波逸提

Eight: The In-accordance-with-the-Rule Chapter 第八 如法品
71 七十一
Should any bhikkhu, admonished by the bhikkhus in accordance with a rule, say, “Friends, I will not train myself under this training rule until I have put questions about it to another bhikkhu, competent and learned in the discipline,” it is to be confessed. Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu in training should understand, should ask, should ponder. This is the proper course here.
若有比丘被比丘们如法劝诫时，说：「朋友们，在向另一位精通戒律、学识渊博的比丘请教之前，我不会按照此学处训练自己。」，波逸提。诸比丘，修行中的比丘应当理解、应当提问、应当思考。这于此是如法的。
This rule deals with cases where a bhikkhu tries to excuse himself from following any of the training rules without showing out-and-out disrespect for the rule or the person admonishing him. (If he showed out-and-out disrespect, the case would come under Pc 54.) The factors for the full offense here are three. 这条戒条处理的是比丘试图为自己不遵守任何学处找借口，但又未表现出对戒条或对其训诫者的彻底不尊重的情况。（如果他表现出彻底的不尊重，则该情况适用《波逸提》五四。）构成完全违犯的因素有三。
1) Object: One has been admonished by a fellow bhikkhu who cites a rule formulated in the Vinaya.
1）对象：受到一位比丘同侪的训诫，且他引用了律藏中所制定的戒条。
2) Intention: One does not want to train oneself in line with the rule.
2）意图：不想按照戒条训练自己。
3) Effort: As a ploy to excuse oneself, one says something to the effect that one will not train in line with the rule.
3）努力：做为给自己找借口的花招，说了些话达到不按照戒条训练的效果。
Only two of these factors—object and effort—require explanation. 这三个因素中，只有两个——对象和努力——需要解释。
Object 对象
The explanation for this factor is exactly the same as under Pc 54. Perception as to whether the person giving the admonishment is ordained is irrelevant to the offense (see Pc 42). 对于这一因素的解释与《波逸提》五四完全相同。对给予训诫者是否受过具足戒的感知与犯戒无关（参见《波逸提》四二）。
Effort 努力
Looking at the Vibhaṅga’s discussion of this factor, it would appear to cover only cases where one used the precise words mentioned in the training rule, but the K/Commentary—drawing probably on the Great Standards—expands it to cover any case where one says something as a ploy to excuse oneself from following the rule without showing disrespect. Examples might include: “I’ll worry about that rule when I come to it.” “I don’t have time for that right now.” “I’ve been wondering: Do you really think that that rule applies in this day and age? It gets in the way of our spreading the Dhamma.” In other words, this factor closes any loopholes left by Pc 54. 从《经分别》对此因素的讨论来看，它看起来只涵盖了使用学处中被提及的明确措辞的情况，但 K/《义注》——可能藉鉴了《四大教示》——将其扩展至涵盖任何说了些话做为花招，在不显得不尊重的情况下，为自己不遵守戒条找借口的情况。例如可能包括：「那条戒条我到时候再说吧。」「我现在没时间做那件事。」「我一直在想：你真的认为那条戒条在今天的时代还适用吗？它阻碍了我们弘扬佛法。」换句话说，这一因素弥补了《波逸提》五四留下的任何漏洞。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, the only way to avoid an offense in situations like this is to say that one will learn about the rule and train in line with it. As the non-offense clauses to Pc 54 make clear, though, if one has been admonished with any interpretation of a rule that differs from one’s teachers’, one may avoid an offense simply by stating that one’s teachers taught differently. 根据《经分别》，在这种情况下避免犯戒的唯一方法是表示会学习戒条并遵照其来训练。然而，正如《波逸提》五四的不犯条款所明确指出的，如果因对戒条的解释与导师的解释不同而受到训诫，则只需说明导师教导得不同，即可避免犯戒。
Summary: When being admonished by another bhikkhu with regard to a training rule formulated in the Vinaya, saying something as a ploy to excuse oneself from training under the rule is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：当因律藏中制定的学处而被另一位比丘训诫时，以某种借口耍花招逃避该戒条下的训练，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
72 七十二
Should any bhikkhu, when the Pāṭimokkha is being recited, say, “Why are these lesser and minor training rules recited when they lead only to anxiety, bother, and confusion?” the criticism of the training rules is to be confessed.
在诵读《波罗提木叉》时，若任何比丘说：「这些细小的、次要的学处（小小戒）只会导致焦虑、烦扰和困惑，为何还要诵读呢？」对学处的批评，波逸提。
“Now at that time the Blessed One, phrasing it in many ways, gave a talk on discipline to the bhikkhus. He spoke in praise of discipline, in praise of the mastery of discipline, and in praise of Ven. Upāli, referring to him again and again. The bhikkhus (said), ‘… Come, friends, let’s study discipline with Ven. Upāli.’ They and many other bhikkhus—elders, newly ordained, and those in between—studied discipline with Ven. Upāli.
「其时，世尊以种种方便向比丘们讲述了戒律。他赞扬戒律，赞扬精通戒律，并赞扬优婆离尊者，多次提及他。比丘们（说）：『……来吧，朋友们，让我们跟随优婆离尊者学习戒律。』他们和许多其他比丘——上座、下座以及中座跟随优婆离尊者学习戒律。
“Then the thought occurred to some group-of-six bhikkhus: ‘Now, friends, many bhikkhus… are studying discipline with Ven. Upāli. If they become well versed in the discipline, they will push us and pull us around in whatever way they like, however they like, and as long as they like. Come, friends, let’s criticize the discipline.’ Then the group-of-six bhikkhus, going to the bhikkhus, said, ‘Why are these lesser and minor training rules repeated when they lead only to anxiety, bother, and confusion?’”
「这时，有六群比丘想到：『现在，朋友们，许多比丘…都在跟随优婆离尊者学习戒律。如果他们精通戒律，就会随心所欲地摆布我们，想怎么摆布就怎么摆布，想摆布多久就多久。来吧，朋友们，让我们批评这些戒律。』然后，这六群比丘走到其他比丘面前，说：『这些细小的、次要的学处（小小戒），只会带来焦虑、烦扰和困惑，为什么还要反复强调呢？』」
The full offense here has three factors. 此处的完全违犯有三个因素。
1) Effort: One criticizes the discipline in the presence 1）努力：有人在场时批评戒律
2) Object: of another bhikkhu 2）对象：当著另一位比丘的面
3) Intention: with the intent of disparaging it. 3）意图：意图贬低它。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga explains criticizing the discipline with a list of examples. In addition to the statement in the rule, the list includes such statements as, “Those who master this suffer anxiety, bother, and confusion. Those who don’t master this suffer no anxiety, bother, or confusion. It would be better (§) if this were not repeated. It would be better (§) if this were not learned. It would be better (§) if this were not mastered. It would be better (§) if this were not borne in mind. May the discipline disappear or may these bhikkhus not be well-versed in this.” This last sentence sounds less like a criticism and more like a possible motivation for one’s criticism—a typical ambiguity in the style of the Pali Canon—but none of the commentaries discuss this point. 《经分别》列举了例子来解释批评戒律。除了戒条本身的陈述外，列举的例子还包括：「掌握此者，会感到焦虑、烦扰和困惑。未掌握此者，则不会感到焦虑、烦扰和困惑。最好（§）这不被重复。最好（§）这不被学习。最好（§）这不被掌握。最好（§）这不被铭记在心。愿戒律消失，或愿这些比丘对此不甚精通。」最后这句话与其说是批评，不如说是批评的可能动机——这是巴利《圣典》风格中典型的含糊不清之处——但没有任何注释书讨论过这一点。
The training rule would seem to indicate that these actions are grounds for an offense only while the Pāṭimokkha is being recited or rehearsed, but the non-offense clauses in the Vibhaṅga give no allowance to criticize the discipline at other times, and the K/Commentary follows the Vibhaṅga in not making the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha a necessary factor for the offense here. In other words, the factor of effort here is fulfilled if one criticizes the discipline at any time. 此学处似乎表明，只有在诵读或练习《波罗提木叉》时，这些行为才构成犯戒；但《经分别》中的不犯条款并未允许在其他时间批评戒律， K/《义注》也遵循《经分别》，认为诵读《波罗提木叉》并非构成此处犯戒的必要条件。换言之，只要在任何时候批评戒律，就满足了此处「努力」因素。
Object 对象
There is a pācittiya for criticizing the discipline in the presence of a bhikkhu; and a dukkaṭa for criticizing any other Dhamma in his presence, or criticizing either the discipline or any other Dhamma in the presence of an unordained person. Perception as to whether one’s listener is ordained is irrelevant to the offense (see Pc 42). 在比丘面前批评戒律，犯《波逸提》；在比丘面前批评其他佛法，或在未受具足戒者面前批评戒律或其他佛法，犯《突吉罗》。听者是否受具足戒的感知与犯戒无关（参阅《波逸提》四二）。
Intention 意图
This factor is fulfilled when one’s intention is to disparage the discipline. Given the way “effort” is defined above, this factor might seem superfluous, but the non-offense clauses give an example of an effort that may sound like criticism but is not actually meant to be taken as disparagement. The Commentary defines the factor of intention here as the desire to give rise to skepticism (vimati) about the discipline in the listener’s mind. 当意图是贬低戒律时，这个因素就成立了。鉴于上文对「努力」的定义，这一因素可能似乎显得多余，但不犯条款举例说明了这样一种努力：它听起来像是批评，但实际上并非意在贬低。《义注》将此处的意图因素定义为：意欲在听者心中引发对戒律的怀疑（vimati）。
Further action 进一步行动
A bhikkhu who makes a concerted effort to speak in dispraise of the Dhamma or discipline may be subject to an act of censure or banishment, depending on the seriousness of the case (Cv.I.4.1; Cv.I.14.2). (See BMC2, Chapter 20.) 比丘若蓄意诋毁佛法或戒律，可受呵责（羯磨）或驱出（羯磨），视情节严重程度而定（《小品》.一.4.1；《小品》.一.14.2）。（参见《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第二十章。）
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if, without intending to criticize the discipline, one suggests to another person that he/she master the suttas, the gāthās (verses), or the Abhidhamma first, before mastering the discipline. 如果无意批评戒律，建议另一个人先掌握经文、偈颂或阿毘达摩，然后再掌握戒律，并不构成犯戒。
Summary: Criticizing the discipline in the presence of another bhikkhu, in hopes of making him skeptical about the discipline or its study, is a pācittiya offense. 总结：当著另一位比丘的面批评戒律，希望使他怀疑戒律或其研读，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
73 七十三
Should any bhikkhu, when the Pāṭimokkha is being recited every half-month, say, “Just now have I learned that this case, too, is handed down in the Pāṭimokkha, is included in the Pāṭimokkha, and comes up for recitation every half-month”; and if the bhikkhus should know of that bhikkhu, “This bhikkhu has already sat through two or three recitations of the Pāṭimokkha, if not more,” the bhikkhu is not exempted for being ignorant. Whatever the offense he has committed, he is to be dealt with in accordance with the rule; and in addition, his deceit is to be exposed: “It is no gain for you, friend, it is ill-done, that when the Pāṭimokkha is being recited, you do not pay attention, properly taking it to heart.” As for the deception (§), it is to be confessed.
若任何比丘在每半月诵读《波罗提木叉》时说：「我刚刚才知道，此情况也记载于《波罗提木叉》内，包含于《波罗提木叉》内，且每半月诵读一次」；且如果比丘们知道那位比丘，「这位比丘已经坐著听了两、三遍《波罗提木叉》的诵读，甚至更多。」，该比丘也不能因为无知而免于惩罚。无论他犯了何种罪过，都应按照戒条处置；此外，还应揭露他的欺骗行为：「朋友，诵读《波罗提木叉》时，你不专心、不牢记于心，对你并无益处，而且是糟糕的做法。」至于欺骗（§），波逸提。
To summarize the Vibhaṅga: If a bhikkhu—when the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha comes to a rule he has violated—tries to excuse himself through the sort of pretence cited in the rule, he immediately incurs a dukkaṭa if he has already listened to the Pāṭimokkha in full three times or more. The other bhikkhus may then expose his deception by means of a Community transaction (see Appendix VIII). If he then continues with the pretence, he incurs a pācittiya. If they do not enact a transaction against him, though, he incurs a dukkaṭa for each effort he makes in keeping up the pretence. There is no offense, though, if he is not feigning ignorance or if he has not yet heard the Pāṭimokkha in full at least three times. 综合《经分别》所述：若比丘在诵读《波罗提木叉》时，遇到自己已违反的戒条，并试图以戒条中所列的借口为自己开脱，若他已完整聆听过《波罗提木叉经》三遍或以上，则立即犯《突吉罗》。其他比丘则可借由僧团羯磨（见附录八）揭穿其欺骗。若他继续其虚伪借口，犯《波逸提》。但若他们不对其施以羯磨，则他每努力一次维持其虚伪借口，犯一次《突吉罗》。但若他并非装无知，或尚未完整聆听《波罗提木叉》至少三遍，则不犯戒。
Obviously, these explanations were formulated when Pali was the bhikkhus’ native language, and the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha in Pali offered the opportunity to learn the rules, along with the opportunity to feign ignorance without telling an out-and-out lie. In other words, one could say immediately after the recitation of a particular rule, “Just now have I heard that this rule is in the Pāṭimokkha,” and strictly speaking it would be true: One has just heard it, even if for the umpteenth time, but one hopes that the other bhikkhus will be deceived into inferring that one has just heard it for the first time. 显然，这些解释是在巴利语是比丘母语的时代形成的。用巴利语诵读《波罗提木叉》既提供了学习戒条的机会，也提供了在不彻底撒谎的情况下假装无知的机会。换句话说，可以在诵读一条戒条后立即说：「我刚才听到这条戒条在《波罗提木叉》里。」严格来说，这确实是真的：他刚刚才听到它，即使是第无数次听到，但希望其他比丘会被蒙蔽，误以为他是第一次听到。
However, the discussion of this rule in the Vibhaṅga and commentaries makes no exceptions for bhikkhus whose native language is not Pali. Nevertheless, as the Pāṭimokkha is available in a number of translations, the grace period in which one is expected to be ignorant—three recitations covers at least a month to a month and a half—is not too short a time for a new bhikkhu to read and remember the rules in translation. 然而，《经分别》及注释书中对这条戒条的讨论并未对母语非巴利语的比丘做出例外规定。尽管如此，《波罗提木叉》已有多种译本，因此，对于一位新比丘而言，这段允许其无知的宽限期——三次诵读至少涵盖一个月到一个半月——并不算短，足以让他阅读并记住译本中的戒条。
It is also worth noting that the non-offense clauses do not make an exception for a bhikkhu who tries a similar ploy to feign ignorance of the rules outside of the time when the Pāṭimokkha is being formally recited, and the K/Commentary—as under the preceding rule—follows the Vibhaṅga in not making the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha a necessary factor for the offense here. In other words, this rule covers the use of a half-truth to feign ignorance of the rules at any time. 值得注意的是，不犯条款并未对试图在正式诵读《波罗提木叉》之外的时间里，以类似伎俩假装不知戒条的比丘做出例外规定。 K/《义注》──如同前一条戒条一样──遵循《经分别》，并未将诵读《波罗提木叉》作为构成此处犯戒的必要条件。换言之，此戒条涵盖了在任何时候以半真半假之言假装不知戒条。
The factors for the full offense here are three. 此处构成完全违犯的因素有三点。
1) Object: a rule in the Pāṭimokkha.
1）对象：《波罗提木叉》中的戒条。
2) Intention: One wants to deceive the bhikkhus into believing that one is ignorant of the rule one has broken.
2）意图：想要欺骗比丘相信自己对所违反的戒条一无所知。
3) Effort: One has heard the Pāṭimokkha in full for at least three times, yet one persists in saying half-truths to feign ignorance after the bhikkhus have enacted a Community transaction exposing one’s deceit. (Out-and-out lies would come under Pc 1.)
3）努力：至少三次完整地听过《波罗提木叉》，但在比丘们透过僧团羯磨揭穿其欺骗行为后，仍然坚持说半真半假的话来假装无知。（彻头彻尾的谎言属于《波逸提》一。）
Perception as to the transaction’s validity is not a mitigating factor here. If the transaction exposing one’s deceit has been properly carried out, then regardless of whether one perceives it as valid, one incurs a pācittiya for trying to deceive the bhikkhus any further. If it has been improperly carried out, one incurs a dukkaṭa for trying to deceive them further, regardless of how one perceives the transaction. 对羯磨有效性的感知并非减轻惩罚的因素。如果揭穿欺骗行为的羯磨已妥善执行，那么无论是否认为其有效，若试图进一步欺骗比丘们，都犯《波逸提》。如果羯磨执行不当，无论如何看待羯磨，若试图进一步欺骗比丘们，都犯《突吉罗》。
Non-offenses 不犯
There is no offense if one has heard the Pāṭimokkha in full fewer than three times or if one is not intending to deceive anyone. 如果完整地听过《波罗提木叉》少于三次，或没有欺骗任何人的意图，那么就不犯戒。
Summary: Using half-truths to deceive others into believing that one is ignorant of the rules in the Pāṭimokkha—after one has already heard the Pāṭimokkha in full three times, and a Community transaction exposing one’s deceit has been brought against one—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：在已经完整地听过三次《波罗提木叉》之后，用半真半假的话欺骗他人，使他人相信自己对《波罗提木叉》里的戒条无知，并且揭露欺骗行为的僧团羯磨被提出，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
74 七十四
Should any bhikkhu, angered and displeased, give a blow to (another) bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘愤怒且不满而打了（另一位）比丘，波逸提。
The factors for the full offense here are three. 构成完全违犯的因素有三点。
1) Object: another bhikkhu. 1）对象：另一位比丘。
2) Effort: One gives him a blow 2）努力：给他一击
3) Intention: out of anger. 3）意图：出于愤怒。
Object 对象
A bhikkhu is grounds for the full offense here; anyone unordained, grounds for a dukkaṭa. According to the Commentary, anyone unordained includes animals as well as human beings. 比丘在此构成全额犯戒；任何未受具足戒者，构成《突吉罗》。根据《义注》，任何未受具足戒者包括动物和人类。
As under Pc 42, the Vibhaṅga indicates that perception as to whether the person receiving the blow is ordained is irrelevant to the offense here. 如同《波逸提》四二，《经分别》指出，对于被击打者是否受具足戒的感知与此处的犯戒无关。
Effort 努力
This factor is fulfilled whether one gives a blow— 无论是否出手，这项因素都成立——
with one’s own body (hitting with a fist, jabbing with an elbow, kicking with a foot);
用自己的身体（用拳头击打、用手肘刺击、用脚踢）；
with something attached to the body (e.g., a stick, a knife); or
用附在身上的东西（例如棍子、刀子）；或
with something that can be “thrown” (this includes such things as throwing a rock, shooting an arrow, or firing a gun). According to the Vibhaṅga, this last category includes throwing “even a lotus leaf,” which shows that the blow need not be painful in order to fulfill this factor.
用可以「投掷」的东西（包括投掷石头、射箭或开枪等）。根据《经分别》，此最后一类甚至包括投掷「一片莲叶」，这表明，即使打击本身并不一定要带来疼痛，也能满足这一因素。
Such actions as twisting the other person’s arm behind his back or wringing his neck are not mentioned under this rule, but the act of grabbing his arm prior to twisting it or grabbing his neck prior to wringing it would fulfill the factor of effort here. 本戒条并未提及将对方的手臂扭到背后或扭断对方的脖子等行为，但在扭对方的手臂之前抓住对方的手臂或在扭断对方的脖子之前抓住对方的脖子，就符合这里的努力因素。
Intention 意图
If one gives a blow for reasons other than anger, the action does not fall under this rule. Thus, for instance, if one thumps a fellow bhikkhu on the back to help dislodge something caught in his throat, there is no offense. And as the Commentary notes, if—impelled by lust—one gives a blow to a woman, one incurs the full penalty under Sg 2. 如果并非出于愤怒而击打他人，则此行为不属于此戒条的范畴。例如，如果为了帮助其他比丘吐出卡在喉咙里的东西而轻拍其背部，则不构成犯戒。正如《义注》所指出的，如果出于淫欲而击打女性，则应根据《僧残》二受到全额惩罚。
For some reason, the Commentary says that if one cuts off the nose or ear of a fellow bhikkhu in order to disfigure him, one incurs only a dukkaṭa. As the Vinaya-mukha points out, though, there is no basis in the Vibhaṅga or in reason for this statement. It is hard to imagine anyone doing this unless impelled by anger, and the act of cutting another person would come under the factor of giving a blow with something connected with the body. 不知何故，《义注》中说，若为了毁容而割掉同侪比丘的鼻子或耳朵，只会犯《突吉罗》。然而，正如《戒律入口》所指出的，这种说法在《经分别》或论证中并无依据。很难想像有人会做出这种事，除非是出于愤怒。而且，割伤他人属于用连接身体的东西进行攻击的因素。
“Result” is not a factor here. Whether the other person is hurt—or how badly he/she is hurt—does not affect the offense. If one intends simply to hurt the other person, but he/she happens to die from one’s blow, the case is treated under this rule, rather than under Pr 3. In other words, the penalty is a pācittiya if the victim is a bhikkhu, and a dukkaṭa if not. 「结果」在此并非因素。对方是否受伤——或受伤程度如何——并不影响犯戒。若仅意图伤害他人，却因自己的出手导致对方死亡，则应依此戒条处理，而非依《波罗夷》三处理。换言之，若受害者为比丘，则惩罚为《波逸提》；若受害者并非比丘，则惩罚为《突吉罗》。
Non-offenses 不犯
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who, trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow “desiring freedom.” The Commentary’s discussion of this point shows that it includes what we at present would call self-defense; and the K/Commentary’s analysis of the factors of the offense here shows that even if anger or displeasure arises in one’s mind in cases like this, there is no penalty. 根据《经分别》，比丘身处困境，为求得自由而出手，并无犯戒。《义注》对此的讨论表明，这包含了我们今天所说的自卫；而 K/《义注》对此处犯戒因素的分析表明，即便在这种情况下心中生起愤怒或不满，也无需受惩罚。
Summary: Giving a blow to another bhikkhu when impelled by anger—except in self-defense—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：因愤怒而打其他比丘——自卫除外——是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
75 七十五
Should any bhikkhu, angered and displeased, raise the palm of his hand against (another) bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘愤怒且不满而向（另一位）比丘举起手掌，波逸提。
This rule is similar to the preceding one, differing only in the factor of effort: Raising the palm of one’s hand means raising any part of one’s body (the hand, the foot, etc.) or anything attached to the body (a stick, a rock, a gun, a bow and arrow) in a threatening manner. 这条戒条与前一条戒条类似，只是在努力因素上有所不同：举起手掌意味著以威胁的方式举起身体的任何部位（手、脚等）或附著在身体上的任何东西（棍棒、石头、枪、弓箭）。
The Commentary notes that if one intends only to raise one’s hand but then accidentally gives a blow, one incurs a dukkaṭa. The Sub-commentary, following the lead of the Old K/Sub-commentary, explains this in the only way that would make sense: One incurs the dukkaṭa for the blow, but a pācittiya for raising the hand in the first place. 《义注》指出，如果原本只想举手，却不小心打到了，犯《突吉罗》。《复注》遵循旧 K/《义注》的思路，以唯一合理的解释来说明这一点：因打到而犯《突吉罗》，但因最初举手而犯《波逸提》。
The Sub-commentary also notes that if an animal, for example, is making a mess and a bhikkhu raises his hand against it, this would be included under desiring freedom—i.e., from the mess—and so would not be an offense. This explanation, however, would open a large loophole for a bhikkhu who wanted to justify raising his hand against another bhikkhu in any situation that he found displeasing. It would seem preferable to limit the allowance for one desiring freedom to cases where one is in physical danger. 《复注》也指出，例如，如果一只动物弄得一团糟，比丘对其举手，这属于渴望自由——即摆脱一团糟——因此不构成犯戒。然而，这种解释会给比丘留下很大的漏洞，使他可以为自己在任何不愉快的情况下想要对其他比丘举手的行为找到借口。因此，似乎更可取的做法是，将渴望自由的开缘限制在人身安全受到危险的情况下。
Summary: Making a threatening gesture against another bhikkhu when motivated by anger—except in self-defense—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：因愤怒而对其他比丘做出威胁性动作——自卫除外——是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
76 七十六
Should any bhikkhu charge a bhikkhu with an unfounded saṅghādisesa (offense), it is to be confessed.
若任何比丘无根据而指控比丘犯《僧残》罪，波逸提。
Here again the factors for the full offense are three. 同样，完全违犯的因素有三个。
1) Object: another bhikkhu.
1）对象：另一位比丘。
2) Perception: One has not seen, heard, or suspected him of committing the offense one is charging him with.
2）感知：没有看到、听到或怀疑他犯下了自己指控他的罪行。
3) Effort: One accuses him in his presence—or gets someone else to accuse him in his presence—of having committed a saṅghādisesa offense.
3）努力：当著他的面指控他，或让别人当著他的面指控他，犯了《僧残》罪。
If one makes an unfounded charge accusing another bhikkhu of a defect in conduct or a defect in view, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. According to Mv.IV.16.12, a defect in conduct means any offense of a thullaccaya or less; a defect in view means wrong view or a view holding to an extreme. The Commentary to Pv.VI.10 identifies wrong view as mundane wrong view as defined in MN 117, and as classed as a defect in view in AN 3:117. The same Commentary identifies a view holding to an extreme as any one of the ten standpoints on which the Buddha refused to take a stand. See, e.g., DN 9 and MN 63. Although a defect in view is not automatically an offense, charging a bhikkhu with such a defect could lead the Community to interrogate him to see if the view warrants treatment under Sg 10, Pc 69, or the procedures leading up to censure. 若无根据指控另一位比丘行为或见解有缺陷，则惩罚是《突吉罗》。根据《大品》.四.16.12，行为有缺陷是指任何《偷兰遮》或更轻的犯戒；见解有缺陷是指错误的见解或极端的见解。《附随》.六.10的《义注》指出，错误的见解是指《中部》117经中定义的世俗错误的见解，以及《增支部》3:117经中归类的见解有缺陷。同一《义注》也指出，极端的见解是指佛陀拒绝表明立场的十种观点中的任何一种。例如，参见《长部》9经和《中部》63经。虽然见解有缺陷本身并非必然构成犯戒，但指控一位比丘有此缺陷可能会导致僧团对其进行讯问，以确定该见解是否应根据《僧残》十、《波逸提》六九或导致呵责的程序进行处理。
The Vibhaṅga states that there is also a dukkaṭa for making an unfounded charge accusing an unordained person—such as a bhikkhunī or a novice—of a defect in conduct or a defect in view. 《经分别》指出，无根据指控未受具足戒者（如比丘尼或沙弥）行为或见解有缺陷，也犯《突吉罗》。
As under Pc 42, perception as to whether the person being charged is ordained is irrelevant to the offense. 如同《波逸提》四二，被指控的人是否受过具足戒的感知与犯戒无关。
The topic of unfounded charges is a complex one and has already been covered in detail under Sg 8. Additional points may be inferred from the discussion of that rule, the differences being that intention is not a factor here, and the change in effort—one is accusing the other bhikkhu of a saṅghādisesa or lesser offense—changes the seriousness of the penalty. 无根据指控的话题很复杂，在《僧残》八中已经详细论述过。从该戒条的讨论中可以推断出一些其他要点，区别在于意图在这里不是一个因素，而且努力的变化——指控另一个比丘犯《僧残》罪或较轻的罪行——会改变惩罚的严重程度。
Non-offenses 不犯
As under Sg 8, there is no offense if one makes the accusation—or gets someone else to make it—when one thinks it to be true, even if the other bhikkhu is actually not guilty of the offense. 如同《僧残》八，如果认为指控属实（或让别人指控）即使对方比丘实际上没有犯下该罪行，也不构成犯戒。
Summary: Making an unfounded charge to another bhikkhu—or getting someone else to make the charge to him—that he is guilty of a saṅghādisesa offense is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：无根据指控另一位比丘（或让别人指控他）犯有《僧残》罪，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
77 七十七
Should any bhikkhu intentionally provoke anxiety in (another) bhikkhu, (thinking,) “This way, even for just a moment, he will have no peace”—doing it for just that reason and no other—it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘故意挑起（另一位）比丘的焦虑，（心想）「这样，即使只是一瞬间，他也不会安宁」——仅仅因为这个原因而没有其他原因——波逸提。
The Vinaya-mukha’s explanation for this rule is worth quoting at length: 《戒律入口》对此戒条的解释值得详细引用：
“There are people who normally tend to be anxious about one thing or another…. If someone speaks to this sort of bhikkhu about contingencies that run counter to the Buddha’s ordinances and are impossible to know—e.g., ‘When you were ordained, how can you know that all the qualifications (for a valid Community transaction) were fulfilled? If they were lacking, doesn’t that mean you aren’t really ordained?’—even this is enough to set him worrying, giving him all sorts of anguish. A bhikkhu who is unrestrained and who—looking for fun with no concern for how his friends will suffer—takes such matters to tell them is penalized with a pācittiya in this rule.”
「有些人天生就容易为这样那样的事情焦虑……如果有人跟这类比丘谈论一些违背佛陀戒律且根本无法知晓的变数——例如，『你受具足戒的时候，怎么知道所有（有效的僧团羯磨的）条件都具备了呢？如果缺少某些条件，那岂不是代表你没真的受具足戒？』——即使只是这样，也足以让他忧虑，给他带来各种各样的痛苦。一位放纵自己的比丘，只顾找乐子，丝毫不顾及他的朋友会如何地痛苦，将此类事情告诉他们，则根据这条戒条，将受到《波逸提》的惩罚。」
The full offense here has four factors. 完全违犯有四个因素。
1) Object: another bhikkhu.
1）对象：另一位比丘。
2) Effort: One mentions that he might have broken a rule.
2）努力：提到他可能违反了戒条。
3) Result: One provokes anxiety in him.
3）结果：引起了他的焦虑。
4) Intention: One’s motive is simply to cause him anxiety even if just for a moment.
4）意图：动机只是为了让他焦虑，哪怕只是一瞬间。
Object 对象
A bhikkhu here is grounds for a pācittiya; an unordained person—this apparently includes bhikkhunīs—grounds for a dukkaṭa. As under Pc 42, perception as to whether one’s listener is ordained is irrelevant to the offense. 比丘在此构成《波逸提》；未受具足戒者——显然也包括比丘尼——构成《突吉罗》。如同《波逸提》四二，听者是否受具足戒的感知与犯戒无关。
Effort & result 努力及结果
The Vibhaṅga illustrates these two factors together, saying, “One provokes anxiety (saying), ‘Perhaps you were ordained when less than twenty; perhaps you have eaten at the wrong time; perhaps you have drunk alcohol; perhaps you have sat down in private with a woman.’ Most of these possible offenses are ones that can be committed unknowingly, but the last one is not. However, it is close enough to an offense that the mention of the possibility of having done it unknowingly would cause an ignorant bhikkhu anxiety. Similarly, in the origin story, some group-of-six bhikkhus made insinuating remarks to the group of seventeen that because they were ordained when they were less than 20 years old, they were not really ordained. Yet, because the group of seventeen were the instigators for that rule, they were not subject to it. All of this shows that the factor of effort can be fulfilled by any statement one might make to another bhikkhu insinuating that he may have broken a rule, even if the action mentioned is not actually an offense. 《经分别》将这两个因素一起阐释，说道：「引发焦虑（说）：『或许你未满二十岁就受具足戒了；或许你在非时吃了东西；或许你喝了酒；或许你曾与女子私下同坐。』这些可能的罪行大部分可以在不知不觉中犯下，但最后一条并非如此。然而，它与犯戒非常接近，提及可能在不知不觉的情况下做了这件事，会引起无明比丘的焦虑。同样，在起源故事中，六群比丘曾暗示十七群比丘，因为他们受具足戒时未满二十岁，所以不算真正受具足戒。然而，由于这十七群比丘是这条戒条的最初犯者，所以他们不受其约束。所有这些都表明，任何暗示另一位比丘其可能违反戒条的言论，即使所提及的行为本身并非真的犯戒，也能满足「努力」这一因素。
The Commentary underlines the need for the factor of result here by translating “provokes” as “generates.” In other words, anxiety has to arise in one’s listener as a result of one’s remarks, even if for a moment, for there to be an offense. This interpretation is seconded by the fact that the Vibhaṅga to Pc 55, which is in some ways parallel to this rule, contains explicit statements to the effect that result is not a factor under that rule, whereas the Vibhaṅga to this rule contains no such statements. 《义注》强调了结果因素在此的重要性，将「引发」译为「产生」。换言之，即使只是片刻，只要听者因自己的言语产生了焦虑，便可构成犯戒。这项解释得到了以下事实的支持：与此戒条在某些方面相似的《波逸提》五五的《经分别》明确指出，结果并非该戒条的因素，而此戒条的《经分别》则没有此类表述。
Intention 意图
Intention here is defined in the same terms used under Pr 3, Sg 1, and Pc 61: “having willed, having made the decision knowingly and consciously.” In those rules, this phrase indicates that one’s intention has to be clear and unequivocal. Here, however, the wording of the training rule suggests that, to fulfill the factor of intention, one’s intention to cause anxiety has to be the sole motive for one’s statements. The non-offense clauses illustrate this point with the case where, not wanting to provoke anxiety, one says, “Perhaps you were ordained when less than twenty; perhaps you have eaten at the wrong time; perhaps you have drunk alcohol; perhaps you have sat down in private with a woman. Please look into it. Don’t suffer anxiety later.” It’s easy to anticipate that a bhikkhu hearing these remarks might suffer a moment of anxiety, but because one’s overriding purpose is to prevent greater anxiety at a later time—say, after he has become a preceptor and ordained many other bhikkhus, he discovers that his ordination was invalid—one incurs no offense in making these remarks in a timely and compassionate fashion. 意图在此的定义与《波罗夷》三、《僧残》一和《波逸提》六一中的定义相同：「有意愿，明知且有意识地做出决定」。在这些戒条中，这一措辞表明意图必须清晰明确。然而，此处的学处措辞表明，要满足「意图」这一因素，发表言论的唯一动机必须是造成焦虑。不犯条款透过以下例子说明了这一点：不想引起焦虑，说：「或许你未满二十岁就受具足戒了；或许你在非时吃了东西；或许你喝了酒；或许你曾与女子私下同坐。请调查一下。别以后为此焦虑。」可以预见，比丘听到这些话可能会感到焦虑，但因为首要目的是为了防止日后出现更大的焦虑——比如，在他成为戒师并为许多其他比丘授戒之后，他发现自己的受具足戒无效——所以及时、慈悲地提出这些话并不犯戒。
Summary: Intentionally provoking anxiety in another bhikkhu that he may have broken a rule, when one has no other purpose in mind, is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：故意引起另一位比丘的焦虑，让他担心自己可能违反了戒条，而且并无其他目的，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
78 七十八
Should any bhikkhu stand eavesdropping on bhikkhus when they are arguing, quarreling, and disputing, thinking, “I will overhear what they say”—doing it for just that reason and no other—it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘站著偷听其他比丘争论、争吵、辩论，想著，「我要偷听他们说什么」，这样做只因为该理由而无其他，波逸提。
“Now at that time some group-of-six bhikkhus were quarreling with the well-behaved bhikkhus. The well-behaved bhikkhus (meeting among themselves) said, ‘These group-of-six bhikkhus are shameless. There’s no way you can quarrel with them.’
「其时，有六群比丘与品行端正的比丘们发生争执。品行端正的比丘们（聚在一起）说：『这六群比丘无惭愧，不能和他们争吵。』」
“(Later,) the group-of-six bhikkhus said to them, ‘Why do you disgrace us by calling us shameless?’
「（后来，）六群比丘对他们说：『你们为什么称我们无惭愧，使我们蒙羞呢？』
“‘But how did you overhear?’
「『但是你们是怎么偷听到的？』
“‘We stood eavesdropping on you.’”
「『我们当时站著偷听你们说话。』」
The factors for the full offense here are three. 构成完全违犯的因素有三点。
1) Object: other bhikkhus who are involved in an argument over an issue.
1）对象：参与诤论的其他比丘们。
2) Effort: One stands eavesdropping on them,
2）努力：站著偷听他们说话，
3) Intention: with the purpose of using what they say against them, either as part of a formal accusation (charging, interrogating, counter-charging, or counter-interrogating them) or simply to make them feel abashed.
3）意图：目的是利用他们所说的话来对付他们，无论是作为正式指控的一部分（指控、质疑、反指控或反质疑他们），还是仅仅为了让他们感到羞愧。
Object 对象
According to the Vibhaṅga, the words, arguing, quarreling, and disputing refer to arguments over issues (see Pc 63). The Commentary says that this refers to one kind of issue—disputes—but accusations would appear to fit here as well. 根据《经分别》，争论、争吵、辩论等字词指的是围绕著各种议题的诤论（参见《波逸提》六三）。《义注》指出，这指的是一种议题——诤论——但指控似乎也适用于此。
This factor is fulfilled regardless of whether the two parties in the dispute/accusation are confronting each other or—as in the origin story—one party is talking in private. It is also fulfilled regardless of whether one is already involved in the dispute oneself. 无论诤论/指控中的双方是当面对质，还是像最初的故事那样，一方私下交谈，这一因素都成立。无论自己是否已牵涉入诤论，此因素也成立。
Bhikkhus involved in an argument are grounds for a pācittiya; unordained people involved in an argument, grounds for a dukkaṭa. The Vibhaṅga, in its references to bhikkhus as objects under this rule, switches back and forth between the singular and the plural. Thus even a single bhikkhu, involved in an argument with an unordained person, would be grounds for the full offense. 牵涉入诤论的比丘，构成《波逸提》；牵涉入诤论的未受具足戒者，构成《突吉罗》。在《经分别》中，比丘作为此戒条的对象时，单复数交替出现。因此，即使只有一位比丘，牵涉入与未受具足戒者的诤论，也构成完全违犯。
The role of perception here is the same as under Pc 42. 感知在这里的作用与《波逸提》四二下相同。
People who are not involved in an argument are not grounds for an offense. Thus there is no penalty in eavesdropping on a Dhamma talk or on a bhikkhu sitting in private with a woman, to see what they will say to each other. 未牵涉入诤论者，则不构成犯戒。因此，偷听佛法开示或与女性私下坐著的比丘，看看他们互相说什么，并不构成犯戒。
Effort 努力
The Vibhaṅga goes into a fair amount of detail on this factor, allotting the offenses as follows (assuming the other factors to be fulfilled as well): 《经分别》对此因素进行了相当详细的阐述，并按如下方式划分了罪行（假设其他因素也被满足）：
One goes with the purpose of eavesdropping on the other party (§): a dukkaṭa. One stays in one place eavesdropping on them: a pācittiya.
前往是为了窃听对方（§）：一次《突吉罗》。待在一处偷听他们说话：一次《波逸提》。
One is walking behind the other party and speeds up one’s steps to overhear them: a dukkaṭa. One stays in one place eavesdropping on them: a pācittiya.
走在对方身后，加快脚步想偷听他们：一次《突吉罗》。待在一处偷听他们说话：一次《波逸提》。
One is walking ahead of the other party and slows down to overhear them: a dukkaṭa. One stays in one place eavesdropping on them: a pācittiya.
走在对方前面，放慢速度偷听他们：一次《突吉罗》。待在一处偷听他们说话：一次《波逸提》。
One comes to a place where a bhikkhu involved in discussion is sitting, standing, or lying down: One should cough, clear one’s throat, or otherwise let one’s presence be known. (The K/Commentary suggests saying, “I’m here.”) Not to do so entails a pācittiya.
来到正在讨论的比丘的地方，无论他是坐著、站著或躺著：都应该咳嗽、清嗓子，或以其他方式表明自己的存在。（ K/《义注》建议说：「我在这里。」）不这样做犯《波逸提》。
At present, surreptitiously reading another person’s mail would seem to fulfill this factor as well. 目前来看，偷偷阅读他人的邮件似乎也符合此因素。
Intention 意图
According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if one goes (to listen) with the motive, “having heard their (words), I will abstain, I will refrain, I will grow calm, I will free myself” (“by declaring my innocence,” says the Commentary) (§). 根据《经分别》，如果怀著这样的动机去（听）：「听了他们的（话语）之后，我将节制，我将克制，我将增长冷静，我将解脱自己」（《义注》说，「透过宣告我的清白」），那么就没有犯戒（§）。
Summary: Eavesdropping on bhikkhus involved in an argument over an issue—with the intention of using what they say against them—is a pācittiya offense. 摘要：偷听比丘们就某个议题进行诤论，意图利用他们所说的话来对付他们，是《波逸提》（《单堕》）罪。
* * *
79 七十九
Should any bhikkhu, having given consent (by proxy) to a transaction carried out in accordance with the rule, later complain (about the transaction), it is to be confessed.
如果任何比丘（透过代理人）同意依照戒条执行的羯磨，之后又抱怨（该羯磨），波逸提。
“Now at that time some group-of-six bhikkhus were indulging in bad habits but protested when a transaction was being carried out against any one of their group. Then on one occasion the Community was meeting on some business or other, and the group-of-six bhikkhus, making robes, sent their consent with one of their members. Then the Community, (saying,) ‘Look, friends, this member of the group-of-six has come alone. Let’s carry out a transaction against him,’ did just that.
「其时，有六群比丘沉溺于不良习惯，但当对他们中之任一人执行羯磨时，他们提出抗议。后来有一次，僧团开会讨论某事，六群比丘正在制作袈裟，并派他们成员其中一人来表示同意。然后，僧团（说）『看，朋友们，这六群中的这名成员独自前来。让我们对他执行羯磨』，然后就这么做了。
“He then went to the group-of-six bhikkhus. They asked him, ‘What, friend, did the Community do?’”
「然后他去找那六群比丘。他们问他：『朋友，僧团做了什么？』」
“‘They carried out a transaction against me.’
「『他们对我执行了羯磨。』
“‘That wasn’t what we gave our consent for, that they would carry out a transaction against you. If we had known that they would carry out a transaction against you, we wouldn’t have given our consent!’”
「『我们当初同意的并不是让他们对你执行羯磨。如果我们知道他们会对你执行羯磨，我们不会同意！』」
Transactions 羯磨
A transaction is a procedure by which a Community issues a statement to settle an issue (see BMC2, Chapter 12). Cv.IV gives the pattern for such procedures, stating the minimum number of bhikkhus that have to be present for the transaction, the qualifications (positive or negative) of the individual or situation warranting the act, and the formal pattern for the statement—an announcement, a motion, a motion with one proclamation, or a motion with three proclamations—that constitutes the transaction. Thus the Vibhaṅga to this rule defines transaction as any of the four types of statements that form the heart of the transaction. A transaction carried out in accordance with these patterns is said to be carried out in accordance with the rule. 羯磨是指僧团透过发表声明来解决议题的程序（参见《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第十二章）。《小品》.四规定了此类程序的模式，叙述羯磨所需的最低在场比丘人数、促成羯磨的个人或情况的资格（肯定或否定），以及构成羯磨的声明的正式模式——公告[译注：求听羯磨 apalokana-kamma]、动议[译注：单白羯磨 ñatti-kamma]、附有一次宣告的动议[译注：白二羯磨 ñatti-dutiya-kamma]或附有三次宣告的动议[译注：白四羯磨 ñatti-catuttha-kamma]。因此，本戒条的《经分别》将羯磨定义为构成羯磨核心的四种声明中的任何一种。依照这些模式进行的羯磨，即被称为依照戒条执行。
However, for a transaction to be valid and irreversible, it must be carried out not only in accordance with the rule but also by a complete assembly (Mv.IX.2.4). This point is to prevent small factions from carrying out transactions as they like. When this point was first raised, the question arose, How many bhikkhus are needed for an assembly to be complete? All the bhikkhus in the world? All the bhikkhus in a particular monastery? The Buddha’s answer was, All the bhikkhus in a monastery, and he gave permission for the bhikkhus to mark out territories (sīmā) so as to determine who did and did not have to join in the transaction for the assembly to be complete (Mv.II.5.2,`6.1`_,`12.7`_). Later, he gave permission that an ill bhikkhu living within the territory did not have to attend the meeting, but could give his consent by proxy, through word or gesture, and the assembly would still be regarded as complete (Mv.II.23.1-2). 然而，羯磨要有效且不可逆转，不仅必须按照戒条，而且必须由完整的集众执行（《大品》.九.2.4）。这一点是为了防止小团体随意执行羯磨。当这一点最初被提出时，问题便产生：究竟需要多少比丘才算一个完整的集众？是全世界所有的比丘？还是某个特定寺院的所有比丘？佛陀的回答是：一个寺院的所有比丘。他允许比丘们划分戒场（sīmā），以此来决定哪些人必须参与羯磨，哪些人不必参与，从而确保集众的完整性（《大品》.二.5.2、《大品》.二.6.1、《大品》.二.12.7）。后来，他允许居住在该戒场内的生病比丘不必参加会议，但可以透过言语或示意动作代理表示同意，集众仍会被视为完整（《大品》.二.23.1-2）。
Thus a complete assembly is defined as follows: All the bhikkhus of common affiliation within the territory are either present at the meeting (sitting within hatthapāsa, or 1.25 meters of one another) or have given their consent by proxy, and no one—in the course of the transaction—makes a valid protest against its being carried out (Mv.IX.3.5-6). (An invalid protest would be one made by someone who is not a bhikkhu, by a bhikkhu who is insane, possessed by a spirit, outside the territory, or suspended from the Community, or by the bhikkhu against whom the act is being carried out (Mv.IX.4.7-8).) 因此，完整的集众定义如下：界场内所有共羯磨的比丘，若非亲自出席会议（坐在伸手可及之处，即彼此间隔 1.25 公尺之内），就是借由代理人给予同意，而且——在羯磨进行过程中——无人对其被执行提出有效的抗议（《大品》.九.3.5-6）。（无效的抗议是：由非比丘提出；精神错乱、被邪灵附身、界场外、被僧团举罪、或正对其执行羯磨的比丘提出（《大品》.九.4.7-8）。）
Before we go on to discuss this rule, there are a few added points concerning the origin story we should touch on: 在继续讨论这条戒条之前，我们还需要提及一些关于其起源故事的要点：
1) A protest does not need to be justified in order to count as valid. In other words, a bhikkhu can make protest simply because he doesn’t agree with the transaction, and his protest stands regardless of whether he can find any basis for it in the Dhamma and Vinaya.
1）抗议无需提供正当理由即可被视为有效。换言之，比丘可以因为不认同该羯磨而提出抗议，无论他能否在法与律中找到任何依据，他的抗议都成立。
2) One Community may not carry out a transaction against another Community (Mv.IX.2.3). What this means is that they may carry it out against no more than three bhikkhus at a time. This is why the group-of-six bhikkhus were able to protect one another from being subject to a transaction, for there were usually more than three of them at any one meeting of the Community. Even though the ones against whom the transaction was being carried out had no right to protest, their friends did, and they took advantage of their right.
2）一个僧团不得对另一个僧团执行羯磨（《大品》.九.2.3）。这意味著他们一次只能对不超过三位比丘执行羯磨。正因如此，六群比丘才能互相抗议，免于受到羯磨，因为僧团每次会议他们通常都有超过三位在场。即使被执行羯磨者无权抗议，他们的朋友也有，且他们行使了他们的权利。
3) In the passage where the Buddha gives permission for bhikkhus to give their consent by proxy (Mv.II.23.1-2), he states that this permission applies to ill bhikkhus. Yet in the origin stories to this rule and the following one, the group-of-six bhikkhus are not ill, they give their consent by proxy, and the transaction carried out with their consent is considered valid. None of the texts make note of this point, but it seems to indicate that ill in this context covers not only physical illness but also any other serious inconvenience that prevents one from joining in the meeting.
3）在佛陀允许比丘借由代理人给予同意的段落（《大品》.二.23.1-2）中，他指出此开缘适用于生病的比丘。然而，在这条戒条及其后一条戒条的起源故事中，六群比丘并非生病，他们借由代理人给予同意，且经他们同意而执行的羯磨也被视为有效。所有文献均未提及这一点，但这似乎表明，此脉络下的「生病」不仅涵盖身体疾病，也包括任何其他严重不便之处，导致无法参加会议。
The factors for the offense under this rule are three. 本戒条下犯戒的因素有三点。
1) Object: a valid transaction to which one has given one’s consent. 1）对象：已给予本人同意的有效羯磨。
2) Perception: One perceives it as valid. 2）感知：认为它是有效的。
3) Effort: One complains about it. 3）努力：抱怨它。

(未完待续)