波逸提

Five: The Naked Ascetic Chapter

第五裸行者品

41	四十一
Should any bhikkhu give staple or non-staple food with his own hand to a naked ascetic, a male wanderer, or a female wanderer, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘亲手给裸行者、男游方者或女游方者提供主食或副食，波逸提。
There are two origin stories here, the first being the more entertaining of the two:	这里有两个起源故事，第一个是其中较有趣者：
“Now at that time (a lot of) non-staple food accrued to the Community. Ven. Ānanda told this matter to the Blessed One, who said, “In that case, Ānanda, give the cakes to those who eat scraps.’”	「尔时，（很多）副食归属于僧团所有。阿难尊者将此事禀告世尊。世尊说：『既然如此，阿难，就把饼给予那些吃剩饭的人。』」
“‘As you say, venerable sir,’ Ven. Ānanda responded to the Blessed One. Then, having had those who eat scraps sit down in a line and giving a cake to each, he gave two cakes to a certain female wanderer, thinking they were one. The female wanderers around her said, “That monk is your lover.’	「『如你所说，世尊。』阿难达尊者回应世尊。然后，他让那些吃剩饭的人坐下成一排，每人给一个饼。他给了一位女游方者两个饼，以为是一个。她周围的女游方者说：「那位沙门是你的情人。』
“‘No, he’s not. He just gave me two cakes thinking they were one.’	「『不，他不是。他只是把两个饼以为是一个给了我。』
“A second time…. A third time, Ven. Ānanda, giving a cake to each, gave two cakes to that female wanderer, thinking they were one. The female wanderers around her said, “That monk is your lover.’	「第二次……第三次，阿难尊者给每人一个饼，却给了那位女游方者两个，以为是一个。她周围的女游方者说：『那位沙门是你的情人。』
“‘No, he’s not. He just gave me two cakes thinking they were one.’	「『不，他不是。他只是把两个饼以为是一个给了我。』
“So—‘Lover!’ ‘Not a lover! (§)’—they kept squabbling.”	「所以——『情人！』『不是情人！（§）』——他们持续争吵。」
The second story, though, gives a better idea of the reason for the rule:	不过，第二个故事更好地解释了这条戒条的原因：
“Then a certain naked ascetic went to a distribution of food. A certain bhikkhu, having mashed some rice with a great deal of ghee, gave a large helping to the naked ascetic. So the naked ascetic, having received his alms, left. Another naked ascetic asked him, ‘Where, friend, did you get your alms?’	「后来，一位裸行者去食物分配处。一位比丘用大量酥油捣碎了一些米饭，给了这位裸行者一大份。这位裸行者受完施舍后便离开了。另一位裸行者问他：『朋友，你的施舍是从哪里来的？』
“‘At a distribution of food by that shaveling householder, the Gotama monk.’”	「『那位剃度的居士，乔达摩沙门，在食物分配处。』」
This training rule is corollary to the preceding one. Other religions at the Buddha’s time observed the formalities of receiving food from their lay followers just as the bhikkhus did, and thus a bhikkhu who gave food in such a way to a mendicant ordained in another religion would be placing himself in the position of a lay follower of that religion, as the second origin story shows. An interesting point about this rule is that the Buddha formulated it at the request of Buddhist lay followers. Having overheard the naked ascetics’ conversation, they said to him, “Venerable sir, these adherents of other religions enjoy criticizing the Buddha… Dhamma… and Saṅgha. It would be good if the masters did not give to adherents of other religions with their own hands.”	这条戒条与前一条戒条相辅相成。在佛陀时代，其他宗教也像比丘一样，遵守著接受他们在家信众食物的礼仪。因此，如果比丘以这种方式向其他宗教的托钵僧给予食物，就等于将自己置于该宗教的在家信众的地位，正如第二个起源故事所示。这条戒条的一个有趣之处在于，佛陀是应佛教在家信众的要求而制定的。他们无意中听到裸行者的谈话，便对佛陀说：「世尊，这些外教信徒喜欢批评佛……法……僧。如果大德们不亲手将食物给予外教信徒就好了。」

Object	对象
The Vibhaṅga defines the terms naked ascetic and male or female wanderer in such a way that they cover all people who have “gone forth” except for bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, female trainees, and male or female novices. Because “going forth” was how ordination was understood at that time, we can use the Great Standards at present to include anyone ordained in other religions—e.g., Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis, Muslim mullahs, etc.—under the factor of object here as well. Different Communities differ as to whether they would include people ordained in other Buddhist religions—such as Zen priests or Tibetan lamas—under this category as well.	《经分别》对裸行者和男女游方者的定义，涵盖了除比丘、比丘尼、学法女（式叉摩那）以及男女沙弥之外的所有「出家」者。由于「出家」是当时对受戒的理解，我们如今可以运用《四大教示》，将其他宗教出家者（例如天主教神父、新教牧师、犹太教拉比、穆斯林毛拉等）也纳入此处的对象因素。不同的僧团对于是否将其他佛教出家者（例如禅宗僧人或西藏喇嘛）纳入此类也存在分歧。
Perception as to whether a person would qualify as a naked ascetic or a male or female wanderer is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	对于某人是否真为裸行者或男女游方者的感知在这里并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。

Effort	努力
Staple and non-staple food here covers all edibles: juice drinks, tonics, and medicines as well as food, but not water or tooth-cleaning sticks. Staple and non-staple foods are grounds for a pācittiya; water and tooth-cleaning sticks, grounds for a dukkaṭa.	主食和副食在此处涵盖所有可食用物：果汁饮料、补品、药物以及食物，但不包括水或齿木。主食和副食构成《波逸提》；水和齿木构成《突吉罗》。
To give is defined as giving with the body, with something in contact with the body, or by means of letting go, as in the preceding rule.	给予的定义是，用身体给予，用与身体接触的某物给予，或透过放下来给予，就像前一条戒条一样。
Non-offenses	不犯
To get someone else to give edible things, to give edible things by depositing them near (as in NP 18), or to give ointments for external use entails no offense. The Commentary qualifies the first exemption by saying that the “someone else” must not be fully ordained. The New K/Sub-commentary points out that the last exemption was probably meant to apply to oils, which otherwise would come under “non-staple food” here.	让他人给予可食用物，或将可食用物放在附近给予（如《舍堕》一八），或施舍外用药膏，均不构成犯戒。《义注》对第一项豁免进行了限定，指出「他人」不得受具足戒。新 K/《复注》指出，最后一项豁免可能适用于油类，否则油类在此处应归入「副食」。
Summary: Handing food or medicine to a person ordained in another religion is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：向其他宗教出家者亲手给予食物或药物是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

42	四十二
Should any bhikkhu say to a bhikkhu, “Come, my friend, let’s enter the village or town for alms,” and then—whether or not he has had (food) given to him—dismiss him, saying, “Go away, my friend. I don’t like sitting or talking with you. I prefer sitting or talking alone”—doing it for just that reason and no other—it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘对另一个比丘说，「来吧，我的朋友，我们进村或进城托钵」，然后——不管有没有给予他食物——打发他走，说，「走开吧，我的朋友。我不喜欢和你坐在一起或说话。我更喜欢独自坐著或说话」——如此做仅仅因为这个原因而没有其他——波逸提。
The factors for the full offense here are four.	这里构成完全违犯的因素有四。
1) Object: another bhikkhu.	1）对象：另一位比丘。
2) Intention: One wants to indulge in misconduct and does not want him to see it.	2）意图：想要沉溺于不当行为，却又不想让他看到。
3) Effort: One dismisses him.	3）努力：打发他走。
4) Result: He leaves one’s range of hearing and sight.	4）结果：他离开了自己的听力和视力范围。
Although the rule mentions one specific situation—bhikkhus going for alms in a town or village—the non-offense clauses give no exemption for a bhikkhu who, wanting to indulge in misconduct, dismisses another bhikkhu while outside of a village or engaged in an activity other than going for alms. The commentaries notice this point and, reasonably, do not list the specific situation as a necessary factor for the offense. For this reason, the factors for this offense apply in any location and at any time of the day.	虽然戒条提到了一种特殊情况——比丘在城镇或村庄托钵——如果比丘想要沉溺于不当行为，在村庄之外或从事托钵以外的活动时打发另一位比丘走，不犯条款并未给予该比丘豁免。注释书注意到了这一点，并且合理地没有将特定情况列为构成此戒条犯戒的必要因素。因此，此戒条犯戒的因素适用于任何地点、任何时间。
Object	对象
The Vibhaṅga states that a bhikkhu is grounds for a pācittiya here; an unordained person (which for the purpose of this rule would include bhikkhunīs), grounds for a dukkaṭa. Perception as to whether a person is actually a bhikkhu is not a mitigating factor here. In other words, a bhikkhu is grounds for a pācittiya if one perceives him as a bhikkhu, if one perceives him as an unordained person, or if one is in doubt about the matter. An unordained person is grounds for a dukkaṭa if one perceives him as a bhikkhu, if one perceives him as an unordained person, or if one is in doubt about the matter. This pattern—three pācittiyas and three dukkaṭas—is repeated in all the rules where a bhikkhu is grounds for a pācittiya, an unordained person is grounds for a dukkaṭa, and perception is not a mitigating factor.	《经分别》规定，比丘在此构成《波逸提》；而未受具足者（就本戒条而言，包括比丘尼）构成《突吉罗》。对某人是否为比丘的感知在此并非减轻惩罚的因素。换句话说，如果认为比丘是比丘，或认为他是未受具足戒者，或对此事存有疑问，则构成《波逸提》。如果认为未受具足戒者是比丘，或认为他是未受具足戒者，或对此事存有疑问，则构成《突吉罗》。这种模式——三《波逸提》和三《突吉罗》——在比丘构成《波逸提》，未受具足戒者构成《突吉罗》，且感知不是减轻惩罚的因素的所有戒条中重复出现。
Intention	意图
The Vibhaṅga defines misconduct as laughing, playing, or sitting in private with a woman, or any other misbehavior of any sort. To dismiss the other person, ordained or not, for motives other than a desire to hide one’s own misconduct entails no offense. Examples of such motives given in the non-offense clauses are listed below.	《经分别》将不当行为定义为与女性私下嬉笑、玩耍、共坐，或任何其他不当行为。出于非为掩盖自身不当行为的动机而打发他人走，不论该人是否受具足戒，均不构成犯戒。以下列举了不犯条款中给予的此类动机范例。
Effort & result	努力及结果
To dismiss the other person means either to say outright for him/her to go away, or else to make remarks that will make him/her want to leave. The Commentary gives an example here—“Look at how this guy stands, sits, and looks around. He stands like a stump, sits like a dog, and looks about like a monkey”—but this would more likely come under Pc 2.	打发对方走意味著若非直接说出让他/她走开，则是说些让他/她想离开的话。《义注》在这里举了一个例子——「看看这家伙站著、坐著，四处张望的样子。他站著像个树桩，坐著像条狗，看起来就像只猴子。」——但这更有可能属于《波逸提》二。
The offenses here are as follows:	此处的违犯如下：
a dukkaṭa for speaking the words of dismissal;	说了打发走的话，犯《突吉罗》；
a dukkaṭa when the other bhikkhu is leaving the range of hearing and sight; and	当其他比丘离开听力和视力范围时，犯《突吉罗》；而且
a pācittiya when he has left.	当他离开时，犯《波逸提》。
The Commentary defines range of hearing and range of sight as twelve cubits, or six meters. If, however, there is a wall or a door within that distance, it says, that delimits the range.	《义注》将听力范围和视力范围定义为十二肘尺，即六公尺。然而，如果在该距离内有一堵墙或一扇门，则该范围就被划定了。

Non-offenses	不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense in:	根据《经分别》，以下行为并不构成犯戒：
dismissing one’s companion with the thought that two bhikkhus going together won’t obtain enough food;	认为两个比丘一起去不会得到足够的食物，所以打发同伴离开；
dismissing him after seeing costly goods ahead, so that he won’t develop a feeling of greed;	看到昂贵的商品后就打发他离开，这样他就不会产生贪婪的感觉；
dismissing him after seeing a beautiful woman ahead, so that he won’t lose his resolve for the celibate life;	看到前面有美女就打发他离开，这样他就不会动摇梵行生活的决心；
sending him back with food for one who is sick, who was left behind, or who is guarding the monastery; or	送他回去给生病的人、留下的人或看守寺院的人带去食物；或者
dismissing him for any other proper reason as long as one is not planning to indulge in misconduct.	只要不打算沉溺于不当行为，就可以因任何其他适当理由打发他离开。
Summary: Sending another bhikkhu away so that he won’t witness any misconduct one is planning to indulge in is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：为了让另一位比丘不目睹自己计划沉溺于任何不当行为而将其送走，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

43	四十三
Should any bhikkhu sit intruding on a family “with its meal,” it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘坐著并打扰一个家庭「与其餐食」，波逸提。
The origin story here, briefly, is this: Ven. Upananda visits a woman in her private quarters. Her husband approaches him respectfully, has his wife give him alms, and then asks him to leave. The wife senses that her husband wants to have sexual intercourse with her and so—as a game, apparently—keeps detaining Ven. Upananda until the husband gets exasperated and goes to complain to the bhikkhus: “Venerable sirs, this master Upananda is sitting in the bedroom with my wife. I have dismissed him, but he isn’t willing to go. We are very busy and have much work to do.”	起源故事简述如下：优跋难陀尊者到一位女人的私人住处拜访。她的丈夫恭敬地走上前去，让妻子布施钵食，然后请他离开。妻子察觉到丈夫想与她发生性关系，于是——显然是一场游戏——一直拖著优跋难陀尊者，直到丈夫恼怒不已，去向比丘们抱怨：「大德们，这位优跋难陀尊者正和我的妻子坐在卧室里。我已经让他走了，但他就是不肯走。我们很忙，有很多工作要做。」
Object:	对象：
A family “with its meal.” This term—sabhojanaṁ—appears to be a pun in the original Pali, meaning either “with its meal”—sa + bhojanaṁ—or “with two people”—sa + ubho + janaṁ. The Vibhaṅga explains it as a euphemism meaning “a man and woman together, both not having gone out (of their bedroom), not both without lust.” As its further explanations show, this means a man and woman together in their private quarters, with at least one of them desiring sexual intercourse with the other. Although the Commentary tries to justify the Vibhaṅga’s explanation etymologically (bhoga, the root form of meal, has other forms meaning enjoyment, indulgence, and use), there is no need to turn to etymology. Since ancient times in all cultures, eating has been commonly used as a metaphor for sex. (Similarly, the husband’s comment that he “has much work to do” could also be taken as a double entendre.)	一个家庭「与其餐食」。「sabhojanaṁ」一词在原本巴利语中似乎是双关语，意为「与其餐食」——sa + bhojanaṁ——或「与两个人」——sa + ubho + janaṁ。《经分别》将其解释为一种委婉说法，意为「一男一女在一起，两人均未出（他们的卧室），并非双方都无情欲」。进一步的解释表明，这意味著一男一女在私人住处，至少其中一人渴望与另一人发生性关系。尽管《义注》试图从字源学角度论证《经分别》的解释（bhoga，餐食的字根，还有其他形式，意为享受、放纵和使用），但无需追溯词源。自古以来，在所有文化中，「吃」就普遍被用作性的隐喻。（同样，丈夫说他「有很多工作要做」也可以理解为（含情欲的）双关语。）
Effort	努力
To sit intruding means to sit—without another bhikkhu present—in the private area of the house, this being defined in terms of how large the house is. In one large enough to have a separate bedroom, the private area is any spot more than one hatthapāsa (1.25 meters) in from the doorway (of the bedroom, says the Commentary). In a smaller house, the private area is the back half of the house. None of the texts discuss such things as one-room apartments or hotel rooms, but these would probably be treated as “separate bedrooms.”	坐著并打扰是指在没有其他比丘在场的情况下，坐在房屋的私人区域内。私人区域的定义取决于房屋的大小。在一间大到可以设有独立卧室的房屋中，私人区域是指距离（《义注》中说是卧室的）门口超过一个 hatthapāsa （1.25米）的任何位置。在较小的房屋中，私人区域是指房屋的后半部。所有文献均未讨论单房间公寓或饭店房间之类的情况，但这些可能被视为「独立卧室」。
The Vibhaṅga states that perception with regard to the private area is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4) and apparently the same holds true for perception with regard to whether the couple is “with its meal.” As for intention, the Parivāra and commentaries maintain that it is a factor, but the Vibhaṅga does not mention it at all. Thus, to be perfectly safe from an offense in cases like this, a bhikkhu should not sit intruding on a couple unless they both make him 100% certain that he is welcome: a wise policy in any case, regardless of whether one is a bhikkhu.	《经分别》指出，对私人区域的感知并非此处减轻惩罚因素（见《波逸提》四），而对夫妻是否「与其餐食」的感知明显地也同样如此。至于意图，《附随》和注释书认为它是一个因素，但《经分别》对此只字未提。因此，为了在这种情况下完全避免犯戒，比丘不应坐著打扰夫妻，除非夫妻双方都让他百分之百确信自己受到欢迎：无论如何，这都是一个明智之举，无论是否是比丘。
Cases of sitting with a woman alone in her bedroom—or any other private place—are covered by the following rule.	与女性单独坐在她的卧室或任何其他私人场所的情况则被下一条戒条所涵盖。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense—	并无犯戒——
if both the man and woman have left the bedroom/private area;	如果男人和女人都离开了卧室/私人区域；
if neither of them is sexually aroused;	如果他们双方都没有性兴奋状态；
if the building is not a “sleeping building”;	如果该建筑物不是「睡眠建筑物」；
if the bhikkhu is not in the private area; or	如果比丘不在私人区域；或
if he has a second bhikkhu as his companion.	如果他有第二个比丘作为他的同伴。
Summary: To sit down intruding on a man and a woman in their private quarters—when one or both are sexually aroused, and when another bhikkhu is not present—is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：当一男一女中的一人或两人都处于性兴奋状态，且没有其他比丘在场时，闯入他们的私人住处坐下，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

44	四十四
Should any bhikkhu sit in private on a secluded seat with a woman, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘与女人私下坐在僻静的座位上，波逸提。
There are three factors for the offense here.	此处的犯戒有三个因素。
1) Object: a female human being, “even one born that very day, all the more an older one.”	1）对象：女性人类，「即使是当天出生的女性，更不用说年纪更长者。」
2) Effort: One sits with her in private on a secluded seat without another man present.	2）努力：私下和她坐在僻静的座位上，没有其他男人在场。
3) Intention: One is aiming at privacy.	3）意图：为了隐私。
Object	对象
Woman here includes women as well. In other words, even if one is sitting with many women in the secluded area, one is not exempt from this factor.	这里的女人也包括超过一位女人。换句话说，即使和许多女人坐在僻静的地方，也不能免于违犯此因素。
A female human being is grounds for a pācittiya; a paṇḍaka, a female peta, a female yakkha, and an animal in the form of a woman, grounds for a dukkaṭa.	女性人类构成《波逸提》；而黄门、雌饿鬼、雌夜叉和具有女性形象的动物构成《突吉罗》。
Perception as to whether a person is actually a woman is not a mitigating factor (see Pc 4).	关于某人是否确实是女性的感知并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
Effort	努力
Sitting also includes lying down. Whether the bhikkhu sits near the woman when she is already seated, or the woman sits near him when he is already seated, or both sit down at the same time, makes no difference.	坐也包括躺下。无论是比丘在女人已经就座后坐到她附近，或是女人在比丘已经就座后坐到他附近，或是两人同时就座，都没有差别。
Private means private to the eye and private to the ear. Two people sitting in a place private to the eye means that no one else can see if they wink, raise their eyebrows, or nod (§). If they are in a place private to the ear, no one else can hear what they say in a normal voice.	私密是指对眼睛和耳朵都私密。两个人坐在私密的地方意味著无论他们眨眼、扬眉或点头，其他人都无法看到（§）。如果他们坐在对耳朵私密的地方，其他人无法听到他们用正常声音说话。
A secluded seat is one behind a wall, a closed door, a large bush, or anything at all that would afford them enough privacy to commit the sexual act.	僻静座位是指墙后面、关著的门后面、大灌木丛后面或任何能为他们提供足够隐私以进行性行为的地方。
According to the Commentary, private to the eye is the essential factor here. Even if a knowledgeable man is within hearing but not within sight—i.e., he is sitting just outside the door to the private place—that does not exempt one from the offense here.	根据《义注》，对眼睛私密是此处的关键因素。即使一位知识渊博的男性在听得见的地方，却不在视线之内——也就是说，他就正坐在通往私密地方的门外——也不能免除此处的犯戒。
The Vibhaṅga states that the presence of a man within sight absolves one from this factor only if he is knowledgeable enough to know what is and is not lewd. The Commentary adds that he must also be awake and neither blind nor deaf. Even a distracted or drowsy man, though, if he meets these criteria, would absolve one from this factor.	《经分别》指出，只有当一位男性拥有足够的知识，知道什么是淫秽，什么是非淫秽时，该男性在视线可及处，就能免于违犯这一因素。《义注》补充道，他也必须保持清醒，既不盲也不聋。即使是个心不在焉或昏昏欲睡的人，只要符合这些标准，也能免于违犯这一因素。
Intention	意图
The non-offense clauses give an exemption for a bhikkhu “not aiming at privacy,” but the Vibhaṅga nowhere explains what this means. In light of its definition of private, “aiming at privacy” could mean simply not wanting anyone near enough to hear what he is saying or to see him wink, raise his eyebrow, or nod.	不犯条款规定，比丘「不为了隐私」可免于处罚，但《经分别》并未解释其意义。根据其对隐私的定义，「为了隐私」可能只是指不想让任何人足够靠近到能听到他说话，或看到他眨眼、扬眉或点头。
The Commentary offers an alternative explanation, defining aiming at privacy as being impelled by any defilement related to sex, but this explanation opens as many questions as it tries to resolve. Does it refer solely to the desire for intercourse or to other more subtle sexually-related desires such as those listed in AN 7:47? That is the discourse describing a brahman or contemplative who observes the celibate life by not engaging in sexual intercourse but whose celibacy is “broken, cracked, spotted, and blemished” by the joy he finds in any of the following activities:	《义注》提供了另一种解释，将为了隐私定义为受任何与性相关的烦恼所驱使，但这种解释在试图解决的同时也引发了许多问题。它仅仅指性交的欲望，还是指其他更细微的与性相关的欲望，例如《增支部》7:47经中列出的那些？这是一部经文，描述的是一位婆罗门或沙门，透过不进行性交来遵循梵行生活，但他的梵行因在以下任何活动中发现的快乐而「破碎、破裂、斑驳、玷污」：
1) He consents to being anointed, rubbed down, bathed, and massaged by a woman.	1）他同意接受女人的涂油、擦拭、沐浴和按摩。
2) He jokes, plays, and amuses himself with a woman.	2）他和女人开玩笑、玩乐、消遣。
3) He stares into a woman’s eyes.	3）他凝视著女人的眼睛。
4) He listens to the voices of women outside a wall as they laugh, speak, sing, or cry.	4）他聆听墙外女人的笑声、说话声、歌声或哭声。
5) He recollects how he used to laugh, converse, and play with a woman.	5）他回忆起过去如何与女人欢笑、交谈和玩耍。
6) He sees a householder or householder’s son enjoying himself endowed with the five sensual pleasures.	6）他看见居士或居士之子正在享受五种感官之乐。
7) He practices the celibate life intent on being born in one or another of the deva hosts, (thinking) “By this virtue or practice or abstinence or celibate life I will be a deva of one sort or another.”	7）他修行梵行生活，意图投生为各种各样的天神，（想著）「通过此戒行、修行、禁欲或梵行生活，我将成为各种各样的天神。」
The joy a person finds in any of these things is termed a sexual fetter (methuna-saṁyoga) that prevents him from gaining release from birth, aging, and death, and from the entire round of suffering. If the Commentary is indeed referring to this sort of thing when it mentions “defilements related to sexual intercourse” (methuna-nissita-kilesa), then in light of its interpretation, the factor of intention under this rule would be fulfilled by such things as wanting to joke with the woman, to stare into her eyes, or to enjoy hearing her voice as she talks or laughs.	一个人从任何这些事物中获得的快乐被称为淫结（methuna-saṁyoga），它阻碍他从生、老、死以及整个轮回的苦中获得解脱。如果《义注》中提到的「与性交相关的烦恼」（methuna-nissita-kilesa）确实是指这类事物，那么根据其解释，这条戒条下的意图因素应该透过诸如想和女人开玩笑、想凝视她的眼睛、享受听她说话或笑的声音等行为来满足。
The Vinaya-mukha provides a third interpretation, defining “not aiming at privacy” with the following illustration: A bhikkhu is sitting in a secluded place with a man and woman present, but the man gets up and leaves before the bhikkhu can stop him. In other words, the bhikkhu is not intending to sit alone in private with the woman at all, but circumstances beyond his control force him to.	《戒律入口》提供了第三种解释，用以下例子来定义「不为了隐私」：一位比丘与一男一女坐在僻静之处，但比丘还没来得及阻止，那位男士就起身离开了。换句话说，比丘根本并不想与那位女士单独坐在一起，但他无法控制的情况迫使他不得不如此。
Although the first interpretation, because it adheres most closely to the wording in the Vibhaṅga, is probably the correct one here, the Vinaya-mukha’s is probably the safest, and many Communities adhere to it with good reason. Both the Canon and the Commentary give frequent warnings about the dangers that can arise when a bhikkhu sits alone with a woman even when his original intention is innocent. His own defilements may eventually tempt him to do, say, or think things that are detrimental to his resolve in the celibate life; and even when his motives are pure, he is inviting the suspicions of others. Ay 1 requires that if a trustworthy outside witness is suspicious of a bhikkhu’s sitting alone with a woman—and unless he is sitting with his mother or other elderly relative, it’s rare that outsiders won’t be suspicious—the Community must meet to investigate the issue. Even though they may find him innocent of any wrong doing, the fact that they have had to investigate his behavior is usually enough to keep suspicions alive among the laity and to create resentment among his fellow bhikkhus over the waste of their time due to his indiscretion. At the same time, a bhikkhu sitting alone with a woman is leaving himself at the mercy of the woman, who will later be free to make any claims she likes about what went on while they were alone together. As Lady Visākhā said in the origin story to Ay 1, “It is unfitting and improper, venerable sir, for the master to sit in private, alone with a woman…. Even though the master may not be aiming at that act, cynical people are hard to convince.”	虽然第一种解释，因为它与《经分别》的措辞最为接近，在此可能是正确的，但《戒律入口》的解释可能是最安全的，许多僧团也有充分的理由遵循它。《圣典》和《义注》都多次警告比丘，即使他的初衷是无辜的，与女人独坐也会产生危险。他自身的烦恼最终可能会诱使他做出、说出或思考一些有损于他梵行生活决心的事情；即使他的动机是纯洁的，他也会引起他人的怀疑。《不定》一规定，如果一个值得信赖的外部目击者怀疑比丘与女人独坐——除非他与母亲或其他年长的亲戚坐在一起，否则外人很少不会起疑心——僧团必须开会调查此事。即使他们可能认定他无辜没有做错，但必须调查他的行为本身这件事实通常足以在俗人中引起怀疑，并激起他的比丘同侪们的不满，因为他的轻率行为浪费了他们的时间。同时，比丘与女子独坐，等于任由女子摆布，而女子日后可以随意对他们独处时发生的事情做出任何她想要的声称。正如毘舍佉鹿子母在《不定》一的起源故事时所说：「大德，大师与女子独坐，是不得体且不恰当的……即使大师并非有意为之，愤世嫉俗的人也很难被说服。」
Thus the wise policy would be to be no less strict than one’s Community in interpreting this factor.	因此，明智之举是在解释这一因素时，其严格程度不低于其所在僧团的严格程度。
Non-offenses	不犯
In addition to the bhikkhu not aiming at privacy, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who sits alone with a woman when his attention is elsewhere—e.g., he is absorbed in his work or his meditation when a woman comes in and sits down in the room where he is sitting. Also, there is no offense if either the bhikkhu or the woman or both are standing, or if both are sitting when a knowledgeable man is present.	除了比丘不为了隐私之外，如果比丘与女子独坐时注意力在别处，例如，他正专心工作或禅修，有位女子走进他所坐的房间里坐下，这并无犯戒。此外，如果比丘或女子，或两人都站著，或者两人都坐著，而且有一位博学的男士在场，这同样也无犯戒。
Summary: When aiming at privacy, sitting or lying down with a woman or women in a private, secluded place with no other man present is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：当为了隐私，在没有其他男性在场的情况下，与一名或多名女性在私密、僻静的地方坐下或躺下，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

45	四十五
Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman, it is to be confessed.	如果任何比丘私下单独与女人坐在一起，波逸提。
The full offense here has three factors that differ slightly from those for the preceding rule.	这里的完整违犯有三个因素，与前一条戒条略有不同。
Object	对象
Here woman is defined as a female human being who knows what is properly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd. Paṇḍakas, female petas, female yakkhas, and animals in the form of a woman are again grounds for a dukkaṭa. As under the preceding rule, perception as to whether a person is actually a woman is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	这里，女人的定义是指懂得言语得当与不当、淫秽与不淫秽的女性人类。黄门、雌饿鬼、雌夜叉以及女性形态的动物，同样构成《突吉罗》。与上一条戒条相同，对某人是否真的为女性的感知在此不构成减轻惩罚因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
Effort	努力
One sits with her alone—without another person present—in a place private to the ear and to the eye, but not secluded. Examples of such places would be spots out in the open (e.g., a bench in an open, deserted park), seats in a glassed-in porch or room, or in an open-air pavilion. The Commentary would include walled-in open areas—such as a park with a fence around it—here as well, but outside areas screened by a wall or a bush would fall under the preceding rule. Ay 1 & 2 suggest that the distinguishing factor here would be how hidden it is. If it would be convenient for committing sexual intercourse, it would fall under the preceding rule; if not, it would fall here.	与她单独坐在一起——没有其他人在场——在对耳朵及眼睛私密的地方，但并非隐密。这样的地方的例子可以是开阔的地方（例如，开阔空旷的公园里的长椅）、玻璃门廊或房间里的座位，或露天凉亭。《义注》将有围墙的开放区域（例如，周围有围栏的公园）也包括在内，但被墙壁或灌木丛遮挡的外部区域适用前一条戒条。《不定》一和二表明，这里的差异在于隐藏程度。若方便性交，则适用前一条戒条；否则，则适用这条戒条。
Sitting is defined as under the preceding rule.	坐的定义同前一条戒条。
This rule’s expression for alone—one man with one woman—implies that the other person whose presence exempts one from this factor can be either a man or a woman. The Commentary states explicitly that this is so, and adds that this person must also know what is properly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd; must be awake; must not be deaf or blind; and must be sitting “within sight,” i.e., a radius of six meters. As in the preceding rule, whether or not the man or woman is distracted or drowsy is of no consequence.	这条戒条中关于「单独」的陈述——一男一女——意味著，如果另一人在场，则可以免除此限制，可以是男性，也可以是女性。《义注》明确指出了这一点，并补充说，此人还必须知道哪些话是合适的，哪些话是不合适的，什么是淫秽的，什么不是淫秽的；必须保持清醒；不能是聋的或瞎的；并且必须坐在「视线范围内」，即半径六米范围内。与上一条戒条一样，无论该男子或女子是否心不在焉或昏昏欲睡，都无关紧要。
Intention	意图
One must be aiming at privacy for this factor to be fulfilled. See the discussion under the preceding rule.	要满足此因素，必须是为了隐私。请参阅上一条戒条下的讨论。
Non-offenses	不犯
Strangely enough, the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses here are identical with those for the preceding rule—i.e., they make no mention of the fact that the presence of another woman would exempt one from an offense. The Commentary seems justified in inferring this fact from the rule, though, for otherwise there would be no reason to have these two separate rules on the same subject.	奇怪的是，《经分别》此处的不犯条款与前一条戒条的条款完全相同——也就是说，它们没有提及有其他女性在场即可免除犯戒。然而，《义注》似乎有理由从本戒条中推断出这一事实，否则就没有理由在同一主题上分别制定这两条戒条了。
Summary: When aiming at privacy, sitting or lying down alone with a woman in an unsecluded but private place is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：当为了隐私时，与一位女性单独在不隐蔽但私密的地方坐下或躺下，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

46	四十六
Should any bhikkhu, being invited for a meal and without taking leave of an available bhikkhu, go calling on families before or after the meal, except at the proper occasions, it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: a time of giving cloth, a time of making robes. These are the proper occasions here.	任何比丘受邀赴餐食，有比丘在而未与之告别，在餐食前或餐食后走访俗家，除非在适当的场合，波逸提。此处适当的场合是：施衣时，做衣时。这些是此处适当的场合。
The origin story here suggests that the purpose of this rule is to prevent bhikkhus from wandering off before an appointed meal time so that they will not show up late or be difficult to track down; and to prevent them, after the meal, from using the invitation as an excuse to go off wandering without taking leave (see Pc 85). However, the definition of the factor of object—which limits this rule to visiting lay people’s houses—and the non-offense clauses—which allow one to visit monasteries and nunneries without taking leave—suggest a more over-riding purpose: to prevent bhikkhus from taking the invitation as an excuse to visit lay people and spend their time in inappropriate activities.	这里的起源故事表明，这条戒条的目的是防止比丘在约定用餐时间前游荡，以免他们迟到或难以找到；也是为了防止他们在用餐后以邀请为借口不告别就去游荡（参见《波逸提》八五）。然而，对象因素的定义——将本戒条限制为拜访在家众的家——以及不犯条款——允许不告别就去寺院和尼姑庵——暗示了一个更重要的目的：防止比丘以邀请为借口拜访在家众并将时间浪费在不适当的活动上。
There are two factors for the full offense here.	这里的全面违犯有两个因素。
1) Object: a family residence.	1）对象：俗家住处。
2) Effort: One enters such a residence—without having taken leave of an available bhikkhu—on a morning when one has been invited to a meal, except during the time exemptions mentioned in the rule.	2）努力：在被邀请用餐的早晨，有比丘在而未与之告别，进入这样的住处，除非在戒条中提到的时间豁免期间。

Object	对象
A family residence is grounds for a pācittiya here; its yard, grounds for a dukkaṭa.	这里，俗家住处构成《波逸提》；其庭院构成《突吉罗》。
Effort	努力
Entering the residence is defined as having both feet inside the threshold. Having only one foot over the threshold incurs a dukkaṭa, in addition to the dukkaṭa for entering the yard.	进入住处的定义是双脚在门槛内。如果只有一只脚跨过门槛，犯《突吉罗》，除此之外，进入其庭院也犯一次《突吉罗》。
Meal means one consisting of any of the five staple foods. The Vibhaṅga indicates that the amount eaten is irrelevant.	餐食是指由五种主食组成的一餐。《经分别》指出，吃多少并不相关。
As for the question of how to determine whether another bhikkhu is or is not available, the Commentary draws the distinction like this: After the desire to go calling on families arises in one’s mind and one takes a normal path to leave the monastery, if one comes across a bhikkhu who is close enough to address in a normal tone of voice (within six meters, says the Sub-commentary), that means that a bhikkhu is available and one should inform him of where one is going. If one does not come across a bhikkhu that close, no bhikkhu is available, and there is no need to go out of one’s way to find one.	至于如何判断是否有比丘在或不在，《义注》是这样区分的：当心生走访俗家的愿望，并沿著正常的路径离开寺院后，如果遇到一位距离足够近、可以用正常语气讲话的比丘（《复注》中说，距离在六米以内），则代表有比丘在，应告知其去向。如果在这么近的地方没有遇到比丘，则表示没有比丘在，无需特意去找。
This, though, is in direct contradiction to the Vibhaṅga’s definition of available—“It is possible to go, having taken leave”—that is, if there is another bhikkhu in the monastery, and there are no obstacles to taking one’s leave from him (e.g., he is asleep, he is sick, he is receiving important visitors), one is obliged to go out of one’s way to inform him.	但这与《经分别》中「在」的定义直接矛盾——「告别后可以离开」——也就是说，如果寺院里有另一位比丘，而向他告别没有任何障碍（例如，他睡著了，他生病了，他正在接待重要访客），那么就有义务去通知他。
According to the K/Commentary, taking leave in the context of this rule means the simple act of informing the other bhikkhu that, “I am going to the house of so-and-so,” or any similar statement. In other words, one is not asking permission to go (see the discussion of taking leave under Pc 14). However, if the other bhikkhu sees that one is doing something improper in going, he is perfectly free to say so. If one treats his comments with disrespect, one incurs at least a dukkaṭa under Pc 54. (See the discussion under that rule for details.)	根据 K/《义注》，在此戒条中，「告别」指的是简单地告知其他比丘「我要去某某家」或任何类似的说法。换句话说，并非在请求允许前往（参见《波逸提》十四中告别的讨论）。然而，如果其他比丘认为前往时在做不恰当的事情，他完全可以自由地如此说。如果不尊重其他比丘的言辞，则根据《波逸提》五四，至少会犯《突吉罗》。（详情请参阅该戒条下的讨论。）
For a new bhikkhu still living in dependence (nissaya) on his mentor, though, taking leave is a matter of asking permission at all times, whether one has been invited to a meal or not. The Mahāvagga (I.25.24; II.21.1) states that one of the duties of such a bhikkhu is that he must receive permission from his mentor before entering a village, going to a cemetery, or leaving the district. Not to ask permission before going, or to go after being denied permission, is to incur a dukkaṭa. As for the mentor, if he gives permission to go when it is not appropriate to do so, he is the one who incurs the dukkaṭa.	然而，对于仍依止（nissaya）导师生活的新出家比丘来说，无论是否受邀请赴餐食，每次离开都需先行请求导师的允许。《大品》（一.25.24；二.21.1）规定，这类比丘的义务之一是，在进入村庄、前往墓地或离开所在地区之前，必须获得导师的许可。未经许可前往，或被拒绝后仍前往，均会犯《突吉罗》。至于导师，如果在不合适的情况下允许前往，他自己犯《突吉罗》。
Perception as to whether one has actually been invited to a meal is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	对于是否真的被邀请赴餐食的感知并不是这里的减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。

Non-offenses	不犯
As the rule states, there is no offense in not taking leave at the time of giving cloth—the robe season—or at a time of making robes, i.e., any time when one is making a robe. These exceptions enable a bhikkhu to visit his lay supporters easily to obtain any gifts of thread, cloth, or scissors, etc., he may need at such times.	如戒条所述，在施衣时（袈裟季节）或做衣时（即任何正在制作袈裟的时间）不告别并无犯戒。这些豁免使得比丘能够容易地拜访他的在家支持者，以获得他可能需要的线、布、剪刀等的布施。
There is also no offense in going to or through a family residence when one has taken leave of another bhikkhu, or in going when one has not taken leave under any of the following circumstances:	当已经向另一位比丘告别时，前往或经过俗家住处，或者在下列任何情况下没有向另一位比丘告别而前往，也没有犯戒：
—There is no bhikkhu available (in addition to the examples mentioned above, this would include cases where one is living alone, all the other bhikkhus have left, or all the bhikkhus in the monastery are going together).	—没有比丘在（除了上述例子外，还包括一个人独居、其他比丘都已离开，或寺院里所有比丘都一起前往的情况）。
—One is going to the house where one was invited for the meal.	—前往被邀请赴餐食的那户人家。
—The path to the house in which the meal is to be given leads through another house or its yard.	—通往提供餐食的房屋的路径要穿过另一栋房屋或其院子。
—One is on one’s way to another monastery (§), to bhikkhunīs’ quarters, to the residence of people ordained in another religion (located in a village, says the Commentary), or one is returning from any of these places.	—正前往另一座寺院（§）、比丘尼的住处、另一个宗教的出家者的住所（《义注》中说，位于村庄里），或者正从这些地方返回。
—There are dangers. This, according to the Commentary, refers to dangers to one’s life or to one’s resolve in remaining celibate.	—存在危险。根据《义注》，这指的是危及生命或危及保持梵行的决心。
The non-offense clauses do not mention this point, but the perception section of the Vibhaṅga makes clear that this rule does not apply when one is not invited to a meal.	不犯条款并没有提到这一点，但《经分别》的感知章节明确指出，当没有被邀请赴餐食时，这条戒条不适用。
The general principle	一般原则
This rule, in conjunction with Pc 85, is designed to keep bhikkhus from visiting lay people and spending their time in inappropriate ways. Pc 85 deals with entire villages and towns, and covers the act of leaving the monastery during the period from noon until the following dawnrise. This rule deals with family residences and covers the act of leaving the monastery during the period from dawnrise until noon on days when one has been invited to a meal. The period from dawnrise to noon on days when one is not invited to a meal, and would be expected to go on alms round, is thus not covered by either rule. Note, however, that in the origin story to this rule the Buddha reprimands Ven. Upananda for visiting families during the latter part of a morning after going for alms. This shows that he did not approve of such behavior even though he had practical reasons for not laying down a rule against it: On mornings when one is going for alms—and in his time, alms-going could often be an all-morning affair—there is no convenient way to draw a hard and fast line between appropriate alms-going and inappropriate visiting. Thus we have the rules as they stand. At present, though, in monasteries where alms-going takes up much less of the morning or where the bhikkhus do not go outside the monastery for alms at all, a wise policy is to adhere to the general principle by informing a fellow bhikkhu whenever possible when one is leaving the monastery for errands or visits involving lay people, even during periods not covered by the rules.	这条戒条，结合《波逸提》八五，旨在防止比丘拜访俗人并以不适当的方式度过他们的时间。《波逸提》八五涉及整个村庄和城镇，并涵盖从中午到第二天黎明之前的时间段离开寺院的行为。这条戒条涉及俗家住处，涵盖在被邀请赴餐食的日子里从黎明到中午的时间段离开寺院的行为。因此，在没有被邀请赴餐食而应该去托钵的日子里，从黎明到中午的时间段不在这两条戒条的范围内。但请注意，在本戒条的起源故事中，佛陀斥责了优跋难陀尊者，因为他在托钵后于上午的后半段拜访俗家。这表明他不赞成这种行为，尽管他有不制定禁止戒条的实际原因：在去托钵的上午——在他的时代，托钵往往是一整个上午的事情——没有方便的方法来在适当的托钵和不适当的拜访之间划出一条严格的界限。因此，我们有了现在的戒条。然而，目前，在托钵占用早上时间很少或比丘根本不出寺院托钵的寺院中，一个明智之举是遵守一般原则，尽可能在离开寺院办事或牵涉俗人的拜访时通知同侪比丘，即使是在戒条未涵盖的时间段。
Summary: Visiting lay families—without having informed an available bhikkhu—before or after a meal to which one has been invited is a pācittiya offense except during the robe season or any time one is making a robe.	摘要：在被邀请赴餐食之前或之后，有比丘在而未通知其的情况下拜访俗家，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪，除非是在袈裟季节或任何正在制作袈裟的时间。

* * *

47	四十七
A bhikkhu who is not ill may accept (make use of) a four-month invitation to ask for requisites. If he should accept (make use of) it beyond that—unless the invitation is renewed or is permanent—it is to be confessed.	无病的比丘可以接受（利用）四个月的邀请来索取必需品。如果他接受（利用）超过此者 —— 除非该邀请被更新的或是永久的 —— 波逸提。
Invitations	邀请
An invitation to ask for requisites is an offer made by a lay person to supply a bhikkhu with requisites whenever he (the bhikkhu) asks for them. Such invitations may be made either to individual bhikkhus, to groups, or to entire Communities. The responsibilities incumbent on the two sides in such an arrangement are well illustrated in a passage from the origin story to this rule.	邀请来索取必需品是指居士提出的供养，每当比丘索取时，为其提供必需品。此类邀请可以针对个别比丘、团体或整个僧团提出。此种安排中双方应尽的责任，在本戒条起源故事的一个段落中已有详尽阐述。
“Now at that time some group-of-six bhikkhus wore their lower robes improperly, their upper robes improperly, and were not at all consummate in their deportment. Mahānāma the Sakyan criticized them: ‘Venerable sirs, why do you wear your lower robes improperly, your upper robes improperly, and why are you not at all consummate in your deportment? Shouldn’t a person who has gone forth wear his lower robe properly, his upper robe properly, and be consummate in his deportment?’	「尔时，有六群比丘，下衣穿著不当，上衣穿著不当，仪态也不够端正。释迦族摩诃男批评他们：『尊者，你们为何下衣穿著不当，上衣穿著不当，仪态也不够端正？出家的人难道不应该下衣穿著得体，上衣穿著得体，仪态端正吗？』
“The group-of-six bhikkhus nursed a grudge against him. They thought, ‘Now, how can we make Mahānāma the Sakyan feel abashed?’ Then the thought occurred to them, ‘He has made an invitation to provide the Community with medicines. Let’s ask him for ghee.’	「那六位比丘对他心生怨恨。他们心想：『现在，我们该如何让释迦族摩诃男感到羞愧呢？』于是他们想：『他已提出邀请来提供僧团药物。我们去跟他要酥油吧。』
“So they went to Mahānāma the Sakyan and on arrival said to him, ‘We need a tubful of ghee, my friend.’	「于是他们去见释迦族摩诃男，一到那里就对他说：『我们需要一桶酥油，我的朋友。』
“‘Please wait for the rest of today, venerable sirs. People have just gone to the cattle pen to get ghee. You may come and fetch it in the morning.’	「『请大德们等待今天剩下的时间。人们刚去牛圈取酥油。您明早再来取吧。』
A second time… A third time, they said to him, ‘We need a tubful of ghee, my friend.’	第二次…第三次，他们对他说：『我们需要一桶酥油，我的朋友。』
“‘Please wait for the rest of today, venerable sirs. People have just gone to the cattle pen to get ghee. You may come and fetch it in the morning.’	「『请大德们等待今天剩下的时间。人们刚去牛圈取酥油。您明早再来取吧。』
“‘What’s with this invitation without wanting to give, friend, in that having made the invitation you don’t give?’	「『朋友，既然不想给而邀请，为什么还要提出你不想给的邀请呢？』
“So Mahānāma the Sakyan criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can their reverences, being told, “Please wait for the rest of today, venerable sirs,” not wait?’”	「因此释迦族摩诃男批评、抱怨并传播此事，『尊者们被告知「请等待今天剩下的时间，大德们」，怎么不等待呢？』」
As the story shows, the person making the invitation was expected to provide the goods he offered, while bhikkhus were expected to be reasonable in their requests.	如故事所示，提出邀请的人应该提供他所供养的物品，而比丘们则应该合理地请求。
The Vibhaṅga’s discussion here assumes that this rule applies to invitations offering medicines, but it does not say explicitly whether it covers invitations made to individuals or to those made to entire Communities. The Commentary, however, argues reasonably from a statement in the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses (see below) that it covers only invitations made to Communities.	《经分别》在此的讨论假设这条戒条适用于提供药物的邀请，但并未明确说明是否涵盖向个人发出的邀请，还是向整个僧团发出的邀请。然而，《义注》根据《经分别》的不犯条款（见下文）的陈述，合理地论证了本戒条仅涵盖向僧团发出的邀请。
The rule and origin stories show that invitations of this sort originally had three standard forms: a four-month invitation (each of the major seasons in India lasts four months, which may have been the reason for this type of invitation), a renewed four-month invitation, and a permanent invitation. Eventually, though, the Vibhaṅga worked out the following fourfold schema to cover invitations of a wide variety of sorts: those that specify (1) requisites (medicines), (2) a time period, (3) both, or (4) neither.	戒条和起源故事表明，此类邀请最初有三种标准形式：四个月的邀请（印度每个主要季节持续四个月，这可能是此类邀请的原因）、续期（更新）四个月的邀请以及永久邀请。然而，《经分别》最终制定了以下四重模式，以涵盖各种类型的邀请，指定：（1）必需品（药物）、（2）时间段、（3）两者兼具、（4）两者皆无。
1) An invitation specifying requisites may specify merely the type of item offered—“Let me know if you ever need any honey or sugar”—or also the amount—“Let me know if you ever need a bottle of honey… a pound of sugar.” In cases like these, a bhikkhu may ask for the type or amount of the item offered. If he asks for other items or for more of the proper item than the amount offered, if that too is specified, he incurs a pācittiya. However, because the donor mentions no time limit, the Vibhaṅga says that the bhikkhu may ask at any time.	1）指定必需品的邀请，可能仅指定供养物品的种类——例如「如果您需要蜂蜜或糖，请告诉我」——或者也指定数量——例如「如果您需要一瓶蜂蜜……一磅糖，请告诉我」。在这种情况下，比丘可以要求供养物品的种类或数量。如果他要求其他物品，或要求供养物品的数量超过供养数量（如果数量也指定的话），则他犯了《波逸提》。然而，由于布施者没有提及时间限制，《经分别》规定比丘可以随时提出请求。
2) An invitation specifying the time period may be phrased, for example, “Let me know if you need any medicine during this Rains-residence.” In cases like this, a bhikkhu may ask for any type or amount of medicine during that time period. But as the origin stories to this and the other rules dealing with asking make clear (see Sg 6 and NP 6 & 7), he should be moderate and reasonable when making requests, and not abuse the lay supporter’s generosity. If, not being ill, he asks after the period has expired, he incurs a pācittiya.	2）可以指定具体时间段的邀请，例如：「如果您在雨安居期间需要任何药物，请告诉我。」在这种情况下，比丘可以在该时间段内请求任何种类或数量的药物。但正如此戒条的起源故事以及其他有关请求的戒条所明确指出的（参见《僧残》六以及《舍堕》六和七），比丘在提出请求时应适度合理，切勿滥用在家支持者的慷慨。如果他没有生病，但在雨安居期满后才请求，则犯《波逸提》。
3) An invitation specifying requisites and the time period might be phrased, “Let me know if you need any honey during the Rains-residence.” In cases like this, a bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya if he asks for items other than those offered—or for more of the proper item than the amount offered, if that too is specified—regardless of whether he asks during the specified time period. He also incurs a pācittiya if, not being ill, he asks for the items offered after the time period has expired.	3）指定必需品和期限的邀请，可以这样表述：「在雨安居期间，如果您需要蜂蜜，请告诉我。」在这种情况下，如果比丘请求供养品以外的物品，或请求供养品的数量超过供养量（如果供养量也已指定），无论他是否在指定的期限内请求，都会招致《波逸提》。如果他没有生病，但在期限过后要求供养品，也会招致《波逸提》。
4) An invitation specifying neither requisites nor the time period may be phrased, for example, “Let me know if you ever need any medicine.” In cases like this, the bhikkhu may ask for any medicine at any time. As in case (2), though, he should try to be reasonable in his requests.	4）邀请既不指定必需品也不指定具体时间，可以这样表述，例如：「如果您需要任何药物，请告诉我。」在这种情况下，比丘可以随时请求任何药物。不过，与情况（2）一样，他应该尽量合理地提出请求。

The factors of the offense	犯戒因素
The factors of the offense here are two.	此处的犯戒因素有二。
1) Object: medicine that a donor has invited a Community to request.	1）对象：布施者邀请僧团请求的药物。
2) Effort: One requests it outside of the terms of the invitation when one is not ill.	2）努力：在没有生病的情况下，在邀请条件之外提出请求。
Object	对象
The Vibhaṅga does not define medicine here, but its examples all deal with the five tonics, and that is how the Commentary defines medicine under this rule. The Great Standards could be used to extend medicine to cover lifetime medicines as well.	《经分别》在此并未对药物做出定义，但其例子均与五种补品有关，而《义注》也正是以此为依据对本戒条下的药物做出定义。《四大教示》亦可被用来扩展药物，使其亦涵盖终身药物。
Effort	努力
The Vibhaṅga also neglects to give an explicit definition for not ill, but in one of its wheels it states that if a bhikkhu asks for a medicine when he has no need for a medicine (§—reading na-bhesajjena karaṇiye with the Thai and Sri Lankan editions of the Canon), he incurs a pācittiya in the asking. The Commentary explains having no need for medicine as being well enough to get by on “mixed” food, which is apparently its term for food acquired at random (see BMC2, Chapter 18).	《经分别》也忽略了对「无病」给予明确定义，但在其中一个「轮子」中指出，如果比丘在不需要药物的情况下要求药物（§——在泰国和斯里兰版本的《圣典》中读作 na-bhesajjena karaṇiye ），则他在要求时会犯《波逸提》。《义注》将不需要药物解释为身体状况良好，可以靠「混合」食物过活，显然它是指随机获取的食物（参见《佛教比丘戒律第二册》第十八章）。
The Vibhaṅga’s wheel goes on to state that if a bhikkhu requests one medicine when he actually has need of another (e.g., he has a disease that calls for a disgusting ghee concoction (see Mv.VIII.1.23-26) but requests honey instead), he incurs a pācittiya in the requesting as well. These penalties apply regardless of whether he receives what he requests.	《经分别》的「轮子」继续指出，如果比丘请求一种药物，而实际上他需要的是另一种药物（例如，他患了一种需要令人作呕的酥油混合物的疾病（参见《大品》.八.1.23-26），但他却请求蜂蜜），那么他也会因请求而犯《波逸提》。无论他是否得到他所请求之物，都会受到这些惩罚。
Perception as to whether one is making a request outside the terms of the invitation is not a mitigating factor here (Pc 4).	对于是否提出超出邀请条款的请求的感知并不是这里的减轻惩罚因素（《波逸提》四）。

Non-offenses	不犯
Three of the non-offense clauses require no explanation: There is no offense in asking from relatives, for the sake of another, or for medicine to be bought with one’s own resources.	其中三项不犯条款无需解释：向亲戚要求、为他人要求、用自己的资源购买药物均不犯戒。
One of the two non-offense clauses requiring explanation is that there is no offense in asking “from those by whom one was invited with medicine.” This the Commentary explains by saying that if one has received a personal invitation, one may ask in line with its terms, but that otherwise the limits set by this rule apply only to invitations made to an entire Community and not to those made on a personal basis to individual bhikkhus. Although the Vibhaṅga makes no specific mention of this point, the Commentary’s explanation seems the best way to make sense of this non-offense clause and the relationship between this rule and Pc 39. Under that rule, a bhikkhu who is not ill and has not been invited incurs a dukkaṭa in asking for any one of the five tonics, and there seems no reason to impose a heavier penalty for requesting one of the five tonics after a personal invitation to do so has expired. If, though, the invitation referred to in this rule is one made to an entire Community, the heavier penalty makes sense as an added protection to the donor against having his/her invitation abused by the less conscientious members of the Community. This added protection would also be a means of encouraging further invitations of this sort in the future.	需要解释的两条不犯条款之一是，「向邀请自己药物的人」要求并无犯戒。《义注》对此的解释是，如果收到了个人邀请，则可以按照其条款提出要求，但除此之外，此戒条的限制仅适用于向整个僧团发出的邀请，而不适用于基于个人向个别比丘发出的邀请。虽然《经分别》没有具体提及这一点，但《义注》的解释似乎是理解此不犯条款以及此戒条与《波逸提》三九之间关系的最佳方式。根据该戒条，无病且未被邀请的比丘在要求五种补品中的任何一种时犯《突吉罗》，并且似乎没有理由对在个人邀请过期后请求五种补品之一施加更重的惩罚。然而，如果本戒条中提到的邀请是向整个僧团发出的，那么更重的惩罚是合理的，因为它可以为布施者提供额外的保护，防止其邀请被僧团中不太负责任的成员滥用。这种额外的保护也有助于鼓励未来继续进行此类邀请。
The second non-offense clause requiring explanation is the one for an ill bhikkhu. Reading the rule, one might imagine that the exemption for an ill bhikkhu would read simply, “There is no offense if one is ill,” but instead it reads, “There is no offense if one says, ‘The time period for which we were invited has passed, but we have need of medicine.’” This is an important point of etiquette. Normally, an ill bhikkhu may ask anyone for medicine at any time, but in dealing with a person who has made an invitation for medicine to the Community, he has to show special consideration. In mentioning the fact that the time period for the invitation has expired, he gives recognition of the fact that the donor is no longer under any obligation to provide the medicine, thus giving the donor a convenient “out” in case he/she can no longer provide it. This simple gesture is the least consideration that can be shown to someone who has had the generosity to invite the Community to ask for medicines. And again, simple gestures of this sort help to protect donors and encourage similar invitations again in the future.	第二个需要解释的不犯条款是关于生病比丘的。阅读这条戒条，可能会以为，对生病比丘的豁免条款可简单地拼读成「如果生病，就没有犯戒」，但实际上却是「如果说『我们被邀请的期限已过，但我们需要药物』，则没有犯戒。」这是威仪中的一个重要方面。通常，生病的比丘可以随时向任何人要求药物，但在对待邀请僧团索取药物的人时，他必须表现出特殊的体谅。在提到邀请期限已过这一事实时，他承认了布施者不再有提供药物的义务，从而为布施者在无法再提供药物时提供了一个方便的「借口」。这个简单的举动，是对慷慨邀请僧团索取药物的人所能表现出的最低限度的体谅。再次强调，这种简单的举动有助于保护布施者，并鼓励未来再次发出类似的邀请。
Although this last non-offense clause applies explicitly only to an invitation specifying the time period, the Great Standards could be used to apply it to an invitation specifying requisites as well. In other words, an ill bhikkhu could say, “You invited the Community with honey, but I have need of ghee.”	虽然最后这条不犯条款明确仅适用于指定时段的邀请，但可用《四大教示》来将此不犯条款也适用于指定必需品的邀请。换句话说，一位生病的比丘可以说：「你用蜂蜜邀请僧团，但我需要酥油。」

An alternative interpretation	另一种解释
The Vinaya-mukha tries to extend this rule to cover invitations of every sort, individual and communal, dealing with any sort of requisite. It also reads the training rule to mean that if a time limit is not specified on an invitation, a four-month time limit is to be assumed. All of this has no support in the Vibhaṅga and so is not binding, but the last point is something that individual bhikkhus may adopt as a personal policy to teach themselves moderation in their requests. A donor’s faith and financial position can change quickly, and it is reasonable not to depend on an invitation for longer periods of time unless the donor makes it clear that he/she is still willing to continue providing the item offered on a long-term basis.	《戒律入口》试图将此戒条扩展至涵盖各种形式的邀请，无论是个人邀请还是集体邀请，以及处理任何种类的必需品。它还将本戒条解读成，如果邀请未注明期限，则视为四个月的期限。所有这些在《经分别》中均无依据，因此不具有约束力，但最后一点是比丘们可以作为个人准则，以学习在请求时保持节制。布施者的信心和经济状况可以快速地转变，因此，除非布施者明确表示愿意长期继续供养物品，否则不依赖长期邀请是合理的。
Summary: When a supporter has made an offer to supply medicines to the Community: Asking him/her for medicine outside the terms of the offer when one is not ill is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：当支持者向僧团提出供养药物时：在没有生病的情况下向其要求超出提供条款的药物，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

48	四十八
Should any bhikkhu go to see an army on active duty, unless there is a suitable reason, it is to be confessed.	任何比丘若去观看值勤的军队，除非有适当的理由，波逸提。
This is an offense with three factors: object, effort, and intention.	这是一个有三个因素的犯戒：对象、努力和意图。
Object	对象
An army in the time of the Buddha was a very different affair from what an army is now. We will start with a discussion of how the Vibhaṅga explains this factor in terms of armies at that time, and then follow with a discussion of how it may be applied to armies at present.	佛陀时代的军队与现代的军队截然不同。我们将首先讨论《经分别》如何从当时的军队解释这一因素，然后再讨论它如何应用于现代军队。
Armies in the Buddha’s time consisted mainly of what we would call reserve units. These were organized into four divisions: elephant units, cavalry units, chariot units, and infantry units. The soldiers for the most part were citizens who would live at home until called up on active duty to engage in actual warfare or to practice maneuvers, activities that normally took place outside the city. Battles, both actual and practice, were fought according to rules—total warfare did not come to India until many centuries after the Buddha’s time—and it was possible for non-military citizens to watch, with occasional danger to life and limb, much as people at present watch football games. (Going to a battlefield is listed in the Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1) as a form of entertainment.)	佛陀时代的军队主要由我们所谓的预备队组成。这些预备队分为四个部分：象队、骑兵队、战车队和步兵队。士兵大多为平民，他们在家居住，直至被征召入伍值勤，参与实际战争或演习，这些活动通常在城外进行。无论是实际战斗还是演习，都遵循规则——总体战争直到佛陀时代之后数个世纪才传入印度——非军人公民也可以观看，尽管偶尔会有生命危险，就像现在人们观看足球比赛一样。（《梵网经》（《长部》1经）将前往战场列为一种娱乐形式。）
With this information in mind, it is easy to understand the Vibhaṅga’s treatment of this rule: An army on active duty—composed of a full panoply of elephant, cavalry, chariot, and infantry units who have left the city—is grounds for a pācittiya. This applies whether the army is camped or on the move. Any segment of an army on duty—even one armed archer, says the Commentary—is grounds for a dukkaṭa. An army not on duty—the Commentary illustrates this with a king’s pleasure trip—is not grounds for an offense.	了解了这些资讯，就容易理解《经分别》对这条戒条的处理方式：一支正在值勤的军队——由全副武装的战象、骑兵、战车和步兵组成，并且已经离开城市——构成《波逸提》。无论军队是驻扎还是行进，这条都适用。《义注》指出，任何值勤的军队——即使只有一个武装弓箭手——构成《突吉罗》。一支未值勤的军队——《义注》以国王的游乐旅行为例——不构成犯戒。
To apply these definitions to armed forces at present: The Vibhaṅga’s definition for army comes close to the modern definition of a field army with a full array of artillery, armored, airborne, and infantry divisions. Navies, marines, and air forces did not exist at that time, but the Great Standards would allow us to extend the definition of army to cover similar large units of these branches of the military as well. Because armies on active duty no longer limit their activities to areas outside of cities—they are sometimes based in cities, run practice drills there, and can be called in to quell riots or fight enemy forces there—the definition of “on active duty” must be changed to fit the way armies use it at present. Thus soldiers at work on base or off would count as being on duty. An army camped—on base or off—for active duty would also count as being on active duty. There is some controversy at present as to whether the on-base areas for staff housing would count as an army camped, but because the Vibhaṅga defines active duty as being away from home, it would seem that the homes within a base would not come under this rule.	将这些定义应用于当今的武装部队：《经分别》对军队的定义接近现代野战军的定义，该野战军拥有完整的砲兵、装甲师、空降师和步兵师。当时还没有海军、海军陆战队和空军，但《四大教示》允许我们扩展军队的定义，使其涵盖这些军种的类似大型部队。由于值勤军队的活动范围不再局限于城市以外的地区——他们有时驻扎在城市，在那里进行训练演习，并可能被召集到城市平息骚乱或与敌军作战——「值勤」的定义必须进行修改，以适应军队目前的使用方式。因此，在基地或基地外工作的士兵都算在值勤。在基地或基地外驻扎服现役的军队也算是在值勤。目前，对于基地内的工作人员住房是否算作驻扎的军队目前存在一些争议，但由于《经分别》将值勤定义为离家在外，因此基地内的住家似乎不受此戒条的约束。
With these points in mind, we may say that a full field army—or the equivalent in naval, marine, or air forces—on active duty would be grounds for a pācittiya here. Any smaller unit of the military on active duty—a regiment, a division, or even one armed soldier—would be grounds for a dukkaṭa. Armies not on active duty, as when they organize charity events, would not be grounds for an offense.	考虑到以上几点，我们可以说，一支完整的野战军——或相当于海军、陆战队或空军的部队——在值勤，此处构成《波逸提》。任何较小的值勤军人单位——一个团、一个师，甚至一名武装士兵——构成《突吉罗》。非值勤军队，例如在组织慈善活动时，则不构成犯戒。
Perception as to whether a group qualifies as an army on duty is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	对于某个团体是否符合值勤军队的感知并不是这里的减轻惩罚因素（见《波逸提》四）。

Effort	努力
This factor is fulfilled simply by staying still and watching an army on duty except when one has a suitable reason. The Vibhaṅga gives a dukkaṭa for every step one makes in going to watch an army on duty, and a pācittiya for staying still and watching. It also gives an extra pācittiya for every time one returns to watch after going away.	除非有适当理由，否则只需静静地观看执勤的军队即可满足此条件。《经分别》给予前往观看执勤军队的每一步一次《突吉罗》，静静地观看一次《波逸提》。此外，每次离开后返回观看，《经分别》还会额外给予一次《波逸提》。
Intention	意图
The origin story’s example of a suitable reason is that a bhikkhu’s uncle in the army had fallen ill and wished to see him. The non-offense clauses also allow one to take shelter with the army to escape dangers. (This the Commentary defines as dangers to one’s life or celibacy.) Other suitable reasons would include accepting an invitation from the soldiers to receive alms or to give a Dhamma talk.	起源故事中一个适当理由的例子是，一位比丘在军队服役的叔叔病倒了，想见他。不犯条款也允许为了躲避危险而投靠军队庇护。（《义注》将其定义为危及生命或梵行生活的危险。）其他适当的理由包括接受士兵的邀请去接受布施或给予佛法开示。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense—	不犯戒——
if, having gone on business, one sees the army;	如果出差时看见了军队；
if, standing within a monastery, one watches an army fighting or holding practice maneuvers nearby;	如果站在寺院里，观看附近一支军队在战斗或进行演习；
if an army comes to where one happens to be;	如果一支军队来到自己碰巧所在的地方；
if one meets an army coming from the opposite direction; or	如果遇到一支从对面来的军队；或者
if there are dangers.	如果有危险。
Summary: Watching a field army—or similar large military force—on active duty, unless there is a suitable reason, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：观看野战军队或类似的大型军事力量执勤，除非有适当的理由，否则是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

49	四十九
There being some reason or another for a bhikkhu to go to an army, he may stay two or three (consecutive) nights with the army. If he should stay beyond that, it is to be confessed.	当比丘有因缘前往军队，他可以随军队停留两至三个（连续）夜晚。若停留时间超过此者，波逸提。
Object	对象
Unusually, the Vibhaṅgas to this rule and the next do not define army, a crucial term in both rules. But because these rules are continuations of the preceding one, we may be justified in reading their Vibhaṅgas as continuations of the preceding one as well. If so, army means the same thing in all three rules, and the permutations for object are identical in all three as well. Thus this rule does not apply to the housing where military officers live with their families, whether on base or off.	不同寻常的是，这条戒条和下一条戒条的《经分别》并未定义「军队」，而军队是这两条戒条中的关键术语。但由于这些戒条是前一条戒条的延续，我们或许有理由将它们的《经分别》解读为前一条戒条的延续。如果是这样，那么「军队」在这三条戒条中的意义相同，而对象的排列顺序也在这三条戒条中相同。因此，这条戒条不适用于军官及其家人居住的住房，无论其是否在基地内。
Effort	努力
As under Pc 5—the rule that deals with sleeping in the same dwelling with an unordained person—nights here are counted by dawns. If a bhikkhu leaves the army before dawn at the end of any night, that night is not counted. If he returns to spend another night/dawn with the army, the series starts over again from one. If, however, he has spent three consecutive nights with the army and is still with the army at any time beginning with sunset of the fourth night, he incurs a pācittiya. Unlike Pc 5, he does not need to be lying down for this factor to count. The Commentary illustrates this point by saying that even if he is using his psychic power to sit levitating above the army at sunset on the fourth day, he still fulfills this factor.	正如《波逸提》五——关于与未受具足戒者同住的戒条——夜晚以黎明计算。如果比丘在任何夜晚结束的黎明前离开军队，则该夜晚不计算在内。如果他返回与军队度过另一个夜晚/黎明，则从一开始重新计算。但是，如果他已连续与军队度过三个夜晚，并且在第四天晚上日落后的任何时间仍在军队中，他犯《波逸提》。与《波逸提》五不同，他不需要躺下来让这个因素算数。《义注》说明了这一点，即使他在第四天日落时使用神通悬浮在军队上方坐著，他仍然满足这一因素。
Perception as to whether more than three consecutive nights have actually passed is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).	对于是否实际上已经过去了连续三个以上夜晚的感知并不是这里的减轻惩罚因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
Non-offenses	不犯
There is no offense in staying longer than three nights if they are not consecutive, or in staying longer than three consecutive nights:	待超过三晚（如果不是连续的）或待超过连续三晚（以下情况）均不构成犯戒：
if one is ill or caring for someone else who is ill;	如果自己生病了或照顾生病的人；
if the army is surrounded by opposing forces (so that the road out is blocked, says the Commentary);	如果军队被敌军包围（以至于出路被堵塞，《义注》说）；
if one is being constrained (either by the army or its opponents, says the Commentary); or	如果受到限制（无论是被军队还是其敌对者，《义注》说）；或者
if there are other dangers (which the Commentary in many other non-offense clauses defines as dangers to one’s life or one’s celibacy).	如果有其他危险（《义注》中许多其他不犯条款将其定义为对生命或梵行生活的危险）。
Summary: Staying more than three consecutive nights with an army on active duty, unless one has a suitable reason to be there, is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：除非有适当的理由，否则在值勤军队中连续待超过三个晚上，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。

* * *

50	五十
If a bhikkhu staying two or three nights with an army should go to a battlefield, a roll call, the troops in battle formation, or to see a review of the (battle) units, it is to be confessed.	如果一个比丘在军队中停留两三个晚上，并且去了战场、点名、观看战斗队形部队或观看（战斗）部队检阅，波逸提。
“Then a certain group-of-six bhikkhu, having gone to the battlefield, was pierced by an arrow. People made fun of him: ‘We hope (the battle) was well fought, venerable sir. How many points did you get? (§)’”	「尔时，六群比丘前往战场，却被箭射中。人们取笑他：『希望这场战斗打得不错，大德。您得了多少分？（§）』」
A battlefield, according to the Vibhaṅga and Commentary here, is a place where actual fighting may be seen; according to the Commentary to the Brahmajāla Suttanta, it is a place where war games are held. Both interpretations seem valid, especially considering the organized and decorous nature of warfare in those days.	战场，根据这里的《分别经》及《义注》，是可以看到实际战斗的地方；而根据《梵网经》的《义注》，是进行战争游戏的地方。这两种解释似乎都成立，尤其是考虑到当时战争的组织性和庄严性。
The Commentary also says that a review of battle units can mean anything down to a review of a single unit.	《义注》还指出，对战斗部队的检阅可以包含对单一部队的检阅。
Roll call and troops in battle formation are self-explanatory.	点名和战斗队形部队都是不言自明的。
DN 1 mentions all four of these activities as forms of entertainment. From this, using the Great Standards, we may say that any show the armed forces put on for the public—parades, air shows, etc.—would also fall under this factor.	《长部》1经将这四种活动都列为娱乐形式。由此，根据《四大教示》，我们可以说，武装部队为公众举办的任何表演——阅兵、飞航展等等——也都属于此因素。
Notice that these activities fulfill this factor even if they do not include the full array of forces that one would find in a field army or similar large military unit. In other words, a bhikkhu staying with the army would incur the full penalty here for watching these activities even if they involve only a small segment of a single division. If he is not staying with the army, though, then under Pc 48 he would incur a pācittiya for watching these activities if they contain the full complement of artillery, armored, airborne, and infantry forces; and a dukkaṭa if they contain only a segment.	请注意，即使这些活动并非像野战军或类似的大型军事单位那样，全部兵力参与，也符合此条件。换句话说，如果比丘待在军队中观看这些活动，即使只涉及一个师的一小部分，他在此也会遭受全额惩罚。然而，如果他没有待在军队中，根据《波逸提》四八，如果军队中包括全部砲兵、装甲兵、空降兵和步兵，他将因观看这些活动而犯《波逸提》；如果只包括一部分，犯《突吉罗》。
Effort	努力
As with Pc 48, there is a dukkaṭa for every step one takes toward watching these activities, and a pācittiya for staying still and watching them.	正如《波逸提》四八一样，观看这些活动的所走每一步都会犯一次《突吉罗》，而静止不动地观看这些活动则犯《波逸提》。
Non-offenses	不犯
The Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses here are identical with those for Pc 48. In other words, there is no offense:	此处《经分别》的不犯条款与《波逸提》四八的条文相同。换句话说，不犯戒：
if, having gone on business, one happens to see any of these activities;	如果出差时碰巧看到这些活动；
if, staying within a monastery, one watches these activities;	如果待在寺院里，观看这些活动；
if an army comes to where one happens to be;	如果一支军队来到自己碰巧所在的地方；
if one meets an army coming from the opposite direction; or	如果遇到一支从对面来的军队；或者
if there are dangers.	如果有危险。
Summary: Going to a battlefield, a roll call, an array of troops in battle formation, or to see a review of the battle units while one is staying with an army is a pācittiya offense.	摘要：当待在军队中时，前往战场、点名、列队作战的部队、或观看战斗部队检阅，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。