，并且固执的学生已经打败了他自己的论点。这里的推论在巴利语中可能比在英语中更有说服力——因为正如我们上面提到的，巴利语使用同一个字来表示封闭区域和入口——但即使如此，当应用于公寓大楼中的独立公寓等地方时，这个例子也没有太大的说服力，因此就他们而言，问题仍未得到解决。
The Vinaya-mukha notes that the factor introduced by the Commentary has implications that go far beyond the original purpose of this rule—and of the following rule, in which the concept of “single dwelling” is even more important. It suggests borrowing an additional factor from NP 2: the factor of separate residences or zones of ownership (the Pali word kula carries both meanings). Thus in a large building composed of separate residences—such as an apartment building, a hotel, or a hospital with private rooms—it suggests that each separate residence count as a separate dwelling. 《戒律入口》指出，《义注》中引入的因素的含义远远超出了本戒条的最初目的，也超出了下一条戒条的最初目的，其中「单一住处」的概念更为重要。它建议从《舍堕》二借用一个附加因素：单独住所或所有权区域的因素（巴利语 kula 兼具这两种意义）。因此，在由单独住所组成的大型建筑物中（例如公寓大楼、饭店，或设有私人房间的医院），它建议每个单独住所都算作一个单独住处。
Because the Canon gives no clear guidance on this point, the wise policy for an individual bhikkhu is to follow the views of the Community to which he belongs. 因为《圣典》在这一点上没有给出明确的指导，所以对于比丘个人来说，明智之举是遵循他所属僧团的观点。
Nights 夜晚
Nights here are counted by dawns. Thus if a bhikkhu is sleeping in the same dwelling with an unordained person but one of them gets up before dawn, that night does not count. If a bhikkhu has been lying down in the same dwelling with an unordained person for two nights running but then skips a night—for example, getting up before dawn at the end of the third night—the consecutive series is broken. (As discussed in Appendix I, before dawn here apparently means before dawnrise, i.e., before the beginning of civil twilight.) If he then lies down in the same dwelling with an unordained person the next night, the counting starts again from one. 这里的夜晚是以黎明（明相）来计算的。因此，如果一位比丘与一位未受具足戒的人睡在同一住处，但其中一人在黎明（明相）前起床，那么这个夜晚就不算数。如果一位比丘与一位未受具足戒者连续两个晚上在同一个住处躺下，但随后跳过一个晚上——例如，在第三天夜晚结束黎明（明相）前起床——连续的系列就被破坏。（如附录一所述，这里的黎明（明相）前显然是指黎明升起之前，即民用曙暮光开始之前。）如果他下一个夜晚与一个未受具足戒的人同一个住处躺下，则重新从一开始计数。
However, once he has been lying down in the same dwelling with an unordained person three nights running, then if after sundown on the fourth night he is lying down in the same dwelling in which a lay person is lying down—even if only for a moment—he incurs a pācittiya. 然而，一旦他已经连续三个夜晚与未受具足戒者在同一住处躺下，那么如果在第四天夜晚日落之后，他在有在家众躺著的同一住处躺下 —— 即使只是片刻 —— 他犯《波逸提》。
The Commentary interprets the phrase after sundown as meaning any time on the fourth day. In other words, there is no need to wait until the next dawn to count the fourth period of lying down together. As we noted above in the conclusion to the chapter on the saṅghādisesa rules, there was a tendency in the time of the Canon to call a 24-hour period of day and night a “night.” For the purpose of this rule and the following one, this period apparently begins at sundown. 《义注》将「日落之后」一词解释为第四天的任何时间。也就是说，不必等到下次黎明（明相），才算第四次一起躺下的周期。正如我们上文《僧残》戒条篇章结论部分所指出的，在《圣典》时代，人们倾向于将 24 小时的白天和夜晚的周期称为一个「夜晚」。就本戒条和下一条戒条的目的而言，这一周期显然从日落时开始。
The Commentary also states that the unordained person need not be the same person each of the four nights, and the same principle holds true for the dwelling. In other words, if a bhikkhu lies down in a dwelling with novice X one night and then goes elsewhere and lies down in a dwelling with layman Y the next night and so on for four nights running, he commits an offense all the same. 《义注》也指出，未受具足戒者不必在四个夜晚都是同一个人，对于住处也适用同样的原则。换句话说，如果一位比丘一个夜晚与沙弥 X 在一个住处里躺下，然后下一个夜晚又到别处与俗人 Y 在一住处里躺下，如此连续四天，他同样犯了戒。
Perception and intention are not mitigating factors here. Thus a bhikkhu lying down in the same dwelling with a novice whom he thinks to be another bhikkhu commits an offense all the same, as does a bhikkhu who miscounts the nights and lies down in the same room with an unordained person for what he thinks is his third night when it is actually his fourth. 在这里，感知和意图并不是减轻惩罚的因素。因此，如果一位比丘与一位他认为是另一名比丘的沙弥在同一个住处躺下，那么他同样犯了戒；如果一个比丘算错了夜晚的数量，与一个没有受具足戒的人在同一个房间里躺下，他以为那是他的第三个夜晚，而实际上是第四个夜晚，那么他同样犯了戒。
In fact, this is a training rule that one may break without ever realizing it. Suppose a novice comes to lie down in a room where a bhikkhu is sleeping, and then gets up to leave before the bhikkhu awakens. If he does this for four nights running, the bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya even though he may never have been aware of what the novice was doing. Rules like this are the reason why many bhikkhus make a practice of confessing offenses even when they are not consciously aware of having committed them. 事实上，这是一个可能在不知不觉中就违犯的学处。假设一位沙弥来到一位比丘睡觉的房间内躺下，然后在比丘醒来之前起身离开。如果他连续四晚都这样做，该比丘就犯《波逸提》，尽管他可能根本不知道沙弥在做什么。正是因为这样的戒条，使得许多比丘即使在没有意识到自己已犯下罪行的情况下，也会养成忏悔罪行的习惯。
Non-offenses 不犯
To recapitulate some of the points from the above discussion: To lie down with an unordained person in a dwelling that would qualify as grounds for a pācittiya or a dukkaṭa is no offense as long as one does it no more than three days running. If, after lying down in the same dwelling with an unordained person for two nights running, one gets up before dawn at the end of the third night, one may resume lying down in the same dwelling with an unordained person the next night. Also, there is no offense in lying down any number of consecutive nights with an unordained person in a dwelling that would not qualify as grounds for an offense. And, there is no offense if one of the parties is sitting while the other is lying down, or if both parties are sitting (although see Pc 44 & 45). 重述上述讨论中的一些要点：与未受具足戒者躺下，在可构成《波逸提》或《突吉罗》的住处内，只要连续不超过三天，就不犯戒。如果在与未受具足戒者连续两晚在同一住处躺下之后，第三个夜晚结束黎明前起床，则下一个夜晚可以继续与未受具足戒者在同一住处躺下。此外，与未受具足戒者在不构成犯戒的住处无论连续几晚躺下都不构成犯戒。并且，如果一方坐著而另一方躺著，或者双方都坐著，则不构成犯戒（尽管参见《波逸提》四四和四五）。
The Vinaya-mukha comments that although this rule as it presently stands no longer fulfills its original purpose, bhikkhus should keep the original purpose in mind and avoid sleeping in the same place with an unordained person whenever possible. It would also be a wise policy to avoid sleeping out in a public park, on a public beach, in an unwalled pavilion, etc., in full view of the public, even though no offense would be involved. 《戒律入口》评论说，尽管本戒条现在已不再符合其原来的目的，但比丘们应该牢记原来的目的，尽可能避免与未受具足戒的人睡在同一个地方。避免露宿在公共公园、公共海滩、没有围墙的凉亭等等完全曝露在公众视线下，也是明智之举，尽管这并不构成犯戒。
It is also worth noting that this rule encourages bhikkhus to get up and meditate before dawn every day so that they can know for sure they haven’t committed the offense here. 另外值得注意的是，本戒条鼓励比丘每天黎明（明相）前起床禅修，以便他们能确定自己没有犯下此戒。
Summary: Lying down at the same time, in the same dwelling, with a novice or layman for more than three nights running is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：与沙弥或俗人超过连续三个夜晚在同一时间、同一住处躺下，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
6 六
Should any bhikkhu lie down together (in the same dwelling) with a woman, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘与女人（在同一住处）一起躺下，波逸提。
There are only two differences between this rule and the preceding one: 本戒条与前一条戒条只有两点区别：
1) The factor of “object” here is fulfilled only by a female human being, “even one born that day, all the more an older one,” regardless of whether she is related to the bhikkhu. 1）此处「对象」因素仅由女性人类满足，「即使是当天出生的，更何况年长的」，无论她是否与比丘有亲属关系。
2) The four-night clause under “effort” is dropped, which means that the bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya the instant he lies down in the same dwelling with her. 2）删除「努力」之下的四个夜晚条款，这意味著比丘与她在同一住处躺下时，即犯《波逸提》。
Object 对象
The Vibhaṅga states that female yakkhas, petas, nāgas, devas, and animals—as well as paṇḍakas (people born neuter or castrated men)—are grounds for a dukkaṭa here. The Commentary qualifies this by saying that female animal means one with which it is possible to have intercourse, and the phrase, female yakkhas, petas, nāgas, and devas, includes only those who make themselves visible. 《经分别》指出，雌性的夜叉（yakkha）、饿鬼（peta）、龙（nāga）、天神（deva）和动物——以及黄门（paṇḍaka，生来就是中性者或被阉割的男性）——在此处则犯《突吉罗》。《义注》对此进行了限定，指出雌性动物是指可以与之性交的动物，而雌性夜叉、饿鬼、龙和天神这些词组仅包括那些让自己可被看见者。
Even if another man is present in the dwelling, it does not negate the offense. 即使住处内有另一名男子，也不免除犯戒。
Perception as to whether the other person is a woman is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 对于另一方是否为女性的感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
Intention is also not a mitigating factor. Thus a bhikkhu lying down in the same dwelling with a woman commits an offense regardless of whether he realizes that she is there. 意图也不是减轻惩罚的因素。因此，比丘如果与女人在同一住处内躺下，无论他是否意识到女人在那里，都犯了戒。
The same principles regarding perception and intention also apply to paṇḍakas: A bhikkhu who lies down in the same room with a paṇḍaka whom he thinks to be an ordinary man commits a dukkaṭa; and the same is true for a bhikkhu lying down in a dwelling not knowing that a paṇḍaka is also lying down there. 同样的关于感知和意图的原则也适用于黄门：如果比丘与他认为是普通男人的黄门在同一个房间内躺下，犯《突吉罗》；同样地，如果一个比丘躺在住处，而不知道有黄门也躺在那里，也犯《突吉罗》。
Effort 努力
A single dwelling is defined as in the preceding rule. Thus a bhikkhu sleeping in the same house as his mother, even if they are in separate rooms and another man is present, commits an offense all the same. 单一住处的定义如前一戒条规定。因此，如果比丘与母亲睡在同一间屋子里，即使他们在不同的房间，且有另一个男人在场，也一样犯了戒。
The primary point where this rule differs from the preceding one under the factor of effort is that a bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya the moment he is lying down in a dwelling at the same time a woman is lying there, with no need to count nights or dawns. This is expressed in the Vibhaṅga by saying, “If after sundown a bhikkhu is lying down when a woman is lying down, it is to be confessed.” 本戒条与前一戒条在努力因素下的主要不同点在于，当比丘在住处中躺下时，如果与一名女人同时躺下，则他即犯《波逸提》，无需计算夜晚或黎明（明相）。《经分别》中这样表达，「如果日落之后，比丘躺下，而此时有女人也躺下，《波逸提》。」
The Sub-commentary interprets this as meaning that this rule applies only at night, but the non-offense clauses in the Vibhaṅga give no exemptions for daytime or “before sundown,” which suggests that the Sub-commentary’s interpretation is invalid. What the Vibhaṅga’s statement means is that there is no need to wait until dawnrise to count the period of lying down together. As we noted under the preceding rule, there was a tendency in the time of the Canon to call a 24-hour period of day and night a “night,” and for the purpose of these two rules, this period apparently begins at sundown. The Commentary, switching to our current practice of calling a 24-hour period a day, says, “In the preceding rule, the offense is on the fourth day. Here it is right from the first day.” 《复注》将此解释为本戒条仅适用于夜间，但《经分别》中的不犯条款并未对白天或「日落之前」给予豁免，这表明《复注》的解释无效。《经分别》的意思是，不必等到黎明（明相）才计算一起躺下的周期。正如我们在前一戒条中提到的，在《圣典》时代，人们倾向于将日夜 24 小时周期称为一「夜」，而就这两条戒条目的而言，这个周期显然从日落开始。《义注》改用我们目前称 24 小时周期为一天的做法，说：「在前一戒条中，犯戒发生在第四天。这里是从第一天即犯。」
Thus, no matter what time of day or night a bhikkhu lies down in the same dwelling with a woman, he immediately incurs a pācittiya. 因此，无论白天或夜晚什么时间，比丘如果与女人在同一住处躺下，他就会立即犯《波逸提》。
The purposes of this rule 本戒条的目的
Another difference between this rule and the preceding one is the obvious point that they have different purposes. As the origin story shows, this rule is to prevent situations that might tempt a bhikkhu to commit a serious offense, such as a Pr 1 or Sg 2. 本戒条与前一条戒条的另一个明显区别是它们的目的不同。如起源故事所示，本戒条是为了防止可能诱使比丘犯下严重罪行（例如《波罗夷》一或《僧残》二）的情况。
“Then the woman, having herself prepared a bed inside (her house) for Ven. Anuruddha, having put on her jewelry and scented herself with perfumes, went to him… and said, ‘Master, you are beautiful, good-looking, and appealing. I, too, am beautiful, good-looking, and appealing. It would be good if I were to be your wife.’
「然后，那位女人在（她的屋子）内为阿那律尊者准备了一张床，戴上珠宝，喷上香水，来到他面前……说道：『大德，您美丽、好看、有魅力。我也美丽、好看、有魅力。如果我能成为您的妻子就好了。』
“When she said this, Ven. Anuruddha remained silent. So a second time…. A third time she said to him, ‘Master, you are beautiful, good-looking, and appealing. I, too, am beautiful, good-looking, and appealing. It would be good if you would take me together with all my wealth.’
「当她说这些话时，阿那律尊者保持沉默。于是第二次……第三次她对他说：『大德，您美丽、好看、有魅力。我也美丽、好看、有魅力。如果您能带我以及我所有的财富一起走，，那就太好了。』
“A third time, Ven. Anuruddha remained silent. So the woman, having slipped off her clothing, paraded up and down in front of him, stood, sat down, and then lay down in front of him. But Ven. Anuruddha, keeping control of his faculties, didn’t as much as glance at her or say even a word.
「第三次，阿那律尊者保持沉默。于是那位女人脱去衣服，在他面前走来走去，站著，坐下，然后躺在他面前。但阿奴律尊者保持对自己能力的控制，没有看她一眼，甚至没有说一句话。
“Then the thought occurred to her: ‘Isn’t it amazing! Isn’t it astounding! Many men send for me at a price of 100 or even 1,000 (a night), but this monk, even when I myself beg him, doesn’t want to take me together with all my wealth!’ So, putting her clothing back on and bowing her head at his feet, she said to him: ‘Venerable sir, a transgression has overcome me in that I was so foolish, so muddle-headed, so unskillful as to act in such a way. Please accept this confession of my transgression as such, for the sake of (my) restraint in the future.’”
「然后她想到：『这难道不奇怪！这难道不令人震惊！许多男人以（一晚） 100 甚至 1,000 的价格来找我，但这个沙门，即使我亲自请求他，也不愿意带走我以及我所有的财富！』于是，她重新穿上衣服，在他的脚下低下头，对他说：『大德，我犯了罪孽，因为我太愚昧、太糊涂、太不善，才会做出这样的事。请接受我对此罪的忏悔，以便我将来能够克制自己。』」
Ven. Anuruddha was very advanced in the practice and so was able to get through the situation with his mindfulness and precepts intact. Many a lesser bhikkhu, though, would have succumbed right from the woman’s first request, and so the Buddha formulated this rule for his protection. 阿那律尊者的修行非常精进，所以能够凭借著他的正念和戒行完整渡过难关。然而，许多修行较差的比丘在女人第一次要求时就会屈服，因此佛陀制定了本戒条来保护他。
This rule is also meant to prevent situations where suspicious people might think a bhikkhu has committed a serious offense even when he hasn’t. Like Caesar’s wife, a bhikkhu must not only be pure, he must look pure if he is to maintain his reputation. If a bhikkhu and a woman are seen going into a house together in the evening and leaving together the following morning, then even if they slept in separate rooms, suspicious neighbors—and very few neighbors aren’t suspicious of bhikkhus—would be quick to jump to conclusions. This is why no exemption is made for a bhikkhu who commits this offense unknowingly. Other people may know what is happening, and this is the sort of case where their opinion matters a great deal. For the same reason, the wise policy mentioned in the preceding rule applies even more forcefully here: A bhikkhu would be well-advised not to lie down with a woman in such places as parks, beaches, or unwalled pavilions even though in terms of the rules no offense would be involved. 本戒条也是为了防止这样的情况出现：即使比丘没有犯下严重罪行，怀疑者也可能认为他犯了严重罪行。像凯撒的妻子一样，比丘如果想保持自己的名声，不仅要纯洁，而且看起来也必须纯洁。如果比丘和女人被看到晚上一起进屋，第二天早上一起离开，那么即使他们睡在不同的房间，多疑的邻居——很少有邻居不怀疑比丘——也会很快得出结论。这就是为什么对于无意间犯下此罪的比丘不会给予豁免。其他人可能知道发生了什么，这种情况下他们的意见就非常重要。基于同样的原因，前一戒条中提到的明智之举在这里更加适用：建议比丘不要与女人在公园、海滩或没有围墙的亭子等地方躺下，即使从戒条上来说这并不构成犯戒。
There is some overlap between this rule and Pc 44 & 45, which deal with a bhikkhu sitting or lying down together in private with a woman (or women). Special cases covered by this rule not covered by those would include, for example, a bhikkhu and a woman lying down in separate rooms of the same dwelling; and a bhikkhu and a woman lying down in the same dwelling with another man present. Also, under those rules the questions of the bhikkhu’s state of mind and his awareness of the situation are important factors. Here they are of no consequence: Even a bhikkhu with the purest state of mind—or completely unknowingly—incurs a pācittiya when lying down together with a woman in the same dwelling. 本戒条与《波逸提》四四和四五有一些重叠，这两条涉及比丘与一名（或多名）女人私下一起坐或躺下。本戒条所涵盖而那些戒条不涵盖的特殊情况包括，例如，比丘与女人在同一住处的不同房间里躺下；一位比丘与一位女人在同一住处内躺下，而且还有另一位男人在场。此外，根据那些戒条，比丘的心态和对情况的认知的问题也是重要因素。在这里，它们无关紧要：即使是一位心境最纯净的比丘——或完全不知道地——在同一个住处与一位女人一起躺下时，犯《波逸提》。
Non-offenses 不犯
The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense in lying down with a woman in a dwelling that under the preceding rule would not be grounds for an offense, i.e.: 《经分别》规定，在前一戒条下不构成犯戒的住处内与女性躺下并不犯戒，即：
fully roofed but with no walls (e.g., an open pavilion),
完全覆盖屋顶但没有墙壁（例如开放式凉亭），
fully walled but with no roof (e.g., a corral),
完全覆盖墙壁但没有屋顶（例如畜栏），
less than half-roofed and less than half-walled.
屋顶和墙壁覆盖都少于一半。
The Commentary adds that these two dwellings would also not be grounds for an offense here: 《义注》也补充道，这两种住处也不会成为犯戒的理由：
half-roofed and less than half-walled,
半覆盖屋顶，而且墙壁覆盖少于一半，
less than half-roofed and half-walled.
屋顶覆盖少于一半，而且半覆盖墙壁，
Still, as noted above, a bhikkhu would be well-advised to avoid such situations whenever possible, and to have another man present when not. 然而，如上所述，建议比丘最好尽可能避免这种情况，并在无法避免时请另一个男人在场。
Summary: Lying down at the same time in the same dwelling with a woman is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：与女人在同一住处同时躺下，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
7 七
Should any bhikkhu teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a woman, unless a knowledgeable man is present, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘向女人宣讲超过五、六句佛法，除非有知识渊博的男子在场，波逸提。
“Then Ven. Udāyin, dressing early in the morning and taking his bowl and (outer) robe, went to visit a certain family. At that time the lady of the house was sitting in the main entrance, while the daughter-in-law was sitting in the door to the inner chamber. So Ven. Udāyin went to the lady of the house… and whispered Dhamma into her ear. The daughter-in-law thought, ‘Is this monk my mother-in-law’s lover, or is he being fresh with her?’ Then, having whispered Dhamma into the ear of the lady of the house, Ven. Udāyin went to the daughter-in-law… and whispered Dhamma into her ear. The lady of the house thought, ‘Is this monk my daughter-in-law’s lover, or is he being fresh with her?’ After whispering Dhamma into the daughter-in-law’s ear, Ven. Udāyin left. So the lady of the house said to the daughter-in-law, ‘Hey. What did that monk say to you?’
「尔时，优陀夷尊者一大早就穿好衣服，拿著钵和袈裟（外衣）去拜访一户人家。那时，女主人正坐在正门，儿媳正坐在内室门口。于是，优陀夷尊者来到女主人那里……并在她耳边低声说了佛法。儿媳心里想：『这位沙门是不是我婆婆的情人？还是他在对她调情？』于是，在女主人耳边低声说了佛法后，优陀夷尊者来到儿媳身边...并在她耳边低声说了佛法。女主人想：『这位沙门是我儿媳的情人吗？还是他在对她调情？』在媳妇耳边低声说了佛法后，优陀夷尊者离开了。于是女主人就对儿媳说：『嘿。那个沙门对你说了什么？』
“‘He taught me Dhamma, ma’am. And what did he say to you?’
「『他教我佛法，夫人。他对你说了什么？』
“‘He taught me Dhamma, too.’
「『他也教我佛法。』
“So they criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can Ven. Udāyin whisper Dhamma into women’s ears? Shouldn’t the Dhamma be taught openly and out loud?’”
「因此他们批评、抱怨并四处散播，『优陀夷尊者怎么能在女人耳边低声说佛法呢？佛法难道不应该公开地大声宣说吗？』」
The two factors for the full offense here are: 此处完全违犯的两个因素是：
1) Object: a female human being who knows what is and is not lewd, what is well-spoken and ill-spoken, and who has not asked one a question about the Dhamma. 1）对象：知道什么是淫秽，什么不是淫秽，什么是善说，什么是恶说，并且尚未请问有关佛法的问题的女性人类。
2) Effort: One teaches her more than six sentences of Dhamma without a knowledgeable man present—i.e., a male human being who also knows what is and is not lewd, what is well-spoken and ill-spoken. 2）努力：在没有知识渊博男人在场的情况下，为她教授六句以上佛法。在场男人需要懂得什么是淫秽，什么是非淫秽，什么是善说，什么是恶说。
Object 对象
The word woman covers women as well: If a bhikkhu is with two or more women but without a knowledgeable man present, he may teach them no more than five or six sentences of Dhamma. Perception as to whether the person being taught is a woman or a man is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 女人一词也涵盖女人们：如果一位比丘与两名或两名以上的女人在一起，但没有知识渊博的男子在场，则他只能为她们教授不超过五六句佛法。受教者是女性还是男性的感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
According to the Vibhaṅga, a female yakkha, a female peta, a paṇḍaka, or an animal (probably a nāga) in the form of a human woman are each grounds for a dukkaṭa here. 根据《经分别》，女性夜叉、女性饿鬼、黄门或化身为人类女性的动物（可能是龙）在此均犯《突吉罗》。
Effort 努力
This factor contains two sub-factors requiring explanation: “Dhamma” and “six sentences.” 此因素包含两个需要解释的子因素：「佛法」与「六句」。
Dhamma 佛法
Dhamma the Vibhaṅga defines in the same terms as under Pc 4: “a saying made by the Buddha, his disciples, seers, or heavenly beings, connected with the teaching, connected with the goal (attha).” 《经分别》对佛法的定义与《波逸提》四相同：「佛陀、其弟子、先知或天人所说的话，与教导相关，与目标（attha）相关。」
Precisely what this means is a point of controversy. The Commentary identifies “sayings made by the Buddha, his disciples, seers, or heavenly beings” with different parts of the Pali Canon—in Pali—and then treats “connected with the teaching, connected with the goal” as nouns, the first referring to the Canon, and the second to the ancient commentary named the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā. This last point is highly unlikely, as the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā did not yet exist when the Canon was being composed. 这究竟意味著什么是一个争论点。《义注》将「佛陀、其弟子、先知或天人所说的话」与巴利《圣典》的不同部分联系起来——用巴利语——然后将「与教导相关、与目标相关」视为名词，前者指的是《圣典》，后者指的是名为《Mahā Aṭṭhakathā》的古代注释。最后这一点极不可能，因为在编纂《圣典》时，《Mahā Aṭṭhakathā》尚未存在。
There are two alternatives to the Commentary’s interpretation: One follows the Commentary in treating “connected with the teaching, connected with the goal” as nouns, but interprets them as meaning any statement dealing with the Dhamma, no matter what language it is in, and regardless of whether it is quoted from a text. Thus, according to this interpretation, anything a bhikkhu would say about the Dhamma—quoted from the Canon, from a later text, or of his own invention—would count as Dhamma here. 《义注》的解读有两种替代解释：一种是沿袭《义注》，将「与教导相关、与目标相关」视为名词，但将其解读为任何与佛法有关的陈述，无论使用何种语言，也无论是否引自文献。因此，根据这种解释，比丘所说的关于佛法的任何内容——无论是引自《圣典》、后来的文献还是他自己的发明——在这里都算是佛法。
The second interpretation regards “connected with the teaching, connected with the goal” as adjectives modifying “sayings made by the Buddha, his disciples, seers, or heavenly beings.” This makes more sense in terms of Pali syntax—the terms are in the masculine case, agreeing with the word dhammo, whereas they probably would have been in the neuter case had they been intended as nouns. This limits the meaning of Dhamma in this rule to passages from the Canon, but not necessarily in the Pali language. Translations from the Canon would also come under the rule, as there is a passage in the Cullavagga (V.33.1) where the Buddha allows bhikkhus to learn Dhamma each in his own language, thus showing, contrary to the Commentary, that Dhamma does not have to be in Pali to be Dhamma. 第二种解释是，以「与教导相关、与目的相关」当作修饰「佛陀、其弟子、先知或天人所说的话」的形容词。从巴利语法的角度来看，这更说得通——这些术语是阳性格，与 dhammo 一词一致，而如果它们是用作名词，则它们可能为中性格。这就将本戒条中佛法的意思限制为《圣典》中的段落，但不一定是巴利语。来自《圣典》的翻译也算在本戒条，因为在《小品》（五.33.1）中有一段文字，佛陀允许比丘们用自己的语言学习佛法，因此与《义注》相反，这表明佛法不一定非要用巴利语才是佛法。
However, both interpretations have their adherents at present, and the question comes down to what one perceives to be the purpose of the rule. Adherents of the first interpretation say that the rule is designed to prevent the sort of suspicions that arise when a bhikkhu is talking at length alone with a woman, but this argument does not fit with the Buddha’s allowance for a bhikkhu to give a talk when a woman asks him for instruction. 然而，目前这两种解释都有其拥护者，问题归结为认为本戒条的目的是什么。支持第一种解释的人说，本戒条是为了防止当比丘与女人单独长时间交谈时产生的那种怀疑，但是这种说法与佛陀允许比丘在女人向他寻求指导时给予开示的规定不符。
It is more likely that the rule is aimed at preventing a bhikkhu from using his knowledge of Dhamma as a come-on, a way of making himself attractive to a woman. As any man who teaches Dhamma soon learns, there are women who find such knowledge irresistible. To view the rule in this light makes either of the two interpretations tenable, so the wise policy is to adhere to the interpretation of the Community to which one belongs. 更可能的情况是，这条戒条旨在防止比丘利用他的佛法知识来吸引女性。任何教授佛法的男人很快就会发现，有些女人对于这种知识有著难以抗拒的吸引力。从这个角度来看这个戒条使得两种解释中的任何一种都是站得住脚的，因此明智之举是遵循自己所属僧团的解释。
This rule applies to telephone conversations as well as to conversations in person, but because the Pv.I.5.7 notes that it deals only with the spoken word, it does not cover letters or other written communications. 本戒条适用于电话交谈和面对面交谈，但由于《附随》.一.5.7指出它仅涉及口头交谈，因此不涵盖信件或其他书面交流。
Six sentences 六句
As for the amount of Dhamma a bhikkhu may say to a woman or women without a knowledgeable man present, the Pali word for “sentence,” (vācā), can also mean “word,” but the Commentary states specifically that one vācā is approximately equal to a line of verse. The Sub-commentary goes on to say that the Commentary’s definition here applies to poetry, while one vācā of prose is equal to the conjugation of a verb, i.e., six words. In either case, six vācās would amount to six sentences. 至于在没有知识渊博的男人在场的情况下，比丘可以对一位或多位女人说多少佛法，表示「句子」的巴利单字（vācā）也可以表示「单字」，但《义注》具体指出，一个 vācā 大约等于一行诗句。《复注》继续说道，此处《义注》的定义适用于诗歌，而散文的一个 vācā 等于一个动词的变位，即六个单字。无论哪种情况，六个 vācā 都等于六句话。
Offenses are counted as follows: If one is teaching the Dhamma line-by-line, one incurs a pācittiya for each line; if syllable-by-syllable, a pācittiya for each syllable. 犯戒的计算方式如下：如果正在逐行宣讲佛法，则每行犯一次《波逸提》；如果是逐个音节的话，则每个音节一次《波逸提》。
Conversations on other topics 关于其他主题的对话
Strangely enough, neither the Vibhaṅga nor the Commentary makes mention of conversations with women that do not touch on the Dhamma. The Sub-commentary notes this, and in one of its rare stabs at humor concludes, “It’s perfectly all right to talk as much as you like about Tamils and that sort of thing.” 奇怪的是，《经分别》和《义注》都没有提到与女性的不涉及佛法的对话。《复注》中提到了这一点，并在一次罕见的幽默尝试中总结道：「你想怎么谈论泰米尔人或类似的事情，完全没问题。」
Conversation that does not deal with the Dhamma, though, is termed “animal talk” (tiracchāna-kathā) in the Canon, and there are several passages (e.g., the Vibhaṅgas to Pc 21 & 85; Mv.V.6.3-4) that criticize group-of-six bhikkhus for engaging in animal talk: worldly talk about “kings, robbers, and ministers of state (politics); armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; also philosophical discussions of the past and future (this is how the Sub-commentary to Pc 85 explains ‘tales of diversity’), the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not.” The Sub-commentary notes, though, that to discuss any of these topics in a way to foster an understanding of the Dhamma—e.g., discussing the impermanence of worldly power—is not considered improper. 但是，与佛法无关的谈话在《圣典》中被称为「畜生论」（tiracchāna-kathā），有几处段落（例如，《波逸提》二一和八五的《经分别》；《大品》.五.6.3-4）批评六群比丘从事畜生论：关于「国王、盗贼、和大臣（政治）；军队、怖畏、和战争；饮食；衣服、家具、花环、和香水；亲属；车辆；村庄、城镇、城市、乡村；女人和英雄；街上和井边的闲言碎语；死者的故事；还有关于过去和未来的哲学讨论（这就是《波逸提》八五的《复注》对「多样性故事」的解释），世界和海洋的创造，以及事物是否存在的谈论。」然而，《复注》指出，以促进对佛法的理解的方式讨论这些话题中的任何一个——例如，讨论世俗权力的无常——并不被认为是不恰当的。
Although there is no specific penalty for indulging in such worldly talk, a bhikkhu who indulges in it with lay people, bhikkhus, or novices to the point where he becomes offensive to the Community may be subject to an act of censure, banishment, or suspension on the grounds of “unbecoming association with householders” or “verbal frivolity.” Furthermore, a bhikkhu sitting alone with a woman (or women) engaging in such talk would be subject to the conditions of Pc 44 or 45 and Ay 1 or 2. 虽然对于沉迷于此类世俗谈话没有具体的惩罚，但是如果比丘与俗人、比丘或沙弥沉迷于此类谈话，以至于冒犯了僧团，则可能会因「与居士不当交往」或「言语轻浮」而受到呵责、驱出或举罪。此外，如果一个比丘独自与一名（或多名）女人坐在一起并进行此类谈话，则将属于《波逸提》四四或四五以及《不定》一或二的情况。
It is also worth noting in this regard that, unlike Pc 44 & 45 and Ay 1 & 2, this rule covers situations where either the bhikkhu or the woman, or both, are standing. In other words, if a bhikkhu and a woman are conversing while standing, he may teach her at most six sentences of Dhamma unless any of the non-offense clauses apply. 在这方面也值得注意的是，与《波逸提》四四和四五以及《不定》一和二不同，本戒条涵盖了比丘或女人，或两者皆站立的情况。换句话说，如果一位比丘和一位女人站著交谈，他最多可以教她六句佛法，除非适用任何不犯条款。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if, after the bhikkhu teaches the woman six sentences of Dhamma, either he or she changes position—stands up, sits down, etc.—and he continues with six more sentences. This point was most likely included to indicate separate conversations. Once a bhikkhu has taught five or six sentences to a woman, he may teach her again when they meet again and is not condemned to silence for the rest of his life. 如果比丘教导了女人六句佛法之后，他或她改变姿势——站起来、坐下等等——然后继续另外六句话，并不犯戒。这一点很可能是为了表明不同的对话。一旦比丘向一位女人教导了五六句话，他可以在他们再次见面时再次教导她，而不会被判处终身沉默。
Another exemption is that a bhikkhu, after teaching six sentences of Dhamma to one woman, may turn and teach six more sentences to another without incurring a penalty. Thus the Commentary notes that a bhikkhu addressing an assembly of 100 women may teach them a total of 600 sentences of Dhamma if he aims each set of six at a different woman. 另一项豁免是，比丘在向一名女人教导了六句佛法之后，可以转而向另一名女人教导另外六句，而不会受到惩罚。因此，《义注》指出，如果一位比丘对著 100 名女人的集会发表演说，如果他将每六句佛法针对不同的女人，那么他总共可以向她们教导 600 句佛法。
A third exemption is that there is no penalty for a bhikkhu who is teaching Dhamma to someone else, and a woman happens to be listening in. 第三个豁免是，如果比丘正在向其他人教导佛法，而有一位女人恰好在听，则不会受到惩罚。
Finally, as noted above, if a woman asks a bhikkhu a question, he may give her a talk even if no other man is present. This exemption is common to all the rules that deal with instructing women (see Pc 21 & 22), but precisely what it means is somewhat uncertain, as none of the texts define how teaching Dhamma (dhammaṁ deseti) differs from giving a talk (katheti), if they differ at all. The Commentary notes simply that in giving a talk one is not limited to six sentences; its example of a ‘talk’ is a recitation of the complete Dīgha Nikāya (!), which shows that, as far as the commentators are concerned, teaching Dhamma and giving a talk are essentially the same. Thus a bhikkhu may answer a woman’s question about Dhamma with a talk including as many sentences of Dhamma as he needs to make his point clear. 最后，如上所述，如果一个女人向比丘问一个问题，即使在场没有其他男人，比丘也可以和她谈话。这种豁免在所有涉及教导女性的戒条中都很常见（见《波逸提》二一和二二），但它的具体含义有些不确定，因为没有任何文献定义教导佛法（dhammaṁ deseti）与讲说（katheti）有何不同，如果它们有任何区别的话。《义注》只是指出，讲说不限于六句话；其「讲说」的例子是朗诵完整的《长部》（！），这表明，就注释者而言，教导佛法和讲说本质上是一样的。因此，比丘可以在讲说用他所需尽可能多的佛法句子来回答女人关于佛法的问题，以阐明他的观点。
This allowance is important in that it honors a woman’s desire to understand the Dhamma. A wise policy, though, would be to show restraint in such situations. The relationship of male teacher to female student has a long, well-known history of getting out of hand. Even if a bhikkhu is in control of himself in such conversations, passers-by—and the woman herself—can easily misconstrue his words and actions. So, wherever possible, he should go out of his way to guard himself against suspicion and misunderstandings in such cases by having a man present when talking alone with a woman, even though the special exemption is made. 这项开缘很重要，因为它尊重了女性理解佛法的愿望。不过，在这种情况下，明智之举是保持克制。男导师与女弟子之间的关系由来已久，众所周知，这种关系很容易失控。即使比丘在这样的谈话中能够控制自己，路人——包括女人自己——也很容易误解他的话语和行为。因此，只要有可能，他应该尽量保护自己避免在这种情况下产生怀疑和误解，在与女性单独交谈时最好有一位男性在场，即使有特殊豁免。
Summary: Teaching more than six sentences of Dhamma to a woman, except in response to a question, is a pācittiya offense unless a knowledgeable man is present. 摘要：除了是为了回答问题，否则向女性教导超过六句佛法，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪，除非有知识渊博的男性在场。
* * *
8 八
Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘向未受具足戒的人报告（他自己的）上人法，如果这是事实，波逸提。
The factors for the full offense here are two: 此处完全违犯的因素有二：
1) Effort: One reports one’s actual attainment of a superior human state
1）努力：报告自己实际达到的上人法
2) Object: to an unordained person, i.e., any human being who is not a bhikkhu or bhikkhunī.
2）对象：非受具足戒者，即不是比丘或比丘尼的任何人。
The commentaries add an extra factor here—result—but this is based on the same misunderstanding that led them to add the same factor to Pr 4. See the explanation under “Understanding,” below. 注释书在这里添加了一个额外的因素——结果——但这是基于相同的误解，导致他们在《波罗夷》四中添加了相同的因素。请参阅下面「理解」下的解释。
Effort 努力
Effort is the only factor requiring explanation here. 努力是这里唯一需要解释的因素。
The meaning of superior human state is discussed at length under Pr 4. In brief, it covers (a) jhāna, (b) the cognitive powers that can arise as its result, and (c) the transcendent attainments. 《波罗夷》四详细讨论了上人法的意义。简言之，它涵盖（a）禅那，（b）由此结果而产生的感知能力，以及（c）出世间的成就。
Factual is not explained in the texts, but probably means factual from the bhikkhu’s own point of view. In other words, regardless of whether he has actually attained a superior human state, if he thinks he has and reports it to an unordained person, he commits an offense all the same. If he actually has attained such a state, e.g., jhāna, but thinks he hasn’t, and yet claims that he has—in other words, he is telling what he thinks to be a lie—he incurs a pārājika. 文献中没有解释事实，但可能意味著从比丘自己的角度来看为事实。换句话说，不管他实际上是否已经达到上法，如果他认为自己已经达到，并向没有受具足戒的人报告，那么他就同样犯了戒。如果他实际上已达到这种状态，例如禅那，但认为自己还没有，却又声称自己已经达到——换句话说，他在说自认为是谎言的话——他就犯了《波罗夷》。
To report, says the Vibhaṅga, means to speak directly of one’s own attainments, as explained under Pr 4—i.e., to claim that the state is present in oneself or that one is present in the state. To speak indirectly of one’s own attainments—e.g., “The bhikkhu who lives in this dwelling enters jhāna at will”—entails a dukkaṭa. According to the Commentary, gestures fall under this rule as well. Thus, if a bhikkhu who has attained stream-entry nods when asked by a lay person if he has any noble attainments, his nod would fulfill the factor of effort here. As under Pr 4, the use of idioms to express a superior human attainment would fulfill the factor of effort as well. 《经分别》中说，报告的意思是直接谈论自己的成就，如《波罗夷》四所解释的，即声称这种状态存在于自己身上或自己处于这种状态中。间接地谈论自己的成就——例如，「住在此住处的比丘随意进入禅那」——犯《突吉罗》。根据《义注》，示意动作也属于本戒条。因此，如果一位已证入流果的比丘在被俗人问及他是否有任何圣成就时点头，他的点头就满足了这里的努力因素。如《波罗夷》四所述，使用成语来表达上人法也会满足努力因素。
The origin story to this rule deals with bhikkhus who, as a tactic for getting almsfood in a time of scarcity, had agreed to speak of one another’s superior human states to householders. This would seem to suggest that to speak of another bhikkhu’s actual attainment of superior human states with such motives in mind—e.g., hoping to get a share of the increased gains he might receive—should entail a penalty too, but none of the texts mention this point, so it is not an offense. Still, any bhikkhu who plans to act in such a way, on the grounds that whatever is not an offense is perfectly all right, should remember that the Buddha criticized the bhikkhus in the origin story in very strong terms. 本戒条的起源故事与比丘有关，作为在食物匮乏时获取施舍食物的策略，他们同意向在家人讲述彼此的上人法。这似乎意味著，如果心中以这样的动机谈论另一位比丘实际上达到了上人法——例如，希望获得他可能得到的增加的收益的一部分——也应该受到惩罚，但没有任何文献提到这一点，所以这并不是一种犯戒。然而，任何比丘如果打算这样做，理由是只要不构成犯戒，就完全没问题，那么他应该记住，佛陀非常严厉地批评了在起源故事中的比丘们。
Understanding 理解
The Vibhaṅga contains a series of situations in which understanding is a factor, paralleling a similar series given under Pr 4. In each of the situations, a bhikkhu means to claim one superior human state but ends up claiming another. None of the texts mention this point, but apparently in these cases the state intended has to be actually present within him, whereas the state mentioned by mistake does not. At any rate, if he realizes his slip of the tongue, he incurs a pācittiya; if not, a dukkaṭa. 《经分别》包含一系列以理解为因素的情况，与《波罗夷》四所举的一系列类似情况相似。在每一种情况下，比丘都想宣称一种上人法，但最终却宣称另一种。没有任何文献提到这一点，但显然在这些情况下，预期的状态必须实际存在于他身上，而错误提到的状态却不存在。无论如何，如果他意识到自己的口误，犯《波逸提》；如果没有意识到，犯《突吉罗》。
Unlike Pr 4, the bhikkhu’s understanding when he makes an indirect claim to a superior human state here is not an issue. He incurs a dukkaṭa whether he understands the implications of his statement or not. 与《波罗夷》四不同的是，当比丘在此间接声称上人法时，他的理解并不成问题。无论他是否理解自己言论的涵义，他都犯《突吉罗》。
Intention is not a factor under this rule. Thus, whether one has a skillful or an unskillful motive for mentioning one’s factual superior human attainments to an unordained person is irrelevant to the offense. 根据本戒条，意图不是一个因素。因此，向未受具足戒的人提及自己事实的上人法时，其动机是否善或恶，与犯戒无关。
Non-offenses 不犯
The Vibhaṅga lists only two non-offense clauses: There is no offense in reporting one’s own superior human attainments to another bhikkhu or to a bhikkhunī, and there is no offense for the original instigators of the rule. The Commentary, noting the absence of the usual exemption for one who is insane, explains it as follows: A person who has attained any of the noble attainments can never become insane; a person who has attained jhāna can become insane only after his/her ability to attain jhāna has been lost. A bhikkhu in the latter category has no right to claim jhāna as a state “present in himself” and therefore does not deserve an exemption under this rule. This last point, however, conflicts with the Vibhaṅga, which includes claims stated in the past tense—for example, “I have attained the first jhāna”—as examples of legitimate claims. A more likely explanation for the lack of the blanket exemptions under this rule is that they are already exempted under Pr 4. 《经分别》只列出了两条不犯条款：向另一位比丘或比丘尼报告自己上人法成就并不犯戒，并且最初犯本戒条的人也不犯戒。《义注》指出，精神失常者没有一般的豁免，并解释如下：达到任何圣成就的人永远不会变得精神失常；已达到禅那的人只有在失去达到禅那的能力后才会变得精神失常。后一类的比丘无权声称禅那是「存在于他自己身上」的状态，因此不值得根据本戒条获得豁免。然而，最后一点与《经分别》相冲突，《经分别》包括以过去时态陈述的声称——例如「我已经达到初禅」——作为合法声称的例子。对于本戒条下缺乏全面豁免的更可能的解释是，它们已经根据《波罗夷》四获得豁免。
As for the first exemption, allowing a bhikkhu to claim his factual attainments to another bhikkhu or bhikkhunī, a series of stories in the Vinīta-vatthu to Pr 4 raises some points to bear in mind in such situations. A typical example—the stories differ only in minor details—is this: 至于第一项豁免，即允许比丘向另一位比丘或比丘尼声称其实际成就，《波罗夷》四的《Vinīta-vatthu》中的一系列故事提出了一些在这种情况下需要牢记的要点。一个典型的例子——这些故事只在细节上有所不同——是这样的：
“Then Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, as he was descending Vulture Peak Mountain, smiled at a certain place. Ven. Lakkhaṇa said to him, ‘Friend Moggallāna, what is the reason, what is the cause for your smile?’
「尔时，摩诃目犍连尊者从灵鹫山下来时，对著某处微笑。勒佉㝹尊者对他说：『目犍连朋友，您微笑的因缘是什么？』
“‘This is not the time, friend Lakkhaṇa, to answer this question. Ask me in the presence of the Blessed One.’
「『勒佉㝹朋友，现在不是回答这个问题的时候。在世尊面前问我。』
“So Ven. Lakkhaṇa and Ven. Mahā Moggallāna… went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, Ven. Lakkhaṇa said to Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, ‘Just now, friend Moggallāna… you smiled. What was the reason, what was the cause for your smile?’
「于是，勒佉㝹尊者和摩诃目犍连尊者……来到世尊面前，一到世尊面前，便向世尊顶礼，坐在一边。当他们坐在那里时，勒佉㝹尊者对摩诃目犍连尊者说：『刚才，目犍连朋友……你微笑了。你微笑的因缘是什么？』
“‘Just now, my friend… I saw a man immersed head and all in a pit of excrement, feeding on excrement with both hands. The thought occurred to me, “Isn’t it amazing, isn’t it astounding, that there is a being even like this….”’
「『刚才，我的朋友……我看到一个男人头和全身都浸在粪坑里，用双手吃著粪土。我突然想到，「难道这不令人惊奇，难道这不令人震惊，竟然还有这样的生物……」』
“Bhikkhus criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘Ven. Moggallāna is boasting of a superior human state!’
「比丘们批评、抱怨并四处散播：『目犍连尊者夸耀上人法！』
“Then the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus, ‘Actually, bhikkhus, there are disciples of vision and knowledge who will know or see or bear witness like this. Once I myself saw that being but I didn’t disclose it. Had I disclosed it, others would not have believed me… and that would have been to their long-term pain and detriment. That being, bhikkhus, was once a corrupted brahman right in this very same Rājagaha. He, in the time of the Buddha Kassapa, having invited a Community of bhikkhus to a meal, having filled a trough with excrement and announcing the time, said, “Venerable sirs, eat from this and take with you as much as you like.” Having been boiled in hell as a result of that action for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, many hundreds of thousands of years, he is now—through the remainder of the result of that very same action—experiencing existence as an individual like this. Moggallāna spoke truly, bhikkhus. There is no offense for him.’”
「然后世尊对比丘们说：『比丘们，实际上，有知见的弟子会知道、看到或见证这样的事。我曾经亲眼看到那个众生，但我没有透露。如果我透露了，其他人不会相信我……那将给他们带来长期的痛苦和损害。比丘们，那个人曾经就是这个王舍城里的堕落婆罗门。在迦叶佛的时代，他邀请一群比丘僧团来吃饭，用粪盆装满粪便，然后宣布时间说：「大德们，请吃这个，想拿多少就拿多少。」由于这一行为，他在地狱中被煎熬了很多年、几百年、几千年、几十万年，现在，他——透过该同一行为的剩余果报——感受如是自体之存在。比丘们，目犍连言语真实。他没有犯戒。』」
Ven. Moggallāna’s conduct here—waiting until he is in the presence of his teacher before relating his vision—has become a model for conduct among meditators, for as the bhikkhus’ reaction and the Buddha’s comments make clear, there are situations where the act of relating one’s visions, etc., even when allowed, will serve no positive purpose. 此处目犍连尊者的行为——等到他的老师面前才讲述他的所见——已经成为禅修者行为的典范，因为正如比丘们的反应和佛陀的评论所表明的那样，在某些情况下，讲述自己所见的行为等等，即使被允许，也不会起到任何积极的作用。
Displaying psychic powers 展示神通
A related rule at Cv.V.8.2 states that to display psychic powers to lay people is a dukkaṭa. In the origin story leading up to that rule, the Buddha levels strong criticism at such an act: “Just as a woman might expose her vagina for a miserable wooden māsaka coin, so too have you displayed a superior human state, a wonder of psychic power, to lay people for the sake of a miserable wooden bowl.” 《小品》.五.8.2 中的相关戒条规定，向俗人展示神通力犯《突吉罗》。在制定该戒条的起源故事中，佛陀对这种行为提出了强烈的批评：「就像一个女人会为了一枚可怜的木制 māsaka 硬币而暴露她的阴道一样，你也为了一个可怜的木钵，向俗人展示了上人法，神通奇迹。」
To display psychic powers to anyone who is not a lay person, though, is no offense. Thus, given the way these two rules are framed, one may not tell a novice of one’s powers but may levitate before his very eyes. 然而，向任何非俗人展示神通并不犯戒。因此，根据这两条戒条的制定方式，不可告诉沙弥自己的能力，但可以在他眼前悬浮起来。
Summary: To tell an unordained person of one’s actual superior human attainments is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：告诉未受具足戒者自己实际的上人法，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
9 九
Should any bhikkhu report (another) bhikkhu’s serious offense to an unordained person—unless authorized by the bhikkhus—it is to be confessed.
若任何比丘向非受具足戒者告知（另一位）比丘的严重罪行 —— 除非得到比丘们的授权 —— 波逸提。
“At that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan had gotten into a quarrel with some group-of-six bhikkhus. Having committed an offense of intentional emission of semen, he asked the Community to grant him probation…. Now at that time a certain guild in Sāvatthī was presenting a meal to the Community. Ven. Upananda, being on probation, sat in the last seat in the meal hall. The group-of-six bhikkhus said to the lay people, ‘Friends, this Ven. Upananda the Sakyan, your esteemed dependent, emitted semen having attacked (himself) with the very same hand with which he is eating your gift of faith…. (This is why), being on probation, he is sitting in the last seat.’”
「尔时，释迦族乌跋难陀尊者与六群比丘发生争执。他犯了故意出精的罪，因此请求僧团给予别住……当时，舍卫城的某个行会正在为僧团提供一顿饭。处于别住中的乌跋难陀尊者坐在食堂的最后一个座位上。那六群比丘对居士们说：『各位朋友，这位释迦族乌跋难陀尊者，您的尊贵眷属，用吃您的信施的同一只手攻击（他自己），然后射精了……（这就是为什么）处于别住中，他坐在最后一个座位上。
There are two factors for the full offense here: 此处的完全违犯有两个因素：
1) Object: a serious offense committed by another bhikkhu. 1）对象：另一位比丘所犯下的严重罪行。
2) Effort: One reports it to an unordained person without having been authorized to do so by the Community. 2）努力：未经僧团授权，就向未受具足戒者告知。
Object 对象
The Vibhaṅga states that serious offense means any of the four pārājika or thirteen saṅghādisesa offenses, while Buddhaghosa reports the ancient commentaries as saying that it covers only the saṅghādisesas. His discussion of this point is interesting for the light it throws on the history of the texts: He presents two arguments for the commentaries’ position, effectively demolishes them, but then backs down and ends up siding with them. Why he does this is hard to say, although it may be that he himself disagreed with the ancient commentaries on this point but was forced to side with them by the elders of the Mahāvihāra who were responsible for putting the seal of approval on his work. 《经分别》说，严重罪行是指四种《波罗夷》罪或十三种《僧残》罪中任何一种，而佛音引述古代注释书说，严重罪行仅涵盖《僧残》。他对这一点的讨论很有趣，因为它揭示了文献的历史：他为注释书的立场提出了两个论点，有效地驳斥了它们，但后来又退缩并最终站在了他们一边。他为什么这样做很难说，虽然很可能他自己不同意古代对这一点的注释，但被负责批准他的作品的大寺长老们强迫站在他们这边。
At any rate, the details of the argument lie outside the scope of this guide. The Vinaya-mukha has already adopted Buddhaghosa’s arguments against the ancient commentaries here, and we will simply follow our usual policy of siding with the Vibhaṅga wherever the other texts depart from it. Serious offense means both the four pārājikas and the thirteen saṅghādisesas. 无论如何，争论的细节超出了本指南的范围。《戒律入口》已经采纳了佛音的论点来反对这里的古代注释书，而我们将仅遵循我们一贯的政策，即在其他文献与《经分别》相悖的地方站在《经分别》这一方。严重罪行是指四《波罗夷》和十三《僧残》。
A bhikkhu’s non-serious offenses are grounds for a dukkaṭa. 比丘的非严重罪行则犯《突吉罗》。
Perception as to whether the bhikkhu’s offense is serious is not a mitigating factor. If it actually is serious, then whether one perceives it as serious, not serious, or doubtful, it is grounds for a pācittiya. If it actually is not serious, then regardless of how one perceives it, it is grounds for a dukkaṭa. In other words, the pattern set out under Pc 4 does not hold here. 对比丘的罪行是否严重的感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素。如果确实严重，那么无论认为它严重、不严重，还是有疑问，都犯《波逸提》。如果实际上并不严重，那么无论如何感知它，都犯《突吉罗》。换句话说，《波逸提》四所列出的模式在这里并不成立。
An unordained person’s misbehavior—serious or not—is also grounds for a dukkaṭa. (§—BD translates the passage on which this last point is based as, “tells one who is not ordained of a transgression” when it should read, “tells of an unordained person’s transgression.”) According to the Commentary, serious misbehavior on the part of an unordained person means breaking any of the five precepts. Anything else would count as not serious. 未受具足戒者的不当行为──无论严重与否──也构成《突吉罗》。（§—《戒律书》将最后一点所依据的段落翻译为「告诉未受具足戒者违犯」，而应读为「告诉未受具足戒者的违犯」。）根据《义注》，未受具足戒者的严重不当行为意味著违犯五戒中的任何一条。其他任何事情都不算严重。
This dukkaṭa penalty for informing an unordained person about another unordained person’s transgressions of the precepts, though frequently overlooked in discussions of this rule, is important. It seems aimed at keeping bhikkhus from being gossips, so that novices and lay people may seek advice from a bhikkhu concerning the difficulties they have in observing the precepts without fear that he will spread the news to other unordained people as well. 告知未受具足戒者关于另一名未受具足戒者违反戒律会受到《突吉罗》惩罚，虽然在讨论本戒条时经常被忽视，但却是重要的。其目的似乎是为了防止比丘们说闲话，以便沙弥和俗人可以就他们在遵守戒律方面遇到的困难向比丘寻求建议，而不必担心他也会把这个消息传播给其他非受具足戒者。
This also helps preserve the good faith of donors: They can give their support to the bhikkhus without fear that the recipients of their support might be gossiping about their lapses in the practice behind their backs. If donors were to learn that a bhikkhu had been gossiping about them, they might become so disgusted as to withdraw their support from the religion as a whole. 这也有助于维护施主的信心：他们可以为比丘提供支持，而不必担心接受支持的人会在背后议论他们修行上的失误。如果施主得知比丘在说他们的闲话，他们可能会感到非常厌恶，以至于撤回对整个宗教的支持。
Effort 努力
Unordained person here means anyone who is not a bhikkhu or a bhikkhunī. 此处的未受具足戒者指的是除比丘或比丘尼之外的任何人。
To report an offense to an unordained person means to tell him/her both the action and the class of the offense. Thus, to say, “Ven. Upananda committed a saṅghādisesa by masturbating,” would fulfill the factor of effort here; while to say simply, “Ven. Upananda committed a saṅghādisesa,” or “Ven. Upananda masturbated,” would not, and would not even be grounds for a lesser offense. None of the texts discuss the question of whether the same principle would apply to the offenses of an unordained person. 向未受具足戒者告知犯戒意味著告诉他/她犯戒的行为和种类。因此，说「乌跋难陀尊者透过自慰犯了《僧残》」，就满足了这里的努力因素；而仅说「乌跋难陀尊者犯了《僧残》」或「乌跋难陀尊者自慰」则不算，甚至不能构成较轻的罪行。没有任何文献讨论过同一原则是否适用于未受具足戒者的罪行的问题。
This allowance, which looks strange on the surface, was made apparently for such cases as when a lay person, seeing a senior bhikkhu sitting at the end of the line, might ask one of the other bhikkhus why. A bhikkhu would be well-advised, though, to examine his motives before making use of this allowance, for to take advantage of it to discredit a fellow bhikkhu would be to incur a dukkaṭa under Pc 13. Though the penalty is minor, little acts and minor offenses of this sort are often the ones most destructive to the harmony of the Community. 这种开缘表面上看起来很奇怪，显然是为了应对这样的情况：当一个俗人看到一位资深比丘坐在队伍的末尾，可能会问另一个比丘为什么。然而，比丘在利用这项开缘之前，最好先检查一下自己的动机，因为利用它来使比丘同侪名誉受损，根据《波逸提》十三犯《突吉罗》。虽然惩罚很轻，但这种小行为和小过失往往对僧团的和谐最具破坏性。
None of the texts state that the person whose offense is being reported has to be mentioned explicitly to fulfill this factor. Thus, apparently, implicit references (“The bhikkhu who lives in that dwelling committed a saṅghādisesa by masturbating”) would fulfill the factor of effort here as well. 没有任何文献指出必须明确提及被报导的罪行的人才能满足这一因素。因此，显然，隐含的提及（「住在那住处的比丘透过自慰犯了《僧残》」）在这里也满足了努力的因素。
The authorization 授权
The Vibhaṅga does not give any indication of when the Community should authorize a bhikkhu to tell unordained people about another bhikkhu’s serious offense. As the Vinaya-mukha sees it, the purpose of the training rule is to prevent bhikkhus from advertising one another’s faults among people outside the Community. However, there are cases, it says, where a bhikkhu may commit a serious offense and refuse to acknowledge it, as when committing a pārājika and yet continuing to assume the status of a bhikkhu, or committing a saṅghādisesa and refusing to go through the procedures for rehabilitation. Thus the Community in such cases is allowed to authorize one of its members to inform lay people, such as the bhikkhu’s supporters, as a way of exerting pressure on him to submit to his penalty. 《经分别》并未指示僧团何时应该授权比丘向未受具足戒者透露另一位比丘的严重罪行。从《戒律入口》的观点来看，学处的目的是为了防止比丘们在僧团外的人面前宣扬彼此的过失。然而，它说，有些情况下比丘可能会犯下严重罪行，但拒绝承认，例如，犯了《波罗夷》，却继续假装比丘的身份，或犯了《僧残》，却拒绝接受出罪恢复清净的程序。因此，在这种情况下，僧团被允许授权其一名成员向俗人（如该比丘的支持者）通报，以此作为向比丘施加压力，让他接受惩罚的方式。
According to the Commentary, though, the authorization is to be used in cases where the Community feels that the act of informing the laity would help to convince a well-intentioned but weak-willed bhikkhu who repeatedly commits saṅghādisesa offenses—even if he willingly undergoes the period of penance—to mend his ways. 然而，根据《义注》，这项授权适用于以下情况：僧团认为，告知俗人的行动有助于说服善意但意志薄弱，一再犯下《僧残》罪的比丘改过自新—即使他愿意接受摩那埵。
Both interpretations fit with the Canon, although it should be borne in mind that using the authorization in line with the Vinaya-mukha’s rationale—to exert pressure on a bhikkhu who refuses to undergo a penalty—can often backfire, for the laity may simply think that the Community is jealous of the support they are giving to the bhikkhu they assume to be innocent of any wrong-doing. 这两种解释都符合《圣典》，但应该记住，根据《戒律入口》的理由使用授权——对拒绝接受惩罚的比丘施加压力——往往会适得其反，因为俗人可能只是认为僧团嫉妒他们给予他们认为没有做错的无辜比丘的支持。
The Vibhaṅga also does not tell how to issue the authorization. The Commentary recommends using the form of an announcement (apalokana) stated three times and unanimously agreed to by the Community meeting within a single territory (see BMC2, Chapter 12). 《经分别》也没有说明如何颁发授权。《义注》建议使用求听（apalokana）的形式，该听许在单一界场内的僧团会议上声明三次并得到一致同意（参见《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第十二章）。
The Vibhaṅga does state, though, that when giving the authorization, the Community may limit it to families, to offenses, to both, or to neither. Limited to families means that the bhikkhu receiving the authorization may inform only certain specified families. Limited to offenses means that he may report only certain of the guilty bhikkhu’s offenses. A bhikkhu who oversteps the limits of his authorization incurs a pācittiya. 然而，《经分别》确实规定，在给予授权时，僧团可以将其限制于家庭，于犯戒，两者都限制或两者都不限制。限制于家庭，是指获得授权的比丘只能通知某些特定的家庭。限制于犯戒意味著他只可告知有罪比丘的某些犯戒。比丘若超越其授权限制，犯《波逸提》。
Non-offenses 不犯
We have already covered the cases that the Vibhaṅga includes in the non-offense clauses. To recapitulate: There is no penalty— 我们已经讨论过《经分别》中不犯条款所包括的情况。总结一下：没有惩罚——
1) in telling an unordained person about another bhikkhu’s serious offense if one states the action but not the class of offense, or the class but not the action; or
1）向未受具足戒者讲述另一位比丘的严重罪行时，如果只说了行为，没有说罪行的种类，或者只说种类，没有说行为；或者
2) in reporting another bhikkhu’s serious offense—action and class of offense—to an unordained person when one has been properly authorized to do so, as long as one does not overstep the bounds of one’s authorization.
2）在获得适当授权的情况下，可以向非受具足戒者告知另一位比丘的严重罪行（包括罪行的行为和种类），只要不超越其授权范围。
Summary: Telling an unordained person of another bhikkhu’s serious offense—unless one is authorized by the Community to do so—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：除非得到僧团的授权，否则向未受具足戒者告知另一名比丘的严重罪行，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
10 十
Should any bhikkhu dig soil or have it dug, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘挖土或令挖土，波逸提。
This is an offense with four factors: object, effort, perception, and intention. 这是一条具有四个因素的犯戒：对象、努力、感知，和意图。
Object 对象
The Pali word for soil, paṭhavī, also means ground or earth. Thus the Vibhaṅga distinguishes which forms of earth are and are not classed as genuine soil: 表示土壤的巴利单字是 paṭhavī ，也有地面或大地的意思。因此，《经分别》辨别了哪些形式的土属于真正名副其实的土（真土），哪些不属于真正名副其实的土（真土）：
Pure loam, pure clay, whatever is mostly loam or clay with a lesser portion of rock, stones, potsherds, gravel, or sand mixed in, is classed as “genuine” (or “natural”) soil (jātā paṭhavī). 纯壤土、纯黏土，或主要是壤土或黏土并混入少量岩石、石头、陶器碎片、砾石或沙子的任何物质，都被归类为「真」（或「天然」）土（jātā paṭhavī）。
Whatever is pure rock, stones, potsherds, gravel, or sand, or any of these with a lesser portion of loam or clay mixed in, is earth classed as “ungenuine” (or “denatured”) soil (ajātā paṭhavī). Also, burnt clay or loam—according to the Commentary, this means soil that has been burnt in the course of firing a bowl, a pot, etc.—is not classed as genuine soil. As for heaps of loam or clay that have been dug up: If they have been rained on for less than four months, they are not classed as genuine soil; but if rained on for four months or more, they are. At present, irrigated soil would count as “rained on” as well. Also, the layer of fine dust that forms on the surface of dry soil as the result of wind erosion is not classed as genuine soil. 无论是纯粹的岩石、石头、陶器碎片、砾石或沙子，或是其中任何一种混入少量壤土或黏土的物质，都被归类为「非真」（或「非天然」）土（ajātā paṭhavī）。此外，被烧过的黏土或壤土（根据《义注》，这是指在烧制碗、罐子等过程中烧过的土）不属于真土。至于挖出的壤土或黏土堆：如果它们被雨淋的时间少于四个月，则它们不属于真正的土壤；但如果被雨淋持续四个月或更长时间，它们就是真土。目前，灌溉的土壤也算是「被雨淋」。此外，由于风蚀而在干燥土壤表面形成的一层细小的尘埃也不属于真正的土壤。
The words for “genuine” and “not genuine”—jāta and ajāta—also mean “born” and “not born.” These terms are apparently related to the ancient Indian belief that soil is a form of one-facultied life (see below). The distinction between them seems based on an intuited idea that rock, sand, etc., were not alive, whereas clay and loam were naturally alive, although they would lose life when dug up and regain life when rained on for four months or more. 「真」与「非真」这两个字——jata 和 ajāta——也表示「生」与「不生」。这些术语显然与古印度信仰有关，即土壤是一种单能生命形式（见下文）。它们之间的差异似乎是基于一种直觉的想法，即岩石、沙子等没有生命，而黏土和壤土是自然有生命的，尽管它们在被挖出时会失去生命，而在被雨淋四个月或更长时间后会恢复生命。
As the Commentary makes clear in discussing the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses, there is no penalty in digging earth not classed as genuine soil. Thus, for example, digging into a pile of newly dug-up loam or drawing diagrams in the dust on top of dry soil would not be an offense. 正如《义注》在讨论《经分别》的不犯条款时所明确指出的，挖掘不属于真正土壤的土地不会受到惩罚。因此，例如，挖掘一堆新挖出的壤土或在干土上的灰尘中绘制图表并不构成犯戒。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga says that the term digging also covers burning, e.g., firing pottery or lighting a fire on top of the soil; and breaking, e.g., making a furrow with a rake or a stick. Thus, using a stick to draw in the soil or driving in a stake or pulling one out in such a way as to disturb the surrounding soil would fulfill the factor of effort here. 《经分别》说，「挖掘」一词也包括燃烧，例如烧制陶器或在土壤上点火；以及破坏，例如用耙子或棍子开沟。因此，使用一根棍子在土壤里画东西，或将一根木桩打入，或将一根木桩拔出以至于扰动周围的土壤，即可满足此处的努力因素。
The Vibhaṅga adds that if one gives a single command to dig, then no matter how much the person digs, the offense is a single pācittiya. 《经分别》又说，如果给予一次挖掘的命令，那么无论该人挖掘了多少，都只犯一次《波逸提》。
Perception 感知
If one is in doubt as to whether soil is genuine, the penalty for digging it is a dukkaṭa regardless of whether it is or isn’t. If one perceives it as genuine soil when it actually isn’t, the penalty for digging it is also a dukkaṭa. If one does not perceive it as genuine soil, then whether it is or isn’t, digging it incurs no offense. 如果怀疑是否为真正的土壤，那么挖掘它的惩罚就是《突吉罗》，无论是否为真正的土壤。如果以为那是真正的土壤，但实际上并非如此，那么挖掘它的惩罚也是《突吉罗》。如果不认为它是真正的土壤，那么无论它是不是真正的土壤，挖掘它都不犯戒。
Non-offenses 不犯
Because perception and intention are mitigating factors here, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who digs soil— 因为感知和意图在这里是减轻惩罚的因素，所以对于挖土的比丘来说，没有犯戒—
unknowingly—e.g., digging into a pile of soil perceiving it to be sand; 不知道地—例如，挖了一堆土，以为那是沙子；
unthinkingly—e.g., absent-mindedly drawing in the dirt while talking with someone else; or 不假思索地—例如，与他人交谈时心不在焉地在泥土上画画；或者
unintentionally—e.g., raking leaves, pulling a wheelbarrow through the mud, or digging in a pile of sand and accidentally digging into the soil underneath. 无意地—例如，耙树叶、拉手推车穿过泥地、或在沙堆里挖东西并意外挖到下面的土壤。
Also, there is no offense in asking for clay or soil, or in indicating a need for a hole in the ground, without expressly giving the command to dig. Examples in the Vibhaṅga: “Know this. Give this. Bring this. This is wanted. Make this allowable.” Present examples would include such statements as, “Please get me some clay to make a pot.” “We’re going to need a hole right here.” According to the Commentary, an explicit request that a reservoir or pit, etc., be dug also entails no penalty as long as one does not say precisely where to dig it. (“We’re going to have to drain the water from A to B, so dig the trench wherever you think it would do the job best.”) This sort of request or hint is termed kappiya-vohāra—“allowable expression,” or in plain English, “wording it right”—and often finds use in the context of rules where an express command would be an offense, but an indication of a desire or intent would not. 此外，在没有明确命令挖掘的情况下，要求黏土或土壤，或表示需要一个洞在地面上，并不构成犯戒。《经分别》中的例子：「了解这个。给这个。带来这个。这是想要的。使这个可允许。」目前的例子包括这样的陈述：「请给我一些黏土来做一个罐子。」「我们在这里需要一个洞。」根据《义注》，明确要求挖水库或坑等，只要没有明确说明在哪里挖，也不会受到处罚。（「我们要把水从 A 排到 B，所以在你认为最合适的地方挖沟。」）这种请求或暗示被称为 kappiya-vohāra—「允许的表达」，或用简单的英语来说，「正确的措辞」—并且通常在戒条的脉络下使用，在这种情况下，明确的命令是犯戒，而表示愿望或意图则不会。
The Commentary quotes the ancient commentaries as saying that if another person or animal has fallen into a pit, there is no penalty for digging the victim out. The same holds true if another person or animal is trapped by a fallen but still-living tree: The bhikkhu may cut the tree to free the victim without incurring a penalty under the following rule. 《义注》引述古代注释书说：若他人或动物掉入坑中，将受害者挖出则不受惩罚。如果另一个人或动物被倒下但仍然活著的树困住，情况也是如此：比丘可以砍伐树木以释放受害者，而不必根据下一条戒条受到惩罚。
Although the Commentary cannot find any justification in the Canon for these opinions, it states that they should be accepted because they are the unanimous judgment of the ancient commentaries. As we have noted before, Buddhaghosa does not always accept even the unanimous judgment of the ancient commentaries, but perhaps he felt that these were cases in which it would be better to err on the side of compassion rather than strictness. 尽管《义注》在《圣典》中找不到这些观点的任何依据，但它表示应该接受这些观点，因为它们是古代注释书的一致判断。正如我们之前所指出的，佛音并不总是接受古代注释中的一致判断，但也许他觉得，在这些情况下，宁可犯同情的错误，也不要过于严格。
However, the Commentary goes on to say that if a bhikkhu falls into a pit himself, he should not dig any earth that would be classed as genuine soil, even for the sake of his life. The same holds true if he is trapped by a fallen but still-living tree: He may not cut the tree even though his life is in danger. 然而，《义注》继续说道，如果比丘自己掉进坑中，那么即使是为了他自己的生命，他也不应该挖掘任何被视为真正土壤的地面。如果他被一棵倒下的但仍然活著的树困住了，情况也是如此：即使他的生命处于危险之中，他也不可砍树。
In line with Cv.V.32.1, which allows a bhikkhu to light a counter-fire to ward off an approaching wildfire, the Commentary to Pr 3 states that one may also dig a moat to ward off such a fire without incurring a penalty under this rule. 根据《小品》.五.32.1，允许比丘点燃逆火以抵御接近的野火，《波罗夷》三的《义注》指出，也可以挖一条护城河来抵御这种火灾，而不会根据本戒条受到惩罚。
The reason for this rule, as indicated by the origin story, is that people in general at the time of the Buddha viewed soil as having a form of one-facultied life. The Jains, who were contemporaries of the Buddha, classed life into five categories according to the number of senses or faculties the living thing possessed. In the one-facultied category, where there is only the sense of touch, they included soil and vegetation. One scholar has suggested that the Jains here were simply systematizing an animist belief, predating their theories, that soil and plants had souls. At any rate, this sort of view was so widespread at the time that any potters who were meticulous in their precepts would take their clay only from termite nests and other piles of dug-up earth. The Ghaṭīkāra Sutta (MN 81) describes a potter—a non-returner in the dispensation of the Buddha Kassapa—who, even though he was a lay man, would take the earth for his pots only from collapsed embankments and the piles of dirt around rat holes so as to avoid injuring the soil. 起源故事表明，本戒条的原因在于，佛陀时代的人们普遍认为土壤具有单能生命形式。与佛陀同时代，耆那教徒根据生物所拥有的感官或能力的数量，将生命分为五类。在单能类别中，只有触觉，包括土壤和植被。一位学者认为，耆那教徒只是系统化了一种早于他们的理论的万物有灵论信仰，即土壤和植物具有灵魂。无论如何，这种观点在当时非常普遍，任何恪守戒律的陶工只会从白蚁巢穴和其他挖出的土堆中取土。《伽提迦罗经》（《中部》81经）描述了一位陶工——迦叶佛教化时的不还者——尽管他只是个俗人，但他只从坍塌的堤坝和老鼠洞周围的土堆中取土来做陶罐，以免损坏土壤。
Another consideration, carrying more weight at present, is that the act of digging soil risks killing or injuring whatever animals might be living there. 另一个目前更重要的考虑因素是，挖土的行为可能会有杀死或伤害生活在那里的动物风险。
This rule, together with the following one, also effectively prevents bhikkhus from engaging in agriculture. 本戒条和下一条戒条也有效地阻止了比丘从事农业。
Summary: Digging soil or commanding that it be dug is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：挖土或命令挖土，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。