灭诤
| CHAPTER ELEVEN | 第十一章 |
| Adhikaraṇa-samatha | 灭诤 |
| This term means “the settling of issues.” The seven rules in this section are actually principles and procedures for settling the four sorts of issues mentioned under Pc 63: dispute-issues (vivādādhikaraṇa), accusation-issues (anuvādādhikaraṇa), offense-issues (āpattādhikaraṇa), and duty-issues (kiccādhikaraṇa). The Canon’s explanations of these procedures are given not in the Vibhaṅga but in Cullavagga IV, which starts with a sketch of the procedures, followed by a detailed discussion of how to apply them to each of the four types of issues. We will follow the same mode of presentation here. | 此术语意为「解决争议」。本节的七条戒条其实是解决《波逸提》六三所提及的四种争议的原则和程序:言诤(vivādādhikaraṇa)、教诫诤/觅诤(anuvādādhikaraṇa)、犯罪诤/犯诤(āpattādhikaraṇa)和事诤(kiccādhikaraṇa)。《圣典》并非在《经分别》对这些程序的给予解释,而是在《小品》.四。该卷首先概述了这些程序,然后详细讨论如何将它们应用于四种争议的每一种。我们将在此沿用同样的阐述方式。 |
| For the settling, the resolution of issues that arise: | 为了解决出现的争议: |
| 1 | 一 |
A face-to-face verdict should be given.
|
应该当面判决。
|
| This means that the transaction settling the issue must be carried out face-to-face with the Community, face-to-face with the individuals, and face-to-face with the Dhamma and Vinaya. | 这意指解决争议/诤论的羯磨必须与僧团面对面、与个人面对面、与法和律面对面执行。 |
| Face-to-face with the Community means that the group of bhikkhus that has gathered is competent to carry out the transaction in question. In other words, it contains the minimum number of bhikkhus required, all the qualified bhikkhus in the valid territory (sīmā) in which the meeting is held either are present or have sent their consent, and none of the qualified bhikkhus in the meeting makes protest against having the matter settled by the group—although as we noticed under Pc 80, if a transaction is being carried out against a bhikkhu, his protest does not invalidate the act; any protest made by any other member of the group, though, would invalidate it, even if he only informs the bhikkhu sitting next to him (Mv.IX.4.8). | 与僧团面对面意指聚集的比丘团体有资格执行相关羯磨。换言之,其包含的比丘人数达到最低要求,在会议举行的界场(sīmā)内所有符合资格的比丘都已到场或已送来他们的同意,且会议中没有任何符合资格的比丘抗议由团体解决此事——尽管如我们在《波逸提》八十中所注意到,如果羯磨是针对某位比丘执行的,他的抗议并不会使该羯磨无效;然而,任何团体里其他成员的抗议都会使该羯磨无效,即使他只是告知坐在他旁边的比丘(《大品》.九.4.8)。 |
| Face-to-face with the individuals means that all the individuals involved in the matter are present. For instance, in a dispute-issue, both sides of the dispute must be in the meeting; when the Community is carrying out a transaction against one of its members, the accused must be there; in an ordination, the bhikkhu-to-be must be present. There are a few cases where this factor is not followed—such as the ordination of a bhikkhunī by messenger and the act of turning the bowl upside down (refusing to accept donations from a lay person who has mistreated the Community)—but these are rare. | 与个人面对面意指事件相关的所有个人都必须在场。例如,在处理言诤时,诤论双方都必须出席;当僧团对成员之一执行羯磨时,被指控者必须在场;在受具足戒仪式上,即将受戒的比丘必须在场。有少数情况下,这项因素并未被遵守——例如由信使为比丘尼受具足戒,以及覆钵(拒绝接受不当对待僧团的在家人供养)——但这些情况非常罕见。 |
| Face-to-face with the Dhamma and Vinaya means that all the proper procedures laid down in the Vinaya are followed (see BMC2, Part II), and that bhikkhus who advocate what is not truly Dhamma or Vinaya are not holding sway over the group. | 与法与律面对面意指遵循律藏中规定的所有适当程序(参见《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第二部份),并且提倡非真正法或律的比丘不会对团体产生影响。 |
| 2 | 二 |
A verdict of mindfulness may be given.
|
可给予正念判决。
|
| This is the verdict of innocence given in response to an accusation, based on the fact that the accused remembers fully that he did not commit the offense in question. | 这是针对指控的无罪判决,依据事实是被指控者完全记得他没有犯下所指控的罪行。 |
| This verdict is valid only if— | 只有在以下情况下,该判决才有效— |
1) The bhikkhu is pure and without offense.
|
1)该比丘清净无罪。
|
2) He is accused of an offense.
|
2)他被指控犯有罪行。
|
3) He asks for the verdict.
|
3)他要求判决。
|
4) The Community gives him the verdict.
|
4)僧团给予他判决。
|
5) It is in accordance with the Dhamma, the assembly of bhikkhus being united and competent to give it (Cv.IV.4.11).
|
5)这是符合法的,比丘集众和合,有能力给予之(《小品》.四.4.11)。
|
| According to the Commentary, factor (1) here—the bhikkhu is pure and without offense—applies only to arahants, but the Canon makes no mention of this point. There are other places in the Khandhakas where the phrase “pure and without offense” is used to refer to any bhikkhu who has not committed the offense of which he is accused (e.g., Mv.IX.1.7; Mv.IX.4.9), with nothing to indicate that he would have to be an arahant as well. If the Commentary’s interpretation were correct here, there would be no way that a bhikkhu in his right mind who is not an arahant could be declared innocent of an offense at all, for the only three verdicts that may settle an accusation-issue are this one, the verdict of past insanity (for a bhikkhu who was insane when he committed the offense in question), and the transaction for further punishment (literally, “making it worse for him,”) for a bhikkhu who committed the offense in question when he was in his right mind. The fourth rule below—acting in accordance with what is admitted—which is sometimes assumed to cover cases of innocence, actually applies only to cases where the bhikkhu admits to having committed an offense, and not to cases where he is innocent and asserts his innocence. | 根据《义注》,此处的因素(1)——比丘清净无罪——仅适用于阿罗汉,但《圣典》中并未提及这一点。在《犍度》的其他篇章中,「清净无罪」一词被用来指称任何未犯下被指控罪行的比丘(例如,《大品》.九.1.7;《大品》.九.4.9),而没有任何迹象表明他也必须是阿罗汉。如果《义注》的解释在此正确,那么一位神智健全但未证得阿罗汉的比丘就不可能被宣告无罪,因为只有三种判决可以解决教诫诤/觅诤:一是此判决;二是不痴判决(适用于在犯戒时处于精神错乱状态的比丘);三是罪处所(觅罪相)羯磨(字面意思是「使其对他更糟」)适用于在犯戒时神智健全的比丘;下文第四条戒条——「按照所承认而行。」——有时被认为涵盖无罪的情况,但实际上仅适用于比丘承认犯戒的情况,而不适用于比丘无罪并坚称自己无罪的情况。 |
| Thus we will follow the general usage in the Khandhakas and say that the factor “pure and without offense” is fulfilled by any bhikkhu—arahant or not—who has not committed the offense in question. | 因此,我们将遵循《犍度》中的一般用法,认为任何比丘——无论是否是阿罗汉——只要没有犯下所讨论的罪行,就满足了「清净无罪」的因素。 |
| 3 | 三 |
A verdict of past insanity may be given.
|
可给予不痴判决。
|
| This is another verdict of innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that the accused was out of his mind when he committed the offense in question and so is absolved of any responsibility for it. | 这是另一个在指控里可以被给予的无罪判决,根据的事实是被指控者在犯相关戒时发狂,因此免除了对它的任何责任。 |
| This verdict is valid only if given to a bhikkhu who: | 只有在以下情况下的比丘,此判决才有效: |
1) does not remember what he did while insane;
|
1)不记得自己在精神错乱时做了什么;
|
2) remembers, but only as if in a dream; or
|
2)记得,但感觉就像在做梦一样;或者
|
3) is still insane enough to believe that his behavior is proper. (“I act that way and so do you. It’s allowable for me and allowable for you!”) (Cv.IV.6.2).
|
3)仍然精神错乱到认为自己的行为是恰当的。(「我这样做,你也这样做。我这样做是允许的,你这样做也是允许的!」)(《小品》.四.6.2)。
|
| 4 | 四 |
Acting in accordance with what is admitted.
|
按照所承认而行。
|
| This refers to two types of situations. The first is the ordinary confession of offenses, where no formal interrogation is involved. The confession is valid only if in accord with the facts, e.g., a bhikkhu actually commits a pācittiya offense and then confesses it as such, and not as a heavier or lighter offense. If he were to confess it as a dukkaṭa or a saṅghādisesa, that would be invalid. | 这指的是两种情况。第一种是普通的忏悔罪行,不涉及正式审问。这种忏悔表白只有在与事实相符的情况下才有效,例如,比丘确实犯了《波逸提》,并如实忏悔表白之,而不是忏悔表白为更重或更轻的罪。如果他忏悔表白为《突吉罗》或《僧残》,则无效。 |
| The second situation is when, following on an accusation, the Community has met to interrogate the bhikkhu in question and he has admitted to doing the action in question (although he may still not see the action as an offense or, if he does, may still refuse to undergo the penalty for it). If he admits that it was an offense, he may be dealt with in line with the severity of the offense. For instance, if he committed a saṅghādisesa offense, they would have to at least tell him to prepare for his penance and probation, and later actually carry them out. This would count as “acting in accordance with what is admitted.” However, the accusation is still not settled. The Community must then impose an extra disciplinary action on him—at the very least, the “further-punishment” transaction described under As 6, below—for having put the Community to the trouble of having to hold the interrogation to begin with. Only then is the issue settled. This is why Cv.IV.14.27 does not list “acting in accordance with what is admitted” as a procedure for settling accusation-issues, because even though the bhikkhus must deal with the accused in line with what was admitted, the accusation-issue is not settled until the extra punishment has been applied. | 第二种情况是,当在接到指控后,僧团召开会议审问涉事比丘,而他承认了所指控的行为(尽管他可能仍然不认为该行为是犯戒,或者即使认为是犯戒,也可能拒绝接受相应的惩罚)。如果他承认这是犯戒,则可以根据犯戒的严重程度来处理他。例如,如果他犯了《僧残》罪,僧团至少要告知他准备进行摩那埵和别住,并在之后实际执行。这算作「按照所承认而行」。然而,指控仍尚未解决。僧团随后必须对他施加额外的治罪处分——至少是下文《灭诤》六所述的「罪处所(觅罪相)」羯磨——因为他使僧团陷入了必须首先进行审问的麻烦。这样,问题才能解决。这就是为什么《小品》.四.14.27没有将「按照所承认而行」列为解决教诫诤(觅诤)的程序,因为即使比丘们必须按照所承认的来处理被指控者,但在施加额外惩罚之前,教诫诤(觅诤)还没有得到解决。 |
| 5 | 五 |
Acting in accordance with the majority.
|
按照多数而行。
|
| This refers to cases in which bhikkhus are unable to settle a dispute unanimously, even after all the proper procedures are followed, and—in the words of the Canon—are “wounding one another with weapons of the tongue.” In cases such as these, decisions can be made by majority vote. | 这指的是比丘们即使遵循了所有正当程序,也无法一致解决争端,并且——用《圣典》的话来说——「以言语的武器来互相伤害」的情况。在这种情况下,可以透过多数投票来做出决定。 |
| Such a vote is valid only if— | 这样的投票只有在以下情况才有效—— |
1) The issue is important.
|
1)该争议/诤论很重要。
|
2) The face-to-face procedures have all been followed but have not succeeded in settling the issue. (The discussion in the Cullavagga indicates that at least two Communities have tried settling the issue; the Commentary recommends trying the normal procedures in at least two or three.)
|
2)已遵循所有的面对面程序,但未能成功解决诤论。(《小品》中的讨论表明,至少有两个僧团已尝试解决这个诤论;《义注》建议至少在两到三个僧团尝试正常的程序。)
|
3) Both sides have been made to reflect on their position.
|
3)双方都已被迫反思自己的立场。
|
4) The distributor of voting tickets knows that the majority sides with the Dhamma.
|
4)分发选票者知道多数站在法这边。
|
5) He hopes (§) that the majority sides with the Dhamma (in other words, he himself is on the side of the Dhamma).
|
5)他希望(§)多数站在法这边(换句话说,他自己在法这边)。
|
6) The distributor of voting tickets knows that the procedure will not lead to a split in the Saṅgha.
|
6)分发选票者知道,此程序不会导致僧伽分裂。
|
7) He hopes (§) that the procedure will not lead to a split in the Saṅgha (again, this means that he himself does not want there to be a split).
|
7)他希望(§)此程序不会导致僧伽分裂(再一次,这意指他自己不希望将会有分裂)。
|
8) The tickets are taken in accordance with the Dhamma (according to the Commentary, this means that there is no cheating—e.g., one bhikkhu taking two tickets—and the Dhamma side wins).
|
8)选票按照法来领取(根据《义注》,这意指没有作弊行为——例如,一个比丘拿两张票——而且法一方获胜)。
|
9) The assembly is complete.
|
9)集众是完整的。
|
10) The bhikkhus take the tickets in accordance with their views (and not, for example, under fear of intimidation or coercion). (Cv.IV.10)
|
10)比丘们根据自己的见解领取选票(而不是,例如,在害怕恐吓或胁迫的情况下)。(《小品》.四.10)
|
| 6 | 六 |
Acting for his further punishment.
|
为加重对他的处罚而行。
|
| This refers to cases where a bhikkhu admits to having committed the offense in question only after being formally interrogated about it. After getting him to disclose the offense, the Community is to carry out a “further-punishment” transaction against him for being so uncooperative as to require the formal interrogation in the first place. | 这指的是比丘在被正式审问后才承认犯下相关罪行的情况。在使其坦白罪行后,僧团应因其最初不配合导致需要正式审问,而对其施以「罪处所(觅罪相)」羯磨。 |
| The Cullavagga (IV.11.2-12.3) contains two separate discussions of the conditions that are necessary for the act to be valid. The discussions overlap, but can be summarized as follows: | 《小品》(四.11.2-12.3)包含了两段关于此行事要有效的必要条件的独立讨论。这两段讨论有所重叠,但可以概括如下: |
1) The accused is impure (i.e., he actually did commit the offense, and it is an offense that requires confession).
|
1)被指控者不清净(即,他确实犯下了罪行,而且该罪行需要忏悔表白之)。
|
2) He is unconscientious (i.e., he didn’t voluntarily confess the offense on his own in the first place).
|
2)他缺乏良心(即,他一开始并没有自愿忏悔罪行)。
|
3) He stands accused of the offense. (The Commentary translates this word—sānuvāda, “with an accusation”—as meaning “argumentative”—sa-upavāda—but in Mv.IV.16.16 it clearly means that an apparently well-founded charge has been brought against the accused by a competent bhikkhu.)
|
3)他被指控犯有该罪行。(《义注》将这个词——sānuvāda,「带著指控」——翻译为「好争论的」——sa-upavāda——但在《大品》.四.16.16中,它清楚地指一位称职的比丘对被指控者提出了明显有理有据的指控。
|
4) A formal meeting has been called in which he is present and has been interrogated: charged with the offense and made to remember—i.e., to think back to the events in question.
|
4)已召开正式会议,他出席并接受了审问:被指控犯有该罪行,并被迫回忆——即,回想相关事件。
|
5) He discloses the offense—i.e., admits to having committed it.
|
5)他披露了罪行-即承认自己犯下了该罪行。
|
6) The Community carries out the transaction
|
6)僧团执行羯磨
|
7) in accordance with the Dhamma and Vinaya, and with a united assembly.
|
7)依照法与律,并依照和合的集众。
|
| What makes this transaction special is that—unlike other disciplinary transactions, which the Community can impose or not at its discretion—this act must be imposed on a bhikkhu who has committed an offense that requires confession but does not admit to the action until having been formally interrogated (Cv.IV.14.27). In addition, though, Cv.IV.12.3 states that, if the Community wants to, it may also impose the act on a bhikkhu who: | 这项羯磨的特殊之处在于-与其他僧团可自行决定是否执行的治罪羯磨不同-这项羯磨必须施加于犯有需忏悔之罪却在被正式审问前不承认该行为的比丘(《小品》.四.14.27)。此外,《小品》.四.12.3规定,如果僧团想要,也可以对以下比丘执行该羯磨: |
1) is a maker of strife, quarrels, and dissension in the Community;
|
1)是僧团内纷争、争吵和不和的制造者;
|
2) is inexperienced, incompetent, indiscriminately (§) full of offenses; or
|
2)缺乏经验、能力不足、不加区分地(§)充满罪行;或
|
3) lives in unbecoming association with lay people.
|
3)过著与在家人有不雅观交往的生活。
|
| However, if the Community wants to, it may also impose a censure transaction on the bhikkhu who meets either of these sets of qualifications (Cv.I.2; Cv.I.4). Given that the prohibitions imposed by both the censure and the further-punishment transactions are identical, it is hard to understand why there are two separate transactions that, for all intents and purposes, are essentially the same. | 然而,如果僧团想要,也可以对符合上述任何一种条件的比丘施加呵责(苦切)羯磨(《小品》.一.2;《小品》.一.4)。鉴于呵责(苦切)羯磨和罪处所(觅罪相)羯磨所施加的禁令完全相同,就所有意图和目的而言,很难理解为何会有两种本质上相同的羯磨。 |
| Once a further-punishment transaction has been carried out against a bhikkhu, he must observe the following prohibitions: | 一旦对一名比丘执行了罪处所(觅罪相)羯磨,他必须遵守以下禁令: |
1) He may not act as preceptor or teacher for another bhikkhu, nor is he to have a novice attend to him.
|
1)他不得担任其他比丘的戒师或教授师,也不得让沙弥侍奉他。
|
2) He may not accept authorization to exhort bhikkhunīs; even if authorized, he is not to exhort them.
|
2)他不得接受教诫比丘尼的授权;即使获得授权,他也不得教诫比丘尼。
|
3) He should not commit the offense for which he is being punished, a similar offense, or a worse one.
|
3)他不应该犯下他正在受罚的罪行、类似的罪行,或更严重的罪行。
|
4) He should not find fault with the transaction or with those who carried it out.
|
4)他不应该对羯磨本身或执行羯磨者挑毛病。
|
5) He should not accuse others of offenses or participate actively in any of the procedures involved in or leading up to a formal accusation—i.e., canceling another bhikkhu’s right to join in the Pāṭimokkha recitation, canceling his invitation at the end of the Rains, setting up an accusation, asking his leave to accuse him, charging him, interrogating him (literally, “making him remember”).
|
5)他不应该指控他人犯戒,也不应该积极参与任何牵涉或导致正式指控的程序,例如取消另一位比丘参加诵《波罗提木叉》的权利、取消他在雨安居结束时的自恣、提出指控、请求他许可来指控他、控告他、审问他(字面意思是「让他记住」)。
|
6) He should not join bhikkhus in quarreling with other bhikkhus (following the Thai edition of the Canon, which reads, “na bhikkhū bhikkhūhi sampayojetabbanti”). (Cv.IV.12.4).
|
6)他不应参与比丘们与其他比丘争吵(遵循泰国版《圣典》的原文,拼读成:「na bhikkhū bhikkhūhi sampayojetabbanti」)。(《小品》.四.12.4)。
|
| If he abides by all these prohibitions, and the Community is satisfied that he has seen the error of his ways, they are to rescind the transaction and restore him to his former status as a full-fledged bhikkhu. | 如果他遵守所有这些禁令,并且僧团对他已经认识到自己行事的错误感到满意,他们就应该撤销羯磨,并恢复他先前作为正式比丘的身份。 |
| 7 | 七 |
Covering over as with grass.
|
像草一样覆盖。
|
| This refers to situations in which both sides of a dispute realize that, in the course of their dispute, they have done much that is unworthy of a contemplative. If they were to deal with one another for their offenses, the result would be greater divisiveness, even to the point of schism. Thus if both sides agree, all the bhikkhus gather in one place. (According to the Commentary, this means that all bhikkhus in the territory must attend. No one should send his consent, and even sick bhikkhus must go.) A motion is made to the entire group that this procedure will be followed. One member of each side then makes a formal motion to the members of his faction that he will make a confession for them. When both sides are ready, the representative of each side addresses the entire group and makes the blanket confession, using the form of a motion and one proclamation (ñatti-dutiya-kamma). | 这指的是争端双方都意识到,在争端过程中,他们做了许多不值得沙门应做的事。如果他们就各自的罪行互相处置,结果只会加剧分裂,甚至导致破和合僧。因此,如果双方都同意,所有比丘就聚集到一处。(根据《义注》,这指该界场内所有比丘都必须参加。任何人都不得送来自己的同意,即使是生病的比丘也必须到场。)向全体比丘提出白文[动议],宣布将遵循这一程序。然后,双方各派一名成员向本派成员正式提出白文[动议],表示他将会为他们忏悔罪行。当双方都准备就绪后,双方代表向全体比丘宣告,并做出总括的忏悔罪行,采用一白一羯磨(白二羯磨)[一次动议和一次宣告](ñatti-dutiya-kamma)的形式。 |
| This clears all offenses except for— | 这将清除除以下情况外的所有罪行—— |
1) any grave fault (pārājika or saṅghādisesa offense, says the Commentary) committed by anyone in the group;
|
1)团体中任何人所犯的任何重罪(《波罗夷》或《僧残》罪,《义注》说);
|
2) any offenses dealing with the laity;
|
2)任何与在家人有关的罪行;
|
3) any offenses of any member of either side who does not approve of the procedure; and
|
3)任何一方的任何成员若不认可该程序,其任何罪行;以及
|
4) any offenses of any bhikkhu who does not attend the meeting. (This is the reason for the Commentary’s statement that even sick bhikkhus must attend.) (Cv.IV.13.4)
|
4)任何未出席集会的比丘的任何罪行。(这就是《义注》中所说的,即使是生病的比丘也必须出席的原因。)(《小品》.四.13.4)
|
| Point (3) here is interesting. If any member of either side were to dissent, that would invalidate the whole procedure. This point is thus probably added as a reminder to any bhikkhu who might be vindictive enough to want to deal with his enemies case-by-case, that his offenses will have to be dealt with case-by-case as well. This might be enough to discourage him from dissenting. | 此处第(3)点很有意思。如果任何一方的任何成员持异议,整个程序都将无效。因此,加入这一点可能是为了提醒那些心怀报复、想要逐案处理敌人的比丘,他的罪行也将必须逐案处理。这或许足以让他打消异议之念。 |
| The Commentary explains the name of this procedure by comparing the offenses cleared in this way to excrement that has been so thoroughly covered with grass that it can no longer send an oppressive smell. | 《义注》解释了这一程序的名称,它将以这种方式清除的罪行比作被草彻底覆盖的粪便,以至于它不再散发出令人作呕的气味。 |
* * *
| According to Cv.IV.14—sections 16, 27, 30, and 34—the principle of “face-to-face” applies to all four types of issues: dispute-issues, accusation-issues, offense-issues, and duty-issues. In addition, dispute-issues must be settled “in accordance with the majority”; accusation-issues, either by a verdict of mindfulness, a verdict of past insanity, or an act of further punishment; and offense-issues, by acting in accordance with what is admitted or by covering them over as with grass. | 根据《小品》.四.14(第16、27、30和34条),「面对面」原则适用于所有四类诤事:言诤、教诫诤(觅诤)、犯罪诤(犯诤)和事诤。此外,言诤必须「依照多数」来解决;教诫诤(觅诤)必须透过正念判决、不痴判决或行罪处所(觅罪相)来解决;犯罪诤(犯诤)必须根据所承认而行,或者像用草掩盖一样掩盖起来。 |
| What follows is a more detailed discussion of how these principles and procedures apply in each of the four cases: | 接下来将更详细地讨论这些原则和程序如何在这四个情况中应用: |
| Disputes | 言诤 |
| Disputes are heated disagreements over what the Buddha did and did not teach, or—in the words of the Cullavagga—“when bhikkhus dispute, saying: | 言诤是指对佛陀教导和未教导的内容的激烈分歧,或者——用《小品》的话来说——「当比丘们争论时,说: |
‘It is Dhamma,’ or ‘It is not Dhamma;’
|
『这是法』,或『这不是法』;
|
‘It is Vinaya,’ or ‘It is not Vinaya;’
|
『这是律』,或『这不是律』;
|
‘It was spoken by the Tathāgata,’ or ‘It was not spoken by the Tathāgata;’
|
『这是如来所说』或『这不是如来所说』;
|
‘It was regularly practiced by the Tathāgata,’ or ‘It was not regularly practiced by the Tathāgata;’
|
『这是如来之所常行』或『这不是如来之所常行』;
|
‘It was formulated by the Tathāgata,’ or ‘It was not formulated by the Tathāgata;’
|
『这是如来所制』,或『这不是如来所制』。
|
‘It is an offense,’ or ‘It is not an offense;’
|
『这是犯戒』,或『这不是犯戒』;
|
‘It is a light offense,’ or ‘It is a heavy offense;’
|
『这是轻罪』,或『这是重罪』;
|
‘It is an offense leaving a remainder (§),’ or ‘It is an offense leaving no remainder (§);’
|
『这是有余罪(§)』,或『这是无余罪(§)』;
|
‘It is a serious offense,’ or ‘It is not a serious offense.’
|
『这是粗罪』,或『这不是粗罪』;
|
“Any strife, quarreling, contention, dispute, differing opinions, opposing opinions, antagonistic words, abusiveness based on this is called a dispute-issue.”—Cv.IV.14.2
|
『任何由此引起的纷争、争吵、争论、纠纷、意见分歧、反对意见、敌对言辞、辱骂,称为言诤。』——《小品》.四.14.2
|
| Thus not all disagreements on these matters are classed as issues. Friendly disagreements or differences of interpretation aren’t; heated and abusive disagreements are. | 因此,并非所有关于这些问题的分歧都属于争议范畴。友善的分歧或解读上的差异不算,而激烈的、带有侮辱性的分歧则属于争议范畴。 |
| The Cullavagga quotes the Buddha as recommending that a bhikkhu who wants to bring up such questions for discussion should first consider five points: | 《小品》引述佛陀的建议,认为想要提出此类问题进行讨论的比丘应该先考虑以下五点: |
1) whether it is the right time for such a discussion;
|
1)是否是进行此类讨论的合适时机;
|
2) whether it concerns something true;
|
2)是否与真实有关;
|
3) whether it is connected with the goal;
|
3)是否与目标有关;
|
4) whether he will be able to get on his side bhikkhus who value the Dhamma and Vinaya; and
|
4)他能否争取那些珍惜法与律的比丘们的支持;而且
|
5) whether the question will give rise to strife, quarreling, disputes, cracks and splits in the Community.
|
5)该问题是否会在僧团内引起冲突、争吵、纠纷、裂痕和分裂。
|
| If the answer to the first four questions is Yes, and to the fifth question No (i.e., the discussion is not likely to lead to strife), he may then go ahead and start the discussion. Otherwise, he should let the matter rest for the time being (Cv.IX.4). | 如果前四个问题的答案是「是」,第五个问题的答案是「否」(即,讨论不太可能导致冲突),那么他就可以开始讨论。否则,他应该暂时搁置此事(《小品》.九.4)。 |
| The Cullavagga also quotes the Buddha as saying that two sorts of mental states—skillful and unskillful—can turn disputes into issues. The unskillful states are covetous, corrupt, or confused states of mind; the skillful ones, states of mind that are not covetous, not corrupt, and not confused. The Buddha adds, however, that six character traits can lead to issues arising from disputes that will act toward the detriment of many people. They are when a bhikkhu: | 《小品》也引述佛陀的话说,两种心境——善心和不善心——会使争端演变成问题。不善心是贪婪、腐败或迷惑的心境;善心是不贪婪、不腐败、不迷惑的心境。然而,佛陀补充说,有六种性格特征会导致争端引发问题,从而损害许多人。这些特征包括当一名比丘: |
is easily angered and bears ill will,
|
易怒且怀有恶意,
|
is mean and spiteful,
|
卑鄙恶毒,
|
is jealous and possessive,
|
嫉妒且拥有占有欲。
|
is scheming and deceitful,
|
阴险狡诈,
|
has evil desires and wrong views,
|
有恶欲及邪见,
|
is attached to his own views, obstinate, unable to let them go.
|
执著己见,顽固,不能放下。
|
| Such a bhikkhu, he says, lives without deference or respect for the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Saṅgha, and does not complete the training. If one should see any of these traits within oneself or others, one should strive for their abandoning. If no such traits are present, one should make sure that they don’t arise in the future (Cv.IV.14.3). | 他说,这样的比丘对佛、法、僧三宝缺乏敬畏之心,无法修行圆满。如果发现自己或他人身上有这些缺点,就应该努力舍弃它们。如果没有这些缺点,就应该确保将来不再生起(《小品》.四.14.3)。 |
| Although the source of a dispute-issue may be in skillful or unskillful mind states, Cv.IV.14.8 states that the actual conduct of the issue may be skillful, unskillful, or neutral—apparently, depending on the mind states of the bhikkhus as they get involved. | 虽然言诤的根源可能在于善或不善的心态,但《小品》.四.14.8指出,争端的实际处理方式可能是善的、不善的、或中立的[无记]——显然,这取决于比丘们在介入时的心态。 |
| As noted under Sg 10, when a dispute is still small but threatens to become schismatic, a Community may use the procedures described under Sg 10 & 11. Once it has become a major issue, however, the procedures to follow are these: | 如《僧残》十所述,当争端尚小但有演变为破和合僧的风险时,僧团可采用《僧残》十和十一所述的程序。然而,一旦争端演变为重大问题,则应遵循以下程序: |
| Face-to-face—Step 1: | 面对面——第一步: |
a) The Community meets, with at least four bhikkhus—the minimum to form a quorum—present. All of the bhikkhus in the territory are either present or have sent their consent, and none of the bhikkhus present protests having the matter settled by the group.
|
a)僧团召开会议,至少有四位比丘出席-这是达到法定人数的最低人数。界场内的所有比丘若非到场,则是已送来同意,且所有到场的比丘均不反对由群体解决此事。
|
b) Both sides of the dispute are present.
|
b)诤论双方均到场。
|
c) The meeting is carried out in a way that does not transgress any of the rules laid down by the Buddha, and the unanimous decision of the Community is in line with what the Buddha actually laid down. This point is important: It means that no Community—even if it follows the proper form for the meeting—can legitimately replace the Buddha’s teachings with its own preferences on any point.
|
c)会议的进行方式不得违反佛陀所制定的任何戒条,且僧团的一致决定必须符合佛陀所制。这一点至关重要:这意味著任何僧团——即便遵循了会议的适当形式——也不能在任何方面以自身的偏好合法地取代佛陀的教义。
|
| If the Community can settle the matter in this way, it is properly settled and should not be reopened. | 如果僧团能够以这种方式解决这个问题,那么这个问题就已经得到了妥善解决,不应该再重新讨论。 |
| Step 2: If the Community cannot settle the matter, they should go to a monastery where there are more bhikkhus and ask them to help settle the matter. If the group can settle the matter among themselves on the way to the other monastery, then it is properly settled, and they may return home to their own monastery. | 第二步:如果僧团无法自行解决问题,他们应该前往比丘较多的寺院,请他们帮忙解决。如果群体在前往其他寺院的途中能够自行解决问题,那么该问题就已妥善解决,他们可以返回自己的寺院。 |
| Step 3: If the matter is still unsettled by the time they reach the second monastery, they should ask the resident bhikkhus there to help settle the matter. The resident bhikkhus should then meet and consider among themselves whether they are competent to do so. If they feel they aren’t, they shouldn’t take it on. If they feel they are, they should then ask the incoming bhikkhus how the dispute arose. (The Commentary here adds that the residents should first stall for two or three days—saying that they have to wash their robes or fire their bowls first—as a way of subduing the pride of the incoming bhikkhus.) | 第三步:如果他们到达第二座寺院时事情仍未解决,就应该请那里的比丘帮忙解决。常住比丘应该聚在一起商议自己是否有能力处理此事。如果他们觉得自己没有能力,就不该接手。如果他们觉得自己有能力,就应该询问来访的比丘们争端是如何产生的。(此处的《义注》补充说,常住比丘应该先拖延两三天——比如说他们需要先洗袈裟或烧钵——以此来平息来访的比丘们的傲气。) |
| Once the resident bhikkhus have asked the history of the dispute, the incoming bhikkhus are to say that if the resident bhikkhus can settle the dispute, they (the incoming bhikkhus) will hand it over to them; if they can’t settle it, the incoming bhikkhus will still be in charge of the matter. | 当常住比丘询问了争端的来龙去脉后,来访的比丘要说,如果常住比丘能够解决争端,他们(来访的比丘)就会将争端移交给他们;如果常住比丘无法解决争端,来访的比丘仍将负责处理此事。 |
| If the resident bhikkhus can then settle the dispute, it is properly settled. | 如果常住比丘能够解决争端,那么争端就得到了妥善解决。 |
| Step 4: If they can’t settle it in this way—and, in the words of the Canon, “endless disputes arise, and there is no discerning the meaning of a single statement”—the disputants should, with a motion and one proclamation, hand the matter over to a panel of experts (§). (The Commentary recommends a panel of ten.) Cv.IV.14.19 states that each member of the panel must meet ten qualifications, which are in brief: | 第四步:如果他们无法以此方式解决争端——正如《圣典》所言,「争端不断,单一语句的含义都无法辨别」——争端双方应以一白一羯磨[一次动议和一次宣告],将此事移交专家小组(§)。(《义注》建议由十人组成专家小组。)《小品》.四.14.19规定,专家小组的每位成员必须符合十项资格要求,简述如下: |
1) He is virtuous, abiding scrupulously by the rules of the Vinaya, seeing danger in the slightest faults.
|
1)他品德高尚,一丝不苟地遵守律藏的戒条,见到最轻微的罪过里的危险。
|
2) He is learned in all teachings dealing with the complete celibate life, understanding them thoroughly.
|
2)他精通所有与圆满梵行生活相关的教义,并对其有透彻的理解。
|
3) He has memorized both the Bhikkhu and the Bhikkhunī Pāṭimokkhas in detail, understanding them thoroughly.
|
3)他详细地背诵了比丘和比丘尼的《波罗提木叉》,并透彻地理解了它们。
|
4) He is shrewd in his knowledge of the Vinaya and is not easily led off-track.
|
4)他对律藏的了解非常透彻,不容易被误导。
|
5) He is competent at placating and reconciling both sides of a dispute.
|
5)他能胜任安抚和调解争端双方。
|
6) He is skilled at settling an issue.
|
6)他擅长解决诤事。
|
7) He knows what constitutes an issue.
|
7)他知道什么构成诤事。
|
8) He knows the origination of an issue (i.e., through skillful or unskillful states of mind).
|
8)他知道诤事的根源(即透过善或不善的心境)。
|
9) He knows the cessation of an issue.
|
9)他知道诤事之止息。
|
10) He knows the way leading to the cessation of an issue. (Notice that these last four qualifications are similar in form to knowledge of the four noble truths.)
|
10)他知道导致诤事止息之道。(请注意,最后这四项资格在形式上与对四圣谛的了知相似。)
|
| The Commentary notes that while the panel is discussing the issue, none of the other bhikkhus is to speak. If the panel can settle the issue, it is properly settled and should not be reopened. | 《义注》指出,在小组讨论此事期间,其他比丘不得发言。如果小组能够解决这个诤事,那么这个诤事就已经得到了妥善解决,不应再重新讨论。 |
| Step 5: If the panel has trouble settling the issue, and there are members of the panel who “hide the Dhamma under the shadow of the letter”—i.e., use the letter of the rules to go against the spirit—they may be removed from the panel through a formal motion. If the panel can then settle the issue, it is properly settled. | 第五步:如果小组难以解决诤事,且小组中有成员「以字面意义掩盖佛法」——即利用戒条的字面含义违背其精神——则可透过正式动议将其从小组中除名。如果小组随后能够解决诤事,则该诤事即得到妥善解决。 |
| If not—and by this time, the Commentary says, at least two or three monasteries have become involved—the face-to-face procedures have been exhausted, and the dispute must go on to a settlement “in accordance with the majority.” | 如果得不到解决——《义注》说,到那时至少有两三个寺院卷入其中——面对面的程序已经用尽,争端必须「按照多数」解决。 |
| In accordance with the majority: A decision by majority vote is valid only when it meets the ten qualifying factors listed above, under As 5. When these factors are all present, the group should first ask one of its members to act as a distributor of voting tickets. He should be free of the four kinds of bias (from desire, aversion, delusion, and fear), and know what does and does not constitute the proper taking of a voting ticket. Before accepting the role, he should reflect on whether the situation meets the ten qualifying factors, and accept only when it does. Once he accepts the role, he is to be authorized by means of a formal motion and one proclamation. | 按照多数:多数决的决定只有在符合上述《灭诤》五所列的十项资格条件时才有效。当这些条件全部具备时,群体应先指定一名成员担任选票分发者。该成员应无四种偏见(贪、嗔、痴和恐惧),并清楚什么算和不算正确领取选票。在接受该角色之前,他应省思当前情况是否符合上述十项资格条件,只有在符合的情况下才能接受。一旦他接受该角色,则需透过正式一白一羯磨[一次动议和一次宣告]予以授权。 |
| He is then to have voting tickets made—a different color for each side—and conduct the ballot in one of three ways: secretly, by whispering in the ear, or openly. | 然后,他要制作选票——每方使用不同的颜色——并以三种方式之一进行投票:秘密投票、耳语投票、或公开投票。 |
In secret balloting, he is to tell each bhikkhu, “This color is for this side, and that color for that. Take one, but don’t show it to anyone.” According to the Commentary, this method is to be used when there are many unconscientious bhikkhus in the assembly.
|
在秘密投票时,他要告诉每位比丘:「这种颜色代表这一方,那种颜色代表另一方。拿一张,但不要给任何人看。」根据《义注》,这种方法用于集众中有很多不负责任的比丘的情况。
|
In “whispering in the ear” balloting, he is to whisper to each bhikkhu, “This color is for this side, and that color for that. Take one, but don’t tell anyone.” This method, the Commentary says, is for assemblies in which there are many foolish or trouble-making bhikkhus.
|
在「耳语」投票时,他要悄悄告诉每个比丘:「这个颜色代表这一方,那个颜色代表另一方。拿一个,但不要告诉任何人。」《义注》中说,这种方法适用于有很多愚昧或制造麻烦的比丘们的集众。
|
In open balloting, the bhikkhus are to take the voting tickets openly. This method is for assemblies where the distributor is certain that the conscientious bhikkhus are in the majority.
|
在公开投票时,比丘们要公开领取选票。这种方法适用于分发者确信尽责的比丘占多数的集众。
|
| Once the vote is taken, the distributor is to assess the result before announcing it. If he sees that the anti-Dhamma side has won, he is to annul the balloting and take the vote all over again. According to the Commentary, he may take the vote up to three times. If the anti-Dhamma side is still in the majority, he should announce that the time is not right for a vote, adjourn the meeting, and try to find more bhikkhus on the side of the Dhamma to join the next meeting. | 投票结束后,分发者在宣布前应先评估结果。如果他发现非法一方获胜,则应宣布投票无效,重新进行投票。根据《义注》,他最多可以重新进行三次投票。如果非法一方仍然占多数,他应宣布现在不宜投票,休会,并努力寻找更多正法一方的比丘参加下次会议。 |
| These procedures make two interesting assumptions: One side of the dispute is clearly in the right, and the distributor must belong to the right side. If he belongs to the wrong side, the balloting is invalid and the issue may later be reopened without penalty. If neither side is clearly in the right, the compilers of the Cullavagga would probably consider the issue unimportant and not worthy of a vote in the first place. If this is true, then even if a vote is taken, it would not be a valid use of the procedure, and the results would not be binding. | 这些程序基于两个有趣的假设:争议一方显然是正确的,且分发者必须属于正确的一方。如果他属于错误的一方,则投票无效,该诤事可以稍后重新提出而不会受到惩罚。如果双方都没有明显的正确性,《小品》的编纂者可能会认为这个诤事一开始就无关紧要,根本不值得投票表决。如果情况确实如此,那么即使进行了投票,也并非有效行使该程序,结果也不具有约束力。 |
| In all of these steps for settling dispute-issues, the important point to remember is that in no way is a group of bhikkhus to rewrite the Dhamma or Vinaya in line with their views. Even if they attempt it, following the procedures to the letter, the fact that their decision goes against the Buddha’s teachings invalidates their efforts, and the issue may be reopened at any time without penalty. | 在解决言诤的所有这些步骤中,必须牢记一点:任何比丘们都不能按照自己的观点改写法或律。即使他们试图这样做,严格按照程序进行,但由于他们的决定违背了佛陀的教导的这个事实,使他们的努力成为无效,而且该诤事可以随时重新提出,无需承担任何惩罚。 |
* * *
| Accusations | 教诫诤/觅诤 |
| When a bhikkhu has committed an offense, it is his responsibility to undergo the attendant penalty voluntarily so as to make amends for it. If his fellow bhikkhus see, hear, or suspect that he has committed an offense without undergoing the penalty, it is their duty to question and admonish him in private, in accordance with the procedures discussed under Sg 8. The issue may be settled informally in one of three ways: (1) The accused admits to the act, sees it as an offense, and undergoes the penalty. (2) He is truly innocent, professes his innocence, and can convince his admonishers that their suspicions were ungrounded. (3) He committed the action in question but was insane at the time, and can convince his accusers that this was the case. | 比丘犯戒后,有责任自愿接受相应的惩罚以改正过失。如果他的同侪比丘们看到、听到或怀疑他犯戒却未接受惩罚,则他们有义务按照《僧残》八所讨论的程序私下询问并教诫他。此诤事可透过以下三种方式非正式解决:(1)被指控者承认其行为,认为其为罪行,并接受惩罚。(2)他确实无辜,声明自己无辜,并能说服教诫者他们的怀疑毫无根据。(3)他犯下了所涉行为,但当时精神失常,并能说服他的指控者们事实如此。 |
| If both sides act in good faith and without prejudice, issues of this sort are relatively easy to settle informally in this way. If the issue can’t be settled informally, it should be taken to a meeting of the Community for a formal interrogation and verdict. | 如果双方本著诚意且不带偏见地行事,这类诤事相对容易透过这种方式非正式地解决。如果诤事无法非正式地解决,则应提交僧团会议进行正式质询和裁决。 |
| When the Community meets, both the accuser (X) and the accused (Y) must be present. (If the original accuser is a lay person, one of the bhikkhus is to take up the accusation.) If they meet during the regular time for the Pāṭimokkha (see BMC2, Chapter 15), the accusation must first be preceded by a formal period of questions and answers about Vinaya matters touching on the accusation (Mv.II.15.6-11). This is to educate the group as a whole so that they will be ready to judge the case, inasmuch as the ultimate verdict has to be unanimous. This also gives Y the chance to speak up and confess the offense, if he is guilty of it, so as to eliminate the need for any further interrogation. However, Mv.II.15.8 and Mv.II.15.11 indicate that the bhikkhus who are to ask and answer Vinaya questions should first assess the assembly to see if it is safe and advisable to bring up the issue, for there may be bhikkhus present who might react violently if the matters under discussion touch too closely on their own misbehavior or that of their friends. | 僧团聚会时,指控者(X)和被指控者(Y)都必须到场。(如果原指控者是居士,则由一位比丘接受该指控。)如果聚会时间安排在例行的《波罗提木叉》时间(参见《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第十五章),则在正式指控之前,必须先进行一段关于与指控相关的戒律问题的正式问答环节(《大品》.二.15.6-11)。这样做是为了教育全体僧团成员,使他们能够做好判断案件的准备,因为最终的判决必须由全体僧团成员一致通过。这也让 Y 有机会坦白并忏悔罪行(如果他确实犯了戒),从而消除进一步审讯的需要。然而,《大品》.二.15.8和《大品》.二.15.11指出,要提问和回答戒律问题的比丘们应该先评估集众,看看提出这个诤事是否安全且明智,因为在场的比丘中,如果讨论的事情过于密切地触及他们自己或朋友的不当行为,他们可能会做出激烈的反应。 |
| If, after the conclusion of the Vinaya questions and answers, Y has not confessed an offense, X—while the motion for the Pāṭimokkha is being recited—may interrupt it with the announcement that Y has an offense and that the Pāṭimokkha should not be recited in his presence (see BMC2, Chapter 15, for the formal statement). Then, after assessing Y’s state of mind—to ensure that he won’t act in a threatening way if accused—X asks formal leave to speak to Y about the offense, saying, “May the venerable one give leave. I want to speak with you—Karotu āyasmā okāsaṁ. Ahan-taṁ vattukāmo.” Y, after assessing his accuser and the assembly, may choose to give leave or not. (See the discussion of this point under Sg 8 and Ay1.) If he chooses not to, the Pāṭimokkha will not be recited that day. The issue is left hanging for the time being and can be brought up at a later date. | 若在律藏问答结束后,Y 仍未忏悔罪行,X 可以在诵读《波罗提木叉》动议[白文]期间打断诵读,宣告 Y 有犯戒,不应在其面前诵读《波罗提木叉》(正式羯磨文见《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第十五章)。然后,在评估Y的心境后——以确保他被指控时不会做出威胁性举动—— X 请求正式许可与 Y 谈论此罪行,说道:「请尊者许可。我想与您谈谈——Karotu āyasmā okāsaṁ. Ahan-taṁ vattukāmo。」Y 在评估了其指控者和集众后,可以选择许可与否。(参见《僧残》八和《不定》一对此的讨论。)如果他选择不许可,则当天不会诵读《波罗提木叉》。此诤事暂时搁置,可在日后再提出。 |
| If X brings up the issue during the Invitation (see BMC2, Chapter 16), a similar process is followed, although this time there is no preliminary session of questions and answers. X can simply ask Y’s leave to speak about the accusation; if Y doesn’t give leave, X may cancel his invitation, and the Community has to look into the matter. If they know that X is incompetent or ignorant, they will override his cancelation and continue with the Invitation. Otherwise, they will question him about his planned accusation. Because Y in this case does not have the right to refuse to give leave, he is potentially open to an abusive or ill-willed accusation. Thus the Community has the responsibility of interrogating X thoroughly concerning his general knowledge about accusations and the particulars of his accusation against Y (see Mv.IV.16.10-16; BMC2, Chapter 16). If they find his answers ignorant and inconsistent, they can override the cancelation. If, however, they find his answers knowledgeable and consistent, they should turn to interrogate Y, as described below. | 如果 X 在自恣时提出该诤事(请参阅《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第十六章),则遵循类似的流程,但这次没有事先的问答环节。X 可以直接要求 Y 许可来谈论指控;如果 Y 不许可,X 可以取消其自恣,僧团必须调查此事。如果僧团知道 X 不称职或无知,则会推翻他的取消,继续进行自恣。否则,他们会询问他计划提出的指控。由于在这种情况下 Y 没有权利拒绝许可,他可能会受到滥用或恶意指控。因此,僧团有责任就 X 对指控的一般了解以及他对 Y 的指控的具体细节,对 X 进行彻底的询问(参见《大品》.四.16.10-16;《佛教比丘戒律 第二册》第十六章)。如果僧团发现他的回答无知且前后矛盾,则可以推翻该取消。但是,如果他们发现他的回答既有见地又前后一致,他们就应该按照下文所述转而审问 Y。 |
| It is also possible to bring up an accusation in a Community meeting on a day other than that of the Pāṭimokkha or the Invitation, but the Canon does not prescribe any special preliminaries for this case. Given the need to have a well-informed assembly, it would be wise to follow the pattern for the Pāṭimokkha meeting and to begin the proceedings with a period of questions and answers about Vinaya rules touching on the proposed accusation. | 在《波罗提木叉》聚会或自恣聚会以外的其他日子,也可以在僧团聚会上提出指控,但《圣典》并未对此情况规定任何特殊的程序。鉴于需要确保僧团成员[集众]充分了解情况,明智的做法是遵循《波罗提木叉》聚会的模式,与被提出的指控相关的律藏戒条进行问答环节来开始诉讼程序。 |
| If, in situations where Y has the right to refuse to give leave, he does give leave to X, the next step is for X formally to level his charge against Y, after which Y is interrogated—literally, “made to remember”—whether he can recall having committed the offense in question. Although he can be dealt with only in accordance with what he admits to having done (Mv.IX.6.1-4), Cv.IV.14.29 shows that the other bhikkhus are not to take his first statement at face value. | 如果 Y 有权拒绝给予许可的情况下,却仍然给予 X 许可,那么下一步就是 X 正式向 Y 提出指控,之后 Y 会被盘问——字面意思是「让其回忆」——他是否可以记得自己犯过所指控的罪行。虽然只能按照他承认所做者来处理之(《大品》.九.6.1-4),但《小品》.四.14.29 表明,其他比丘不应凭表面就相信他的第一次陈述。 |
“There is the case where a bhikkhu, in the midst of the Community, charges (another) bhikkhu with a heavy offense: ‘Does the venerable one recall having committed a heavy offense of this sort, a pārājika or bordering on a pārājika?’ He (the other) says, ‘No….’ He (the first) presses the one who denies this, ‘Please, venerable sir, very carefully ascertain whether you recall having committed a heavy offense of this sort, a pārājika or bordering on a pārājika.’ The second one says, ‘I don’t recall having committed a heavy offense of this sort… but I do remember having committed a trifling offense of this sort.’ The first one presses the one who denies this, ‘Please, venerable sir, very carefully ascertain whether you recall having committed a heavy offense of this sort, a pārājika or bordering on a pārājika.’ The second one says, ‘Look. Unasked, I have admitted to having committed a trifling offense. How would I, when asked, not admit to having committed a heavy offense…?’ The first one says, ‘You look, friend. (Before,) when you were unasked, you didn’t admit to having committed (your) trifling offense. So how would you, when unasked, admit to having committed a heavy offense?”
|
「有这样的情况:一位比丘在僧团中指控(另一位)比丘犯了重罪:『具寿,你是否记得犯过这种重罪,《波罗夷》或相似《波罗夷》?』他(另一位比丘)说:『没有…』他(第一位比丘)追问否认者:『具寿,请仔细确认您是否记得自己曾经犯下这种重罪,《波罗夷》或相似《波罗夷》。』第二位比丘说:『我不记得犯过这种重罪……但我记得犯过这种轻微罪。』第一位比丘追问否认者:『具寿,请仔细确认您是否记得自己曾经犯下这种重罪,《波罗夷》或相似《波罗夷》。』第二位比丘说:『听著,没人问起,我就承认犯了轻微罪。当有人问起,我怎么可能不承认犯了重罪呢…?』第一位比丘说:『你看,朋友。(之前,)当没人问你的时候,你连轻微罪都不承认。那么,当被问到的时候,你又怎么可能承认自己犯了重罪呢?」
|
| The accuser should press and cross-examine the accused in this way until the Community is satisfied that the accused is telling the truth, and only then may they pass one of three verdicts: | 指控者应以此方式对被指控者进行盘问和交叉询问,直到僧团确信被指控者所言属实,然后才能作出以下三种判决之一: |
1) If he is innocent of the offense and can convince the group of his innocence, he is to request a verdict of mindfulness—expressing the request three times—and the Community is to give it to him by means of a formal motion with three proclamations. (See Appendix IX.)
|
1)如果他无罪,并且能够说服团体相信他的清白,他应当请求正念判决——提出三次请求——僧团应当借由一白三羯磨(白四羯磨)[一次正式动议和三次宣告]给予他正念判决。(参见附录九。)
|
(未完待续)