波逸提

Four: The Food Chapter	第四食物品
Many of the rules in this chapter classify food into two groups: bhojana/bhojaniya (consumables) and khādaniya (chewables). Scholars usually translate the two as “softer food” and “harder food,” although the hardness or softness of a particular food has little to do with the category it belongs to. A translation closer to the essence of each category would be “staple food” and “non-staple food.” The distinction between the two is important, for it is often the deciding factor between what is and is not an offense. Note, however, that the term staple here covers only what was considered staple in the time of the Buddha. Bread, pasta, and potatoes, which are staples in the West, were not always staples in India at that time and so do not always fit into this category.	本章中的许多戒条将食物分为两类：bhojana/bhojaniya（噉食）和khādaniya（嚼食）。学者通常将两者翻译为「较软的食物」和「较硬的食物」，尽管特定食物的软硬程度与其所属类别关系不大。更贴近每个类别本质的翻译是「主食」和「副食」。两者之间的差异至关重要，因为它往往是决定什么是犯戒，什么不是犯戒的因素。但请注意，此处的「主食」一词仅涵盖佛陀时代被认为是主食的食物。面包、义大利面和马铃薯在西方是主食，但在当时的印度并非一直都是主食，因此并不总是属于这一类别。
Staple foods	主食（噉食）
Staple foods are consistently defined as five sorts of foods, although the precise definitions of the first two are a matter of controversy.	主食一致地被定义为五种食物，尽管前两种食物的精确定义存在争议。
1) Cooked grains: The Commentary to Pc 35 defines this as seven types of cooked grain, but there is disagreement on the identity of some of the seven. They are sāḷi (BD translates this as rice; the Thais, wheat); vīhi (BD again has rice, and the Thais agree); yava (BD has barley; the Thais, glutinous rice); godhūma (BD has wheat; the Thais, tares); kaṅgu (both BD and the Thais identify this as millet or sorghum); varaka (BD doesn’t identify this beyond saying that it is a bean; the Thais are probably right in identifying it as Job’s tears); and kudrūsaka (the Commentary defines this term as covering all forms of grain coming from grass—rye would be an example in the West). Whatever the precise definitions of these terms, though, we could argue from the Great Standards that any grain cooked as a staple—including corn (maize) and oats—would fit into this category.	1）煮熟的谷物：《波逸提》三五的《义注》将其定义为七种煮熟的谷物，但对于其中某些谷物的定义存在分歧。它们是 sāḷi （《戒律书》将其译为米，泰国人译为小麦）； vīhi （《戒律书》仍将其译为米，泰国人也同意）； yava （《戒律书》将其译为大麦，泰国人译为糯米）； godhūma （《戒律书》将其译为小麦，泰国佛教徒译为稗子）； kaṅgu （《戒律书》和泰国人均将其译为小米或高粱）； varaka （《戒律书》仅说其为豆类之外没有确认，泰国人将其译为薏米，这可能是正确的）；以及 kudrūsaka （《义注》将其定义为涵盖所有来自草类的谷物——在西方，黑麦是一个例子）。然而，无论这些术语的确切定义是什么，我们都可以从《四大教示》中论证，任何作为主食烹饪的谷物——包括玉米和燕麦——都属于这一类。
2) Kummāsa: The Commentary describes this as a staple confection made out of yava but doesn’t give any further details aside from saying that if the kummāsa is made out of any of the other grains or mung beans, it doesn’t count as a staple food. References to kummāsa in the Canon show that it was a very common staple that could form a rudimentary meal in and of itself and would spoil if left overnight.	2）Kummāsa：《义注》将其描述为一种用 yava 制成的主食甜点，但除了指出如果 kummāsa 是用其他谷物或绿豆制成的，则不算主食之外，没有提供更多细节。《圣典》中对 kummāsa 的引用表明，它是一种非常常见的主食，本身就可以作为一顿简陋的饭菜，如果放置过夜就会变质。
3) Sattu: any of the seven types of grain dried or roasted and pounded into meal.	3）Sattu：七种谷物中的任何一种，经过干燥或烘烤后捣成粉。
4) Fish: the flesh of any animal living in the water.	4）鱼：任何生活在水里的动物的肉。
5) Meat: the flesh of any animal living on land, except for that which is unallowable. Because the Commentary, in discussing unallowable meat, uses the word meat to cover all parts of an animal’s body, the same convention would apply to allowable meat (and to fish) as well. Thus it covers the liver, kidneys, eggs, etc., of any animal whose flesh is allowable.	5）肉类：指任何陆地动物的肉，但禁止食用的除外。由于《义注》在讨论禁止食用的肉类时，使用「肉」一词来指称动物身体的所有部位，因此同样的惯例也适用于允许食用的肉类（以及鱼类）。因此，它涵盖了任何允许食用的动物的肝脏、肾脏、蛋类等。
The Mahāvagga (Mv.VI.23.9-15) forbids ten kinds of flesh: that of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas. To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other unallowable types, a dukkaṭa. Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too noble to be used as food. The other types of meat were forbidden either on grounds that they were repulsive (“People criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome, disgusting’”) or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion’s flesh, went into the jungle; the lions there, instead of criticizing or complaining, attacked them).	《大品》（《大品》.六.23.9-15）禁食十种肉：人肉、象肉、马肉、狗肉、蛇肉、狮肉、虎肉、豹肉、熊肉和鬣狗肉。食用人肉犯《偷兰遮》；食用任何其他不被允许食用的肉则犯《突吉罗》。人肉、马肉和象肉被认为过于尊贵，不宜食用。其他肉类被禁止食用，要么是因为它们令人讨厌（「人们批评、抱怨并四处传播：『这些沙门释迦子怎么能吃狗肉？狗令人厌恶，令人作呕』」），要么是因为它们危险（比丘们，闻起来有狮子肉的味道，进入丛林；那里的狮子没有批评或抱怨，而攻击了他们）。
The Commentary adds three comments here: (a) These prohibitions cover not only the meat of these animals but also their blood, bones, skin, and hide (the layer of tissue just under the skin—see AN 4:113). (b) The prohibition against dog flesh does not include wild dogs, such as wolves and foxes, (but many teachers—including the Thai translator of the Commentary—question this point). The flesh of a half-dog half-wolf mixture, however, would be forbidden. (c) The prohibition against snake flesh covers the flesh of all long, footless beings. Thus eels would not be allowed. (Many Communities question this last point as well.)	《义注》在此补充了三点评论： (a) 这些禁令不仅涵盖这些动物的肉，还涵盖它们的血、骨、皮和兽皮（皮下组织层－参见《增支部》4:113经）。 (b) 禁止食用狗肉的规定并不包括狼和狐狸等野狗（但许多导师——包括《义注》的泰文译者——对此表示质疑）。然而，半狗半狼混血的肉是被禁止的。 (c) 禁止食用蛇肉的规定涵盖所有长而无足的生物的肉。因此，鳗鱼是不允许的。（许多僧团也对最后一点表示质疑。）
Mv.VI.23.9 also states that if a bhikkhu is uncertain as to the identity of any meat presented to him, he incurs a dukkaṭa if he doesn’t ask the donor what it is before eating it. The Commentary interprets this as meaning that if, on reflection, one recognizes what kind of meat it is, one needn’t ask the donor about the identity of the meat. If one doesn’t recognize it, one must ask. If one mistakenly identifies an unallowable sort of meat as allowable and then goes ahead and consumes it under that mistaken assumption, there is no offense.	《大品》.六.23.9 也规定，如果比丘不确定提供给自己的肉是什么，并且在食用前没有询问施主，犯《突吉罗》。《义注》对此的解释是，如果经过深思熟虑后，认出了是什么肉，就无需询问施主是什么肉。如果认不出，就必须询问。如果比丘错误地将不允许的肉认定为可允许的肉，并基于这种错误的认知继续食用，则不构成犯戒。
Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed by non-human beings. Thus, in more ordinary circumstances, one may not eat raw fish or meat even if of an allowable kind. This would include such things as steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, raw eggs, and caviar. Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the purpose of feeding bhikkhus (Mv.VI.31.14).	根据《大品》.六.10.2，只有当非人附身时，才允许食用生肉和血。因此，在更普遍的情况下，即使是允许的生鱼或生肉，也不得食用。这包括鞑靼牛排、生鱼片、带壳牡蛎、生蛋和鱼子酱。此外，如果比丘看到、听到或怀疑动物是专门为了供养比丘而宰杀的，即使是允许的熟鱼或熟肉，也是不允许食用的（《大品》.六.31.14）。

Non-staple foods	副食（嚼食）
Non-staple foods are defined according to context:	副食根据上下文定义：
a) in Pc 35-38: every edible aside from staple foods, juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines (see below);	a）在《波逸提》三五至三八中：除主食、果汁饮料、五种补品和药物以外的所有可食用物（见下文）；
b) in Pc 40: every edible aside from staple foods, water, and toothwood;	b）在《波逸提》四十中：除主食、水和齿木以外的所有可食用物；
c) in Pc 41 (also the bhikkhunīs’ Pc 44 & 54): every edible aside from staple foods, the five tonics, juice drinks, medicine, and conjey.	c）在《波逸提》四一中（也在比丘尼《波逸提》四四和五四）：除主食、五种补品、果汁饮料、药物和粥之外的所有可食用物。
The Commentary to Pc 37 lists the following items as non-staple foods: flour and confections made of flour (cakes, bread and pasta made without eggs would be classed here); also, roots, tubers (this would include potatoes), lotus roots, sprouts, stems, bark, leaves, flowers, fruits, nuts, seed-meal, seeds, and resins that are made into food. Any of these items ordinarily used as medicines, though, would not be classed as a non-staple food.	《波逸提》三七的《义注》将以下物品列为副食：面粉和面粉制成的甜点（不含鸡蛋的蛋糕、面包和义大利面也归入此类）；此外，根、块茎（包括马铃薯）、莲藕、芽、茎、树皮、叶子、花、果实、坚果、种子粉、种子以及制成食物的树脂。然而，任何这些通常用作药物之物均不属于副食。
The Commentary also acknowledges that some societies use roots, tubers, confections made out of flour, etc., as staple foods, but it nowhere suggests that the definition of staple food be altered to fit the society in which one is living. However—because eggs come under meat—any bread, pastries, noodles, and pasta made with eggs are staple foods. Thus in the West we are left with a somewhat zigzag line separating what are and are not staple foods for the purposes of the rules: Meal pounded from grain is a staple; flour ground from grain is not. Bread made with oat meal, corn meal, wheat germ, etc., would thus be a staple; bread made without any grain meal or eggs would not. The same holds true for pastries, noodles, and pasta.	《义注》也承认有些社会使用根茎类植物、面粉制成的甜点等作为主食，但并未暗示应根据个人所处的社会环境改变主食的定义。然而，由于鸡蛋属于肉类，任何用鸡蛋制成的面包、糕点、面条和义大利面都属于主食。因此，在西方，就戒条而言，主食和副食的划分存在一条略显曲折的界线：谷物捣碎的粗粮是主食；谷物磨成的面粉则不是。因此，用燕麦粉、玉米粉、小麦胚芽等制成的面包是主食；不含谷物粉或鸡蛋的面包则不是主食。糕点、面条和义大利面也是如此。
This means that it would be possible for a donor to provide bhikkhus with a full, strictly vegetarian meal that would include absolutely no staple foods. A wise policy in such a case, though, would be to treat the meal as if it did contain staple foods with reference to the rules (Pc 33 & 35) that aim at saving face for the donor.	这意味著，布施者可以为比丘提供一顿完整的、纯素食的餐食，其中完全不含任何主食。然而，在这种情况下，明智的做法是，参照《波逸提》三三和三五的戒条，将这顿餐食视为如同包含主食，以维护布施者的面子。
Conjey, the watery rice porridge or gruel commonly drunk before alms round in the time of the Buddha, is classed differently according to context. If it is so thick that it cannot be drunk and must be eaten with a spoon, it is regarded as a staple food at Mv.VI.25.7 and under Pc 33. “Drinking conjey” is classed as a non-staple food under Pc 35-38 & 40, whereas it is considered neither a staple nor a non-staple food under Pc 41. The Commentary notes, though, that if drinking conjey has bits of meat or fish “larger than lettuce seeds” floating in it, it is a staple food.	粥（conjey）是佛陀时代托钵前常喝的一种含水米粥，根据上下文有不同的分类。如果它太浓稠，无法直接饮用，必须用汤匙食用，则在《大品》.六.25.7和《波逸提》三三中被视为主食。「饮用粥」在《波逸提》三五至三八和四十中被归类为副食，而在《波逸提》四一中，它既不被视为主食，也不被视为副食。然而，《义注》指出，如果饮用粥中漂浮著「比生菜种子还大」的肉碎或鱼碎，它就是主食。
Mv.VI.34.21 contains an allowance for the five products of the cow: milk, curds, buttermilk, butter, and ghee. The Commentary mentions that each of these five may be taken separately—i.e., the allowance does not mean that all five must be taken together. Milk and curds are classed as “finer staple foods” under Pc 39, but in other contexts they fit under the definition of non-staple food. All other dairy products—except for fresh butter and ghee when used as tonics (see NP 23)—are non-staple foods.	《大品》.六.34.21 规定了五种牛制品的开缘：牛奶、凝乳、酪乳、奶油和酥油。《义注》中提到，这五种产品的任一种可以单独食用——也就是说，开缘并不意味著必须同时食用所有五种。在《波逸提》三九下，牛奶和凝乳被归类为「精细主食」，但在其他上下文脉络之下，它们符合副食的定义。所有其他乳制品——除了用作补品的新鲜奶油和酥油（参见《舍堕》二三）——都属于副食。
One of the ten disputed points that led to the convening of the Second Council was the issue of whether thin sour milk—milk that has passed the state of being milk but not yet arrived at the state of being buttermilk—would count inside or outside the general category of staple/non-staple food under Pc 35. The decision of the Council was that it was inside the category, and thus a bhikkhu who has turned down an offer of further food would commit the offense under that rule if he later in the morning consumed thin sour milk that was not left over.	导致第二次结集的十个争议点之一是稀酸奶（已经过了牛奶状态但还未达到酪乳状态的牛奶）是否应在《波逸提》三五之下算在主食/副食的一般类别之内或之外的问题。结集的决议是，它属于这一类别，因此，如果一位比丘拒绝了进一步的食物供养，并且之后的早上喝了非剩余的稀酸奶，他将根据该戒条而犯戒。
In addition to staple and non-staple foods, the Vibhaṅga to the rules in this chapter mentions three other classes of edibles: juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines.	除了主食和副食之外，本品的戒条的《经分别》还提到了其他三类食用物：果汁饮料、五种补品和药物。

Juice drinks	果汁饮料
Juice drinks include the freshly squeezed juice of sugar cane, water lily root, all fruits except grain, all leaves except cooked greens, and all flowers except licorice (Mv.VI.35.6). The way the allowance for juice drinks is phrased—fruits, leaves, and flowers are mentioned as a class, whereas canes and roots are not—suggests that the Great Standards should not be used to extend the allowance for sugar cane juice and water lily root juice to include the juice from other canes or roots.	果汁饮料包括鲜榨甘蔗汁、睡莲根汁、除谷物外的所有水果、除煮熟的绿叶蔬菜外的所有叶子以及除甘草外的所有花卉（《大品》.六.35.6）。果汁饮料的开缘的表述方式——水果、叶子和花卉以类别方式被提及，而藤蔓和根茎则不是——表明不应用《四大教示》将甘蔗汁和睡莲根汁的开缘扩大到其他藤蔓或根茎的汁液。
According to the Commentary, the juice must be strained and may be warmed by sunlight but not heated over a fire. What category boiled juice would fit under, the Commentary does not say. As we noted under NP 23, the Vinaya-mukha—arguing from the parallel between sugar cane juice, which is a juice drink, and sugar, which is made by boiling sugar cane juice—maintains that boiled juice would fit under sugar in the five tonics. This opinion, however, is not accepted in all Communities. In those that do accept it, pasteurized juice, juice concentrates, and juice made from concentrate would come under sugar.	根据《义注》，果汁必须过滤，可以用阳光加热，但不能用火加热。《义注》没有说明煮过的果汁应归入哪一类。正如我们在《舍堕》二三中指出的，《戒律入口》——以甘蔗汁（一种果汁饮料）和糖（由煮沸甘蔗汁制成）之间的相似性为论辩——认为煮过的果汁应归入五种补品中的糖。然而，并非所有僧团都接受这种观点。在接受这种观点的僧团中，巴氏杀菌果汁、果汁浓缩液和从浓缩液制成的果汁都被归类在糖。
In discussing the Great Standards, the Commentary says that grain is a “great fruit,” and thus the juice of any one of nine large fruits—palmyra fruit, coconut, jackfruit, breadfruit, bottle gourd, white gourd, muskmelon, watermelon, and squash—would fall under the same class as the juice of grain: i.e., as a non-staple food and not a juice drink. From this judgment, many Communities infer that the juice of any large fruit, such as pineapple or grapefruit, would also be classed as a non-staple food. However, not all Communities follow the Commentary on this point, as the allowance for juice-drinks states specifically that the juice of all fruits is allowed except for that of grain.	在讨论《四大教示》时，《义注》指出谷物是一种「大水果」，因此九种大型水果——棕榈果、椰子、菠萝蜜、面包果、葫芦、冬瓜、甜瓜、西瓜和南瓜——的任何一种果汁都与谷物汁液属于同一类别：即归类为副食而非果汁饮料。基于这个判断，许多僧团推论，任何大型水果的果汁，例如凤梨或柚子，也应归类为副食。然而，并非所有僧团都认同《义注》的这一观点，因为果汁饮料的开缘明确规定，除谷物汁液外，所有水果的果汁均允许。
According to the Commentary, allowable leaf-juice drinks include juice squeezed from leaves that are considered food—such as lettuce, spinach, or beet greens—as well as from leaves that are classed as medicines. Health drinks such as wheat grass juice would thus be allowable. Leaf-juice may be mixed with cold water and/or warmed in the sunlight. The prohibition against consuming the juice from cooked vegetables in the afternoon covers all cooked leaves that are considered food, as well as any medicinal leaves cooked in liquids that are classed as food, such as milk. Medicinal leaves cooked in pure water retain their classification as lifetime medicines.	根据《义注》，允许的叶汁饮料包括从被视为食物的叶子（例如生菜、菠菜或甜菜叶）以及被归类为药物的叶子榨出的汁。因此，例如小麦草汁等健康饮品是允许的。叶汁可以用冷水混合和/或在阳光下加热。禁止在下午饮用煮熟的蔬菜汁的规定涵盖所有被视为食物的煮熟叶子，以及任何在被归类为食物的液体（例如牛奶）中煮熟的药用叶子。用纯水煮熟的药用叶子仍保留其终身药物的分类。
The Commentary’s discussion of flower juice drinks allowable and unallowable for the afternoon shows that licorice flower juice was used to make alcohol, which is why the Canon doesn’t include it as allowable in this class. The Commentary extends this prohibition to cover any kind of flower juice prepared in such a way that it will become alcoholic. The Commentary goes on to say, though, that licorice flower juice and other flower juices not prepared so that they will become toddy are allowable in the morning.	《义注》讨论了下午允许和不允许的花汁饮料，显示甘草花汁曾被用来酿酒，因此《圣典》并未将其列入允许的此类饮品。《义注》将这项禁令扩展至涵盖任何经过调制后会变成酒精的花汁。不过，《义注》继续指出，甘草花汁和其他未经调制成棕榈酒的花汁在早上是允许的。
The Commentary notes further that if a bhikkhu himself makes any of the juice drinks, he may consume it only before noon. If the juice is made by a non-bhikkhu and formally offered before noon, one may “also” drink it with food before noon—the “also” here implying that the original allowance, that one may drink it without food after noon and before dawnrise, still holds. If the juice is made by a non-bhikkhu and formally offered after noon, one may drink it without food until the following dawnrise. The allowance for mango juice drink covers juice made either from ripe or from unripe mangoes. To make unripe mango juice, it recommends that the mango be cut or broken into small pieces, placed in water, heated in sunlight, and then strained, adding honey, sugar, and/or camphor as desired. Juice made from Bassia pierrei must be diluted with water, as the undiluted juice of this fruit is too thick.	《义注》进一步指出，如果比丘自己做任何果汁饮料，他只能在中午前饮用。如果果汁是由非比丘制作并在中午之前正式地供养，则比丘「也」可以在中午之前与食物一起饮用——这里的「也」意味著原来的开缘仍然有效，即可以在中午之后和黎明之前不带食物地饮用。如果果汁是由非比丘制作并在中午之后正式地供养，则比丘可以在第二天黎明之前不带食物地饮用。芒果汁饮料的允许范围涵盖成熟或未成熟芒果制成的果汁。要制作未成熟芒果汁，建议将芒果切成或掰成小块，放入水中，在阳光下加热，然后过滤，并根据需要添加蜂蜜、糖和/或樟脑。用芒果椴树（Bassia pierrei）制成的果汁必须用水稀释，因为这种水果的未稀释果汁太浓稠。

The five tonics	五种补品
The five tonics are discussed in detail under NP 23.	《舍堕》二三详细讨论了这五种补品。
Medicines	药物
According to the Mahāvagga (VI.3.1-8), any items in the six following categories that, by themselves, are not used as staple or non-staple food are medicines: roots, astringent decoctions, leaves, fruits, resins, and salts. For example, under fruits: Oranges and apples are not medicines, but pepper, nutmeg, and cardamom are. Most modern medicines would fit under the category of salts. Using the Great Standards, we can say that any edible that is used as a medicine but does not fit under the categories of staple or non-staple food, juice drinks, or the five tonics, would fit here. (For a full discussion of medicines, see BMC2, Chapter 5.)	根据《大品》（六.3.1-8），以下六类中任何本身不作为主食或副食的物品都是药物：根、涩汤剂、叶、果实、树脂和盐。例如，在水果中：柳橙和苹果不是药物，但胡椒、肉荳蔻和小荳蔻是。大多数现代药物都属于盐类。使用《四大教示》，我们可以说，任何用作药物，但不属于主食或副食、果汁饮料或五种补品类别的可食用物都属于此。（有关药物的完整讨论，请参阅《佛教比丘戒律第二册》第五章。）

Keeping and consuming	存放及食用
Each of the four basic classes of edibles—food, juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines—has its “life span,” the period during which it may be kept and consumed. Food may be kept and consumed until noon of the day it is received; juice drinks, until dawnrise of the following day; the five tonics, until dawnrise of the seventh day after they are received; and medicines, for the remainder of one’s life.	食物、果汁饮料、五种补品和药物这四大类基本可食用物，每一种都有其「有效期」，即可以保存和食用的期限。食物可以保存和食用直到接受后当天的中午；果汁饮料，直到第二天黎明；五种补品，直到接受后第七天黎明；药物可以终生保存和食用。
Mixed foods	混合食物
Edibles made from mixed ingredients that have different life spans—e.g., salted beef, honeyed cough syrup, sugared orange juice—have the same life span as the ingredient with the shortest life span. Thus salted beef is treated as beef, honeyed cough syrup as honey, and sugared orange juice as orange juice (Mv.VI.40.3). According to the Commentary, mixing here means thorough intermingling. Thus, it says, if fruit juice has a whole, unhusked coconut floating in it, the coconut may be removed, and the juice is all right to drink until the following dawnrise. If butter is placed on top of rice porridge, the part of the butter that hasn’t melted into the rice may be kept and eaten for seven days. If items with different life spans are all presented at the same time, they maintain their separate life spans as long as they don’t interpenetrate one another. Not all Communities, however, follow the Commentary on this point.	由混合不同有效期限的食物成份制成的可食用物 —— 例如咸牛肉、蜂蜜止咳糖浆、加糖柳橙汁 —— 具有与有效期最短的食物成份相同的有效期。因此，咸牛肉被视为牛肉，蜂蜜止咳糖浆被视为蜂蜜，加糖柳橙汁被视为柳橙汁（《大品》.六.40.3）。根据《义注》，这里的混合意味著彻底混合。因此，它说，如果果汁中漂浮著一个完整的未去壳的椰子，则可以将椰子取出，果汁可以喝到第二天黎明。如果将奶油放在米粥上，那么没有融入米饭的部分的奶油可以保存和食用七天。如果同时存在具有不同有效期的物品，只要它们不相互渗透，它们就会保持各自的有效期。然而，并非所有僧团都在这一点上遵循《义注》。
Mv.VI.40.3, the passage underlying these rulings, can be translated as follows (replacing the formal terms for categories of food with the primary examples of each category):	《大品》.六.40.3，这些裁决所依据的段落，可以翻译如下（用每个类别的主要例子替换食品类别的正式术语）：
“Juice-mixed-with-food, when received that day, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. A tonic-mixed-with-food, when received that day, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. Medicine-mixed-with-food, when received that day, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. A tonic-mixed-with-juice, when received that day, is allowable through the watches of the night and not allowable when the watches of the night have past. Medicine-mixed-with-juice, when received that day, is allowable through the watches of the night and not allowable when the watches of the night have past. Medicine-mixed-with-a-tonic, when received, is allowable for seven days and not allowable when seven days have past.”	「当天接受的果汁混合食物在正时允许，非时则不允许。当天接受的补品混合食物在正时允许，非时则不允许。当天接受的药物混合食物在正时允许，非时则不允许。当天接受的补品混合果汁在夜间是允许的，过了夜间则不允许。当天接受的药物混合果汁在夜间是允许的，过了夜间则不允许。接受的药物混合补品在七天内是允许的，过了七天则不允许。」
Translated in this way, the passage covers foods that are already mixed when presented to a bhikkhu. One of the general issues that led to the convening of the Second Council, however, concerned how to treat cases where foods received separately are then mixed by a bhikkhu. The specific issue presented to the Council was that of bhikkhus who kept a horn filled with salt so that they could add salt to bland foods. The Council’s verdict was that in doing so, the bhikkhus incurred a pācittiya under Pc 38. The Vibhaṅga to that rule, however, gives a dukkaṭa for using, as food, life-long medicine that has been stored overnight, and salt is a life-long medicine. Thus the elders at the Council seem to have reasoned that if the salt has been mixed in with food, the mixture as a whole counts as food accepted when the first ingredient (the salt) was accepted: thus the pācittiya, rather than the dukkaṭa, under Pc 38. This principle is nowhere expressly stated in the texts, but is in some places taught as an oral tradition.	如此翻译，这段文字涵盖了呈献给比丘时已被混合的食物。然而，促成第二次结集的整体议题之一，是关于如何处理食物被分别地接受后再由比丘进行混合的情况。提交给结集的具体议题是，比丘持有装满盐的角，以便将盐添加到清淡的食物中。结集的裁决是，根据《波逸提》三八，比丘这样做犯《波逸提》。然而，该戒条的《经分别》规定，使用储存过夜且作为食物的终身药物犯《突吉罗》，而盐正是终身药物。因此，结集的长老们似乎推断，如果盐已被混入食物中，则当第一种成份（盐）被接受时，整个混合物算作已被接受的食物：因此，根据《波逸提》三八，这是《波逸提》，而不是《突吉罗》。这项原则在经文中没有明确说明，但在某些地方作为口头传统进行教授。
The Commentary, in treating the issue of foods mixed by a bhikkhu, translates Mv.VI.40.3 as follows:	在处理比丘混合食物的问题时，《义注》将《大品》.六.40.3 翻译如下：
“Juice received that day, when mixed with food, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. A tonic received that day, when mixed with food, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. Medicine received that day, when mixed with food, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the wrong time. A tonic received that day, when mixed with juice, is allowable through the watches of the night and not allowable when the watches of the night have past. Medicine received that day, when mixed with juice, is allowable through the watches of the night and not allowable when the watches of the night have past. Medicine received, when mixed with a tonic, is allowable for seven days and not allowable when seven days have past.”	「当天接受的果汁，如果与食物混合，在正时允许，非时则不允许。当天接受的补品，如果与食物混合，在正时允许，非时则不允许。当天接受的药物，如果与食物混合，在正时允许，非时则不允许。当天接受的补品，如果与果汁混合，在夜间是允许的，过了夜间就不允许。当天接受的药物，如果与果汁混合，在夜间是允许的，过了夜间就不允许。接受的药物，如果与补品混合，在七天内是允许的，过了七天就不允许。」
The question the Commentary then raises is, “Why is the word ‘that day’ (tadahu) omitted from the last case?” Its answer is that there is no limit on when the medicine has to be received for it to be properly mixed with a tonic received today. In other words, it could have been received any number of days before the tonic was received. If it is mixed with the tonic on the first day of the tonic’s life span, the mixture as a whole has a seven-day life span. If mixed with the tonic on the second day of the tonic’s life, the mixture has a six-day life span, and so forth. The Commentary’s translation of this passage may strain standard Pali syntax, but it is grammatically correct and is the only way of deriving from Mv.VI.40.3 a general principle to cover the issue of foods received separately that are then mixed by a bhikkhu. Thus the principle has been generally accepted that tonics and medicines, such as sugar and salt, received today may be eaten mixed with food or juice drinks received today, but not with food or juice drinks received on a later day. Medicine, such as salt, tea, or cocoa, received at any time may be eaten mixed with any of the five tonics on any day of the tonic’s life span.	《义注》接下来提出的问题是：「为什么在最后一种情况下省略了『当天』（tadahu）这个词？」答案是，没有限制何时接受药物以便将其与今天接受的补品适当地混合。换句话说，它可以是在接受补品之前的任何天接受的。如果它在补品的有效期的第一天与补品混合，则混合物作为一个整体拥有七天的有效期。如果在补品有效期的第二天与补品混合，则混合物拥有六天的有效期，依此类推。《义注》对这段话的翻译可能不符合标准巴利句法，但在语法上是正确的，并且是从《大品》.六.40.3 中得出涵盖比丘分开接受然后混合食物问题的一般原则的唯一方法。因此，普遍接受的原则是：今天接受的补品和药物（例如糖和盐）可以与今天收到的食物或果汁饮料混合食用，但不能与之后的日期里接受的食物或果汁饮料混合食用。任何时间接受的药物（例如盐、茶或可可）都可以与五种补品中的任何一种在补品有效期内的任何一天混合食用。

* * *

31	三十一
A bhikkhu who is not ill may eat one meal at a public alms center. Should he eat more than that, it is to be confessed.	无病的比丘可以在公共施舍处吃一餐。若食用超过此者，波逸提。
“Now at that time a certain guild had prepared food at a public alms center not far from Sāvatthī. Some group-of-six bhikkhus, dressing early in the morning, taking their bowls and (outer) robes, entered Sāvatthī for alms but, after not getting any almsfood, went to the public alms center. The people there said, ‘At long last your reverences have come,’ and respectfully waited on them. Then on the second day… the third day, the group-of-six bhikkhus… entered Sāvatthī for alms but, after not getting any almsfood went to the public alms center and ate. The thought occurred to them, ‘What’s the use of our going back to the monastery? (§) Tomorrow we’ll have to come right back here.’	「尔时，某行会在离舍卫城不远的公共施舍处准备食物。六群比丘在清晨穿戴整齐，带著钵和（外）衣，进入舍卫城托钵，但没有得到任何食物，于是就去了公共施舍处。那里的人说：『尊者们终于来了！』并恭敬地侍奉他们。然后第二天……第三天，六群比丘……进入舍卫城托钵，但没有得到任何食物，于是就去了公共施舍处吃饭。他们心里想：『我们回寺院还有什么用呢？（§）明天我们还是必须回来这里。』
“So staying on and on right there, they ate the food of the public alms center. The members of other religions fled the place. People criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks stay on and on, eating the food of the public alms center? The food at the public alms center isn’t prepared just for them; it’s prepared for absolutely everybody.’”	「于是他们就一直待在那里，吃著公共施舍处的食物。外道纷纷逃离该地。人们批评抱怨，四处散播：『这些沙门释子怎么能一直待在那里，吃著公共施舍处的食物？公共施舍处的食物不是只为他们准备的，而是为所有人准备的。』」
A public alms center is a place—in a building, under the shade of a tree, or in the open air—where all comers are offered as much food as they want, free of charge. Soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless, if run in this way, would fit under this rule. A meal is defined as one that includes any of the five staple foods. Not ill in this rule is defined as being able to leave the alms center.	公共施舍处是一个地方——在建筑物内、树荫下或露天——所有来者都可以免费获得任意数量的食物。施粥所和无家可归者收容所如果以这种方式运营，也符合此戒条。一餐的定义是包含五种主食中的任何一种。本戒条中「无病」的定义是能离开施舍处。
The origin story seems to indicate that this rule is directed against staying on and eating day after day in the alms center. The Commentary, though, maintains that it forbids eating in the center two days running, without making any mention of whether the bhikkhu stays on at the center or not. To eat one day in a center belonging to one family (or group) and the next day in a center belonging to another group, it says, entails no penalty. However, if—after one’s first meal there—a center has to close down for a period of time for lack of food and then later reopens, one should not eat there the first day of its reopening.	起源故事似乎表明，这条戒条是针对天天待在施舍处并进食的行为。然而，《义注》却坚持禁止比丘连续两天在施舍处进食，但并未提及比丘是否连续待在托钵中心。《义注》说，一天在一个家族（或团体）的施舍处进食，第二天又在另一个团体的施舍处进食，则不会受到惩罚。然而，如果在施舍处进食后，由于食物短缺而不得不关闭一段时间，之后又重新开放，则不应在重新开放的第一天在那里进食。
According to the Vibhaṅga, a bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa for accepting, with the intention of eating it, any food that falls under the conditions specified by this rule, and a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats.	根据《经分别》，比丘若接受并意图食用符合此戒条所指定条件的任何食物，犯《突吉罗》，而每吃一口犯一次《波逸提》。
Perception as to whether one is actually ill is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4.)	对于是否真的生病的感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。

Non-offenses	不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense in taking a meal on the second day—	根据《经分别》，第二天用餐并无犯戒——
if one is invited by the proprietors;	如果受到所有人的邀请；
if one is ill;	如果生病；
if the food is specifically intended for bhikkhus (§); or	若食物是专供比丘食用的（§）；或
if the center determines the amount of food the recipients may take, rather than allowing them to take as much as they want (§). The reason for this allowance is that if the owners of the center were unhappy with having a bhikkhu eat there, they could give him very little or nothing at all.	如果施处决定受助者可以取食的量，而不是让他们想取多少就取多少（§）。此项开缘的原因是，如果施处的主人不乐意让比丘在那里吃饭，他们可以给他很少的食物，或者什么都不给。
The Vibhaṅga also states that, “everything aside from the five staple foods is a non-offense.” None of the texts discuss this point, but this apparently refers both to the first and to the subsequent meal. In other words, if a bhikkhu consumed no staple foods at his first meal, then there would be no penalty in accepting and eating any of the five staple foods in the subsequent meal. But if he did consume any staple foods at his first meal, then at the subsequent meal he would have to refrain from eating staple foods if he wanted to avoid an offense.	《经分别》也说：「除五种主食之外，任何食物皆不犯。」没有任何文献讨论这一点，但这显然指第一餐和下一餐。换句话说，如果比丘在第一餐中不食用任何主食，那么在下一餐中接受并食用任何五种主食都不会受到惩罚。但如果他在第一餐中食用了任何主食，那么在下一餐中，如果他想避免犯戒，他必须不要吃主食。
Also, there is no offense in taking a second meal when “coming or going,” which in the context of the origin story seems to mean that one may take a second meal if one simply leaves the center and then comes back. The Commentary, though, interprets this phrase as meaning “coming or going on a journey,” and even here it says a meal should not be taken from the center two days running unless there are dangers, such as floods or robbers, that prevent one from continuing on one’s way.	此外，「来或去」时吃第二餐也不犯戒。在起源故事的脉络中，这似乎意味著只要离开施处再回来，就可以吃第二餐。然而，《义注》将这句话解释为「来或去旅行」，甚至在这里它说，除非遇到洪水或盗贼等危险，无法继续前行，否则不应连续两天在施处用餐。
Summary: Eating food obtained from the same public alms center two days running—without leaving in the interim—unless one is too ill to leave the center, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：连续两天吃从同一公共施舍处获得的食物（中途不离开），是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪，除非病得太重而无法离开施处。

* * *

32	三十二
A group meal, except at the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: a time of illness, a time of giving cloth, a time of making robes, a time of going on a journey, a time of embarking on a boat, a great occasion, a time when the meal is supplied by monks. These are the proper occasions here.	除非在适当的场合，结众食者，波逸提。此处适当的场合包括：生病时、施衣时、做袈裟时、旅行时、乘船时、盛大场合、沙门提供的餐食时。以上是此处的适当场合。 [译注：「结众食」古汉译为「别众食」]
This is a rule dating from Devadatta’s efforts to create a schism in the Saṅgha.	这是提婆达多试图分裂僧团时所制定的一条戒条。
“Now at that time Devadatta, his gain and offerings diminished, ate his meals with his following having asked and asked for them among households. (Here the Commentary elaborates: ‘Thinking, “Don’t let my group fall apart,” he provided for his following by eating his meals among households together with his following, having asked for them thus: “You give food to one bhikkhu. You give food to two.”’) People criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks eat their meals having asked and asked for them among households? Who isn’t fond of well-prepared things? Who doesn’t like sweet things?’”	「尔时，提婆达多的利养减少，他与他的追随者一起吃饭，在各家各户间反复询问。。（此处《义注》详细说明：『心想：「不要让我的团体解散。」他透过与追随者一起在各家各户间用餐来满足追随者的需求，并如此要求他们：「你给一位比丘食物。你给两位比丘食物。」』）人们纷纷批评、抱怨，并四处散播：「这些沙门释子怎么能在各家各户间反复询问并用餐呢？谁不喜欢精心烹制物？谁不喜欢甜物？』」
Group meals	结众食
The Vibhaṅga defines a group meal as one consisting of any of the five types of staple foods to which four or more bhikkhus are invited. Pv.VI.2 adds that this rule covers any group meal that the donor offers at his/her own initiative, as well as any that results from a bhikkhu’s requesting it.	《经分别》将结众食定义为四位或以上比丘被邀请享用任何五种主食。《附随》.六.2 补充道，此戒条适用于布施者主动提供，以及应比丘请求而提供的结众食。
In the early days of the Buddha’s career, donors who wished to invite bhikkhus to their homes for a meal would invite an entire Community. Later, as Communities grew in size and there were times of scarcity in which donors were unable to invite entire Communities (Cv.VI.21.1), the Buddha allowed:	在佛陀早期的生涯中，布施者若想邀请比丘到家中用餐，通常会邀请整个僧团。后来，随著僧团规模扩大，物资匮乏的时期，布施者有时无法邀请整个僧团（《小品》.六.21.1），佛陀允许：
1) designated meals, at which a certain number of bhikkhus were to be served. The donors would ask the Community official in charge of meal distribution—the meal designator (bhattuddesaka)—to designate so-and-so many bhikkhus “from the Community” to receive their meals. Bhikkhus would be sent on a rotating basis to these meals as they occurred.	1）指定食[译注：古汉译为「僧次请食」]，供养一定数量的比丘。布施者会要求僧团负责餐食分配的执事－餐食指定者（bhattuddesaka）－「从僧团中」指定某某多少的比丘来接受餐食。当有这些餐食时，比丘们会轮流被派去接受这些餐食。
2) invitational meals, to which specific bhikkhus were invited;	2）邀请食[译注：古汉译为「别请食」]，邀请特定的比丘参加；
3) lottery meals, for which the bhikkhus receiving the meals were to be chosen by lot; and	3）抽签食[译注：古汉译为「行筹食」]，以抽签决定接受餐食的比丘；和
4) periodic meals, i.e., meals offered at regular intervals, such as every day or every uposatha day, to which bhikkhus were to be sent on a rotating basis, as with designated meals. The meal designator was to supervise the drawing of lots and keep track of the various rotating schedules. (The explanations of these various types of meal come partly from the Commentary. For a fuller explanation, see Appendix III.)	4）周期食[译注：古汉译为「常请食」]，即定期供养的餐食，例如每天或每个布萨日供养的餐食，比丘们会轮流受供，就像指定食一样。餐食指定者负责监督抽签，并追踪各种轮流时间表。（关于这些不同类型餐食的解释部分来自《义注》。更详细的解释，请参阅附录三。）
The non-offense clauses to this rule state that in addition to the exceptions mentioned in the rule, which we will discuss below, this rule does not apply to lottery meals or periodic meals. The Commentary concludes from this—and on the surface it seems reasonable enough—that the rule thus applies to meals to which the entire Community is invited and to invitational meals. (Buddhaghosa reports that there was disagreement among Vinaya authorities as to whether it applies to designated meals—more on this point below.)	本戒条的不犯条款规定，除了戒条中提到的例外情况（我们将在下文讨论）外，这条戒条不适用于抽签食或周期食。《义注》由此得出结论——表面上看来似乎很有道理——这条戒条因此适用于邀请整个僧团参加的餐食以及邀请食。（佛音报告说，律藏的权威人士对于这条戒条是否适用于指定食存在分歧——下文将对此进行更详细的阐述。）
The Commentary’s conclusion, though, creates a problem when lay people want to invite Communities of more than three bhikkhus to their homes for a meal. Perhaps this problem is what induced the Commentary to interpret the Vibhaṅga’s definition of a group meal as meaning one in which the invitations specifically mention the word meal or food, or the type of meal or food to be served. (“Come to my house for breakfast tomorrow.” “I know you don’t often get a chance to eat Indian food, so I’m inviting you all over for chappatties and curry.”) This interpretation has led to the custom of phrasing invitations to eat “in the morning” or to eat “before noon,” so that groups of four or more bhikkhus may be invited without breaking this rule.	然而，《义注》的结论却带来了一个问题：当在家众想邀请超过三位比丘的僧团到家中用餐时，就会出现问题。或许正是这个问题促使《义注》将《经分别》对「结众食」的定义解读为，邀请中明确提到「餐」或「食物」一词，或具体提供餐食或食物种类。（「明天来我家吃早餐。」「我知道你们不常有机会吃印度菜，所以我邀请你们全部来吃印度薄饼和咖哩。」）这种解读导致了邀请措辞中出现「早上」吃或「中午之前」吃的习惯，这样，邀请四位或四位以上的比丘团体也不会违反这条戒条。
The Buddha’s purposes for establishing this rule, though, are listed at Cv.VII.3.13 as follows: “For the restraint of evil-minded individuals, for the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, so that those with evil desires will not split the Community by (forming) a faction, and out of compassion for families.”	然而，佛陀在《小品》.七.3.13 中列出了制定这条戒条的目的：「为了约束心怀恶意的人，为了品行端正比丘的乐住，为使心怀恶欲的人不至于透过（组成）派系而分裂僧团，也为了哀愍俗家。」
The Commentary’s definition of group meal accomplishes none of these purposes: The custom of phrasing invitations to avoid the word meal or food does nothing to restrain evil-minded individuals, etc., and it actually creates trouble for lay people who do not know the custom, a point well-illustrated by the Commentary itself in an entertaining section on how to deal with a person whose invitation contains the word meal. After getting the run-around from the meal designator—who apparently was not allowed to tell him in any straightforward way how to phrase his invitation and so gave him a long series of hints—the poor man returns to his friends and makes a cryptic statement that the A/Sub-commentary translates as: “There are a lot of words that have to be spoken in this business of making an invitation. What’s the use of them all?”	《义注》对结众食的定义完全没有达到上述目的：邀请中避免使用「餐」或「食物」等字眼的习惯，无助于约束心怀不轨之人等等，反而给不懂此习俗的俗人带来了麻烦。《义注》中有一节关于如何应对邀请中包含「餐」一词的妙趣横生的论述，很好地说明了这一点。在被餐食指定者兜圈子之后——餐食指定者显然不允许直接告诉他该如何措辞邀请，于是给了他一长串的提示——这位可怜的人回到朋友身边，说了费解的陈述， A/《复注》中将之翻译为：「在发出邀请这件事上，有很多话要说。说了这么多有什么用呢？」
Two other arguments against the Commentary’s interpretation are:	反对《义注》解释的另外两个论点是：
1) The Vibhaṅga’s definition of invited in this rule is repeated word-for-word under Pc 33 & 46. If the factor of mentioning “food” or “meal,” etc., is necessary for there to be an offense under this rule, it would have to be necessary under those rules as well, a proposal that makes no sense in their context and that no one has ever suggested.	1）本戒条中《经分别》对「被邀请」的定义与《波逸提》三三和四六的定义完全一致。如果提及「食物」或「餐」等等的因素对于本戒条下的犯戒是必要的，那么在那些戒条下，提及「食物」或「餐」等等的因素也是必要的，这种提议在那些戒条的上下文中是没有意义的，而且从来没有人提出过这种建议。
2) In the origin stories of two of the reformulations of the rule, bhikkhus refuse invitations on the grounds that they would break the rule against a group meal, and yet the invitations make no mention of “food” or “meal.”	2）在两次重新制定戒条的起源故事中，比丘们以违反结众食的戒条为由拒绝邀请，但邀请中并未提及「食物」或「餐」。

An alternative interpretation	另一种解释
To find an alternative to the Commentary’s explanation, we have to go back to the origin stories leading to the reformulations of the rule, where we find an interesting point: The invitations rejected by scrupulous bhikkhus on the grounds that they would break the rule all deal with “invitational” meals. In one of them, a naked ascetic invites a group of bhikkhus to an invitational meal and is rejected on the grounds that it would constitute a group meal. He then goes to the Buddha and—after complaining that he should not be subjected to such treatment—rephrases the invitation, this time inviting the entire Community. This suggests that he felt an invitation of this sort would not constitute a group meal.	为了找到与《义注》不同的解释，我们必须追溯导致戒条被重新制定的起源故事，在那里我们发现了一个有趣的点：那些被严谨的比丘们以违反戒戒为由拒绝的邀请，都与「邀请」食[译注：古汉译为「别请食」]有关。其中一则故事中，一位裸体苦行僧[译注：古汉译为「裸形外道」]邀请一群比丘参加邀请食，却被拒绝，理由是这会构成结众食。他随后来到佛陀面前，在抱怨自己不应遭受这种待遇之后，重新措辞了邀请，这次邀请的是整个僧团。这表明，他认为这种邀请不构成结众食。
His reasoning has its grounds in the Vinaya itself: Throughout the Vibhaṅga and Khandhakas, the word group is used to refer to any set of bhikkhus not forming a complete Community and yet acting as an independent unit. This may be why the category of Community meal was not mentioned in the non-offense clauses: The arrangers of the Vibhaṅga may have felt that no mention was necessary, in that the term group meal automatically excluded Community meals.	他的推论在戒律中自有其依据：在《经分别》和《犍度》中，「结众」一词被用来指任何未组成完整僧团，但仍作为独立单位行动的比丘群体。这或许就是为什么在不犯条款中没有提及僧团食这个类别的原因：《经分别》的编纂者可能认为没有必要提及，因为「结众」一词自动排除了僧团食。
Similar considerations suggest that designated meals may also be exempted from this rule even though they are not mentioned in the non-offense clauses. Invitations to such meals were customarily worded as requests for so-and-so many bhikkhus “from the Community,” and thus—as a type of Community meal—they would by definition not be invitations to a “group” meal.	类似的考虑表明，即使不犯条款中未提及指定食[译注：古汉译为「僧次请食」]，也可不受此戒条约束。此类餐食的邀请习惯措词为「来自僧团」的某某多少比丘的请求，因此，作为一种僧团食，它们从定义上来说并非「结众」食的邀请。
Because invitations to lottery meals and periodic meals did not customarily make reference to the Community, the Vibhaṅga arrangers did have to make mention of those types of meals in order to exempt them.	由于抽签食[译注：古汉译为「行筹食」]和周期食的邀请通常不会提及僧团，因此《经分别》的编纂者必须提及这些类型的餐食才能免除它们。
We are left with a rule that applies exclusively to invitations to specific groups—not Communities—of four or more bhikkhus regardless of whether the invitation mentions the word “food” or “meal.”	我们剩下的戒条只适用于对四名或四名以上比丘的特定群体（而非僧团）的邀请，无论邀请中是否提到「食物」或「餐」一词。
The rule in this form has the virtue of fulfilling the express purposes mentioned for it in Cv.VII.3.13: It would prevent evil-minded bhikkhus and lay people from trying to exert influence over specific groups in the Community by arranging meals especially for them; and in the same way, it would prevent people with evil desires from creating a split in the Community. (Because the smallest faction that can create a split in the Community is four bhikkhus, the maximum number allowed at a group meal is three.)	这种形式的戒条，其优点在于能够实现《小品》.七.3.13 中明确提及的目的：它可以防止心怀恶欲的比丘和在家众，试图透过专门为僧团中的特定群体安排餐食来对他们施加影响；同样，它也可以防止心怀恶欲的人在僧团中制造分裂。（由于能够造成僧团分裂的最小派系是四位比丘，因此结众食允许的最大人数是三人。）
The rule in this form would also contribute to the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus in that invitations to meals would not be preempted by factions; and it would protect lay families from being prey to the maneuverings of bhikkhus who would pressure them repeatedly into providing meals as part of their strategy to create and maintain such factions. (Anyone who has lived in a traditional Buddhist country knows only too well the influence of sweet-talking bhikkhus over unsuspecting or low-minded lay people. This sort of thing neither started nor ended with Devadatta.)	这种形式的戒条也能让品行端正的比丘们感到乐住，因为用餐邀请不会被派系抢先；它还能保护在家人免受比丘们的计谋的侵害。比丘们会反复施压，要求他们提供餐食，以此作为制造和维持派系的策略之一。（任何在传统佛教国家生活过的人都深知甜言蜜语的比丘们对毫无戒心或心境低下的在家人的影响。提婆达多既不是这种事的开端，也不是终结。）
Because Community meals and designated meals would not form an opening for such machinations, there would be no reason to limit them to groups of three if lay people want to invite groups larger than that. One objection to exempting Community meals from this rule is that a meal for the entire Community would be more burdensome than a meal for a smaller group, but that is what designated meals are for. A donor willing and able to provide a meal for an entire Community is welcome but not required to do so. A donor willing but not able may simply ask to provide a meal for x-number of bhikkhus from the Community, leaving it up to the meal designator to designate which bhikkhus will go for the meal, with no danger of creating a faction.	因为僧团食和指定食不会为此类阴谋提供机会，所以如果在家众想邀请比三人更多的团体，没有理由将其限制在三人以内。有人反对将僧团食排除在这条戒条之外，因为为整个僧团提供一餐比为一小群人提供一餐更有负担，但指定食就是为了满足这一需求。愿意且有能力为整个僧团供餐的布施者欢迎但不强制要求这样做。愿意但无力提供的布施者可以直接要求为僧团中的x位比丘供餐，由餐食指定者指定哪些比丘来享用这餐，这样就不会有分裂的危险。
Thus the point at issue is not whether the invitation makes mention of food or meals, but whether it specifies the individual bhikkhus to be invited. If it specifies more than three individual bhikkhus—either naming them outright or saying such things as “Ven. X and four of his friends,” or “The five of you,” etc.—the meal would count as a group meal.	因此，问题的关键不在于邀请中是否提及食物或餐，而在于是否指定受邀的比丘。如果邀请指定三位以上的比丘——无论是直接点名，还是诸如「X尊者和他的四位朋友」或「你们五位」之类的说法——那么这餐就算是结众食。
Perception as to whether food actually constitutes a group meal is not a mitigating factor (see Pc 4).	对于食物是否真正构成结众食的感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga states that, aside from the allowable times, there is a dukkaṭa for accepting—with the thought of eating it—food that would qualify as a group meal, and a pācittiya for every mouthful eaten. Whether the bhikkhus accepting the food actually eat together is not an issue. If they receive their food at the same invitation to a group meal but then split up and eat it separately, they still incur the full penalty.	《经分别》指出，除了允许的时间外，接受符合结众食条件的食物（并想著要吃它）犯《突吉罗》，而每吃一口都犯一次《波逸提》。接受食物的比丘们是否真的一起用餐并不重要。如果他们在同一个结众食的邀请中接受食物，但随后分开用餐，仍然会受到全额惩罚。
Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga defines the proper occasions mentioned in the rule—during which bhikkhus may eat a group meal without committing an offense—as follows:	《经分别》对戒条中提到的适当场合（比丘们可以在这些场合吃结众食而不会犯戒）定义如下：
A time of giving cloth is the “robe season.”	施衣时是「袈裟季节」。
A time of making robes is any time the bhikkhus are making robes.	制作袈裟时是指比丘们制作袈裟的任何时候。
A time of journeying is any time the bhikkhus are about to go, are going, or have just returned from a journey of at least half a yojana (about five miles, or eight kilometers).	旅行时是指比丘们即将出发、正在出发或刚结束至少半由旬（约五英里或八公里）的旅程归来的任何时候。
A time of embarking on a boat is any time the bhikkhus are about to embark, are embarking, or are disembarking from a boat. No minimum distance for the boat journey is specified.	乘船时是指比丘们即将登船、正在登船或下船的任何时候。船程的最短距离没有规定。
A time of illness is, in its minimal terms, a time when the bhikkhus’ feet are split (and they cannot go for alms).	生病时，简单来说，就是比丘的脚裂开（无法去托钵）的时候。
A great occasion is one in which there are so many bhikkhus in proportion to the donors giving alms that three bhikkhus going for alms can obtain enough food to support themselves, but not enough to support a fourth.	盛大场合是指，与施舍布施者数量相当的比丘数量，以致三名去托钵的比丘可以获得足够的食物来养活自己，但不足以养活第四名比丘。
A meal supplied by monks is one provided by a person who has taken on the state of religious wanderer. This the Commentary explains as meaning not only those ordained in other religions, but also one’s own co-religionists (bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, and novices) as well; the Vibhaṅga’s definition of “one who has taken on the state of religious wanderer” under Pc 41 suggests that the Commentary is correct. This exemption, as its origin story makes clear, was formulated to promote good relations between bhikkhus and members of other religions, but it also means that a bhikkhu, from his own resources, can provide food for a group of his friends without incurring an offense. Although this exemption could thus open the door for wealthy bhikkhus to attract factions, as long as they are not getting their funds from lay donors, they would be placing no burden on the laity, which seems to be the most important of the purposes for this rule.	沙门提供的餐食是指处于宗教流浪者状态的人所提供餐食。《义注》解释说，这不仅指在其他宗教中出家的人，也指自己的同教信徒（比丘、比丘尼和沙弥）；《波逸提》四一中《经分别》对「处于宗教流浪者状态的人」的定义表明，《义注》是正确的。这项豁免，正如其起源故事所清楚表明的那样，是为了促进比丘与其他宗教信徒之间的良好关系而制定的，但它也意味著比丘可以用自己的资源为一群朋友提供食物而不会犯戒。虽然这项豁免可能会为富有的比丘吸引派系打开方便之门，但只要他们的资金不来自在家施主，他们就不会给在家众带来负担，这似乎是这条戒条最重要的目的。
Aside from the proper occasions, there is no offense—	除适当场合外，以下也不犯戒——
if groups of three or less eat a meal to which they have been specifically invited;	如果三人或三人以下的团体吃了一顿具体指名邀请的餐食；
if the meal to which a group of four or more is invited does not include any of the five staple foods; or	如果邀请四人或四人以上的团体的餐食不包括五种主食中的任何一种；或者
if bhikkhus, having walked separately for alms, eat assembled as a group.	如果比丘们分别托钵后，聚集在一起吃饭。
No mention is made of whether bhikkhus can go for alms in groups of four or more, as is the custom at present in the rural areas of many Buddhist countries. From the various stories of bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs on alms round that appear in the Canon, it seems that the custom was for them to go individually. Pc 42 mentions bhikkhus going for alms as a pair, but the Vibhaṅga notes that they might receive less food that way than when going individually. Apparently, going as a group would not have made much sense in their cultural context.	书中没有提及比丘是否可以像许多佛教国家的乡村地区一样，以四人或四人以上的团体形式托钵。从《圣典》中出现的比丘和比丘尼托钵的各种故事来看，当时的习俗似乎是他们单独前往。《波逸提》四二提到比丘们成对地托钵，但《经分别》指出，这样他们得到的食物可能比单独前往要少。显然，在他们的文化背景下，集体托钵不太合理。
As mentioned above, the Vibhaṅga also states that there is no offense for groups of any number eating periodic meals or lottery meals; and as we have already stated, our interpretation would explicitly extend this exemption to cover Community and designated meals as well.	如上所述，《经分别》还规定，任何人数的团体吃周期食或抽签食均不构成犯戒；并且正如我们已经指出的，我们的解释将明确扩展此豁免，以涵盖僧团食和指定食。
Summary: Eating a meal to which four or more individual bhikkhus have been specifically invited—except on special occasions—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：除特殊场合外，享用有四位或四位以上比丘具体指名邀请的餐食，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

33	三十三
An out-of-turn meal, except at the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: a time of illness, a time of giving cloth, a time of making robes. These are the proper occasions here.	除适当场合外，辗转食者，波逸提。此处适当场合为：生病时、施衣时、做衣时。此为适当场合。
“Now at that time a meal-series of exquisite meals had been arranged in Vesālī. The thought occurred to a certain poor laborer: ‘The way these people respectfully present meals suggests that it’s not a minor thing at all. What if I were to present a meal?’ So he went to his supervisor (§) and said, ‘Young master, I want to present a meal for the Community of bhikkhus with the Buddha at its head. Please give me my wage.’ Now that supervisor also had faith and confidence in the Buddha, so he gave the laborer more than his wage.	「尔时，毘舍离安排了一系列供养精美的食物。一位贫穷的劳工心想：『这些人恭敬地供养食物的方式，表明这绝非小事。如果我供养一餐呢？』于是他去找他的主管（§），说：『少爷，我想为以佛陀为首的比丘僧团供养一顿饭。请把我的工钱给我。』这位主管也对佛陀有信心，所以他给了劳工比工钱更多的钱。
“Then the laborer went to the Blessed One, bowed down to him, sat down to one side, and said, ‘Venerable sir, may the Blessed One together with the Community of bhikkhus acquiesce to a meal with me tomorrow.’	「于是，劳工来到世尊面前，向他顶礼，坐在一边，说道：『大德，愿世尊及比丘僧团同意明天受我请食。』
“‘You should know, friend, that the Community of bhikkhus is large.’	「『朋友，你应该知道，比丘僧团很大。』
“‘Let it be large, venerable sir. I have prepared plenty of jujube fruits. The masters (§) will fill themselves even with the jujube hash.’	「『让它大吧，大德。我准备了很多枣子。就连枣泥，大师们（§）也会吃得饱饱的。』
“So the Blessed One acquiesced by becoming silent…. The bhikkhus heard, ‘…The masters will fill themselves even with the jujube hash,’ so right before the time of the meal they went for alms and ate. People heard, ‘They say that the poor laborer has invited the Community of bhikkhus with the Buddha at its head,’ so they took a great deal of staple and non-staple foods to the laborer…. (When the time came for the meal) the Blessed One went to the poor laborer’s house… and sat on a seat made ready, together with the Community of bhikkhus. Then the poor laborer served the bhikkhus in the meal-hall. The bhikkhus said, ‘Give just a little, friend. Give just a little.’	「于是世尊默然应允……比丘们闻言，『……大师们连枣泥都能吃饱。』于是，就在用餐前，他们便去托钵并吃了。人们听说，『据说贫穷的劳工邀请了以佛陀为首的比丘僧团。』于是，他们便带了许多主食和副食给贫穷劳工……（用餐时间到了）世尊来到贫穷劳工的家……与比丘僧团一同坐在准备好的座位上。然后，贫苦劳穷在食堂招待比丘们。比丘们说道，『只给一点，朋友。只给一点。』
“‘Don’t take so little, venerable sirs, thinking that I’m just a poor laborer. I’ve prepared plenty of staple and non-staple food. Take as much as you want.’	「『大德们，别以为我只是个贫穷的劳工，就拿那么少。我已备好充足的主食和副食，想拿多少就拿多少。』
“‘That’s not the reason why we’re taking so little, friend. It’s simply that we went for alms and ate just before the time for the meal: That’s why we’re taking so little.‘	「『朋友，这不是我们拿得这么少的原因。只是因为我们去托钵，而且在用餐之前就吃了：那才是我们拿得这么少的原因。』
“So the poor laborer criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘How can their reverences eat elsewhere when they were invited by me? Am I not capable of giving them as much as they want?’”	于是，这个贫穷的劳工便批评、抱怨，并四处传播：『既然我邀请了诸大德，诸大德又怎么能到别处去吃饭呢？难道我不能满足他们的需要吗？』」
Object	对象
The term out-of-turn meal covers two sorts of situations: A bhikkhu has been invited to a meal consisting of any of the five staple foods but then either (1) goes elsewhere and eats another meal consisting of any of the five staple foods at the same time as the meal to which he was originally invited; or (2) eats a staple food prior to going to the meal, as in the origin story.	辗转食这个术语涵盖两种情况：比丘被邀请参加一顿包含任何五种主食的餐食，但随后（1）去了其他地方，在原先被邀请进餐食的同时吃了另一顿包含任何五种主食的餐食；或（2）在去用餐之前吃了主食，就像起源故事中提到的那样。
Perception as to whether food actually constitutes an out-of-turn meal is not a mitigating factor (see Pc 4).	对于食物是否真正构成辗转食的感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga states that there is a dukkaṭa for accepting—with the thought of eating it—food that will constitute an out-of-turn meal, and a pācittiya for every mouthful eaten.	《经分别》指出，接受构成辗转食的食物—带著想吃它的念头—犯《突吉罗》，而吃的每一口都犯一次《波逸提》。
Proper times	适时
The special occasions when one may accept and eat an out-of-turn meal are defined as follows:	可以接受和食用辗转食的特殊场合定义如下：
A time of illness is when one is unable to eat enough at one sitting and so has to eat two or more times in a morning.	生病的时候，一坐不能吃足够，所以早上必须吃两次或两次以上。
The times of giving cloth and making robes are defined as in the preceding rule. The reason for exempting them is that in the days of the Buddha, cloth and thread were hard to come by, and donors who wanted to offer them usually did so in conjunction with a meal. If these exemptions were not made, a bhikkhu making a robe, having already been invited to one meal, could not go to another meal beforehand to receive the cloth or thread offered there.	布施布料和制作袈裟的时候定义如上一条戒条。之所以免除这些时候，是因为在佛陀时代，布料和线材不易取得，而想要供养的施主通常会搭配餐食进行供养。如果没有这些豁免，制作袈裟的比丘在受邀参加一顿餐食后，就不能提前前往另一餐食在那里接受供养的布料和线材。
There is reason to believe that these three exemptions apply to out-of-turn meals of the type mentioned in the origin story: i.e., a bhikkhu is allowed in these cases to go to another meal before attending the meal to which he was originally invited.	有理由相信，这三项豁免适用于起源故事中提到的辗转食的类型：即，在这些情况下，比丘被允许在出席最先邀请他参加的餐食之前去参加另一顿餐食。
Sharing invitations	分享邀请
As for the sort of out-of-turn meal where a bhikkhu invited to one meal goes to another meal instead, the Buddha in a story ancillary to this rule gives permission to share invitations: If a bhikkhu has received an invitation, he may give it to another bhikkhu or novice by saying, “I give my expectation of a meal to so-and-so.” He is then allowed to eat elsewhere.	至于被邀请去用一顿餐的比丘却去了另一顿餐的该类辗转食，佛陀在与此戒条附属的一个故事中允许分享邀请：如果一位比丘收到了邀请，他可以将其给予另一个比丘或沙弥，说：「我把我的用餐期望给予某某。」然后，他就被允许在其他地方吃了。
The Commentary regards the act of sharing as a mere formality: One may even make the statement outside of the other bhikkhu’s presence without his knowing anything about it. This, though, is very unlikely to satisfy the original donor. The wise policy in this case would be to make the statement in the presence of the other bhikkhu—“I give my expectation of a meal to you”—making reasonably sure that he is willing and able to go.	《义注》认为分享邀请的行为只是例行公事：甚至可以在另一位比丘不在场的情况下，在对方不知情的情况下做出这样的声明。然而，这不太可能让原来的布施者感到满意。在这种情况下，明智之举是当著另一位比丘的面做出声明—「我把我的餐食期望给你」—并合理地确保他愿意并且能够前往。
The Vinaya-mukha adds, though, that if the donors of the meal have specifically invited one to a meal—i.e., one is going to an invitational meal rather than a designated meal (see Pc 32)—it would be bad manners to share the invitation without making an agreement with the donors first.	然而，《戒律入口》也补充道，如果施主们特别邀请某人去用餐—即某人要去邀请食[译注：古汉译为「别请食」]而不是指定食[译注：古汉译为「僧次请食」]（参阅《波逸提》三二）—在没有先与施主们达成协议的情况下分享邀请是不礼貌的。

Non-offenses	不犯
In addition to mentioning the “proper times” during which one may eat an out-of-turn meal, the non-offense clauses state that there is no penalty for a bhikkhu who, on receiving an invitation, states, “I will go for alms.” This statement the Commentary explains as a refusal, and interprets the allowance as meaning that if a bhikkhu refuses an invitation, he is still allowed to eat another meal at the time for which the invitation was made. If the Vibhaṅga arrangers did mean this statement to be a refusal, though, it is probably for the sake of those bhikkhus who hold to the dhutaṅga vow of going for alms and not accepting invitations. If a bhikkhu who does not hold to such a vow refuses an invitation for a time for which he has no prior commitment, it is considered very bad manners. And if he were later to accept an invitation for a meal served at the same time as the meal he earlier refused, it would be extremely bad manners.	除了提到可以吃辗转食的「适时」外，不犯条款还规定，如果比丘在收到邀请时说「我要去托钵」则没有惩罚。《义注》将此语句解释为拒绝，并将这项开缘解释为，如果比丘拒绝邀请，他仍然被允许在邀请的时间用另一餐。如果《经分别》的编纂者确实将此声明代表为拒绝，那么，这可能是为了那些持守头陀行誓言、去托钵而不接受邀请的比丘们。如果一位没有持守此誓言的比丘拒绝在他没有事先承诺的时间的邀请，则会被认为很不礼貌。而且如果他后来接受了与他之前拒绝的餐食同时提供的用餐邀请，那将是极其地不礼貌。
An alternative explanation for the statement, “I will go for alms,” is that there is no offense if the bhikkhu lets the donor know beforehand that he will go for alms before the meal: He can have his alms meal first and then go to receive the meal offered by the donor. This would make room for the custom common in village monasteries throughout Theravādin countries, where invitations are usually for the late-morning meal, and bhikkhus are expected to have an early-morning alms meal before that. (If this interpretation does not hold, most village bhikkhus would then probably claim a perpetual “time of illness” as their exemption from this rule.)	「我要去托钵」这句话的另一种解释是，如果比丘事先告知施主他将在餐食之前去托钵，则并无犯戒：他可以先吃托钵所得之食，然后再去接受施主供养餐食。这可以解释上座部佛教国家村庄寺院中常见的习俗：通常邀请享用上午晚些时候的餐食，而比丘则应该在那之前享用一顿清晨的托钵所得之食。（如果这种解释不成立，那么大多数村庄比丘可能会声称自己有一段不断重复的「生病时」，以此作为此戒条的豁免。）
Meals that do not include any of the five staple foods are also exempted from this rule. Thus if one is invited to a meal and takes a snack of milk, drinking conjey, fruit, etc., beforehand, this would not constitute an offense—although to be in keeping with the spirit of the rule, one should not take so much as to spoil one’s appetite for the meal.	不含五种主食的餐食也不受此戒条约束。因此，如果受邀请赴餐食，并在之前吃点牛奶、喝稀粥、水果等零食，则不构成犯戒——不过，为了符合此戒条的精神，不应吃太多，以免影响用餐时的胃口。
There is no offense if, when invited to more than one meal on the same day, one goes to them in the order in which one received the invitations (but see Pc 35); if one puts the food from the various invitations together in one’s bowl and eats them at the same time; or, if invited by an entire village, one goes to eat anywhere in the village.	如果在同一天收到多份餐食邀请，并按照收到邀请的顺序前往就餐（但参见《波逸提》三五），则不构成犯戒；如果将接收的各个邀请的食物一起放在钵里，同时吃掉；或者，如果收到全村人的邀请，去村里任何地方吃饭。
The Commentary, in discussing this point, mentions a situation that often occurs where there are very few bhikkhus in proportion to the number of donors: A bhikkhu has been invited to a meal but, before he leaves the monastery to go to the meal, another group of donors arrives with food to place in his bowl; or after he arrives at the home of the original donor, another group of donors arrives with still more food. According to the Commentary he may accept the food of these various donors as long as he is careful—when he finally eats—to take his first mouthful from the food offered by the original donor.	《义注》在讨论这一点时提到了一种常见的情况，即比丘的数量相对于施主的数量来说非常少：一位比丘受邀赴餐食，但在他离开寺院去赴餐之前，另一群施主带著食物来到并放入他的钵中；或者在他到达最先的施主家后，又有一群施主带著更多的食物到来。根据《义注》，他可以接受这些施主的食物，只要当他在最终进食时小心地在第一口食物时吃掉最先的施主供养的食物即可。
The non-offense clauses also state that periodic meals and lottery meals do not count as out-of-turn meals under this rule, but the Vibhaṅga offers no explanation as to why. The Commentary to Cullavagga VI.21 shows that the custom was for many families to prepare such meals on the same day. This exemption would thus seem to provide for the situation where there are fewer bhikkhus than there are families preparing these meals. One bhikkhu would be allowed to accept more than one meal so that no family’s meal would go without a recipient.	不犯条款也规定，周期食[译注：古汉译为「常请食」]和抽签食[译注：古汉译为「行筹食」]不算在本戒条下的辗转食，但《经分别》并未解释原因。《小品》.六.21 的《义注》显示，许多家庭习惯于同一天准备此类餐食。因此，这项豁免似乎是为了应对比丘人数少于准备此类餐食的家庭数的情况。一位比丘被允许接受多餐食，这样每个家庭的餐食都会有接受者。
Mv.VI.25.7 implies that if the donor of the meal provides a pre-meal snack of thick conjey—or by extension any other staple food—there would be no offense in eating it. And the Commentary notes that if the donor gives explicit permission to eat another meal before the one he/she is providing, there would be no offense in doing so.	《大品》.六.25.7 暗示，如果该餐的施主在餐前提供一顿浓稠的小吃粥——或者推而广之的任何其他主食——食用它并不犯戒。《义注》指出，如果施主明确允许在他/她提供餐食之前吃另一餐，那么这样做不犯戒。
Summary: Eating a meal before going to another meal to which one was invited, or accepting an invitation to one meal and eating elsewhere instead, is a pācittiya offense except when one is ill or during the time of giving cloth or making robes.	摘要：在去参加被邀请的另一餐之前就用过一餐，或者接受一顿餐食的邀请却在其他地方用餐，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪，除非是在生病时，或者是在施衣或做衣期间。

* * *

34	三十四
In case a bhikkhu arriving at a family residence is presented with cakes or cooked grain-meal, he may accept two or three bowlfuls if he so desires. If he should accept more than that, it is to be confessed. Having accepted the two-or-three bowlfuls and having taken them from there, he is to share them among the bhikkhus. This is the proper course here.	如果比丘到达一个家庭住处，被呈上糕点或煮熟的谷物粉，如果他想要的话，他可以接受两、三钵。如果他接受超过此者，波逸提。他接受两、三钵后，从那里拿走，并与比丘们分享。这是正确的做法（如法）。
The purpose of this rule is to prevent bhikkhus from abusing a donor’s generosity and good faith.	此戒条的目的是为了防止比丘滥用施主的慷慨和善信。
The origin story deals with two separate cases. In the first, a woman named Kāṇā is about to return to her husband’s house after visiting her parents. Her mother, thinking, “How can one go empty-handed?” bakes some cakes. A bhikkhu comes, and the mother—being a faithful lay follower—presents him with the cakes and then bakes some more to replace them. The bhikkhu, meanwhile, has informed another bhikkhu that cakes are baking at Kāṇā’s house, so the second bhikkhu goes and receives the second batch of cakes. This process keeps up until Kāṇā’s husband tires of waiting for her and takes another woman for his wife. The Commentary notes, reasonably enough, that Kāṇā developed a long-term grudge against Buddhism as a result of this incident.	起源故事涉及两个独立的案例。第一个案例中，一位名叫伽若的女子探望父母后，正准备返回夫家。她的母亲心想：「怎么空手而归？」于是烤了一些糕点。一位比丘来了，这位母亲——一位虔诚的在家弟子——将糕点呈给了比丘，然后又烤了一些来代替。同时，这位比丘告诉另一位比丘伽若家正在烤糕点，于是第二位比丘去取了第二批糕点。这个过程一直持续到伽若的丈夫厌倦了等待，另娶他人为妻。《义注》指出，够合理地，伽若因此事而对佛教产生了长期的怨恨。
In the second case, a man is preparing provisions for a journey by caravan. A similar series of events takes place, and he eventually ends up tagging along behind the caravan and getting robbed. People criticize and complain as usual, and spread it about, “How can these Sakyan-son monks accept food without knowing moderation?”	第二个案例中，一名男子正在为商队准备食物。一连串类似的事件发生了，最后他尾随商队而被抢劫。人们照例批评抱怨，并四处传播：「这些沙门释迦子怎么能接受食物不讲节制呢？」
There are two factors for the full offense here.	这里的完全违犯有两个因素。
1) Effort: Receiving more than three bowlfuls	1）努力：接受超过三钵
2) Object: of cakes or cooked grain-meal (sattu).	2）对象：糕点或煮熟的谷物粉（sattu）。
Effort	努力
Receiving, here, is defined in the context of an invitation to take as much as one likes. Perception as to whether one has taken more than three bowlfuls is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	此处的「接受」是指邀请随意取用。是否取了超过三钵的感知，在此并不构成减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
Object	对象
In the context of this rule, the Vibhaṅga defines cakes to cover anything prepared as a present, and cooked grain-meal (sattu) to cover anything prepared as provisions for a journey. Thus we will use the terms presents and provisions for the remainder of this explanation. The word journey here refers to journeys that the donors are planning to take themselves. This rule thus does not cover gifts of food that donors have prepared to give to a bhikkhu for a journey he is planning to take.	在本戒条的脉络中，《经分别》将糕点定义为任何作为礼物而准备的东西，将煮熟的谷物粉（sattu）定义为任何作为旅程食物供应而准备的东西。因此，我们将在此解释的其余部分使用「礼物」和「食物供应」这两个术语。这里的「旅程」一词指的是施主计划自行前往的旅程。因此，本戒条不涵盖施主为比丘他自己计划前往的旅程所准备的食物布施。
The Vinaya-mukha, using the Great Standards, infers from the Vibhaṅga’s definitions for presents and provisions that any food prepared in large quantities for sale or for a party, banquet, or reception, etc., should be covered by this rule as well.	《戒律入口》运用《四大教示》，从《经分别》对礼物和食物供应的定义中推断，为销售或聚会、宴会或招待会等而大量准备的任何食物也应涵盖在此戒条之下。
Protocol	行仪
If a bhikkhu has accepted two or three bowlfuls of such items, then on his return from there he should tell every bhikkhu he sees, “I accepted two or three bowlfuls over there. Don’t you accept anything there.” He incurs a dukkaṭa if, seeing a bhikkhu, he does not tell him, while there is a dukkaṭa for the other bhikkhu if, having been told, he accepts anything at the place in question. According to the Commentary, if the first bhikkhu accepts two bowlfuls, he should tell the second bhikkhu to accept no more than one, and all other bhikkhus he meets that they should not accept anything. If he accepts only one bowlful, he should follow a similar process so that, all-in-all, the bhikkhus accept a total of no more than three.	如果一个比丘已经接受了两、三钵这样的食物，那么他从那里回来时应该告诉他所见到的每一位比丘：「我在那里接受了两、三钵。你们在那里不要接受任何东西。」如果他见到一位比丘而不告诉他，他犯《突吉罗》；而另一位比丘在被告知之后，在该地方接受任何东西，也犯《突吉罗》。根据《义注》，如果第一位比丘接受了两钵，他应该告诉第二位比丘不要接受超过一钵，并告诉所有其他遇到的比丘不应接受任何东西。如果他只接受一钵，他也应该遵循类似的过程，以便总的来说，比丘们接受的总数不超过三钵。
The Commentary states further that a bhikkhu receiving two or three bowlfuls may keep one bowlful and do as he likes with it, but must share the remainder among an entire Community, i.e., not just among his friends. A bhikkhu receiving only one bowlful may do with it as he likes .	《义注》进一步指出，接受两、三钵的比丘，可以保留一钵，随意支配，但必须将剩余的分给整个僧团，即，不仅限于他的朋友。只接受一钵的比丘，可以随意支配。
Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense in taking more than three bowlfuls of items not intended as presents or provisions, of items left over from preparing presents or provisions, or of provisions remaining when plans for a journey have been abandoned. As explained above, the Vinaya-mukha would include items prepared for sale or for parties, etc., under the word provisions here.	《经分别》规定，取超过三钵，非做为礼物或食物供应的东西、准备礼物或食物供应后剩余的东西，以及放弃旅行计划后剩余的食物供应，均不构成犯戒。如上所述，《戒律入口》中的「食物供应」一词涵盖了为出售或宴会等准备的东西。
The Vibhaṅga also says that there is no penalty in accepting more than three bowlfuls from relatives or from those who have offered an invitation. Here the Commentary states that if such people give more than three bowlfuls outright, one may accept them without penalty, but if they tell one to take as much as one likes from items prepared as presents or provisions, the proper course is to take only two or three bowlfuls.	《分别论》也说，接受亲属或已提出邀请者超过三钵，不受任何惩罚。《义注》在此指出，如果这些人直接给予超过三钵，可以接受，不受任何惩罚；但如果他们告知随意取用被准备作为礼物或食物供应的东西，则正确的做法是只取两、三钵。
The Vibhaṅga further says that there is no offense in having more than three bowlfuls of presents or provisions purchased with one’s own resources, and that there is no offense in taking extra for the sake of another. Neither the Commentary nor Sub-commentary discusses this last point, but the only way it can make sense in the context of this rule is if it refers to cases where the bhikkhu takes extra for the sake of another not on his own initiative, but because the donor asks him to.	《经分别》进一步指出，用自己的资源令人购买超过三钵的礼物或食物供应并不犯戒，为他人多取也不犯戒。《义注》和《复注》均未讨论这最后一点，但只有在比丘并非主动为他人多取，而应施主要求的情况下，它才在本条戒条的语境下说得通。
Summary: Accepting more than three bowlfuls of food that the donors prepared for their own use as presents or as provisions for a journey is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：布施者为他们自己准备作为礼物或作为旅行供应的食物，接受超过三钵，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

35	三十五
Should any bhikkhu, having eaten and turned down an offer (of further food), chew or consume staple or non-staple food that is not leftover, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘已经吃了，并拒绝了（进一步的食物）供养，而咀嚼或食用了非剩余的主食或副食，波逸提。
“Now at that time a certain brahman, having invited bhikkhus, fed them. The bhikkhus, having eaten and turned down an offer of further food, went to their relatives’ families. Some ate there; some left having received alms.	「尔时，一位婆罗门邀请比丘们，并为他们提供食物。比丘们吃饱后，拒绝了更进一步的食物供养，前往亲戚家。有的在那里用餐，有的接受钵食后离开。
“Then the brahman said to his neighbors, ‘Masters, the bhikkhus have been satisfied by me. Come and I will satisfy you as well.’	「随后，婆罗门对邻居们说：『诸贤，我已经让各位比丘们吃饱了。来吧，我也让你们吃饱。』
“They said, ‘Master, how will you satisfy us? Even those you invited came to our homes. Some ate there; some left having received alms.’	「他们说：『贤者，您要怎么让我们饱餐一顿呢？连您邀请的人也来到我们家。有的在那里吃了饭，有的接受钵食后离开。』
“So the brahman criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can their reverences, having eaten in my home, eat elsewhere? Am I not capable of giving as much as they want?’”	「于是婆罗门便批评、抱怨，并四处散播此事：『诸大德既然在我家吃过饭，怎么还能到别处去吃呢？难道我不能满足他们的需要吗？』」
When a donor invited bhikkhus for a meal, the custom in the time of the Buddha was for him/her to offer food to the bhikkhus repeatedly while they ate, and to stop only when the supplies of food were exhausted or the bhikkhus refused any further offers. (This custom is still widespread in Sri Lanka and Burma.) Thus it was often a matter of pride among donors that their supplies were not easily exhausted and that they could continue offering food until the bhikkhus were completely satisfied and could eat no more. Now, where there is pride there is bound to be wounded pride: A donor could easily feel insulted if bhikkhus refused further offers of food, finished their meal, and then went to eat someplace else.	佛陀时代的习俗是，当布施者邀请比丘们用餐时，布施者会在比丘们用餐时反复供养食物给比丘们，直到食物耗尽或比丘们拒绝更进一步供养时才停止。（这项习俗在斯里兰卡和缅甸至今仍盛行。）因此，这往往是布施者的骄傲，因为他们的供养不容易耗尽，而且他们可以继续供养食物，直到比丘们完全吃饱，再也吃不下为止。然而，哪里有自尊心，哪里的自尊心就必然受到伤害：如果比丘们拒绝更进一步供养食物，用完餐后又去其他地方吃东西，布施者很容易感到被冒犯。
As the origin story shows, this rule is designed to protect generous donors from being insulted by the bhikkhus in this way. It is also designed to protect bhikkhus from being forced to go hungry by stingy or impoverished donors. If the donor stops offering food before the bhikkhus have refused further offers—or if what he/she offers is not substantial food at all (see the discussion under Pc 8 for an historic case of this sort)—the bhikkhus, after finishing their meal, are free to accept food elsewhere that morning if they are still hungry.	正如起源故事所示，这条戒条旨在保护慷慨的布施者免受比丘的这种侮辱。它同时也保护比丘不被吝啬或贫困的布施者逼得挨饿。如果布施者在比丘拒绝进一步供养之前停止供养食物，或者他/她供养的食物根本不是大量的（参见《波逸提》八中关于此类历史案例的讨论），比丘们在用餐结束后，如果仍然感到饥饿，当天早上可以自由地在其他地方接受食物。
There are two factors for an offense here.	此处的犯戒有两个因素。
1) Object: staple or non-staple food that is not leftover.	1）对象：非剩余的主食或副食。
2) Effort: One eats the food after having eaten and turned down an offer of further food.	2）努力：吃过并拒绝更进一步的食物供养后，吃了食物。
Before explaining these factors, we must first explain the situation of having eaten and turned down an offer of further food.	在解释这些因素之前，我们必须先解释一下吃过并拒绝更进一步食物供养的情况。

Having eaten	吃过
Having eaten (bhuttāvin), according to the Vibhaṅga, means having eaten any of the five staple foods, “even as much as a blade of grass.” On the surface, this could mean one of two things: having taken one’s first bite of a meal or having finished a meal—even the smallest possible one. The Commentary adopts the first interpretation, but in doing so creates two problems:	根据《经分别》，「吃过」（bhuttāvin）的意思是吃过五种主食中的任何一种，「哪怕只是一小片草」。表面上，这可能意味著两种情况之一：用餐吃过第一口或用餐完毕——哪怕是一小口。《义注》采用了第一种解读，但这样做却带来了两个问题：
1) If having eaten means having taken one’s first bite of a meal, then the word serves no purpose in the rule, because the first factor of “having turned down an offer of further food” is “the bhikkhu is eating,” and as the Commentary itself notes, if one is eating then one has already taken one’s first bite of the meal. It concludes that the word having eaten, both in the rule and in the Vibhaṅga, is completely superfluous.	1）如果「吃过」的意思是用餐吃过第一口，那么这个词在戒条中就毫无意义，因为「已拒绝了更进一步的食物供养」的第一个因素是「比丘正在吃」，而正如《义注》本身所指出的，如果一个人正在吃，那么该人已经用餐吃过第一口。它得出结论，「吃过」这个词，无论在戒条中或在《经分别》中，都是完全多余的。
2) A more practical problem coming from the Commentary’s interpretation is that if one turns down an offer of extra food when one already has more than enough food in one’s bowl but has yet to finish one’s meal, one cannot continue eating. The Commentary tries to get around this predicament by introducing an additional factor: As long as one does not move from the spot on which one is sitting, one may continue eating. This, though, creates further problems: Suppose a bhikkhu has turned down an offer of further food but has yet to finish his meal. If there is then some compelling reason for him to move from the spot on which he is sitting—for example, the donor spills a pot of hot soup, or ants come crawling into his robes—then he cannot finish his meal even if the donor begs him to continue eating.	2）《义注》的解读引发了一个更实际的问题是，如果钵里已经有足够多的食物但还没吃完，而拒绝了额外的食物供养，那就不能继续吃。《义注》试图透过引入一个额外的因素来解决这个困境：只要不离开所坐的位置，就可以继续吃饭。然而，这又带来了进一步的问题：假设一位比丘拒绝了更进一步的食物供养但还没用完餐。如果有某种令人信服的理由迫使他离开所坐的位置——例如，布施者打翻了一锅热汤，或者蚂蚁爬进了他的袈裟——那么即使布施者恳求他继续吃饭，他也不能用完餐。
The Sub-commentary gets around the first problem by interpreting having eaten as “having finished a meal,” which fits better with the origin story and with the linguistic usage of the Canon itself. (The word bhuttāvin also appears in MN 91, Cv.VIII.4.6, and Cv.VIII.11.5, where it clearly and consistently means “having finished a meal.” The Canon uses a separate term, asana, for one who is in the process of eating a meal without yet having finished it.) The author of the Sub-commentary doesn’t realize, though, that in adopting this interpretation he is also eliminating the need for the Commentary’s extra factor concerning moving from one’s spot. If the factor is unnecessary and has no basis in the Canon, there seems no reason to adopt it. Thus the Commentary’s factor, and not the wording of the rule, is what is superfluous. So we can say that having eaten means having finished one’s meal, and that the question of having moved from one’s spot doesn’t enter into the rule.	《复注》透过将「吃过」解释为「用餐完毕」来规避第一个问题，这更符合起源故事和《圣典》本身的语言用法。（ bhuttāvin 一词也出现在《中部》91经、《小品》.八.4.6 和《小品》.八.11.5 中，在这些经文中，它明确且一致地表示「用餐完毕」。《圣典》使用了一个单独的术语 asana 来指正在用餐但尚未完毕的人。）然而，《复注》的作者没有意识到，透过采用这种解释，他也消除了《义注》中关于从位置移动的额外因素的需要。如果这个因素是不必要的，而且在《圣典》中没有依据，那么似乎也没有理由采用它。因此，多余的是《义注》中的因素，而不是戒条的措辞。所以我们可以说，「吃过」意味著已经用餐完毕，而是否离开位置的问题并不在戒条之内。
As the Commentary itself notes when discussing the term asana, the point where one finishes eating is determined in one of two ways:	正如《义注》本身在讨论 asana 该术语时所指出的，用餐完毕的时间点是透过以下两种方式之一来决定的：
a) There is no food left in one’s bowl, hand, or mouth; or	a）钵里、手里或嘴里没有食物；或者
b) one decides that one has had enough for that particular meal.	b）决定自己已经吃饱了那餐。
Thus, as long as the bhikkhu has not yet finished the donor’s meal, he is free to turn down, accept, and eat food as he likes. In other words, if he turns down an offer of further food, he may continue eating what is left in his bowl. If he initially turns down an offer of further food but then gives in and accepts it after being pressured by the donor, he may eat what he accepts without penalty. Or if he feels, for example, that he has enough vegetables but would like more rice, he may turn down an offer of vegetables yet accept and eat an offer of rice that follows it.	因此，只要比丘尚未吃完施主的供养，他就可以自由地随意拒绝、接受和食用食物。换句话说，如果他拒绝了施主提供的更多食物，他可以继续吃钵里剩下的食物。如果他最初拒绝了施主提供的更多食物，但在施主的催促下屈服并接受了，他可以继续吃他接受的食物而不受惩罚。或者，例如，如果他觉得蔬菜已经足够，但想要更多的米饭，他可以拒绝蔬菜的供养，但接受并食用随后供养的米饭。
But once he no longer has any food in his bowl, hand, or mouth, or has decided that he has had enough for that particular meal, he fulfills the factor of “having eaten” under this rule. If he turned down an offer of further food before finishing the meal, he may not for the remainder of the day eat any staple or non-staple foods that are not leftovers.	但一旦他的钵里、手里或嘴里没有食物，或者他决定该餐已经吃饱了，他就满足了这条戒条下「吃过」的因素。如果他在用完餐之前拒绝了更进一步食物的供养，那么在当天剩余的时间里，他不得吃任何非剩余的主食或副食。

Turning down an offer of further food	拒绝更进一步的食物供养
The Vibhaṅga defines this as an act with five factors:	《经分别》将此定义为具有五个因素的行为：
1) The bhikkhu is eating.	1）比丘正在吃。
2) There is further staple food.	2）还有更多的主食。
3) The donor is standing within hatthapāsa (1.25 meters) of the bhikkhu.	3）布施者站在比丘伸手可及（ hatthapāsa 1.25 公尺）以内。
4) He/she offers the food.	4）他/她供养食物。
5) The bhikkhu turns it down.	5）比丘拒绝了。
The Commentary adds that if the bhikkhu has finished eating before the further food is offered, factor (1) is not fulfilled, so if he turns down the food he does not fall under the terms of this rule. Similarly, if the food in factor (2) is not a staple food—e.g., if it is fruit, chocolates, or cheese—or if it is staple food of a sort unallowable for a bhikkhu to eat—e.g., it has been offered as a result of a bhikkhu’s claiming a superior human state or corrupting a family (see Sg 13), or it is made of human flesh or snake meat, etc.—the factor is not fulfilled. Because none of the texts specify that the donor under factor (3) must be unordained, a bhikkhu offering food to a fellow bhikkhu would apparently fulfill this factor as well. Thus this rule would apply not only to meals offered by lay donors, but also to food handed out by bhikkhus and novices in a monastery.	《义注》补充道，如果比丘在更进一步供养食物之前已经吃完，则不满足因素（1），因此如果他拒绝食物，则不属于本戒条的范畴。同样，如果因素（2）中的食物不是主食（例如，水果、巧克力或奶酪），或者属于比丘禁食的主食—例如，由于比丘自称上人法或污家而被供养的（参见《僧残》十三），或者食物由人肉或蛇肉制成等—则不满足该因素。由于没有任何文献明确规定因素（3）中的布施者必须是未出家者，因此，比丘向比丘同侪供养食物显然也满足本因素。因此，这条戒条不仅适用于在家布施者所供养的食物，也适用于寺院中比丘和沙弥所分发的食物。
Factor (5) is fulfilled by any refusal made by word or gesture.	因素（5）透过任何言语或示意动作表示拒绝来满足。
Cv.VI.10.1 states that when a senior bhikkhu makes a junior bhikkhu get up from his seat before the latter has finished his meal, the senior bhikkhu counts as having turned down an offer of further food (§). In other words, when the senior bhikkhu then finishes his own meal, he comes under the purview of this rule as well.	《小品》.六.10.1 规定，当一位资深比丘让一位资浅比丘在用餐完毕前从座位起身，则该资深比丘视为拒绝了更进一步的食物供养（§）。换句话说，当该资深比丘随后也用餐完毕，他也受此戒条约束。

Staple & non-staple food	主食和副食
Staple food, here, follows the standard definition. Non-staple food, in the context of this rule, covers all edibles except for the five staple foods, juice drinks, the five tonics, medicines, and water.	这里的主食是依照标准定义，副食则是指除五种主食、果汁饮料、五种补药、药物、水以外的所有可食用物。
Leftover food is of two sorts: (1) leftover from a sick bhikkhu’s meal and (2) formally “made” leftover by a bhikkhu who is not sick. In the latter case, the formal act has seven factors:	剩余食物有两种：（1）生病比丘用餐后剩下的；（2）由非生病比丘正式地「被制成」的剩余食物。在后一种情况下，正式行为包含七个因素：
1) The food is allowable.	1）食物是被允许的。
2) It has been formally received by any bhikkhu except Bhikkhu Y.	2）除 Y 比丘外，它已经被任何比丘正式地接受。
3) Bhikkhu X lifts it up in the presence of Bhikkhu Y.	3）比丘 X 在比丘 Y 面前举起了它。
4) Bhikkhu Y is within hatthapāsa of X.	4）比丘 Y 在 X 的伸手可及（hatthapāsa）之处。
5) Bhikkhu Y has finished his meal.	5）比丘 Y 已用完餐。
6) Bhikkhu Y has not yet gotten up from the seat where he has finished his meal and turned down an offer of further food; and	6）比丘 Y 用完餐后还没有从座位上起身，并且拒绝了更进一步的食物供养；并且
7) he says, “All that is enough (in Pali: Alam’etaṁ sabbaṁ).”	7）他说：「所有那些就足够了（巴利语： Alam’etaṁ sabbaṁ ）。」
The Commentary notes under step (3) that X may either offer the food to Y or simply lift it up, even slightly. It goes on to say that any bhikkhu except Bhikkhu Y may eat the food formally made leftover in this way.	《义注》在第（3）步指出， X 可以将食物供养给 Y ，或仅仅举起来，即使只有一点点。《义注》接著指出，除比丘 Y 外，任何比丘都可以吃以这种方式制成的剩余食物。
Both of these allowances for leftover food are designed to prevent food’s going to waste. The first needs no explanation; the second would be useful for preventing waste in cases such as these: (a) X has turned down an offer of further food but cannot finish the food in his bowl; after getting Y to make it leftover, X can take the food back to the monastery and finish it there later. (b) All the bhikkhus except X have finished eating after turning down an offer of further food. Friends of the donors arrive late with large quantities of food they want to present to the bhikkhus; after X receives the food from them and gets Y to make it leftover, all the bhikkhus except Y may partake of it.	这两种允许剩余食物的开缘都是为了防止食物浪费。第一种无需解释，第二种则适用于防止下列情况下的浪费：（a）X 拒绝了更进一步的食物供养，但吃不完钵里的食物；在让 Y 把食物剩下后，X 可以将食物带回寺院，稍后在那里吃完。（b）除了 X 之外，所有比丘在拒绝了更进一步的食物供养后都用餐完毕了。布施者的朋友迟到了，带著大量食物想要供养比丘；在 X 从他们那里接受食物并让 Y 把食物剩下后，除了 Y 之外的所有比丘都可以享用。
Effort	努力
If a bhikkhu who, having eaten and turned down an offer of further food, is presented with staple or non-staple food that is not leftover—e.g., a snack of milk or ice cream—he incurs a dukkaṭa if he accepts it with the thought of eating it, and a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats.	如果一个比丘吃过后，拒绝了更进一步的食物供养，然后被供养非剩余的主食或副食—例如，牛奶或冰淇淋零食—如果他带著吃它的想法接受它，他犯《突吉罗》，而他吃的每一口都犯一次《波逸提》。
According to the Vibhaṅga, perception as to whether the food is actually leftover is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	根据《经分别》，对于食物是否真的剩余的感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense—	并不犯戒——
if a bhikkhu accepts the food and takes it for the sake of another,	如果比丘为了他人而接受且拿取食物，
if he accepts and eats leftover food, or	如果他接受并吃剩余的食物，或者
if, having a reason, he later in the day accepts and consumes juice drinks, any of the five tonics, or medicine. According to the Commentary, having a reason means, in the case of juice drinks, being thirsty; and in the case of the tonics and medicine, suffering from an illness that they are meant to assuage. (As we have noted under NP 23, these illnesses include hunger and fatigue as well as medical disorders.) In other words, a bhikkhu under the circumstances covered by this rule may not take these items as food. The Vibhaṅga penalizes him with a dukkaṭa if he accepts them with the idea of taking them as food, and a further dukkaṭa for every mouthful he eats.	如果比丘在当天晚些时候，出于某种原因，接受并食用果汁饮料、五种补品中的任何一种，或药物。根据《义注》，出于某种原因，就果汁饮料而言，是指口渴；就补品和药物而言，是指患有它们用来缓解的疾病。（正如我们已在《舍堕》二三中指出的，这些疾病包括饥饿、疲劳以及医学上的疾病。）换句话说，在这条戒条所涵盖的情况下，比丘不得将这些物品当作食物。如果他以将其当作食物的想法接受它们，《经分别》以《突吉罗》惩罚他，并且他吃的每一口都将受到一次额外的《突吉罗》。
According to the Mahāvagga (VI.18.4, VI.19.2, VI.20.4), this rule was relaxed during times of famine so that a bhikkhu who had eaten and turned down an offer of further food could later in the day consume food that was not leftover:	根据《大品》（六.18.4 、六.19.2 、六.20.4 ）记载，饥荒时期这条戒条被放宽，这样，已经吃过并拒绝了更进一步食物供养的比丘可以在当天晚些时候食用非剩余的食物：
if it was accepted before he went to his meal,	如果在他去用餐之前就被接受了，
if it is brought back from a place where a meal has been offered, or	如果是从餐食被供养的地方带回来的，或者
if it has been taken from a wilderness area or a pond. The texts offer no explanation for this last stipulation. Perhaps, during famines, these were places where people would commonly forage for food.	如果是从林野或池塘取来的。文献中并没有对最后这一项做出解释。或许，在饥荒时期，这些地方是人们通常寻找食物的地方。
These famine allowances were later rescinded (Mv.VI.32.2) without any provision for invoking them again if a similar crisis—such as the collapse of modern civilization—were to arise. Thus, they were part of the Buddha’s repertoire but not of the Community’s after his parinibbāna.	这些饥荒开缘后来被废除（《大品》.六.32.2 ），并且没有规定在类似危机（例如现代文明崩溃）发生时可以再次援引。因此，它们是佛陀的保留曲目，但在他般涅槃后，不再是僧团的。
Summary: Eating staple or non-staple food that is not leftover, after having earlier in the day finished a meal during which one turned down an offer to eat further staple food, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：在当天早些时候用完一餐并在用餐时拒绝吃更多主食的供养之后，吃非剩余的主食或副食，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

36	三十六
Should any bhikkhu, knowingly and wishing to find fault, present staple or non-staple food he has brought to a bhikkhu who has eaten and turned down an offer (of further food), saying, “Here, bhikkhu, chew or consume this”—when it has been eaten, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘明知地，想要找过错，将自己带来的主食或副食给已经吃过而且拒绝了（更进一步的食物）供养的比丘，说，「比丘，咀嚼或食用这个」——当它被吃掉后，波逸提。
“Now at that time two bhikkhus were traveling through the Kosalan districts on their way to Sāvatthī. One of them indulged in bad habits; the second one said, ‘Don’t do that sort of thing, my friend. It isn’t proper.’ The first one developed a grudge. Eventually, they arrived at Sāvatthī.	「尔时，有两位比丘，途经拘萨罗地区，前往舍卫城。其中一位比丘沉溺于恶习；另一位比丘说：『我的朋友，别做这种事。这不合适。』第一位比丘起了怨恨。最终，他们到达了舍卫城。
“Now at that time one of the guilds in Sāvatthī presented a Community meal. The second bhikkhu finished his meal, having turned down an offer of further food. The bhikkhu with the grudge, having gone to his relatives and bringing back almsfood, went to the second bhikkhu and on arrival said to him, ‘Here, friend, have some of this.’	「尔时，舍卫城的一个行会供养了僧团餐食。第二位比丘用餐完毕，拒绝了更进一步的食物供养。心怀怨恨的比丘去亲戚家带回了钵食，然后去见第二个比丘，到达后对他说：『这里，朋友，吃些这个。』
“‘No thanks, my friend. I’m full.’	「『不用了谢谢，朋友，我已经吃饱了。』
“‘Really, this is delicious almsfood. Have some.’	「『真的，这是美味的钵食。吃一些吧。』
“So the second bhikkhu, being pressured by the first, ate the almsfood. Then the bhikkhu with the grudge said to him, ‘You think I’m the one to be reprimanded when you eat food that isn’t leftover, after finishing your meal and turning down an offer of further food?’	「于是，第二位比丘在第一位比丘的压力下，吃了钵食。这时，心怀怨恨的比丘对他说：『你用餐完毕后，拒绝了更进一步的食物供养，却吃了非剩余食物，你以为我应该受到责备吗？』
“‘Shouldn’t you have told me?’	「『你不该告诉我吗？』
“‘Shouldn’t you have asked?’”	「『你不该问吗？』」
This rule covers cases in which one bhikkhu, knowingly and wishing to find fault, offers food to another bhikkhu in order to trick him into committing an offense under the preceding rule. The full offense here requires a full set of five factors.	本戒条涵盖的情况是，一位比丘明知地，想要找过错，向另一位比丘供养食物，以诱使他犯前一条戒条的罪。本戒条的完全违犯需要满足全部五个条件。
1) Object: staple or non-staple food that one perceives not to be leftover.	1）对象：认为是非剩余的主食或副食。
2) Effort: One gives the food to a bhikkhu who has eaten and turned down an offer of further food, as under the preceding rule.	2）努力：如前一条戒条所述，将食物给已吃过并拒绝更进一步食物供养的比丘。
3) Perception: One knows that he has eaten and turned down an offer of further food.	3）感知：知道他已经吃过，并拒绝了更进一步的食物供养。
4) Intention: One wishes to find fault with him.	4）意图：想要找他的过错。
5) Result: He finishes a meal that includes that food.	5）结果：他完成了包含该食物的用餐。
Only four of these factors—object, perception, intention, and result—require further explanation.	其中只有四个因素—对象、感知、意图和结果—需要进一步解释。
Object	对象
Staple food and non-staple food here are defined as under the preceding rule. Whether the food is actually leftover is not a factor in determining the offense here. The important point lies in the perception: As long as one assumes the food to be not leftover, one is subject to a penalty if the other bhikkhu accepts it. If one assumes the food to be leftover, one’s actions would not fit under this rule.	此处的主食和副食的定义与前一条戒条一致。食物是否真的是剩余的，并非决定此处犯戒的因素。关键在于感知：只要认为食物不是剩余的，如果其他比丘接受了，他就会受到惩罚。如果认为食物是剩余的，那么他的行为就不符合此戒条。
Perception	感知
If one is in doubt as to whether a bhikkhu has eaten and turned down an offer of further food, he is grounds for a dukkaṭa regardless of whether he has. If one thinks that he has eaten and turned down an offer of further food when he actually hasn’t, he is grounds for a dukkaṭa. If one thinks that he has not eaten and turned down an offer of further food, then regardless of whether he has or hasn’t, he is not grounds for an offense.	如果怀疑比丘是否已经吃过，并拒绝了更进一步的食物供养，无论他是否如此，都构成《突吉罗》。如果认为他已经吃过，并拒绝了更进一步的食物供养，而实际上他并没有，则构成《突吉罗》。如果认为他没有吃过并拒绝了更进一步的食物供养，无论他是否如此，都不构成犯戒。
Intention	意图
Wishing to find fault, according to the Vibhaṅga, means planning either to charge, interrogate, counter-charge, or counter-interrogate the bhikkhu (these are steps in a formal accusation), or simply to make him abashed after one has succeeded in tricking him into breaking the preceding rule.	根据《经分别》，想要找过错意味著计划指控、审问、反指控或反审问比丘（这些是正式指控的步骤），或者仅仅是在成功诱使他违反前一条戒条后让他感到羞愧。
Effort & result	努力与结果
Bhikkhu X, in giving food to Bhikkhu Y “knowingly and wishing to find fault,” incurs a dukkaṭa when he brings the food to Y, another dukkaṭa when Y accepts the food with the thought of eating it, a further dukkaṭa for every mouthful Y eats of the food, and a pācittiya when Y has stopped eating from it. If X then tries to make Y feel abashed, he is to be treated under Pc 2 as well. As for Y, the Commentary states that he should be treated under the preceding rule. Because perception is not a factor there, this means that Y is not exempt from an offense even though X has deliberately misled him as to the status of the food he is eating. (Some have misread one of the “wheels” of offenses listed in the Vibhaṅga to this rule as applying to Y, but because they conflict with the offenses the Vibhaṅga to the preceding rule allots to Y for eating under a misperception, that reading cannot stand. Thus the Commentary seems right in stating that all the offenses mentioned in the Vibhaṅga to this rule apply to X.) This means further that both bhikkhus in the origin story were right: The bhikkhu with a grudge should have told the second bhikkhu, while the second bhikkhu should have asked.	比丘 X 「明知地且想要找过错」给比丘 Y 食物，当他把食物带给 Y 时，他犯《突吉罗》；当 Y 带著吃它的念头接受食物时，犯另一次《突吉罗》；当 Y 每吃一口食物，另一次《突吉罗》；当 Y 停止进食时，他犯《波逸提》。如果 X 试图让 Y 感到羞愧，他也应依照《波逸提》二处理。至于 Y ，《义注》指出他应依照前一条戒条处理。因为感知不是其中的因素，这意味著即使 X 故意误导他所吃食物的性质，Y 也不能免于犯戒。（有些人误读了本戒条的《经分别》中列出的犯戒「轮子」之一，认为它适用于 Y，但是因为它们与前一条戒条的《经分别》中对因误解食用而犯戒相冲突，所以这种解读站不住脚。因此，《义注》似乎正确地指出，本戒条的《经分别》中提到的所有罪行适用于 X。）这进一步意味著起源故事中的两个比丘都是正确的：心怀怨恨的比丘应该告诉第二个比丘，而第二个比丘应该询问。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense—	不犯—
if one gives leftover food for the other bhikkhu to eat;	如果把剩余的食物给另一个比丘吃；
if one gives him food for the sake of another; or	如果为了另一个人而给他食物；或者
if one gives him juice drinks, any of the five tonics, or medicines when he has a reason to take them.	如果给他果汁饮料、五种补品的任何一种、或药物，当他有理由时食用之。
In the case of the second exemption—one gives him food for the sake of another—none of the texts mention the point, but it would seem to hold only in cases where the other bhikkhu is ill or has not eaten and turned down an offer of further food.	对于第二种豁免，即为了另一个人而给他食物，没有任何文献提到这一点，但它似乎只在另一位比丘生病或还未吃过并拒绝更进一步食物供养的情况下才成立。
None of the texts make any mention of a bhikkhu trying to trick another bhikkhu into committing an offense under any rule other than Pc 35; and apparently, a bhikkhu who tricks a fellow bhikkhu into committing an offense under Pc 35 with no desire to blame or shame him, but simply for the perverse satisfaction of seeing him commit the offense, would incur no penalty under this or any other rule. There is no escaping the fact, though, that such actions carry their own inherent penalty in terms of one’s spiritual maturity. This is one of those cases where a wise policy is to look past the particulars of the rule to the general principle underlying it: that one should not deliberately trick another person into breaking a rule or vow that he or she has pledged to uphold.	除《波逸提》三五外，所有文献均未提及比丘试图诱使另一位比丘犯其他戒条；显然，如果比丘诱使比丘同侪犯《波逸提》三五规定的罪行，并且无意责备或羞辱他，而仅仅是为了从观看他犯戒中获得变态的满足感，那么根据本戒条或任何其他戒条，他都不会受到惩罚。然而，无可否认的是，此类行为会因个人的精神成熟度而承担其固有的惩罚。在这种情况下，明智之举是忽略戒条的细节，而关注其背后的一般原则：不应故意诱使他人违反他或她承诺遵守的戒条或誓言。
Summary: Deliberately tricking another bhikkhu into breaking the preceding rule, in hopes of finding fault with him, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：故意诱使另一位比丘违反前一条戒条，希望找他的过错，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

37	三十七
Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘在非时咀嚼或食用主食或副食，波逸提。
Object	对象
Staple food here follows the standard definition given in the preface to this chapter. Non-staple food refers to all edibles except for the five staple foods, juice drinks, the five tonics, medicines, and water.	这里的主食，遵循本章前言的标准定义。副食，指除了五种主食、果汁饮料、五种补品、药物、及水以外的一切可食用物。
The wrong time	非时
The Vibhaṅga defines the wrong time as from noon until dawnrise of the following day. (See Appendix I for a discussion of how dawnrise is defined.) Noon is reckoned as the moment the sun reaches its zenith, rather than by the clock—in other words, by local rather than standard or daylight-savings time. Thus, for example, a bhikkhu who is offered food while traveling in an airplane should check the position of the sun in order to determine whether he may accept and eat it. Some have argued that one may eat after noon if one has begun one’s meal before noon, but the Commentary says explicitly that this is not the case.	《经分别》将非时定义为从正午到隔天黎明升起。（有关黎明升起的定义讨论，请参阅附录一。）正午是以太阳到达天顶的时刻来计算的，而不是以时钟来计算——换句话说，是以当地时间而不是标准时间或夏令时间来计算的。因此，例如，在飞机上旅行时，被供养食物的比丘，应该检查太阳的位置，以确定是否可以接受并食用。有人认为，如果在正午之前开始用餐，那么他可以在正午之后吃，但《义注》明确指出并非如此。
Perception as to whether one is eating at the wrong time or the right time is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	对于是否在非时或正确的时间进食的感知在这里并不是一个减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。

Effort	努力
The verbs chew and consume in the Pali of this rule are the verbs normally paired, respectively, with non-staple and staple foods. They both mean “to eat,” but the question arises as to whether eating means going down the throat or entering the mouth. This becomes an issue, for instance, when a bhikkhu has a piece of food stuck in his teeth from his morning meal and swallows it after noon.	本戒条的巴利语动词「咀嚼」和「食用」通常分别与副食和主食搭配使用。它们都表示「吃」，但问题是，「吃」是指吞下喉咙还是进入嘴里。这会变成问题，例如，当一位比丘早上用餐时，牙齿上卡著一块食物，正午之后才把它吞下去时。
The Commentary generally defines eating as going down the throat, but a passage from the Cullavagga (V.25) suggests otherwise. In it, the Buddha allows a ruminator who brings up food to his mouth at the “wrong time” to swallow it, and ends with the statement: “But food that has been brought out from the mouth should not be taken back in. Whoever should take it in is to be dealt with according to the rule (i.e., this rule and the following one).” This suggests, then, that eating is technically defined as “taking into the mouth.”	《义注》通常将「吃」定义为吞下喉咙，但《小品》（五.25）中的一个段落却提出了相反的观点。佛陀允许在「非时」将食物送入口中的反刍者将其吞咽，并在结尾说道：「但从口中吐出的食物不应再吞回。但凡吞回者，应按戒条（即本戒条和下一条戒条）处置。」由此可见，从严格意义上来说，「吃」的定义是「送入口中」。

Offenses	犯戒
The Vibhaṅga says that a bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa when, intending to eat it, he accepts staple or non-staple food. The question is, is the dukkaṭa only for accepting the food in the wrong time, or is it also for accepting food in the right time, intending to eat it in the wrong time? The Vibhaṅga doesn’t answer the question, but the Commentary does, saying that the dukkaṭa is for accepting the food in the wrong time. The Vibhaṅga goes on to say that if the bhikkhu eats staple or non-staple food at the wrong time he incurs a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats. As for juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicine, there is a dukkaṭa for accepting them at the wrong time to be used as food, and another dukkaṭa for eating them at the wrong time as food.	《经分别》说，比丘在想吃时，接受主食或副食，犯《突吉罗》。问题是，《突吉罗》只是因为在非时接受食物，或者是在正确的时间接受食物，却想在非时吃？《经分别》没有回答这个问题，但《义注》回答了，说《突吉罗》是因为在非时接受食物。《经分别》继续说，如果比丘在非时吃主食或副食，他每吃一口都犯一次《波逸提》。至于果汁饮料、五种补品和药物，在非时接受它们作为食物犯《突吉罗》，在非时将它们作为食物食用犯另一次《突吉罗》。
No exception is granted to an ill bhikkhu, because there are a number of edibles an ill bhikkhu may consume at the wrong time without involving an offense: juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines. Also, there is an allowance in Mv.VI.14.7 for a bhikkhu who has taken a purgative to take strained meat broth, strained rice broth, or strained green gram (mung bean) broth at any time of the day. Using the Great Standards, we may say that a bhikkhu who has a similar illness or worse may take these broths at any time; and some have argued that other bean broths—such as strained broth made from boiled soybeans—would fit under the category of green gram broth as well. However, unlike the case with the five tonics, mere hunger or fatigue would not seem to count as sufficient reasons for taking any of these substances in the wrong time.	生病的比丘也不例外，因为生病的比丘可以在非时食用许多可食用物而不会构成犯戒：果汁饮料、五种补品和药物。此外，《大品》.六.14.7 允许服用泻药的比丘在一天中的任何时间服用过滤后的肉汤、过滤后的米汤或过滤后的绿豆汤。使用《四大教示》，我们可以说患有类似疾病或更严重疾病的比丘可以在任何时间服用这些汤；有些人认为其他豆汤——例如煮熟黄豆过滤后制成的汤——也可以归入绿豆汤的范畴。但是，与五种补品的情况不同，仅仅是饥饿或疲劳似乎不足以成为在非时服用这些物质的理由。
A substance termed loṇasovīraka (or loṇasocīraka) is allowed (Mv.VI.16.3) to be taken in the wrong time as a medicine for ill bhikkhus and, when mixed with water, as a beverage for bhikkhus who are not ill. No one makes it anymore, but the recipe for it in the Commentary to Pr 3 bears some resemblance to the recipe for miso (fermented soybean paste). Some have argued, using the Great Standards, that the special allowance for this substance should extend to miso as well, but this is a controversial point. As far as I have been able to ascertain, miso is not used to cure diseases in adults even in China, which would be the place to look for its use as a medicine. However, even if the allowance does apply to miso, taking miso broth as food in the wrong time would entail a dukkaṭa.	一种名为 loṇasovīraka （或 loṇasocīraka ）的物质被允许（《大品》.六.16.3 ）在非时作为生病比丘的药物服用，或者与水混合后作为无病比丘的饮料。现在没有人做这种东西了，但是《波罗夷》三的《义注》中它的配方与味噌（发酵豆酱）的配方有些相似。有些人，使用《四大教示》，主张这种物质的特殊开缘也应该扩及味噌，但这是一个有争议的观点。据我所知，即使在中国，味噌也不用于治疗成人的疾病，而中国是寻找其作为药物使用的地方。但是，即使此开缘也适用于味噌，在非时服用味噌汤作为食物也会犯《突吉罗》。

Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense if, having a reason, one consumes juice drinks, any of the five tonics, or medicine after noon or before dawnrise.	如有理由，在午后或黎明升起前饮用果汁饮料、五种补品中的任何一种或药物，则并无犯戒。
Summary: Eating staple or non-staple food in the period from noon till the next dawnrise is a pācittiya offense.	，摘要：从中午到第二天黎明升起之前，吃主食或副食都是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

38	三十八
Should any bhikkhu chew or consume stored-up staple or non-staple food, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘咀嚼或食用储存的主食或副食，波逸提。
This is one of the few rules where the original instigator was an arahant: Ven. Beḷaṭṭhasīsa, Ven. Ānanda’s preceptor and formerly the head of the 1,000 ascetics who attained Awakening on hearing the Fire Sermon (SN 35:28). The origin story here reports that he made a practice of keeping leftover rice from his alms round, drying it, and then moistening it to eat on a later day. As a result, he only rarely had to go out for alms. Even though he was doing this out of frugality rather than greed, the Buddha still rebuked him. The story doesn’t give the precise reasons for the rebuke. Perhaps it was because the Buddha saw that such behavior would open the way for bhikkhus to avoid going on alms round, thus depriving themselves of the excellent opportunity that alms-going provides for reflecting on their dependency on others and on the human condition in general; and depriving the laity of the benefits that come from daily contact with the bhikkhus and the opportunity to practice generosity of the most basic sort every day. Although frugality may be a virtue, there are times when other considerations supercede it.	这是少数最初犯戒者是阿罗汉的戒条之一：毘拉陀施沙尊者，阿难尊者的戒师，曾是听闻《燃烧经》而觉醒的一千名苦行者的领袖（《相应部》35:28经）。这里的起源故事报导说，他习惯将托钵剩下的米饭留著，晒干，然后弄湿以便之后的日子吃。结果，他很少出去托钵。尽管他这样做是出于节俭而不是贪欲，但佛陀仍然诃责了他。故事没有给出诃责的具体原因。也许是因为佛陀认为这种行为会让比丘们逃避托钵，从而剥夺了托钵提供的反思对他人的依赖和人类普遍状况的绝佳机会；剥夺了在家人与比丘们日常接触所带来的利益，以及每天实践最基本布施的机会。虽然节俭可能是一种美德，但有时其他考虑会取代它。
Another possible reason for this rule is expressed in AN 5:80: “In the course of the future there will be bhikkhus who will live entangled with monastery attendants and novices. As they are entangled with monastery attendants and novices, they can be expected to live intent on many kinds of stored-up consumables and on making blatant signs (identifying their) land and crops.” The Buddha showed great foresight in seeing this as a danger. Over the centuries, whenever bhikkhus have lived in Communities where vast stores of food were kept—such as the great Buddhist universities in India—they have tended to grow lax in their practice, and a gulf of misunderstanding and suspicion has come to separate them from the laity.	这条戒条的另一个可能原因在《增支部》5:80经中有所阐述：「在未来，将有比丘与寺院侍者和沙弥纠缠不清。由于他们与寺院侍者和沙弥纠缠不清，可以预见，他们将热衷于各种囤积的消耗品，并制作明显的标志（来表明他们的）土地和农作物。」佛陀很有远见，体认到了这是一种危险。几个世纪以来，每当比丘生活在储存大量食物的僧团——例如印度的大型佛教大学——他们的修行就会变得懈怠，误解和猜疑的鸿沟也逐渐将他们与在家人隔开。

Object	对象
Staple food here, as usual, follows the standard definition given in the preface to this chapter. Non-staple food here includes all edibles except for the five staples, juice drinks, the five tonics, medicine, and water.	这里的主食，一如既往地遵循本章前言的标准定义。这里的副食，则包括除了五种主食、果汁饮料、五种补品、药物、水之外的所有可食用物。
Stored-up means formally accepted by a bhikkhu (see Pc 40, below) on one day and eaten on the next or a later day. The boundary between one day and the next is dawnrise.	储藏的意思是比丘在某一天正式接受（参见下文《波逸提》四十），并在第二天或之后的日子食用。一天与另一天的分界线是黎明升起。
Perception as to whether food has been stored up is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	对于食物是否被储存起来的感知并不是这里的减轻惩罚因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
The story of the Second Council (Cv.XII.2.8) shows that this rule also forbids storing such medicines as salt (or pepper, vinegar, etc.) to add to any bland food one might receive on a later day. (See the discussion preceding Pc 31 for more details on this subject.)	第二次结集（《小品》.十二.2.8 ）的故事表明，这条戒条还禁止储存诸如盐（或胡椒、醋等）之类的药物，以便日后添加到任何清淡的食物中。（有关此主题的更多细节，请参阅之前《波逸提》三一的讨论。）
The Commentary contains an allowance of its own, saying that, “If a bhikkhu without desire (for the food) abandons it to a novice, and the novice, having stored it (overnight) gives it (again), that is all allowable. If, however, he has received it himself and has not abandoned it, it is not proper on the second day.” This allowance raises two main questions, the first being how to interpret it. Some, focusing on the second sentence to the exclusion of the first, have noticed that it makes no mention of the presence or absence of any desire for the food, and so have interpreted it as meaning that the issue of desire is totally irrelevant: If one has not given the food to a non-bhikkhu, it is not allowable; if one has given it away, it is. This interpretation, however, ignores the point that if the presence or absence of desire for the food were irrelevant, the first sentence would not have mentioned it. Both the Old and New K/Sub-commentaries note this point, and say the abandoning in the second sentence means “abandoning without desire.” In other words, the Commentary’s allowance is meant to apply only in cases where one has abandoned both the food and any desire to receive it back.	《义注》包含一项它自己的开缘，说：「若比丘（对食物）无欲望，舍弃给沙弥，沙弥将它储存（过夜）后（再）行给予之，则那皆允许。然而，若他自己接受而未舍弃之，则次日不宜。」这项开缘引发了两个主要问题，第一是如何解读它。有些人只关注第二句而忽略第一句，发现第二句并未提及对食物是否有欲望，因此将其解读为与欲望的问题完全无关：若未将食物给予非比丘，则它是不允许的；若已将其赠与出去，则它是允许的。然而，这种解读忽略了一点：若对食物是否有欲望无关，则第一句话就不会提及。新旧 K/《复注》均指出了这一点，并解释第二句中的舍弃是「无欲望地舍弃」。换句话说，《义注》的开缘仅适用于既舍弃了食物，又舍弃了任何想要重新获得食物的欲望的情况。
This, however, begs the second question, which is what justification the Commentary has for making the allowance. There is no basis for it in the Vibhaṅga’s definition of “stored-up,” nor is there anything else in the Vibhaṅga to this rule from which the Great Standards could be used to support the allowance. The Commentary is apparently importing one of the non-offense clauses from NP 23 to this rule, but that is a misapplication of the Great Standards. The Vibhaṅga for one rule cannot be used to rewrite the Vibhaṅga for another; otherwise there would be no end to the rewriting of the rules. Had the compilers meant for the principle under NP 23 to be applied here, they could have done so themselves. For these reasons, there seem to be no grounds for accepting the allowance as valid. Thus, if one abandons food received today then, regardless of whether one has abandoned desire for it, if one accepts it again on a later day and eats it, one commits the full offense under this rule all the same. For further analysis of this point, see the article, Stored-up Food: A Discussion of Pācittaya 38.	但这又引出了第二个问题，就是《义注》有何依据允许这种做法。《经分别》对「储存」的定义中没有这种依据，《经分别》中也没有任何其他内容可以用《四大教示》来支持这项开缘。《义注》显然是将《舍堕》二三中的一条不犯条款引入这条戒条中，但这是对《四大教示》的误用。某一条戒条的《经分别》不能用来重写另一条戒条的《经分别》，否则戒条的重写将永无止境。如果编纂者有意将《舍堕》二三中的原则应用于此，他们自己就可以这样做。因此，似乎没有理由认为接受这项开缘是有效的。因此，如果舍弃今天接受的食物，那么无论是否已经舍弃了对该食物的欲望，如果在之后的某一天再次接受并食用，仍然会完全违犯此戒条。关于这一点的进一步分析，请参阅文章储存食物：《波逸提》三八的讨论（英文）。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga says that there is a dukkaṭa “if one accepts/takes it, thinking, ‘I will eat it.’” The question has arisen as to whether “it” here means food that has already been stored up or food that one is planning to store up. The Commentary, noting that the intention “I will store it up” is not mentioned, adopts the first interpretation: “It” here means food already stored up. The Vibhaṅga adds that there is a pācittiya for every mouthful one eats.	《经分别》说，「如果接受/拿起它，并想著『我要吃它』」，犯《突吉罗》。此处疑问就产生，这里的「它」是指已经储存的食物，还是计划储存的食物。《义注》注意到「我要储存它」的意图没有被提到，因此采用了第一种解释：这里的「它」是指已经储存的食物。《经分别》补充说，每吃一口犯一次《波逸提》。
Perception is not a factor here. Thus, a bhikkhu who eats stored-up food commits an offense regardless of whether he perceives it as stored-up. This means—	感知并非此处的因素。因此，比丘食用储存的食物，无论他是否感知到它是储存的，都会犯戒。这意味著：
1) If Bhikkhu X receives the food on one day and lets someone else put it away, and Bhikkhu Y eats it on a later day, Y commits an offense all the same, regardless of whether he knows that the food was stored-up.	1）如果比丘 X 在某一天接受食物并让其他人将其收起来，而比丘 Y 在之后的某一天吃了它，那么无论 Y 是否知道食物被储存起来，都同样犯了戒。
2) One should be careful that there are no traces of any edible received yesterday on a utensil from which one will eat food today. The protocols a student should follow with regard to his preceptor (upajjhāya-vatta) (Mv.I.25.9) show that the custom in the Buddha’s time was to rinse out one’s bowl before going for alms. The Commentary suggests a method for making sure that one’s bowl is clean: Run a finger along the inside of the bowl while it is dry. If there is enough food residue or dust in the bowl for the finger to make a mark in it, clean the bowl again before use.	2）应注意，今天用来吃饭的器皿上不应残留昨天接受的任何可食用物的残渣。弟子对戒师应遵循的行仪（upajjhāya-vatta）（《大品》.一.25.9 ）表明，佛陀时代的习俗是在托钵前冲洗干净钵。《义注》提出了一种确保钵干净的方法：用手指在钵内壁干燥时划一划。如果钵内食物残渣或灰尘足够多，足以用手指留下痕迹，则应在使用前再次清洗。
3) In a monastery where there are lay and novice attendants, it is important that they be fully informed of the need to make sure that leftovers from the bhikkhus’ meals not be served to the bhikkhus again on a later day. If donors come with a large pot of food, intending for it to be eaten over a period of several days, the amount of food that the bhikkhus would eat in one day can be placed in a separate vessel and offered to them, while the remainder can be stored in a proper place for later use.	3）在有在家和沙弥侍者的寺院里，务必让他们充分了解，确保比丘们用餐后剩余物不会在日后再次提供给比丘们。如果施主带著一大锅食物前来，打算分几天吃完，可以将比丘们一天的食量放在一个单独的容器里供养给他们，剩余的食物则存放在合适的地方以备日后使用。

Derived offenses	衍生违犯
If a bhikkhu accepts or takes, for the sake of food, a juice drink, a tonic, or medicine that has been stored overnight, there is a dukkaṭa in the taking, and another dukkaṭa for every mouthful he eats. The Commentary, though, asserts that when a bhikkhu takes, not for food but simply to assuage his thirst, a juice drink stored overnight, he incurs a pācittiya with every swallow.	如果比丘为了食物而接受或服用隔夜储存的果汁饮料、补品或药物，则服用时犯一次《突吉罗》，而每吃一口犯另一次《突吉罗》。然而，《义注》却声称，如果比丘不是为了食物而仅仅为了解渴而服用隔夜储存的果汁饮料，则他每吞咽一口犯一次《波逸提》。
It seems strange that drinking the juice simply as juice would entail a stronger penalty than taking it as food. As there is no basis anywhere in the Canon for the Commentary’s assertion, there seems no reason to adopt it. Mv.VI.40.3 states clearly that juice drinks, taken for any reason, are allowable at any time on the day they are accepted, but not after dawnrise of the following day. No specific penalty is given for taking them on the following day, but inferring from the Vibhaṅga to this rule we can use the Great Standards to say that the penalty would be a dukkaṭa.	奇怪的是，光是把果汁当果汁喝，比把它当食物喝，惩罚更重。由于《圣典》中没有任何证据支持《义注》的断言，因此似乎没有理由采纳它。《大品》.六.40.3 明确规定，无论出于何种原因，果汁饮料都可以在被接受当天的任何时间饮用，但第二天黎明之后则不行。第二天饮用果汁并没有具体的惩罚，但根据这条戒条的《经分别》推断，我们可以用《四大教示》来说该惩罚是《突吉罗》。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense in the mere act of storing food. A bhikkhu going on a journey with an unordained person may thus carry the latter’s food—while the latter carries the bhikkhu’s food—without committing an offense.	仅仅储存食物本身并不犯戒。一位比丘与一位未受具足戒者同行，因此可以携带后者的食物，而后者也携带比丘的食物，这并不构成犯戒。
There is also no offense in telling an unordained person to store food that has not been formally received. For example, if donors simply leave food at a bhikkhu’s residence without formally presenting it, the bhikkhu may tell a novice or lay person to take it and put it away for a later day. If the food is then presented to the bhikkhu on a later day, he may eat it that day without penalty.	告诉未受具足戒者储存未被正式接受的食物也不构成犯戒。例如，如果布施者只是将食物留在比丘的住处而未正式呈上，比丘可以指示沙弥或在家众将食物取走并存放起来，留待日后享用。如果日后有人将食物呈上给比丘，比丘当天可以享用，而不受任何处罚。
However, Mv.VI.33.2 states that food may be stored indoors in a monastery only in a building designated for the purpose (this would include the dwelling of anyone who is not a bhikkhu—see BMC2, Chapter 7). To eat food stored indoors anywhere else in the monastery, even if it has not been formally accepted on a previous day, would incur a dukkaṭa under Mv.VI.32.2. A bhikkhu may, however, store medicines or the five tonics anywhere in the monastery without penalty.	然而，《大品》.六.33.2 规定，食物只能在寺院内指定为该目的室内储存（这包括任何非比丘的住所－参见《佛教比丘戒律第二册》第七章）。食用在寺院其他地方室内储存的食物，即使之前的日子未经正式接受，根据《大品》.六.33.2 会犯《突吉罗》。然而，比丘可以在寺院的任何地方储存药物或五种补品，而不会受到惩罚。
If a bhikkhu accepts, sets aside, and then eats any of the four kinds of edibles all within their permitted time periods—e.g., he receives bread in the morning, sets it aside, and then eats it before that noon; or receives honey today, sets it aside, and takes it as a tonic tomorrow—there is no offense.	如果比丘在允许的时间内接受、放在一旁，然后吃四种可食用物中的任何一种—例如，他在早上接受面包，将其放在一旁，然后在中午之前吃掉它；或者今天收到蜂蜜，将其放在一旁，并在明天将其作为补品服用—则没有犯戒。
This rule makes no exceptions for a bhikkhu who is ill. The Buddha once suspended it during famine but then later reinstated it in such a way that there is no provision for suspending it ever again (Mv.VI.17-20.	本戒条即使比丘生病也不例外。佛陀曾在饥荒时期暂停了本戒条，但后来又恢复了本戒条，并且规定以后不再暂停（《大品》.六.17-20 ）。
Summary: Eating food that a bhikkhu—oneself or another—formally received on a previous day is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：吃比丘（自己或他人）日前正式接受的食物，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

39	三十九
There are these finer staple foods: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses, fish, meat, milk, and curds. Should any bhikkhu who is not ill, having requested finer staple foods such as these for his own sake, then consume them, it is to be confessed.	有以下较精致的主食：酥油、鲜奶油、油、蜂蜜、糖/糖蜜、鱼、肉、奶和凝乳。任何无病的比丘，为自己乞求这些较精致的主食并食用，波逸提。
There are three factors for an offense here: object, effort, and result.	这里的犯戒构成因素有三个：对象、努力、结果。
Object	对象
The Vibhaṅga defines finer staple foods as any of the nine foods mentioned in the rule, either on their own or mixed with other foods. Thus milk and milk-mixed-with-cereal would both be finer staple foods. The ancient commentators, though, must have objected to including some of these items under the category of staple food (bhojana), so we have the Commentary defining “finer staple foods” as any of the substances mentioned in the rule mixed with any one of the seven types of grain. Thus, it would say, milk with cereal would be a finer staple food, but milk on its own would not.	《经分别》将「较精致的主食」定义为戒条中提到的九种食物，单独食用或与其他食物混合食用均是。因此，牛奶和牛奶与谷物混合食用都是为较精致的主食。然而，古代注释家肯定反对将其中一些食物归入主食（bhojana）的范畴，因此《义注》将「较精致的主食」定义为戒条中提到的任何物质与七种谷物中的一种混合。因此，它认为牛奶与谷物混合是较精致的主食，而牛奶本身则不是。
As we have seen, though, the Vibhaṅga defines its terms to fit the situation covered by each particular rule and is not always consistent from one rule to another. Thus, as the Vibhaṅga is not at fault for being inconsistent here, there is no reason to follow the Commentary in deviating from it. The rule means what it says: It covers each of the foods mentioned in it, whether pure or mixed with other ingredients.	然而，正如我们所见，《经分别》的定义是根据每条特定戒条所涵盖的情况，并且各戒条之间并不总是一致的。因此，既然《经分别》在此前后不一致并无过错，也没有理由遵循《义注》而偏离它。这条戒条的含义就在于它所言：它涵盖了其中提到的每一种食物，无论是单独还是与其他食材混合。
The first five of these finer staple foods are discussed in detail under NP 23. Fish and meat are discussed in the preface to this chapter. Milk and curds here refers to milk and curds from animals whose flesh is allowable. The Sub-commentary, in discussing this point, maintains that tiger’s milk, bear’s milk, etc., are not unallowable, simply that they would not come under this rule. This is an interesting idea, but was included probably just to wake up sleepy students in the back of the room.	较精致的主食中前五种在《舍堕》二三中详细讨论。鱼和肉在本章的前言中讨论。这里的奶和凝乳指的是那些允许食用其肉的动物的奶和凝乳。在讨论这一点时，《复注》认为虎奶、熊奶等并非不允许食用，只是它们不受本戒条约束。这是一个有趣的想法，但包含进来可能只是为了唤醒教室后面昏昏欲睡的学生。
According to the Commentary, any food other than these nine finer staple foods is grounds for a dukkaṭa under Sk 37.	根据《义注》，这九种较精致的主食之外的任何食物都构成《应学》三七之下的《突吉罗》。
None of the texts mention the issue, but this rule apparently refers only to finer staple foods that have been offered in response to one’s request—either from the person to whom the request was directed or from another person who has learned of the request. If one has made a request for any of these foods but then receives the food from someone who knows nothing of the request, that food would apparently not fulfill this factor of the offense.	任何文献均未提及此事，但这条戒条似乎仅指应自己请求而提供的较精致的主食——无论是来自被请求者本人，还是来自知晓该请求的其他人。如果请求了这些食物，却从对请求毫不知情的人那里得到了食物，那么这些食物显然不满足构成犯戒的此因素。
Another issue not discussed in any of the texts is what to do if the people who received the request or knew of it continue to offer food of the sort requested. Is one forbidden for life from ever accepting that sort of food from them again? One suggestion for resolving this issue would be to borrow a page from the Commentary’s treatment of a revoked banishment-transaction (see Sg 13). This would mean that if—after the original offering of food—those who know of the request continue offering that sort of food, one must tell them that one may not accept the food because of the penalty it would entail. If, without further prompting, they say that they are offering the food not because of the request but because of their own independent desire to offer it, one may accept it and consume it.	另一个在任何文献中都没有讨论的问题是，如果收到请求或知晓请求的人继续提供所请求的该种食物，该怎么办？是否终身禁止再次接受他们提供的该种食物？解决这个问题的一个建议是藉用《义注》中关于撤销驱出羯磨的处理（见《僧残》十三）。这意味著，如果在最初提供食物之后，那些知晓请求的人继续提供该种食物，必须告诉他们，由于可能带来的惩罚，因此不能接受食物。如果他们无需进一步提示就说他们提供食物不是因为请求，而是出于他们自己的意愿，那么可以接受并食用。

Effort & Result	努力及结果
A bhikkhu who is not ill, requesting any of the finer staple foods for his own use, incurs a dukkaṭa for every request he makes, a dukkaṭa for accepting the food with the intention of eating it, and a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats.	一位无病的比丘，为自己使用请求任何较精细的主食，他每次请求都会招致一次《突吉罗》，以吃它的意图接受食物也会招致《突吉罗》，他吃的每一口都会招致一次《波逸提》。
Not ill means that one is able to fare comfortably without these foods. None of the texts go into detail on this point, but ill probably means something more than simply being hungry, for there is a separate allowance under Sk 37 for a bhikkhu who is hungry to ask for rice and bean curry, which was the basic diet of the day, and the Commentary extends the allowance to cover all foods not covered by this rule. Here ill probably refers to any form of fatigue, weakness, or malnutrition that comes specifically from lacking any of the foods mentioned in the rule.	「无病」指的是即使没有这些食物也能过得舒服。所有文献都没有详细阐述这一点，但「生病」的含义可能远不止饥饿，因为《应学》三七中有一项单独的开缘，饥饿的比丘可以要求米饭和豆咖哩，这是当时的基本饮食。《义注》也将此开缘扩及所有未包含在这条戒条中的食物。这里的「生病」可能指的是任何形式的疲劳、虚弱或营养不良，具体来说，是由于缺乏该戒条中提到的任何食物而引起的。
Perception as to whether one is actually ill is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	对于是否真的生病的感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
The Commentary adds that if a bhikkhu asks for one kind of finer staple food but receives another kind instead, he incurs the dukkaṭa for asking, but no penalty for accepting and eating what he gets. It also notes that when a bhikkhu asks a lay person for any of the finer staple foods, and the lay person makes a donation of money to the bhikkhu’s steward to buy that food, then once the food is bought it comes under this rule all the same.	《义注》补充道，如果比丘请求一种较精致的主食，却收到另一种，他会因请求而犯《突吉罗》，但接受并食用他所得到的食物则不会受到惩罚。《义注》还指出，如果比丘向居士请求任何较精致的主食，而居士向比丘的净人布施金钱以购买该食物，那么一旦食物被购买，也同样适用此戒条。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense:	不犯戒：
in asking for food—any kind of food—when one is ill, and then eating it, even if one has recovered in the meantime (§);	当生病时，要求食物－任何种类的食物－然后吃掉它，即使在此同时已经康复（§）；
in eating food that has been requested for the sake of an ill bhikkhu and is leftover after his meal;	吃为生病的比丘请求的食物，并且是他用餐后剩下的食物；
in asking from relatives;	从亲戚要求；
in asking from those who have offered an invitation to ask;	从那些提供要求邀请的人要求；
in asking for the sake of another person; or	为他人要求；或
in asking that food be bought with one’s own resources.	用自己的资源要求购买的食物。
Also, according to the Meṇḍaka Allowance (Mv.VI.34.21), a bhikkhu going on a journey through a wilderness area where almsfood is difficult to obtain may search for provisions of husked rice, kidney beans, green gram (mung beans), salt, sugar, oil, and ghee for the journey. The Commentary says, though, that he should first wait for spontaneous offerings of these provisions from people who learn of his plans for the journey. If these aren’t forthcoming, he should ask from his relatives or from those who have given him an invitation to ask. Or he may see what he gets on his alms round. (This last alternative apparently applies to the salt, sugar, oil, and ghee; people ordinarily would not be giving uncooked rice, beans, or green gram for alms.) Only when these avenues fail should he ask from people who are unrelated to him and have not given an invitation to ask. Furthermore, he should ask for no more than the journey will require.	此外，根据 Meṇḍaka 开缘（《大品》.六.34.21），比丘在穿越难以取得钵食的林野地区的旅程时，可以寻找糙米、腰豆、绿豆、盐、糖、油和酥油等食物供应旅程。然而，《义注》指出，他应该先等待知晓其行程计划的人自发性供养这些食物。如果没有得到，他应该向亲戚或给予他要求邀请的人要求。或者，他可以看看托钵所得。（最后一种选择显然适用于盐、糖、油和酥油；人们通常不会在托钵时给予生米、豆子或绿豆。）只有当这些途径都失败时，他才应该向与他无关且未给予他要求邀请的人要求。此外，他所要求的食物不应超过旅程所需。
None of the texts mention any permission for the bhikkhu, after he has searched for the provisions, to store them longer than usual or to cook them in any way. Apparently, they expect him to arrange for an unordained person—or people—to accept the provisions and be responsible for their storage and preparation while on the road.	任何文献都没有提及允许比丘在寻找食物后，将其存放比通常更长的时间，或以任何方式烹调。显然，他们希望比丘安排一位或多位未受具足戒者接受食物供应，并负责旅途中的储存和准备。
Summary: Eating finer staple foods, after having asked for them for one’s own sake—except when ill—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：为自己要求更精致的主食并食用之（除非生病），是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

40	四十
Should any bhikkhu take into his mouth an edible that has not been given—except for water and tooth-cleaning sticks (§)—it is to be confessed.	若任何比丘将未给予的可食用物放入口中 —— 除了水和齿木（§） —— 波逸提。
“Now at that time a certain bhikkhu, living entirely off of what was thrown away (§), was staying in a cemetery. Not wanting to receive gifts from people, he himself took the offerings for dead ancestors—left in cemeteries, under trees, and on thresholds—and ate them. People criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can this bhikkhu himself take our offerings for our dead ancestors and eat them? He’s robust, this bhikkhu. He’s strong. Perhaps he feeds on human flesh.’”	「尔时，有一位比丘，完全靠丢弃物（§）生活，住在墓地里。他不愿接受人们的布施，他自己拿走死去祖先的供品——无论是留在墓地里、树下还是门槛上——并吃掉它们。人们批评、抱怨，并四处散播此事：『这位比丘他自己怎么能拿走我们死去祖先的供品并吃掉它们？这位比丘，他身体强健。他力气很大。或许他吃人肉。』」
There are two factors for the full offense here: object and effort.	这里的完整违犯有两个因素：对象和努力。
Object	对象
An edible is whatever is fit to eat, and includes all four classes of food and medicine: staple and non-staple foods, juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicine. As the rule notes, however, there are two exceptions:	凡是适合食用的，都属于可食用物，包括四类食物和药物：主食、副食、果汁饮料、五大补品和药物。然而，正如戒条所述，有两个例外：
1) Water, according to the Commentary, includes ice, hailstones, and snow as well. Whether such things as boiled water, bottled water, and man-made ice should also come under this exception is a controversial point. Because the texts offer no specific guidance here, this is an area where the wise policy is to follow the dictates of one’s Community.	1）水，根据《义注》，也包括冰、冰雹和雪。白开水、瓶装水和人造冰是否也应属于此例外，这是一个有争议的问题。由于文献中没有提供具体的指导，因此明智的做法是遵循各自僧团的规定。
2) Tooth-cleaning sticks, as used in the time of the Buddha, were semi-edible. They were sticks of soft wood, like balsam, cut four to eight fingerbreadths long, chewed until they were reduced to fiber and spat out. People in India still use tooth-cleaning sticks of this sort even today.	2）齿木，佛陀时代使用时是半可食用的。它们是由类似香脂的软木棒制成，切成四到八指宽，咀嚼至纤维化后吐出。印度人至今仍在使用这种齿木。
Here again there is a controversy as to whether toothpaste comes under this exception as well. On the one hand it fits in with the pattern for tooth-cleaning sticks—it is semi-edible and not intended to be swallowed—but on the other hand it contains substances, such as mineral salts, that the Canon classes as medicines (Mv.VI.8) and that are meant to have medicinal value for the teeth and gums. This second consideration would seem to override the first, as it is a question of following what is explicitly laid out in the Canon, rather than of applying the Great Standards. Thus the wise policy would seem to be to regard toothpaste as a medicine that has to be formally given before it can be used, and not as coming under this exception.	关于牙膏是否也属于这一例外，也有争议。一方面，它符合齿木的模式——半可食用，不打算吞咽——但另一方面，它含有诸如矿物盐之类的物质，而这些物质在《圣典》中被归类为药物（《大品》.六.8 ），旨在对牙齿和牙龈具有药用价值。第二种考虑似乎优先于第一种考虑，因为这是一个遵循《圣典》明确规定的问题，而不是应用《四大教示》的问题。因此，明智的做法似乎是将牙膏视为一种必须正式给予才能使用的药物，而不将其纳入这一例外。
The act of giving food and other edibles, as described in the Vibhaṅga, has three factors:	《经分别》中描述了食物和其他可食用物的给予行为有三个因素：
1) The donor (an unordained person) is standing within reach—one hatthapāsa, or 1.25 meters—of the bhikkhu.	1）布施者（未受具足戒者）站在比丘伸手可及的范围内—一个 hatthapāsa（1.25公尺）。
2) He/she gives the item with the body (e.g., the hand), with something in contact with the body (e.g., a spoon), or by means of letting go. According to the Commentary, letting go means releasing from the body or something in contact with the body—e.g., dropping from the hand or a spoon—and refers to such cases as when a donor drops or tosses something into a bhikkhu’s bowl or hands without directly or indirectly making contact.	2）他/她用身体（例如，手）、与身体接触之物（例如，汤匙）或放下来给予。根据《义注》，「放下」是指从身体或与身体接触之物中释放（例如，从手或汤匙上掉落），指的是这样的情况：布施者将某物掉落或抛入比丘的钵或手中，而没有直接或间接地接触。
3) The bhikkhu receives the item with the body or with something in contact with the body (e.g., his bowl, a piece of cloth).	3）比丘用身体或与身体接触之物（例如，他的钵，一块布）来接受物品。
There is a tradition in Thailand that a bhikkhu should never receive an offering from a woman hand-to-hand. Either she must offer it with something in contact with her body (e.g., a tray) or the bhikkhu must accept it with something in contact with his: an alms bowl, a tray, a piece of cloth, etc. Apparently this tradition arose as a means of protecting a sexually aroused bhikkhu from committing an offense under Sg 2, or from the embarrassment that might arise if, say, yesterday he was not aroused and so could take something straight from her hand, while today he is and so can’t. Many Thai eight-precept nuns, even though they don’t have any precepts corresponding to Sg 2, follow a reciprocal tradition of not receiving anything hand-to-hand from a man. Neither of these traditions is mentioned in the Canon or the commentaries, nor are they observed by bhikkhus or ten-precept nuns in Burma or Sri Lanka.	泰国有一项传统，比丘绝对不能接受女性直接手对手递来的供养。若非她必须用接触她的身体的东西（例如托盘）来供养，不然则是比丘必须用接触他的身体的东西来接受供养：钵、托盘、一块布等等。显然，这条传统的起源是为了保护性欲高涨的比丘，避免触犯《僧残》二，或者避免如果比丘昨天没有性欲高涨，可以直接从她手中拿东西，而今天性欲高涨，就无法直接拿东西，从而产生尴尬。许多泰国八戒女，即使没有与《僧残》二相对应的戒律，也遵循同样的传统，不接受男性直接手对手递来的任何东西。这两种传统都没有在《圣典》或注释书中提及，缅甸或斯里兰卡的比丘或十戒女也没有遵循它们。
A special allowance in the Cullavagga (V.26) states that if food accidentally falls while being offered, a bhikkhu may pick it up himself and eat it without committing an offense.	《小品》（五.26）中有一项特殊的开缘，如果供养时食物不小心掉落，比丘可以自己捡起来吃，这并不构成犯戒。

Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga states that a bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa if, with the intention of eating it, he takes food that hasn’t been properly given; and a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats. Perception as to whether the food has actually been formally given is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	《经分别》规定，如果比丘以吃它的意图而拿取未经适当给予的食物，则犯《突吉罗》；他每吃一口，犯一次《波逸提》。在此，食物是否真的已经被正式给予的感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
The Commentary asserts, however, that perception would be a mitigating factor in the act of taking food. In other words, the bhikkhu would not incur the dukkaṭa for taking the food if he perceived it as properly given even when in fact it wasn’t. This assertion has no basis in the Vibhaṅga to this rule, and cannot be based on the Great Standards because the Canon contains no example of a derived offense requiring the factor of perception under a rule where the full offense does not. Thus there seems no reason to follow the Commentary on this point.	然而，《义注》声称，感知会是拿取食物行为里的减轻惩罚因素。换句话说，如果比丘认为食物是适当地给予的，即使事实上并非如此，他也不会因拿取食物而犯《突吉罗》。这种说法在本戒条的《经分别》中没有依据，也不能以《四大教示》为依据，因为《圣典》中没有某一戒条的衍生违犯需要感知因素，但完全违犯却不需要的例子。因此，在这一点上，似乎没有理由遵循《义注》。
Once, during a famine, the Buddha allowed bhikkhus to pick up fallen fruit, take it to an unordained person, place it on the ground, and have it formally “given” without committing an offense. This allowance, however, was later rescinded in a way that left no possibility for its being invoked again (Mv.VI.17.8-9; Mv.VI.32). Thus a bhikkhu who—with the intention of eating it—picks up an edible he knows has not been given may not later make it allowable by formally “receiving” it from an unordained person. Whether other bhikkhus may receive it and make use of it, though, is a controversial point discussed in the Commentary in a treatise separate from its explanation of the Vibhaṅga (see below).	曾经，在饥荒期间，佛陀允许比丘们捡拾掉落的水果，带给未受具足戒者，放在地上，并让它被正式地「给予」，而不构成犯戒。然而，这项开缘后来被废除，并且不再允许再次援引（《大品》.六.17.8-9；《大品》.六.32）。因此，如果比丘—以吃它的意图—捡起他知道尚未给予的可食用物，则他之后不得透过从未受具足戒者那里正式地「接受」而使其被允许。然而，其他比丘是否可以接受并使用它，这是一个有争议的问题，在《义注》的另一篇专论中进行了讨论，该专论与《经分别》的解释不同（见下文）。

Non-offenses

不犯

Mv.VI.14.6 allows a bhikkhu bitten by a snake to make an antidote of urine, excrement (burned in fire), ashes, and soil. If there is no unordained person present who can or will make these things allowable, the bhikkhu may take and prepare them himself, and then eat them without incurring a penalty under this rule. The Commentary adds that if he cuts a tree under these circumstances to burn it, or digs the earth to get soil, he is exempt from the rules dealing with those actions as well.

《大品》.六.14.6 允许被蛇咬的比丘用尿液、粪便（火烧）、灰烬和泥土制作解毒剂。如果在场没有未受具足戒者能够或愿意使这些东西变成允许的，比丘可以自行取用并准备，然后食用，而不会受到此戒条的惩罚。《义注》补充说，如果他在这些情况下砍树焚烧，或挖土取土，他也豁免于针对这些行为的戒条。

Controversial points from the Commentary	《义注》中的争议点
As mentioned above, the Commentary’s discussion of this rule includes a treatise separate from its explanation of the Vibhaṅga, dealing with controversial points for which the Canon gives unclear answers or no answers at all. Because the treatise is a compilation of the opinions of various teachers and does not pretend to explain the meaning or intent of the Buddha’s words—and because the Buddha warned bhikkhus against making up their own rules (NP 15.1.2)—the opinions expressed in the treatise are not necessarily normative. Many Communities do not accept them, or are selective in choosing what they do and do not accept. Here we will give a summary of some of the Commentary’s opinions that have influenced practices found in some, if not all, Communities of bhikkhus at present.	如上所述，《义注》对此戒条的讨论包含一篇独立于其对《经分别》解释的专论，该专论处理了《圣典》中未给出明确答案或根本没有答案的争议点。由于专论汇集了各位导师的观点，并未假装解释佛陀言说的意义或意图—因为佛陀警告比丘们不要自行制定戒条（《舍堕》一五.1.2）—该专论中表达的观点并非必然具有规范性。许多僧团并不接受这些观点，或在接受和不接受方面有所选择性。此处我们将总结《义注》中的一些观点，这些观点影响了部分（即便不是全部）当今比丘僧团的修行。
1. Taking into the mouth	1. 进入嘴中
is defined as going down the throat. As we have already noted under Pc 37, though, this definition has no justification in canonical usage. The Sub-commentary attempts to justify the Commentary’s stand here by defining “mouth” (mukhadvāra—literally, the door of the face) as the larynx, i.e., the back door rather than the front door to the mouth, but again this is not supported by the Canon. Sk 41—“I will not open the door of the face when the mouthful has yet to be brought to it”—shows decisively that this term refers to the lips and not to the larynx. MN 140 explicitly lists the mukhadvāra and the passage “whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets swallowed” as two separate parts of the internal space element in the body. Taking into the mouth thus means taking in through the lips.	被定义为进入喉咙。然而，正如我们已经在《波逸提》三七中指出的，这个定义在经典用法中没有依据。《复注》试图透过将「嘴」（mukhadvāra——字面意思是脸部之门）定义为喉头，即嘴的后门而不是前门，来证明《义注》在此的立场，但《圣典》再次不支持这种说法。《应学》四一——「当一口食物尚未送达时，我不会打开脸部之门」——明确表明该术语指的是嘴唇而不是喉头。《中部》140经明确列出了 mukhadvāra 和「由此吃、喝、消耗和品尝的东西被吞咽」这段话，它们是身体内部空间元素的两个独立部分。因此，进入嘴中意味著透过嘴唇进入。
2. Food	2. 食物
Pond water so muddy that it leaves a scum on the hand or on the mouth is considered to be food, and so must be given before it can be drunk. The same holds true with water into which so many leaves or flowers have fallen that their taste is discernible in the water. For some reason, though, water that has been scented with flowers need not be given, and the same is true with water taken from a stream or river no matter how muddy. (There is a belief still current in India and other parts of Asia that flowing water is inherently clean.) Although leaves and flowers technically do count as edibles—they are classed as non-staple foods or medicines, depending on one’s purpose in eating them—the idea of counting mud and scum as edibles seems to be taking the concept of edible a little too far.	池塘水如果太混浊，在手上或嘴上留有浮渣，则被视为食物，因此必须先被给予才能饮用。如果水中落满了树叶或花朵，以至于在水中可以辨别出它们的味道，也是一样必须先被给予才能饮用。但出于某种原因，加了花香的水就不必被给予，从溪流或河流中取来的水，无论多么浑浊，也不必被给予。（在印度和亚洲其他地区，人们至今仍然相信流动的水本身是干净的。）虽然从技术上讲，叶子和花朵确实可以算作可食用物——它们被归类为副食或药物，具体取决于食用它们的目的——但将泥土和浮渣算作可食用物似乎对可食用的概念理解得有点过了。
If toothwood is chewed for the sake of its juice, it must first be given. Even if one is chewing it for the sake of cleaning the teeth but accidentally swallows the juice, one has committed an offense all the same. These two opinions have no basis in the Canon, inasmuch as intention is not a factor in determining the offense under this rule.	如果为了汁液而咀嚼齿木，必须先被给予。即使是为了清洁牙齿而咀嚼，却不小心吞下了汁液，也同样犯了戒。这两种观点在《圣典》中都没有依据，因为根据这条戒条，意图并非判断罪行的因素。
A long section of this treatise discusses what to do if things that are not given get into food that has been given. It concludes that they must be removed from the food or the food must be given again. If the items “not given” are edibles, this seems reasonable enough, but the Commentary extends the concept to include such things as dust, dirty rain water, rust from a knife, beads of sweat dropping from one’s brow, etc. Again, this seems to be taking the concept too far, for the Vibhaṅga states clearly that the rule covers only those things generally considered as fit to eat.	这篇专论用了很长的篇幅讨论了如果未给予的东西进入已给予的食物中该怎么办。结论是，必须将这些未给予的东西从食物中移除，或者食物必须重新被给予。如果「未给予」的东西是可食用的，这似乎很合理，但《义注》将这一概念扩展至包括灰尘、脏雨水、刀上的锈迹、额头上滴下的汗珠等等。同样，这似乎将这一概念延伸得太远了，因为《经分别》明确指出，这条戒条只涵盖那些通常被认为适合食用的东西。
3. Giving	3. 给予
The Commentary redefines the act of giving, expanding its factors to five:	《义注》重新定义了给予行为，将其因素扩展至五个：
(a) The item is such that a man of average stature can lift it.	（a）此物品可被普通身材的人举起。
(b) The donor is within reach—1.25 m.—of the bhikkhu.	（b）布施者距离比丘在可及（1.25公尺）的范围内。
(c) He/she makes a gesture of offering the food.	（c）他/她做出供养食物的示意动作。
(d) The donor is a deva, a human being, or a common animal.	（d）布施者是天人、人类或普通动物。
(e) The bhikkhu receives the item with the body or with something in contact with the body.	（e）比丘用身体，或用与身体接触的某物来接受物品。
Factor (a) was included apparently to discourage the practice, still found in many places, of getting two or more men to present a table of food to a bhikkhu by lifting the entire table at once. The inclusion of this factor, though, has given rise to the assumption that the donor must lift the food a certain distance before handing it to the bhikkhu, but the Commentary itself shows that this assumption is mistaken, for it states that if a small novice too weak to lift a pot of rice simply slides it along the table or floor onto a bhikkhu’s hand, it is properly given.	因素（a）被纳入显然是为了阻止许多地方仍然存在的这种做法：让两个或两个以上的人同时抬起整张桌子，将一桌食物呈给比丘。然而，纳入这一因素导致了一种假设，即布施者必须将食物抬起一定距离才能递给比丘。但《义注》本身表明，这种假设是错误的，因为它指出，如果一个体弱的沙弥，无法抬起一锅米饭，只需将米饭沿著桌子或地板滑到比丘的手中，就属于适当地被给予。
Factor (b): If any part of the donor’s body (except for his/her extended arm) is within 1.25 meters of any part of the bhikkhu’s body (except for his extended arm), this factor is fulfilled. If the donor is standing beyond reach, the bhikkhu should tell him/her to come within reach before donating the food. If for some reason the donor does not comply with the bhikkhu’s request, the bhikkhu may still accept the food but should then take it to another unordained person—without setting it down and picking it up again in the meantime (see below)—and have it properly “given” before eating it.	因素（b）：如果布施者身体的任何部位（除伸出的手臂外）距离比丘身体的任何部位（除伸出的手臂外）在1.25公尺以内，则满足此条件。若布施者站在比丘不可及的地方，比丘应告知其在布施食物前走到比丘可及的地方。若布施者因故未遵从比丘的请求，比丘仍可接受食物，但应将其带给另一位未受具足戒者—在此期间没有放下再拿起（见下文）—并在食用前令其适当地「被给予」。
Although the donor must be within reach, the food itself need not be. Thus if the donor places many vessels on a mat while the bhikkhu touches the mat with the intention of receiving them, all of the food is considered to be properly received as long as the donor is within reach of the bhikkhu. The same holds true if the donor places many vessels touching one another while the bhikkhu touches one of the vessels with the intention of receiving them all. (The factor of the bhikkhu’s intention is discussed further under factor (e) below.)	虽然布施者必须在可及的范围内，但食物本身却不必如此。因此，如果布施者将许多器皿放在垫子上，而比丘触摸垫子意图接受它们，只要布施者在比丘可及的范围内，所有食物都被视为已适当地被接受。如果布施者将许多器皿彼此接触，而比丘触摸其中一个器皿意图接受所有食物，则同样适用。（比丘的意图因素将在下文的因素（e）中进一步讨论。）
Factor (c) means that the donor cannot simply tell the bhikkhu to take the food being given. Rather, he/she should make a physical gesture of offering the food. In some Communities, this factor is interpreted as meaning that the donor must assume a humble or respectful manner while making the offering, and has led some to believe, for instance, that a bhikkhu going barefoot on his alms round should not accept food from a donor wearing shoes. This view is not supported by the Commentary. Although some of the gestures it cites as examples, such as tilting the head, might be interpreted as showing respect, some of them are not respectful in terms of Asian etiquette at all. For instance, a person riding on the bhikkhu’s shoulders picks a piece of fruit from a tree, drops it into the bhikkhu’s hands, and it is considered properly given.	因素（c）意味著布施者不能仅仅告诉比丘接受要被给予的食物。相反，他/她应该做出供养食物的身体示意动作。在某些僧团，这个因素被解释为布施者在供养时必须采取谦卑或尊重的态度，并且导致一些人认为，例如，赤脚托钵的比丘不应该接受穿鞋的布施者的食物。《义注》并不支持这种观点。虽然它引用的一些示意动作例子，例如歪著头，可能被解释为表示尊重，但从亚洲礼仪来看，有些动作根本不尊重。例如，一个人骑在比丘的肩上，从树上摘下一个水果，扔到比丘的手中，这被认为是被适当地给予。
The question arises as to how much of a gesture is necessary for this factor to be fulfilled. In the West, if a donor brings a tray of food and stands in front of a bhikkhu, waiting for him to take some of the food, the fact that he/she stands there waiting would be considered enough of a gesture to show that the food is being given. If the bhikkhu were to demand more of a gesture than that, the donor would probably be offended. Because the opinions expressed in this section of the Commentary are not necessarily normative, this is an area where one can make allowances for cultural norms. The essence of this factor would seem to be that a bhikkhu should not snatch food that a person happens to be carrying past him without showing any indication that he/she wants him to take the food.	问题是，要满足这因素，需要多少示意动作？在西方，如果一位布施者端著一盘食物，站在一位比丘面前，等他取食，那么他/她站在那里等待的事实就足以被视为示意动作，表明食物要被给予。如果比丘要求更多示意动作，布施者可能会感到被冒犯。由于《义注》这一部分所表达的观点不一定具有规范性，因此在这方面可以考虑文化规范。这因素的本质似乎是，比丘不应该在没有表现出任何想要他取食的迹象时，抢夺恰巧经过他身边的人携带的食物。
Factor (d) is not discussed by the Commentary, although it is probably inspired by such stories as that of elephants offering lotus stalks to Ven. Moggallāna, and of Sakka, the king of the devas, presenting a gift of food to Mahā Kassapa after the latter had withdrawn from seven days of concentration (Ud.III.7). There is at least one bhikkhu in Thailand today who has trained a pet monkey to “give” him things.	因素（d）并未在《义注》里讨论，尽管它可能受到一些故事的启发，例如大象向目犍连尊者供养莲花茎，以及帝释天在摩诃迦叶入定七日出定后，向他献上食物布施（《自说》.三.7）。如今，泰国至少有一位比丘训练了一只宠物猴来「给予」他东西。
Factor (e): The effort involved in receiving the item may be minimal indeed. In fact, the Commentary’s discussion of the Vibhaṅga quotes the Mahā Paccarī, one of the ancient Sinhalese commentaries, as saying that attention is the measure determining whether or not food has been received. Thus if a donor offers food by placing it on a table, the bhikkhu may simply touch the table with his finger, thinking, “I am receiving the food,” and it is properly given. The same holds true if he is sitting on the table or lying on a bed and regards the act of sitting or lying there as one of receiving whatever is placed there. However, immovable objects—such as a floor, the ground, or anything fixed to the floor or ground—may not be used as “items connected to the body” to receive food in this way.	因素（e）：接受食物所需的努力可能确实微不足道。事实上，《义注》对《分别经》的讨论中引用了古代僧伽罗语注释书之一《Mahā Paccarī》的论述，其中指出，注意力是衡量食物是否被接受的标准。因此，如果布施者将食物放在桌子上供养，比丘只需用手指触摸桌子，心想「我正在接受食物」，这就是适当地给予。同样，如果他坐在桌子上或躺在床上，并将坐或卧的行为视为接受摆放在那里的任何东西，也是适当地给予。然而，不可移动的物体——例如地板、地面或任何固定在地板或地面上的东西——不能被用作「与身体相连的物品」来以这种方式接受食物。
Food placed in a bhikkhu’s hand when he is asleep or his attention is elsewhere—e.g., in deep meditation—does not count as properly given. He must be awake and paying enough attention to know that the food is being given for this factor to be fulfilled. Food placed in a bhikkhu’s mouth is considered properly given if he is awake. If he is asleep or unconscious and food is put into his stomach via a feeding tube, he has not broken this rule for he is not the agent putting it there, and as the Sub-commentary notes under Sg 1, the Vinaya does not apply to a bhikkhu when he is not in a normal, waking state of awareness.	当比丘睡著或注意力在其他地方（例如入深定）时，将食物放在他手中不算是适当地给予。他必须保持清醒，并且足够注意地知道食物正在被给予，才能满足这一条件。如果比丘清醒，将食物放在他口中算是适当地给予。如果他睡著或失去意识，食物透过喂食管送入他的胃中，他并没有违反这条戒条，因为他不是将食物放入胃中的施食者。如同《僧残》一的《复注》所述，当比丘未处于正常的清醒意识状态时，戒律不适用于他。
4. Taking food that has not been given	4. 拿取未给予的食物
To take food knowing that it has been improperly given or not given at all (here we are not talking about cases of stealing) is no offense if the bhikkhu has no intention of ever eating it. If, after he has set it down, the food is later “given” to him, he may accept and eat it with no penalty. Here the examples given in the Commentary include such things as picking up fallen fruit or the remains of a lion’s kill with the thought of taking them for a novice to eat, or picking up oil or ghee with the thought of taking it to one’s parents. A common example at present would be picking up food left lying around when one is cleaning up the monastery. The Sub-commentary states that this allowance does not hold if one is thinking of taking the food for other bhikkhus to eat.	明知食物未适当地给予或根本没有给予（这里我们不讨论偷窃的情况）而拿取，如果比丘无意食用，则不构成犯戒。如果比丘放下食物后，之后食物被「给予」他，他可以接受并食用，不受惩罚。《义注》中给出的例子包括捡起掉落的水果或狮子猎物的残骸，想把它们带给沙弥吃，或捡起油或酥油，想把它们带给自己的父母。目前一个常见的例子是，在打扫寺院时捡起散落的食物。《复注》指出，如果想把食物带给其他比丘吃，则此开缘不成立。
To take food with the purpose of eating it, thinking that it has been properly given when in fact it hasn’t, is also no offense. If one then learns or realizes that it has not been properly given, one should return it—if possible, to its original place—without setting it down and picking it up again in the meantime. Once the food is back in its original place, one may “receive” and eat it with no penalty. If one sets it down and picks it up again before returning it to its original place, though, then technically one incurs a dukkaṭa for taking food that one realizes is not properly given, and so one may not later formally receive the food, as mentioned above. If for some reason there is no possibility of returning the food to its original place, one need only return it to some other spot in the building from which it was taken and then “receive” and eat it without committing an offense.	为了食用的目的而拿取食物，以为食物已适当地给予，但实际上并非如此，这同样不构成犯戒。如果随后得知或意识到食物并未适当地给予，应将其归还——如果可能的话，放回原处——期间没有放下再拿起。一旦食物会到原处后，可以「接受」并吃它，不会受到任何惩罚。但如果在归还回原处之前就放下再拿起，那么严格来说，则因意识到食物并非适当地给予而拿取食物，犯《突吉罗》，因此之后不得像上文所述那样正式地接受食物。如果由于某种原因无法将食物归还回原处，只需要将它放回被拿取的建筑物中的其他地方，然后「接受」并吃它，而不构成犯戒。
As we noted above, the Commentary’s discussion of this point has no basis in the Vibhaṅga to this rule or in the Great Standards, so there seems no reason to follow it.	正如我们上面提到的，《义注》中对这一点的讨论在本戒条的《经分别》或《四大教示》中都没有依据，因此似乎没有理由遵循它。
According to the Commentary’s treatise, taking the food also includes deliberately touching it or the vessel containing it with the intention of eating it. (Touching it accidentally carries no penalty.) If a bhikkhu deliberately touches it in this way, he may not then properly receive it, although other bhikkhus may. Even after they have received it, the first bhikkhu may not eat any of it.	根据《义注》的专论，拿取食物也包括带著食用的意图，故意触碰食物或盛放食物的器皿。（意外触碰则不受惩罚。）如果比丘故意以这种方式触碰食物，他不可正式接受它，但其他比丘可以。即使其他比丘已经接受食物，第一位比丘也不能食用。
If the first bhikkhu, instead of merely touching the food or its vessel, actually moves it from its place, then neither he nor any of the other bhikkhus may receive it. Thus if a donor brings a pot of stew to the monastery, and one of the bhikkhus, curious to see what is going to be offered that day, tilts the pot to peek inside, none of the bhikkhus may eat the food, and the donor must either give it to the novices and any attendants at the monastery, if there are any, throw it to the dogs, or take it home.	如果第一位比丘不只是触碰食物或盛装食物的容器，而是真的将食物从原处移开，那么他和其他比丘都不得接受。因此，如果一位布施者带著一锅炖菜来到寺院，其中一位比丘好奇地想看看当天要供养什么，便倾斜锅子偷看里面，所有比丘都不得食用这锅食物，布施者必须将食物交给沙弥和寺院里的任何侍者（如果有），或者扔给狗，或者带回家。
Many Communities do not accept the Commentary’s opinions on this point, and with good reason: The last-mentioned penalty—even though the offense is a dukkaṭa—is stronger than that imposed by any of the nissaggiya pācittiya rules, and penalizes perfectly innocent people: the other bhikkhus and the donor of the food as well. An alternate opinion, which many Communities follow, is that if a bhikkhu takes—with the thought of eating it—food that he knows has not been properly offered, he may not then formally receive it from an unordained person, but other bhikkhus may. Once it has been properly received, any bhikkhu—including the first—may eat from it.	许多僧团不接受《义注》对此的观点，而且理由充分：最后提到的惩罚——即使罪行是《突吉罗》，也比任何《尼萨耆波逸提》戒条的惩罚更严厉，并且惩罚完全无辜的人：其他比丘和食物的施主也一样。许多僧团遵循的另一种观点是，如果一个比丘带著食用的意图，拿取明知未经适当地供养的食物，那么他不能从未受具足戒者正式接受该食物，但其他比丘可以。一旦食物被适当地接受，任何比丘——包括第一位比丘——都可以食用。
This is an area in which none of the texts give an authoritative answer, and a wise policy is to adhere to the views of the Community in which one is living, as long as they fit into the framework provided by the Canon.	在这个领域，没有任何文献给出权威的答案，明智的做法是遵守自己所居住的僧团的观点，只要它们符合《圣典》提供的框架。

5. When food becomes “ungiven.”	5. 当食物变成「未给予」
The Commentary to Pr 1, in its discussion of what to do when a bhikkhu’s sex changes spontaneously (!), lists seven actions through which an edible given to a bhikkhu becomes “ungiven”—i.e., no bhikkhu may pick it up and eat it until it is formally given again. The seven are—	《波罗夷》一的《义注》在讨论比丘性别自发地改变时（！）该如何处理时，列举了七种行为，这些行为会导致给予比丘的可食用物变成「未给予」——也就是说，在正式再次给予之前，任何比丘都不能拿起并食用它。这七种行为是──
(a) undergoing a spontaneous sex change,	（a）发生自发性变性，
(b) dying,	（b）死亡，
(c) disrobing and becoming a lay person,	（c）还俗成为在家人，
(d) becoming a low person (according to the Sub-commentary, this means committing a pārājika),	（d）成为下等人（根据《复注》，这意味著犯了《波罗夷》罪），
(e) giving the item to an unordained person (because a spontaneous sex change would turn a bhikkhu into a bhikkhunī, unordained person here apparently includes not only lay people and novices, but bhikkhunīs as well),	（e）将物品给予未受具足戒者（因为自发性变性会使比丘变成比丘尼，因此这里的未受具足戒者显然不仅包括在家人和沙弥，也包括比丘尼）。
(f) abandoning the item, having lost interest in it,	（f）放弃该物品，对它失去兴趣，
(g) the theft of the item. (The Sub-commentary, in discussing this last point, refers solely to cases of out-and-out thievery, and not to the mere act of touching or moving.)	（g）物品被偷。（在讨论最后一点时，《复注》仅指彻头彻尾的盗窃行为，而非单纯的触摸或移动行为。）
The agent in actions (a) through (f) is apparently the bhikkhu who, at that time, has possession of the item. In other words, it does not have to be the original recipient. If Bhikkhu X, after receiving an item, gives it to Bhikkhu Y, then even if X then dies, the item still counts as given.	（a）至（f）行为中的当事者显然是当时拥有该物品的比丘。换句话说，当事者不一定是最初的接受者。如果比丘 X 收到一件物品后，将其给予比丘 Y ，那么即使 X 随后去世，该物品仍算被给予。
Of these seven actions, the Commentary’s treatise appended to this rule discusses only two—(e) and (f)—in a series of examples, as follows:	在这七项行为中，本戒条所附的《义注》的专论仅讨论了两项——（e）和（f）——在一系列例子中进行了讨论，如下：
A bhikkhu with rice in his hand offers it to a novice: The rice remains “given” until the novice takes it.	一位比丘手里拿著米饭，将米饭供养给一位沙弥：米饭保持「被给予」状态，直到沙弥拿取为止。
A bhikkhu places food in a vessel and, no longer interested in it, tells a novice to take it: The food is “ungiven” as soon as he says this. This point, however, does not apply to food the bhikkhu leaves in his own bowl or in any Community vessel from which the bhikkhus are served or in which their food is prepared. If he leaves food in such a vessel, he is not regarded as having abandoned interest in it.	比丘将食物放入器皿中，不再对其感兴趣，吩咐沙弥取走：他一说完，食物就是「未给予」。然而，此点不适用于比丘留在自己钵中，或任何供养比丘或准备比丘食物的僧团器皿中的食物。如果他将食物留在此类器皿中，则不视为他已放弃对食物的兴趣。
A bhikkhu sets his bowl on a stand and tells a novice to take some rice from it. Assuming that the novice’s hand is clean—i.e., not “contaminated” with any food from his own bowl that might fall into the bhikkhu’s bowl—the rice remaining in the bhikkhu’s bowl after the novice has taken his portion is still “given.” Technically speaking, the treatise says, the rice taken by the novice still belongs to the bhikkhu until the novice puts it in his own bowl. Thus if the novice begins to take a second handful and, being told by the bhikkhu, “That’s enough,” puts the second handful back in the bhikkhu’s bowl; or if any grains of rice from the first handful happen to fall back into the bhikkhu’s bowl while the novice is lifting it out, all the rice in the bhikkhu’s bowl is still “given.”	一位比丘将自己的钵放在钵脚上，并吩咐一位沙弥从钵中取一些米饭。假设沙弥的手是干净的——也就是说，没有被他自己钵里的食物「沾染」而掉进比丘的钵里——那么沙弥取完自己那一份后，比丘钵里剩下的米饭仍然是「给予的」。从技术上讲，该专论说，沙弥取的米饭在沙弥将其放入自己的钵中之前仍然属于比丘。因此，如果沙弥开始取第二把米饭，并被比丘告知「够了」，于是将第二把米饭放回比丘的钵中；或者，如果在沙弥取第一把米饭时，恰巧有一些米粒掉回了比丘的钵中，那么比丘钵里的所有米饭仍然是「给予的」。
A bhikkhu holding a stick of sugar cane tells a novice to cut off a piece from the other end: The remaining section is still “given.”	一位手持甘蔗的比丘告诉沙弥从另一端切下一段：剩下的部分仍然是「给予的」。
A bhikkhu places pieces of hardened molasses on a tray and tells other bhikkhus and novices to help themselves from the tray: If the bhikkhus and novices simply pick up their portions and take them, the remaining hardened molasses is still “given.” If, though, a novice picks up one piece, puts it down, picks up another piece, puts it down, and so on, the hardened molasses remaining on the tray becomes “ungiven.”	一位比丘将几块硬化糖蜜放在托盘上，并告诉其他比丘和沙弥自己从托盘中取用：如果比丘和沙弥只是拿起自己的那一份并吃掉，那么剩下的硬化糖蜜仍然是「给予的」。但是，如果一位沙弥拿起一块，放下，又拿起另一块，放下，如此反复，那么托盘上剩下的硬化糖蜜就变成了「未给予」。
The Sub-commentary explains this by saying that the novice picking up the molasses is thinking, “This is mine. I’ll take it,” then changes his mind, puts it down and then lays claim to another piece, and so on. Thus, only the pieces that the novice claims and then abandons in this way become “ungiven.” The other pieces on the tray still count as “given.”	《复注》对此的解释是，拿起糖蜜的沙弥心想：「这是我的。我要拿走它。」但他后来改变了主意，放下糖蜜，又声称拥有另一块，以此类推。因此，只有沙弥声称后又以这种方式放弃的糖蜜才算「未给予」。托盘上的其他糖蜜仍然算作「给予的」。
This last example, when taken out of context, has led to the widespread view that food given to a bhikkhu becomes “ungiven” if an unordained person touches or moves it. Viewed in context, though, the example does not imply this at all. The bhikkhu has offered the hardened molasses to the novice, and the novice in picking it up simply completes the factors for case (e): “The bhikkhu gives the item to an unordained person.” The example of the novice taking rice from a bhikkhu’s bowl shows that even when a bhikkhu offers food to an unordained person, the mere fact that the person touches or moves the food does not necessarily make the food “ungiven.”	最后这个例子，如果脱离上下文来看，就导致了这样一种普遍的观点：如果未受具足戒的人触碰或移动了比丘的食物，那么给予比丘的食物就变成了「未给予」。然而，结合上下文来看，这个例子根本没有暗示这一点。比丘已经将硬化的糖蜜供养给沙弥，而沙弥拿起它只是完成了案例（e）的因素：「比丘将物品给予未受具足戒的人。」沙弥从比丘钵里取米的例子表明，即使当比丘将食物供养给未受具足戒的人，仅仅因为该人触碰或移动了食物，也不一定会使食物成为「未给予」。
Thus in cases where the bhikkhu is not giving away the food and has not abandoned interest in it—and the unordained person is not stealing it—there is no reason to hold that “given” food becomes “ungiven” simply when an unordained person touches or moves it. This is another area, though, where different Communities hold different views, and where the wise policy is to conform to the observances of the Community in which one is living.	因此，如果比丘没有赠送食物，也没有放弃对食物的兴趣——而未受具足戒者也没有偷窃食物——那么，没有理由仅仅因为未具足戒者触碰或移动了食物，就认定「给予的」食物变成了「未给予」。然而，这是另一个不同的僧团持有不同的观点的范畴，明智的做法是遵守自己所在僧团的规定。
These points from the Commentary’s treatise may seem like a lot of hair-splitting, but remember that the gift of food ranks with sexual temptation as one of the largest issues in a bhikkhu’s—or anyone’s—life. If questions of this sort hadn’t arisen in practice, no one would have bothered to compile the treatise in the first place. Given the cursory manner in which the Vibhaṅga treats this rule, and given the large gray areas surrounding the act of giving—modern anthropology started with this subject and will probably never finish with it—it’s good to have those areas spelled out in detail so as to minimize any disharmony that might arise in a Community when its members find themselves in gray situations.	《义注》专论中的这些观点可能看起来有些吹毛求疵，但请记住，食物的布施与性诱惑一样，是比丘——或任何人——生活中最大的问题之一。如果这类问题在实务上没有出现，一开始就没有人会费心编纂这部专论。鉴于《经分别》对这条戒条粗略的处理态度，以及围绕给予行为的大量灰色地带——现代人类学从这个主题开始，并且可能永远不会结束——将这些领域详细阐明是好的，以尽量减少僧团成员陷入灰色境地时可能出现的不和谐。
Still, as we have noted several times, the guidelines in the Commentary’s treatise are not binding, and the wise policy is to follow the standards of the Community in which one is living, as long as they fall within the framework of the Canon.	不过，正如我们多次指出的那样，《义注》专论中的指导方针并不具有约束力，明智的政策是遵循所居住的僧团的标准，只要它们符合《圣典》的框架。
Summary: Eating food that has not been formally given is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：食用未经正式给予的食物是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。