波逸提
| Two: The Living Plant Chapter | 生物村品 |
| 11 | 十一 |
The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed.
|
损坏活的植物，波逸提。
|
“A certain Āḷavī bhikkhu was chopping down a tree. The devatā living in the tree said to the bhikkhu, ‘Venerable sir, do not chop down my home to build a home for yourself.’ The bhikkhu, disregarding her, kept right on chopping and injured the arm of the devatā’s child. The devatā thought: ‘What if I were to kill this bhikkhu right here?’ Then another thought occurred to her: ‘But no, that wouldn’t be proper…. What if I were to tell the Blessed One of what has happened?’ So she went to the Blessed One and… told him of what had happened.
|
「有一位阿罗毘比丘正在砍树。住在树上的天女对比丘说：『大德，不要砍倒我的房子来为自己建造房子。』比丘不理会她，继续砍树，弄伤了天女孩子的手臂。天女想：『如果我就在这里杀死这位比丘会怎么样？』然后她又想到：「但不，那样不合适......如果我把所发生的事告诉世尊呢？』于是她去找世尊并......告诉他所发生的事。
|
“‘Very good, devatā, very good. It’s very good that you didn’t kill the bhikkhu. If you had killed him today, you would have produced much demerit for yourself. Now go, devatā. Over there is a vacant tree. Go into it.’ (The Commentary adds here that the tree, being in Jeta’s Grove, was a definite move up for the devatā. She had a front-row seat for overhearing the Buddha’s teachings well into the night; unlike other lesser devas she wasn’t pushed out to the far reaches of the galaxy when large groups of major devas met with the Buddha; and when the Four Great Kings came to attend to the Buddha, they always made a point of visiting her before leaving. However:)
|
「『很好，天女，很好。你没有杀死比丘，这很好。如果你今天杀了他，你会为自己造下很多罪孽。现在去吧，天女。那边有一棵空树。进去吧。』（《义注》在这里补充说，这棵树位于祇陀林，对天女来说，这绝对是一个明确的进步。她有一个前排的座位，可以听到佛陀的教诲，一直到夜晚；与其他较低天神不同，当大天神群与佛陀会面时，她并没有被推到银河系的遥远地方；每当四大天王来侍奉佛陀时，他们离开之前总会去拜见她。无论如何：）
|
“People criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks cut down trees and have them cut down? They are mistreating one-facultied life.’”
|
「人们批评、抱怨并四处散播，『这些沙门释子怎么能砍伐树木并让人砍伐？他们虐待一根之命。』」
|
| This is another offense with the four factors of object, effort, perception, and intention. | 此为另一个具有对象、努力、感知、意图四个因素的犯戒。 |
| Object | 对象 |
| The Pali term for living plant—bhūtagāma—literally means the home of a being. This the Sub-commentary explains by saying that devatās may take up residence in plants standing in place by means of a longing on which their consciousness fastens (at the end of their previous lives) as in a dream. This rule is justified, it says, in that the etiquette of a contemplative precludes doing harm to the abodes of living beings. As the origin story shows, though, the reason this rule was laid down in the first place was to prevent bhikkhus from offending people who held to the animist belief that regarded plants as one-facultied life having the sense of touch. | 巴利语中表示活体植物的字——bhūtagāma——字面意思是生物的家。《复注》对此作出了解释，说天神可以透过渴望而居住在站立的植物中，他们的意识（在前世结束时）依附于此，就像在梦中一样。它说，本戒条是合理的，因为沙门的威仪禁止伤害生物的居所。然而，正如起源故事所示，制定这条戒条的初衷是为了防止比丘冒犯那些持有万物有灵论信仰的人，他们认为植物是具有触觉的单能生命。 |
| The Vibhaṅga defines bhūtagāma as vegetation arising from any of five sources: | 《经分别》将 bhūtagāma 定义为来自以下五个来源之一的植物： |
1) from bulbs, rhizomes, or tubers (e.g., potatoes, tulips),
|
1）来自球茎、根茎或块茎（例如马铃薯、郁金香），
|
2) from cuttings or stakes (e.g., willows, rose bushes),
|
2）从插枝或木桩（例如柳树、玫瑰丛）中获取，
|
3) from joints (e.g., sugar cane, bamboo),
|
3）来自节段（例如甘蔗、竹子），
|
4) from runners (e.g., strawberries, couch grass), or
|
4）来自蔓生植物（例如草莓、狗牙根），或
|
5) from seeds (e.g., corn, beans).
|
5）来自种子（例如玉米、豆类）。
|
| According to the Commentary, a whole plant or part of one that has been removed from its original place is no longer classed as bhūtagāma. If it is capable of growing again when placed in the ground, it is classed as bījagāma, which means “home of a seed.” When a seed is sown, it is regarded as bījagāma until the first shoot turns a fresh green color and the first leaf appears. After that it is regarded as bhūtagāma. | 根据《义注》，从原处移走的整株植物或植物的一部分不再被归类为 bhūtagāma。如果它被放入土中后能够再次生长，它就被归类为 bījagāma，意思是「种子的家」。当一颗种子被播下时，它被视为 bījagāma，直到第一根嫩芽变成新鲜的绿色并且长出第一片叶子。此后，它被视为 bhūtagāma。 |
| In line with this criterion, the Commentary classifies as bījagāma such lower forms of plant life as mushrooms that still have their spores, fungi, lichens without leaves, and molds, in that they do not pass through a fresh green stage, have no discernable leaves, and yet are capable of regeneration. Mushrooms that have lost their spores, and parts of any plants that have been removed from place and will not grow, or that have been cooked or otherwise damaged to the point where they are incapable of generation, are not grounds for an offense under this rule. | 根据这个标准，《义注》将一些较低级的植物生命形式归类为 bījagāma，如仍有孢子的蘑菇、真菌、无叶地衣和霉菌，因为它们不会经历新鲜的绿色阶段，没有可辨别的叶子，但具有再生能力。已经失去孢子的蘑菇，以及任何被移走而无法生长的植物的部分，或者已经被煮熟或以其他方式损坏到无法繁殖的程度的植物的部分，都不属于根据本戒条犯戒的理由。 |
| The Commentary asserts further that to damage bījagāma entails a dukkaṭa. The Vibhaṅga does not mention this point, but the Commentary cites as its justification a passage occurring in a number of suttas (such as DN 2) saying that a bhikkhu consummate in virtue refrains from harming both bhūtagāma and bījagāma. In doing so, the Commentary is utilizing the Cullavagga’s blanket rule assigning a dukkaṭa to all bad habits (Cv.V.36). The Mahāvagga and Cullavagga give further but partial justification to the Commentary’s assertion in two passages, dealing with bhikkhus eating fruit, which we will discuss below. The Jain ascetics follow similar observances, which suggests that both the Buddhists and the Jains adopted this point from the ancient Indian ascetics who predated both religions. | 《义注》进一步指出，损坏 bījagāma 会导致《突吉罗》。《经分别》并没有提到这一点，但《义注》引用了多部经典（如《长部》2经）中的出现的一段话作为其依据，这段话指出，戒德圆满的比丘不会伤害 bhūtagāma 和 bījagāma 。在这样做时，《义注》利用了《小品》的总括戒条，所有不良习惯都违犯《突吉罗》（《小品》.五.36）。《大品》和《小品》在两段关于比丘吃水果的段落中对《义注》的断言提供了进一步但部分的证明，我们将在下面讨论。耆那教苦行者也遵循类似的戒律，显示佛教徒和耆那教徒都从早于这两种宗教的古印度苦行者那里采纳了这一观点。 |
| Furthermore, according to the Commentary, there are certain kinds of plants that do not count either as bhūtagāma or bījagāma under this rule, and to damage them entails no offense. To justify this point it quotes a passage from Cv.VIII.1.3: “If a wall treated with ochre… (or) a finished floor is moldy (§), one should moisten a rag, wring it out, and wipe it clean.” The Commentary extends the Canon’s instructions here to cover not only mold on walls but also other lower forms of plant life—such as algae on the inside of water jars, fungus on toothbrushes, and mold on food—that would count as filth if they were allowed to continue growing. | 此外，根据《义注》，有些植物根据这条戒条既不算是 bhūtagāma，也不算是 bījagāma，损坏它们并不构成犯戒。为了证明这一点，它引用了《小品》.八.1.3 中的一段话：「如果用赭石处理过的墙壁……（或）所作地面发霉了（§），则应将抹布弄湿，拧干，然后擦拭干净。」《义注》扩展了《圣典》的指示，不仅涵盖了墙壁上的霉菌，还涵盖了其他低等植物生命形式—例如水罐内部的藻类、牙刷上的真菌和食物上的霉菌—如果允许它们继续生长，则将被视为污秽。 |
| Effort | 努力 |
| According to the Vibhaṅga, the term damaging includes such actions as cutting, breaking, and cooking, as well as getting other people to perform these actions. The Commentary defines damaging as “dealing with a plant as one likes by cutting it, breaking it, and so on.” Although the word for dealing with—paribhuñjati—literally means “making use of,” the Commentary’s illustrations of what this covers include even such things as shaking a tree limb to get the dry leaves to fall off so that one can sweep them up. Thus, it says, damaging would include picking flowers or leaves, uprooting a plant, engraving one’s initials in a tree trunk, etc. Because no exception is made for doing such things with “benevolent” intentions toward the plant, pruning would be included as well. Given the catch-all nature of the Commentary’s definition, using herbicides to kill plants would also come under damaging. | 根据《经分别》，损害包括切割、破坏、烹饪等行为，以及让其他人执行这些行为。《义注》将损害定义为「以切割、破坏等方式随意对待植物」。尽管表示对待—paribhuñjati—的单字字面意思是「利用」，《义注》中对此内容的说明甚至包括诸如摇晃树枝让干树叶掉落以便可以将其扫起之类的事情。因此，它说，损害包括采摘花朵或叶子、拔除植物、在树干上刻上自己的姓名首字母等。因为对植物怀著「仁慈的」意图做这些事没有豁免，所以修剪也包括在内。鉴于《义注》定义的包罗万象性，使用除草剂杀死植物也算损害。 |
| The Commentary adds that plants growing in water, such as water hyacinths, whose roots do not extend to the earth beneath the water, have the water as their base. To remove them from the water is to damage them, although there is no offense in moving them around in the water. To move them from one body of water to another without incurring a penalty, one may take them together with some of the water in which they originally lived and place them together with that water into the new body of water. | 《义注》还补充道，水葫芦等生长在水中的植物，其根部不会延伸到水下的土地，而是以水为基部。将它们从水中取出是损害它们，尽管在水中移动它们并没有犯戒。为了将它们从一个水域移到另一个水域而不受到惩罚，可以将它们连同它们原来生活的部分水一起带入新的水域。 |
| Also, says the Commentary, plants such as mistletoe, orchids, and bird vine that grow on trees have the tree as their base. To remove them from the tree is to damage them and so entails a pācittiya. | 此外，《义注》还说，槲寄生、兰花和鸟藤等生长在树上的植物都以树为基础。把它们从树上摘下来就会对它们造成损害，因此犯《波逸提》。 |
| Perception | 感知 |
| If one damages a living plant (§) perceiving it to be something else—say, a dead plant—there is no offense. If one damages a plant in doubt as to whether it is living or dead, then regardless of what it actually is, the offense is a dukkaṭa. | 如果将一株活的植物（§）视为别的东西（例如，一株死的植物）而对其进行了损害，这并不构成犯戒。如果因怀疑植物是死是活而对其进行损害，那么无论该植物实际上是什么，罪行都是《突吉罗》。 |
| Intention | 意图 |
| Intention is discussed in detail under the non-offenses, below. | 下文的不犯条款将详细讨论意图。 |
| Making fruit allowable | 作净水果 |
| Because fruit seeds are bījagāma, the question arises as to how bhikkhus should go about eating fruit. The Commentary to this rule discusses in detail two passages, one each in the Mahāvagga (VI. 21) and the Cullavagga (V.5.2), dealing with precisely this question. The Cullavagga passage reads, “I allow you, bhikkhus, to consume fruit that has been made allowable for monks in any of five ways: if it is damaged by fire, by a knife, by a fingernail, if it is seedless, and the fifth is if the seeds are discharged.” The Mahāvagga passage reads, “Now at that time there was a great quantity of fruit at Sāvatthī, but there was no one to make it allowable…. (The Buddha said,) ‘I allow that fruit that is seedless or whose seeds are discharged be consumed (even if) it has not been made allowable.” | 因为水果种子是 bījagāma，所以就出现了比丘应该如何吃水果的问题。本戒条的《义注》详细讨论了两个段落，一段在《大品》（六.21），一段在《小品》（五.5.2），专门处理这个问题。《小品》段落中写道：「我允许你们，诸比丘，以五种方式中的任一种方式食用已经为沙门作净的水果：如果它被火损坏、被刀子损坏、被指甲损坏、如果是无籽的、第五种是如果籽被排出。」《大品》段落写道：「当时舍卫城有许多水果，但没有人作净……（佛陀说）『我允许吃没有籽的水果，或者籽排出的水果，（即使）它没有被作净。』 |
| First, to summarize the commentaries’ discussion of seedless fruit and fruit whose seeds have been discharged: According to the Commentary to the Mahāvagga, seedless fruit includes fruit whose seeds are too immature to grow. As for fruit whose seeds have been discharged, the Sub-commentary states that this means, “Fruit, such as mangoes or jackfruit, which it is possible to eat having removed the seeds and separating them entirely (from the flesh).” | 首先，总结一下注释书中对无籽水果和籽已排出的水果的讨论：根据《大品》的《义注》，无籽水果包括种子未成熟而无法生长的水果。至于种子已排出的水果，《复注》指出，这意味著「诸如芒果或菠萝蜜之类的水果，可以去掉种子并将它们完全（与果肉）分离后再食用。」 |
| The question sometimes arises as to whether bhikkhus may remove the seeds themselves before eating fruit of this sort, or if an unordained person has to remove them first. Given the context of the Mahāvagga passage and the wording of the Sub-commentary’s explanation, it seems clear that the bhikkhus themselves may discharge the seeds before or while eating the fruit. As the Commentary notes, both these kinds of fruit are allowable in and of themselves, and need not go through any other procedure to make them allowable. | 有时会出现这样的问题：比丘是否可以在吃这种水果之前自己去掉种子，或者是否必须由未受具足戒的人先去掉种子。考虑到《大品》段落的上下文和《复注》解释的措辞，似乎很明显比丘自己可以在吃水果之前或吃水果时排出种子。正如《义注》所指出的，这两种水果本身都是允许的，不需要经过任何其他作净程序。 |
| Other kinds of fruit, though, such as those with numerous seeds (such as tomatoes and blackberries) or whose seeds would be difficult to remove undamaged (such as grapes) must be damaged by fire, a knife, or a fingernail before a bhikkhu may eat them. The Commentary’s description of how to do this shows that the damaging need only be symbolic: An unordained person draws a hot object or a knife across the skin of the fruit, or pokes it with a fingernail, saying “allowable” (kappiyaṁ) either while doing the damaging or immediately afterward. The Sub-commentary notes that the word for “allowable” may be stated in any language. | 然而，其他种类的水果，例如带有大量种子的水果（例如蕃茄和黑莓）或难以去除而不损害种子的水果（例如葡萄），必须用火、刀或指甲损害后，比丘才能食用。《义注》中对如何做到这一点的描述表明，损害只需要是象征性的：一个未受具足戒的人用一个热物体或一把刀划过水果皮，或者用指甲戳它，在损害的同时或之后立即说「允许的」（kappiyaṁ）。《复注》指出，「允许的」一词可以用任何语言表达。 |
| If a heap of fruit, such as grapes, is brought to a bhikkhu, he should say, “Make it allowable,” (Kappiyaṁ karohi,) either to the donor or to any other unordained person who knows how. The unordained person need only make one of the grapes allowable in line with the above procedures for the entire heap to be considered allowable, although he/she should not remove the grape from the heap while doing so. | 如果一堆水果（例如葡萄）被带给比丘，他应该对布施者或任何其他知道如何做的未受具足戒者说「使其被允许」（Kappiyaṁ karohi）。未受具足戒者只需按照上述程序作净其中一颗葡萄，整堆葡萄即可被视为已作净，但他/她在如此做时不应将该葡萄从葡萄堆中取出。 |
| The Sub-commentary claims that the ceremony of making fruit allowable must always be performed in the presence of a bhikkhu, but the Commentary mentions this factor only in connection with this last case—making an entire heap of fruit allowable by “damaging” only one piece—and not in its basic description of how the procedure is done. | 《复注》声称，作净水果的仪式必须始终在比丘面前进行，但《义注》仅在与最后一种情况相关时提到了这一因素——通过「损坏」一块水果来作净整堆水果——而不是在对如何进行该程序的基本描述中提到了这一点。 |
| In Communities that follow the Sub-commentary, the custom is as follows: When a donor brings grapes, tomatoes, or similar fruit to a bhikkhu, the bhikkhu says, “Kappiyaṁ karohi (Make it allowable).” The donor damages the fruit in any of the three specified ways and says, “Kappiyaṁ bhante (It is allowable, venerable sir),” while doing the damaging, and then presents the fruit to the bhikkhu. | 在遵循《复注》的僧团中，习俗如下：当施主带给比丘葡萄、蕃茄或类似的水果时，比丘会说「Kappiyaṁ karohi（使其被允许）」。施主以三种指定方式中的一种损害水果，并在损害时说：「Kappiyaṁ bhante（这是允许的，尊者）」，然后将水果呈给比丘。 |
| In Communities that do not follow the Sub-commentary, the donor may perform the act of damaging the fruit beforehand. If the damage is obvious, a bhikkhu may accept and consume the fruit without asking. If it’s not, he should ask whether it has been damaged. If the reply is Yes, he may accept and consume it. If No, it should first be damaged in his presence. | 在不遵循《复注》的僧团中，施主可以事先进行损害水果的行为。如果损害很明显，比丘可以接受并食用水果而无需询问。如果不明显，他应该询问它是否已被损害。如果答案是肯定的，他可以接受并食用它。如果不是，则应先在他面前将其损害。 |
| Even in this second type of Community, however, the act of making a heap of fruit allowable by damaging only one piece must be done in a bhikkhu’s presence. And we should note again that seedless fruit or fruit whose seeds may be removed entirely from the flesh of the fruit are allowable in and of themselves, and do not have to go through any procedure before a bhikkhu may accept and eat them. | 然而，即使在第二种类型的僧团中，透过损害一块水果来作净一堆水果的行为必须在比丘面前进行。我们应该再次注意，无籽水果或可以将种子从果肉中完全去除的水果本身是允许的，并且不需要经过任何程序，比丘就可以接受和食用它们。 |
| The two passages in the Mahāvagga and Cullavagga that we have been discussing deal specifically only with fruit, but the Commentary extrapolates from them to say that the same conditions apply to other forms of bījagāma, such as sugar cane and bean sprouts as well. | 我们一直在讨论的《大品》和《小品》中的两个段落仅仅专门讨论了水果，但《义注》从中推断，同样的情况也适用于其他形式的 bījagāma，例如甘蔗和豆芽。 |
| Non-offenses | 不犯 |
| The Vibhaṅga says that there is no offense for a bhikkhu who cuts a living plant— | 《经分别》说，比丘砍伐活的植物并无犯戒—— |
unknowingly—e.g., thinking it to be dead,
|
不知道地──例如，以为它死了，
|
unthinkingly—e.g., absent-mindedly pulling grass while talking with someone, or
|
不假思索地——例如，在与人交谈时心不在焉地拔草，或者
|
unintentionally—e.g., inadvertently uprooting grass while raking leaves, or grabbing onto a plant for support while climbing a hill and inadvertently uprooting it.
|
无意地——例如，在耙树叶时不小心把草连根拔起，或者在爬山时抓住植物支撑而无意中把它连根拔起。
|
| Also, there is no penalty in telling an unordained person to make an item allowable; in asking for leaves, flowers, etc., without specifically saying which leaves or flowers are to be picked; or in indicating indirectly that, e.g., the grass needs cutting (“Look at how long the grass is”) or that a tree needs pruning (“This branch is in the way”) without expressly giving the command to cut. In other words, this is another rule where one may avoid an offense by using kappiya-vohāra: “wording it right.” | 此外，告诉未受具足戒的人作净某件物品不会受到惩罚；索要树叶、花朵等，但没有具体说明要采摘哪些树叶或花朵；或者间接地表明，例如，草需要修剪（「看看这草有多长」）或树需要修剪（「这个树枝挡道了」），而没有明确发出修剪的命令。换句话说，这是另一条可以透过使用 kappiya-vohāra（「正确措辞」）来避免违犯的戒条。 |
| Cv.V.32.1 says that if a brush fire is approaching a dwelling, one may light a counter-fire to ward it off. In doing so, one is exempt from any penalty imposed by this rule. | 《小品》.五.32.1 规定，如果灌木丛火灾正在逼近住所，可以点燃逆火来扑灭。这样做，免于本戒条所施加的任何惩罚。 |
| Also, according to the Sub-commentary to NP 6, a bhikkhu whose robes have been snatched away and who cannot find any other cloth to cover himself may pick grass and leaves to cover himself without incurring a penalty here. | 此外，根据《舍堕》六的《复注》，如果比丘的袈裟被夺走，而他又找不到其他衣服遮盖自己，那么他可以采摘草叶来遮盖自己，而不会受到惩罚。 |
| Summary: Intentionally cutting, burning, or killing a living plant is a pācittiya offense. | 摘要：故意砍伐、焚烧或杀死活的植物，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。 |
* * *
| 12 | 十二 |
Evasive speech and causing frustration are to be confessed.
|
回避言论和造成挫折，波逸提。
|
| This rule deals with a bhikkhu’s behavior in a Community meeting when being formally questioned about a charge made against him. The factors for the full offense here are three. | 这条戒条涉及比丘在僧团会议上被正式询问对他的指控时的行为。此处构成完全违犯的因素有三。 |
1) Intention: One’s motive is to hide one’s offenses.
|
1）动机：是为了掩盖自己的罪行。
|
2) Effort: One continues engaging in evasive speech or in causing frustration
|
2）努力：继续进行回避性言论或造成挫折
|
3) Object: when being questioned in the Community about a rule or an offense after the Community has brought a formal charge of evasive speech or causing frustration against one.
|
3）对象：在僧团正式指控自己发表回避性言论或造成挫败后，在僧团中被问及有关戒条或犯戒时。
|
| Effort | 努力 |
| Evasive speech is illustrated in the origin story as follows: | 回避性言论在起源故事中有以下描述： |
“Now at that time Ven. Channa, having misbehaved and being examined about the offense in the midst of the Community, wandered around (§) one thing by way of another: ‘Who has committed the offense? What was committed? With regard to what matter was it committed? How was it committed? What are you saying? Why do you say it?’”
|
「尔时，阐陀尊者行为不当并在僧团中接受有关犯戒的审问，异语遁辞：『谁犯了戒？犯了什么戒？关于什么事犯的戒？怎样犯的戒？你在说什么？为什么这么说？』」
|
| The Vibhaṅga, following the lead of the origin story, gives examples of evasive speech that are all in the form of questions. However, the Commentary argues that the Vibhaṅga’s examples are not intended to be exhaustive, and that evasive speech covers any and all forms of speaking beside the point when being formally questioned. The Sub-commentary agrees and gives an entertaining example of its own: | 《经分别》依照起源故事的线索，列举了回避性言论的例子，这些言论都以问题的形式出现。然而，《义注》认为，《经分别》中的例子并非详尽无遗，回避性言论涵盖了在正式询问时偏离主题的任何及所有形式的言论。《复注》对此表示同意，并给了一个有趣的例子： |
“Have you committed this offense?”
|
「你犯了这条戒吗？」
|
“I’ve been to Pāṭaliputta.”
|
「我去过波咤厘城。」
|
“But we’re not asking about your going to Pāṭaliputta. We’re asking about an offense.”
|
「但我们不是问你去波咤厘城的事。我们问的是犯戒的事。」
|
“From there I went to Rājagaha.”
|
「我从那里去了王舍城。」
|
“Well, Rājagaha or Brahmaṇāgaha, did you commit the offense?”
|
「那么，王舍城或 Brahmaṇāgaha，你犯了戒吗？」
|
“I got some pork there.”
|
「我在那里得到了一些猪肉。」
|
| As for causing frustration: | 至于造成挫折： |
“Now at a later time Ven. Channa, being examined about an offense in the midst of the Community, (thinking), ‘By evading one question with another, I will fall into an offense,’ remained silent and frustrated the Community.”
|
「后来，有一次，阐陀尊者在僧团中被盘问犯了戒时，（心想）：『用另一个问题来回避问题，我就会犯戒。」于是，他保持沉默，使僧团感到挫折。」
|
| Thus, the texts say, causing frustration means remaining silent when being formally questioned in the midst of the Community. | 因此，文献说，造成挫折意味著在僧团中受到正式盘问时保持沉默。 |
| Intention | 意图 |
| This factor is fulfilled only if one’s motive is to conceal one’s own offenses. If one has other motives for remaining silent, asking questions, or speaking not to the point while being questioned, there is no penalty. For example, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who, when being examined, | 只有当动机是掩饰自己的罪行时，这因素才会得到满足。如果保持沉默、提问或在被问及时说话不切题，是出于其他动机，则不会受到惩罚。例如，当一位比丘接受审查时， |
asks questions or gives answers not to the point because he does not understand what is being said,
|
问问题或回答不中要点，因为他不明白所说的内容，
|
is too ill to speak,
|
病得无法说话，
|
feels that in speaking he will create conflict or dissension in the Community, or
|
觉得自己的言论会在僧团中引发冲突或分歧，或
|
feels that the Community will carry out its transactions unfairly or not in accordance with the rule.
|
认为僧团将不公平或不依照戒条进行羯磨。
|
| Object | 对象 |
| If a bhikkhu speaks evasively or remains silent out of a desire to conceal his offenses, he incurs a dukkaṭa. If the Community sees fit, it may then bring a formal charge of evasive speech or causing frustration against him in order to restrain him from persisting in such behavior. (See Appendix VIII for these transaction statements.) If he then continues speaking evasively or remaining silent, he incurs a pācittiya. | 如果比丘为了掩盖自己的罪行而闪烁其词或保持沉默，他犯《突吉罗》。如果僧团认为合适，可以对他提出回避言论或造成挫折的正式指控，以阻止他坚持这种行为。（请参阅附录八中的这些羯磨文。）如果他继续闪烁其词或保持沉默，他犯《波逸提》。 |
| Perception is not a factor here. Once a formal charge of evasive speech or causing frustration has been rightfully brought against a bhikkhu, and he continues to speak evasively or remain silent, he incurs a pācittiya regardless of whether he sees the charge as rightful or not. If the charge has been wrongfully brought against him, then regardless of whether he perceives the charge as wrongful, rightful, or doubtful, the offenses or lack of offenses are allotted as if the Community transaction bringing the charge had not happened at all. This covers two situations. In the first, the bhikkhu actually deserves the charge, but the transaction was not carried out strictly in accordance with formal procedure. In this case, if the bhikkhu continues to be evasive or remain silent out of a desire to hide his offenses, he incurs another dukkaṭa. In the second situation, the bhikkhu does not deserve the charge—for instance, he has asked questions or remained silent for one of the allowable reasons, but the Community has abused its powers in bringing the charge against him. In this case, if he continues to ask questions or remain silent for the allowable reasons, he incurs no offense. | 感知在这里不是一个因素。一旦针对比丘的回避言论或造成挫折的正式指控已被公正地提出，而他继续回避言论或保持沉默，无论他是否认为该指控是正当的，他都犯《波逸提》。如果对他的指控是错误的，那么无论他认为指控是错误的、正确的还是有疑问的，犯戒或不犯戒的认定，就如同提出指控的僧团羯磨根本没有发生一样。这包括两种情况。第一种情况，比丘确实应该受到指控，但羯磨并没有严格按照正式程序进行。在这种情况下，如果比丘为了掩盖自己的罪行而继续逃避或保持沉默，他就犯另一次《突吉罗》。在第二种情况下，比丘不应该受到指控——例如，他已经根据允许的理由提出问题或保持沉默，但僧团滥用权力对他提出指控。在这种情况下，如果他继续提问或因为允许的理由保持沉默，他不犯戒。 |
| As for the case in which the Community rightly brings a formal charge of evasive speech or causing frustration against a bhikkhu, and he incurs a pācittiya for continuing to speak evasively or remain silent: If he continues being uncooperative, he may further be subject to a more severe penalty, a censure transaction (tajjanīya-kamma) for being a maker of trouble and strife for the Community (Cv.I.1-8—BMC2, Chapter 20). If he finally admits to having committed the offense about which he is being questioned—or another previously unconfessed offense—he is subject to what is essentially the same thing: an act of further punishment (tassa-pāpiyasikā-kamma) for not admitting to a true charge right from the start (see the discussion under the Adhikaraṇa-samatha rules, Chapter 11). | 至于如果僧团正确地正式指控比丘回避言论或造成挫折的情况，而他继续说话不清或保持沉默，则犯《波逸提》：如果他继续不合作，他可能会受到更严厉的惩罚，即呵责(苦切)羯磨（tajjanīya-kamma），因为他给僧团制造了麻烦和纷争（《小品》.一.1-8—《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第二十章）。如果他最终承认犯了被质问的罪行，或者另一个之前未承认的罪行，那么他将遭受本质上相同的惩罚：因从一开始就不承认真实指控而受到罪处所(觅罪相)（tassa-pāpiyasikā-kamma）的惩罚（参见第十一章灭诤戒条的讨论）。 |
| Non-offenses | 不犯 |
| If a bhikkhu answers not to the point or remains silent for any of the allowable reasons, he incurs no penalty even after a transaction of evasive speech or causing frustration has for some reason been enacted against him. | 如果比丘回答不中要点或因为任何允许的理由而保持沉默，即使因某种原因对他实施了回避性言论或造成挫败的羯磨之后，他也不犯戒。 |
| Summary: Persistently replying evasively or keeping silent in order to conceal one’s own offenses when being questioned in a meeting of the Community—after a formal charge of evasive speech or causing frustration has been brought against one—is a pācittiya offense. | 摘要：在僧团会议上被询问到时，为了掩盖自己的罪行而不断闪烁其词或保持沉默—在对自己提出回避言论或造成挫败的正式指控后—是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。 |
* * *
| 13 | 十三 |
Criticizing or complaining (about a Community official) is to be confessed.
|
批评或抱怨（僧团执事），波逸提。
|
| Community officials. In the Cullavagga (VI.11.2-4; VI.21.1-3), the Buddha gives allowances for a Community of bhikkhus to designate various of its members as Community officials to handle such business as distributing food, deciding who will stay in which dwelling, keeping the rosters that decide who will receive the invitations to which meals, etc. Ven. Dabba Mallaputta was the first such official and was well-equipped for the job: | 僧团执事。在《小品》（六.11.2-4；六.21.1-3）中，佛陀允许比丘僧团指派其成员担任僧团执事，处理诸如分配食物、决定谁将住在哪个住所、保存名册以决定谁将收到哪些餐食的邀请等事务。摩罗子陀骠尊者是第一位这样的执事，并且完全有能力胜任这份工作： |
“As for those bhikkhus who came at night, he would enter the fire element for them and by that light would assign them dwellings—so much so that bhikkhus arrived at night on purpose, thinking, ‘We will see the marvel of Ven. Dabba Mallaputta’s psychic power.’ Approaching him, they said, ‘Friend Dabba, assign us dwellings.’
|
「至于那些夜间前来的比丘，他会为他们进入火光三昧（火界），并藉著火光为他们安排住处——以至于比丘们特意夜间前来，心想：『我们将亲眼目睹摩罗子陀骠尊者神通的神奇。』他们到他那里，说道：『陀骠朋友，请为我们安排住处。』
|
“Ven. Dabba Mallaputta said, ‘Where would you like? Where shall I assign them?’
|
「摩罗子陀骠尊者说：『您想去哪里？我该把他们分配到哪里？』
|
“Then they named a distant place on purpose: ‘Friend Dabba, assign us a dwelling on Vulture’s Peak Mountain. Friend Dabba, assign us a dwelling on Robber’s Cliff….’
|
「于是他们故意说了一个遥远的地方的名字：『陀骠朋友，请您在灵鹫山上为我们安排一处住所。陀骠朋友，请您在盗贼岳上为我们安排一处住所……』
|
“So Ven. Dabba Mallaputta, entering the fire element for them, went before them with his finger glowing, while they followed right behind him with the help of his light.”—Cv.IV.4.4
|
「于是摩罗子陀骠尊者为他们进入火光三昧（火界），用发光的手指走在他们前面，而他们则借助他的光芒紧随其后。」—《小品》.四.4.4
|
| Even with his special skills, there were bhikkhus who were dissatisfied with the dwellings and meals he assigned to them—as we saw under Sg 8 & 9—and in the origin story to this rule they criticize and complain about him. | 即使他拥有特殊技能，还是有一些比丘对他分配给他们的住所和餐食不满意—正如我们在《僧残》八和九中看到的那样—并且在本戒条的起源故事中，他们批评和抱怨他。 |
| The factors for a full offense here are three: object, intention, and effort—although the Vibhaṅga makes intention an integral part of its definition of the factor of effort. | 这里构成完整犯戒的因素有三：对象、意图和努力—尽管《经分别》将意图视为努力因素定义中不可或缺的一部分。 |
| Object | 对象 |
| This factor is fulfilled only by (1) a bhikkhu who (2) has been properly authorized as a Community official and (3) does not habitually act out of the four causes for bias: desire, aversion, delusion, or fear. With regard to the first two of these sub-factors, other people—and the Vibhaṅga’s list of “others” here is interesting—are grounds for a dukkaṭa. The list is: an ordained person who has been improperly authorized to act as a Community official, an ordained person who hasn’t been authorized to act as a Community official, and an unordained person, regardless of whether he/she has been authorized to act as a Community official or not. With regard to the third sub-factor, anyone who would otherwise be grounds for a pācittiya or a dukkaṭa is not grounds for an offense if he/she behaves in a biased way. | 只有符合以下条件才满足本因素：（1）比丘（2）该比丘已经获得适当地授权成为僧团执事，并且（3）不习惯出于四种偏见原因而采取行动：贪、嗔、痴或恐惧。就这些子因素中的前两者而言，其他人 —— 《经分别》在这里列出的「其他人」很有趣 —— 则为《突吉罗》的理由。列表包括：被不适当地授权担任僧团执事的受具足戒者、未被授权担任僧团执事的受具足戒者，以及未受具足戒者，无论他/她是否被授权担任僧团执事。对于第三个子因素，任何可能成为《波逸提》或《突吉罗》理由的人，如果他/她行为有偏见，不构成犯戒的理由。 |
| Perception is not a factor here. Thus, if the official is actually properly authorized, he fulfills this factor whether one perceives his authorization as proper, improper, or doubtful. If he is improperly authorized, he is grounds for a dukkaṭa whether one perceives his authorization as proper, improper, or doubtful. In other words, this is another case where the pattern set out under Pc 4 does not hold. | 感知在这里不是一个因素。因此，如果该执事确实获得了适当的授权，那么无论认为他的授权是适当的、不适当的还是可疑的，他都满足这一因素。如果他被不当地授权，那么无论认为他的授权是正当的、不适当的还是可疑的，他都是《突吉罗》的理由。换句话说，这是《波逸提》四所列出的模式不成立的另一个情况。 |
| (The PTS edition of the Canon says that if one perceives an improper authorization as improper, there is no offense, but the Thai, Sri Lankan, and Burmese editions of the Canon, together with the PTS edition of the K/Commentary, all agree with the above reading.) | （PTS 版《圣典》说，如果认为不适当地授权是不适当的，那就没有犯戒，但泰国、斯里兰卡和缅甸版的《圣典》以及 PTS 版的 K/《义注》都同意上述解读。） |
| Intention | 意图 |
| One’s motive is to make him lose face, lose status, or feel abashed. | 其动机是想让他丢脸、失去地位、或感到羞愧。 |
| Effort | 努力 |
| The Vibhaṅga defines criticizing as criticizing or complaining about a Community official to a fellow bhikkhu with the desire of making the official lose face, lose status, or feel abashed. The line between effort and intention appears blurred here, in that the intention is a part of the definition of “effort,” but the non-offense clauses provide an exemption for critical remarks that are motivated simply by a desire to tell the truth. | 《经分别》将批评定义为向比丘同侪批评或抱怨僧团执事，希望让该执事丢脸、失去地位或感到羞愧。在这里，努力和意图之间的界限似乎很模糊，因为意图是「努力」定义的一部分，但不犯条款为仅仅出于说真话的愿望而发表的批评性言论提供了豁免。 |
| The Commentary and Sub-commentary give the clearest description of the distinction between criticizing and complaining: To criticize means to speak critically of a person in the presence of one or more other people so as to make them form a low opinion of him/her. To complain means simply to give vent to one’s criticisms of the person within earshot of someone else. | 《义注》和《复注》对批评和抱怨的区别作了最清楚的描述：批评是指在一个或多个人面前批评某人，以使他们对某人产生低评价。抱怨的意思，仅仅就是在别人听得到的地方发泄自己对某人的批评。 |
| According to the Vibhaṅga, the penalty for criticizing or complaining about a Community official is a pācittiya if one’s listener is a fellow bhikkhu, and a dukkaṭa if one’s listener is an unordained person (§). The question of who one’s remarks are addressed to is irrelevant if one is criticizing or complaining about an unauthorized ordained Community official, or an unordained Community official, authorized or not: The penalty is a dukkaṭa, regardless. | 根据《经分别》，批评或抱怨僧团执事的惩罚是，如果听众是比丘同侪，则为《波逸提》；如果听众是未受具足戒者，则为《突吉罗》（§）。如果批评或抱怨的是未经授权的受具足戒僧团执事，还是未受具足戒的僧团执事，无论其是否获得授权，其言论针对的对象是谁，都无关紧要：无论如何，惩罚都是《突吉罗》。 |
| Non-offenses | 不犯 |
| As mentioned above, if a Community official acts habitually out of any of the four causes for bias—desire, aversion, delusion, or fear—there is no offense in criticizing or complaining about him. For example, if he assigns the best dwellings to certain bhikkhus simply because he likes them, gives the poorest food to certain bhikkhus simply because he dislikes them, habitually sends the wrong bhikkhus to the wrong meals because he is too stupid to handle the rotating rosters properly, or gives the best treatment to certain bhikkhus because he is afraid of them or their supporters, there is no offense in criticizing his behavior in the presence of others. | 如上所述，如果僧团执事习惯性地出于四种偏见原因（贪、瞋、痴、恐惧）中的任何一种而采取行动，批评或抱怨他并没有犯戒。例如，如果他仅仅因为喜欢某些比丘而为他们安排最好的住所，仅仅因为不喜欢某些比丘而为他们提供最差的食物，或者因为他太愚蠢而无法妥善处理轮值表而习惯性地将错误的比丘安排到错误的餐食中，或者因为他害怕某些比丘或他们的支持者而给予他们最好的待遇，那么在他人面前批评他的行为并没有犯戒。 |
| The reason for this allowance is that one of the qualifying factors for a Community official is that he be unbiased (see BMC2, Chapter 18). Thus any complaint of bias would be tantamount to an accusation that the Community transaction authorizing him as an official was invalid, and the Community would then be duty bound to look into the matter. | 允许此开缘的原因是，担任僧团执事的资格条件之一就是他必须公正无私（参见《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第十八章）。因此，任何有关偏见的投诉都等于指控授权他担任执事的僧团羯磨无效，因此僧团有义务调查此事。 |
| However, one should be very sure of the facts of the case before taking advantage of this allowance, for—as noted above—perception is not a mitigating factor under this rule. Disappointment and anger have a way of coloring one’s perceptions, making another person’s perfectly blameless behavior look biased and unjust. If one criticizes or complains about an official, thoroughly convinced that he has been acting out of bias, one is still guilty of an offense if it turns out that in fact the official’s behavior has been fair. The same considerations apply also to complaints or criticisms concerning anyone, ordained or not. | 然而，在利用这项开缘之前，应该非常清楚真实情况，因为──如上所述──根据这条戒条，感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素。失望和愤怒会影响一个人的看法，使另一个人完全无可指责的行为看起来有偏见和不公正。如果批评或抱怨某个执事，并且完全相信该执事的行为带有偏见，那么如果事实证明该执事的行为是公正的，仍然犯了戒。同样的考虑也适用于对任何人的抱怨或批评，无论是否受具足戒。 |
| To criticize a Community official to his face, simply for the sake of hurting his feelings, would be an offense under Pc 2, regardless of whether his behavior has in fact been biased or not. | 根据《波逸提》二，仅仅为了伤害僧团执事的情感而当面批评他，都是犯戒，无论他的行为是否真的有偏见。 |
| The job of a Community official is often a thankless one. The procedures he must follow in distributing invitations, etc., can be fairly complex and, in large Communities, quite time-consuming. Because there is no way he can guarantee equal treatment to all, there may be times when he seems to be acting out of bias when he is simply following standard procedure. If he cannot receive the benefit of the doubt from his fellow bhikkhus, there is no incentive for him to undertake these duties in the first place. The Buddha likened material gains to excrement (see AN 5:196), and when excrement is shared out there is rarely any point in complaining about who gets the choicest portions. | 僧团执事的工作往往是吃力不讨好的工作。分配邀请等等他必须遵循的程序可能相当复杂，并且在大型僧团中相当耗时。因为他无法保证对所有人都相同待遇，所以有时他只是在遵循标准程序，但却显得带有偏见。如果他不能得到同侪比丘们的假定信任，那么他一开始就没有动力去承担这些职责。佛陀将物质利益比喻为排泄物（参考《增支部》5:196经），当排泄物被分享时，抱怨谁得到了最好的部分几乎没有任何意义。 |
| Summary: If a Community official is innocent of bias: Criticizing him within earshot of another bhikkhu is a pācittiya offense. | 摘要：如果僧团执事没有偏见：在另一位比丘听力可及范围内批评他，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。 |
* * *
| 14 | 十四 |
Should any bhikkhu set a bed, bench, mattress, or stool belonging to the Community out in the open—or have it set out—and then on departing neither put it away nor have it put away, or should he go without taking leave, it is to be confessed.
|
如果任何比丘将属于僧团的床、长椅、床垫或凳子摆放在露天，或让人摆放出来，然后在离开时既不收拾也不让人收拾，或如果不告而别就离开，波逸提。
|
| During the four months of the rains, furniture belonging to the Community—when not in use—is to be kept in a place where it will not be rained on, such as a fully-roofed storeroom or dwelling. The Vibhaṅga to this rule contains an allowance whereby during the remainder of the year it may also be kept in an open pavilion roofed with slats or branches, or under a tree where birds do not leave droppings. (At present, tents would fit under “pavilions” here.) The Commentary implies, though, that this latter allowance holds only in those regions with a distinct dry season; and, according to the Sub-commentary, even where there is a dry season, if a bhikkhu sees an unseasonable rain storm approaching he should not leave furniture in such semi-open places. And as we can infer from the Vibhaṅga to the next rule, even during the dry season this allowance applies only as long as one continues to reside in the monastery. | 在四个月的雨季期间，僧团的家具不使用时，应存放在不会被雨淋到的地方，例如完全覆盖屋顶的储藏室或住处。本戒条的《经分别》包含一项开缘，即在一年中的剩余时间里，它也可以保存在用板条或树枝覆盖屋顶的开放式亭子中，或保存在鸟类不会留下粪便的树下。（目前，帐篷可以算在这里的「亭子」下。）然而，《义注》暗示，后一项开缘只适用于有明显干季的地区；而且，根据《复注》，即使在干季，如果比丘看到不合季节的暴雨即将来临，他也不应该将家具留在这种半开放的地方。并且，我们可以从下一条戒条的《经分别》推断，即使在干季，只有继续居住在寺院中，本开缘才适用。 |
| This rule deals with a bhikkhu who sets furnishings of the Community out in the open and then leaves without taking leave or getting them put away in the proper place. The factors for the full offense are three. | 这条戒条针对的是比丘将僧团的家具摆放在露天，然后离开时没有告别或将它们放回适当的地方。构成完全犯戒的因素有三。 |
1) Object: any bed, bench, mattress, or stool belonging to the Community.
|
1）对象：任何属于僧团的床、长椅、床垫或凳子。
|
2) Effort: One sets such furnishings out in the open and then departs without taking leave, putting the furnishings away, or getting them put away in the proper place.
|
2）努力：将家具摆放在露天，然后不辞而别，不将家具收好，或不让人将其收回适当的地方。
|
3) Intention: One has set them out for some purpose other than sunning them (§).
|
3）意图：把它们摆出来不是为了晒太阳（§）。
|
| Object | 对象 |
| Any bed, bench, mattress, or stool belonging to the Community is grounds for a pācittiya. Perception as to whether the item belongs to the Community is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). Carpets, bedspreads, mats, ground-covering under-pads, foot-wiping cloths, and wooden chairs belonging to the Community are grounds for a dukkaṭa, as are both classes of furnishings—beds, etc., and carpets, etc.—belonging to another individual. One’s own furnishings are not grounds for an offense. | 任何属于僧团的床、长椅、床垫或凳子都是构成《波逸提》的理由。对于该物品是否属于僧团的感知并不是这里的减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。属于僧团的地毯、床罩、垫子、地面覆盖垫、擦脚布和木椅都是构成《突吉罗》的理由，属于另一个人的两类家具（床等和地毯等）也是如此。自己的家具不构成犯戒的理由。 |
| According to the Commentary, if one has made an arrangement with someone else to take his/her belongings on trust, there is no offense in leaving that person’s furnishings out in the open. The Sub-commentary adds that any furnishings a donor presents for the Community to use out in the open—e.g., stone or concrete benches—are likewise not grounds for an offense. | 根据《义注》，如果与另一个人达成协议，信托他/她的所有物，那么将该人的家具放在露天并不犯戒。《复注》也补充道，施主为僧团提供的任何户外使用的家具（例如石凳或混凝土长凳）同样不构成犯戒的理由。 |
| Under this rule, the Commentary contains a long essay on the proper storage of brooms. Because its remarks are based on an improper application of the Great Standards—brooms were known in the time of the Buddha and yet he chose not to include them under this rule—there is no reason to regard them as binding. | 根据这条戒条，《义注》中包含一篇关于如何正确存放扫帚的长文。因为其评论是基于对《四大教示》的不当应用——佛陀时代就已经知道扫帚，但他选择不将其纳入这一戒条——因此没有理由将其视为具有约束力。 |
| Effort | 努力 |
| The Vibhaṅga defines departing the furnishings as going further than one leḍḍupāta—approximately 18 meters—from them. It does not define “taking leave,” aside from stating that one may take leave from a bhikkhu, a novice, or a monastery attendant. This much, however, establishes that even though the Pali verb for taking leave, āpucchati, is etymologically related to the verb for asking, pucchati, the act of taking leave does not mean asking permission, for nothing in the Canon suggests that a bhikkhu has to get a novice’s or a lay attendant’s permission for his actions. The Commentary expands on this point, saying that taking leave means informing a bhikkhu, a novice, or a temple attendant whom one assumes will take responsibility for the furnishings. Unlike the following rule, where the intent to return is a mitigating factor, here it is not: Once a bhikkhu has departed from the furnishings, he has completed the factor of effort here even if he intends to return immediately. | 《经分别》将离开家具定义为距离其超过一个 leḍḍupāta （约 18 公尺）。它没有对「告别」做出定义，只是说可以向比丘、沙弥或寺院侍者告别。然而，这表明，尽管巴利语中表示告别的动词 āpucchati 在词源上与表示询问的动词 pucchati 相关，但告别的行为并不意味著请求许可，因为《圣典》中没有任何内容表明比丘必须获得沙弥或在家侍者的许可才能采取行动。《义注》对这一点进行了扩展，指出告别意味著通知比丘、沙弥或寺院侍者，并认为他们会对家具负责。与下一条戒条不同，在下一条戒条中，返回的意图是一个减轻惩罚因素，但这里不是：一旦比丘离开了家具，即使他打算立即返回，他也已完成了此处的努力因素。 |
| Responsibility | 责任 |
| A bhikkhu is held responsible for putting away furnishings that he has ordered another person to place in the open, unless the other person is also a bhikkhu, in which case he is the one responsible. The Commentary states that if a senior bhikkhu requests a junior bhikkhu to place out in the open any furnishings that may be grounds for a penalty, then the junior bhikkhu is responsible for them until the senior bhikkhu sits down on them, places an article of his use (such as a robe or a shoulder bag) on them, or gives the junior bhikkhu permission to leave, after which point the senior bhikkhu is responsible. | 比丘有责任收拾他命令别人摆放在露天的家具，除非另一个人也是比丘，在这种情况下，他就是负责人。《义注》指出，如果一位资深比丘要求一位资浅比丘将任何可能成为惩罚理由的家具摆放在露天，那么资浅比丘要对这些家具负责，直到资深比丘坐在上面，在上面放置他使用的物品（比如袈裟或肩包），或者允许资浅比丘离开，此后资深比丘要负责。 |
| The Commentary also states that if there is to be an open-air meeting, the host bhikkhus are responsible for any seats set out in the open, until the visiting bhikkhus claim their places, from which point the visitors are responsible. If there is to be a series of Dhamma talks, each speaker is responsible for the sermon seat from the moment he sits in it until the moment the next speaker does. | 《义注》也指出，如果要举行露天会议，主办比丘要负责露天摆放的任何座位，直到来访的比丘占据自己的座位，从那时开始，来访的比丘就要负责。如果有一系列的佛法开示，每位开示者都要对讲经座位负责，从他坐下的那一刻起直到下一位开示者坐下的那一刻。 |
| Non-offenses | 不犯 |
| As stated above, there is no offense if one departs having set furnishings belonging to the Community or another individual out in the sun with the purpose of drying them, and thinking, “I will put them away when I come back (§).” Also, there is no offense: | 如上所述，如果离开时将属于僧团或另一个人的家具放在阳光下，目的是将其晒干，并想著「我回来时会把它们收起来（§）」，这并不构成犯戒。此外，以下也无犯戒： |
if one departs after someone else takes possession of or responsibility for furnishings one has left out in the open;
|
如果在他人接管或负责自己留在户外的家具后才离开；
|
if there are constraints on the furnishings—the Commentary mentions a senior bhikkhu making one get up from them and taking possession of them, tigers or lions lying down on them, or ghosts or ogres taking possession of them; or
|
如果家具有限制——《义注》中提到，一位资深比丘让自己从家具上站起来并占有它们，老虎或狮子躺在它们上面，或鬼魂或妖魔占有它们；或者
|
if there are dangers—which according to the Commentary means dangers to one’s life or to one’s remaining in the celibate life—that leave one no time to put the furnishings away.
|
如果有危险——根据《义注》，这意味著对自己的生命或保持梵行生活的危险——那么就没有时间把家具收起来。
|
| The Vinaya-mukha, extracting a general principle from this rule, says, “This training rule was formulated to prevent negligence and to teach one to care for things. It should be taken as a general model.” | 《戒律入口》从此戒条中提取出一条普遍原则，说道：「此学处被制定来防止疏忽，并教导爱护事物。它应该被视为普遍的典范。」 |
| Summary: When one has set a bed, bench, mattress, or stool belonging to the Community out in the open: Leaving its immediate vicinity without putting it away, arranging to have it put away, or taking leave is a pācittiya offense. | 摘要：当将属于僧团的床、长椅、床垫或凳子放在露天时：离开其附近而不将其放好、安排将其放好，或告别，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。 |
* * *
| 15 | 十五 |
Should any bhikkhu set out bedding in a dwelling belonging to the Community—or have it set out—and then on departing neither put it away nor have it put away, or should he go without taking leave, it is to be confessed.
|
如果任何比丘在僧团的住所摆放寝具—或让人摆放寝具—然后离开时既不收拾，也不让人收拾，或不告而别就离开，波逸提。
|
| Here again the three factors for a full offense are object, effort, and intention. | 此处再一次，构成完整犯戒的三个要素是对象、努力和意图。 |
| Object | 对象 |
| Bedding here includes mattresses, pillows, rugs, sheets, mats, sitting cloths, blankets, bedspreads, animal skins, throw rugs, etc., but not the beds or benches on which they may be placed. Unlike the preceding rule, the question of whom the bedding belongs to is not an issue in determining the offense under this rule. | 这里的寝具包括床垫、枕头、地毯、床单、垫子、坐布、毯子、床罩、动物皮、小地毯等，但不包括放置这些物品的床或长椅。与前一条戒条不同，本戒条寝具属于谁的问题与判定犯戒不相关。 |
| The place where it is left, though, is an issue. Bedding left in a dwelling belonging to the Community is grounds for a pācittiya. Bedding (§) left in a dwelling belonging to another individual is grounds for a dukkaṭa, as is bedding left in the area around a dwelling, in an assembly hall, an open pavilion, or at the foot of a tree—these last three places belonging to the Community or to another individual. | 但它被放置在哪里则是一个问题。遗留在僧团住处内的寝具是构成《波逸提》的理由。将寝具（§）遗留在他人住处内，是构成《突吉罗》的理由，将寝具留在住所周围、集会大厅、开放凉亭、或树下也是构成《突吉罗》的理由 —— 最后这三个地方属于僧团或他人所有。 |
| A bed or a bench taken from its original place and left in any of the above places is grounds for a dukkaṭa. Given that this rule covers a different kind of ”departing” from the preceding rule, this penalty applies even during the periods when one is allowed to keep such things under trees, etc., through the allowance given in the Vibhaṅga to that rule. | 将床或长椅从其原处搬走并遗留在上述任何地方均会构成《突吉罗》的理由。鉴于此戒条涵盖了与前一条戒条不同的「离开」，因此，即使在根据本戒条的《经分别》的开缘允许将此类物品放在树下等的期间，也适用此惩罚。 |
| Bedding left in a dwelling, etc., belonging to oneself is not grounds for an offense. | 将寝具留在属于自己的住所等处不构成犯戒。 |
| According to the Vibhaṅga, this rule applies specifically to bedding that one has oneself set out or arranged to be set out. Thus it would not apply to cases where a bhikkhu comes to a dwelling and finds bedding already set out there, even when set out as a courtesy for him. The Commentary qualifies this point by saying that if a visiting bhikkhu is staying temporarily in a Community dwelling to which another bhikkhu has laid claim (see BMC2, Chapter 18), the bedding is the responsibility of the bhikkhu with the claim on the dwelling, and not of the visitor. Once the visitor does lay claim to the dwelling, however, responsibility for the bedding becomes his. In line with this qualification, if a monastery has a dwelling set aside for receiving visiting elders, it would be a wise policy for one of the resident bhikkhus to lay claim to it so that visiting elders would not have to be responsible for any bedding set out for them. | 根据《经分别》，这条戒条专门适用于自己摆放或安排令人摆放的寝具。因此，这不适用于比丘来到住处并发现那里已经摆放好寝具的情况，即使是出于对他的礼貌而摆放的寝具。《义注》中对此进行了限定，指出如果一位来访的比丘暂时住在另一位比丘声称居住的僧团住处（见《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第十八章），则寝具是声称居住该住处的比丘的责任，而不是访客的责任。然而，一旦访客确实对该住处提出声称居住，寝具的责任就落到访客身上了。依照这项条件，如果一座寺院专门为接待来访的长老而设立了住处，那么明智的做法是让其中一位常住比丘声称居住该住处，这样来访的长老就不必负责为他们摆放的寝具。 |
| Perception as to whether the dwelling belongs to the Community or to another individual is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). | 关于该住处是否属于僧团或其他个人的感知并不是这里的减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。 |
| Effort | 努力 |
| The Commentary’s discussion of putting the item away shows that it essentially means putting it back in the safe place where it was kept before being spread out. Thus, if the bedding was hanging in a bundle from a clothesline before being spread out, it should be wrapped in a bundle and hung from the line as before. If it was taken from another room, it should be returned to the room from which it was taken. | 《义注》中关于收起物品的讨论表明，它本质上意味著将其放回被展开之前保存的安全地方。因此，如果寝具在被展开之前是捆成一捆挂在晾衣绳上的，则应将其包捆起来并像之前一样挂在晾衣绳上。如果是从另一个房间拿走的，则应将其放回被拿走的房间。 |
| Having the item put away and taking leave are defined as under the preceding rule, with one exception: A bhikkhu who orders someone else to spread the item is responsible for it even if the other person is also ordained. | 令人收起物品和告别的定义与前一条戒条相同，但有一个例外：命令其他人展开物品的比丘要对其负责，即使另一个人也受过具足戒。 |
| To depart is defined as going outside the grounds of the monastery: beyond the wall of the monastery if it is walled, beyond its vicinity if it is not. (In all rules mentioning this point, the Commentary defines a monastery’s vicinity as a distance of two leḍḍupātas—approximately 36 meters—from the buildings.) However, the absence of any reference to this rule in the protocols to be done before one’s alms round (Cv.VIII.5—see BMC2, Chapter 9) indicates that temporary excursions outside the monastery are not counted as “departing.” This conclusion is seconded by one of the non-offense clauses here, discussed below, which says that when a bhikkhu goes with the expectation of returning but then sends word back to the monastery that he is taking leave, he avoids any penalty under this rule. This implies that a bhikkhu who leaves his bedding spread out in a dwelling belonging to the Community, leaves the monastery temporarily with the intent of returning, and returns as planned, incurs no penalty as well. | 离开的定义是走出寺院的范围：如果寺院有围墙，则走出寺院围墙之外；如果没有围墙，则走出寺院周围。（在所有提到这一点的戒条中，《义注》都将寺院的附近定义为距离建筑物两个 leḍḍupāta（约 36 米）的距离。）然而，在托钵前需作持的行仪中没有提到这条戒条（《小品》.八.5 ——参见《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第九章），这表明寺院外的临时出游不算作「离开」。这一结论得到了下面讨论的其中一条不犯条款的支持，该条款规定，当一位比丘带著返回的期望出去，但随后又向寺院传回话说他要告别时，他可以避免根据这条戒条受到任何惩罚。这意味著，如果比丘将自己的寝具展开留在僧团的住所中，暂时离开寺院并打算返回，并且按照计划返回，那么他也不会受到惩罚。 |
| The question arises, though, as to how long a temporary period of absence is allowable. The Vibhaṅga itself sets no time limit. The Commentary illustrates the non-offense clause we have just mentioned with the case of a bhikkhu who leaves, thinking, “I will return today,” but makes no specific statement that longer periods are not allowed. | 但问题是，暂时不在多久是被允许的。《经分别》本身没有设定时间限制。《义注》以比丘离开时想著「我今天会回来」的例子来说明我们刚才提到的不犯条款，但没有具体说明不允许停留更长时间。 |
| Because the texts give no specific guidelines here, this is a matter that each Community should decide for itself, taking the following considerations into account: | 由于文献中此处没有给出具体的指导方针，因此每个僧团都应自行决定此事，并考虑以下因素： |
1) The origin story suggests that the purpose of the rule is to prevent the bedding’s being left so long in an unoccupied dwelling that it attracts ants, termites, or other pests.
|
1）起源故事表明，本戒条的目的是防止寝具在无人居住的住所中放置太久，以致吸引蚂蚁、白蚁或其他害虫。
|
2) Another consideration, raised by the Vinaya-mukha, is that if a bhikkhu goes for a long excursion, leaving his bedding and other belongings scattered about in a dwelling, this might inconvenience the resident bhikkhus in that they could not easily allot the dwelling to another bhikkhu in the interim.
|
2）《戒律入口》提出的另一个考虑是，如果比丘外出长途旅行，将他的寝具和其他物品散落在住处内，这可能会给住在那里的比丘带来不便，因为他们无法在这段时间轻易地将住所分配给另一位比丘。
|
| Intention | 意图 |
| is a factor here, in that—as mentioned above—if one plans to return within the allowable space of time, there is no offense. This point is conveyed by a passage in the non-offense clauses that reads, “having gone with the desire (to return), staying there one takes leave; he is constrained by something or another.” The Commentary, reasonably, reads this passage as two exemptions governed by the first phrase. In other words, (1) if one leaves the monastery with the intent to return and then, after reaching the opposite bank of a river or going the interval of one village away, one changes one’s mind and decides not to return, one can avoid an offense by sending word back to the monastery with the message that one is taking leave. Or, (2) if one leaves the monastery with the intent to return but encounters physical constraints—such as flooded rivers, kings, or robbers—that prevent one’s return, that in and of itself exempts one from an offense, and there is no need to send word. | 在此处是一个因素，因为——如上所述——如果计划在允许的时间内返回，那就没有犯戒。不犯条款中的一段话传达了这一点，写道「带著（返回的）愿望去，留在那里告别，他受到某些事物的束缚。」《义注》合理地将这段话解读为受第一句约束的两项豁免。换句话说，（1）如果离开寺院，打算返回，但到达河对岸，或走过一个村庄的距离后，改变主意，决定不再返回，只需向寺院传回话说要告别，即可避免犯戒。或者（2）如果离开寺院，打算返回，但遭遇身体限制——例如河水泛滥、国王或盗贼——阻止返回，这本身就免除了他的罪行，不需要传话。 |
| Non-offenses | 不犯 |
| In addition to these two exemptions, the Vibhaṅga says that there is no offense in departing having left bedding spread out in a dwelling if someone else has taken responsibility for the bedding or if one has taken leave of a bhikkhu, a novice, or a monastery attendant. According to the protocols to be done before leaving a monastery to live elsewhere (Cv.VIII.3.2), if there is no one from whom to take leave, “then having set the bed on four stones, having stacked bed on bed, bench on bench, having placed the lodgings (including the bedding) in a heap on top, having put away the wooden goods and clay goods, having closed the windows and doors, he may set out.” | 除了这两项豁免之外，《经分别》还规定，如果有其他人对寝具负责，或者如果已经向比丘、沙弥或寺院侍者告别，那么离开时将展开的寝具留在住处并不算犯戒。根据离开寺院去其他地方居住前需作持的行仪（《小品》.八.3.2），如果没有人可以告别，「那么，要把床放在四块石头上，把床叠放在床上，把长椅叠放在长椅上，把卧坐具（包括寝具）堆放在上面，把木器和陶器收好，关上门窗，然后他就可以出发了。」 |
| And as under the preceding rule, there is no offense if there is a constraint on the bedding or there are dangers—i.e., constraints or dangers that would prevent one from putting them away before leaving. | 并且如同前面的戒条，如果寝具有限制条件或危险（即，限制条件或危险会阻止在离开之前将寝具收起来），则不构成犯戒。 |
| Summary: When one has spread bedding out in a dwelling belonging to the Community: Departing from the monastery without putting it away, arranging to have it put away, or taking leave is a pācittiya offense. | 摘要：当在僧团的住处内展开寝具时：离开寺院时没有将其收拾好、没有安排令其收拾好、或者没有告别，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。 |
* * *
| 16 | 十六 |
Should any bhikkhu knowingly lie down in a dwelling belonging to the Community so as to intrude on a bhikkhu who arrived there first, (thinking), “Whoever finds it confining will go away”—doing it for just that reason and no other—it is to be confessed.
|
如果任何比丘明知地躺在僧团的住处中，以致打扰到先到的比丘，（想著），「谁觉得局限就会走开」 — 只因为这个原因而这样做，没有别的原因 — 波逸提。
|
| There are four factors for an offense here. | 此处的犯戒有四个因素。 |
1) Object: a bhikkhu who should not be forced to move.
|
1）对象：不应被强迫搬迁的比丘。
|
2) Perception: One perceives him as such.
|
2）感知：知道他不应被强迫搬迁。
|
3) Effort: One intrudes on his space in a dwelling belonging to the Community
|
3）努力：侵入了属于僧团住处的他的空间
|
4) Intention: with the sole purpose of forcing him out.
|
4）意图：唯一目的就是迫使他离开。
|
| Object & perception | 对象及感知 |
| Knowingly is defined in the Vibhaṅga as knowing that the dwelling’s current occupant is a senior bhikkhu, a sick one, or one to whom the Community (or its official) has assigned the dwelling. The Commentary interprets this definition as a list of examples and generalizes from it to include any case where one knows, “This bhikkhu shouldn’t be forced to move.” | 《经分别》将「明知地」定义为知到住处的现任居住者是资深比丘、病人、或僧团（或其执事）已指定居于该住处的人。《义注》将这个定义解释为一系列例子，并从中概括出来包含任何我们知道「这个比丘不应该被迫搬迁」的情况。 |
| Effort | 努力 |
| To intrude means to lie down or sit down in the area immediately adjacent to the bhikkhu’s sleeping or sitting place—which the Commentary defines as anywhere within 75 cm. of the sleeping or sitting place—or on a 75 cm. wide path from either of those places to the dwelling’s entrance. There is a dukkaṭa for placing one’s bedding or seat in such an area, and a pācittiya for each time one sits or lies down there. To place one’s bedding or seat in any other part of the dwelling entails a dukkaṭa; and to sit or lie down there, another dukkaṭa—assuming in all of these cases that the dwelling belongs to the Community. | 侵入的意思是躺下或坐下在紧邻比丘睡觉或坐著的地方的区域——《义注》将其定义为距离睡觉或坐著的地方 75 公分以内的任何地方——或从上述任两个地点之一到住处入口的 75 公分宽的道路上。在这样的区域放置寝具或座位是《突吉罗》，而每次在那里坐著或躺下是《波逸提》。将寝具或座位放置在住处的任何其他部分犯《突吉罗》；而在那里坐著或躺下，另一次《突吉罗》——在所有这些情况下，都假设该住处属于僧团。 |
| Perception with regard to the dwelling is not an issue here (see Pc 4). If the dwelling actually belongs to the Community, this part of the factor is fulfilled regardless of whether one perceives it as belonging to the Community or not. | 关于住处的感知在这里不是问题（参见《波逸提》四）。如果该住处确实属于僧团，那么无论是否认为它属于僧团，这一部分因素都已满足。 |
| There is a dukkaṭa for intruding on the space of a bhikkhu—intending to force him out—in the area immediately adjacent to such a dwelling, in a place belonging to the Community that is not the dwelling of a particular person (e.g., an open pavilion or a meal hall), the shade of a tree, in the open air, or in a dwelling belonging to another individual. To do so in a dwelling belonging to oneself entails no offense. According to the Commentary, this last allowance also applies to a dwelling belonging to anyone who has offered to let one take his/her belongings on trust. | 侵入比丘的空间（意图强迫他离开）、这样的住处的紧邻区域、属于僧团但不是某个特定的人的住处的地方（例如，开放凉亭或食堂）、树荫下、露天场所、或属于另一个人的住处，是《突吉罗》。在自己的住处这样做并不犯戒。根据《义注》，最后这项开缘也适用于任何愿意让自己基于信任拿走其所有物的人的住处。 |
| Intention | 意图 |
| If there is a compelling reason—one is ill or suffering from the cold or heat, or there are dangers outside—one may intrude on the space of another bhikkhu without penalty. The reason for these allowances would appear obvious—one is not aiming at forcing the other bhikkhu out—but the matter is not as simple as that. The Sub-commentary reports the Three Gaṇṭhipadas as saying that because of this allowance, one may make an excuse of one’s illness, etc., as a pretext for intruding on the other bhikkhu’s space so as to force him out of the dwelling. The Sub-commentary tries to argue with this ruling, but the Gaṇṭhipadas have the support of the Vibhaṅga here: Only if one’s sole motive is to force the other bhikkhu out is one subject to an offense under this rule. If one has mixed motives, one may take advantage of one’s illness, etc., to move in on the other bhikkhu. | 如果有令人信服的理由——疾病、受寒或受热，或外面有危险——可以侵入另一个比丘的空间而不受惩罚。给予这些开缘的理由显而易见──目的并不是要强迫另一方比丘离开──但事情并非如此简单。《复注》引用《Three Gaṇṭhipadas》指出，由于这种开缘，可以以自己生病等为借口，侵入其他比丘的空间，迫使他离开住处。《复注》试图反驳这项规定，但《Gaṇṭhipadas》在这里得到了《经分别》的支持：只有当唯一动机是强迫另一位比丘离开时，他才会犯本戒条。如果有混合的动机，可以利用自己的疾病等来搬到其他比丘那里。 |
| However, once the illness, etc., has passed, one would commit an offense each time one continued to sit or lie down intruding on his space. | 然而，一旦疾病等过去了，每次继续坐下或躺下来侵入他的空间，就会犯戒。 |
| All of this may seem very strange on the surface, but it is likely that the original occupant would not feel unduly pressured if an ill bhikkhu or one escaping dangers were to move into his dwelling, while he would start feeling pressured by the continued presence of the bhikkhu after the illness or dangers had passed, which is why the penalties are allotted as they are. | 这一切表面上看起来很奇怪，但很可能原来的居住者不会因为生病的比丘或逃避危险的比丘搬进他的住所而感到过度的压力，而当疾病或危险过去后，比丘继续住在那里，他就会开始感到压力，这就是为什么要分配这样的惩罚。 |
| Summary: Intruding on another bhikkhu’s sleeping or sitting place in a dwelling belonging to the Community, with the sole purpose of making him uncomfortable and forcing him to leave, is a pācittiya offense. | 摘要：侵入僧团住处中另一位比丘的睡觉或坐著的地方，仅仅是为了让他感到不舒服并强迫他离开，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。 |
* * *
| 17 | 十七 |
Should any bhikkhu, angered and displeased, evict a bhikkhu from a dwelling belonging to the Community—or have him evicted—it is to be confessed.
|
如果任何比丘因愤怒和不满而将比丘从僧团的住处中赶出，或命令他人将其赶出，波逸提。
|
“At that time some group-of-seventeen bhikkhus (see Pc 65) were fixing up a large dwelling on the fringes of the monastery, thinking, ‘We will spend the Rains here.’ Some group-of-six bhikkhus… seeing them, said, ‘These group-of-seventeen bhikkhus are fixing up a dwelling place. Let’s drive them out.’ But others of them said, ‘Wait, friends, while they fix it up. When it’s fixed up, then we’ll drive them out.’
|
|
“Then the group-of-six bhikkhus said to the group-of-seventeen bhikkhus, ‘Get out, friends. The dwelling is ours.’
|
「然后六群比丘对十七群比丘说：『出去吧，朋友们。这住处是我们的。」
|
“‘Shouldn’t this have been mentioned beforehand so that we could have fixed up another one?’
|
「『这难道不应该事先提吗，这样我们就可以修葺另一处？』
|
“‘Isn’t this a dwelling belonging to the Community?’
|
「『这不是属于僧团的住处吗？』
|
“‘Yes….’
|
「『是的…。』
|
“‘Then get out. The dwelling is ours.’
|
「『那就出去吧。这住处是我们的。』
|
“‘The dwelling is large, friends. You can stay here, and we’ll stay here, too.’
|
「『住处很大，朋友们。你们可以住在这里，我们也会住在这里。』
|
“‘Get out. The dwelling is ours.’ And, angered and displeased, seizing them by the throat, they threw them out. The group-of-seventeen bhikkhus, having been thrown out, began to cry.”
|
「『出去！这住处是我们的。』愤怒且不满，掐住他们的喉咙，把他们扔了出去。被扔出去的十七群比丘们哭了起来。』
|
| The three factors for the full offense here are: | 此处构成完全违犯的三个因素是： |
1) Object: a bhikkhu.
|
1）对象：比丘。
|
2) Effort: One evicts him from a dwelling belonging to the Community.
|
2）努力：将他从属于僧团的住处中赶出去。
|
3) Intention: One’s prime impulse is anger.
|
3）意图：主要冲动是愤怒。
|
| Object | 对象 |
| A bhikkhu is grounds for a pācittiya here, while the following are grounds for a dukkaṭa: a bhikkhu’s belongings, an unordained person, and an unordained person’s belongings. | 在此，比丘是构成《波逸提》的理由，而下列各项是构成《突吉罗》的理由：比丘的所有物、未受具足戒者、未受具足戒者的所有物。 |
| Effort | 努力 |
| According to the Commentary, this rule covers both physical eviction—picking up the bhikkhu and throwing him out—as well as verbal eviction—ordering him to leave. The penalty in both cases is the same. (The Mahāsāṁghikas and Sarvāstivādins write this point into their version of the rule.) The Vibhaṅga counts offenses here as follows: a pācittiya for evicting the bhikkhu from the room to the porch, and another pācittiya for evicting him off the porch. If, with a single effort, one evicts him through many doors, one incurs a single pācittiya. | 根据《义注》，这条戒条涵盖了身体驱逐（抓起比丘并将他扔出去）以及口头驱逐（命令他离开）。两种情况的惩罚是一样的。（大众部与说一切有部将这一点写入他们的戒条版本中。）《经分别》在此计算犯戒次数如下：将比丘从房间赶到门廊处，一次《波逸提》；将比丘赶出门廊处，另一次《波逸提》。如果用单一次努力，就将他驱逐出数个门去，犯单一次《波逸提》。 |
| There is a dukkaṭa in telling someone else to evict the bhikkhu—no allowances for kappiya-vohāra are given here—and, assuming that all the other factors are fulfilled, a pācittiya once the bhikkhu has been evicted, regardless of how many efforts it takes. (The Thai edition of the Canon assigns a pācittiya for the order/request for someone else to do the eviction, but even the Thai edition of the Commentary assigns only a dukkaṭa here, as do all the other major editions of the Canon, so the Thai reading here is probably mistaken.) | 告诉其他人驱逐比丘是《突吉罗》 —— 这里不允许 kappiya-vohāra —— 并且，假设所有其他因素都满足，一旦比丘被驱逐，就犯一次《波逸提》，无论花费多少努力。（泰国版《圣典》将命令/请求他人执行驱逐指定为犯一次《波逸提》，但即使是泰国版《义注》也只在此处指定了一次《突吉罗》，所有其他主要版本的《圣典》也都如此，因此这里的泰国拼读可能是错误的。） |
(未完待续)