波逸提

Six: The Alcoholic Drink Chapter 第六 饮谷酒品
51 五十一
The drinking of alcohol or fermented liquor is to be confessed.
饮酒或发酵酒，波逸提。
“Then Ven. Sāgata went to the hermitage of the coiled-hair ascetic of Ambatittha, and on arrival—having entered the fire building and arranged a grass mat—sat down cross-legged with his body erect and mindfulness to the fore. The nāga (living in the fire building) saw that Ven. Sāgata had entered and, on seeing him, was upset, disgruntled, and emitted smoke. Ven. Sāgata emitted smoke. The nāga, unable to bear his rage, blazed up. Ven. Sāgata, entering the fire element, blazed up. Then Ven. Sāgata, having consumed the nāga’s fire with his own fire, left for Bhaddavatikā.
「其时，娑伽陀尊者前往安巴提达盘发苦行者的隐居处，到达后，他进入火舍，铺好草席，盘腿而坐，端正身躯，将正念置于前。龙众（住在火舍中）看到娑伽陀尊者进来，见状感到不安、不满，并喷出烟雾。娑伽陀尊者也喷出烟雾。彼龙不胜怒而放出火焰。娑伽陀尊者入于火界三昧，也放出火焰。娑伽陀尊者以自己的火焰烧尽彼龙之火焰，然后前往跋陀越邑。
“Then the Blessed One, having stayed at Bhaddavatikā as long as he liked, left on a walking tour to Kosambī. The lay followers of Kosambī heard, ‘They say that Ven. Sāgata did battle with the Ambatittha nāga!’
「时，世尊在跋陀越邑随意住宿，然后步行前往憍赏弥。憍赏弥的优婆塞们听说：『据说娑伽陀尊者曾与跋陀越邑的龙战斗过！』
“Then the Blessed One, having toured by stages, came to Kosambī. The Kosambī lay followers, after welcoming the Blessed One, went to Ven. Sāgata and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there they said to him, ‘What, venerable sir, is something the masters like that is hard for you to get? What can we prepare for you?’
「世尊次第游行后，来到了憍赏弥。憍赏弥的优婆塞们迎接世尊后，前往娑伽陀尊者处。到达后，他们向他顶礼，并在一旁坐下。坐下后，他们对他说：『大德，尊师们有什么喜好且难以得到之物吗？我们可以为您准备什么吗？』
“When this was said, some group-of-six bhikkhus said to the Kosambī lay followers, ‘Friends, there is a strong liquor called pigeon’s liquor (the color of pigeons’ feet, according to the Commentary) that the bhikkhus like and is hard for them to get. Prepare that.’
「如是言时，六群比丘对憍赏弥的优婆塞们说道：『朋友们，有一种烈酒叫鸽子酒（根据《义注》，鸽子脚的颜色），比丘们都喜欢，但很难得到。准备那个吧。』
“Then the Kosambī lay followers, having prepared pigeon’s liquor in house after house, and seeing that Ven. Sāgata had gone out for alms, said to him, ‘Master Sāgata, drink some pigeon’s liquor! Master Sāgata, drink some pigeon’s liquor!’ Then Ven. Sāgata, having drunk pigeon’s liquor in house after house, passed out at the city gate as he was leaving the city.
「于是，憍赏弥的优婆塞们家家户户地准备了鸽子酒，看到娑伽陀尊者出去托钵，就对他说：『娑伽陀尊者，喝点鸽子酒吧！娑伽陀尊者，喝点鸽子酒吧！』娑伽陀尊者家家户户地喝完鸽子酒后，出城时，倒卧在城门口。
“Then the Blessed One, leaving the city with a number of bhikkhus, saw that Ven. Sāgata had passed out at the city gate. On seeing him, he addressed the bhikkhus, saying, ‘Bhikkhus, pick up Sāgata.’
「那时，世尊与一群比丘离开城市，看到娑伽陀尊者倒卧在城门口。见到他后，世尊对比丘们说：『比丘们，扶持娑伽陀。』
“Responding, ‘As you say, venerable sir,’ the bhikkhus took Ven. Sāgata to the monastery and laid him down with his head toward the Blessed One. Then Ven. Sāgata turned around and went to sleep with his feet toward the Blessed One. So the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying, ‘In the past, wasn’t Sāgata respectful to the Tathāgata and deferential?’
「答道：『如你所言，世尊。』比丘们把娑伽陀尊者带回寺院，让他头朝向世尊躺下。然后娑伽陀尊者转过身去，双脚朝向世尊，继续睡著了。世尊便对比丘们说道：『过去，娑伽陀对如来不是恭敬顺从的吗？』
“‘Yes, venerable sir.’
「『是的，世尊。』
“‘But is he respectful to the Tathāgata and deferential now?’
「『但他现在对如来还恭敬恭顺吗？』
“‘No, venerable sir.’
「『不，世尊。』
“‘And didn’t Sāgata do battle with the Ambatittha nāga?’
「『娑伽陀不是和安巴提达之龙战斗过吗？』
“‘Yes, venerable sir.’
「『是的，世尊。』
“‘But could he do battle with even a salamander now?’
「『但是他现在能和即使一只蝾螈战斗吗？』
“‘No, venerable sir.’”
「『不，世尊。』」
(§—Reading deḍḍubhena-pi with the Thai and Sri Lankan versions of the Canon.)
（§—泰国版和斯里兰卡版的《圣典》拼读为 deḍḍubhena-pi 。）
Object 对象
Alcohol means any alcoholic beverage made from grain, yeast, or any combination of ingredients. Examples now would include whiskey, beer, vodka, and gin. Fermented liquor means any alcoholic beverage made from flowers, fruits, honey, sugar, or any combination of ingredients. Examples now would include wine, mead, and rum. Together, the two terms are meant to cover all kinds of alcoholic beverages. 酒精是指任何由谷物、酵母或任何成分组合制成的酒精饮料。现在的例子包括威士忌、啤酒、伏特加和金酒。发酵酒是指任何由花、水果、蜂蜜、糖或任何成分组合制成的酒精饮料。现在的例子包括葡萄酒、蜂蜜酒和兰姆酒。这两个术语合在一起，旨在涵盖所有种类的酒精饮料。
There is some controversy as to what other substances would be included in this factor in line with the Great Standards. Because the Canon repeatedly criticizes alcohol on the grounds that it destroys one’s sense of shame, weakens one’s discernment, and can put one into a stupor—as happened to Ven. Sāgata—it seems reasonable to extend this rule to other intoxicants, narcotics, and hallucinogens as well. Thus things like marijuana, hashish, heroin, cocaine, and LSD would fulfill this factor. Coffee, tea, tobacco, and betel do not have this effect, though, so there is no reason to include them here. 关于哪些其他物质符合《四大教示》，也应纳入此因素，存在一些争议。由于《圣典》一再批评酒精，认为它会损害人的羞耻感，削弱人的辨识力，并可能使人神智不清——就像娑伽陀尊者所遭遇的那样——因此，将这一戒条扩展到其他麻醉品、麻醉剂和致幻剂似乎也合情合理。因此，大麻、大麻树脂、海洛因、古柯碱和迷幻药（LSD）等东西符合此因素。然而，咖啡、茶、烟草和槟榔不具有这种效果，因此没有理由将它们纳入此处。
Perception as to whether a liquid counts as alcohol or liquor is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). Thus a bhikkhu drinking champagne that he thinks to be carbonated apple juice would fall under this factor, regardless of his ignorance. 对于某种液体是否属于酒精或含酒精饮料的感知，并非此处的减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。因此，如果一位比丘喝了他认为是碳酸苹果汁的香槟，那么无论他是否无知，都符合这一因素。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga defines drinking as taking even as little as the tip of a blade of grass. Thus taking a small glass of wine, even though it might not be enough to make one drunk, would be more than enough to fulfill this factor. 《经分别》将饮用定义为哪怕只喝一小片草尖。因此，喝一小杯酒，即使不足以让人醉，也足以满足这项条件。
The Vibhaṅga does not, however, indicate how offenses are to be counted here. According to the Commentary, the number of offenses involved in taking an alcoholic drink is determined by the number of separate sips. As for intoxicants taken by means other than sipping, each separate effort would count as an offense. 然而，《经分别》并未指明此处如何计算犯戒次数。根据《义注》，饮酒的犯戒次数取决於单独啜饮的次数。至于以啜饮以外的方式使用麻醉品，每次单独努力都算作一次犯戒。
Non-offenses 不犯
The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense in taking items that are non-alcoholic, but whose color, taste, or smell is like alcohol. Thus, for example, carbonated apple juice that resembles champagne would not be grounds for an offense. 《经分别》规定，饮用不含酒精但颜色、味道或气味类似酒精的饮品并不构成犯戒。例如，类似香槟的碳酸苹果汁不构成犯戒。
There is also no offense in taking alcohol “cooked in broth, meat, or oil.” The Commentary interprets the first two items as referring to sauces, stews, and meat dishes to which alcoholic beverages, such as wine, are added for flavoring before they are cooked. Because the alcohol would evaporate during the cooking, it would have no intoxicating effect. Foods containing unevaporated alcohol—such as rum babas—would not be included under this allowance. 饮用「用肉汤、肉或油烹调的」酒类也不犯戒。《义注》将前两项解释为酱汁、炖菜和肉类菜肴，在烹饪前会加入诸如葡萄酒等酒精饮料调味。由于酒精会在烹调过程中挥发，因此不会产生醉人效果。含有未挥发酒精的食物（例如兰姆巴巴）不在此开缘之列。
As for alcohol cooked in oil, this refers to a medicine used in the Buddha’s time for afflictions of the “wind element.” The Mahāvagga (VI.14.1) allows this medicine for internal use only as long as the taste, color, and smell of the alcohol are not perceptible. From this point, the Vinaya-mukha argues that morphine and other narcotics used as pain killers are allowable as well. 至于油里煮的酒，指的是佛陀时代用来治疗「风大」不调的药物。《大品》（六.14.1）规定，这种药物只能内服，但酒的味道、颜色和气味必须无法察觉。从这一点来看，《戒律入口》认为吗啡和其他用于止痛的麻醉剂也是可以允许的。
In addition, the non-offense clauses state, “With regard to molasses and emblic myrobalan, (there is no offense) if he drinks unfermented ariṭṭha.” The Commentary explains this as follows: “There is no offense for non-alcoholic ariṭṭha. They reportedly make ariṭṭha with the juice of such fruits as emblic myrobalan, which has the color, smell, and taste of alcohol but is not alcoholic: This is what is meant. That which has the starter thrown in, however, is alcoholic, and even the mother (of this kind of ariṭṭha) is unallowable.” 此外，不犯条款规定：「至于糖蜜和余甘子，如果他饮用未发酵的 ariṭṭha ，（不犯戒）。」《义注》对此解释如下：「不含酒精的 ariṭṭha 不犯戒。据说他们用诸如余甘子等水果的汁液制作 ariṭṭha ，有酒的颜色、气味和味道，但不含酒精：这就是它的意思。然而，加入发酵剂者含有酒精，即使（这种 ariṭṭha 的）母体也是不允许的。」
Summary: Taking an intoxicant is a pācittiya offense regardless of whether one is aware that it is an intoxicant. 摘要：服用麻醉物是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪，无论是否知道它是麻醉物。
* * *
52 五十二
Tickling with the fingers is to be confessed.
用手指搔痒，波逸提。
“Now at that time some group-of-six bhikkhus were making one of the group of seventeen laugh by tickling him with their fingers. Convulsed with laughter and unable to catch his breath, he died.”
「其时，六群比丘，用手指挠十七群比丘中的一位，逗得他哈哈大笑。他笑得浑身抽搐，喘不过气来，就死了。」
There are three factors for the full offense here. 这里的完全违犯有三个因素。
1) Object: another bhikkhu. 1）对象：另一位比丘。
2) Effort: One touches any part of his body with any part of one’s own body 2）努力：用自己身体的任何部位触碰他的身体的任何部位
3) Intention: for fun. 3）意图：为了好玩。
Object 对象
A bhikkhu is grounds for a pācittiya here; any unordained person, grounds for a dukkaṭa. The Vibhaṅga does not say whether unordained here includes bhikkhunīs. The Commentary states explicitly that it does, adding that a bhikkhu looking for a little fun can tickle a bhikkhunī without incurring a penalty stronger than a dukkaṭa. There are occasional attempts at humor in the Commentary, and we can probably write this off as one of them. 比丘在此构成《波逸提》；任何未受具足戒者，构成《突吉罗》。《经分别》并未说此处的未受具足戒是否包括比丘尼。《义注》明确指出，包括比丘尼，并补充说，想找点乐子的比丘可以搔比丘尼痒，而不会遭受比《突吉罗》更重的惩罚。《义注》中偶尔会有一些幽默的尝试，我们或许可以把这算作其中之一。
Perception as to whether the person being tickled is ordained is irrelevant to the offense (see Pc 42). 被搔痒的人是否受过具足戒的感知与犯戒无关（参阅《波逸提》四二）。
Effort 努力
This factor is fulfilled only by body-to-body contact, as defined at length under Sg 2. The following actions, if done with the intent of making the other person laugh, would be grounds for a dukkaṭa here regardless of whether the person was ordained or not: 这一因素仅透过身体对身体的接触才能满足，如《僧残》二中详细定义的那样。如果以逗别人笑为目的而做出以下行为，则无论该人是否受具足戒，在此都构成《突吉罗》：
using an item connected with the body—such as a stick—to poke at the person;
使用与身体相连的物品（例如棍子）来戳人；
touching an item connected with the other person’s body;
触摸与他人身体相连的物品；
tossing or dropping things on the other person.
向他人投掷或降落物品。
Intention 意图
If one has legitimate motives for touching the other person aside from a desire for fun, there is no penalty in doing so. Thus a bhikkhu massaging another bhikkhu’s tired back commits no offense if he inadvertently happens to touch a spot where the other bhikkhu is ticklish. However, touching another bhikkhu in anger would come under Pc 74. 如果除了为了好玩之外，有正当动机触碰他人，则这样做不会受到任何惩罚。例如，一位比丘在按摩另一位比丘疲惫的背部时，如果无意中触碰到了另一位比丘怕痒的部位，则不构成犯戒。然而，愤怒地触碰另一位比丘则算在《波逸提》七四。
Summary: Tickling another bhikkhu is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：搔其他比丘痒是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
53 五十三
The act of playing in the water is to be confessed.
在水中玩耍的行为，波逸提。
Here again, the factors for the full offense are three. 此处再次，构成完全违犯的因素有三。
1) Effort: One jumps up or down, splashes, or swims 1）努力：跳起或跳下、溅起水花或游泳
2) Object: in water deep enough to immerse one’s ankle 2）对象：水深足以浸没脚踝
3) Intention: for fun. 3）意图：为了好玩。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga is silent on how to count offenses under this rule. According to the Commentary, each individual effort counts as a separate offense. Thus if one is swimming for fun, one incurs a pācittiya for each hand or foot stroke. 《经分别》并没有说明如何根据这条戒条计算犯戒。根据《义注》，每一次单独的努力都算作一次单独的犯戒。因此，如果只是为了好玩而游泳，那么每次划手或划脚都犯一次《波逸提》。
Perception as to whether one’s actions count as “playing in the water” is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 关于自己的行为是否算作「在水中玩耍」的感知在这里并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
Object 对象
Jumping up or down in water less than ankle deep entails a dukkaṭa, as does splashing water with the hands, feet, a stick, or a piece of tile; or playing with water or other liquids—such as rice gruel, milk, buttermilk, colored dyes, urine, or mud—in a vessel. 在水深不到脚踝的水中跳上跳下犯《突吉罗》，用手、脚、棍子或瓷砖溅起水花也一样；或玩在容器中的水或其他液体（如米粥、牛奶、酪乳、彩色染料、尿液或泥浆）。
The Vibhaṅga states that there is also a dukkaṭa for playing in a boat. This the Commentary illustrates with examples: such things as paddling a boat with an oar, propelling it with a pole, or pushing it up on shore. At present, sailing a sailboat or steering a motorboat would come under this factor. 《经分别》指出，在船上玩耍也犯《突吉罗》。《义注》举例说明了这一点：例如用桨划船、用篙撑船、或将船推上岸。目前，驾驶帆船或驾驶摩托艇都算在此因素之下。
Intention 意图
The Vibhaṅga defines this factor as “for a laugh” (hassādhippāyo), which the Commentary translates as “for fun” or “for sport” (kiḷādhippāyo). 《经分别》将此因素定义为「为了笑」（hassādhippāyo），《义注》将其翻译为「为了好玩」或「为了运动」（kiḷādhippāyo）。
The question of swimming for fitness or exercise is not discussed in any of the texts and seems to have been virtually unheard of in Asia until recent times. Swimming in most Asian countries has long been regarded as a childish form of play, and the one mention in the Canon of athletic bhikkhus keeping their bodies in strong shape is disparaging. In the origin story to Sg 8, Ven. Dabba Mallaputta assigned separate dwellings to different groups of bhikkhus—those who studied the suttas, those who studied the Vinaya, those who meditated, etc.—and, finally, “for those bhikkhus who lived indulging in animal talk and keeping their bodies in strong shape, he assigned dwellings in the same place, ‘So that even these venerable ones will stay as they like.’” Thus it does not seem likely that the Buddha would have recognized physical fitness as an appropriate reason for bhikkhus to go swimming. 游泳健身或锻炼身体的问题在任何文献中均未提及，而且似乎直到近代才在亚洲有所闻。在大多数亚洲国家，游泳一直被视为幼稚的玩乐形式，而《圣典》中关于运动型比丘保持强健体魄的提及更是带有贬义。在《僧残》八的起源故事中，沓婆摩罗子尊者为不同群体的比丘——研习经藏的、研习律藏的、禅修的等等——分配了不同的住所，最后，「对于那些沉溺于畜生论并保持强健体魄的比丘，他分配了同一住所，『以便连这些尊者，也都能随意居住。』」因此，佛陀似乎不太可能认可身体健康是比丘们去游泳的适当理由。
On the other hand, if a bhikkhu has a medical motive for swimming—e.g., he has injured his shoulder, and his doctor has recommended that he swim to help speed its healing—this would probably count as an instance of “having business to do in the water” and thus would come under the relevant non-offense clause. 另一方面，如果比丘游泳是为了医疗目的——例如，他的肩膀受伤了，他的医生建议他游泳以加速愈合——这或许可算作「在水中有事要做」的例子，因此算在相关的不犯条款之下。
Non-offenses. The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense in jumping in or out of the water, swimming, or using a boat— 不犯。《经分别》规定，跳入或跃出水面、游泳或使用船均不构成犯戒—
if one goes into the water not for fun but because one has business to do—examples would include bathing or helping a person who cannot swim;
如果下水不是为了好玩而是因为有事要做──例如洗澡或帮助不会游泳的人；
if one is crossing to the other shore of a body of water; or
如果正在穿越水域到另一边；或者
if there are dangers—e.g., one is escaping a fire or a wild beast.
如果有危险——例如，逃离火灾或野兽。
Summary: Jumping and swimming in the water for fun is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：为了好玩而在水中跳跃和游泳是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
54 五十四
Disrespect is to be confessed.
不尊重，波逸提。
This rule refers to cases where one has been admonished for one’s behavior. The factors for the full offense are two. 此戒条适用于因行为而受到训诫的情况。构成完全违犯的因素有二。
1) Effort: Having been admonished by a fellow bhikkhu who cites a rule formulated in the Vinaya, one shows disrespect 1）努力：被一位比丘同侪引用律藏里的戒条训诫时，表现出不敬。
2) Object: for the bhikkhu or for the rule. 2）对象：对比丘或对戒条。
We will discuss these factors in reverse order. 我们将按相反的顺序讨论这些因素。
Object 对象
Only if the bhikkhu cites a rule formulated in the Vinaya is this factor grounds for a pācittiya. If he criticizes one’s actions, citing standards of behavior for the sake of being “self-effacing, scrupulous, or inspiring; for lessening (defilement) or arousing energy” that are not formulated in the Vinaya, this factor becomes grounds for a dukkaṭa. The Commentary limits “not formulated” to teachings in the suttas and Abhidhamma, but there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to suggest that this is so. Its normal way of referring specifically to the suttas and mātikās (the basis for the Abhidhamma) is to say, “another Dhamma,” and so its choice of words here seems intended to include any principle, whether expressed in the other parts of the Canon or not, that aims at the goal of being self-effacing, etc. Thus any teaching devoted to such goals would be grounds for a dukkaṭa. 只有当比丘引用律藏中所制定的戒条时，此因素才构成《波逸提》的依据。如果他批评自己的行为，引用律藏中未明文规定的行为准则，以「谦逊、谨慎或鼓舞人心；减少（烦恼）或激发精进」为目的，则此因素构成《突吉罗》的依据。《义注》将「未明文规定」的范畴限定于经藏和阿毘达摩的教义，但《经分别》中没有任何内容显示这一点。它特别指经和论（阿毘达摩的基础）的通常方式是说「另一种法」，因此这里的措辞似乎意在包括任何原则，无论是否在经典的其他部分中表达，旨在实现谦逊等目标。因此，任何致力于此类目标的教学都将构成《突吉罗》的依据。
If the person admonishing one is not a bhikkhu, then regardless of whether he/she cites a rule in the Vinaya or standards for being self-effacing, etc., outside of the Vinaya, then the penalty for showing disrespect to that person is a dukkaṭa. 如果训诫者不是比丘，那么无论他/她引用的是律藏中的戒条，还是律藏之外的谦逊准则等，对那个人表示不尊重的惩罚是《突吉罗》。
Perception as to whether the person doing the admonishing is ordained is irrelevant to the offense (see Pc 42). 对于训诫者是否受过具足戒的感知，与犯戒无关（参阅《波逸提》四二）。
The validity of the admonition is not an issue here. Even if the other person is really an ignorant fool, has misinterpreted the rule, or has peculiar ideas on being self-effacing, etc., one should be careful not to show disrespect in word or deed. 劝诫的有效性在这里并不重要。即使对方真的是个无知的傻瓜，误解了戒条，或者对谦逊有自己独特的想法等等，也应该注意不要在言语或行为上表现出不尊重。
If one is being criticized against standards that have nothing to do with being self-effacing, etc., it would not be grounds for an offense. However, a wise policy would be to avoid showing disrespect for another person, regardless of the situation. 如果批评的标准与谦逊等无关，则不构成犯戒。然而，明智的做法是，无论情况如何，都应避免表现出对他人的不尊重。
Effort 努力
There are two possible targets for one’s disrespect—the person and the rule—and two ways of showing it: by word or by gesture. 不尊重有两个可能的对象——人和戒条——而表达不尊重的方式也有两种：言语或示意动作。
Disrespect for the person includes—
对人不尊重包括—
saying things that show disrespect in either a crude or subtle way, e.g., “Who are you to tell me?” “It’s presumptuous of you to pass judgment when you aren’t in my position,” “Your critical attitude shows that you have some messy emotional problems that you would be well-advised to look into,” “Get lost!” or “Go to hell!”
以粗鲁或微妙的方式说出表现出不尊重的话，例如「你是谁，凭什么告诉我？」「你没有站在我的立场上就妄加评判，这是很冒昧的」，「你的批判态度表明你有一些混乱的情绪问题，你最好去调查一下」，「滚开！」或「去死吧！」
or making a rude gesture or even a slight facial expression to show one’s contempt.
或者做出粗鲁的手势，甚至轻微的面部表情来表达自己的蔑视。
Disrespect for the rule includes—
对戒条不尊重包括—
saying, “That’s a stupid rule,” “That rule doesn’t apply to me”;
说「那是一条愚蠢的戒条」，「那条戒条不适用于我」；
stubbornly repeating the action for which one was admonished (this point is covered in Mv.IV.17.7-9);
固执地重复被训诫的行为（这点被涵盖在《大品》.四.17.7-9中）；
or making a rude gesture, saying, “This is what I think of that rule.”
或者做出粗鲁的示意动作，说「这就是我对该戒条的看法。」
None of the texts explicitly confine this factor to disrespect expressed in the person’s presence. Thus it would seem that if, as a result of the person’s comments, one expresses disrespect behind his or her back, it would fulfill this factor as well. 没有任何文献明确规定这一因素仅限于当面表达的不尊重。因此，如果因为对方的言论，导致在对方背后表达不尊重，似乎也满足这个因素。
Further action 进一步行动
If one persists in acting disrespectfully when being admonished, one may also be subject to Sg 12 or to suspension from the Community (see BMC2, Chapter 20). 如果在受到训诫时仍然坚持表现出不尊重的行为，则可能还会受到《僧残》十二的处罚或被僧团举罪（参见《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第二十章）。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if, being admonished, one states simply that one was taught differently by one’s teachers. (The precise words in the Vibhaṅga are, “Such is our teachers’ tradition and catechism.” (§)) The Commentary contains a discussion of which sort of teachers’ tradition is worthy of including in this exemption, but this seems to miss the point. If one can rightfully cite one’s teacher’s instruction as the reason for one’s behavior, then regardless of whether the teacher is right or wrong, such a citation would not count as disrespect. 如果在被训诫时，仅仅说自己的老师教得不一样，这并没有犯戒。（《经分别》的确切措辞是：「这就是我们老师的传统和教义。」（§））《义注》讨论了哪些老师的传统值得纳入这一豁免，但这似乎没有抓住要点。如果能够正确地引用自己老师的教导为自己行为的理由，那么无论老师是对是错，这样的引用都不算不尊重。
As Dhp 76 says, one should regard a person who points out one’s faults as a guide who points out hidden treasure. If one shows disrespect to such a guide, it is unlikely that he/she will feel inclined to point out any hidden treasure ever again. 正如《法句》七六所说，应该将指出自己过失的人视为指出宝藏的向导。如果对这样的向导不敬，那么他/她很可能永远不会再想指出任何宝藏。
A good example of how to receive admonishment was set by Ven. Ānanda during the First Council (Cv.XI.1.10). Although he was admonished for committing acts that the Buddha had not declared to be offenses, and although he did not see that he had committed any error, still he willingly confessed his actions as offenses so as to show good faith in his fellow bhikkhus. 阿难尊者在第一次结集（《小品》.十一.1.10）中树立了接受训诫的典范。尽管他因犯下佛陀未明示的罪行而受到训诫，尽管他并未意识到自己犯了任何过错，但他仍然愿意承认自己的行为是罪行，以向比丘同侪们展现诚意信心。
A related rule 相关戒条
Pc 71 covers the case of a bhikkhu who, trying to avoid an offense under this rule, uses a ploy to get out of altering his behavior in response to an admonition. For details, see the explanation under that rule. 《波逸提》七一涵盖比丘为了避免违反本戒条，使用计谋逃避因劝诫而改变行为的情况。详情请参阅该戒条的解释。
Summary: Speaking or acting disrespectfully after having been admonished by another bhikkhu for a breach of the training rules is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：在因违反学处而受到另一位比丘的训诫后，如果言语或行为不敬，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
55 五十五
Should any bhikkhu try to frighten another bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘试图惊吓另一位比丘，波逸提。
There are three factors for the full offense here. 这里的完全违犯有三个因素。
Intention 意图
One wants to frighten the other person. 想惊吓另一个人。
Effort 努力
One arranges a frightening sight, sound, smell, taste, or tactile sensation—this would include such things as hanging a sheet in a dark room so that it looks like a ghost, making a ghostly wail outside the person’s window, etc.—or one describes dangers from ghosts, robbers, or wild animals. 安排令人恐惧的视觉、听觉、嗅觉、味觉或触觉——这包括在黑暗的房间里挂一张床单，使它看起来像鬼魂，在人的窗外发出鬼哭狼嚎的声音等——或者描述鬼魂、强盗或野生动物的危险。
Object 对象
The other person is a bhikkhu. Anyone who is not a bhikkhu is grounds for a dukkaṭa. 另一个人是比丘。任何不是比丘的人都构成《突吉罗》。
Perception as to whether the person one is trying to frighten is ordained is irrelevant to the offense (see Pc 42). 至于试图惊吓的人是否受过具足戒的感知，则与犯戒无关（参阅《波逸提》四二）。
“Result” is not a factor here. If the three factors are fulfilled, one commits the offense regardless of whether the other person is actually frightened. 「结果」在这里不是一个因素。如果三个因素都满足，那么无论对方是否真的被惊吓到，都构成犯戒。
Non-offenses 不犯
To inform another person of dangers from ghosts, robbers, etc., without intending to frighten him/her constitutes no offense. The same exemption holds for arranging a sight, sound, smell, taste, or tactile sensation without the intention of causing fright. 告知他人鬼怪、盗贼等危险，而非有意惊吓他人，不构成犯戒。同样，营造视觉、听觉、嗅觉、味觉或触觉，而非有意惊吓他人，亦不构成犯戒。
Summary: Attempting to frighten another bhikkhu is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：试图惊吓另一位比丘是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
56 五十六
Should any bhikkhu who is not ill, seeking to warm himself, kindle a fire or have one kindled—unless there is a suitable reason—it is to be confessed.
如果任何无病的比丘，为了取暖而点火或让人点火——除非有适当的理由——波逸提。
“Now at that time, in the winter months, bhikkhus warmed themselves, having kindled a fire by a large hollow log. And in that hollow a cobra was scorched by the fire. Coming out, it sprang at the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus ran off every which way.”
「当时正值冬季，比丘们在一根空心的大木头旁生火取暖。木头洞里有一条眼镜蛇被火灼伤了。它窜出来，向比丘们扑去。比丘们四处逃窜。」
Here again the factors for the full offense are three. 再次，此处构成完全违犯的因素有三。
1) Object: One is not ill. 1）对象：自己没有生病。
2) Effort: One lights a fire or gets someone else to light one 2）努力：自己点火或让别人点火
3) Intention: for the purpose of warming oneself. 3）意图：以取暖为目的。
Object 对象
Not ill, in the context of this rule, means that one can fare comfortably without warming oneself. The Vibhaṅga makes the point that perception as to whether one is actually ill is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). What this means is that when it is chilly outside, one should be very sure that extra warmth is necessary for one’s health before lighting a fire to warm oneself. 在本戒条的脉络中，「无病」是指无需取暖即可舒适地生活。《经分别》指出，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）。这意味著，当外面很冷时，在生火取暖之前，应该非常确定额外的保暖对健康是必要的。
Effort 努力
Lighting a fire at present would include turning on the flame in a heating system in one’s dwelling for the sake of the warmth. Solar or electric heating systems, which do not use flames, would not be included here. 目前，生火包括为了取暖而打开住处供暖系统的火焰。不使用火焰的太阳能或电加热系统不在此列。
Getting a fire lit, according to the Vibhaṅga, means ordering another person to light a fire. Thus there is apparently room for kappiya-vohāra under this rule, as long as one’s suggestion for lighting a fire not be an express command. 根据《经分别》，「令点火」意味著命令他人点火。因此，只要点火的建议不是明确的命令，这条戒条下显然就有 kappiya-vohāra 的空间。
If, when not ill, one orders someone else to light a fire (or fires) for the purpose of warming oneself, there is a pācittiya in making the order, and another pācittiya when the other person lights the fire(s), regardless of how many fires are lit as a result of the one order. To return a burning piece of fuel to a fire is grounds for a dukkaṭa; adding new fuel to a fire—according to the Commentary—is grounds for a pācittiya. 如果在无病的情况下，为了取暖而命令别人生火，那么发出命令时会犯一次《波逸提》，而当别人生火时，无论因这个命令而生了多少火，犯另一次《波逸提》。将燃烧的燃料放回火中构成《突吉罗》；根据《义注》，往火中添加新的燃料构成《波逸提》。
Intention 意图
There is no offense if one lights a fire or has one lit for purposes other than warming oneself. Thus one may light a lamp or light a fire to boil water, burn dead leaves, or fire an alms bowl without penalty. Cv.V.32.1 says that if a forest fire is approaching one’s dwelling, one may light a counter-fire to ward off its approach. In other circumstances, though, Pc 10 would impose a penalty for lighting a fire on top of “live” soil; and Pc 11 would impose a further penalty for damaging plant life. 如果出于取暖以外的目的而生火或让人生火，则不构成犯戒。因此，们可以点灯或点火烧水、烧枯叶或烧钵，而不会受到惩罚。《小品》.五.32.1 说，如果森林大火正在逼近住所，可以点燃逆火以阻止火势蔓延。不过，在其他情况下，《波逸提》十规定，在「活」土壤上生火会受到惩罚；《波逸提》十一规定，破坏植物生命会受到进一步惩罚。
Non-offenses 不犯
In addition, there is no offense in warming oneself at raked-out coals or at a fire lit by someone else (not at one’s request). And there is no offense in lighting a fire when there are dangers. This, the Commentary says, refers to cases when one is bitten by a snake (and wants to make the snake-bite medicine mentioned under Pc 40), when one is surrounded by robbers, or disturbed by non-human beings or beasts of prey. 此外，用耙出的煤块或他人点燃的火（非本人要求）取暖也不犯戒。在危险的情况下生火也不犯戒。《义注》指出，这指的是被蛇咬伤（并想制作《波逸提》四十中提到的蛇咬药）、被强盗包围或被非人或猛兽骚扰的情况。
Cv.V.14.1 allows bhikkhus to use a “fire hall (§),” similar to a sauna at present, for the purpose of inducing perspiration for health reasons. According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense in lighting a fire in a place such as this. 《小品》.五.14.1 允许比丘使用类似现在桑拿房的「火堂」（§），以促进排汗，从而达到保健目的。根据《经分别》，在这样的地方生火并无犯戒。
The purpose of this rule is suggested by AN 5:219, which lists the five disadvantages of sitting around a fire: It is bad for one’s eyes, bad for one’s skin, bad for one’s strength, and (most importantly, in this context) groups tend to form (that can turn into factions), and they spend their time in animal talk. 这条戒条的目的由《增支部》5:219经提出，其中列出了围坐在火堆旁的五个缺点：对眼睛有害、对皮肤有害、对体力有害，并且（最重要的是，在这种脉络下）容易形成团体（可能变成派系），他们会把时间花在畜生论上。
Summary: Lighting a fire to warm oneself—or having it lit—when one does not need the warmth for one’s health is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：当不需要温暖来保持健康时，点火取暖或让人点火是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
57 五十七
Should any bhikkhu bathe at intervals of less than half a month, except at the proper occasions, it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: the last month and a half of the hot season, the first month of the rains, these two and a half months being a time of heat, a time of fever; (also) a time of illness; a time of work; a time of going on a journey; a time of wind or rain. These are the proper occasions here.
若任何比丘在非适当时间，每隔少于半个月沐浴一次，波逸提。这里适当时间如下：热季的最后一个半月，雨季的第一个月，这两个半月是热时，暑时；（也是）生病的时候；工作的时候；旅行的时候；刮风或下雨的时候。这些是此处适当的时间。
“Now at that time bhikkhus were bathing in the hot spring (at Rājagaha). Then King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha, having gone to the hot spring (with the thought), ‘I will bathe my head,’ waited to one side, (thinking,) ‘I will wait as long as the masters are bathing.’ The bhikkhus bathed until nightfall.
「其时，比丘们正在（王舍城）温泉沐浴。摩竭陀国的斯尼耶频毘娑罗王来到温泉（心想）：『我要沐浴头部。』他站在一旁等待（心想）：『只要大师们在沐浴，我就等著。』比丘们一直沐浴到夜幕降临。
“Then King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha, after having bathed his head at the wrong time (night)—the gates of the city being closed—spent the night outside the city walls…. (The Buddha learned of the incident and rebuked the bhikkhus:) ‘How can you worthless men, even though you saw the king, bathe not knowing moderation?’”
「然后，摩竭陀国的斯尼耶频毘娑罗王在错误的时间（夜间）沐浴他的头部后，城门关闭，于是便在城外过夜……（佛陀得知此事后呵责比丘们：）『你们这些愚人，即使见到国王，怎么还不知道适度沐浴呢？』」
The original formulation of this rule—with no allowance for “proper occasions”—seems to have been intended as a temporary disciplinary measure for the bhikkhus who had inconvenienced the king. (There was a similar temporary rule, against eating mangoes (Cv.V.5.1), that the Buddha formulated when King Bimbisāra had invited the bhikkhus to help themselves to his mangoes, and some group-of-six bhikkhus went and took all the mangoes in his park, even the unripe ones. The rule was later rescinded (Cv.V.5.2) when the Buddha allowed bhikkhus to eat any and all fruit as long as it was allowable in any of the five ways mentioned under Pc 11.) 这条戒条的最初制定——没有「适当时间」的开缘——似乎是针对那些给国王带来不便的比丘们的临时惩戒措施。（佛陀也曾制定过一条类似的临时戒律，禁止食用芒果（《小品》.五.5.1）。当时频毘娑罗王邀请比丘们随意享用他的芒果，结果有六群比丘去把王园里所有的芒果都吃光了，连未熟的也吃光了。后来，佛陀允许比丘吃任何水果，只要符合《波逸提》十一中提到的五种方式中的任何一种是允许的，这条戒条就被废除了（《小品》.五.5.2）。）
As for this rule: Once the proper occasions were added, they relaxed it considerably. For instance: 至于这条戒条：一旦增加了适当的时间，他们就大大放宽了。例如：
a time of illness is any time when one does not feel comfortable without bathing;
生病的时候是指不沐浴就觉得不舒服的任何时候；
a time of work can involve as little work as sweeping out the yard of one’s dwelling (§);
工作的时候可以只是清扫自家院子那么简单（§）；
a time of going on a journey is whenever one is about to go, is going, or has gone on a trip of at least half a yojana (approximately 5 miles/8 kilometers);
旅行的时候是指即将出发、正在出发或已经出发至少半由旬（约 5 英哩/8 公里）的旅程；
a time of wind and rain is whenever a dusty wind blows and at least two or three drops of rain fall on one’s body.
刮风或下雨的时候，就是刮起一阵尘土飞扬的风，及至少落下两三滴雨到身上。
In addition, Mv.V.13 tells the story of Ven. Mahā Kaccāna’s leaving the middle Ganges Valley and settling in Avantī, to the south. After some time, one of his students—Ven. Soṇa Kuṭikaṇṇa—asked permission to visit the Buddha. Ven. Mahā Kaccāna gave his permission, together with a request to convey to the Buddha: that certain rules inappropriate for areas outside of the Ganges Valley—this rule among them—be rescinded for bhikkhus living in outlying districts. The Buddha complied with the request and defined the outlying districts in such a way that there is nowhere in the world outside of the middle Ganges Valley where this rule applies. 此外，《大品》.五.13 也讲述了摩诃迦旃延尊者离开恒河中游，定居于南边的阿槃提的故事。一段时间后，他的一位弟子——首楼那亿耳尊者——请求准许去拜见佛陀。摩诃迦旃延尊者同意了，但他同时请求转告佛陀：一些不适用于恒河流域以外地区的戒条——其中包括这条戒条——对于居住在边远地区的比丘来说，应予以废除。佛陀遵从了该请求，并划定了边远地区的范围，使得世界上除恒河中游地区外，没有任何地方适用这条戒条。
Offenses 犯戒
For those who live in the middle Ganges Valley, the offenses for bathing more frequently than once a fortnight outside of the proper occasions are these: a dukkaṭa for every time one scrubs oneself with chunam (bathing powder) or clay (soap), and a pācittiya when one has finished bathing. 对于居住在恒河中游者来说，在适当时间之外每半个月沐浴超过一次的犯戒如下：每次用 chunam （沐浴粉）或黏土（肥皂）擦身体犯一次《突吉罗》，沐浴完毕犯一次《波逸提》。
Perception as to whether a fortnight has actually passed is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 对于半个月是否真的已经过去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
In addition to the allowances to bathe more frequently than once a fortnight during the proper occasions or in areas outside the middle Ganges Valley, there is no offense in bathing more frequently if one is crossing a river or if there are dangers. This last allowance the Commentary explains with an example: One is being chased by bees and so jumps into the water to escape them. 除了在适当时间或在恒河中游以外的地区允许每半个月沐浴一次以上之外，如果要过河或遇到危险，更频繁地沐浴也无犯戒。《义注》举例解释了最后一种开缘：被蜜蜂追赶，于是跳入水中躲避。
Summary: Bathing more frequently than once a fortnight when residing in the middle Ganges Valley, except on certain occasions, is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：居住在恒河中游地区时，除特定场合外，每半个月沐浴超过一次，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
58 五十八
When a bhikkhu receives a new robe, any one of three means of discoloring it is to be applied: green, brown, or black. If a bhikkhu should make use of a new robe without applying any of the three means of discoloring it, it is to be confessed.
当比丘收到一件新袈裟时，可以用三种方法之一来作坏色：绿色、棕色或黑色。如果比丘使用新袈裟时没有使用上述三种方法作坏色，波逸提。
“Now at that time many bhikkhus and wanderers were traveling from Sāketa to Sāvatthī. On the way, thieves came out and robbed them. Royal officials, coming out of Sāvatthī and capturing the thieves with the goods, sent a messenger to the bhikkhus, saying, ‘Come, your reverences. Let each identify his own robes and take them.’ The bhikkhus couldn’t identify their robes. People criticized and complained and spread it about, ‘How can their reverences not identify their own robes?’”
「其时，许多比丘和游方者从沙祇前往舍卫城。途中，盗贼出没，劫掠了他们。王国官员从舍卫城出来，擒获了盗贼和财物，便派使者去见比丘，说道：「诸大德，来吧，各认各的袈裟，带走。」比丘们认不出自己的袈裟。人们纷纷批评、抱怨，并四处散播：『诸大德怎么会认不出自己的袈裟呢？』」
Protocol 行仪
As this rule indicates, a bhikkhu should wear robes only that have been marked with an identifying mark. The Vibhaṅga does not go into any great detail on procedures for marking a robe, aside from saying that the mark may be as small as the tip of a blade of grass, and can be made with any of the colors mentioned in the rule. (The color green in Pali also covers the color blue, so a mark made with blue ink would be acceptable.) 正如这条戒条所示，比丘只能穿著带有识别标记的袈裟。《经分别》并未详细阐述在袈裟上做标记的步骤，只是说标记可以小到草尖，并且可以用戒条中提到的任何颜色来标记。（巴利语中的绿色也涵盖蓝色，因此用蓝墨水做的标记是可以接受的。）
The Commentary goes into more detail: After the robe has been dyed, one should make a round mark no smaller than the size of a bedbug’s back and no larger than the iris of a peacock’s eye in all four corners of the robe, three corners, two, or one, as one sees fit. Only round marks are allowable. Such things as lines or angular marks (squares, triangles, or stars) are not. Because these prohibitions have no basis in the Canon or the Great Standards, they are not binding. 《义注》对此进行了更详细的阐述：袈裟染色后，应在袈裟的四个角（三个角、两个角或一个角，视情况而定）上，做一个不小于臭虫背部大小、不大于孔雀眼虹膜大小的圆形标记。只允许做圆形标记。不允许做线状或有角的标记（正方形、三角形或星形）。由于这些禁令在《圣典》或《四大教示》中均无依据，因此不具约束力。
As the Vibhaṅga notes, once the robe has been marked there is no need to mark it again, even if the mark wears off, the marked part of the robe gets worn through age, one sews a marked cloth together with an unmarked one, or one patches, darns, or adds a hem to a marked robe. If Bhikkhu X marks a robe and then gives it to Bhikkhu Y, Y may wear it without having to mark it again. 《分别论》指出，一旦袈裟上有标记，就无需再标记。即使标记磨损，或标记部分因时间久远而磨损，或将标记的布料与未标记的布料缝合在一起，或为标记的袈裟打补丁、缝补或加边，也无需再次标记。如果比丘 X 在袈裟上做了标记，然后将其给予比丘 Y ，Y 可以穿著它，而无需再次标记。
In Thailand at present, the custom is to make three small dots in one corner of the robe, saying, “Imaṁ bindu-kappaṁ karomi,” (I make this properly marked) while making each dot. This procedure does not appear in the Canon or commentaries, but does not conflict with any of them. 泰国目前的习俗是在袈裟的一角点三个小点，每点一个，都要说「Imaṁ bindu-kappaṁ karomi」（我适当地标记之）。此做法并未见于《圣典》或注释书，但与它们也并不冲突。
The factors for the offense here are two: object—a new robe; and effort—one makes use of it without first marking it. 这里的犯戒因素有两个：对象——一件新袈裟；以及努力——在没有先标记的情况下使用它。
Object 对象
According to the Vibhaṅga, a new robe here is one made out of any of the six kinds of robe-cloth and not yet marked. Thus an unmarked cloth kept for a long time is still regarded as new. The Commentary, noting that the Vibhaṅga does not qualify robe as including even the smallest cloth that can be placed under shared ownership, concludes that robe in the context of this rule refers specifically to completed robes that can be worn over the shoulders or around the waist—i.e., lower robes, upper robes, outer robes, rains-bathing cloths, skin-eruption covering cloths—and not to ordinary pieces of cloth or other cloth items such as sitting cloths, handkerchiefs, or shoulder bags. Any cloth requisite that is not a robe in this sense is not grounds for an offense. Shoulder cloths (aṁsa) were not worn in the time of the Commentary but would seem to fall under this factor, as would any other item a bhikkhu might wear around his body. 根据《经分别》，此处的新袈裟是指用六种袈裟布中的任一种制成且未作标记的袈裟。因此，即使未作标记的布长期保存，也被视为新的。《义注》指出，《经分别》并未将袈裟定义为哪怕是最小的、可至于共享所有权之下的布料，并得出结论：本戒条脉络中的袈裟特指可披于肩上或围于腰间的成品袈裟，即下衣、上衣、外衣、雨浴衣、覆疮布，而非指普通的布片或其他布制物品，例如坐垫、手帕或肩包。任何非此种意义上的袈裟的布料用品均不构成犯戒。在《义注》的时代，人们并不穿戴肩布（aṁsa），但似乎属于这一因素，就像比丘可能穿戴在身上的任何其他物品一样。
Perception as to whether the robe has actually been marked is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 对于袈裟上是否真的有标记的感知并不是这里的减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga defines this factor with the verb “use” (paribhuñjati), while the K/Commentary is more specific in saying that this factor is fulfilled when one wears the robe over the shoulders or around the waist. Because the mark is to be added only after the robe is dyed, this factor does not cover such things as trying on a new robe while it is being sewn but has yet to be dyed. 《经分别》用动词「使用」（paribhuñjati）来定义此因素，而 K/《义注》则更明确地指出，当将袈裟披在肩上或围在腰间时，这一因素就被满足。由于标记只能在袈裟染色后添加，因此这一因素并不涵盖诸如袈裟正在缝制但尚未染色时试穿之类的情况。
Non-offenses 不犯
As noted above, there is no offense— 如上所述，不构成犯戒——
in using a robe that has been properly marked;
使用已被适当地标记的袈裟；
in using a robe whose mark has worn off (as in washing); or
使用标记已磨损的袈裟（如洗涤后）；或
in using a robe whose marked corner has been torn off or otherwise destroyed.
使用其标记角已被撕掉或以其他方式损坏的袈裟。
There is also no need to re-mark a marked robe if one sews it together with an unmarked piece of cloth, or if one patches it, darns it, or adds a new hem to it. 如果将有标记的袈裟与没有标记的布缝在一起，或对其进行打补丁、缝补或加新边，也无需重新标记。
The K/Commentary, arguing from the allowance for makeshift robes under NP 6, states that if one’s robes have been snatched away, destroyed, etc., one may wear an unmarked piece of cloth without committing an offense. K/《义注》从《舍堕》六允许穿著临时袈裟的角度进行论证，指出如果袈裟被抢走、毁坏等，则可以穿著一块没有标记的布而不会犯戒。
Summary: Wearing an unmarked robe is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：穿著没有标记的袈裟是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
59 五十九
Should any bhikkhu, having himself placed robe-cloth under shared ownership (vikappana) with a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a female trainee, a male novice, or a female novice, then make use of the cloth without the shared ownership’s being rescinded, it is to be confessed.
任何比丘将袈裟布与比丘、比丘尼、学法女（式叉摩那）、沙弥或沙弥尼共有（vikappana），然后使用那块布而没有取消共享所有权，波逸提。
Shared ownership 共享所有权
As mentioned in the explanations to NP 1, vikappana is an arrangement whereby a bhikkhu places a robe or robe-cloth under shared ownership so that he may store it for any length of time without its being counted as an extra cloth. One may share ownership with any of one’s co-religionists as mentioned in the rule. 如同在《舍堕》一的解释中所提到的， vikappana 是指比丘将一件袈裟或袈裟布置于共享所有权之下，以便他可以将其存放任意时间，而不会被视为额外的布料。如本戒条所述，可以与任何一位同宗教者共享所有权。
Passages in the Mahāvagga (VIII.20.2; VIII.21.1) show that shared ownership is intended for cloth that is being stored and not for cloth in use. Cloth that has not been made into a finished robe, rains-bathing cloths being kept during the eight months of the year outside of the rainy season, and skin-eruption covering cloths being kept when they are not needed, may all be placed under shared ownership. The three basic robes, miscellaneous requisites, handkerchiefs, and the sitting cloth may not. As this rule states, when a bhikkhu wants to use a piece of cloth placed under shared ownership, the shared ownership must first be rescinded. 《大品》（八.20.2；八.21.1）中的段落表明，共享所有权适用于正在储存的布料，而不适用于正在使用的布料。尚未制成成品袈裟的布料、一年中除雨季外八个月保存的雨浴衣，以及不需要时保存的覆疮布，都可以置于共享所有权之下。基本三衣、杂项用品、手帕和坐垫则不行。如本戒条所述，当比丘想要使用置于共享所有权之下的布料时，必须先取消共享所有权。
Protocol 行仪
The Vibhaṅga to this rule explains how cloth may be placed under shared ownership, but unfortunately the explanation is rather terse, so we will have to discuss two alternative interpretations. 这条戒条的《经分别》解释了如何将布料置于共享所有权之下，但不幸的是，解释相当简洁，所以我们必须讨论两种替代解释。
What the Vibhaṅga says 《经分别》说了什么
One may place a piece of cloth under shared ownership only if it is one of the six kinds of robe-cloth discussed under NP 1 and it measures at least four by eight fingerbreadths. There are two ways of placing it under shared ownership: in the presence of (the second owner presumably, although this is a controversial point) or in the absence of (again, this would seem to mean the second owner). 只有当一块布料属于《舍堕》一中讨论的六种袈裟布料之一，且其尺寸至少为四指宽乘八指宽时，才可以将其置于共享所有权之下。有两种方式可以将其置于共享所有权之下：在场的情况下（推测是第二个所有者在场，尽管这一点存在争议）或不在场的情况下（同样，这似乎是指第二个所有者）。
In the first method, one says, “I place this robe-cloth under shared ownership with you (plural)” or “with so-and-so.” (The Pali formulae for this and the following procedures are in Appendix V.) This is as far as the Vibhaṅga explains the method, but it seems to refer to two ways of doing the procedure in the presence of the second owner: One uses “you (plural)” if the other owner is a bhikkhu with more seniority than oneself; and the second owner’s name if he/she is a junior bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, female trainee, or male or female novice. (Passages throughout the Canon show that it was considered disrespectful to refer to a senior person by his name in his presence. Buddhists, for instance, would never address the Buddha as Gotama, although members of other religions often did. At Mv.I.74.1, Ven. Ānanda says that he is not worthy enough to refer to Ven. Mahā Kassapa by name, as the latter is his teacher.) 在第一种方法中，说，「我把这件袈裟布与你（复数）或『与某某』共同拥有。」（这一程序的巴利语公式和以下程序见附录五。）《经分别》对此方法的解释到此为止，但它似乎是指在第二个所有者面前执行该程序的两种方式：如果另一个所有者是比自己戒腊高的比丘，则使用「你（复数）」；如果第二个所有者是戒腊较低的比丘、比丘尼、学法女（式叉摩那）或沙弥或沙弥尼，则使用他的名字。（整个《圣典》中的段落都表明，在长者面前直呼其名被认为是不敬的。例如，佛教徒永远不会称呼佛陀为乔达摩，尽管其他宗教的成员经常这样做。在《大品》.一.74.1中，阿难达尊者说他没有资格直呼摩诃迦叶尊者的名字，因为后者是他的老师。）
The Vibhaṅga does not say how shared ownership is to be rescinded in a case like this, although the K/Commentary gives a formula for the second owner to say: “Use what is mine, give it away, or do as you like with it.” 《经分别》并没有说明在这种情况下如何取消共享所有权，尽管 K/《义注》给出了第二个所有者所说的公式，即「使用属于我的东西，赠予出去，或按照你的意愿处置它」。
In the second method, one gives the cloth to a witness and says, “I give this robe-cloth to you to place under shared ownership.” The witness then says, “Who are your friends and acquaintances?” One then names two of one’s friends (with whom one has made an arrangement for using one another’s belongings on trust), and the witness says, “I give it to them. Use what is theirs, give it away, or do as you like with it.” 第二种方法，把布交给见证人，说：「我把这块袈裟布交给你，置于共享所有权之下。」见证人接著说：「你的朋友和熟人是谁？」然后，说出两个朋友的名字（他们已经约定好互相信任使用对方的物品），见证人说：「我把它给他们。使用属于他们的东西，赠予出去，或按照你的意愿处置它。」
This second method, apparently, is for use in situations where one has an extra cloth whose time span is almost up and one is far away from any co-religionist with whom one has made an arrangement to use one another’s belongings on trust. 显然，第二种方法是用于这样的情况：有一块多余的布，其使用期限即将结束，而又远离任何与已达成协议可以信任地使用彼此物品的同宗教者。
What is happening in the procedure is that one is giving the cloth away to the witness; the witness then places it with one as a gift to one’s friends. Because one already has permission to use their things on trust, one may freely make use of the cloth if one wants to, or simply keep it for any number of days if not. (See Mv.V.13.13.) Cases of placing gifts in trust in this way are discussed in detail at Mv.VIII.31.2-3. According to those passages, the witness has no business in giving one permission to use the cloth after having given it to the two other people; perhaps the statement is included here to show that all sides involved—the witness and the two new owners of the cloth—are agreeable to one’s making use of the cloth. If the two new owners have not previously given one permission to use their belongings on trust, one may not make use of the cloth until they give express permission to do so, although one may keep it for any number of days without incurring a penalty under NP 1. 在程序中，将布料送给见证人；见证人随后将放在自己身边，作为礼物赠予自己的朋友。由于已获得以信托方式使用其物品的许可，因此如果愿意，可以自由使用这块布料；如果不愿意，也可以只将其保留任意天数。（参见《大品》.五.13.13。）以此方式将礼物置于信托中的案例在《大品》.八.31.2-3中有详细讨论。根据这些段落，见证人在将布料交给另外两人后，无权允许自己使用；此处加入声明或许是为了表明所有相关方——见证人和布料的两位新主人——都同意自己使用布料。如果两位新主人之前未曾以信托方式允许自己使用其物品，则自己在获得他们的明确许可之前不得使用布料，然而自己可以保留任意天数，而不会受到《舍堕》一的惩罚。
What the K/Commentary says K/《义注》说了什么
The Commentary has nothing to say about these procedures, while the K/Commentary goes into great detail, reworking the Vibhaṅga’s descriptions to come up with three methods. 《义注》对这些程序只字未提，而 K/《义注》则进行了详细的阐述，重新修订了《经分别》的描述，提出了三种方法。
In the first method, “in the presence of,” one says in the presence of the second owner, “I place this robe-cloth under shared ownership with you.” The shared ownership is rescinded when the second owner/witness gives one permission to use the cloth, give it away, or do as one likes with it. 第一种方法是「在场」，当著第二个所有者的面说，「我将这件袈裟布与你共享所有。」当第二个所有者/见证人允许自己使用、赠送或随意处置这件布时，共享所有权就被取消了。
In the second method—which the K/Commentary also calls “in the presence of”—one says in the presence of a witness who is not the second owner, “I place this robe-cloth under shared ownership with so-and-so.” The shared ownership is rescinded when the witness gives one permission to use the cloth, give it away, or do as one likes with it. 第二种方法——K/《义注》也称之为「在场」——在非第二所有者的见证人面前说：「我将这件袈裟布与某某共享所有。」当见证人允许自己使用、赠送或随意处置这块布时，共享所有权即被撤销。
In the third method, “in the absence of,” one gives the cloth to a witness, saying, “I give this robe-cloth to you to place under shared ownership.” The witness says, “Who is a friend or acquaintance of yours?” One names a friend, and the witness says, “I give it to him/her. Use what is his/hers, give it away, or do as you like with it.” The shared ownership is rescinded when the witness says this. 第三种方法，即「不在场」，将布交给见证人，说：「我将这块袈裟布交给你，置于共享所有权之下。」见证人说：「你的朋友或熟人是谁？」说出一个朋友的名字，见证人说：「我把它给他/她。使用属于他/她的东西，赠予出去，或按照你的意愿处置它」当见证人说这句话时，共享所有权就被取消了。
There are several problems with the K/Commentary’s interpretations. First, it is hard to see any practical difference between its methods 2 and 3, why one should be called “in the presence of” and the other “in the absence of,” and in method 2 why the witness should have the right to give one permission to use an article that strictly speaking belongs to someone else. K/《义注》的解释有几个问题。首先，很难看出方法二和三之间有什么实际区别，为什么一个应该被称为「在场」，另一个应该被称为「不在场」，以及在方法二中，为什么见证人有权允许自己使用严格来说属于他人的物品。
Second, the K/Commentary’s method for “in the absence of” deviates from the Vibhaṅga’s description of the method. In the Vibhaṅga’s description, the witness places the cloth under shared ownership with two of one’s friends, whereas in the K/Commentary’s, he/she places it under shared ownership with one friend. Why this should be the case, none of the texts explain. 其次，K/《义注》中「不在场」的情况下所使用的方法与《经分别》中的方法描述不同。在《经分别》的描述中，见证人将布料与自己的两个朋友共有，而在K/《义注》中，见证人将布料与自己的一个朋友共有。至于为什么会这样，所有文献都没有解释。
For these reasons, it would seem that the previous explanation—that there are two methods, as described in the Vibhaṅga—is preferable to the K/Commentary’s. 基于这些原因，似乎先前的解释（即《经分别》中所描述的两种方法）比 K/《义注》的解释更可取。
The factors for the offense 犯戒因素
The factors for the offense here are two: object—any one of the six kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths, that one has placed under shared ownership; and effort—one uses the cloth without the shared ownership’s being rescinded. 此处的犯戒因素有二：对象──六种袈裟布中的任何一种，尺寸至少为四指乘八指宽，置于共享所有权之下；努力──在不取消共享所有权的情况下使用该布料。
Perception as to whether the shared ownership has actually been rescinded is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4). 对于共享所有权是否真的被取消的感知并不是这里的减轻惩罚因素（参见《波逸提》四）。
The K/Commentary notes that this rule applies not only to robe-cloth, but also to bowls as well. None of the other texts mention this point, but—given that bowls placed under shared ownership are mentioned under NP 21, and that there is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to indicate that this arrangement is different for bowls than it is for cloth—the Great Standards could be cited to support the K/Commentary here. K/《义注》指出，这条戒条不仅适用于袈裟布，也适用于钵。其他文献均未提及这一点，但鉴于《舍堕》二一提及了共享所有权的钵，且《经分别》中没有任何内容表明钵的分配方式与布料不同，因此可以引用《四大教示》来支持 K/《义注》。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense in using an item placed under shared ownership if the shared ownership has been rescinded or if one makes use of the item on trust. The factors for legitimately taking an item on trust are as follows (Mv.VIII.19.1): 若共享所有权已被取消，或基于信任使用该物品，则使用该共享所有权下的物品不构成犯戒。合法地基于信任取得物品的要素如下（《大品》.八.19.1）：
1) The other person is a friend.
1）对方是朋友。
2) He/she is an intimate.
2）他/她是亲密的人。
3) He/she has spoken of the matter. (According to the Commentary, this means that he/she has said, “You may take any of my property you want.”)
3）他/她已经说了此事。（根据《义注》，这意味著他/她说：「你可以拿走属于我的任何你想要的财产。」）
4) He/she is still alive.
4）他/她还活著。
5) One knows that he/she will be pleased at one’s taking it.
5）知道他/她会很高兴自己取走它。
These factors are discussed in detail under Pr 2. 这些因素在《波罗夷》二中有详细讨论。
The K/Commentary’s analysis of the factors involved in committing an offense under this rule suggests that when an item placed under shared ownership is taken on trust, the shared ownership is automatically rescinded, and the item reverts to the status of extra cloth or an extra bowl, as the case may be. K/《义注》对违反此戒条所涉及的因素的分析表明，当共享所有权下的物品被基于信任拿走时，共享所有权将自动取消，并且该物品将恢复为额外的布料或额外的钵的状态，视情况而定。
Summary: Making use of cloth or a bowl stored under shared ownership—unless the shared ownership has been rescinded or one is taking the item on trust—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：使用共享所有权下存放的布料或钵（除非共享所有权已被取消或基于信任而拿走该物品）是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
60 六十
Should any bhikkhu hide (another) bhikkhu’s bowl, robe, sitting cloth, needle box, or belt—or have it hidden—even as a joke, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘隐藏（另一个）比丘的钵、袈裟、坐垫、针盒或腰带 —— 或令隐藏 —— 即使是出于玩笑，波逸提。
This is another rule that comes from some members of the group of six teasing the children in the group of seventeen. The factors for the full offense are three. 这是另一条戒条，源自于六群中的一些成员戏弄十七群中的孩子。构成完全违犯的因素有三。
Object: 对象：
Any of the requisites mentioned in the rule, belonging to a bhikkhu. Robe here means any piece of robe material measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths, except for sitting cloths, which are mentioned separately. Needle box covers not only cases containing needles (see Pc 86) but also empty ones. Any requisite not mentioned in the rule but belonging to a bhikkhu is grounds for a dukkaṭa, as is any requisite belonging to a person who is not a bhikkhu. 任何在戒条中提及的、属于比丘的必需品。袈裟在此指任何至少四指乘八指宽的袈裟材料，但坐垫除外，坐垫另行提及。针盒不仅指装有针的盒子（参见《波逸提》八六），也指空针盒。任何在戒条中未提及但属于比丘的必需品，以及任何属于非比丘者的必需品，均构成《突吉罗》。
Perception as to the status of the person whose requisite one is hiding is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 42). 对于自己隐藏必需品的人的身分的感知在这里并不是减轻惩罚的因素（参见《波逸提》四二）。
Effort 努力
One hides the article or has it hidden. In the latter case—assuming that the other factors are fulfilled—there is a pācittiya in making the request/command/suggestion, and another pācittiya when the other person does one’s bidding, regardless of how many items that person hides as the result of the one request/command/suggestion. 藏匿物品，或令藏匿物品。在后一种情况下－假设其他因素均已满足－提出请求/命令/建议时，犯一次《波逸提》；而当对方遵从自己的命令时，犯另一次《波逸提》，无论对方因这一个请求/命令/建议而藏匿了多少物品。
Intention 意图
One is doing it as a game. The Sub-commentary makes clear that the “game” here can either be friendly or malicious. If one hides the other bhikkhu’s requisites out of the perverse pleasure of annoying him or simply for a friendly laugh, one commits the full offense all the same. 这样做当成一场游戏。《复注》明确指出，这里的「游戏」可以是善意的，也可以是恶意的。如果出于惹恼比丘的变态快感而藏匿他的必需品，或者只是为了友善地一笑，同样犯了全部罪行。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if— 如果以下情况，则不构成犯戒：
not as a game, one puts away properly items that have been put away improperly (§), e.g., a bowl left hanging on a peg (see Cv.V.9.5); or
不是作为一种游戏，而是将放得不当的物品妥善放好（§），例如，挂在挂钩上的钵（参见《小品》.五.9.5）；或者
one puts away an item, thinking, “I will give it back (to him) after having given him a Dhamma talk.” Dhamma talk here, the Commentary says, refers to such admonitions as, “A contemplative should not leave his requisites scattered around.” Hiding things with this purpose in mind is sometimes an effective way for a teacher to train his students to stop being careless with their belongings, but it should be used with discretion, for it can easily backfire.
收起一件物品，心想：「我给他讲完佛法后再还（给他）。」《义注》说，这里的佛法指的是这样的劝诫：「沙门不应将自己的物品散落在各处。」出于这个目的而隐藏物品有时是老师训练学生不再粗心大意对待自己物品的有效方法，但应谨慎使用，因为它很容易适得其反。
Summary: Hiding another bhikkhu’s bowl, robe, sitting cloth, needle box, or belt—or having it hidden—either as a joke or with the purpose of annoying him, is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：隐藏另一个比丘的钵、袈裟、坐垫、针盒或腰带，或令隐藏，无论是出于玩笑还是为了惹恼他，都是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。