T85n2787_四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三
大正藏第 85 冊 No. 2787 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三
No. 2787 [cf. Nos. 1429, 1806]
四分戒本疏卷第一
凡欲開發經題。先作三門分別。后乃隨文解釋。言三門者。第一舉宗攝教旨歸。第二知教旨歸第三正釋戒經題目。言舉宗攝教者。聖教雖眾略有三種。一修多羅藏。二毗尼藏。三阿毗達磨藏。言修陀羅者。所謂諸經。言毗尼者。謂諸戒律。言阿毗曇者。即是諸論。今此戒本三藏之中。乃是第二毗尼藏攝。言知教旨歸者。此戒所言為以義通論兼詮定惠。故四分律云。何名增戒學。所謂增戒增心增惠。是名增戒學。良以止作俱戒故爾。今以宗求唯戒學分別。就此戒學兩料簡 第一受戒法門。第 隨戒行相。言受戒者。創發要期。斷惡修善。建志成就。納法在心目之為受。言隨戒者。受興於前持心後起義順受體 說之為隨。就受隨二門各開為兩。謂受門二者。為障戒法有為不能孤起。藉因托緣然後方發。故明能發之緣。既有其緣必有所得故。次第二所發戒體。言受緣者。寔以位階聖凡報殊男女托緣不同。四分律辨五種受戒。一曰善來。二稱上法。三名三歸。四曰八教。五曰羯磨。斯之五名備如常釋。第二言受體者。撮要而論不出二種。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 大正藏第 85 冊 No. 2787 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三
No. 2787 [cf. Nos. 1429, 1806]
四分戒本疏卷第一
凡是想要闡發經題，首先要從三個方面進行分別，然後才根據經文進行解釋。所說的三個方面是：第一，舉出宗派來統攝教義的宗旨歸宿；第二，瞭解教義的宗旨歸宿；第三，正式解釋戒經的題目。說到舉出宗派來統攝教義，聖教雖然眾多，但大致有三種：一是修多羅藏（Sūtra-piṭaka，經藏），二是毗尼藏（Vinaya-piṭaka，律藏），三是阿毗達磨藏（Abhidhamma-piṭaka，論藏）。說到修多羅，就是指各種經典。說到毗尼，就是指各種戒律。說到阿毗曇，就是指各種論著。現在這部戒本在三藏之中，屬於第二種毗尼藏所統攝。說到了解教義的宗旨歸宿，這部戒所說的，是以義理來貫通，兼顧詮釋禪定和智慧嗎？所以《四分律》說：『什麼叫做增戒學（adhisīla-sikkhā，增上戒學）？就是增戒、增心、增慧，這就叫做增戒學。』這是因為止惡和作善都屬於戒的緣故。現在以宗派來探求，只有戒學可以分別。就這個戒學，分為兩個部分來簡別：第一是受戒的法門，第二是隨戒的行相。說到受戒，就是最初發起重要的約定，斷除惡行，修習善行，建立志向，成就功德，將佛法納入心中，這叫做受。說到隨戒，受戒在先，持戒之心在後，意義上順應受戒的本體，這叫做隨。就受戒和隨戒這兩個方面，各自展開為兩個部分。所謂受戒的兩個方面，是因為障礙戒法的因素存在，無法單獨生起，必須藉助因緣才能發起。所以要說明能夠引發受戒的因緣。既然有了這些因緣，必定有所獲得，所以接下來要說明所發起的戒體。 說到受戒的因緣，實際上是因為位階有聖凡之別，報應有殊異，男女所託的因緣也不同。《四分律》辨別了五種受戒的方式：一是『善來』（Ehi-bhikkhu，善來比丘），二是稱揚上法，三是名為三歸（Ti-sarana-gamana，三皈依），四是八戒（Aṭṭhaṅga-sīla，八支齋戒），五是羯磨（kamma，業）。這五種名稱都詳細地解釋在通常的解釋中。第二說到受戒的本體，概括來說，不出兩種。
【English Translation】 English version: Taisho Tripitaka Volume 85, No. 2787 Shifen Jieben Shu Scroll 1, 2, 3
No. 2787 [cf. Nos. 1429, 1806]
Shifen Jieben Shu Scroll 1
In general, if one wishes to expound on the title of a sutra, one must first make distinctions in three aspects, and then explain according to the text. The three aspects are: first, to raise the sect to encompass the ultimate goal of the teachings; second, to understand the ultimate goal of the teachings; and third, to formally explain the title of the precepts sutra. Speaking of raising the sect to encompass the teachings, although the holy teachings are numerous, they are roughly of three kinds: first, the Sūtra-piṭaka (修多羅藏, collection of discourses); second, the Vinaya-piṭaka (毗尼藏, collection of monastic rules); and third, the Abhidhamma-piṭaka (阿毗達磨藏, collection of philosophical treatises). Speaking of Sūtra (修多羅), it refers to the various sutras. Speaking of Vinaya (毗尼), it refers to the various precepts. Speaking of Abhidhamma (阿毗曇), it refers to the various treatises. Now, this precepts text, among the three collections, is encompassed by the second, the Vinaya-piṭaka. Speaking of understanding the ultimate goal of the teachings, does this precepts text speak of using reason to connect, while also explaining both samādhi (定, concentration) and prajñā (惠, wisdom)? Therefore, the 'Four-Part Vinaya' says: 'What is called adhisīla-sikkhā (增戒學, higher training in morality)? It is increasing in morality, increasing in mind, and increasing in wisdom. This is called adhisīla-sikkhā.' This is because both stopping evil and doing good belong to precepts. Now, seeking with the sect, only the precepts learning can be distinguished. Regarding this precepts learning, it is divided into two parts for differentiation: first, the Dharma gate of receiving precepts; second, the characteristics of following precepts. Speaking of receiving precepts, it is the initial arising of an important agreement, cutting off evil deeds, cultivating good deeds, establishing aspirations, accomplishing merits, and taking the Dharma into the heart, which is called 'receiving'. Speaking of following precepts, receiving arises before, and the mind of upholding arises after, the meaning accords with the substance of receiving, which is called 'following'. Regarding these two aspects of receiving and following, each is opened into two parts. The two aspects of receiving are because the factors that obstruct the precepts Dharma exist, and it cannot arise alone; it must rely on causes and conditions to arise. Therefore, it is necessary to explain the conditions that can cause the arising of receiving. Since there are these conditions, there must be something obtained, so next, the substance of the precepts that arises will be explained. Speaking of the conditions for receiving precepts, in reality, it is because the stages have differences between the holy and the mundane, the retributions are different, and the conditions relied upon by men and women are also different. The 'Four-Part Vinaya' distinguishes five ways of receiving precepts: first, 'Ehi-bhikkhu' (善來, Welcome Bhikkhu); second, praising the supreme Dharma; third, called Ti-sarana-gamana (三歸, taking the Three Refuges); fourth, the Aṭṭhaṅga-sīla (八戒, Eight Precepts); fifth, kamma (羯磨, karma). These five names are explained in detail in the usual explanations. Second, speaking of the substance of receiving precepts, to summarize, it does not go beyond two kinds.
一曰作戒。二無作戒。言作戒者。方便身口造趣營為。稱之為作。二無作者。一發續現四心三性始末。恒有不藉緣。辯字曰無作。斯之二種俱有懸防。同稱為戒。若也作戒以色為體。言無作戒非色非心 第二次辯隨戒二門者。第一專精不犯。第二犯已能悔。言專精者。上行之流。一往順教惡離善行。稱曰專精。但持有二。一明止持。二明作持。言止持者。念智舍等謹護身□造諸惡。稱之為止。止而無違順受之潔故曰止持。言作持者。奉順聖教。作法作事對事作法。稱之為作。作而順受故號作持。第二犯已能悔者。不謹之人放縱身口違禁興過。不修善行污本所受。名之為犯。慚愧追謝還令複本。亦名為持。雖非一往善成然亦毀而還復。第二白法故名犯。已能懺悔持。然犯有二。一者作犯。現違聖教廣造諸過。稱為作犯。二者止犯。不準教奉修止而有違。故名止犯。對斯二犯悔而還復。並稱為持。上來已辨教之宗旨。其唯受隨若無其受則行無所起。以有受故眾行得生。若無隨行便有戒羸等失。以有隨故令受光潔。故地持云。此二種戒攝受無量諸餘凈戒。是故須受隨二法 就受門中廣釋緣體。先明受緣。后辯受體。言受緣者。八門解義。第一釋名。第二解義總別。第三能秉教人師徒位別。第四教所被者。聖凡不等。第五藉緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第一種是作戒（通過行為產生的戒律）。第二種是無作戒（不通過行為自然產生的戒律）。所謂作戒，是指通過身口意去主動地、有目的地進行活動，並由此產生的戒律。而無作戒，是指從最初一念生起，到持續不斷地相續，經歷四種心念和三種性質，始終存在，不需要藉助外緣而自然產生的戒律。從字面上解釋，『無作』就是這個意思。這兩種戒律都具有防止違犯的作用，所以都稱為戒。如果說作戒以色法為體，那麼無作戒就既不是色法也不是心法。 第二次辨析隨戒的兩個方面：第一是專心精進，不違犯戒律；第二是違犯戒律后能夠懺悔。所謂專心精進，是指向上提升的行為，一貫遵循教導，遠離惡行，奉行善行，這稱為專精。但這種持有戒律的方式有兩種：一是明瞭止持，二是明瞭作持。所謂止持，是指通過念、智、舍等方式，謹慎地守護身口意，不造作諸惡，這稱為止。因為停止作惡而沒有違犯，順從接受戒律的清凈，所以稱為止持。所謂作持，是指奉行順從聖教的教導，按照儀軌作法、做事，針對具體的事情按照儀軌行事，這稱為作。因為作法而順從接受戒律，所以稱為作持。第二種是違犯戒律后能夠懺悔。指不謹慎的人，放縱身口意，違背禁令而產生過錯，不修習善行，玷污了原本所受的戒體，這稱為違犯。通過慚愧、追悔、謝罪，使戒體恢復到原來的狀態，這也稱為持戒。雖然不是一貫的善行成就，但也屬於毀壞后又恢復。因為違犯了清凈的戒法，所以稱為違犯；因為能夠懺悔，所以稱為持戒。然而違犯有兩種：一是作犯，指明顯地違背聖教的教導，廣泛地造作各種過錯，這稱為作犯。二是止犯，指沒有按照教導奉行修習，應該停止的沒有停止，因而產生違犯，所以稱為止犯。針對這兩種違犯，通過懺悔而恢復戒體，都稱為持戒。以上已經辨明了教義的宗旨，關鍵在於受戒和隨戒。如果沒有受戒，那麼修行就無從開始；因為有了受戒，各種修行才能產生。如果沒有隨戒，就會有戒律鬆弛等過失；因為有了隨戒，才能使所受的戒體清凈光潔。所以《地持經》說：『這兩種戒律能夠攝受無量其他的清凈戒律。』因此必須要有受戒和隨戒這兩種方法。 就受戒方面，廣泛地解釋受戒的因緣和戒體。先說明受戒的因緣，然後辨析受戒的戒體。所謂受戒的因緣，從八個方面來解釋：第一是解釋名稱；第二是解釋總義和別義；第三是能傳授戒律的教戒人的師徒位次差別；第四是所教化的對象，聖人和凡夫的不同；第五是憑藉的因緣。
【English Translation】 English version The first is 'making precepts' (戒律) (precepts generated through actions). The second is 'non-making precepts' (戒律) (precepts that arise naturally without action). 'Making precepts' refers to actively and purposefully engaging in activities through body, speech, and mind, thereby generating precepts. 'Non-making precepts' refers to precepts that arise naturally from the initial thought, continuously succeeding through four types of thoughts and three natures, always existing without relying on external conditions. Literally, 'non-making' means this. Both types of precepts have the function of preventing violations, so they are both called precepts. If 'making precepts' have form (色法) as their substance, then 'non-making precepts' are neither form nor mind. The second analysis concerns the two aspects of 'following precepts': first, to be focused and diligent, not violating the precepts; second, to be able to repent after violating the precepts. 'Focused and diligent' refers to upwardly progressing behavior, consistently following teachings, staying away from evil deeds, and practicing good deeds, which is called diligence. However, there are two ways to uphold these precepts: one is to understand 'stopping-upholding' (止持), and the other is to understand 'doing-upholding' (作持). 'Stopping-upholding' refers to cautiously guarding body, speech, and mind through mindfulness, wisdom, and renunciation, not creating evil deeds, which is called stopping. Because stopping evil without violation, and obediently accepting the purity of the precepts, it is called 'stopping-upholding'. 'Doing-upholding' refers to following and obeying the teachings of the saints, performing rituals and actions according to the rules, and acting according to the rules for specific matters, which is called doing. Because performing actions and obediently accepting the precepts, it is called 'doing-upholding'. The second is being able to repent after violating the precepts. It refers to those who are not cautious, indulging body, speech, and mind, violating prohibitions and creating faults, not cultivating good deeds, and defiling the originally received precept body, which is called violation. Through shame, remorse, and apology, restoring the precept body to its original state is also called upholding the precepts. Although it is not a consistent achievement of good deeds, it also belongs to destruction and restoration. Because violating the pure precepts, it is called violation; because being able to repent, it is called upholding the precepts. However, there are two types of violations: one is 'making violation' (作犯), which refers to clearly violating the teachings of the saints and widely creating various faults, which is called 'making violation'. The second is 'stopping violation' (止犯), which refers to not following the teachings to practice cultivation, not stopping what should be stopped, thus creating violation, so it is called 'stopping violation'. Regarding these two violations, restoring the precept body through repentance is called upholding the precepts. The above has clarified the purpose of the teachings, the key lies in receiving precepts and following precepts. Without receiving precepts, there is no way to start practicing; because of receiving precepts, various practices can arise. Without following precepts, there will be faults such as laxity of precepts; because of following precepts, the received precept body can be purified and bright. Therefore, the Bodhisattva-bhumi (地持經) says: 'These two types of precepts can encompass countless other pure precepts.' Therefore, it is necessary to have these two methods of receiving precepts and following precepts. Regarding the aspect of receiving precepts, broadly explain the causes and conditions and the precept body of receiving precepts. First explain the causes and conditions of receiving precepts, and then analyze the precept body of receiving precepts. The so-called causes and conditions of receiving precepts are explained from eight aspects: the first is to explain the name; the second is to explain the general and specific meanings; the third is the difference in the positions of teachers and disciples of those who can transmit the precepts; the fourth is the object of teaching, the difference between saints and ordinary people; the fifth is the conditions relied upon.
多少。第六辨此諸緣發戒時節。第七受持頓漸。第八校量勝劣 第一釋名者。諸部立名多少不定。或立四受言無上法。或立六受取律中八比丘內。自稱比丘。是自誓受戒不然之義。今約四分定立五受。言五受者。謂善來．上法．三歸．八敬．羯磨等是。言善來者。此人宿殖妙因道根深。后聞佛說法契。謂初果深厭生死悕求出家。佛言。善來比丘即發戒品故曰善來。亦可此等諸人深厭生死悕求出家。佛命善來即發具足故曰善來。言上法者。性定之理超出相。有物莫能加故稱上法。無慾迦葉修道進德。惑盡解滿會增上法而發具戒。故曰上法。亦可盡無生智起出學表會而得戒故曰上法。故母經中建立善根上受具足。言三歸者。此等諸人未感如來玄悟見道。但說托小聖諸阿羅漢等。以為良緣之深厭三有悕求出家。母云。諸羅漢等教令剃頭染衣。憑仗三寶歸依心成即發具足。故曰三歸。之名三語。言八敬者。佛抑女人不聽在道。波阇聞之生厭離。遂自剃頭倚立祇桓。阿難見已為其三請。如來遙宣敬法。阿難傳授。愛道聞之。尊斯八法作奉行之意即發具足。故曰八敬。言羯磨者。斯等人輩要假強緣。扶彼弱因方能發戒緣。彼僧眾羯磨言下而發戒品隱其能秉就所秉彰名。故曰羯磨受戒。此五受法得名有四。善來體境。善謂行者求戒心
。來是聖教。故惑可讚嘆受名有心受戒。佛言善來故爾。上法從境又可當體受。受名建立。善根上受具足故。謂盡無生智歸敬二受。約境就心。羯磨從教。亦可功德。謂名辯事故 第二總別。四受是別。羯磨是總。以從遠緣彰名。或四或六。而羯磨統收故說為總 問。羯磨受戒既有四緣。何故獨彰羯磨。余不彰名者何。一釋云。從余緣彰名乃有多種。今且隱別就通以彰名羯磨。何足為妨 第三秉人多論判言。見諦自得。餘六從他。彼對七受釋故。今類彼論以判此五遠而言之。盡從佛受。以佛出世有是法故。若以義推。上法得戒名為自受。余之四種是從他得。云何上法名為自受。論云。以根本而言。由佛說法得證無漏發於具足。名從佛受。以義而推。自以盡智明明現前而得具戒。又名自得不從他受。故心論云。若法者佛五比丘受師等。若爾何故論云從他教得。答。此據遠因而說。善來八敬是佛所秉名從佛受。三歸羯磨弟子所是從弟子言敬下得 第四所被分別。四分律辨善來受戒局在聖位。故律中雲。見法得法得果證已去得無漏解。厭心出家。至順之極。方應善來發具足戒。內凡已還想心所聞。非至順之極。故闕不度。又上法受者。要第四果以其或盡解滿故爾。三歸八敬內凡已上。是以多論此二受法不羸不捨。故知內凡已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『來是聖教』，因此迷惑可以讚歎，接受『有心受戒』（指受戒者有接受戒律的意願）。佛說『善來』（指佛陀對受戒者的歡迎）就是這個意思。『上法』（指通過觀察事物本質而獲得的智慧）從境界而來，也可以直接從自身獲得，接受『受名建立』（指通過接受戒律而獲得新的身份）。善根增長，接受具足戒，指的是通過盡智（指斷盡煩惱的智慧）和無生智（指證悟不生不滅的智慧）的歸敬而接受戒律，這是從境界和內心兩個方面來說的。羯磨（指僧團的儀式）從教法而來，也可以說是功德，指的是通過辯論和思考來理解戒律的意義。 第二，總別。四種受戒方式是別，羯磨是總。因為是從較遠的因緣來彰顯名稱，所以有時說四種，有時說六種，但羯磨統攝所有受戒方式，所以說是總。 問：羯磨受戒既然有四種因緣，為什麼只彰顯羯磨，而不彰顯其他因緣的名稱呢？一種解釋是：從其他因緣彰顯名稱會有多種方式，現在暫且隱藏個別，就普遍的方面來彰顯羯磨的名稱，這有什麼妨礙呢？ 第三，秉持戒律的人的多數觀點認為，見諦（指證悟真理）是自己獲得的，其餘六種是從他人那裡獲得的。他們是針對七種受戒方式來解釋的，現在我們類比他們的觀點來判斷這五種遠緣受戒方式。盡智是從佛陀那裡接受的，因為佛陀出世才有這種法。如果從義理上推斷，上法得戒可以稱為自受，其餘四種是從他人那裡獲得的。為什麼上法稱為自受呢？論中說：從根本上來說，由於佛陀說法，才能證得無漏（指沒有煩惱的狀態），從而發起具足戒，所以說是從佛陀那裡接受的。從義理上推斷，自己通過盡智明明現前而獲得具足戒，又可以稱為自得，不從他人接受。所以《心論》說：『若法者佛五比丘受師等』。如果這樣，為什麼論中說從他人教導而得呢？答：這是從較遠的因緣來說的。善來、八敬是佛陀所秉持的，所以說是從佛陀那裡接受的。三歸、羯磨是弟子所行的，所以說是從弟子那裡獲得，敬下得戒。 第四，所被對像分別。《四分律》辨別善來受戒侷限在聖位。所以律中說：『見法得法得果證已去得無漏解，厭心出家，至順之極，方應善來發具足戒』。內凡（指尚未證得聖果的修行人）已還，想心所聞，非至順之極，所以不能度化。而且上法受戒者，需要第四果（指阿羅漢果），因為他們或者斷盡煩惱，或者解脫圓滿。三歸、八敬內凡已上。因此多數論典認為這兩種受戒方式不羸弱也不捨棄。所以知道內凡已經可以受持。
【English Translation】 English version 'Lai shi sheng jiao' (來是聖教, 'Coming is the holy teaching'), therefore delusion can be praised, accepting 'you xin shou jie' (有心受戒, 'accepting precepts with intention'). The Buddha said 'shan lai' (善來, 'welcome') is the meaning. 'Shang fa' (上法, 'superior Dharma') comes from the realm, and can also be received directly from oneself, accepting 'shou ming jian li' (受名建立, 'establishing a name through acceptance'). Good roots grow, accepting the full precepts, referring to accepting precepts through the reverence of 'jin zhi' (盡智, 'wisdom of exhaustion') and 'wu sheng zhi' (無生智, 'wisdom of non-arising'). This is from the perspective of both realm and mind. 'Jie mo' (羯磨, 'Karma') comes from the teachings, and can also be said to be merit, referring to understanding the meaning of precepts through debate and contemplation. Second, general and specific. The four ways of receiving precepts are specific, and Karma is general. Because the name is manifested from a more distant cause, sometimes it is said to be four types, and sometimes six types, but Karma encompasses all ways of receiving precepts, so it is said to be general. Question: Since Karma precept acceptance has four causes, why only manifest Karma, and not manifest the names of other causes? One explanation is: there are many ways to manifest names from other causes, now temporarily hide the individual and manifest the name of Karma from the general aspect, what is the harm? Third, the majority view of those who uphold the precepts is that 'jian di' (見諦, 'seeing the truth') is obtained by oneself, and the remaining six are obtained from others. They are explaining it in relation to the seven ways of receiving precepts, now we analogize their view to judge these five distant-cause ways of receiving precepts. 'Jin zhi' (盡智, 'wisdom of exhaustion') is received from the Buddha, because the Buddha's appearance in the world has this Dharma. If inferred from the meaning, 'shang fa de jie' (上法得戒, 'obtaining precepts through superior Dharma') can be called self-receiving, and the remaining four types are obtained from others. Why is 'shang fa' (上法, 'superior Dharma') called self-receiving? The treatise says: from the root, due to the Buddha's teaching, one can attain 'wu lou' (無漏, 'non-outflow'), thereby initiating the full precepts, so it is said to be received from the Buddha. Inferring from the meaning, one obtains the full precepts through the clear manifestation of 'jin zhi' (盡智, 'wisdom of exhaustion') by oneself, and can also be called self-obtained, not received from others. Therefore, the 'Xin Lun' (心論, 'Heart Treatise') says: 'If the Dharma is the Buddha, the five bhikkhus receive the teacher, etc.'. If so, why does the treatise say that it is obtained from the teaching of others? Answer: This is from a more distant cause. 'Shan lai' (善來, 'welcome'), 'ba jing' (八敬, 'eight respects') are upheld by the Buddha, so it is said to be received from the Buddha. 'San gui' (三歸, 'three refuges'), 'jie mo' (羯磨, 'Karma') are practiced by the disciples, so it is said to be obtained from the disciples, obtaining precepts under respect. Fourth, the objects being received are distinguished. The 'Si Fen Lu' (四分律, 'Four-Part Vinaya') distinguishes that 'shan lai shou jie' (善來受戒, 'welcome precept acceptance') is limited to the holy position. Therefore, the Vinaya says: 'Seeing the Dharma, obtaining the Dharma, obtaining the fruit, proving that one has attained the non-outflow, renouncing the world with a sense of aversion, to the extreme of obedience, then one should welcome the initiation of the full precepts'. Those who are still 'nei fan' (內凡, 'inner ordinary') have heard and thought in their minds, not to the extreme of obedience, so they cannot be transformed. Moreover, those who receive 'shang fa' (上法, 'superior Dharma') need the fourth fruit (referring to Arhat fruit), because they either exhaust their afflictions or attain complete liberation. 'San gui' (三歸, 'three refuges'), 'ba jing' (八敬, 'eight respects') are above 'nei fan' (內凡, 'inner ordinary'). Therefore, most treatises believe that these two ways of receiving precepts are neither weak nor abandoned. So we know that 'nei fan' (內凡, 'inner ordinary') can already uphold them.
去。言羯磨受者。始興為凡。一興已后三人通被。如涅槃經凈行梵志得初果。已羯磨為受。四分律中蓮花色尼亦同此例 第五藉緣多少。善來受戒具。四緣得一證初果。文言。見法得法已前有出家善心。文言。欲于如來法中修梵行故三假對佛形。文云。前白佛言。四假佛教。謂聖命善來上法受戒具三緣發。一假佛教授。如見論說。二有祈戒心。是以余文羅漢沙彌無出家意故。但得其果明須有心。三得無漏空解。謂盡智現前即得具戒。三語受戒亦具三緣。一假弟子形對法羅漢。二假弟子教。謂受三歸言辭無缺。三歸依心成領前歸依故能得戒。八敬受戒具四緣發。一假佛八敬之教。二假弟子形。三弟子教。謂口宣八敬四奉行之意故。愛道自陳。我等頂受。羯磨受戒具足四緣。如律所說。一僧數滿足緣。二教法成就緣。三結界成就緣。四身無遮難緣。若具此四是大比丘得成戒本。犯戒之人四中若闕非大比丘。順此四方成比丘 問。善來等受以心為緣。羯磨一受何故不爾 答。羯磨非不有心。以假外緣作法。從強以辨故沒因名。又可羯磨四心俱得。恐濫不辨心緣。又準母論。四以心為緣。羯磨一受雖文不列。要亦須心故。律文眠睡狂等不得戒故 第六得戒時節。善來受者。唱善來竟即發具足。故律云。乃至得盡。若原上法受戒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：再說羯磨（Kamma，業）受戒者，一開始是為凡夫而設。一次羯磨之後，三人都能普遍受益。例如《涅槃經》中，凈行梵志（a pure-conducted Brahmin）獲得初果（first fruit of enlightenment）時，已經通過羯磨接受了戒律。四分律（Dharmaguptaka Vinaya）中的蓮花色比丘尼（nun Utpalavarna）也是同樣的例子。 第五，依據因緣的多少，『善來』（Ehi-bhikkhu, Welcome monk）受戒具備四種因緣才能獲得。一緣是證得初果。經文說：『見法得法』之前，有出家的善心。經文說：『爲了在如來（Tathagata）的法中修習梵行（Brahma-cariya, pure life）』，這是第二個因緣。三是面對佛像。經文說：『之前稟告佛陀』。四是佛陀的教誨。所謂聖命『善來』、上法受戒，這三種因緣發起，一是憑藉佛陀的教授，如《見論》（Drishti Shastra）所說。二是有祈求戒律的心，因此其他經文中，阿羅漢（Arhat）和沙彌（Sramanera）沒有出家的意願，所以只能得到果位，說明必須要有（出家受戒的）心。三是獲得無漏空解（anāsrava-śūnyatā-vimoksha），即盡智（knowledge of the exhaustion of defilements）現前，就能獲得具足戒（full monastic ordination）。 三語受戒也具備三種因緣。一是憑藉弟子的身份，面對證法的阿羅漢。二是憑藉弟子的教導，即接受三歸依（three refuges）的言辭沒有缺失。三是歸依的心成就，領受之前的歸依，因此能夠得到戒律。八敬法（eight Garudhammas）受戒具備四種因緣。一是憑藉佛陀的八敬法教導。二是憑藉弟子的身份。三是弟子的教導，即口中宣說八敬法，心中奉行八敬法的意願。因此，愛道（Mahaprajapati）親自陳述：『我們頂戴奉受』。羯磨受戒具足四種因緣，如律中所說：一是僧團人數滿足的因緣。二是教法成就的因緣。三是結界成就的因緣。四是自身沒有遮難的因緣。如果具備這四種因緣，那麼大比丘（fully ordained monk）就能成就戒本（foundation of precepts）。犯戒之人，如果這四種因緣有所缺失，就不是大比丘。順應這四種因緣，才能成為比丘（monk）。 問：『善來』等受戒以心為因緣，羯磨一次受戒為什麼不是這樣？答：羯磨並非沒有心，而是憑藉外在的因緣來作法，因為強調外緣的作用，所以沒有提及心的作用。也可以說羯磨四種因緣都具備心。恐怕混淆，所以沒有特別說明心的因緣。又根據《母論》（Matrika），四種因緣都以心為因緣。羯磨一次受戒雖然經文中沒有列出，但也必須要有心。因此，律文中說，睡眠、瘋狂等情況下不能得戒。 第六，得戒的時節。『善來』受戒者，唱誦『善來』完畢，立即獲得具足戒。所以律中說：『乃至得盡』。如果是上法受戒（ordination by formal request）
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, those who receive ordination through Kamma (action, volition) initially do so as ordinary individuals. After one Kamma procedure, three individuals can universally benefit. For example, in the Nirvana Sutra, when the pure-conducted Brahmin obtained the first fruit of enlightenment, he had already received the precepts through Kamma. In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, the nun Utpalavarna is a similar example. Fifth, depending on the number of conditions, 'Ehi-bhikkhu' (Welcome monk) ordination requires four conditions to be obtained. One condition is the attainment of the first fruit. The text states: 'Before seeing the Dharma and attaining the Dharma,' there is the virtuous intention to renounce the world. The text states: 'Because of the desire to practice the Brahma-cariya (pure life) in the Dharma of the Tathagata (the Thus-Gone One),' this is the second condition. Third is facing the image of the Buddha. The text states: 'Previously reporting to the Buddha.' Fourth is the teachings of the Buddha. The so-called sacred command 'Ehi-bhikkhu,' receiving ordination through the superior Dharma, these three conditions arise, one is relying on the Buddha's instruction, as stated in the Drishti Shastra (Treatise on Views). Second is having the mind to request the precepts, therefore in other texts, Arhats (worthy ones) and Sramaneras (novice monks) do not have the intention to renounce the world, so they can only obtain the fruit, indicating that there must be the mind (to renounce the world and receive ordination). Third is obtaining the anāsrava-śūnyatā-vimoksha (untainted emptiness liberation), that is, the knowledge of the exhaustion of defilements appearing, one can obtain full monastic ordination. Receiving ordination through the three statements also requires three conditions. One is relying on the identity of the disciple, facing the Dharma-witnessing Arhat. Second is relying on the disciple's instruction, that is, accepting the words of the three refuges without any omissions. Third is the accomplishment of the mind of refuge, receiving the previous refuge, therefore being able to obtain the precepts. Receiving ordination through the eight Garudhammas (weighty principles) requires four conditions. One is relying on the Buddha's teaching of the eight Garudhammas. Second is relying on the identity of the disciple. Third is the disciple's instruction, that is, verbally proclaiming the eight Garudhammas, and in the heart practicing the intention of upholding the eight Garudhammas. Therefore, Mahaprajapati (Gotami) personally stated: 'We accept and uphold them on our heads.' Receiving ordination through Kamma requires four conditions, as stated in the Vinaya: One is the condition of the Sangha (monastic community) having a sufficient number of members. Second is the condition of the Dharma being accomplished. Third is the condition of the boundary being established. Fourth is the condition of oneself having no obstructions. If one possesses these four conditions, then a fully ordained monk can accomplish the foundation of precepts. One who violates the precepts, if any of these four conditions are lacking, is not a fully ordained monk. Conforming to these four conditions, one can become a monk. Question: 'Ehi-bhikkhu' ordination and others rely on the mind as a condition, why is Kamma ordination not like this? Answer: Kamma is not without the mind, but relies on external conditions to perform the procedure, because the effect of external conditions is emphasized, the effect of the mind is not mentioned. It can also be said that Kamma possesses all four conditions including the mind. Fearing confusion, the condition of the mind is not specifically stated. Furthermore, according to the Matrika (commentary), all four conditions rely on the mind as a condition. Although Kamma ordination does not list it in the text, it must also have the mind. Therefore, the Vinaya states that one cannot obtain ordination in situations such as sleep, madness, etc. Sixth, the time of obtaining ordination. For 'Ehi-bhikkhu' ordination, upon completing the chanting of 'Ehi-bhikkhu,' one immediately obtains full ordination. Therefore, the Vinaya states: 'Until the exhaustion is attained.' If it is ordination by formal request
盡智現前時得。以小乘分齊羅漢梵行已立。自然戒凈故更不從他受戒 問。此上法得者得作無作不 答。以非作法但得無作 問。既非作戒。何因得發無作戒者 答。以非學為故無其作。以道力故得無作戒。三歸受戒第三語竟即發具戒。八敬受戒說第八訖即得戒品。羯磨一受羯磨竟便發具戒。諸論大同 第七受舍漸頓。先明受漸頓。羯磨一受亦漸亦頓。余之四受頓而非漸。漸頓如何。羯磨漸頓先受五戒 次受十戒。后受具戒。是名為漸。若不受五十。直受具戒得三種戒。說之為頓 問。若一時受得三種戒者。何須漸受 答。染習佛法必須次第。先受五戒以自調伏。信樂漸增。次受十戒善心轉深。次受具戒。如是次第得佛法味。好樂堅固可退敗不失次第不破威儀。如游大海漸漸深入。一時受者既失次第又彼威儀。故須漸受 問。一時頓受得三戒者。其無作體為一為三 答。但發具戒一無作體更無餘二無作之體 若爾便是一戒如何言三 答。比丘受得防殺無作。與沙彌俗人同戒者。其實體一。是以多論家據其體。望三人始終位別言得三戒。理實無三 問。所以知但一無三 答。即此論文解次第受中。俗人下品五戒。次中品心受沙彌戒前五戒。仍本下品。五戒外發方為中品。上品心受具本前二品。仍猶下中五十外發始為上品
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 盡智（Kshaya-jnana，斷盡煩惱的智慧）現前時獲得。以小乘的層次來說，羅漢（Arhat，已證阿羅漢果的修行者）的梵行（Brahmacharya，清凈行）已經確立。因為自然戒體清凈，所以不再需要從他人處受戒。 問：得到這種上等戒法的人，能得到作戒和無作戒嗎？ 答：因為不是作法之戒，所以只能得到無作戒。 問：既然不是作戒，為何能引發無作戒呢？ 答：因為不是通過學習而得，所以沒有作戒。憑藉道力，才能得到無作戒。三歸（Trisarana，皈依佛、法、僧）受戒，第三次唸誦完畢，立即獲得具足戒（Bhiksu戒）。八敬法（Astagrahavastu，比丘尼應遵守的八條戒律）受戒，說完第八條，立即得到戒品。羯磨（Karma，僧團的集體行動）一次受戒，羯磨完畢，便引發具足戒。各種論典的說法大致相同。 第七，關於受戒和舍戒的漸次和頓悟。先說明受戒的漸次和頓悟。羯磨一次受戒，既可以是漸次，也可以是頓悟。其餘四種受戒方式，是頓悟而非漸次。什麼是漸次和頓悟呢？羯磨的漸次受戒，先受五戒（Panca-sila，不殺生、不偷盜、不邪淫、不妄語、不飲酒），然後受十戒（Dasa-sila，沙彌應守的十條戒律），最後受具足戒。這叫做漸次。如果不受五戒和十戒，直接受具足戒，得到三種戒，這叫做頓悟。 問：如果一時受戒能得到三種戒，為何還要漸次受戒呢？ 答：薰染佛法必須按照次第。先受五戒來調伏自己，信心和喜樂逐漸增長。然後受十戒，善心更加深入。最後受具足戒。這樣按照次第，才能得到佛法的滋味，愛好和樂趣才能堅固，可以避免退敗和失誤，不破壞威儀。如同遊覽大海，漸漸深入。一時受戒的人，既失去了次第，又破壞了威儀，所以需要漸次受戒。 問：一時頓悟受戒得到三種戒，那麼無作戒體是一個還是三個？ 答：只引發具足戒的一個無作戒體，沒有其餘兩個無作戒體。 如果這樣，那麼只是一條戒，為何說是三條呢？ 答：比丘受戒得到防止殺生的無作戒，與沙彌（Sramanera，出家男子）和俗人（Upasaka，在家居士）所受的戒相同，其實戒體是一個。因此，多數論師根據戒體，從三人自始至終的位次差別來說得到三種戒，實際上並沒有三種。 問：憑什麼知道只有一個而不是三個呢？ 答：就是這篇論文在解釋次第受戒時說，俗人的下品五戒，其次是中品心受沙彌戒的前五戒，仍然是原本的下品五戒。在原本的下品五戒之外引發的，才成為中品。上品心受具足戒，原本是前兩品，仍然是下品和中品，在五十戒之外引發的，才成為上品。
【English Translation】 English version It is obtained when the Exhaustion of Defilements Knowledge (Kshaya-jnana) is present. In terms of the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) level, the Brahmacharya (pure conduct) of an Arhat (one who has attained Arhatship) is already established. Because the natural precepts are pure, there is no need to receive precepts from others again. Question: When someone obtains this superior Dharma, do they obtain both 'making' precepts and 'non-making' precepts? Answer: Because it is not a 'making' Dharma, they only obtain 'non-making' precepts. Question: Since it is not a 'making' precept, how can it give rise to 'non-making' precepts? Answer: Because it is not obtained through learning, there is no 'making' precept. It is through the power of the Path that 'non-making' precepts are obtained. When taking refuge in the Three Jewels (Trisarana), after the third recitation, one immediately obtains the full precepts (Bhiksu precepts). When receiving the Eight Garudhammas (Astagrahavastu), after reciting the eighth, one immediately obtains the precepts. When receiving precepts through a single Karma (collective action of the Sangha), after the Karma is completed, one immediately gives rise to the full precepts. The various treatises are largely in agreement. Seventh, regarding the gradual and sudden nature of receiving and relinquishing precepts. First, clarify the gradual and sudden nature of receiving precepts. Receiving precepts through a single Karma can be either gradual or sudden. The other four methods of receiving precepts are sudden and not gradual. What is gradual and sudden? Gradual Karma receiving involves first taking the Five Precepts (Panca-sila: not killing, not stealing, not committing sexual misconduct, not lying, not taking intoxicants), then taking the Ten Precepts (Dasa-sila: ten precepts for novice monks), and finally taking the full precepts. This is called gradual. If one does not take the Five or Ten Precepts and directly takes the full precepts, one obtains three types of precepts, which is called sudden. Question: If one can obtain three types of precepts by taking them all at once, why is it necessary to take them gradually? Answer: To be imbued with the Buddha-dharma, one must follow a sequence. First, take the Five Precepts to tame oneself, and faith and joy gradually increase. Then, take the Ten Precepts, and virtuous thoughts deepen further. Finally, take the full precepts. By following this sequence, one can taste the flavor of the Buddha-dharma, and one's love and delight will be firm, preventing regression and loss, and not violating decorum. It is like exploring the ocean, gradually going deeper. Those who take precepts all at once lose the sequence and violate decorum, so it is necessary to take them gradually. Question: If one obtains three precepts by taking them suddenly all at once, is the non-making essence one or three? Answer: Only one non-making essence of the full precepts is generated; there are no other two non-making essences. If that is the case, then it is only one precept, so why is it said to be three? Answer: A Bhiksu (monk) who takes precepts obtains the non-making precept of preventing killing, which is the same as the precepts taken by a Sramanera (novice monk) and a Upasaka (layperson). In reality, the essence of the precept is one. Therefore, many commentators, based on the essence of the precept, say that three precepts are obtained based on the different positions of the three individuals from beginning to end, but in reality, there are not three. Question: How do we know that there is only one and not three? Answer: This is explained in the text when discussing gradual precept-taking: the lower-grade Five Precepts of a layperson, followed by the middle-grade mental acceptance of the first five precepts of a Sramanera, are still the original lower-grade Five Precepts. Only when something is generated beyond the original lower-grade Five Precepts does it become middle-grade. The higher-grade mental acceptance of the full precepts originally consists of the previous two grades, but they are still lower and middle grades. Only when something is generated beyond the Fifty Precepts does it become higher-grade.
。據斯二驗次第漸受。三時心別同戒無作不發三。豈況一人時受者而得有三。故知漸次望位別作三。非體有三亦可。心論云。一切因一切支得三戒者。三時漸受。受既時別。重發無作有三體故。若論頓受。受既一時。方可名為望位為三 非體有三 次解舍之漸頓。若望四受受舍俱頓。羯磨舍受並含漸頓。為但羯磨一受。受制局漸舍兼漸頓 問。羯磨頓受既得三戒。舍時云何 答。義含漸頓。若也要心三戒俱舍則頓失三。是名頓舍。若言我作沙彌但舍具戒。言作優婆塞者又舍十戒。又言我三歸人方舍五戒名為漸頓 問。受之與舍俱頓並漸。或以漸受頓舍。此三可爾。若本頓受但得具戒。一無作體云何漸舍。若得漸舍便成三體。如何言一 答。比丘一時受防殺。無作通沙彌俗人共有防非。是故舍時要心舍。具不捨十戒。若與沙彌戒同隨心則在。故律文言。我作沙彌以十對五義亦同爾。故言。我作優婆塞。是以論說據體通三人共用義。故望位說三。非體有三。如此釋時頓受漸舍義亦無防。故多六譬如樹葉。夏青黃冬時則白。豈體有殊。隨時異故樹葉色異。而始終一葉。戒亦如是。常是一戒隨位異。是以羯磨一受。受舍俱頓並漸。善來等四唯頓非漸。以無作法舍故 第八優劣如多論說。若就災患有無。四受是勝。羯磨為劣。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：根據斯二（Sūrya-dvaya，兩次太陽）的驗證，戒律是次第漸受的。在三個不同的時間，心念不同，同一種戒律的無作（asaṃskṛta，不造作）也不會同時生起三種。更何況一個人在同一時間受戒，怎麼可能有三種無作呢？因此可知，漸次受戒是根據位次的不同而有三種作用，並非戒體本身有三種。心論（Citta-śāstra，唯識論）中說，一切因和一切支能得到三種戒律，是因為分三個時間逐漸受戒。既然受戒的時間不同，那麼重新生起的無作也就有三種戒體。如果說是頓受，因為受戒是在同一時間，才可以稱為根據位次的不同而有三種作用，並非戒體本身有三種。 接下來解釋舍戒的漸頓。如果從四種受戒方式來看，受戒和舍戒都是頓時的。羯磨（karma，業）受戒既包含漸受也包含頓受。如果只是羯磨一種受戒方式，受戒的限制在於漸受，而舍戒則兼有漸舍和頓舍。問：羯磨頓受既然能得到三種戒律，那麼舍戒的時候應該如何呢？答：其中包含漸頓兩種情況。如果一定要將心中的三種戒律全部捨棄，那麼就會頓時失去三種戒律，這叫做頓舍。如果說『我做了沙彌（śrāmaṇera，沙門）』，只是捨棄了具足戒（upasampadā，比丘戒），說『我做了優婆塞（upāsaka，近事男）』，又捨棄了十戒。又說『我只是三歸（tri-śaraṇa，皈依佛法僧）之人』，才捨棄五戒，這叫做漸頓。 問：受戒和舍戒都是頓時的，並且都是漸次的，或者是以漸受的方式頓舍。這三種情況是可以的。如果本來是頓受，只是得到了具足戒，那麼一種無作的戒體要如何漸舍呢？如果可以漸舍，那就變成了三種戒體，怎麼能說是一種呢？答：比丘（bhikṣu，出家男）在同一時間受戒，防止殺生，無作的戒體和沙彌、俗人共同擁有，都是爲了防止過失。因此，舍戒的時候要用心捨棄具足戒，但不捨棄十戒。如果和沙彌戒相同，隨著心念而存在。所以律文中說，『我做了沙彌』，以十戒對應五戒的意義也是一樣的。所以說，『我做了優婆塞』。因此，論述是根據戒體可以和三人共同使用的意義。所以根據位次來說有三種作用，並非戒體本身有三種。這樣解釋頓受漸舍的意義也沒有妨礙。就像樹葉一樣，夏天是青黃色，冬天是白色，難道是樹葉的本體不同嗎？只是隨著時間的變化而不同，所以樹葉的顏色也不同，但始終是一片樹葉。戒律也是這樣，始終是一種戒律，只是隨著位次的不同而不同。因此，羯磨一種受戒方式，受戒和舍戒都是頓時的，並且都是漸次的。善來等四種受戒方式只是頓時的，不是漸次的，因為沒有無作法可以捨棄。 第八，優劣的問題，就像多論（bahula-śāstra，多種論）所說的那樣。如果從災患的有無來看，四種受戒方式是殊勝的，羯磨受戒方式是低劣的。如果...
【English Translation】 English version: According to the verification of Sūrya-dvaya (twice the sun), the precepts are received gradually in stages. At three different times, with different mental states, the asaṃskṛta (unconditioned, non-arising) of the same precept will not arise simultaneously in three forms. Moreover, how could one person receiving precepts at the same time have three asaṃskṛtas? Therefore, it is known that gradual reception of precepts has three functions based on the difference in position, but the precept body itself does not have three. The Citta-śāstra (Consciousness-only Treatise) says that all causes and all branches can obtain three precepts because they are received gradually at three different times. Since the times of reception are different, the re-arising asaṃskta also has three precept bodies. If it is said to be a sudden reception, because the reception is at the same time, it can be called having three functions based on the difference in position, but the precept body itself does not have three. Next, explain the gradual and sudden abandonment of precepts. If viewed from the four methods of receiving precepts, both receiving and abandoning precepts are sudden. Karma (action) reception includes both gradual and sudden reception. If it is only one method of Karma reception, the restriction of reception lies in gradual reception, while abandonment includes both gradual and sudden abandonment. Question: Since Karma sudden reception can obtain three precepts, how should one abandon them? Answer: It includes both gradual and sudden situations. If one must abandon all three precepts in the mind, then one will suddenly lose all three, which is called sudden abandonment. If one says, 'I have become a śrāmaṇera (novice monk),' one only abandons the upasampadā (full ordination, bhikkhu precepts). If one says, 'I have become an upāsaka (layman),' one also abandons the ten precepts. If one says, 'I am only a tri-śaraṇa (three refuges, refuge in Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha) person,' one only abandons the five precepts, which is called gradual and sudden. Question: Receiving and abandoning precepts are both sudden and gradual, or one can gradually receive and suddenly abandon. These three situations are possible. If it was originally a sudden reception, only obtaining the full precepts, then how can one gradually abandon one asaṃskṛta precept body? If it can be gradually abandoned, then it becomes three precept bodies, how can it be said to be one? Answer: A bhikṣu (monk) receives precepts at the same time to prevent killing. The asaṃskṛta precept body is shared by śrāmaṇeras and laypeople, all to prevent faults. Therefore, when abandoning precepts, one must intentionally abandon the full precepts, but not abandon the ten precepts. If it is the same as the śrāmaṇera precepts, it exists according to the mind. Therefore, the Vinaya text says, 'I have become a śrāmaṇera,' the meaning of the ten precepts corresponding to the five precepts is also the same. Therefore, it is said, 'I have become an upāsaka.' Thus, the discussion is based on the meaning that the precept body can be used jointly by three people. Therefore, according to the position, there are three functions, but the precept body itself does not have three. Explaining the meaning of sudden reception and gradual abandonment in this way does not cause any hindrance. It is like a tree leaf, green and yellow in summer, and white in winter. Is the substance of the leaf different? It is only different with the change of time, so the color of the leaf is also different, but it is always one leaf. The precepts are also like this, always one precept, only different with the position. Therefore, with one Karma reception, both receiving and abandoning precepts are sudden and gradual. The four methods of 'Come, welcome' etc. are only sudden, not gradual, because there is no asaṃskṛta Dharma to abandon. Eighth, the question of superiority and inferiority, as the bahula-śāstra (various treatises) says. If viewed from the presence or absence of disasters, the four methods of receiving precepts are superior, and the Karma method of receiving precepts is inferior. If...
取任持佛法利益寬長。羯磨一勝。餘四受劣。言四勝一劣者。羯磨受者內實凡夫。福得淺薄感得此戒。多諸災患容有厭上忻下。奉持心劣。令戒有羸。餘四受法內凡已去。理解心中受得斯戒。持心堅固。肥而不羸。二者羯磨凡夫容有不樂道法捨本所受。餘四受法樂道情殷理無退舍。三者羯磨容有轉為二形。餘四受法復無此變。四者羯磨受人或起邪見斷舍善根。餘四理解不斷善根。羯磨一受或有上四故稱為劣。餘四受法無前過非。是以名勝。此對始興。若聖人受亦是其勝。言一勝四劣者。羯磨一受乃具六義。一是時長。謂通現未。二安遍三方。除郁單曰報兼男女。四位該凡聖。五所被無數。六多坐作法。以斯諸義佛法始終。以白四羯磨為宗本。能繼續三寶作無邊利益。有任持之功莫大羯磨。故說為勝。餘四受中善來一受終盡雙林。自外三受中間即止。又局閻浮不該餘二。凡聖位差報局男女。對前六義互各𨷂少。紹繼功徴故稱四劣。發戒緣竟 第二次辨受體。于中四門料簡。第一釋名出體二戒先後。第二受隨同異。第三辨發戒緣。第四所發多少 第一言釋名者。戒相雖眾義要二種。一曰作戒。二無作戒。先釋別名作與無作。次解通名所目之戒。言作者謂方便身口起動造作。稱之為作。故心論云。作者身動方便。言無作者身
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 羯磨受法（Karma 受法，通過羯磨儀式接受戒律的方法）能夠廣泛而長久地保持佛法的利益。羯磨受法在某些方面是殊勝的，而其餘四種受法（指善來受法、三歸受法、五戒受法、八戒受法）則相對較弱。之所以說四種受法弱於羯磨受法，是因為羯磨受法的受戒者內在實際上是凡夫，福德淺薄，因此感得的戒體也比較脆弱，容易遭受各種災禍，可能會厭倦修行而欣羨世俗，奉持戒律的心力不足，導致戒體有所虧損。而其餘四種受法，受戒者至少已經超越了凡夫的境界，在理解和心中真正接受了戒律，持戒的心力堅固，戒體肥沃而不羸弱。 第二，羯磨受法的受戒者是凡夫，容易不樂於道法，捨棄原本所受的戒律。而其餘四種受法，受戒者樂於道法的心情殷切，從道理上來說不會輕易退舍。第三，羯磨受法的受戒者有可能轉變為二形（指男女兩性），而其餘四種受法不會發生這種變化。第四，羯磨受法的受戒者可能會生起邪見，斷舍善根，而其餘四種受法，受戒者在理解的基礎上受戒，不會輕易斷舍善根。羯磨受法在某些情況下會出現以上四種過失，因此被稱為『劣』。而其餘四種受法沒有上述過失，因此被稱為『勝』。這是針對初學者而言的。如果聖人接受羯磨受法，那麼羯磨受法也是殊勝的。 之所以說羯磨受法在某些方面殊勝于其餘四種受法，是因為羯磨受法具備六種含義。一是時間長久，可以貫通現在和未來。二是安穩遍及三方世界（指欲界、色界、無色界），除了郁單越（Uttaratala，北俱盧洲）之外，報體兼顧男女。三是位階涵蓋凡夫和聖人。四是所覆蓋的眾生無數。五是需要多人共同參與，依法進行。因為這些含義，佛法始終以白四羯磨（Baisi Jiemo，通過四次羯磨儀式）為根本，能夠延續三寶（指佛、法、僧）的傳承，創造無邊的利益。具有任持佛法的功用，沒有比羯磨受法更大的了，所以說羯磨受法殊勝。其餘四種受法中，善來受法（Shanlai Shoufa，佛陀以『善來比丘』的方式親自為弟子授戒）只能到佛陀涅槃時為止，其餘三種受法在中間就會停止。而且侷限於閻浮提（Yanfuti，南贍部洲），不包括其餘兩個大洲。凡夫和聖人的位階不同，報體侷限於男女。與前面所說的六種含義相比，各有欠缺。在紹繼佛法的功用上有所不足，所以說其餘四種受法相對較弱。 發戒的因緣已經講完。接下來第二次辨別受戒的體性。其中分為四個方面來考察：第一，解釋名稱，說明作戒（Zuojie，通過身口造作而形成的戒體）和無作戒（Wuzuojie，不通過身口造作而自然擁有的戒體）的先後關係；第二，受戒和隨戒的同異；第三，辨別發戒的因緣；第四，所發的戒體有多少。第一，解釋名稱，戒相雖然眾多，但主要有兩種：一是作戒，二是無作戒。先解釋作戒和無作戒的個別名稱，再解釋作為通名的『戒』所指代的含義。所謂『作』，是指通過身口方便，起心動念，造作行為，稱之為『作』。所以《心論》中說：『作，是身體的動作和方便。』所謂『無作』，是指身體
【English Translation】 English version: Karma reception (Karma Shoufa, the method of receiving precepts through Karma rituals) can widely and enduringly maintain the benefits of the Buddha's Dharma. Karma reception is superior in some aspects, while the other four types of reception (referring to Shanlai Shoufa, San Gui Shoufa, Wu Jie Shoufa, Ba Jie Shoufa) are relatively weaker. The reason why the four types of reception are said to be weaker than Karma reception is that the recipient of Karma reception is actually an ordinary person internally, with shallow blessings, so the precepts obtained are also relatively fragile, prone to various disasters, and may be tired of cultivation and admire the secular world, and the willpower to uphold the precepts is insufficient, resulting in some loss of the precepts. The recipients of the other four types of reception have at least surpassed the realm of ordinary people, and have truly accepted the precepts in their understanding and hearts, with firm willpower to uphold the precepts, and the precepts are fertile and not weak. Secondly, the recipient of Karma reception is an ordinary person, who is prone to dislike the Dharma and abandon the precepts originally received. The recipients of the other four types of reception are eager to practice the Dharma, and in principle, they will not easily abandon it. Thirdly, the recipient of Karma reception may transform into two forms (referring to both male and female sexes), while the other four types of reception do not have this change. Fourthly, the recipient of Karma reception may develop wrong views and abandon good roots, while the recipients of the other four types of reception receive the precepts based on understanding and will not easily abandon good roots. Karma reception may have the above four faults in some cases, so it is called 'inferior'. The other four types of reception do not have the above faults, so they are called 'superior'. This is for beginners. If a saint receives Karma reception, then Karma reception is also superior. The reason why Karma reception is said to be superior to the other four types of reception in some aspects is that Karma reception has six meanings. First, the time is long, which can run through the present and the future. Second, it is stable and covers the three realms (referring to the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm), except for Uttaratala (Uttaratala, North Kurukshetra), and the retribution body takes into account both men and women. Third, the rank covers ordinary people and saints. Fourth, the number of beings covered is countless. Fifth, it requires the joint participation of many people and is carried out in accordance with the law. Because of these meanings, the Buddha's Dharma always takes Baisi Jiemo (Baisi Jiemo, through four Karma rituals) as the foundation, which can continue the tradition of the Three Jewels (referring to the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha) and create boundless benefits. It has the function of maintaining the Buddha's Dharma, and there is nothing greater than Karma reception, so it is said that Karma reception is superior. Among the other four types of reception, Shanlai Shoufa (Shanlai Shoufa, the Buddha personally ordained his disciples in the form of 'Welcome, Bhikkhu') can only last until the Buddha's Nirvana, and the other three types of reception will stop in the middle. Moreover, it is limited to Yanfuti (Yanfuti, Jambudvipa), excluding the other two continents. The ranks of ordinary people and saints are different, and the retribution body is limited to men and women. Compared with the six meanings mentioned above, each has its shortcomings. There is a lack of merit in continuing the Buddha's Dharma, so it is said that the other four types of reception are relatively weak. The causes and conditions for generating precepts have been explained. Next, the second time to distinguish the nature of receiving precepts. It is divided into four aspects to examine: First, explain the name and explain the relationship between Zuojie (Zuojie, the precepts formed through body and mouth actions) and Wuzuojie (Wuzuojie, the precepts naturally possessed without body and mouth actions); Second, the similarities and differences between receiving precepts and following precepts; Third, distinguish the causes and conditions for generating precepts; Fourth, how many precepts are generated. First, explain the name, although there are many precept characteristics, there are mainly two types: one is Zuojie, and the other is Wuzuojie. First explain the individual names of Zuojie and Wuzuojie, and then explain the meaning referred to by 'precepts' as a common name. The so-called 'action' refers to the convenience of body and mouth, arising thoughts, creating actions, and is called 'action'. Therefore, the 'Heart Theory' says: 'Action is the movement and convenience of the body.' The so-called 'non-action' refers to the body
動滅已與余識俱彼法隨生。名為無作。如善受戒。穢污無記心現在前善戒隨生。惡戒亦爾。次釋通名戒者。此作無作俱有懸防。咸稱為戒。依善生經通有五名。一名為制。制斷一切諸不善故名之為戒。又名迮隘。雖有諸惡性不容受故名戒。又名清涼。遮熱煩惱令不入故。又名為上。能上天堂至無上道。又名學。調伏心智故名戒。此之五咸是義用釋名。是故從用立名。稱之為戒。然於五中迮隘清涼是義名。餘三用名 問。何故得知有作無作 答。諸論廣明二種戒體。一如心論。第三羯磨剎那作及無作根本業道。又云。身口作前二有對。身口無作俱不可見無對。二多論云。初念戒有身口教及無教。第二念唯有無教無有有教。十住毗婆娑云。律義善根有其二種。一者有作。二者無作。作者是色無作非色非心。以斯文故明知戒有二種 問。何須作無作者 答。若無其作無作無所從生。若無無作不可一形防非。故須兩戒 此位言耳。如上法得戒。以道力故得無作戒 次辨戒體。若依多論。作無作戒並是色法為體。此義可謂六種分別。一有為無為分別。二戒俱是有為法聚非三無為故。第二有為中三聚分別。作無作戒並色法為體。心及四相不相應法。是其戒因故。論云作及無作假色。是分別色陰。第三色聚中三色分別。一可見有對色
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：動滅之後，與余識（剩餘的意識）一同，彼法（相應的法）隨之產生，這被稱為『無作』。例如，善於受戒者，即使在穢污無記（不清凈、不記事）的心念出現時，善戒也會隨之產生；惡戒也是如此。接下來解釋通名『戒』的含義。『作』（行動）和『無作』（不行動）都具有懸防（預先防止）的作用，都可以稱為『戒』。依據《善生經》，『戒』總共有五個名稱：一是『制』，因為能制止一切不善的行為，所以稱為『戒』；二是『迮隘』（狹隘），雖然有各種惡的習性，但不能容納，所以稱為『戒』；三是『清涼』，能遮擋熱惱煩惱，使之不能侵入；四是『上』，能使人上升天堂，直至無上道；五是『學』，能調伏心智，所以稱為『戒』。這五個名稱都是從義用（意義和作用）上來解釋的，因此是從作用上立名，稱之為『戒』。然而，在這五個名稱中，『迮隘』和『清涼』是義名，其餘三個是用名。 問：根據什麼得知有『作』和『無作』？答：各種論典廣泛闡明了兩種戒體。例如《心論》中說，第三羯磨（業）的剎那（瞬間）有『作』和『無作』的根本業道。又說，身口（身體和語言）的『作』，前二者是有對（可見的），身口的『無作』，都是不可見、無對的。二，許多論典說，初念（最初的念頭）受戒時，有身口教（身語的教導）和無教（無形的教導）；第二念只有無教，沒有有教。《十住毗婆娑論》說，律義（戒律的意義）的善根有兩種：一是『有作』，二是『無作』。『有作』是色（物質），『無作』是非色非心（既非物質也非精神）。根據這些經文，可以明確知道戒有兩種。 問：為什麼需要『作』和『無作』？答：如果沒有『作』，『無作』就無從產生；如果沒有『無作』，就無法通過一種形式來防止過失。所以需要兩種戒。這只是就這個階段而言。如同通過上述方法得到戒，因為道力（修道的功力）的緣故，才能得到『無作』戒。接下來辨別戒體。如果依據許多論典，『作』和『無作』戒都是以色法（物質現象）為體。這個意義可以分為六種情況來分別：一是『有為』和『無為』的分別；二是戒都是有為法（因緣和合而成的法），不是三種無為法（無生、無滅、無為）；第三，在有為法中，分為三聚（三種聚合）：『作』和『無作』戒都是以色法為體，心及四相（生、住、異、滅）不相應法是戒的因，所以論中說『作』和『無作』是假色（假立的色法），是分別色陰（色蘊）。第四，在色聚中，分為三種色：一是可見有對色。
【English Translation】 English version: After the cessation of movement, along with the remaining consciousness, that Dharma (corresponding principle) arises, which is called 'Avijñapti' (unmanifested). For example, for one who is good at receiving precepts, even when defiled and indifferent thoughts arise, the good precepts will arise accordingly; the same is true for evil precepts. Next, explain the general name 'Śīla' (precept). Both 'Karma' (action) and 'Avijñapti' (non-action) have the function of prevention, and both can be called 'Śīla'. According to the Sigalovada Sūtra, 'Śīla' has a total of five names: first, 'Control', because it can control all unwholesome behaviors, so it is called 'Śīla'; second, 'Narrowness', although there are various evil habits, they cannot be accommodated, so it is called 'Śīla'; third, 'Coolness', which can block hot afflictions and prevent them from entering; fourth, 'Superior', which can make people ascend to heaven and reach the unsurpassed path; fifth, 'Learning', which can subdue the mind and wisdom, so it is called 'Śīla'. These five names are all explained from the perspective of meaning and function, so they are named from the function, called 'Śīla'. However, among these five names, 'Narrowness' and 'Coolness' are names of meaning, and the remaining three are names of function. Question: According to what do we know that there are 'Karma' and 'Avijñapti'? Answer: Various treatises extensively clarify the two types of precept bodies. For example, the Heart Treatise says that in the moment of the third karma, there are the fundamental paths of karma of 'Karma' and 'Avijñapti'. It also says that the 'Karma' of body and speech, the former two are visible; the 'Avijñapti' of body and speech are both invisible. Second, many treatises say that when receiving precepts in the first thought, there are instructions of body and speech and non-instructions; in the second thought, there are only non-instructions, no instructions. The Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā says that there are two kinds of roots of good in the meaning of precepts: one is 'Karma', and the other is 'Avijñapti'. 'Karma' is rūpa (matter), and 'Avijñapti' is neither rūpa nor citta (mind). According to these scriptures, it is clear that there are two kinds of precepts. Question: Why are 'Karma' and 'Avijñapti' needed? Answer: If there is no 'Karma', 'Avijñapti' cannot arise; if there is no 'Avijñapti', it is impossible to prevent faults through one form. Therefore, two precepts are needed. This is only in terms of this stage. Just as one obtains precepts through the above methods, one can obtain 'Avijñapti' precepts because of the power of the path. Next, distinguish the precept body. If according to many treatises, both 'Karma' and 'Avijñapti' precepts are based on rūpa as the body. This meaning can be divided into six situations to distinguish: first, the distinction between 'conditioned' and 'unconditioned'; second, the precepts are all conditioned dharmas (dharmas formed by causes and conditions), not the three unconditioned dharmas (non-arising, non-ceasing, non-conditioned); third, in conditioned dharmas, they are divided into three aggregates: 'Karma' and 'Avijñapti' precepts are both based on rūpa as the body, and the mind and the four characteristics (birth, abiding, change, extinction) are not corresponding dharmas, so the treatise says that 'Karma' and 'Avijñapti' are false rūpa, which are the differentiated rūpa-skandha (form aggregate). Fourth, in the rūpa aggregate, it is divided into three kinds of rūpa: one is visible rūpa.
。謂五根四坐。三不可見無對色。謂法入中無作。若言作戒前二色收。無作戒者第三色攝故。伽心二論云。身作可見有對。口作不可見有對。身口無作俱不可見無對。論其身作前二色中唯色入攝。口作戒者是聲入收。非餘八色其二無作並法入攝。此作無作俱是色陰。第四就色聲中報方便分別。色雖通報及方便。然身作是方便非報。故心論云。作者身動身方便。口作唯方便。以聲非報法故。身口二無作非報非方便。第五三性分別。身口色聲是善非余兩。故心論云。以清凈心動身口名善作等。即向初色有二十種。前十二唯無記。后八高下長短方圓正不正。通三性局取善邊。身作戒體。三聲之中謂除第二因。不受四大聲如風零等。唯無記故。就初因受四大聲。第三因俱聲。此二通三性中亦取善聲邊為口作體。泛論身口無作通於二性。今論戒故是善性攝。第六始終分別。此善作中通於終始不取始。謂始從請師終至羯磨。未竟要心。未熟善而非戒。第三羯磨一剎那。須要其心滿思愿成就善。而是戒故局取終。然依得宗無作之戒。定用非色非心為體。作戒者取文不定。或有取文色心為體。故論文言。業者非直音聲。要以心力助成。故知身業亦名以心力助成。明知二業色入為體。又引論文以心為體。是故論言。離心無思無身口業。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）和四種坐姿（某種禪修姿勢），以及三種不可見且無對礙的色法（指極微細的物質），指的是法入（十二處之一，即意識的對象）中的無作（無表色，即由業力產生的潛在力量）。如果說是作戒（通過行為產生的戒律），那麼前兩種色法（可見有對的色法）包含在內。無作戒（通過意念產生的戒律）則被第三種色法（不可見無對的色法）所攝。伽心二論中說：『身體的動作是可見且有對礙的，口語的動作是不可見但有對礙的，身和口的無作都是不可見且無對礙的。』就身體的動作而言，前兩種色法中只有色入（十二處之一，即眼睛的對象）所攝。口語的戒律是聲入（十二處之一，即耳朵的對象）所攝，而不是其餘八種色法。身和口的兩種無作都屬於法入所攝。這些作和無作都屬於色陰（五蘊之一，即物質的集合）。 第四，就色和聲中的果報和方便（手段）進行區分。色雖然貫通果報和方便，但身體的動作是方便而不是果報。所以心論中說：『作者的身體動作是身體的方便。』口語的動作只是方便，因為聲音不是果報之法。身體和口的兩種無作既不是果報也不是方便。 第五，從三性（善、惡、無記）進行區分。身體和口語的色和聲是善的，其餘兩種（無作）不是。所以心論中說：『以清凈的心驅動身體和口語，稱為善作等。』即指向最初的色法有二十種，前十二種只是無記，后八種（高下、長短、方圓、正不正）貫通三性，但侷限於取善的一邊，作為身體動作的戒體。在三種聲音中，除去第二種因（不受四大元素的聲音，如風聲等），因為只是無記。就最初的因（接受四大元素的聲音）而言，第三種因（俱聲）這兩種貫通三性，也取善的聲音作為口語動作的戒體。泛泛而論，身體和口的無作貫通於二性（善和無記），現在討論戒律，所以屬於善性所攝。 第六，從始終進行區分。這種善作貫通始終，但不取開始。所謂開始是從請師（請求老師）到羯磨（僧團的決議），沒有完成要心（重要的心念），沒有成熟的善不是戒律。第三次羯磨的一剎那，必須要有心念，滿足思愿，成就善，才是戒律，所以侷限於取終。然而，依據得宗（宗派名稱），無作的戒律一定以非色非心為體。作戒則取文不定，或者取文色心為體。所以論文中說：『業不是直接的聲音，要以心力幫助成就。』所以知道身體的業也稱為以心力幫助成就。明確知道兩種業以色入為體。又引用論文以心為體。所以論中說：『離開心就沒有思，沒有身口業。』
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the five roots (the five sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) and the four postures (referring to certain meditation postures), and the three invisible and non-obstructive forms (referring to extremely subtle matter), it refers to the non-action (avyākata-rūpa, unmanifested form, the latent power generated by karma) within the dharma-āyatana (one of the twelve āyatanas, the object of consciousness). If it is said that it is an action-precept (a precept generated through action), then the first two types of forms (visible and obstructive forms) are included. The non-action-precept (a precept generated through intention) is included in the third type of form (invisible and non-obstructive form). The Gāthā-citta-dvaya-śāstra states: 'The action of the body is visible and obstructive, the action of speech is invisible but obstructive, and the non-action of body and speech are both invisible and non-obstructive.' As far as the action of the body is concerned, only the rūpa-āyatana (one of the twelve āyatanas, the object of the eye) is included among the first two types of forms. The precept of speech is included in the śabda-āyatana (one of the twelve āyatanas, the object of the ear), and not in the remaining eight types of forms. The two non-actions of body and speech are both included in the dharma-āyatana. These actions and non-actions all belong to the rūpa-skandha (one of the five skandhas, the aggregate of matter). Fourth, distinguish between retribution (vipāka) and expedient means (upāya) in form and sound. Although form pervades both retribution and expedient means, the action of the body is an expedient means and not retribution. Therefore, the Citta-śāstra states: 'The action of the agent's body is the expedient means of the body.' The action of speech is only an expedient means, because sound is not a dharma of retribution. The two non-actions of body and speech are neither retribution nor expedient means. Fifth, distinguish from the three natures (good, evil, and neutral). The form and sound of body and speech are good, and the remaining two (non-actions) are not. Therefore, the Citta-śāstra states: 'Driving the body and speech with a pure mind is called good action, etc.' That is, pointing to the initial form, there are twenty types. The first twelve types are only neutral, and the latter eight types (high and low, long and short, square and round, correct and incorrect) pervade the three natures, but are limited to taking the good side as the precept-substance of the body's action. Among the three types of sounds, excluding the second cause (sounds that do not receive the four great elements, such as the sound of wind, etc.), because it is only neutral. As far as the initial cause (sounds that receive the four great elements) is concerned, the third cause (simultaneous sound) these two pervade the three natures, and also take the good sound as the precept-substance of the speech's action. Generally speaking, the non-actions of body and speech pervade the two natures (good and neutral), but now we are discussing precepts, so it belongs to the good nature. Sixth, distinguish from beginning to end. This good action pervades from beginning to end, but does not take the beginning. The so-called beginning is from requesting a teacher (ācārya) to karma (saṃgha's resolution), without completing the essential thought (manas), the immature good is not a precept. In the moment of the third karma, there must be a thought, fulfilling the thought-wish, accomplishing good, then it is a precept, so it is limited to taking the end. However, according to the Prāpti-vāda (name of a school), the non-action precept must take non-form and non-mind as its substance. The action-precept takes the text as uncertain, or takes the text, form, and mind as its substance. Therefore, the treatise says: 'Karma is not a direct sound, but must be assisted by the power of the mind to accomplish it.' Therefore, it is known that the karma of the body is also called assisted by the power of the mind to accomplish it. It is clearly known that the two karmas take the rūpa-āyatana as their substance. Also, the treatise is quoted as taking the mind as the substance. Therefore, the treatise says: 'Without the mind, there is no thought, no karma of body and speech.'
知二業用心為體。又假色為身口業體。故論云。身口業依止。四大意業依心。若身口業非四大為體。性者意業依心亦不應。以心為體 然意業依心故。即說意業用心為體。故知身業以四大動為業。業無別體。即用四大作體。口業者四大相繫於中出聲。聲成音曲有所表彰。以為字句為口作業。業無別體。用聲作體。是以論云。是法名聲性。法入所攝。故以遠從四大即聲成。故用聲為體。身業近依四大故。即用所依止為體。次明二戒先後。依心論說。似一時得故 文言。第三一念作無作根本業道。又多雲。初念戒者教無教后次第生。第二念戒但有無教無有有教。故知一時然無作。三時有非戒者。一者因時無作。但是作俱是非全戒體。二身是果時無作。無作有二。一是作俱。二是形俱。形俱一種方是戒體。三謂果后唯局形俱。此是戒體。以其果時有形俱故明一時得。若依此宗。以先後發。故實云。問。齊何名為無作。答。第二念須名為無作。以作戒為初念故。名無作為第二念。唯羯磨竟所有無作是茲戒體。前二時中位是能俱所攝。又善生經方便心異作時心異眾緣和合得名為作。以作因緣發生無作。作已過去唯有無作。其心雖在惡無記中。本所作業不名漏失授。斯次辨明先後發。第二受隨同異昔解受隨義一。譬如一楯能擇眾敵
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 知二業以用心為體。又假借色法為身口業的體性。所以《論》中說：『身口業依止於四大，意業依止於心。』如果身口業不是以四大為體性，那麼意業依心也不應該以心為體性了。 然而意業依心，所以說意業以用心為體。因此可知身業以四大的動作為業，業沒有別的體性，就是用四大作為體性。口業是四大相互聯繫，從中發出聲音，聲音形成音調曲調，有所表達彰顯，用以形成字句，作為口業。業沒有別的體性，用聲音作為體性。因此《論》中說：『這法名為聲性，屬於法入所攝。』所以從四大產生聲音，用聲音作為體性。身業靠近四大，所以用所依止的四大作為體性。 其次說明二戒的先後。依心論說，似乎是同時得到的。文言：『第三一念作無作根本業道。』又多說：『初念戒者，教無教后次第生。第二念戒但有無教，沒有有教。』所以知道是一時的。然而無作，三時都有非戒的情況。一是因時無作，但是作俱，是非全戒體。二是身是果時無作，無作有兩種，一是作俱，二是形俱。形俱一種才是戒體。三是果后唯局形俱，這是戒體。因為果時有形俱，所以說明一時得到。如果依此宗，以先後發，所以確實說：『問：齊何名為無作？答：第二念須名為無作。以作戒為初念故，名無作為第二念。唯羯磨竟所有無作是茲戒體。』前二時中位是能俱所攝。 《善生經》說，方便心異，作時心異，眾緣和合得名為作。以作因緣發生無作，作已過去唯有無作，其心雖在惡無記中，本所作業不名漏失授。斯次辨明先後發。第二受隨同異昔解受隨義一。譬如一楯能擇眾敵。
【English Translation】 English version It is known that the two karmas take the mind as their substance. Moreover, they rely on form (rupa) as the substance of bodily and verbal karmas. Therefore, the treatise (shastra) says: 'Bodily and verbal karmas depend on the four great elements (Mahabhuta), while mental karma depends on the mind.' If bodily and verbal karmas did not have the four great elements as their substance, then mental karma, which depends on the mind, should also not have the mind as its substance. However, since mental karma depends on the mind, it is said that mental karma takes the mind as its substance. Therefore, it can be known that bodily karma takes the movement of the four great elements as its action (karma), and the karma has no separate substance; it simply uses the four great elements as its substance. Verbal karma is the interconnectedness of the four great elements, from which sound emerges. The sound forms tones and melodies, expressing and manifesting something, which is used to form words and phrases as verbal karma. The karma has no separate substance; it uses sound as its substance. Therefore, the treatise says: 'This dharma is called the nature of sound, and it is included in the realm of dharma (Dharmadhatu).' Thus, sound arises from the four great elements, and sound is used as its substance. Bodily karma relies closely on the four great elements, so it uses the elements it relies on as its substance. Next, it explains the order of the two precepts. According to the Heart Treatise, it seems they are obtained simultaneously. The text says: 'The third thought is the fundamental karmic path of action and non-action (karma and akarma).' It is also often said: 'The first thought of the precept arises sequentially after the teaching (shasana) and non-teaching (ashasana). The second thought of the precept only has non-teaching, and does not have teaching.' Therefore, it is known that it is simultaneous. However, non-action (akarma) exists in the three times, but there are cases where it is not a precept. First, non-action at the time of cause (hetu), but it is simultaneous with action (karma), and it is not the complete substance of the precept. Second, the body is the non-action at the time of result (phala). There are two types of non-action: one is simultaneous with action, and the other is simultaneous with form (rupa). Only the type simultaneous with form is the substance of the precept. Third, after the result, it is limited to being simultaneous with form, and this is the substance of the precept. Because there is simultaneity with form at the time of result, it is explained that it is obtained simultaneously. If according to this school, it arises sequentially, so it is indeed said: 'Question: What is called non-action (akarma)? Answer: The second thought must be called non-action. Because the action of the precept is the first thought, non-action is called the second thought. Only the non-action that exists after the completion of the karma (karma) is the substance of this precept.' The intermediate position in the first two times is included in the ability to be simultaneous. The Good Begetting Sutra (善生經) says that the expedient mind (upaya-citta) is different, the mind at the time of action is different, and the combination of various conditions is called action. Non-action arises from the cause of action, and after the action has passed, there is only non-action. Although the mind is in an evil, non-remembering state, the original action is not called leakage or loss. This next distinguishes the sequential arising. The second reception is the same as the difference. The former explanation of reception is the same as the meaning. It is like a single shield that can choose many enemies.
為破斯義。故立此受隨二法並作無作。先解無作有其七種。一道共無作。二定共無作。三形俱。四要期。如日夜及處中要期等。五隨業無作。如隨戒無作及處中隨作業發者。是六事無作如塔寺橋船等。事在時念念發無作等。七隨用無作。即前事在有人用時復發無作者。是就此七中形俱定受要期通二。餘五定隨 次辨同異。受隨無作同義有三。謂名體義。異便有六。第一受中無作義均一品。隨中無作乃有優劣。言受中無作一品者。若本上品心受所發無作心增上故。戒亦上品。或容犯罪。或終至羅漢更無增減。以其酬本一品心故。中下心受義亦同然。三品各定故。言義均一品。隨中無作多品不定故優劣。對五篇辨此優劣者。若就根條初勝乃至五劣。若自分勝進五勝乃初劣。即應五篇次第之義。又可一一篇一一戒心有增微。事別不等即有九品之持。故隨無作有斯階降。第二總別受中無作發心。總斷一切惡意。于生非數頓得律儀。故稱為總。隨行無作次第漸成不可頓起。故名為別。第三懸對受中無作懸有防非。未即有行。隨中無作對事防非。行成皎潔 問。懸未有非對即隨行受有何用 答。若無其受隨不成。隨以共成一治故。第四長短。受是形俱。說以為長。隨行無作從修行發非形俱。故目之為短。第五有無者受中無作通三體
唯善。隨無作者體非二性亦不通兩。此據克性分別。受隨俱善。餘二並狹。今約有無通不通。受是形具。通在餘二性中。故說為寬。隨是作俱。等局善性中。所以言狹。此就一心自作為言。若先後心及以教人。餘二性中隨亦通有如教相所詮。犯不犯中亦同此狹。故犯行中無不犯行。若通就先後心及教人。犯行中亦有不犯行。此即受隨俱寬。作解者然須約以為三。若局善性俱狹。受隨同善性故。若隨人等俱寬。以分通三性故。若以自作隨行對受分別。方有寬狹。此準多論有四五不同。若實依論不別寬狹長短。然後受中無作定是長寬。隨無作者具於二種。以道無作寬長爾。第六受是根本隨是根條次解二作同異。同義有五。謂名體義。寬狹長短等不同有四。一一品多品。二總別。三亦懸對。四根條。比說可知。既有此殊。豈同昔解受隨義 第三辨發戒緣者。若依薩婆多。別解脫戒唯約見在。以過未非眾生故。若準得宗。發戒之時不在過未心。得戒以非眾生故。現在相續心中發戒。以是眾生然受戒時。要須三世境上所有之惡皆作斷意方能發戒。還防三世境上非。所以然者。過去之境能生噁心故。論云。如人供養過去所尊是亦得福。律儀亦爾。未來之境亦生噁心故。須普緣總作斷意方能發戒。又若過未不發戒者。三世諸佛戒不齊
等。以其諸佛戒品齊等故。三世以發戒也 問。戒防未非。毗尼殄已起。何故得言緣三世境發。還防三世非也 答。境雖過去非非過去等。以斯義故猶防未起非。是以須爾 第四發戒多少。諸戒雖眾不過二種。謂作無作。作已還去唯有無作。一形相續。此無作戒乃有多品。以所防之惡既有無量。戒寧是一。故多論云。於一切眾生數非眾生數而發律儀。言于眾生數者。上至非相下至阿鼻。可殺可誑不可誑等。一一眾生乃至如來。就根本而言不過有身口七惡。三因緣故。一貪故起七。二嗔故起七三癡故起七。三七二十一惡。對防此惡受戒之時。謂從無貪等三善根心各得身口七枝。合二十一種戒善。乃至三千大千一一眾生皆亦如是。若十戒五戒得十二種戒。故心多二論於一切眾生一切時戒不斷。或二十一種故。經云。眾生無邊戒亦戒邊。若非眾生數。乃至草木生種大地非法衣食等及一一罪處本受戒時。 大正藏第 85 冊 No. 2787 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三
四分戒本疏卷第二
沙門慧述
諸大德是十三僧伽婆尸沙法半月半月說戒經中來 此明第二篇。初□□說儀。次陳本戒后問清凈。此句是其標也。且就總相九門分別。后乃別相□□□□□總相者。一起由三毒。二配于身口。三自
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：等等，因為諸佛的戒品是相同的。三世都以此來發戒。問：戒是用來防止尚未發生的錯誤，而毗尼（Vinaya，戒律）是用來消除已經發生的錯誤。為什麼說戒是緣於三世的境界而發，並且還能防止三世的錯誤呢？答：雖然境界有過去、非過去等，但因為這個道理，它仍然可以防止尚未發生的錯誤。因此必須如此。第四，發戒有多少？所有的戒雖然很多，但不過兩種：作戒（action-based precepts）和無作戒（non-action-based precepts）。作戒在行為結束后就消失了，只剩下無作戒，它在一生中持續存在。這種無作戒有很多種類，因為所要防止的惡行是無數的，戒怎麼可能只有一種呢？所以《多論》（Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra）中說：『對於一切眾生數和非眾生數而發律儀。』所說的『于眾生數』，上至非想非非想處天（Nevasaññānāsaññāyatana），下至阿鼻地獄（Avīci），有可殺、可欺騙和不可欺騙等。每一個眾生乃至如來（Tathāgata），就根本而言，不過有身、口七種惡行。有三種因緣導致這些惡行：一是貪（lobha）導致七種惡行，二是嗔（dosa）導致七種惡行，三是癡（moha）導致七種惡行。這三種原因導致了二十一種惡行。爲了防止這些惡行，在受戒的時候，從無貪等三種善根心中，各自得到身、口七種戒條，合起來就是二十一種戒善。乃至三千大千世界（trisahasramahāsahasra-lokadhātu）中的每一個眾生也是如此。如果受十戒或五戒，就能得到十二種戒。因此，心是多的。《二論》（可能是指《俱舍論》和《順正理論》）認為，對於一切眾生，一切時，戒都不會斷。或者有二十一種戒。所以經中說：『眾生無邊，戒亦無邊。』如果是非眾生數，乃至草木、生長中的種子、大地、非法衣食等，以及每一個罪惡之處，都是在最初受戒的時候所包括的。 《四分戒本疏》卷第二 沙門慧述 諸位大德，這是十三僧伽婆尸沙法（saṃghāvaśeṣa）半月半月說戒經中來的。這裡說明第二篇。首先是□□說儀，其次陳述根本戒，然後問是否清凈。這句話是它的標題。且就總相九門來分別，之後才是別相□□□□□總相是：一起源於三毒（貪嗔癡），二對應于身口，三自身。
【English Translation】 English version: Et cetera, because the precepts of all Buddhas are equal. The three times (past, present, and future) are used to generate precepts. Question: Precepts prevent what has not yet occurred, while Vinaya (discipline) eliminates what has already occurred. Why is it said that precepts arise from the realm of the three times and also prevent the errors of the three times? Answer: Although the realm includes past, non-past, etc., because of this principle, it still prevents errors that have not yet arisen. Therefore, it must be so. Fourth, how many precepts are generated? Although there are many precepts, there are only two types: action-based precepts and non-action-based precepts. Action-based precepts disappear after the action is completed, leaving only non-action-based precepts, which continue throughout life. There are many kinds of these non-action-based precepts, because the evils to be prevented are countless, how can there be only one precept? Therefore, the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra says: 'The precepts are generated for all sentient beings and non-sentient beings.' 'For sentient beings' refers to those from the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (Nevasaññānāsaññāyatana) down to Avīci Hell (Avīci), including those who can be killed, deceived, and not deceived. Each sentient being, even the Tathāgata, fundamentally has only seven evil actions of body and speech. There are three causes for these evil actions: first, greed (lobha) causes seven evil actions; second, hatred (dosa) causes seven evil actions; and third, delusion (moha) causes seven evil actions. These three causes lead to twenty-one evil actions. To prevent these evil actions, at the time of receiving the precepts, from the three roots of goodness, such as non-greed, one obtains seven branches of precepts for body and speech, totaling twenty-one kinds of preceptual goodness. Even each sentient being in the trisahasramahāsahasra-lokadhātu is the same. If one receives the ten precepts or five precepts, one obtains twelve kinds of precepts. Therefore, the mind is multiple. The Two Treatises (possibly referring to the Abhidharmakośa and Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) believe that for all sentient beings, at all times, the precepts will not be broken. Or there are twenty-one kinds of precepts. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Sentient beings are boundless, and precepts are also boundless.' If it is a non-sentient being, even grass, growing seeds, the earth, unlawful clothing and food, etc., and every place of sin, are included at the time of initially receiving the precepts. The Śālistamba Sūtra Commentary, Volume 2 By Śramaṇa Huishu Virtuous ones, this comes from the Saṃghāvaśeṣa Dharma, recited every half-month in the Precept Recitation Sutra. This explains the second section. First, there is the □□ recitation ceremony, then the fundamental precepts are stated, and then it is asked whether one is pure. This sentence is its title. Let's distinguish it based on the nine aspects of the general characteristics, and then the specific characteristics □□□□□ The general characteristics are: first, it originates from the three poisons (greed, hatred, and delusion); second, it corresponds to body and speech; third, oneself.
作教人。四解遮性。五初犯種類。大持犯方軌。七二部同異。八違制不同。九下眾任運。言起由三毒者。初有□□□事起貪染心成。次有二戒。瞋心起成。次有二戒。因三事起癡□□□□□□瞋癡起成 二配于身口者。位以為四。初二局身。次二粗語二謗四諫等八□□□□□有助成。次二房戒。身為正犯。口是助業次媒嫁一戒。身口正犯 三自作教人□□□為三。一有五戒。自作成重。教人同不同。謂二粗語媒嫁二房自作定殘。□□□同不同。若教人作五。於己有潤故同犯殘。若泛教人於己無潤但可蘭。二次有二戒。自作教人一向同犯。謂二謗戒。自作教人為己不為己。惱境處齊暢思不殊。故彼我同犯。三有六戒。自作犯殘。教人但輕。謂漏失摩觸自作犯殘。教人偷蘭。以無潤己故。下四諫戒自違正犯。教人違諫亦得輕罪。若僧未諫教言莫舍但得吉羅。以無僧命眾法可違過輕微故。若僧諫時教言莫舍即結蘭罪。以違僧命情過重故 四性遮者。媒及二房是遮惡。余之十戒體是不善。故是性惡 第五種類者是論分為四位。初有五戒咸是愛染。初戒氣分淫之種類。二二房兩戒是盜種類。三污家惡行是殺種類。四餘之戒等妄語種類 六持犯 是中二房具二持犯。然前房半非除過重故。自餘十一止持作犯亦可□持作犯通十三戒作
持止犯前房少分第房全品別階降。已如上辨。七二部同異者。媒嫁二謗四違諫等。此七同犯。而四諫戒得罪雖齊。對境翻到。謂各違當衆諫故。媒謗三戒境罪俱等。自餘六戒僧尼不同。漏失僧重尼提。多雲。女人煩惱深重難拘難。若制與重罪惱眾生。又女人要在私屏多緣多力。若乃盈流故輕。男子不爾。隨事能出故重。又可染患。內外不同故有輕重。比丘摩觸力能自固以限分制但得僧殘。尼則煩惱厚重。既受摩觸恐成陵逼 深房中制故結夷罪。為四不同故罪階降。一死活。二大小。三染心有無。四身輕重 尼懼陵逼故須活及大等。僧據染患不簡死及大小等。二粗惡語僧重尼輕。以希數故。又尼有趣重方爾故得蘭罪。僧無八事相資故得僧殘。二房戒者。大僧犯殘。尼作犯蘭。若就過量大僧得獨行宿。喜獨造房故制僧殘。尼須伴假。若共造房自無過義。故律言。多人住屋不犯。見日二人造房不犯。設令獨造希故蘭罪。若爾覆屋過三。何故同犯。答。此據尺量分齊。故二人不犯。下過三節直辨摧壞招譏。不簡大小故同僧提 問。尼就有伴假獨義希即得蘭者。若爾尼是有伴假。獨義希屏露二坐不應同犯 答。此就損業損微則輕。又設獨造希而不數故得輕罪。坐等就譏事雖希數齊招譏過。僧尼同犯。若論不處分者。尼無蘭若制居
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 持止犯前房少分第房全品別階降。已如上辨。七二部同異者。媒嫁、二謗、四違諫等，此七同犯。而四諫戒得罪雖齊，對境翻到，謂各違當衆諫故。媒謗三戒境罪俱等。自餘六戒僧尼不同。漏失僧重尼提（尼的戒律名稱）。多雲：『女人煩惱深重難拘難，若制與重罪惱眾生。』又女人要在私屏多緣多力，若乃盈流故輕，男子不爾，隨事能出故重。又可染患，內外不同故有輕重。比丘摩觸力能自固以限分制但得僧殘（僧侶的戒律名稱），尼則煩惱厚重，既受摩觸恐成陵逼，深房中制故結夷罪（尼的戒律名稱）。為四不同故罪階降：一死活，二大小，三染心有無，四身輕重。尼懼陵逼故須活及大等，僧據染患不簡死及大小等。二粗惡語僧重尼輕，以希數故。又尼有趣重方爾故得蘭罪（尼的戒律名稱），僧無八事相資故得僧殘（僧侶的戒律名稱）。二房戒者，大僧犯殘（僧侶的戒律名稱），尼作犯蘭（尼的戒律名稱）。若就過量大僧得獨行宿，喜獨造房故制僧殘（僧侶的戒律名稱）。尼須伴假，若共造房自無過義，故律言：『多人住屋不犯。見日二人造房不犯。』設令獨造希故蘭罪（尼的戒律名稱）。若爾覆屋過三，何故同犯？答：此據尺量分齊，故二人不犯。下過三節直辨摧壞招譏，不簡大小故同僧提（僧侶的戒律名稱）。問：尼就有伴假獨義希即得蘭者（尼的戒律名稱），若爾尼是有伴假，獨義希屏露二坐不應同犯？答：此就損業損微則輕。又設獨造希而不數故得輕罪，坐等就譏事雖希數齊招譏過，僧尼同犯。若論不處分者，尼無蘭若制居
【English Translation】 English version The distinctions in the severity of offenses related to possessing, stopping, violating, the front room, lesser portions, the entire room, different categories, and reductions have been explained above. Regarding the similarities and differences between the seven and two sections: matchmaking, two slanders, four violations of admonishments, etc., these seven are jointly violated. Although the offenses for the four admonishments are equal, they differ in their application, as each violates the admonishment given to the assembly. The three precepts of matchmaking and slander have equal circumstances and offenses. The remaining six precepts differ between monks (bhikshus) and nuns (bhikshunis). Loss results in a heavier offense for monks and a tishya (name of a nun's precept) for nuns. It is often said, 'Women's afflictions are deep and difficult to restrain; if heavy punishments are imposed, it will trouble sentient beings.' Moreover, women require privacy, have many connections, and possess much strength; therefore, overflowing is considered a lighter offense. Men are not like this; they can resolve matters easily, so the offense is heavier. Furthermore, there is the possibility of contracting diseases; the internal and external conditions differ, hence the difference in severity. A bhikshu (monk) who is touched can restrain himself with strength and limitations, and thus incurs only a sanghavasesa (name of a monk's precept) offense. A bhikshuni (nun), however, has deep and heavy afflictions; once touched, there is a fear of coercion. Therefore, the rule is established in a deep room, resulting in a parajika (name of a nun's precept) offense. The differences in the four aspects lead to a reduction in the severity of the offense: (1) life or death, (2) large or small, (3) presence or absence of defiled intention, and (4) lightness or heaviness of the body. Nuns fear coercion, so the rule requires life and largeness, etc. Monks are judged based on the possibility of contracting diseases, without considering life, death, or size, etc. Secondly, harsh words result in a heavier offense for monks and a lighter offense for nuns because they are rare. Furthermore, nuns have an interest in heavy matters, so they incur a tyagga (name of a nun's precept) offense. Monks do not have the eight supporting factors, so they incur a sanghavasesa (name of a monk's precept) offense. Regarding the two room precepts, a senior monk commits a sanghavasesa (name of a monk's precept) offense, while a nun commits a tyagga (name of a nun's precept) offense. If it exceeds the limit, a senior monk can travel and stay alone, as he enjoys building rooms alone, hence the sanghavasesa (name of a monk's precept) offense. Nuns require a companion or permission; if they build a room together, there is no offense. Therefore, the Vinaya states, 'Living in a house with many people is not an offense. Building a room with two people during the day is not an offense.' If one builds alone rarely, it is a tyagga (name of a nun's precept) offense. If so, why is covering the roof beyond three [layers] an equal offense? Answer: This is based on the measurement of the dimensions, so two people are not at fault. Going beyond three sections directly indicates destruction and invites criticism, without considering size, so it is the same as a tishya (name of a monk's precept) offense for monks. Question: If a nun obtains a tyagga (name of a nun's precept) offense because she has a companion, permission, is alone, or it is rare, then should nuns with companions, permission, being alone, or rarely exposing themselves in secluded places not incur the same offense? Answer: This is lighter because it involves slight damage to the practice. Furthermore, if one builds alone rarely and not frequently, one incurs a lighter offense. Sitting, etc., invites criticism, and although the matter is rare, the criticism is equal, so monks and nuns commit the same offense. If one discusses not assigning, then nuns do not have the rule of residing in a aranya (secluded place).
聚落。僧儻無房故宜須造設。不處分情過輕微但結蘭罪。比丘大夫得在蘭若樹下露坐。安身進業。今在聚落營構私房故須重。遮懲其後犯 八違制不同者。前之九戒違佛製得罪。后四諫戒違僧制招愆。此僧制者即是佛制。但僧若不秉即無違諫之殘。殘由違僧故。此四戒違僧制犯 九任運有無。七戒容有任運。二粗兩房二謗媒嫁得有遣人為已作義。所教事成三性之中犯七僧殘。余無教人故無任運。就十三中初之九戒。若持護眾行法。違則壞眾行法。后之四戒若奉順僧命息過。不為顯眾法成就。有被時之益名護眾教法。違則壞眾教法。前中復三。初五內染。以明壞眾行法。次二兩房事和。以明壞眾行法。次二兩謗情和。以明壞眾行法。前五復三。初一壞眾行法不壞於時。次三壞眾行壞時。次一壞行義微壞眾壞時故。
故漏失戒第一 此戒人之喜犯故在初也。一制戒意。欲是惡法正是生死之原障道之本。理應禁斷令梵行清凈。多論言。三義故佛制此戒。一令正法久住故。二欲正誹謗故。三欲生天龍善神信敬心故。四部律中佛並訶責言。云何以此不凈手受人信施 二釋名者。方便動轉標心究竟名之為故。體分盈流名為漏失。故曰漏失戒 三具緣者。通緣如上。別緣有三。一作究竟意。二方便動轉。三失即犯 四闕緣。闕
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 聚落（居住地）。僧侶們沒有房間，所以應該建造。不處分情節輕微的過錯，只判蘭罪（僧殘罪，一種較重的罪）。比丘（佛教僧侶）和大夫可以在蘭若（寺院）的樹下露天打坐，安心修行。現在在聚落里建造私人房屋，所以需要加重懲罰，以阻止後來的犯者。八、違制的不同之處：前面的九戒違反佛制會獲罪，後面的四諫戒違反僧制會招致過失。這裡的僧制實際上就是佛制。但是僧眾如果不秉持，就沒有違反諫言的罪過。罪過是因為違背僧眾的規定而產生的。這四戒違反僧制會犯戒。九、任運有無：七戒容許有任運（自然而然）。二粗兩房（兩種粗罪，涉及房屋）和二謗媒嫁（兩種誹謗，涉及媒人和婚姻）可以派人代為處理。所教的事情成功，在三性（善、惡、無記）之中犯七僧殘（七種僧殘罪）。其餘的沒有教人，所以沒有任運。在十三種罪中，最初的九戒，如果持護眾行法，違背就會破壞眾行法。後面的四戒，如果奉順僧命來停止過錯，不爲了彰顯眾法成就，有暫時的利益，名為護眾教法。違背就會破壞眾教法。前面九戒中又分三種。最初的五戒涉及內心染污，表明破壞眾行法。其次的兩種涉及房屋的和合，表明破壞眾行法。再次的兩種涉及誹謗的情和，表明破壞眾行法。前面的五戒又分三種。最初的一種破壞眾行法但不破壞時節。其次的三種破壞眾行也破壞時節。最後的一種破壞行為的意義輕微，破壞大眾也破壞時節。
所以漏失戒是第一條。這條戒律人們容易犯，所以放在最前面。一、制定戒律的用意：慾望是惡法，正是生死輪迴的根源，是修道的根本障礙。理應禁止斷除，使梵行清凈。多論中說，因為三個原因佛制定這條戒律：一是使正法長久住世；二是防止誹謗；三是使天龍善神生起信心和敬意。四部律中佛都呵責說：怎麼能用這不乾淨的手接受別人的信施？二、解釋名稱：方便、動轉、標心、究竟，名為『故』（故意）。體分盈流，名為『漏失』。所以叫做漏失戒。三、具足因緣：通緣如上所述。別緣有三個：一是作究竟意（有完成性行為的意圖），二是方便動轉（有性行為的動作），三是失即犯（精液漏失即犯戒）。四、缺少因緣：缺少...
【English Translation】 English version Settlements. Since the monks had no rooms, they should be built. Minor offenses are not punished severely, but only result in a saṃghāvaśeṣa (a type of serious offense requiring a formal meeting of the monastic community for expiation). Bhikṣus (Buddhist monks) and senior monks could sit in the open under the trees of the araṇya (monastery), peacefully cultivating their practice. Now, building private houses in the settlements requires heavier punishment to deter future offenders. Eight, the differences in violating the precepts: violating the first nine precepts goes against the Buddha's teachings and incurs offenses, while violating the latter four admonitory precepts goes against the monastic rules and invites faults. These monastic rules are actually the Buddha's teachings. However, if the sangha (monastic community) does not uphold them, there is no offense for violating the admonitions. The offense arises from violating the sangha's rules. These four precepts violate the monastic rules and incur offenses. Nine, intentionality: Seven precepts allow for unintentionality. Two types of serious offenses involving dwellings and two types of slander involving matchmakers and marriages can be handled by sending someone to act on one's behalf. If the instructed matter is successful, among the three natures (good, evil, and neutral), seven saṃghāvaśeṣa offenses are committed. The rest do not involve instructing others, so there is no intentionality. Among the thirteen offenses, the first nine precepts, if upholding the Dharma of communal practice, violating them will destroy the Dharma of communal practice. The latter four precepts, if following the sangha's orders to cease transgressions, not for manifesting the accomplishment of the Dharma of the community, having temporary benefits, are called protecting the Dharma of the community's teachings. Violating them will destroy the Dharma of the community's teachings. The first nine are further divided into three. The first five involve internal defilement, indicating the destruction of the Dharma of communal practice. The next two involve the harmony of dwellings, indicating the destruction of the Dharma of communal practice. The next two involve the harmony of slanderous situations, indicating the destruction of the Dharma of communal practice. The first five are further divided into three. The first one destroys the Dharma of communal practice but does not destroy the timing. The next three destroy both the Dharma of communal practice and the timing. The last one destroys the meaning of the practice slightly, destroys the community, and destroys the timing.
Therefore, the precept on emission of semen is the first. This precept is easily violated, so it is placed at the beginning. One, the intention of establishing the precept: desire is an evil Dharma, the very source of birth and death, and the fundamental obstacle to the path. It should be prohibited and eliminated to purify brahmacarya (pure conduct). The Mahāvibhāṣā says that the Buddha established this precept for three reasons: first, to make the true Dharma abide long in the world; second, to prevent slander; and third, to inspire faith and reverence in devas (gods), nāgas (serpent deities), and virtuous spirits. In the four Vinayas (collections of monastic rules), the Buddha rebukes, saying: How can you use these impure hands to receive offerings from people? Two, explanation of the name: expedient, movement, intention, and completion are called 'intentional'. The division of the body overflowing is called 'emission'. Therefore, it is called the precept on emission. Three, complete conditions: the general conditions are as mentioned above. The specific conditions are three: first, the intention to complete the act (having the intention to complete the sexual act), second, expedient movement (having the movements of sexual activity), and third, emission constitutes the offense (emission of semen constitutes the violation). Four, lacking conditions: lacking...
初二無犯。闕三或重輕蘭 已下正明戒本文有三段。一略制。二隨開。三滿制。言略制者。最初因迦留陀夷比丘起過佛便略制此戒。后因余比丘夢中失不凈。佛因集僧本無心故開除夢中。是名隨開。言滿足戒本者。
若比丘故弄陰出精除夢中僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足戒本四句料簡。初略標。次廣釋。言略標者。一犯人。二人。三開。四結罪。言廣釋者。若比丘八比丘中第八白四羯磨如法得處所比丘。是名若比丘義。所言故弄陰出精者。出其境界。先列六名。二次第解。言六名者。律云。實心故作出不凈意。前境有六。若於內色外色內外色。若水若風若空。隨任方便若出則犯。言內色者。謂眾生身份。心心領納苦樂故名受色。言外色者。謂非眾生色。以無心心法領納名不受色。所言內外色者。情非情合名受不受色。所言水風空者。比類可知。水中逆水順水。風中亦爾。空中自空動身。乃至余境。所言除夢中者。律云。亂意睡眠有五過失。一者惡夢。二者諸天不護。三者心不入法。四者不思惟明相。五者于夢中失精。善意睡眠有五功德。即反上句也。若欲睡時。手捉而睡。意令夢中漏失。睡中若失即犯。究竟非開限。若本無心意不欲出。夢中若出不在犯限。故曰除夢中。所言僧伽婆尸沙者。此是罪名。律云。僧伽者名眾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 初犯第二條戒律（初二無犯）。如果違反了第三條戒律，根據情節輕重，可能會被判處僧殘罪（闕三或重輕蘭）。以下是正式解釋戒律正文，分為三個部分：簡略制定、隨後開許、完整制定。所謂簡略制定，是指最初因為迦留陀夷（Kaludayi）比丘犯錯，佛陀便簡略制定了這條戒律。後來，因為有其他比丘在夢中遺精，佛陀因此召集僧眾，考慮到並非有意，所以開除了夢中遺精的情況。這叫做隨後開許。所謂完整戒本，指的是：
『如果比丘故意玩弄性器官導致精液射出，但夢中遺精的情況除外，則犯僧伽婆尸沙罪（Sanghavasesa）。』這是完整的戒律正文，包含四個方面的考量：簡略標示、詳細解釋。所謂簡略標示，包括：一、犯戒者；二、對像；三、開許情況；四、判罪。所謂詳細解釋：『若比丘』，指的是八種比丘中的第八種，即通過如法的白四羯磨（baisi jiemo）儀式獲得資格的比丘。這就是『若比丘』的含義。『故意玩弄性器官導致精液射出』，指的是超出其（性行為）的界限。首先列出六種對象，然後依次解釋。所謂六種對象，律典中說：『確實是內心故意產生不凈的想法。』對像有六種：內色、外色、內外色、水、風、空。無論採取哪種方式，只要射精就構成犯戒。所謂『內色』，指的是眾生的身體，因為心能夠感受苦樂，所以稱為受色。所謂『外色』，指的是非眾生的色法，因為沒有心識感受，所以稱為不受色。所謂『內外色』，指的是有情和無情結合，稱為受不受色。所謂水、風、空，可以類比得知。水中包括逆水和順水，風中也是如此，空中包括自身活動等。至於其他情況，可以依此類推。所謂『除夢中』，律典中說：『心神錯亂的睡眠有五種過失：一、做惡夢；二、諸天不守護；三、心不能入法；四、不能思惟光明之相；五、在夢中遺精。』善意的睡眠有五種功德，與上述相反。如果想要睡覺時，用手握住（性器官）睡覺，心中想著在夢中遺精，如果在睡夢中遺精，就構成犯戒，因為這並非開許的情況。如果原本沒有心思想要射精，夢中遺精就不在犯戒之列，所以說『除夢中』。所謂『僧伽婆尸沙』，是罪名。律典中說：『僧伽（Sangha）』的意思是僧眾。
【English Translation】 English version The second offense is without violation (Chu er wu fan). If the third is violated, depending on the severity, it may be subject to Sanghavasesa (Que san huo zhong qing lan). The following is the formal explanation of the precepts, which has three sections: brief formulation, subsequent allowance, and complete formulation. The so-called brief formulation refers to the fact that initially, because the Bhikkhu Kaludayi (Kaludayi) committed an offense, the Buddha briefly formulated this precept. Later, because other Bhikkhus had nocturnal emissions in their dreams, the Buddha gathered the Sangha and, considering that it was unintentional, excluded nocturnal emissions in dreams. This is called subsequent allowance. The so-called complete precepts refer to:
'If a Bhikkhu intentionally stimulates his genitals and ejaculates, except for nocturnal emissions in dreams, he commits a Sanghavasesa (Sanghavasesa) offense.' This is the complete precept, which includes four aspects: brief indication, detailed explanation. The so-called brief indication includes: 1. the offender; 2. the object; 3. the allowed circumstances; 4. the judgment. The so-called detailed explanation: 'If a Bhikkhu' refers to the eighth of the eight types of Bhikkhus, that is, a Bhikkhu who has been qualified through the lawful Baisi Jiemo (baisi jiemo) ritual. This is the meaning of 'If a Bhikkhu'. 'Intentionally stimulates his genitals and ejaculates' refers to exceeding the boundary of (sexual behavior). First, list six objects, and then explain them in order. The so-called six objects, the Vinaya says: 'It is indeed intentionally generating impure thoughts in the mind.' There are six objects: internal color, external color, internal and external color, water, wind, and space. No matter which method is used, ejaculation constitutes an offense. The so-called 'internal color' refers to the body of sentient beings, because the mind can feel suffering and happiness, so it is called receptive color. The so-called 'external color' refers to the color of non-sentient beings, because there is no mental consciousness to feel, so it is called non-receptive color. The so-called 'internal and external color' refers to the combination of sentient and non-sentient beings, called receptive and non-receptive color. The so-called water, wind, and space can be known by analogy. Water includes upstream and downstream water, and the same is true for wind, and space includes self-activity, etc. As for other situations, they can be inferred by analogy. The so-called 'except for nocturnal emissions in dreams', the Vinaya says: 'Disturbed sleep has five faults: 1. having nightmares; 2. the devas do not protect; 3. the mind cannot enter the Dharma; 4. cannot contemplate the signs of light; 5. nocturnal emission in dreams.' Virtuous sleep has five merits, which are the opposite of the above. If you want to sleep, hold (the genitals) with your hand and sleep, thinking of nocturnal emission in dreams. If you have nocturnal emission in your sleep, it constitutes an offense, because this is not an allowed situation. If there was originally no intention to ejaculate, nocturnal emission in dreams is not an offense, so it says 'except for nocturnal emissions in dreams'. The so-called 'Sanghavasesa' is the name of the offense. The Vinaya says: 'Sangha (Sangha)' means the monastic community.
。婆尸沙者有餘。已行法不絕為名也。若比丘如上於六種境作方便出精。后遂本心皆得殘罪。如目連罪報經云。若比丘無慚愧心。輕慢佛謗犯僧伽婆尸沙罪。如不憍樂天壽八千歲。人間數二百三十億四十千歲墮泥梨中。所言不犯者。律云。若夢中失覺。以恐污身衣故以弊物及手。捺棄。若欲想出。若見好色不觸而出。若行時自觸兩䏶而失。若觸衣而失。若浴時失。若手揩摩而失。如是一切不作出精意而自出者無犯。
磨觸女人戒第二 一制意。多論六義故制此戒。一出家人飄然無依止。令制此戒與之。作伴有所依故 二為息斗諍。此是爭競根本故。三為息疑慊。不但謂捉而已。謂作大惡故。四為斷大惡之原。禁微防著故。五為護正念。若觸女人必失正念故。六比丘出家理應超絕塵染。棲心累外為世軌則。若觸女則喪世人宗敬心故 二釋名。身相捫摸為摩。二境交對曰觸。故曰摩觸戒 三具緣。通緣如上。別緣有五。一人女人簡非天與畜女異男等。女中不簡死活大小輕重等。又通道俗親疏。廣說可知。二人女想。三染心。四相觸。五受樂便犯 四闕緣。若闕初緣有十一蘭。人境差中有三句。初句欲捉人女所前境變為人男得前心蘭。或人男來須處作人女想亦蘭。第二或變為二形。或二形須三。或變作男黃門。或黃門
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：婆尸沙（posisha）還有剩餘的情況，指的是已經開始修行佛法但沒有完全斷絕世俗行為的人。如果比丘像上面所說的那樣，在六種情況下想辦法泄精，之後又後悔，都會犯下殘罪。正如《目連罪報經》所說，如果比丘沒有慚愧心，輕慢佛法，誹謗僧伽，就會犯下婆尸沙罪。就像不憍樂天的壽命有八千歲，人間的時間相當於二百三十億四十千歲，死後會墮入泥犁（niraya）之中。律典中說，以下情況不構成犯罪：如果在夢中失去知覺，因為害怕弄髒身體和衣服，用破布或手按住；或者有性慾的想法，或者看到美好的顏色但沒有接觸就射精；或者行走時碰到自己的大腿而射精；或者碰到衣服而射精；或者洗澡時射精；或者用手摩擦而射精。像這樣，一切不是出於泄精的意願而自然射精的情況，都不算犯戒。
觸控女人戒第二：一、制定此戒的原因。根據《多論》的說法，制定此戒有六個原因：一、出家人漂泊無依，制定此戒是爲了讓他們有所依靠；二、爲了平息爭鬥，因為這是爭競的根本原因；三、爲了消除疑慮，不僅僅是指捉摸，而是指做出大惡；四、爲了斷絕大惡的根源，防微杜漸；五、爲了守護正念，如果觸控女人，必然會失去正念；六、比丘出家理應超越世俗的塵染，將心安放在世俗之外，作為世人的榜樣。如果觸控女人，就會喪失世人的尊敬之心。二、解釋名稱。用身體互相撫摸稱為『摩』，兩個對像相互接觸稱為『觸』，所以稱為『摩觸戒』。三、構成要素。共同的要素如上所述。特別的要素有五個：一、是女人，區分于天女、畜生女和男人等。女人不區分死活、大小、輕重等。又包括在家和出家、親疏關係。詳細的解釋可以參考其他地方。二、有女人的想法。三、有染污的心。四、有相互接觸的行為。五、感受到快樂，就犯戒。四、不構成要素的情況。如果缺少第一個要素，有十一種蘭罪。在對象是人的情況下，如果對像發生了變化，有三種情況。第一種情況，想要捉摸女人，但面前的對象變成了男人，如果之前的心是想捉摸女人，就犯蘭罪。或者男人來到需要捉摸的地方，卻誤以為是女人，也犯蘭罪。第二種情況，或者對像變成了雙性人，或者雙性人需要...
【English Translation】 English version: 'Posisha' (posisha) also has remaining cases, referring to those who have begun practicing the Dharma but have not completely severed worldly behaviors. If a Bhikkhu, as mentioned above, tries to ejaculate in six situations, and then regrets it, he will commit a residual offense. As the 'Maudgalyayana Sutra of Retribution' says, if a Bhikkhu has no sense of shame, belittles the Buddha Dharma, and slanders the Sangha, he will commit the 'posisha' offense. Just like the lifespan of the 'Not Rejoicing Heaven' is eight thousand years, which is equivalent to two hundred and thirty billion and forty thousand years in the human realm, after death, one will fall into 'niraya' (niraya). The Vinaya says that the following situations do not constitute an offense: if one loses consciousness in a dream, and presses down with a rag or hand for fear of soiling the body and clothes; or if one has sexual thoughts, or sees beautiful colors but ejaculates without touching; or if one touches one's own thighs while walking and ejaculates; or if one touches one's clothes and ejaculates; or if one ejaculates while bathing; or if one ejaculates while rubbing with one's hands. Like this, all situations where ejaculation occurs naturally without the intention of ejaculating do not constitute a violation.
The Second Precept Against Touching a Woman: 1. Reasons for establishing this precept. According to the 'Multi-Treatise', there are six reasons for establishing this precept: 1. Monastics are wandering and have no support, so this precept is established to give them something to rely on; 2. To quell disputes, because this is the root cause of contention; 3. To eliminate doubts, not just referring to touching, but referring to committing great evils; 4. To cut off the source of great evils, preventing them before they arise; 5. To protect right mindfulness, because if one touches a woman, one will inevitably lose right mindfulness; 6. Bhikkhus who have left home should transcend worldly defilements, place their minds outside the mundane, and be role models for the world. If one touches a woman, one will lose the respect of the world. 2. Explanation of the name. Mutual caressing with the body is called 'mo', and the mutual contact of two objects is called 'touch', so it is called the 'Precept Against Touching'. 3. Constituent elements. The common elements are as mentioned above. The special elements are five: 1. It is a woman, distinguishing her from celestial women, animal women, and men, etc. Women are not distinguished by whether they are dead or alive, large or small, light or heavy, etc. It also includes lay and monastic, close and distant relationships. Detailed explanations can be found elsewhere. 2. Having the thought of a woman. 3. Having a defiled mind. 4. Having the act of mutual contact. 5. Experiencing pleasure constitutes an offense. 4. Situations that do not constitute an offense. If the first element is missing, there are eleven 'lan' offenses. In the case where the object is a person, if the object changes, there are three situations. The first situation is that one wants to touch a woman, but the object in front of one becomes a man. If the previous intention was to touch a woman, one commits a 'lan' offense. Or a man comes to a place where touching is needed, but one mistakenly thinks it is a woman, one also commits a 'lan' offense. The second situation is that the object becomes a hermaphrodite, or a hermaphrodite needs...
須處。非畜各四類前可知。故合十一。闕第二緣有三十三蘭想疑。雙闕各執一。闕第三無罪。闕第四二俱有衣五十四吉羅。衣互有無九十偷蘭。闕第五蘭。已下正明戒本。
若比丘淫慾意與女人身相觸若捉手若捉髮若觸一一身份者僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足戒本五句料簡。初略辨。后廣釋。略中一犯人。二內有染心。三所觸境。四身相觸。五若觸一一下結犯。今廣釋。言若比丘者義如上辨。言淫慾意者愛染污心。所言女人者如上淫戒中說。為欲通收覺與不覺等四種境故。不以有智未命終釋女真言如上。所言身者從發至足。見云。若發抓抓相觸蘭。以無覺故。所言相觸者。若捉手至身份已來九種摩業。初句下一一釋。言舉者若捉摩重摩。或牽或推。逆摩順摩。或摩或舉或捉或下或捺。若余觸方便也。所言若捉摩者。摩身前後。牽者牽前。推者推卻。逆摩者從下至上。順摩者從上至下。舉者捉舉上。下者若立捉令坐。捉者若捉前捉后捉乳捉髀。捺者捺前捺后若捺乳捺脾。皆是摩業。所言僧伽婆尸沙。是第五結犯句。于中有三種罪相。初若相觸二俱無衣情濃故著便僧殘。女觸比丘動身同犯。若不動身但吉。第二若相觸互有衣情淡著便偷蘭。第三若相觸俱有衣情最輕微著便犯俱無。衣中若心境相應犯殘。若心不當境疑故輕。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 須處：指在之前的四類（非畜生）中已經瞭解的情況。因此總共有十一種情況。缺少第二種情況是因為有三十三種關於蘭草的懷疑。雙方都缺少的情況各有一次。缺少第三種情況是沒有罪。缺少第四種情況是雙方都有衣服，犯五十四次吉羅罪（Dukkata，輕罪）。衣服互有有無的情況，犯九十次偷蘭罪（Thullaccaya，中等罪）。缺少第五種情況是蘭草。以下是正式說明戒本的內容。
若比丘（bhikkhu，男性出家人）以淫慾之心與女人身體相接觸，無論是捉手、捉頭髮，還是觸控身體的各個部分，都犯僧伽婆尸沙（Sanghadisesa，僧殘罪）。這是滿足戒本的五句料簡。首先是簡略辨析，然後是詳細解釋。簡略辨析中包括：一、犯戒者；二、內心有染污心；三、所接觸的對境；四、身體互相接觸；五、如果觸控身體的各個部分，就構成犯戒。現在詳細解釋。『若比丘』的含義如上所述。『淫慾意』是指愛染污心。『女人』的說法如上述淫戒中所說，爲了涵蓋覺知與不覺知等四種情況。不以有智未命終來解釋女人的真實含義，如上所述。『身體』是指從頭髮到腳。見解認為，如果抓頭髮時互相接觸，犯蘭罪，因為沒有覺知。『相觸』是指從捉手到身體各個部分這九種摩擦行為。第一句下面一一解釋。『舉』是指捉、摩、重摩，或者牽、推，逆摩、順摩，或者摩、舉、捉、下、捺，以及其他觸控的方便行為。『若捉摩』是指摩擦身體前後。『牽』是指向前牽引。『推』是指向后推卻。『逆摩』是指從下向上摩擦。『順摩』是指從上向下摩擦。『舉』是指捉住並舉起。『下』是指如果站立則捉住使其坐下。『捉』是指捉住前面、捉住後面、捉住乳房、捉住大腿。『捺』是指按壓前面、按壓後面，或者按壓乳房、按壓大腿。這些都是摩擦行為。『僧伽婆尸沙』是第五句，構成犯戒。其中有三種罪相：第一，如果互相接觸，雙方都沒有衣服，情慾濃厚，因此構成僧殘罪。女人觸控比丘，比丘身體動搖，同樣犯戒。如果身體不動搖，只犯吉羅罪。第二，如果互相接觸，雙方互有衣服，情慾淡薄，構成偷蘭罪。第三，如果互相接觸，雙方都有衣服，情慾最輕微，構成犯戒，雙方都沒有衣服。在有衣服的情況下，如果心境相應，犯僧殘罪。如果心不當境，因為懷疑而罪輕，例如……
【English Translation】 English version: 『Sustaining instances』: Refers to situations already understood in the previous four categories (excluding animals). Therefore, there are a total of eleven situations. The second situation is missing because there are thirty-three doubts about 『Lan』 (a type of grass). Situations where both are missing occur once each. The third situation is missing because there is no offense. The fourth situation is missing because both have clothing, resulting in fifty-four Dukkata (minor offense). Situations where clothing is mutually present or absent result in ninety Thullaccaya (moderate offense). The fifth situation is missing is 『Lan』. The following formally clarifies the contents of the Pratimoksha (monastic code).
If a bhikkhu (monk) with lustful intent touches the body of a woman, whether by grasping her hand, grasping her hair, or touching any part of her body, he commits a Sanghadisesa (an offense requiring a meeting of the Sangha). This fulfills the five-sentence analysis of the Pratimoksha. First, a brief analysis, then a detailed explanation. The brief analysis includes: 1. The offender; 2. Having defiled intention in the mind; 3. The object being touched; 4. Bodily contact; 5. If touching any part of the body, it constitutes an offense. Now, a detailed explanation. 『If a bhikkhu』 has the meaning as explained above. 『Lustful intent』 refers to a mind stained with desire. The term 『woman』 is as mentioned in the above precept regarding sexual misconduct, in order to encompass the four types of situations, such as being aware or unaware. The true meaning of 『woman』 is not explained by 『having intelligence and not having died』, as mentioned above. 『Body』 refers to from hair to feet. The view is that if hair is grasped and there is mutual contact, it is an offense of 『Lan』, because there is no awareness. 『Contact』 refers to the nine types of rubbing actions, from grasping the hand to various parts of the body. Each sentence below is explained one by one. 『Lifting』 refers to grasping, rubbing, heavily rubbing, or pulling, pushing, rubbing against the grain, rubbing with the grain, or rubbing, lifting, grasping, lowering, pressing, and other expedient actions of touching. 『If grasping and rubbing』 refers to rubbing the front and back of the body. 『Pulling』 refers to pulling forward. 『Pushing』 refers to pushing backward. 『Rubbing against the grain』 refers to rubbing from bottom to top. 『Rubbing with the grain』 refers to rubbing from top to bottom. 『Lifting』 refers to grasping and lifting up. 『Lowering』 refers to grasping and making them sit down if they are standing. 『Grasping』 refers to grasping the front, grasping the back, grasping the breasts, grasping the thighs. 『Pressing』 refers to pressing the front, pressing the back, or pressing the breasts, pressing the thighs. These are all rubbing actions. 『Sanghadisesa』 is the fifth sentence, constituting an offense. There are three aspects of the offense: First, if there is mutual contact and neither has clothing, and the lust is strong, then it constitutes a Sanghadisesa. If a woman touches a bhikkhu and the bhikkhu's body moves, he commits the same offense. If the body does not move, he only commits a Dukkata. Second, if there is mutual contact and they mutually have clothing, and the lust is weak, it constitutes a Thullaccaya. Third, if there is mutual contact and both have clothing, and the lust is very slight, it constitutes an offense, and neither has clothing. In the case of having clothing, if the mind and object correspond, it constitutes a Sanghadisesa. If the mind does not correspond to the object, the offense is lighter due to doubt, such as...
于覺境有此階降。睡死少分壞三境類亦可知。故律云。比丘往觸無衣覺女。睡眠新死少分壞者。但使往觸著不問。受樂不受樂皆犯殘罪。若女來觸比丘不必須淫心。而比丘要須動身受樂者犯殘。若不動身而受樂者吉。若先有染心雖不動身。而受樂者有觸意故犯蘭。動則犯殘。若與二形身相觸偷蘭。十誦伽論云。意在女者殘。在男者蘭。善見云。若以發發相觸爪爪相觸悉皆偷蘭。以無覺能觸故根互壞相觸者皆蘭。若觸畜生女者一切吉羅。僧祇意。謂男子黃門而是女人觸者僧殘。謂前有方便心后稱本境。祇一時觸多女人一殘。一一觸多殘。比丘知法多詐捉女共臥竟夜不移一殘。若以欲心觸男子身或衣缽坐具皆吉 問。淫戒同犯。此階不同者何 答。良以患興于內觸境。斯辯正道。暢適耽著情深不簡彼此。摩觸非無內染情悅在境境。殊人畜形別男女情即濃淡故有階降。不犯中。律云。若有所取與相觸。或戲笑。若相解時相觸一切不犯。非不犯餘罪。僧祇若共女人捉物。咒愿捉起。行食捉繩頭尾。捉杖竹木。皆非威儀。有欲心者犯吉羅。欲心動物及以器繩或濽水著女皆偷蘭。若母等近親久別相見抱捉。比丘者當正念住不犯。十誦若母女姊妹為病患及水火刀兵深坑惡獸難救者無犯。但無染心。若為所沒開。比丘手捉雖淫心起。但
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在覺知的境界中，對於（淫戒）的違犯有這樣的等級差別。如同睡眠、死亡以及部分失去知覺的狀態，這三種情況破壞了（對外界）的感知，因此可以理解（觸犯淫戒的程度較輕）。所以《律藏》中說：『如果比丘去觸控沒有穿衣服且有知覺的女子，或者處於睡眠、剛死、部分失去知覺狀態的女子，只要是主動去觸控，不論是否感受到快樂，都犯僧殘罪。』如果女子來觸控比丘，比丘不一定需要有淫慾之心，但比丘必須身體有所反應並感受到快樂，才犯僧殘罪。如果身體沒有反應但感受到快樂，則無罪。如果事先有染污之心，即使身體沒有反應，但因為有觸控的意圖，也犯偷蘭罪。身體有反應則犯僧殘罪。如果與具有兩性特徵的人的身體接觸，則犯偷蘭罪。《十誦律》和《伽論》中說，如果意念在女性身上，則犯僧殘罪；如果意念在男性身上，則犯偷蘭罪。《善見律毗婆沙》中說，如果用頭髮與頭髮相接觸，或指甲與指甲相接觸，都犯偷蘭罪，因為沒有知覺的觸控。如果生殖器官互相接觸，都犯偷蘭罪。如果觸控畜生中的雌性，都犯吉羅罪。《僧祇律》的意思是，如果男子或黃門（指性機能不全的男子）被女人觸控，則犯僧殘罪，指的是之前有方便之心，之後才接觸到對象。如果一次觸控多個女人，算一次僧殘罪；如果每一次觸控都犯僧殘罪。如果比丘明知法律，卻狡猾地抓住女子一起睡覺，整夜不移動，只算一次僧殘罪。如果以淫慾之心觸控男子的身體或衣缽坐具，都犯吉羅罪。 問：同樣是犯淫戒，為什麼（觸犯的程度）有這些不同呢？答：這是因為（淫慾的）禍患興起于內心，觸控外境，這才能辨別正道。如果暢快地享受並沉溺其中，情慾深重，就不區分彼此了。摩挲觸控並非沒有內心的染污，快樂在於外境。外境不同，人與畜生、男性與女性的形體有別，情慾的濃淡程度也不同，所以有等級差別。在不犯戒的情況中，《律藏》中說：『如果因為有所取與而互相接觸，或者戲笑，或者在解開（纏繞）時互相接觸，一切都不犯戒。』但這並非不犯其他罪。 《僧祇律》中說，如果與女人一起拿東西，或者唸咒祈福時抓住（對方的手），或者行走時抓住繩子的頭尾，或者抓住棍子、竹子等，都不合威儀。如果有欲心，則犯吉羅罪。如果有欲心去觸碰動物以及器物、繩子，或者潑水到女人身上，都犯偷蘭罪。如果是母親等近親，久別重逢而擁抱，比丘應當正念安住，不犯戒。《十誦律》中說，如果母親、女兒、姐妹患病，或者遇到水災、火災、刀兵、深坑、惡獸等危難需要救助，則不犯戒，但必須沒有染污之心。如果爲了救助被淹沒的人而拉開（對方的衣服），比丘即使生起淫慾之心，只要...
【English Translation】 English version Within the realm of awareness, there are gradations in the transgression of (the precept against sexual misconduct). Similar to sleep, death, and partial loss of consciousness, these three states impair perception, thus the degree of transgression is understood to be lesser. Therefore, the Vinaya states: 'If a Bhikkhu touches a naked, conscious woman, or one who is sleeping, newly deceased, or partially unconscious, as long as the touch is intentional, regardless of whether pleasure is experienced, it constitutes a Sanghavasesa offense.' If a woman touches a Bhikkhu, the Bhikkhu does not necessarily need to have lustful intent, but the Bhikkhu must have a physical reaction and experience pleasure to commit a Sanghavasesa offense. If there is no physical reaction but pleasure is experienced, there is no offense. If there is prior defiled intent, even without a physical reaction, but pleasure is experienced due to the intention to touch, it constitutes a Thullananda offense. A physical reaction constitutes a Sanghavasesa offense. If there is physical contact with a person of indeterminate sex, it constitutes a Thullananda offense. The Dasasuttanta and the Galun state that if the intention is directed towards a female, it is a Sanghavasesa offense; if the intention is directed towards a male, it is a Thullananda offense. The Samantapasadika states that if hair touches hair, or nails touch nails, it all constitutes a Thullananda offense, because there is no conscious touch. If sexual organs touch each other, it all constitutes a Thullananda offense. If a female animal is touched, it all constitutes a Dukkhata offense. The Sanghika's meaning is that if a man or eunuch (huangmen, referring to a man with impaired sexual function) is touched by a woman, it constitutes a Sanghavasesa offense, referring to having a preliminary intention before touching the object. If multiple women are touched at once, it counts as one Sanghavasesa offense; if each touch constitutes a Sanghavasesa offense. If a Bhikkhu knows the law but cunningly grabs a woman to sleep with, without moving throughout the night, it only counts as one Sanghavasesa offense. If a man's body, robe, or sitting mat is touched with lustful intent, it all constitutes a Dukkhata offense. Question: Why are there these differences in the degree of transgression when it is all the same precept against sexual misconduct? Answer: This is because the affliction (of lust) arises from within, touching external objects, and this is how the right path can be discerned. If one enjoys and indulges in it, and the desire is deep, there is no distinction between one and the other. Caressing touch is not without inner defilement, and pleasure lies in the external object. The external object is different, the forms of humans and animals, males and females, are different, and the intensity of desire is also different, so there are gradations. In the case of non-offenses, the Vinaya states: 'If there is mutual contact due to giving and receiving, or joking, or mutual contact when untangling (something), there is no offense at all.' But this does not mean that there are no other offenses. The Sanghika states that if one takes something together with a woman, or holds (her hand) while reciting blessings, or holds the ends of a rope while walking, or holds a stick or bamboo, it is all unbecoming conduct. If there is lustful intent, it constitutes a Dukkhata offense. If there is lustful intent to touch animals, objects, ropes, or splash water on a woman, it all constitutes a Thullananda offense. If it is a close relative such as a mother, and there is a reunion after a long separation with an embrace, the Bhikkhu should maintain mindfulness and not commit an offense. The Dasasuttanta states that if a mother, daughter, or sister is ill, or encounters disasters such as floods, fires, weapons, deep pits, or dangerous animals that require rescue, there is no offense, but there must be no defiled intent. If one pulls open (someone's clothes) to rescue a person who is drowning, even if lustful thoughts arise in the Bhikkhu, as long as...
捉一處莫放到岸。不應故觸觸得淺。若女人瀉水注比丘手。水流不斷。于女生淫心偷蘭。僧祇若城門道迮鬧者惡待希已便過。若女人要所須令凈人與。無者持著機上。語言取之。若物重不舉。請比丘者傍無凈人。比丘為舉著高處令自擔重。若乞食時有端正女人。持食來。比丘若起淫心者。放蓋著地。令餘人授受之。準此若就女人取針線瓶等物。恐裳觸者當語置地。然後比丘自取。余並例知。十誦四分開處猶多。若據僧祇水溺難緣至死不開。須知急緩之意。過積集僧莫不由此。
與女人粗惡語戒第三 自下戒制意。同前 凡淫慾之事其熱鄙穢故名粗惡。今說其伏表障在口。故粗惡語 通緣如上。別緣有七。一人女。二人女想。三有染心。四粗惡語。五粗惡語想。六言障了了。七前女知解 闕緣準觸戒說。此中但明比丘染心向女粗語。若前女人向比丘粗語。若染心領解亦應犯殘。類同前觸。文略不辨。五分具有此彼互向粗惡語同犯。已下正明戒本。亦因迦留陀夷聞佛已制前二戒。便於女說粗惡語。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘淫慾意與人粗惡淫慾語隨粗惡淫慾語僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足戒本文有五句。初列。后釋。言五句者。一犯人。二內有染心。三人女出境界。四對說粗惡語。五隨已下結犯。次釋。言若比丘
者義如上。言女人者。有知命根不斷。言粗惡者非梵行也。所言淫慾語者。稱說二道好惡也。初列粗惡語有八。若求若教他求。若問若答。若解若說。若教若罵。言求者。與我二道作如是如是事。若復作余語。言教他求者。若天若梵水神摩醯首羅。祐助我共汝作如是如是事。所言問者。汝大小便何似汝云何與夫主共事。云何復與外人共通。言答者。汝大小便道如是。所言說者亦如是。所言教者我教汝如是治二道。汝可令夫主外人敬愛。所言罵若言汝破壞腐爛燒燋墮落。與驢作如是。若復作余語罵言。若復作余語者。除二道已外說余處支節。及得表粗惡語之言。故曰若復作余語如消蘇等類。第五隨已下結犯者是僧殘罪。于中輕重有四。一就本境粗惡語。隨語多少一一殘罪。二若前人不了者一反粗語一偷蘭。隨語多少說不了。了一一皆蘭。三除二道說余處支節亦蘭。四與非人女黃門二形粗語。知者蘭。不知吉。畜生男子亦吉。若與指印遣書作想令彼女。知者如前。不知亦爾。不犯中律云。為女說不凈惡露觀。大妹當知。此身九瘡九孔漏九流。九孔者二眼二耳二鼻口大小便道。當說此不凈時。彼女人說粗惡語。若說毗尼時。言此及此彼彼謂粗惡語。若從受經。若二人同受。若彼問。若同誦。若戲笑語。若獨語。若疾語。若夢
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 上面解釋了『如上』的含義。說到『女人』，指的是有知覺且命根未斷的眾生。說到『粗惡』，指的是非清凈的行為。所說的『淫慾語』，是指稱讚或貶低男女二根的言語。最初列出的粗惡語有八種：請求、教唆他人請求、詢問、回答、解釋、述說、教導、謾罵。 『請求』是指：『請你與我行男女之事。』或者說其他類似的話。 『教唆他人請求』是指：『無論是天神、梵天、水神還是摩醯首羅（Maheshvara，大自在天），都請保佑我與你行男女之事。』 所說的『詢問』是指：『你的大小便是什麼樣的？你如何與丈夫相處？又如何與外人茍合？』 『回答』是指：『我的大小便道是這樣的。』 所說的『述說』也與此類似。 所說的『教導』是指：『我教你如何整治男女二根，你可以讓丈夫或外人敬愛。』 所說的『謾罵』是指：『你這破壞、腐爛、燒焦、墮落的東西，像驢一樣。』或者說其他類似的罵人話。 『或者說其他類似的話』是指：除了男女二根之外，說其他身體部位的粗惡言語，也屬於粗惡語。所以說『或者說其他類似的話』，比如像消蘇（一種食物）之類的比喻。 第五條，從『隨已下結犯者』開始，是僧殘罪。其中輕重有四種：一是就本境而言的粗惡語，隨言語多少，每一句都是僧殘罪。二是如果對方不明白，一句粗語構成一偷蘭罪（Sthulanandana，粗罪），隨言語多少，說不明白的，每一句都是偷蘭罪；如果明白了，每一句都是僧殘罪。三是除了男女二根之外，說其他身體部位，也是偷蘭罪。四是對非人、女人、黃門（閹人）、二形人（雙性人）說粗惡語，知道對方身份的，構成偷蘭罪；不知道的，無罪。對畜生、男子也無罪。如果用手勢、印記、書信等方式，讓對方知道，與之前的情況相同。不知道的也一樣。不犯戒的情況包括：按照戒律，為女人講解不凈觀、惡露觀。大妹（Daimai，姐妹）應當知道，此身有九瘡九孔，流出九種不凈之物。九孔指的是兩眼、兩耳、兩鼻、口、大小便道。當說這些不凈之物時，那個女人說了粗惡語；或者在講解毗尼（Vinaya，戒律）時，說『這個』、『那個』，對方認為是粗惡語；或者從對方那裡接受經文；或者兩人一同接受；或者對方提問；或者一同背誦；或者開玩笑；或者自言自語；或者快速說話；或者做夢。
【English Translation】 English version: The meaning of 'as above' has been explained. When referring to 'woman,' it means a sentient being whose life force is not severed. When referring to 'coarse and evil,' it means non-pure conduct. The so-called 'lustful speech' refers to praising or disparaging the male and female organs. The initially listed coarse and evil speech includes eight types: requesting, instigating others to request, asking, answering, explaining, narrating, teaching, and cursing. 'Requesting' means: 'Please engage in sexual acts with me.' Or saying other similar words. 'Instigating others to request' means: 'Whether it be a deva (god), Brahma, water deity, or Maheshvara (the Great Lord), please bless me to engage in sexual acts with you.' The so-called 'asking' means: 'What is your urine and feces like? How do you interact with your husband? And how do you engage with outsiders?' 'Answering' means: 'My urinary and fecal passages are like this.' The so-called 'narrating' is similar to this. The so-called 'teaching' means: 'I will teach you how to manage the male and female organs, so that you can be loved and respected by your husband or outsiders.' The so-called 'cursing' means: 'You destructive, rotten, burnt, fallen thing, like a donkey.' Or saying other similar cursing words. 'Or saying other similar words' means: besides the male and female organs, speaking coarse and evil words about other parts of the body also constitutes coarse and evil speech. Therefore, it is said 'or saying other similar words,' such as metaphors like 'clarified butter' (a type of food). Fifthly, starting from 'following the conclusion of offenses,' it is a Sanghavasesa (僧殘, a formal meeting of the Sangha) offense. Among them, there are four levels of severity: first, coarse and evil speech in the original context, each sentence is a Sanghavasesa offense. Second, if the other person does not understand, one coarse word constitutes a Sthulanandana (偷蘭, a serious offense), depending on the number of words, each word that is not understood is a Sthulanandana offense; if understood, each word is a Sanghavasesa offense. Third, besides the male and female organs, speaking about other parts of the body is also a Sthulanandana offense. Fourth, speaking coarse and evil words to non-humans, women, eunuchs (黃門), and hermaphrodites (二形人), knowing their identity constitutes a Sthulanandana offense; not knowing is not an offense. There is also no offense to animals and men. If using gestures, signs, letters, etc., to make the other person aware, the situation is the same as before. Not knowing is also the same. Situations where there is no offense include: according to the Vinaya (毗尼, monastic rules), explaining the contemplation of impurity and foulness to women. Sister (大妹, Daimai), you should know that this body has nine sores and nine orifices, flowing out nine kinds of impure substances. The nine orifices refer to the two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, mouth, and urinary and fecal passages. When speaking of these impure substances, that woman speaks coarse and evil words; or when explaining the Vinaya, saying 'this' and 'that,' which the other person considers coarse and evil words; or receiving scriptures from the other person; or the two receiving together; or the other person asking questions; or reciting together; or joking; or talking to oneself; or speaking quickly; or dreaming.
中語。欲說此錯說彼。但無慾心一切無犯。
向女人嘆身索供養戒第四 言多巧為美己之善招誘其情說淫慾事。以用自適故言嘆身索供養戒。別緣有七。一人女。二人女想。三染心。四嘆身說粗惡語。五粗惡語想。六言辭了了。七女人知解。此戒闕緣準觸戒說。已下正明戒本。此戒因迦留陀夷聞佛已制前三戒遂向女人嘆身索供養。比丘舉過。佛乃制戒。
若比丘淫慾意于女人前自嘆身言大妹我修梵行持戒精進修行善法可持是淫慾法供養我如是供養第一最僧伽婆尸沙 今辨滿足戒本文有五句 初列。后釋。言列者。一犯人。二染心。三境界人女。四自嘆索供養。五結犯。言釋者。前三句可知。第四自嘆索供養句中有二。一自嘆五句。二可持已下索供養。言嘆五句者。一自嘆身。二言修梵行。三持戒。四精進。五修善法。釋此五句以為四段。一釋嘆身有二。一色身豐美。二嘆種性。故律云。嘆身端政好顏色。我是剎帝利長者居士婆羅門大性種。二解梵行。以精進解梵行故曰勤修離穢濁。三解持戒。治犯戒方便之心名不缺。治根本犯戒之罪名不穿。離后眷屬曰不染污。一戒具三。諸戒同爾。故律云。持戒精進者不缺不穿漏無染污。四釋善治。謂十二頭陀及諸善業同。故律云。修善法者。樂閑凈處。時到乞食。著
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 中語。想要說這個卻說成那個。但如果沒有貪慾之心，一切都沒有犯戒。 向女人嘆身索供養戒第四：意思是說用很多巧妙的言辭來美化自己，用好的方面來引誘對方的情感，說一些關於淫慾的事情。因為用這些來使自己快樂，所以說是『嘆身索供養戒』。構成此戒的特殊因緣有七個：一是女人，二是把對方想成女人，三是染污的心，四是嘆美自己的身體說粗俗惡劣的話，五是認為所說的是粗俗惡劣的話，六是所說的話語清晰明瞭，七是女人能夠理解。此戒缺少任何一個因緣，可以參照觸戒的情況來判斷。下面正式說明戒本。這個戒的起因是迦留陀夷聽佛說完前面三個戒之後，就向女人嘆美自己的身體索取供養。比丘們指出了他的過錯，佛陀因此制定了這個戒律。 『如果比丘因為淫慾的念頭，在女人面前自我讚歎身體，說：『大妹，我修清凈的梵行，持守戒律精進，修行各種善法，你可以用這種淫慾之法來供養我。』像這樣供養是第一等的。』犯了僧伽婆尸沙罪。現在辨析構成此戒的完整條文，共有五句：首先是列舉，然後是解釋。所謂列舉，包括：一是犯戒的人，二是染污的心，三是作為對象的女人，四是自我讚歎索取供養，五是結論罪行。所謂解釋，前三句容易理解。第四句『自我讚歎索取供養』中有兩部分：一是自我讚歎的五句話，二是『可以用這種淫慾之法』以下索取供養的話。所謂自我讚歎的五句話，包括：一是讚歎自己的身體，二是說自己修梵行，三是持戒，四是精進，五是修善法。解釋這五句話可以分為四個部分：一是解釋讚歎身體，包括兩個方面：一是身體的顏色美好，二是讚歎自己的種姓。所以律中說：『讚歎自己身體端正，容貌美好，我是剎帝利、長者、居士、婆羅門等高貴種姓。』二是解釋梵行，用精進來解釋梵行，所以說『勤奮修行遠離污穢』。三是解釋持戒，治理違犯戒律的方便之心叫做『不缺』，治理根本違犯戒律的罪過叫做『』，遠離以後的牽連叫做『不染污』。一條戒律具備這三個方面，其他的戒律也是一樣。所以律中說：『持戒精進的人，不缺漏，沒有染污。』四是解釋善行，指的是十二頭陀行以及各種善業。所以律中說：『修行善法的人，喜歡在清凈的地方閑居，時間到了就去乞食，穿著』
【English Translation】 English version: Speaking ambiguously. Intending to say this, but saying that instead. However, without desire, there is no offense. The Fourth Saṃghādisesa Precept on Praising Oneself and Soliciting Offerings from Women: This means using many skillful words to beautify oneself, using good aspects to entice the other person's emotions, and speaking about matters of lust. Because these are used to make oneself happy, it is called the 'Precept on Praising Oneself and Soliciting Offerings.' There are seven specific conditions that constitute this precept: first, a woman; second, perceiving the other as a woman; third, a defiled mind; fourth, praising one's body and speaking vulgar and offensive words; fifth, perceiving the words spoken as vulgar and offensive; sixth, the words spoken are clear and understandable; seventh, the woman is able to understand. If any of these conditions are missing, one can refer to the case of the touching precept to determine the offense. The following formally explains the precept itself. The origin of this precept is that after Kāḷudāyi (name of a monk) heard the Buddha speak about the first three precepts, he praised his own body to women and solicited offerings. The monks pointed out his fault, and the Buddha therefore established this precept. 'If a bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) with lustful thoughts, praises his own body in front of a woman, saying: 'Dear sister, I practice pure Brahmacarya (celibate life), uphold the precepts diligently, and cultivate various good dharmas (teachings). You can offer me this lustful dharma.' Such an offering is the best.' He commits a Saṃghādisesa (a type of serious offense requiring a meeting of the Sangha) offense. Now, let's analyze the complete text of this precept, which consists of five sentences: First, there is the enumeration, and then the explanation. The enumeration includes: first, the offender; second, the defiled mind; third, the woman as the object; fourth, praising oneself and soliciting offerings; fifth, the conclusion of the offense. The explanation is that the first three sentences are easy to understand. The fourth sentence, 'praising oneself and soliciting offerings,' has two parts: first, the five sentences of self-praise; second, the words 'You can offer me this lustful dharma' and the following solicitation. The five sentences of self-praise include: first, praising one's own body; second, saying that one practices Brahmacarya; third, upholding the precepts; fourth, being diligent; fifth, cultivating good dharmas. The explanation of these five sentences can be divided into four parts: first, explaining praising the body, which includes two aspects: first, the beauty of the body's appearance; second, praising one's lineage. Therefore, the Vinaya (monastic rules) says: 'Praising oneself for having a handsome body and beautiful appearance, saying, 'I am from a noble lineage of Kshatriyas (warrior caste), wealthy householders, lay practitioners, or Brahmins (priestly caste).' Second, explaining Brahmacarya, using diligence to explain Brahmacarya, so it is said, 'Diligently cultivating and staying away from defilements.' Third, explaining upholding the precepts, controlling the mind that facilitates violating the precepts is called 'not lacking,' controlling the sin of fundamentally violating the precepts is called ',' staying away from future entanglements is called 'not defiled.' One precept possesses these three aspects, and the other precepts are the same. Therefore, the Vinaya says: 'A person who diligently upholds the precepts is not lacking, , or defiled.' Fourth, explaining good conduct, which refers to the twelve Dhutanga (ascetic practices) and various good deeds. Therefore, the Vinaya says: 'A person who cultivates good dharmas likes to dwell in quiet places, goes for alms when the time comes, and wears'
糞掃衣。不作餘食法。一坐食一揣食。冢間坐露地坐樹下坐。常坐隨坐。持三衣。唄匿多聞能說法。持毗尼坐禪是也。二可持已下解索供養。是第一之義。第五結犯者。此是僧伽婆尸沙。此是結罪句。輕重有三。一若作如上自譽己供養我來即犯殘罪。雖嘆如上事不說淫慾者犯蘭。若在人女前。一自嘆譽身一僧伽婆尸沙。隨自嘆身了了者一一僧殘。言不了偷蘭。若手印。若遣書信。若遣使。若現知相令彼。知者殘。不知者蘭。除二道索余處供養蘭。非人女蘭。不了吉。畜生吉。境想如上。不犯中律云。若比丘語女人言。此處妙尊最上。此比丘精進持戒修善法。汝等應以身口意業供養于彼。若女意謂。為我嘆身。若說毗尼。言此及此彼謂嘆身。若錯說者並不犯。
媒嫁戒第五 一制意。婚娶之禮和合生死。正違出離出家所為。特乖法式。又紛務妨修相招譏丑不勉世呵。是以聖制 二釋名。為彼男女往返計謀以成婚禮。故曰媒嫁戒 三具緣通緣如上。別緣有六。一人男女簡非畜。而於人中貴賤親疏並是犯限。伽論云。指腹媒嫁犯蘭。二人男女想。三為媒嫁事。四媒嫁想。五顯事了了。六受彼語等還報 四闕緣。比說可知。已下正明戒本。此戒因迦羅比丘起過佛便制戒。
若比丘往來彼此媒嫁持男意語女持女意語
男若為成婦事若為私通事乃至須臾頃僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足戒本文有五句。初列后釋。言初列者。一犯人。二往來者。三彼此所媒境界。四正作媒嫁事。五結罪 所言釋者。初句可知。言往來者。可得和合是。言彼此謂媒境界。男女互為彼此。先舉數列名。女有二十種。母護父護父母護。兄護姊護兄姊護。自護法護姓護。宗親護。自樂婢。與衣婢與財婢。同作業婢。水所標婢。不輸稅婢。放去婢。容作婢。他護婢。邊方得婢是。次釋名義。母護者母所保。父護者父所保。父母護兄護姊護兄姊護亦如是。自護者身得自在。法護者修梵行。姓護者不與卑下姓。宗親護者為宗親所保。自樂為婢者樂為他作婢。與衣者與衣為價。與財者乃至與一錢為價。同業者同供作業。水所漂者水中救得。不輸稅者若不取輸稅。放去婢者若買得若家生。客作者雇錢使。他護者受他華鬘為要。邊方得者杪劫得。后結是為二十。男亦如是。第四句正作媒嫁事者。父有二 初媒業亦成婦等是所傳之意。二乃至須臾頃者。謂暫時交會亦得僧殘。二十念為一瞬頃。二十瞬為一彈指頃。二十彈指頃為一羅頃。二十羅頃為一須臾。日極長時十八須臾。夜十二須臾。夜極長十八須臾。晝短十二須臾。言僧殘者。是結犯句。輕重有三。初使義具三犯殘。二自受語往
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果男子爲了促成婚嫁之事，或者爲了私通之事，哪怕只是須臾之間，也觸犯了僧伽婆尸沙（僧殘罪）。 這條戒律的完整條文包含五個部分。首先是列舉，然後是解釋。所謂列舉，包括：一、犯戒之人；二、往來之人；三、作為媒介的雙方；四、正在進行的媒嫁之事；五、判罪。 所謂解釋，第一句（指『男若為成婦事若為私通事乃至須臾頃』）的意思顯而易見。『往來之人』，指的是能夠促成男女和合之人。『彼此』，指的是作為媒介的男女雙方。先列舉數量和名稱。女子有二十種：受母親保護的，受父親保護的，受父母保護的，受兄長保護的，受姐妹保護的，受兄姐保護的，自己保護自己的，受法保護的，受姓氏保護的，受宗親保護的，自願為奴婢的，因為衣服而為奴婢的，因為錢財而為奴婢的，一同勞作的奴婢，被水沖來的奴婢，不需繳納賦稅的奴婢，被釋放的奴婢，容貌出衆的奴婢，受他人保護的奴婢，從邊遠地區獲得的奴婢。 接下來解釋這些名稱的含義。『母親保護的』，指受母親保護。『父親保護的』，指受父親保護。『父母保護的』、『兄長保護的』、『姐妹保護的』、『兄姐保護的』也是如此。『自己保護的』，指自身能夠自主。『法保護的』，指修行梵行。『姓氏保護的』，指不與卑賤姓氏的人結合。『宗親保護的』，指受宗親保護。『自願為奴婢的』，指樂意為他人做奴婢。『因為衣服而為奴婢的』，指因為衣服的價值而成為奴婢。『因為錢財而為奴婢的』，指哪怕因為一文錢的價值而成為奴婢。『一同勞作的』，指一同從事勞作。『被水沖來的』，指從水中救起的。『不需繳納賦稅的』，指無需繳納賦稅。『被釋放的奴婢』，指通過購買或家生而獲得的，后被釋放的奴婢。『客作者』，指被僱傭的勞作者。『他人保護的』，指接受他人的花鬘作為要約。『從邊遠地區獲得的』，指從邊遠地區獲得的。 最後總結，以上就是二十種女子。男子也是如此。第四句『正作媒嫁事者』，父親有兩種情況：一是媒合之事促成婚嫁等事，這是所要傳達的含義。二是『乃至須臾頃者』，指的是即使是暫時的交合，也構成僧殘罪。二十個『念』為一『瞬頃』。二十個『瞬頃』為一『彈指頃』。二十個『彈指頃』為一『羅頃』。二十個『羅頃』為一『須臾』。白天最長的時候是十八個『須臾』，夜晚是十二個『須臾』。夜晚最長的時候是十八個『須臾』，白天最短的時候是十二個『須臾』。『僧殘』，是判罪的語句。輕重有三種情況：一是使者的行為具備三種條件，則犯僧殘罪；二是親自接受言語往來。
【English Translation】 English version: If a man, for the sake of arranging a marriage or for the sake of illicit relations, even for a moment, commits a Sanghavasesa (an offense requiring initial and subsequent meetings of the Sangha). This complete precept contains five parts. First, enumeration; then, explanation. The enumeration includes: 1. The offender; 2. The go-between; 3. The parties being mediated; 4. The act of arranging the marriage; 5. The judgment. The explanation: the meaning of the first sentence ('If a man, for the sake of arranging a marriage or for the sake of illicit relations, even for a moment') is obvious. 'The go-between' refers to someone who can bring about the union of a man and a woman. 'The parties' refers to the man and woman being mediated. First, enumerate the number and names. There are twenty types of women: protected by the mother, protected by the father, protected by the parents, protected by the elder brother, protected by the elder sister, protected by the elder siblings, self-protected, protected by the Dharma, protected by the lineage, protected by the relatives, a slave girl by choice, a slave girl for clothing, a slave girl for money, a slave girl working together, a slave girl rescued from the water, a slave girl not paying taxes, a released slave girl, a slave girl with good looks, a slave girl protected by others, a slave girl obtained from a remote region. Next, explain the meanings of these names. 'Protected by the mother' refers to being protected by the mother. 'Protected by the father' refers to being protected by the father. 'Protected by the parents,' 'protected by the elder brother,' 'protected by the elder sister,' 'protected by the elder siblings' are the same. 'Self-protected' refers to being able to be independent. 'Protected by the Dharma' refers to practicing Brahmacharya (梵行). 'Protected by the lineage' refers to not marrying someone of a low lineage. 'Protected by the relatives' refers to being protected by the relatives. 'A slave girl by choice' refers to willingly working as a slave for others. 'A slave girl for clothing' refers to becoming a slave girl for the value of clothing. 'A slave girl for money' refers to becoming a slave girl even for the value of a single coin. 'Working together' refers to engaging in labor together. 'Rescued from the water' refers to being rescued from the water. 'Not paying taxes' refers to not needing to pay taxes. 'A released slave girl' refers to a slave girl obtained through purchase or birth, who was later released. 'A hired worker' refers to a hired laborer. 'Protected by others' refers to accepting flowers from others as an agreement. 'Obtained from a remote region' refers to being obtained from a remote region. Finally, to summarize, these are the twenty types of women. It is the same for men. The fourth sentence, 'The act of arranging the marriage,' refers to the act of mediating a marriage, etc., which is the meaning to be conveyed. The second part of the fourth sentence, 'even for a moment,' refers to even a temporary union constituting a Sanghavasesa offense. Twenty 'nian (念)' are one 'shunjian (瞬頃)'. Twenty 'shunjian' are one 'tan zhi qing (彈指頃)'. Twenty 'tan zhi qing' are one 'luo qing (羅頃)'. Twenty 'luo qing' are one 'xuyu (須臾)'. The longest daytime is eighteen 'xuyu', and the night is twelve 'xuyu'. The longest night is eighteen 'xuyu', and the shortest daytime is twelve 'xuyu'. 'Sanghavasesa' is the sentence of judgment. There are three levels of severity: first, if the messenger's actions possess three conditions, then a Sanghavasesa offense is committed; second, personally accepting verbal communication.
彼不報具二闕一犯蘭。三受語不往彼具一闕二犯吉。故律云。若初語吉羅。往說不報偷蘭。若還報者僧殘。若使若遣書指印現相。隨媒多少說而了了。隨其往返一一僧殘。若不了者偷蘭。五分受男語吉。語彼不許還報蘭。許還報殘。不同四分。但具三時殘。一受語。二往彼陳。三還報。除二道已媒余身份者蘭。若諸比丘白二羯磨差人媒嫁一切僧殘。今知事白僧媒嫁凈人供給婚具問僧同和一切僧殘。若用僧物犯重十誦。伽論云。若指腹為媒及自媒者偷蘭。若不能男女若道合一道女石女等一切偷蘭。若媒人男畜生等並吉。僧祇為他求好馬種和合故偷蘭。余畜吉羅。不犯中律。若男女先已通后雜別還和合者。開不犯。又云。不得為白衣作使。不得持他書往而不看。若為報恩。若生善。若滅惡。及佛法僧事一切看書持往不犯。
無主自為過量僧不處分造房戒六 一開制意。初辨制意。后明開意。言制意者。然上行之士報力資強。堪耐惱緣不廢。正是以大聖制。依冢間樹下省緣修道。不畜房舍。而中行之輩資報力劣。不堪寒苦制。同上士交妨正修。乃是被人壞道之緣。故開畜小房。比丘因開廣作營構。紛預妨修。長己貪結壞知足行。違法造房。情過不輕。隨開還制 二釋名。專任自由不蒙指示。名僧不處分。大不依稱為過
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果他不回覆，具備兩個條件而缺少一個條件，則犯偷蘭罪（Sthūlātyaya，一種較重的罪）。如果接受了資訊但不去回覆，具備一個條件而缺少兩個條件，則犯吉羅罪（Duṣkṛta，一種輕罪）。所以律中說：『如果最初的傳話是吉羅罪，前往傳話但不回覆則犯偷蘭罪。如果返回回覆，則犯僧殘罪（Saṃghāṭiśeṣa，一種僅次於波羅夷的重罪）。』如果派遣或使用書信、手指、印章等方式傳遞資訊，根據媒介的多少，清楚地說明，每次往返都犯僧殘罪。如果不清楚，則犯偷蘭罪。《五分律》中，接受男性的資訊是吉羅罪，告訴對方但不允許回覆則犯偷蘭罪，允許回覆則犯僧殘罪，這與《四分律》不同。《四分律》只具備三個條件才犯僧殘罪：一是接受資訊，二是前往陳述，三是返回回覆。除了二道（指性器官）已經作為媒介，其餘身體部分作為媒介的，犯偷蘭罪。如果眾比丘通過白二羯磨（一種僧團決議程式）派遣人員作為媒人嫁娶，一切都犯僧殘罪。現在知事（寺院執事）稟告僧團作為媒人嫁娶在家信徒，提供結婚用具，詢問僧團是否同意，一切都犯僧殘罪。如果使用僧團的物品，則犯重罪（指波羅夷罪，Pārājika，最重的罪）。《伽論》中說：『如果指腹為婚或自己做媒，則犯偷蘭罪。』如果不能分辨男女，或者通道只有一條，或者女性是石女等，一切都犯偷蘭罪。如果媒人是男性或畜生等，則犯吉羅罪。《僧祇律》中，爲了他人尋求好的馬種而進行交配，犯偷蘭罪。其餘畜生則犯吉羅罪。不犯中律。如果男女先前已經發生關係，後來分開又重新和好，則開許不犯。又說，不得為白衣（在家信徒）做事，不得攜帶他人的書信而不看。如果爲了報恩，或者產生善，或者消除惡，以及佛法僧的事情，一切都可以看書信並攜帶前往，不犯戒。 無主的情況下，自己過度使用，僧團不進行分配而建造房屋，有六條戒律：一是開制意，首先辨別制定的意義，然後闡明開許的意義。所說的制定意義是，上等修行人憑藉自身的力量和資糧，能夠忍受煩惱的因緣而不退廢，所以大聖制定，依靠墳墓間或樹下，減少外緣而修行，不蓄積房舍。而中等修行人，資糧和力量不足，不能忍受寒冷和困苦，如果和上等修行人一樣，就會妨礙正常的修行，成為被人破壞修道的因緣。所以開許建造小房。比丘因為開許而廣泛地建造，營構，紛繁地參與，妨礙修行，增長自己的貪慾和執著，破壞知足的修行，違法建造房屋，情過不輕。所以隨著開許還要有制約。二是解釋名稱。完全依靠自由，不接受指示，叫做僧不處分。大大地不依規矩，稱為過度。
【English Translation】 English version: If he does not reply, having two conditions but lacking one, he commits a Sthūlātyaya (a grave offense). If he receives the message but does not go to reply, having one condition but lacking two, he commits a Duṣkṛta (a minor offense). Therefore, the Vinaya says: 'If the initial message is a Duṣkṛta, going to deliver the message but not replying is a Sthūlātyaya. If he returns to reply, he commits a Saṃghāṭiśeṣa (an offense second only to Pārājika).' If sending or using letters, fingers, seals, etc., to convey information, according to the number of intermediaries, clearly stating it, each round trip commits a Saṃghāṭiśeṣa. If it is not clear, he commits a Sthūlātyaya. In the Five-Part Vinaya, receiving a man's message is a Duṣkṛta, telling the other party but not allowing a reply is a Sthūlātyaya, allowing a reply is a Saṃghāṭiśeṣa, which is different from the Four-Part Vinaya. The Four-Part Vinaya only commits a Saṃghāṭiśeṣa if three conditions are met: first, receiving the message; second, going to state it; and third, returning to reply. Except for the two paths (referring to sexual organs) already used as intermediaries, using other parts of the body as intermediaries commits a Sthūlātyaya. If the Bhikṣus (monks) send people through a white second karma (a Sangha resolution procedure) as matchmakers for marriage, everything commits a Saṃghāṭiśeṣa. Now, the steward (temple affairs officer) reports to the Sangha (monastic community) as a matchmaker for marrying lay followers, providing wedding supplies, and asking the Sangha if they agree, everything commits a Saṃghāṭiśeṣa. If using Sangha's property, he commits a grave offense (referring to Pārājika, the most serious offense). The Gāmalun says: 'If arranging a marriage in the womb or acting as a matchmaker himself, he commits a Sthūlātyaya.' If unable to distinguish between male and female, or the path is only one, or the female is a stone woman, everything commits a Sthūlātyaya. If the matchmaker is a male or livestock, etc., he commits a Duṣkṛta. In the Saṃghika Vinaya, seeking good horse breeds for others to mate commits a Sthūlātyaya. Other livestock commits a Duṣkṛta. He does not violate the middle Vinaya. If a man and woman have already had a relationship, then separated and reunited, it is permissible and does not violate the precepts. In the absence of an owner, using excessively for oneself, and the Sangha does not allocate and build houses, there are six precepts: First, the intention of establishment, first distinguishing the meaning of the establishment, and then clarifying the meaning of permission. The so-called meaning of establishment is that superior practitioners rely on their own strength and resources, able to endure the causes of annoyance without regressing, so the Great Sage established that relying on tombs or under trees, reducing external conditions and practicing, not accumulating houses. And middle-level practitioners, with insufficient resources and strength, cannot endure cold and hardship, and if they are the same as superior practitioners, it will hinder normal practice and become a cause for others to destroy the path of practice. Therefore, it is permissible to build small houses. Bhikṣus, because of permission, widely build, construct, and participate in a complicated way, hindering practice, increasing their own greed and attachment, destroying the practice of contentment, and illegally building houses, the emotional fault is not light. Therefore, there must be restrictions along with permission. Second, explain the name. Completely relying on freedom, not accepting instructions, is called Sangha not allocating. Greatly disobeying the rules is called excessive.
量。故云僧不處分過量造房戒 三具緣。通緣如上。別緣有六。一無主。二為己。三自乞求。四過量不處分。五過量不處分想。六房成便犯 四闕緣。若闕初緣犯后戒或三或二或一罪。若作如法房全可無罪。若闕第二為他作非法房。或二蘭二吉 或三二一或可無罪。若闕第三緣不自乞求。即無過量容有餘三乃至無罪。若闕第四作不過量處分。則全無罪容得四蘭。謂實不過量作過量想蘭。疑亦偷蘭實處分作處分想蘭。疑亦偷蘭。上若闕第五亦得四蘭。實過量作不過想蘭。疑亦偷蘭。不處分處分想蘭。疑亦偷。若闕第六緣。末後二團泥未境已還盡輕蘭。一團泥在重蘭。已下正明戒本。此戒因曠野比丘作大房乞求煩多。惱亂居士。故制此戒。
若比丘自求作屋無主自為己當應量作是中量者長佛十二搩手內廣七搩手當將余比丘指授處所彼比丘當指示處所無難處無妨處若比丘有難處妨處自求作屋無主自為己不將余比丘指授處所若過量作者僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足戒本文有三句。初列。后釋。言列者。一犯人。二自乞求。下正教比丘房量大小指授方軌。三若比丘下若違教作者結犯。言釋者。初句義如上。辨第二句文有七。一自乞求有惱施主得過量罪。若其自物則無過量。二作屋除作余物則無過量不處分。五分房者于中可得行立坐
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此說，僧人不應不經分配就建造超量的房屋，這構成一條戒律。需要滿足三個條件：共同條件如上所述。特殊條件有六個：一是無主（沒有主人）；二是為自己（爲了自己）；三是自己乞求（自己請求）；四是超量且未經分配（超過了規定的量且沒有經過僧團的分配）；五是認為超量且未經分配（心裡認為超過了規定的量且沒有經過僧團的分配）；六是房屋建成便犯戒（房屋一旦建成，就觸犯戒律）。 缺少四個條件的情況：如果缺少第一個條件，觸犯後面的戒律，可能犯三種罪、兩種罪或一種罪。如果建造如法的房屋，完全可以沒有罪。如果缺少第二個條件，為他人建造非法的房屋，可能犯二僧殘二偷蘭（SANGHAVASESA，僧伽婆尸沙，僧殘罪），或者三種罪、兩種罪、一種罪，或者可能沒有罪。如果缺少第三個條件，不是自己乞求，那麼就沒有超量的問題，可能還有剩餘的三種情況，甚至沒有罪。如果缺少第四個條件，建造的房屋沒有超過規定的量且經過了分配，那麼就完全沒有罪，可能得到四種偷蘭（STHULLATYAYA，偷蘭罪）。即實際上沒有超過規定的量，但認為超過了規定的量，犯偷蘭罪；懷疑是否超過規定的量，也犯偷蘭罪；實際上經過了分配，但認為沒有經過分配，犯偷蘭罪；懷疑是否經過了分配，也犯偷蘭罪。如果缺少第五個條件，也可能得到四種偷蘭罪。實際上超過了規定的量，但認為沒有超過規定的量，犯偷蘭罪；懷疑是否超過規定的量，也犯偷蘭罪；沒有經過分配，但認為經過了分配，犯偷蘭罪；懷疑是否經過了分配，也犯偷蘭罪。如果缺少第六個條件，最後兩團泥土未完成時，歸還，都是輕偷蘭罪；一團泥土在，是重偷蘭罪。 下面正式說明戒本。這條戒律是因為曠野的比丘建造大房屋，乞求過多，擾亂了居士，所以制定這條戒律。 『如果比丘自己請求建造房屋，沒有主人，爲了自己，應當按照規定的量建造。這裡所說的量是：長度不超過佛十二搩手（肘尺）內，寬度不超過七搩手。應當請其他比丘指點處所，那些比丘應當指示處所，沒有困難的地方，沒有妨礙的地方。如果比丘在有困難的地方、有妨礙的地方，自己請求建造房屋，沒有主人，爲了自己，不請其他比丘指點處所，如果超過了規定的量，犯僧伽婆尸沙（SANGHAVASESA，僧殘罪）。』這條完整的戒本有三句話。先是列出，后是解釋。所說的『列出』，一是犯戒的人；二是自己乞求。下面正式教導比丘房屋的量的大小和指點方向的規範。三是『如果比丘』以下，如果違背教導建造，就觸犯戒律。所說的『解釋』，第一句話的意義如上所述。辨別第二句話，文中有七點：一是自己乞求會惱亂施主，得到超量的罪。如果是自己的東西，就沒有超量的問題。二是建造房屋，除了建造房屋以外的東西，就沒有超量且未經分配的問題。五分房的人可以在其中行走、站立、坐臥。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said that monks should not build excessive houses without allocation, which constitutes a precept. Three conditions must be met: the common conditions are as mentioned above. There are six specific conditions: first, ownerless; second, for oneself; third, requesting oneself; fourth, exceeding the limit and not being allocated; fifth, thinking it exceeds the limit and is not allocated; sixth, violating the precept once the house is built. The situation of lacking four conditions: If the first condition is lacking, violating the subsequent precepts may result in three offenses, two offenses, or one offense. If a lawful house is built, there may be no offense at all. If the second condition is lacking, building an unlawful house for others may result in two Sanghavasesa (SANGHAVASESA, defilement requiring initial and subsequent meetings of the Sangha) and two Sthullatyaya (STHULLATYAYA, a serious offense), or three offenses, two offenses, one offense, or possibly no offense. If the third condition is lacking, not requesting oneself, then there is no issue of exceeding the limit, and there may be three remaining situations, or even no offense. If the fourth condition is lacking, building a house that does not exceed the limit and has been allocated, then there is no offense at all, and four Sthullatyaya (STHULLATYAYA, a serious offense) may be obtained. That is, actually not exceeding the limit, but thinking it exceeds the limit, committing a Sthullatyaya offense; doubting whether it exceeds the limit also commits a Sthullatyaya offense; actually being allocated, but thinking it has not been allocated, committing a Sthullatyaya offense; doubting whether it has been allocated also commits a Sthullatyaya offense. If the fifth condition is lacking, four Sthullatyaya offenses may also be obtained. Actually exceeding the limit, but thinking it does not exceed the limit, committing a Sthullatyaya offense; doubting whether it exceeds the limit also commits a Sthullatyaya offense; not being allocated, but thinking it has been allocated, committing a Sthullatyaya offense; doubting whether it has been allocated also commits a Sthullatyaya offense. If the sixth condition is lacking, returning the last two clumps of mud before completion is a minor Sthullatyaya offense; having one clump of mud remaining is a major Sthullatyaya offense. The precept text is formally explained below. This precept was established because the monks in the wilderness built large houses, requested too much, and disturbed the laypeople. 『If a monk requests to build a house himself, without an owner, for himself, he should build according to the prescribed limit. The limit mentioned here is: the length should not exceed twelve Sugata cubits (Hatthas) and the width should not exceed seven Sugata cubits (Hatthas). Other monks should be asked to point out the location, and those monks should indicate a location that is not difficult and does not obstruct. If a monk requests to build a house himself in a difficult or obstructive place, without an owner, for himself, and does not ask other monks to point out the location, and if it exceeds the prescribed limit, he commits a Sanghavasesa (SANGHAVASESA, defilement requiring initial and subsequent meetings of the Sangha).』 This complete precept text has three sentences. First, it lists, then it explains. The 『listing』 refers to the person who violates the precept; second, requesting oneself. Below formally teaches the standards for the size of the monk's house and the direction to point out. Third, 『If a monk』 below, if building against the teachings, one violates the precept. The 『explanation』 refers to the meaning of the first sentence as mentioned above. Distinguishing the second sentence, there are seven points in the text: first, requesting oneself will annoy the donors and incur the offense of exceeding the limit. If it is one's own property, there is no issue of exceeding the limit. Second, building a house, other than building a house, there is no issue of exceeding the limit and not being allocated. People who divide the house into five parts can walk, stand, sit, and lie down in it.
臥行四威儀。三無主者以其有主無過量。四自為甄為他作。於己無閏下犯殘罪。五辨房之尺量佛搩手者。諸文不定。一搩手祇二尺四寸。五分二尺。且依五分長十二搩手者。謂二丈四尺。廣七搩手者一丈四尺。此據室內。祇亦云縱廣量屋內。六當將已下數房主比丘乞處方法文如律中廣辨。問。作大小房頃乞處分。見論云。長六搩手廣四搩手。作如是房不須處分。律亦成文。小容身屋不犯非為開無過量後房本無過量。何以開中除小容身。若過六搩手四已無問過量不過量誠須處分。七彼比丘下教僧處分。處分法如律廣說。第三結罪句中有四種。二殘二吉。有無互說可知。此下雜明如上諸文。四分律云。若作此房先知無難妨已。然後來僧中脫革屣。偏露右擘禮上坐足。右膝著地令乞處分法。爾時僧中觀此比丘。若可信者即聽使作。若不可信眾僧往看。若僧不去應遣僧中可信者看。若有妨難不應處分。難者諸虎狼師諸惡獸者下至蟻子。言妨者乃至不容草車迴轉處。見云。是人田園或怨家賊處尸陀林處王志護處。四周不通十二。桄杼間有卷。一肘者十誦是舍四邊一尋。地內有官地居士外道比丘尼地。若大石流水大樹深坑等是妨處。明瞭論云。或空山巖石陰等得行住坐臥如作房舍所攝。解云。如上處等欲于中住必須隔斷。若不衣量
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 臥行四威儀（佛教僧侶的四種行為舉止：行、住、坐、臥）。三無主者，因其有主而無過量。四自為甄，為他作。於己無閏，下犯殘罪。五辨房之尺量佛搩手（佛家量度單位，約等於中指到拇指的距離）者，諸文不定。一搩手祇二尺四寸，五分二尺。且依五分長十二搩手者，謂二丈四尺。廣七搩手者一丈四尺。此據室內。祇亦云縱廣量屋內。六當將已下數房主比丘（佛教出家男眾）乞處方法文如律中廣辨。問：作大小房頃乞處分。見論云：長六搩手廣四搩手。作如是房不須處分。律亦成文。小容身屋不犯非為開無過量後房本無過量。何以開中除小容身。若過六搩手四已無問過量不過量誠須處分。七彼比丘下教僧處分。處分法如律廣說。第三結罪句中有四種，二殘二吉。有無互說可知。此下雜明如上諸文。四分律云：若作此房先知無難妨已，然後來僧中脫革屣，偏露右擘禮上坐足，右膝著地令乞處分法。爾時僧中觀此比丘，若可信者即聽使作。若不可信眾僧往看。若僧不去應遣僧中可信者看。若有妨難不應處分。難者諸虎狼師諸惡獸者下至蟻子。言妨者乃至不容草車迴轉處。見云：是人田園或怨家賊處尸陀林（墳地）處王志護處。四周不通十二。桄杼間有卷。一肘者十誦是舍四邊一尋。地內有官地居士外道比丘尼（佛教出家女眾）地。若大石流水大樹深坑等是妨處。明瞭論云：或空山巖石陰等得行住坐臥如作房舍所攝。解云：如上處等欲于中住必須隔斷。若不衣量
【English Translation】 English version The four dignities are walking, standing, sitting, and lying down. The three 'without a master' are without excess because they have a master. The four are for oneself, for discernment, and for others. There is no transgression or residual offense for oneself. Regarding the measurement of a room using the Buddha's span (a unit of measurement, approximately the distance from the tip of the middle finger to the tip of the thumb), the texts vary. One span is two feet four inches, or two and two-fifths feet. According to the five-part division, a length of twelve spans is two 'zhang' four 'chi' (丈尺, traditional Chinese units of length), and a width of seven spans is one 'zhang' four 'chi'. This refers to the interior space. It is also said that the length and width are measured inside the room. Regarding the method for a 'bhiksu' (比丘, Buddhist monk) to request a place for a room, the details are extensively explained in the Vinaya (律, monastic rules). Question: When building a room of a certain size, is it necessary to request permission? The 'Shastra' (論, treatise) says: If the length is six spans and the width is four spans, it is not necessary to request permission to build such a room. The Vinaya also states that a small room just large enough to accommodate the body is not an offense, as it is an exception without excess. The original rule for the back room had no excess. Why is a small room just large enough to accommodate the body excluded from the exception? If it exceeds six spans in length and four in width, it is necessary to inquire whether it is excessive or not, and permission must be requested. The 'bhiksu' should instruct the 'sangha' (僧伽, monastic community) to grant permission. The method for granting permission is extensively explained in the Vinaya. In the third sentence regarding the conclusion of offenses, there are four types: two 'parajika' (殘, defeat) and two auspicious. The presence or absence can be understood through mutual discussion. The following clarifies the above texts. The 'Dharmaguptaka Vinaya' (四分律) says: If one wants to build a room, one should first know that there are no difficulties or obstructions. Then, one should come to the 'sangha', take off one's leather shoes, expose one's right shoulder, bow to the feet of the senior monk, kneel on one's right knee, and request permission. At that time, the 'sangha' should observe this 'bhiksu'. If he is trustworthy, he should be allowed to build. If he is not trustworthy, the 'sangha' should go and inspect. If the 'sangha' does not go, they should send a trustworthy member of the 'sangha' to inspect. If there are obstructions, permission should not be granted. Obstructions include tigers, wolves, lions, and other fierce beasts, down to ants. Obstructions also include places where even a grass cart cannot turn around. It is said that it includes people's fields, places of enemies or thieves, 'shithavana' (尸陀林, cemeteries), places protected by the king's decree, places where the circumference is not accessible for twelve, places where there are scrolls between the 'kuang' (桄) and 'shu' (杼), a cubit, or according to the 'Ten Recitations Vinaya' (十誦律), a 'xun' (尋, ancient unit of length) on all four sides of the house. It also includes government land, land of laypeople, heretics, or 'bhikshuni' (比丘尼, Buddhist nun) land. Obstructions also include large rocks, flowing water, large trees, and deep pits. The 'Abhidharmakosha-bhashya' (明瞭論) says: Or empty mountains, rocks, shady places, etc., where one can walk, stand, sit, and lie down, are included as places for building houses. It explains that if one wants to live in the above places, one must create a separation. If it is not within the size of the robe...
用功則多。若有妨難自損損他。故律云。若於妨難之地輒造房舍得二吉罪。過量不乞得二殘罪。互過即犯不得俱也。為他作房舍俱得蘭。律不犯中。減量無妨處難。為佛圖講堂。為僧多人住屋。草菴小客身屋者。
有主僧不處分造房戒第七 以有主故不辨尺量。與前有異。余減大同。別緣有六。一有主。二為己作。三長六搩手。四搩手已上房。五不處分想。六房成。已下正明戒本。此戒因闡陀比丘造房斫露中神樹。俗人呵嘖。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘欲作大房有主為己作當將余比丘往指授處所彼應指授當與處所無難處無妨處若比丘有難有妨處作大房有主為己作不將余比丘往指授處所者僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足戒本句亦有三。一犯人。二作房軌則。三違教結罪。犯人者如上。作房立法文亦有七。一欲作大房者。大者多用財作。房者屋也。言有主者。返上無主是也。為己作指授已來。僧中乞法義如上。彼應指授處所者。僧應觀察。若有信有智慧。即信彼而與白二。若不信者眾僧往看。若僧不去應遣僧中可信者看。若有妨難不應處分。無者應與作法。僧祇律云。若僧中無能羯磨者。一切僧就彼作處。一人唱言。一切僧為某比丘指授□三說亦得無難無妨處者。義如上說。第三句結罪文如前戒可知。唯過量為異。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 用功過度則會產生很多問題。如果存在妨礙或困難，就會損害自己或他人。因此，《律藏》中說，如果在有妨礙或困難的地方擅自建造房舍，會犯兩次吉罪（指較輕的罪過）。超過規定尺寸而不請求允許，會犯兩次殘罪（指較重的罪過）。如果互相超過尺寸，則各自觸犯，不能同時觸犯。為他人建造房舍，則都犯蘭罪（指僧伽婆尸沙，僅次於波羅夷的重罪）。《律藏》中不犯的情況包括：減少尺寸，沒有妨礙，處於困難之地，為佛寺講堂建造，為僧眾建造多人居住的房屋，以及建造草菴或供小客居住的房屋。
有主僧不處分造房戒第七：因為房舍已經有主人，所以不需要辨別尺寸大小。這一點與之前的戒律有所不同。其餘方面大致相同。特別的因緣有六個：一是房舍有主人，二是為自己建造，三是長度超過六搩手（約合九尺），四是建造超過六搩手的房屋，五是沒有請求處分的想法，六是房屋建成。以下正式闡明戒律的根本。這條戒律的起因是闡陀比丘建造房屋時砍伐了露中的神樹，被俗人指責，比丘們舉發了他的過失，佛陀因此制定了這條戒律。
若比丘想要建造大型房屋，且房屋有主人，是為自己建造，應當帶領其他比丘前往指定地點。他們應當指示地點，給予沒有困難、沒有妨礙的處所。如果比丘在有困難、有妨礙的處所建造大型房屋，且房屋有主人，是為自己建造，不帶領其他比丘前往指定地點，則犯僧伽婆尸沙罪。這條完整的戒律根本句也有三個方面：一是犯戒的人，二是建造房屋的規則，三是違背教導而結罪。犯戒的人如上所述。建造房屋的立法條文也有七個方面：一是想要建造大型房屋，『大』指的是需要耗費大量財物建造。『房』指的是房屋。『有主』指的是與之前的『無主』相對。『為己作』到『指授已來』，僧中乞法的意義如上所述。『彼應指授處所者』，僧眾應當觀察，如果有人有信心有智慧，就相信他並給予白二羯磨（一種僧團決議程式）。如果不信任，則僧眾一同前往檢視。如果僧眾不去，應當派遣僧眾中可信的人去看。如果有妨礙或困難，不應當處分。如果沒有，應當給予作法。僧祇律中說，如果僧眾中沒有能做羯磨的人，所有僧眾都到建造地點，一人唱言：『一切僧眾為某比丘指示地點』，說三遍也可以。『無難無妨處者』，意義如上所述。第三句結罪的條文與之前的戒律可以類比得知，只有『過量』這一點不同。
【English Translation】 English version Excessive effort leads to many problems. If there are hindrances or difficulties, it will harm oneself or others. Therefore, the Vinaya says that if one builds a house in a place with hindrances or difficulties without permission, one commits two '吉' (jí) sins (minor offenses). Exceeding the prescribed dimensions without asking for permission results in two '殘' (cán) sins (major offenses). If they exceed each other, they each commit the offense, but not simultaneously. Building a house for others results in a '蘭' (lán) sin (Sanghavasesa, a serious offense second only to Parajika). The Vinaya does not consider it an offense in the following cases: reducing the dimensions, no hindrance, being in a difficult place, building for a Buddhist temple's lecture hall (佛圖講堂, Fó tú jiǎng táng), building a house for many monks to live in, and building a thatched hut (草菴, cǎo ān) or a house for small guests.
The seventh precept regarding building a house without permission from the owner monk: Because the house already has an owner, there is no need to determine the size. This differs from the previous precept. The rest is largely the same. There are six special circumstances: first, the house has an owner; second, it is built for oneself; third, it is longer than six '搩手' (zhā shǒu) (approximately nine feet); fourth, it is building a house longer than six '搩手' (zhā shǒu); fifth, there is no intention to ask for permission; sixth, the house is completed. The following formally clarifies the root of the precept. The origin of this precept is that Bhikkhu Chanda (闡陀比丘, Chǎn tuó bǐ qiū) cut down a spirit tree in the open while building a house, and was criticized by laypeople. The bhikkhus reported his transgression, and the Buddha therefore established this precept.
If a bhikkhu wants to build a large house, and the house has an owner, and it is built for himself, he should lead other bhikkhus to the designated location. They should indicate the location, giving a place without difficulties or hindrances. If a bhikkhu builds a large house in a place with difficulties or hindrances, and the house has an owner, and it is built for himself, and he does not lead other bhikkhus to the designated location, he commits a Sanghavasesa (僧伽婆尸沙, Sēng qié pó shī shā) offense. This complete root sentence of the precept also has three aspects: first, the offender; second, the rules for building the house; third, incurring guilt for disobeying the teachings. The offender is as described above. The legislative provisions for building the house also have seven aspects: first, wanting to build a large house; 'large' refers to building that requires a lot of wealth. 'House' refers to the building. 'Having an owner' refers to being the opposite of the previous 'without an owner'. 'Built for oneself' up to 'designated location', the meaning of asking for permission from the Sangha is as described above. 'They should indicate the location', the Sangha should observe. If someone has faith and wisdom, they should trust him and give '白二羯磨' (bái èr jié mó) (a Sangha resolution procedure). If they do not trust him, then the Sangha should go together to see. If the Sangha does not go, they should send a trustworthy person from the Sangha to see. If there are hindrances or difficulties, permission should not be granted. If there are none, permission should be granted. The Sanghika Vinaya (僧祇律, Sēng qí lǜ) says that if there is no one in the Sangha who can perform the '羯磨' (jié mó), all the Sangha should go to the construction site, and one person should say: 'All the Sangha indicate the location for so-and-so bhikkhu', saying it three times is also acceptable. 'A place without difficulties or hindrances', the meaning is as described above. The clause on incurring guilt in the third sentence can be understood by analogy with the previous precepts, only the point of 'exceeding the dimensions' is different.
無根謗戒第八 一制意。然出家同住理應和蜜遞相將護許不相惱觸。今乃懷瞋橫攝重事誣人。自壞心行增長生死以滅正法。又復塵坌良善甄在眾殊惱他一生廢修正業。欺罔事深故須聖制 二釋名。內無三實曰無根。重事加誣名之為謗。故曰無根謗戒 三具緣。通緣如上。別緣有八。一是大比丘及尼除下二眾。二大比丘及尼想。三內有嗔心。四無三根。五重事加誣。六下至對一比丘。七言辭了了。八前人知解 四闕緣。若闕初緣以餘五眾闕境雙即有十蘭。闕第二疑想各五。闕瞋心全無謗罪。若有三根但非法舉。若輕事如他。或有提吉。闕余緣等輕蘭重蘭。已下正明戒本。此戒因慈地比丘得惡房舍又得惡食。便令妹尼重事加誣。佛因制戒。
若比丘瞋恚所䨱故非波羅夷比丘以無根波羅夷法謗欲壞彼清凈行若於異時若問若不問知此事無根說我瞋恚故作是語若比丘作是語者僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足戒本文有七句。初列。后釋。言列者。一犯人。二瞋心。三所謗境界。四無三根。五以波羅夷重事加誣。六謗時。七若比丘下結犯。言釋者。初句若比丘義如上辨。第二句瞋恚所覆。故律云。有十惡法因緣故瞋。隨十事中以一一事而生瞋。十惡法者。祇三世九惱通非情處起瞋。是名十惡法。因緣廣說可知。第三句非波羅夷比
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無根謗戒第八 1. 制戒緣起：出家人同住，理應和睦相處，互相愛護，承諾不互相惱害侵犯。如今卻心懷嗔恨，憑空捏造重大事件來誣陷他人，這既敗壞了自己的心行，增長了生死輪迴，又會因此而毀滅正法。而且還會使善良的人蒙受冤屈，在僧團中受到排斥，惱亂他人一生，使其荒廢修正的功業。這種欺騙矇蔽的行為影響深遠，所以需要佛陀制定戒律。 2. 解釋戒名：『內無三實』指的是實際上沒有犯戒的三種根本罪行（波羅夷、僧殘、偷蘭遮），卻用重大的罪行加以誣陷，這就叫做『謗』。所以稱為『無根謗戒』。 3. 構成戒律的要素：共同的要素如前所述。特別的要素有八個：一是對像必須是大比丘或比丘尼，不包括沙彌、沙彌尼等下二眾。二是作案者認為是（對方是）大比丘或比丘尼。三是內心懷有嗔恨心。四是被指控的罪行實際上沒有三種根本罪行（無三根）。五是用波羅夷等重大的罪行加以誣陷。六是至少要對一個比丘進行誹謗。七是言辭清晰明確。八是被誹謗的人能夠理解所說的話。 4. 戒律不成立的情況：如果缺少第一個要素，即對像不是大比丘或比丘尼，而是其餘五眾，則根據所缺少的對象，構成十個偷蘭遮罪。如果缺少第二個要素，即對比丘/比丘尼的身份產生懷疑，則構成五個偷蘭遮罪。如果缺少嗔恨心，則完全沒有謗罪。如果實際上存在三種根本罪行，則應該按照如法的方式進行檢舉，而不是誹謗。如果是輕微的罪行，例如『他』罪，或者存在提吉沙罪。缺少其餘要素等情況，則根據情節輕重，構成輕或重的偷蘭遮罪。以下正式闡明戒本。這條戒律的起因是慈地比丘得到不好的房舍，又得到不好的食物，於是指使他的妹妹——比丘尼，用重大的罪行來誣陷其他比丘。佛陀因此制定了這條戒律。 若比丘，瞋恚所蔽故，非波羅夷比丘，以無根波羅夷法謗，欲壞彼清凈行，若於異時，若問若不問，知此事無根，說：『我瞋恚故作是語。』若比丘作是語者，僧伽婆尸沙（僧團殘罪）。此滿足戒本文有七句。初列，后釋。言列者：一、犯人。二、瞋心。三、所謗境界。四、無三根。五、以波羅夷重事加誣。六、謗時。七、若比丘下結犯。言釋者：初句『若比丘』義如上辨。第二句『瞋恚所覆』，故律云：『有十惡法因緣故瞋。』隨十事中以一一事而生瞋。十惡法者：祇三世九惱通非情處起瞋。是名十惡法。因緣廣說可知。第三句『非波羅夷比丘』比 English version Rootless Accusation Against the Precepts – Eighth 1. Reason for the Establishment: Monastics living together should be harmonious, caring for each other, and promising not to annoy or offend one another. Now, harboring anger, one fabricates serious matters to falsely accuse others. This not only corrupts one's own mind and conduct, increases the cycle of birth and death, but also destroys the Proper Dharma. Furthermore, it causes good people to suffer injustice, be ostracized in the Sangha, troubles others for a lifetime, and wastes their efforts in cultivation. Such deceptive and misleading behavior has far-reaching consequences, so the Buddha established this precept. 2. Explanation of the Name: 'Without three roots' refers to the fact that there are actually no three fundamental offenses (Parajika, Sanghadisesa, Thullaccaya), yet one falsely accuses another of serious offenses. This is called 'accusation'. Therefore, it is called the 'Rootless Accusation Precept'. 3. Elements Constituting the Precept: The common elements are as previously mentioned. The specific elements are eight: First, the object must be a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni, excluding the lower two groups such as Sramaneras and Sramanerikas. Second, the perpetrator believes that (the other person is) a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni. Third, the mind harbors anger. Fourth, the accused offense actually lacks the three fundamental offenses (no three roots). Fifth, one falsely accuses the other of serious offenses such as Parajika. Sixth, the time of accusation. Seventh, the concluding offense under 'If a Bhikkhu'. 4. Circumstances Under Which the Precept is Not Established: If the first element is missing, i.e., the object is not a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni, but one of the other five groups, then according to the missing object, ten Thullaccaya offenses are constituted. If the second element is missing, i.e., doubt arises regarding the identity of the Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni, then five Thullaccaya offenses are constituted. If anger is lacking, then there is no offense of accusation at all. If the three fundamental offenses actually exist, then one should report it in accordance with the Dharma, rather than slander. If it is a minor offense, such as a 'Tha' offense, or if there is a Tikicchaka offense. If other elements are missing, then according to the severity of the circumstances, light or heavy Thullaccaya offenses are constituted. The following formally elucidates the precept text. The cause of this precept is that Bhikkhu Cīradatta obtained bad lodging and bad food, so he instructed his sister – a Bhikkhuni, to falsely accuse other Bhikkhus of serious offenses. The Buddha therefore established this precept. If a Bhikkhu, being obscured by anger, accuses a Bhikkhu who is not an offender of Parajika, falsely accusing him of a rootless Parajika offense, desiring to destroy his pure conduct, if at another time, whether asked or not asked, he knows that this matter is rootless, saying: 'I spoke these words because of anger.' If a Bhikkhu speaks these words, it is a Sanghadisesa (offense requiring a meeting of the Sangha). This complete precept text has seven sentences. First, listing, then explanation. The listing includes: 1. The offender. 2. Anger. 3. The object of accusation. 4. Lacking the three roots. 5. Falsely accusing of a serious Parajika offense. 6. The time of accusation. 7. The concluding offense under 'If a Bhikkhu'. The explanation: The meaning of the first sentence 'If a Bhikkhu' is as explained above. The second sentence 'obscured by anger', hence the Vinaya says: 'There are ten evil Dharmas that cause anger.' Anger arises from each of the ten matters. The ten evil Dharmas are: the three times, nine annoyances, and arising anger towards non-sentient beings. These are called the ten evil Dharmas. The causes and conditions are widely explained and can be known. The third sentence 'a Bhikkhu who is not an offender of Parajika'
【English Translation】 English version Rootless Accusation Against the Precepts – Eighth 1. Reason for the Establishment: Monastics living together should be harmonious, caring for each other, and promising not to annoy or offend one another. Now, harboring anger, one fabricates serious matters to falsely accuse others. This not only corrupts one's own mind and conduct, increases the cycle of birth and death, but also destroys the Proper Dharma. Furthermore, it causes good people to suffer injustice, be ostracized in the Sangha, troubles others for a lifetime, and wastes their efforts in cultivation. Such deceptive and misleading behavior has far-reaching consequences, so the Buddha established this precept. 2. Explanation of the Name: 'Without three roots' refers to the fact that there are actually no three fundamental offenses (Parajika, Sanghadisesa, Thullaccaya), yet one falsely accuses another of serious offenses. This is called 'accusation'. Therefore, it is called the 'Rootless Accusation Precept'. 3. Elements Constituting the Precept: The common elements are as previously mentioned. The specific elements are eight: First, the object must be a Bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) or Bhikkhuni (Buddhist nun), excluding the lower two groups such as Sramaneras (male novice) and Sramanerikas (female novice). Second, the perpetrator believes that (the other person is) a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni. Third, the mind harbors anger. Fourth, the accused offense actually lacks the three fundamental offenses (no three roots). Fifth, one falsely accuses the other of serious offenses such as Parajika (defeat). Sixth, the time of accusation. Seventh, the concluding offense under 'If a Bhikkhu'. 4. Circumstances Under Which the Precept is Not Established: If the first element is missing, i.e., the object is not a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni, but one of the other five groups, then according to the missing object, ten Thullaccaya (grave offense) offenses are constituted. If the second element is missing, i.e., doubt arises regarding the identity of the Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni, then five Thullaccaya offenses are constituted. If anger is lacking, then there is no offense of accusation at all. If the three fundamental offenses actually exist, then one should report it in accordance with the Dharma, rather than slander. If it is a minor offense, such as a 'Tha' offense, or if there is a Tikicchaka offense. If other elements are missing, then according to the severity of the circumstances, light or heavy Thullaccaya offenses are constituted. The following formally elucidates the precept text. The cause of this precept is that Bhikkhu Cīradatta obtained bad lodging and bad food, so he instructed his sister – a Bhikkhuni, to falsely accuse other Bhikkhus of serious offenses. The Buddha therefore established this precept. If a Bhikkhu (Buddhist monk), being obscured by anger, accuses a Bhikkhu who is not an offender of Parajika (defeat), falsely accusing him of a rootless Parajika offense, desiring to destroy his pure conduct, if at another time, whether asked or not asked, he knows that this matter is rootless, saying: 'I spoke these words because of anger.' If a Bhikkhu speaks these words, it is a Sanghadisesa (offense requiring a meeting of the Sangha). This complete precept text has seven sentences. First, listing, then explanation. The listing includes: 1. The offender. 2. Anger. 3. The object of accusation. 4. Lacking the three roots. 5. Falsely accusing of a serious Parajika offense. 6. The time of accusation. 7. The concluding offense under 'If a Bhikkhu'. The explanation: The meaning of the first sentence 'If a Bhikkhu' is as explained above. The second sentence 'obscured by anger', hence the Vinaya says: 'There are ten evil Dharmas that cause anger.' Anger arises from each of the ten matters. The ten evil Dharmas are: the three times, nine annoyances, and arising anger towards non-sentient beings. These are called the ten evil Dharmas. The causes and conditions are widely explained and can be known. The third sentence 'a Bhikkhu who is not an offender of Parajika'
丘。律云。清凈無犯名非波羅夷比丘。第四句以無根夷法謗者。欲解無根先解有根。言根者生后之名。根義不同。若標三別。謂見根聞根疑根。觀赤青等稱之為見。納鄉餐聲名之為聞。見聞之後猶預不決心無定執。號之為疑。此之三種咸生舉語故齊名根。故四分律云。見根者。見犯梵行。見偷五錢。見斷人命。若他見從彼聞。是謂見根。聞根者。聞犯梵行。聞偷五錢聞斷人命。聞自言得上人法。若彼說從彼聞。是謂聞根 疑根二種。從見生者。見與婦人入林出林。無衣裸形。不凈污身。捉刀血污。惡人為伴是也。從聞生者。若在闇地聞動床聲。聞轉側聲若共語聲若聞我犯非梵行聲。乃至若聞我得上人法聲。除此三根已更以余法謗者是無根也。第五句波羅夷法謗者。重事加誣言犯之法。此法要說初篇。即是粗獷言。欲壞彼清凈行。此是顯己謗意。律云。謂言眾僧滅殯此人我得安樂住。第六句若於異時至作是說已來。是自言非即謗時故曰異時。雪彼清凈顯己謗情故。因我瞋恚故作是說。律云。若問若不問者。佛敕比丘問能謗者。此事實不。若以無根謗他。獲大重罪。自陳謗意。言沓婆清凈人無如是事。由前次得惡房惡食。懷瞋恨故便謗彼耳。第七句若比丘作是語者僧伽婆尸沙。此是為結犯輕重有三。一謗比丘。二謗尼。三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 丘。律中說，清凈沒有犯戒的比丘，才能被稱為非波羅夷比丘（不墮落的比丘）。第四句說用無根的波羅夷法（斷頭罪）來誹謗他人。想要了解無根，先要了解有根。所謂『根』，是產生後果的原因。『根』的含義不同，如果標出三種區別，就是見根、聞根、疑根。看到紅色、青色等，稱之為見；聽到村落的聲音、吃飯的聲音，稱之為聞；在見聞之後，猶豫不決，心中沒有定論，就叫做疑。這三種都會產生說話的行為，所以都叫做『根』。因此《四分律》中說：『見根』，就是親眼見到犯了梵行（性行為），親眼見到偷了五錢，親眼見到斷了人命。或者別人見到后告訴他，他聽到了，這就叫做見根。『聞根』，就是聽到犯了梵行，聽到偷了五錢，聽到斷了人命，聽到自己說得到了上人法（超凡的境界）。或者別人說了，他聽到了，這就叫做聞根。『疑根』有兩種，從見而生的，就是見到（某人）和婦女進入樹林又出來，沒有穿衣服，赤身裸體，身上有不凈的東西，沾滿血污，和惡人在一起等等。從聽而生的，就是在黑暗的地方聽到床搖動的聲音，聽到翻身的聲音，或者聽到說話的聲音，或者聽到『我犯了非梵行』的聲音，乃至聽到『我得到了上人法』的聲音。除了這三種『根』之外，用其他的事情來誹謗，就是無根誹謗。第五句說用波羅夷法來誹謗，就是用重大的事情來誣陷，說他犯了這種法。這種法要說出最初的篇章，也就是粗暴的話語，想要破壞他清凈的行為，這是爲了顯示自己誹謗的意圖。《律》中說：『（他）說眾僧要滅擯這個人，我才能安樂地住下去。』第六句說『如果在其他時間才說這些話』，是因為不是當場誹謗，所以說是『異時』。掩蓋他人的清凈，顯示自己誹謗的實情，是因為我嗔恨的緣故才這樣說。《律》中說：『如果問或者不問』，佛陀告誡比丘要問能夠誹謗的人，這件事是不是真的。如果用無根的事情誹謗他人，會得到很大的罪過。自己陳述誹謗的意圖，說沓婆（人名，清凈的比丘）是清凈的人，不會有這樣的事情，因為之前得到了不好的房間和食物，懷著嗔恨的緣故就誹謗他。第七句說『如果比丘說了這樣的話，就犯僧伽婆尸沙（僅次於波羅夷的重罪）』。這是爲了總結犯戒的輕重，有三種：一、誹謗比丘，二、誹謗比丘尼，三
【English Translation】 English version Bhikkhu. The Vinaya says: 'A bhikkhu who is pure and has not committed any offense is called a non-Pārājika (not fallen) bhikkhu.' The fourth sentence refers to slandering someone with a baseless Pārājika offense (an offense leading to expulsion). To understand 'baseless,' one must first understand 'rooted.' 'Root' refers to the cause that produces consequences. The meaning of 'root' differs. If we distinguish three types, they are the root of seeing, the root of hearing, and the root of doubt. Seeing red, blue, etc., is called 'seeing'; hearing the sounds of a village, the sound of eating, is called 'hearing'; after seeing and hearing, hesitating and not making a firm decision is called 'doubt.' These three all give rise to speech, so they are all called 'roots.' Therefore, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says: 'Root of seeing' means personally seeing someone commit Brahmacharya (sexual activity), personally seeing someone steal five coins, personally seeing someone take a life. Or someone else sees it and tells him, and he hears it, this is called the root of seeing. 'Root of hearing' means hearing about someone committing Brahmacharya, hearing about someone stealing five coins, hearing about someone taking a life, hearing about someone claiming to have attained the Dharma of a superior person (a transcendent state). Or someone else says it, and he hears it, this is called the root of hearing. There are two types of 'root of doubt.' One arises from seeing, such as seeing (someone) enter and exit a forest with a woman, unclothed, naked, with impure things on their body, covered in blood, and associating with evil people, etc. The other arises from hearing, such as hearing the sound of a bed moving in a dark place, hearing the sound of turning over, or hearing the sound of talking, or hearing the sound of 'I have committed non-Brahmacharya,' or even hearing the sound of 'I have attained the Dharma of a superior person.' Besides these three 'roots,' slandering with other matters is baseless slander. The fifth sentence refers to slandering with a Pārājika offense, which means falsely accusing someone of a serious offense, saying that they have committed this offense. This offense must be described from the beginning, with coarse words, intending to destroy their pure conduct. This is to show one's intention to slander. The Vinaya says: '(He) says that the Sangha should expel this person so that I can live in peace.' The sixth sentence says 'If these words are spoken at another time,' because it is not slander on the spot, it is called 'another time.' Covering up the purity of others, revealing one's own intention to slander, is because I said it out of anger. The Vinaya says: 'If asked or not asked,' the Buddha advises the bhikkhu to ask the person who can slander whether this matter is true. If one slanders others with baseless matters, one will incur great sin. One confesses the intention to slander, saying that Thabba (name of a pure bhikkhu) is a pure person and would not do such a thing, because he received a bad room and food before, and slandered him out of anger. The seventh sentence says 'If a bhikkhu says such words, he commits Sanghādisesa (a serious offense second only to Pārājika).' This is to summarize the severity of the offense, there are three types: one, slandering a bhikkhu; two, slandering a bhikkhuni; three
謗下眾就比丘文中三。初句若已無根四事法謗比丘但使內無三根。莫問有實不實。自作遣使了了皆成謗罪。若不了得偷蘭。第二以非比丘法十三難事內無三根謗實比丘了了得殘。不了偷蘭。若實十三難人雖無三根。實伏說著作比丘相故但得蘭罪。不同四重謗人體是污戒比丘故也。若於十三中比丘犯五逆邊罪謗之僧殘。以教從理同合殯。故若十律云。出血破僧此二謗人得蘭。餘者吉羅。以名輕故。即是彼律以理從教。第三若以餘篇謗殘提兩罪。第二謗尼者亦同比丘。十律謗尼但得吉羅。五分僧謗比丘殘。謗尼四眾吉。尼謗尼殘。謗比丘提。第三謗下眾者皆得吉羅 不犯中律云。見聞疑三糧說實。實有五種。一真實。二想實。三事實。如殺王還道殺王。四三根不互實。五四戒不互實。若反此五謗他犯殘。十誦四重互說成謗。四分亦同。
假根謗戒第九 此戒要假異事上有見根。取彼事見以謗此人。見雖相當事不相當。名為假根。如見言聞等即是無根。前戒中攝。制意犯緣悉同前戒。唯以假根為異。文牒聖制故。曰我等前聞以無法謗欲明今是有限。故作是言。
若比丘以瞋恚故於異分事中取片非波羅夷比丘以無根以無根波羅夷法謗欲壞彼清凈行彼于異時若問若不問知是以異分事中取片是比丘自言我瞋恚故作是作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 謗下眾就比丘文中分三部分。第一句，如果已經沒有四事法（指衣、食、臥具、醫藥）的根本，誹謗比丘，只要內心沒有三根（貪、嗔、癡），無論所說是否真實，親自去做或指使他人去做，都構成誹謗罪。如果誹謗不成立，則判偷蘭罪。第二句，用非比丘法或十三難事（如犯五逆罪等）誹謗真實的、內心沒有三根的比丘，誹謗成立則判僧殘罪，不成立則判偷蘭罪。如果確實是十三難之人，即使沒有三根，但實際上順從（僧團的）宣告，做出比丘的樣子，也只判偷蘭罪。這與四重罪的誹謗不同，因為四重罪的誹謗對象是已經破戒的比丘。如果在十三難中，比丘犯了五逆邊罪，誹謗他則判僧殘罪，因為教義和道理上都應合併處理。如果按照《十誦律》所說，出血、破壞僧團這兩種誹謗判偷蘭罪，其餘的判吉羅罪，因為罪名較輕。這說明該律在道理上遵循教義。第三句，如果用其他篇章（指戒律中的其他部分）誹謗僧殘罪或提舍尼罪，則判這兩種罪。第二，誹謗比丘尼的情況與誹謗比丘相同。《十誦律》中誹謗比丘尼只判吉羅罪。《五分律》中，僧團誹謗比丘判僧殘罪，誹謗比丘尼四眾判吉羅罪。比丘尼誹謗比丘尼判僧殘罪，誹謗比丘判提舍尼罪。第三，誹謗下眾（指沙彌等）都判吉羅罪。
不犯的情況在律中提到，見、聞、疑三種情況，如果說的是真實情況，真實情況有五種：一是真實，二是想實（根據想像認為是真的），三是事實（實際發生的事情，例如殺了國王后在路上又殺了國王），四是三根不互相證實，五是四戒（指波羅夷罪）不互相證實。如果違反這五種情況誹謗他人，則犯僧殘罪。《十誦律》中，四重罪互相指責構成誹謗。《四分律》也相同。
假根謗戒第九：此戒要求有虛假的、不同的事情，並且有見根（看到）。拿這件事的見聞來誹謗這個人。見聞雖然與事相關，但事情本身並不相符，這稱為假根。例如，說『見』為『聞』等，就是無根誹謗，屬於前面的戒條所涵蓋。制定此戒的用意和犯戒的因緣與前面的戒條相同，只是以假根為不同之處。文牒聖制上說，『我等前聞以無法謗』，是爲了說明現在是有所限制的，所以才這樣說。
如果比丘因為嗔恚的緣故，在不同的事情中，取片段的、非波羅夷罪的比丘，用無根的波羅夷法誹謗，想要破壞他的清凈行為，他在異時，無論問或不問，知道這是在不同的事情中取片段，是比丘自己說『我因為嗔恚的緣故才這樣做』。
【English Translation】 English version The section on slandering the lower assembly is divided into three parts concerning Bhikkhus. The first sentence states that if there is no basis in the four requisites (robes, food, bedding, medicine) to slander a Bhikkhu, as long as there are no three roots (greed, hatred, delusion) internally, regardless of whether the accusation is true or false, personally doing it or instructing others to do it constitutes the offense of slander. If the slander is not established, it is judged as a Thullan অপরাধ (thullana aparadha, a minor offense). The second sentence states that using non-Bhikkhu practices or the thirteen difficult matters (such as committing the five rebellious acts) to slander a real Bhikkhu who has no three roots internally, if the slander is established, it is judged as a Sanghavasesa (formal meeting of the Sangha), if not, it is judged as a Thullan অপরাধ. If it is indeed one of the thirteen difficult persons, even if there are no three roots, but actually complies with the announcement (of the Sangha) and acts like a Bhikkhu, it is only judged as a Thullan অপরাধ. This is different from the slander of the four major offenses, because the object of the slander of the four major offenses is a Bhikkhu who has already broken the precepts. If among the thirteen difficulties, a Bhikkhu commits one of the five rebellious acts, slandering him is judged as a Sanghavasesa, because the teachings and reasoning should be combined. According to the Dasavarga Vinaya (Ten-Section Vinaya), the two types of slander involving causing bleeding and disrupting the Sangha are judged as Thullan অপরাধ, while the rest are judged as Dukkata (minor offense), because the names are lighter. This shows that the Vinaya follows the teachings in reasoning. The third sentence states that if other sections (referring to other parts of the Vinaya) are used to slander a Sanghavasesa or Nissaggiya Pacittiya (requiring expiation and forfeiture) offense, then these two offenses are judged. Secondly, the situation of slandering a Bhikkhuni is the same as slandering a Bhikkhu. In the Dasavarga Vinaya, slandering a Bhikkhuni is only judged as a Dukkata. In the Pancavarga Vinaya (Five-Section Vinaya), the Sangha slandering a Bhikkhu is judged as a Sanghavasesa, and slandering the four assemblies of Bhikkhunis is judged as a Dukkata. A Bhikkhuni slandering a Bhikkhuni is judged as a Sanghavasesa, and slandering a Bhikkhu is judged as a Nissaggiya Pacittiya. Thirdly, slandering the lower assembly (referring to novices, etc.) is judged as a Dukkata.
The cases of non-offense are mentioned in the Vinaya, the three situations of seeing, hearing, and suspecting, if what is said is true, there are five kinds of truth: first, the truth; second, the imagined truth (believing it to be true based on imagination); third, the factual truth (the actual event that happened, such as killing a king and then killing another king on the road); fourth, the three roots do not mutually confirm each other; fifth, the four precepts (referring to Parajika offenses) do not mutually confirm each other. If these five situations are violated to slander others, then a Sanghavasesa offense is committed. In the Dasavarga Vinaya, mutually accusing each other of the four major offenses constitutes slander. The Sarvastivada Vinaya (Four-Part Vinaya) is the same.
The Ninth Precept on Slandering with False Roots: This precept requires false and different matters, and there must be a root of seeing (seeing). Take the seeing and hearing of this matter to slander this person. Although the seeing and hearing are related to the matter, the matter itself does not match, this is called a false root. For example, saying 'seeing' as 'hearing' is rootless slander, which is covered by the previous precepts. The intention of formulating this precept and the causes of committing the offense are the same as the previous precepts, only the false root is the difference. The written decree of the sages says, 'We previously heard and slandered without basis,' in order to explain that there are now limitations, so this is said.
If a Bhikkhu, out of anger, takes a fragment from different matters, a Bhikkhu who is not a Parajika (defeat) offense, and slanders him with a rootless Parajika offense, wanting to destroy his pure conduct, at a different time, whether asked or not, knowing that this is taking a fragment from different matters, the Bhikkhu himself says, 'I did this because of anger.'
是語者僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足戒本文有七句。一犯人。二瞋心。三假異分上根。四所謗境界清凈。五以無根重謗。六自言。七結罪。廣釋中初二兩句可知。第三句言于異分事中取片者。所言異分者。律說五種異分。一異趣異分。如指羊事為人。二異罪異分。如不犯波羅夷言犯波羅夷。以異分無根法謗僧殘。若比丘夷謂犯殘。以異分無根夷謗殘。不犯殘彼見提乃至吉。以異分事無根夷法謗殘。若犯殘彼言犯夷。以異分無根夷法謗殘。若犯殘彼謂犯提乃至吉。以異分事無根夷法謗殘。乃至第三異人異分。不清凈人相似名同姓同想同。以此人事謗彼。以異分無根夷法謗。第四異時異分。若見在家時犯四重。便言我言比丘犯初篇。以異分無根四事法謗。第五異聲異分。若聞自稱犯四事取自向聲。以異分無根四事謗。第四句言非波羅夷比丘者。見彼清凈。第五句無根夷法謗者。不見聞疑彼犯四重誣他犯重。言欲壞彼清凈行者。彰其謗意。謂言眾僧滅殯。此人我得安樂。第六句若於異時至作是語已來。發覺或因檢問或不因檢問。自言由前得惡房惡食懷瞋恨故便謗彼耳。第七句若比丘下結犯相。經重如前戒破僧違諫戒第十 一制意。和眾法同義無乖諍。理應詳遵。猶如水乳。今反倚傍聖教說相似語。或亂群情壞僧斷法。墜陷無辜為惡茲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是語者僧伽婆尸沙（Sanghavasesa，僧殘罪），此滿足戒的本文有七句：一、犯人；二、瞋心；三、假借異分上根；四、所誹謗的境界清凈；五、以無根的重罪誹謗；六、自言；七、結罪。廣釋中，初二兩句可以理解。第三句說的是在異分的事情中取片面之詞。所說的異分，律中說了五種異分：一、異趣異分，比如指羊的事情說是人；二、異罪異分，比如沒有犯波羅夷（Parajika，斷頭罪）說犯了波羅夷，以異分無根的法誹謗僧殘（Sanghavasesa，僧殘罪）。如果比丘尼說犯了僧殘，以異分無根的波羅夷誹謗僧殘。沒有犯僧殘，她認為是提（Thullaccaya，粗罪）乃至吉（Dukkata，惡作罪），以異分事無根的波羅夷法誹謗僧殘。如果犯了僧殘，他說犯了波羅夷，以異分無根的波羅夷法誹謗僧殘。如果犯了僧殘，他說犯了提乃至吉，以異分事無根的波羅夷法誹謗僧殘。乃至第三，異人異分，不清凈的人相似，名字相同，姓氏相同，想法相同，用這件事誹謗那個人，以異分無根的波羅夷法誹謗。第四，異時異分，如果看見在家時犯了四重罪，就說我言比丘犯了初篇，以異分無根的四事法誹謗。第五，異聲異分，如果聽到自稱犯了四事，取自向聲，以異分無根的四事誹謗。第四句說的是非波羅夷比丘，看見他是清凈的。第五句無根波羅夷法誹謗，沒有見、沒有聽、沒有懷疑他犯了四重罪，誣陷他犯重罪，說想要破壞他的清凈行為，彰顯他的誹謗之意，說眾僧滅殯，這個人我才能安樂。第六句，如果在異時，至作是語已來，發覺或者因為檢問或者不因為檢問，自己說因為之前得到惡房惡食，懷著瞋恨心，就誹謗他了。第七句，如果比丘下結犯相，經重如前戒破僧違諫戒第十：一、制意，和眾法同義，沒有乖諍，理應詳細遵循，猶如水乳。現在反而倚傍聖教，說相似的話，或者擾亂群情，破壞僧團，斷滅正法，使無辜的人墜入惡道。
【English Translation】 English version: This is the Sanghavasesa (formal meeting of the Sangha), and this complete precept has seven clauses: 1. The offender; 2. Anger; 3. Falsely imputing a superior offense based on a different category; 4. The object of the slander is pure; 5. Slandering with a baseless serious offense; 6. Self-admission; 7. Conviction. In the extensive explanation, the first two clauses are understandable. The third clause refers to taking a fragment from a matter of a different category. The 'different category' is described in the Vinaya (monastic code) as five types: 1. Different destination category, such as referring to a sheep matter as a human matter; 2. Different offense category, such as saying someone who has not committed a Parajika (defeat) has committed a Parajika, slandering a Sanghavasesa with a baseless offense from a different category. If a Bhikkhuni (female monastic) says someone has committed a Sanghavasesa, slandering a Sanghavasesa with a baseless Parajika from a different category. If someone has not committed a Sanghavasesa, she thinks it is a Thullaccaya (grave offense) or even a Dukkata (wrongdoing), slandering a Sanghavasesa with a baseless Parajika offense from a different category. If someone has committed a Sanghavasesa, he says he has committed a Parajika, slandering a Sanghavasesa with a baseless Parajika offense from a different category. If someone has committed a Sanghavasesa, he thinks he has committed a Thullaccaya or even a Dukkata, slandering a Sanghavasesa with a baseless Parajika offense from a different category. And so on to the third, different person category, impure people are similar, with the same name, same surname, same thought, using this matter to slander that person, slandering with a baseless Parajika offense from a different category. Fourth, different time category, if seeing someone commit four serious offenses while a layperson, then saying 'I say the Bhikkhu (male monastic) has committed the first chapter', slandering with a baseless four-matter offense from a different category. Fifth, different sound category, if hearing someone claim to have committed four matters, taking the self-proclaimed sound, slandering with a baseless four-matter offense from a different category. The fourth clause refers to a non-Parajika Bhikkhu, seeing that he is pure. The fifth clause, slandering with a baseless Parajika offense, without seeing, hearing, or suspecting him of committing four serious offenses, falsely accusing him of committing a serious offense, saying he wants to destroy his pure conduct, revealing his intention to slander, saying 'The Sangha will destroy the funeral, only then will I be at peace'. The sixth clause, if at a different time, from the time of making this statement, discovering it either through questioning or not through questioning, admitting that because of previously receiving bad lodging and bad food, harboring anger, he slandered him. The seventh clause, if the Bhikkhu concludes the offense, the severity is as in the previous precept, breaking the Sangha, violating the tenth admonition: 1. The intention of the rule, in harmony with the Sangha's Dharma, with no discord, should be followed in detail, like water and milk. Now, instead, relying on the holy teachings, speaking similar words, or disturbing the masses, destroying the Sangha, cutting off the Dharma, causing innocent people to fall into evil paths.
甚。是故聖制 二釋名。邪法改真分眾異執稱為破僧。固執不捨名曰違諫戒 三具緣。通緣如上。別緣有五。一立邪寶。謂是諫所為事故。二行作於時若不行作即無設諫。如法簡非法設諫簡不設諫故。四固執己心不肯從勸己若從諫不成重故。五三羯磨竟以若未竟但結輕罪。故須言竟 四闕緣。若闕初緣亦是闕于第二不行邪化即破僧心息便闕下四。單有立邪三寶方便小吉。若闕第三若不設諫即無違諫容違屏諫。犯于小罪復得前二緣破方便罪。若僧諫不成知不成者亦無違諫。正有破僧方便究竟之罪。若作如法之心拒得蘭罪。闕第四緣若未白前舍無違諫罪。有違屏諫。若白竟舍一蘭。乃至第三未竟舍四蘭。闕第五緣類前可知。已下正明戒本。此戒因提婆達多破僧故制此戒。
若比丘欲壞和合僧堅持不捨。彼比丘應諫是比丘。大德莫壞和合僧。莫方便壞和合僧。莫受壞僧法。堅持不捨。大德應與僧和合。與僧和合歡喜不諍。同一師學如水乳合於佛法中有增益安樂住。是比丘如是諫時堅不捨彼比丘應三諫舍此事故。乃至三諫舍者善。不捨者僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足戒本文有五句。初略明。后廣釋。言略者。一明諫所為事。二彼比丘下諸善比丘屏受諫勸。三是比丘下固執己心不肯從。四彼比丘下眾僧諫勸之令舍。五不捨者下結成
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 甚。因此，聖人制定了這條戒律。 二、釋名：將邪法改變為真理，使大眾產生不同見解和執著，這稱為破僧（Sangha-bheda，分裂僧團）。頑固堅持不放棄自己的錯誤觀點，這叫做違諫戒（atikramana-śīla，違背勸誡的戒律）。 三、具緣：共同的因緣如前所述。特別的因緣有五種：一、樹立邪寶（mithyā-ratna，錯誤的皈依對象），即認為勸諫是爲了自己的緣故。二、在適當的時候進行勸諫，如果不行勸諫，就沒有勸諫可言。如法地簡擇非法，設立勸諫，簡擇不設立勸諫。三、頑固地堅持自己的想法，不肯聽從勸告，如果聽從勸告，就不能構成重罪。四、三次羯磨（karma，業）完畢，如果未完畢，只能結輕罪。因此必須說「完畢」。 四、闕緣：如果缺少第一個因緣，也就是缺少第二個因緣，不行邪化，破僧之心止息，就缺少了下面的四種因緣。單單樹立邪三寶，只是方便小吉。如果缺少第三個因緣，如果不設立勸諫，就沒有違諫，只能違背屏諫。犯小罪，又得到前兩個緣的破方便罪。如果僧眾勸諫不成功，知道不能成功，也沒有違諫，只有破僧方便究竟之罪。如果以如法之心拒絕，得到蘭罪。缺少第四個因緣，如果在未表白之前捨棄，就沒有違諫罪，只有違屏諫。如果表白完畢才捨棄，一次蘭罪，乃至第三次未完畢捨棄，四次蘭罪。缺少第五個因緣，可以參照前面所說。 以下正式說明戒本。此戒因提婆達多（Devadatta，佛陀的堂兄弟，試圖分裂僧團）破僧而制定。 如果比丘想要破壞和合僧（samagra-saṃgha，團結的僧團），堅持不捨棄這種想法，這位比丘應該被其他比丘勸諫：『大德，不要破壞和合僧，不要方便破壞和合僧，不要接受破壞僧團的法。堅持不捨棄這種想法。大德應該與僧團和合，與僧團和合，歡喜不爭論，同一位老師學習，如同水乳交融，在佛法中增長利益，安樂居住。』如果這位比丘被這樣勸諫時，仍然堅持不捨棄，這位比丘應該被勸諫三次，捨棄這件事。乃至三次勸諫后捨棄，是好的。如果不捨棄，則犯僧伽婆尸沙（saṃghāvaśeṣa，僧殘罪）。 這條滿足戒本文有五句。開始是簡略說明，後面是詳細解釋。所說的簡略，一是說明勸諫所針對的事情；二是『彼比丘下』，各位善良的比丘私下接受勸諫；三是『是比丘下』，頑固地堅持自己的想法，不肯聽從；四是『彼比丘下』，眾僧勸諫他捨棄；五是『不捨者下』，總結成罪。
【English Translation】 English version Thus, the Sage established this precept. 2. Explanation of Terms: To change the true Dharma into a false one, causing the assembly to have different views and attachments, is called Sangha-bheda (splitting the Sangha). To stubbornly cling to one's own wrong views and not give them up is called atikramana-śīla (the precept of violating admonishment). 3. Conditions: The common conditions are as mentioned above. The specific conditions are five: 1. Establishing a false Ratna (mithyā-ratna, a false object of refuge), that is, thinking that the admonishment is for one's own sake. 2. Giving admonishment at the appropriate time; if admonishment is not given, there is no admonishment to speak of. Rightly discerning the unlawful, establishing admonishment; discerning not establishing admonishment. 3. Stubbornly clinging to one's own ideas, unwilling to listen to advice; if one listens to advice, a grave offense cannot be constituted. 4. The three karmas (karma, actions) are completed; if they are not completed, only a minor offense is incurred. Therefore, it must be said 'completed'. 4. Missing Conditions: If the first condition is missing, that is, if the second condition is missing, if false transformation is not practiced, and the mind of splitting the Sangha ceases, then the following four conditions are missing. Merely establishing the false Three Jewels is only a minor offense of expedient means. If the third condition is missing, if admonishment is not established, there is no violation of admonishment, only violation of private admonishment. One commits a minor offense and also incurs the offense of expedient means of the previous two conditions. If the Sangha's admonishment is unsuccessful, knowing that it will not be successful, there is also no violation of admonishment, only the ultimate offense of expedient means of splitting the Sangha. If one refuses with a mind of acting lawfully, one incurs a śaikṣa offense. If the fourth condition is missing, if one abandons before making a declaration, there is no offense of violating admonishment, only violation of private admonishment. If one abandons after making a declaration, one śaikṣa offense; even if one abandons before the third declaration is completed, four śaikṣa offenses. If the fifth condition is missing, it can be understood by referring to what was said earlier. The following formally explains the Prātimokṣa. This precept was established because of Devadatta (Devadatta, a cousin of the Buddha who tried to split the Sangha) splitting the Sangha. If a bhikṣu wants to destroy the samagra-saṃgha (harmonious Sangha), and stubbornly clings to this idea without abandoning it, that bhikṣu should be admonished by other bhikṣus: 'Venerable one, do not destroy the harmonious Sangha, do not use expedient means to destroy the harmonious Sangha, do not accept the Dharma of destroying the Sangha. Stubbornly cling to this idea without abandoning it. Venerable one, you should be in harmony with the Sangha, be in harmony with the Sangha, be joyful and not quarrel, study with the same teacher, like water and milk blending together, increasing benefits in the Buddha-dharma, and living in peace.' If this bhikṣu, when admonished in this way, still stubbornly clings to it without abandoning it, this bhikṣu should be admonished three times to abandon this matter. It is good if he abandons it after being admonished three times. If he does not abandon it, he commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa (saṃghāvaśeṣa, formal meeting offense). This complete precept text has five sentences. The beginning is a brief explanation, and the following is a detailed explanation. What is said to be brief is: first, it explains the matter to which the admonishment is directed; second, 'the bhikṣu below', the virtuous bhikṣus privately accept the admonishment; third, 'this bhikṣu below', stubbornly clinging to one's own ideas, unwilling to listen; fourth, 'the bhikṣu below', the Sangha admonishes him to abandon it; fifth, 'if he does not abandon it below', it is summarized into an offense.
違諫。初句文二。若比丘者。出犯人即是所諫之者。二欲壞已下正明破僧諫所為事。欲壞者牒前始心方便。方便已下牒前立邪三寶。邪三寶者。是五邪法。堅持不捨者。牒前行化。謂以五法行化。於時誘諸新學。屏諫文二。初舉上呵諫中初三句勸舍。故曰彼比丘應諫乃至莫方便等。二大德應與已下。舉上呵中二四勸同水乳等。然諸大德行雖有別所稟師同學法二。理應和合而無異相。猶如水乳和合僧得。故曰同一師學。如水乳合亦可水與水合。乳與乳合。故曰如水乳合。第三句是比丘者。謂諸善比丘。如是諫時者。謂牒前諸善比丘屏諫之時。堅持不捨者。謂調達比丘執心拒勸。第四句三諫舍者。善聞則順從止不破僧。一無違諫僧殘。二無破僧蘭罪。離斯二過故曰舍者善 問。其實白四師言應三諫。乃至三諫舍者善 答。謂取白及二羯磨故曰三除。第四諫所以爾者。一犯不犯位。分前三未犯殘。說第三竟犯殘。二輕重別。前三犯蘭。第三得殘。故言三諫舍者善。以未犯殘故。據其道理實是白四。又尼律文言。犯三法應舍者。謂過三法不捨者入重位故。第五句罪自下廣解戒本五句之文。所言若比丘者。義如上釋。言欲壞者。以十八法欲壞和合僧。所言和合者。同一羯磨同一說戒。所言僧者。四比丘若五若十乃至無數。言方便
欲壞和合僧法堅持不捨。謂住十八法而破僧也。今辨十八法。一法非法。律非律。犯不犯。若輕若重。有殘無殘。粗惡非粗惡常所行非常所行。制非制。說非說。法非法者。八正真道能軌生正解。是泥洹之近因名法。調達說為非法。五邪不能軌生真解。是非法說以為法。律非律者。互說亦爾。犯不犯者。夫言發抓佛制剪剃。而今調達謂發抓有命。若不剪剃說為不犯。如心念作惡理。雖有違凡夫未制名為不犯。調達說犯。輕者遮過。調達見壞樹葉墮長壽龍中。便言殺一切草木。其罪最重。初篇業重。一形永障以見須提。初作得重罪。即言一切盜淫悉皆是輕有殘者。犯下四篇。非是永障。是其殘說為無。殘無殘者為犯初篇。永喪道牙字曰無殘說為有殘。母云。粗惡者初二篇方便身口無慚愧心犯濁重偷蘭。名為粗惡說為非粗惡。提罪已下余蘭等皆非粗惡說為粗惡。常所行者。八正五法互說制者。謂五篇禁戒金口吐宣。名之為制說為非制。非制者。即五法非佛金口名為非制。說以為制。說者四禁是重。餘篇是輕。此是正教名為說以為非說。重輕到說此非佛教名為非說。而說以為說。第二屏諫。初比丘屏諫勸不破僧。次勸和合益。故律云。應彼言。可舍此事。若用語者。若不用語。復令余比丘乃至王大臣。用語者應來諫是名屏諫
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 想要破壞僧團的和合，堅持不肯放棄（這種行為）。這就是所謂的安住於十八種法而破壞僧團。現在辨析這十八種法：法與非法，律與非律，犯與不犯，輕與重，有殘與無殘，粗惡與非粗惡，常所行與非常所行，制與非制，說與非說。 『法與非法』：八正道（正見、正思惟、正語、正業、正命、正精進、正念、正定）能夠引導眾生產生正確的理解，是涅槃的近因，這叫做『法』。提婆達多（Devadatta）卻說這是『非法』。五邪（邪見、邪思惟、邪語、邪業、邪命）不能引導眾生產生正確的理解，這是『非法』，（提婆達多）卻說這是『法』。 『律與非律』：互相顛倒地說也是如此。 『犯與不犯』：佛陀制定了比丘應該剃除鬚髮，而現在提婆達多認為鬚髮是有生命的，如果不剃除鬚髮，就說這是『不犯』。例如，心中想做惡事，道理上雖然違背了（戒律），但在凡夫還沒有制定（戒律）時，這叫做『不犯』，提婆達多卻說這是『犯』。 『輕與重』：遮罪是輕罪。提婆達多看見枯樹葉掉落在長壽龍中，就說這是殺害一切草木，罪過最重。初篇罪業重，一生永遠被障礙，就像見到須提（Suddhi）一樣。初犯就得到重罪，就說一切盜淫都是輕罪。 『有殘與無殘』：犯了下四篇（僧殘罪以下），不是永遠被障礙，這是『有殘』，（提婆達多）卻說這是『無殘』。『無殘與有殘』：犯了初篇（波羅夷罪），永遠喪失道芽，這叫做『無殘』，（提婆達多）卻說這是『有殘』。 『粗惡與非粗惡』：初二篇（波羅夷、僧殘）以方便的身口，沒有慚愧心，犯下污濁的重罪（偷蘭遮），這叫做『粗惡』，（提婆達多）卻說這是『非粗惡』。提罪以下的其餘罪（偷蘭遮等）都不是粗惡，（提婆達多）卻說這是『粗惡』。 『常所行與非常所行』：八正道與五邪互相顛倒地說。 『制與非制』：佛陀金口宣說的五篇禁戒，這叫做『制』，（提婆達多）卻說這是『非制』。五法不是佛陀金口所說，這叫做『非制』，（提婆達多）卻說這是『制』。 『說與非說』：四禁（波羅夷罪）是重罪，其餘篇（僧殘等）是輕罪，這是正教，這叫做『說』，（提婆達多）卻說這是『非說』。把重罪說成輕罪，這不是佛教，這叫做『非說』，（提婆達多）卻說這是『說』。 第二是屏諫。最初比丘私下勸諫，勸說不要破壞僧團。其次勸說和合有益。所以律中說：『應該對他說，可以捨棄這件事。』如果（勸諫者）使用言語，或者不使用言語，再讓其他比丘乃至國王大臣，使用言語前來勸諫，這叫做屏諫。
【English Translation】 English version Desiring to destroy the harmony of the Sangha (community of monks) and stubbornly refusing to abandon this intention. This is what is meant by abiding in the eighteen dharmas and destroying the Sangha. Now, let's distinguish these eighteen dharmas: Dharma and non-Dharma, Vinaya and non-Vinaya, offense and non-offense, light and heavy, with remainder and without remainder, coarse and non-coarse, constantly practiced and not constantly practiced, prescribed and not prescribed, spoken and not spoken. 『Dharma and non-Dharma』: The Eightfold Noble Path (Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration) can guide beings to generate correct understanding and is the near cause of Nirvana (liberation), this is called 『Dharma』. Devadatta (a cousin of the Buddha and a disruptive monk) says it is 『non-Dharma』. The five wrongdoings (wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood) cannot guide beings to generate correct understanding, this is 『non-Dharma』, but (Devadatta) says it is 『Dharma』. 『Vinaya and non-Vinaya』: Saying the opposite is also the case. 『Offense and non-offense』: The Buddha established that monks should shave their beards and hair, but now Devadatta believes that beards and hair have life, and if they are not shaved, he says it is 『non-offense』. For example, if one intends to do evil in their mind, although it violates the (precepts) in principle, it is called 『non-offense』 when the common people have not yet established (the precepts), but Devadatta says it is 『offense』. 『Light and heavy』: A minor transgression is a light offense. Devadatta saw dry leaves falling into the Long Life Dragon and said it was killing all plants and trees, the most serious offense. The initial chapter's karma is heavy, and one is permanently obstructed for life, just like seeing Suddhi (purity). Committing a heavy offense at the beginning, he says that all theft and adultery are light offenses. 『With remainder and without remainder』: Committing the last four sections (offenses below Sanghavasesa) is not a permanent obstruction, this is 『with remainder』, but (Devadatta) says it is 『without remainder』. 『Without remainder and with remainder』: Committing the first section (Parajika offense), one permanently loses the sprout of the path, this is called 『without remainder』, but (Devadatta) says it is 『with remainder』. 『Coarse and non-coarse』: The first two sections (Parajika, Sanghavasesa) use expedient body and speech, without a sense of shame, committing the defiled heavy offense (Thullanacca), this is called 『coarse』, but (Devadatta) says it is 『non-coarse』. The remaining offenses below the Thefts (Thullanacca, etc.) are not coarse, but (Devadatta) says they are 『coarse』. 『Constantly practiced and not constantly practiced』: The Eightfold Noble Path and the five wrongdoings are said in reverse. 『Prescribed and not prescribed』: The five sections of prohibitions spoken by the Buddha's golden mouth, this is called 『prescribed』, but (Devadatta) says it is 『not prescribed』. The five dharmas are not spoken by the Buddha's golden mouth, this is called 『not prescribed』, but (Devadatta) says it is 『prescribed』. 『Spoken and not spoken』: The four prohibitions (Parajika offenses) are heavy offenses, and the remaining sections (Sanghavasesa, etc.) are light offenses, this is the correct teaching, this is called 『spoken』, but (Devadatta) says it is 『not spoken』. Saying that heavy offenses are light offenses, this is not Buddhism, this is called 『not spoken』, but (Devadatta) says it is 『spoken』. The second is private admonishment. Initially, the monks privately admonish, advising not to destroy the Sangha. Secondly, they advise that harmony is beneficial. Therefore, the Vinaya (monastic code) says: 『One should say to him, you can abandon this matter.』 If (the admonisher) uses words, or does not use words, then let other monks, even the king and ministers, come to admonish using words, this is called private admonishment.
。第三句若不用語者。此拒屏諫 問。屏諫竟得何罪 答。此但吉羅。以無眾法故。又所諫人破事未成。違諫未滿要待事成覽吉。成提。第四句眾諫如前文。第五若不捨者下結罪。于中輕重有二。一自作違諫輕重。二教人輕重。自違諫中復二。初未作諫前但有逆方便吉羅。第二作諫時三羯磨竟犯殘。若白二羯磨竟舍犯三蘭。白一竟舍二蘭。白竟舍一蘭 問。第三竟時得殘者。為攬因成果不 答。如五分藉前方便業思勢分相資。令後心之業次第增著。得僧殘時猶有蘭吉。別須懺悔以其業思輕重不同感果有異。故不相成。四分律明但使作惡步步有罪。如生福文證步步有福。多論如欲盜殺步步偷蘭。今所言二羯磨竟三偷蘭。明因中有罪。然得果之時攬因成果。故律云。白未竟有其吉羅。作白竟直結偷蘭。不言別有吉羅可懺。乃至三羯磨竟成殘時。不言別有三蘭須懺。故知因中雖有罪。以以因成果。第二教人文三。一比丘教。二尼教。三下眾教。不犯中律云。初語時舍通開三種。謂不犯吉羅蘭殘等三罪文。若破惡友惡知識。及二人三人慾作非法羯磨。或為僧塔和上阇利知親友等作損減作無住處。若破是人者不犯。
助破違諫戒第十一 制意。同前眾僧作法。諫調達時。四伴影響助成破僧。僧尋設諫拒而不受。故曰助破違
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：第三句如果不用語言表達，這就是拒絕接受勸諫。問：拒絕接受勸諫究竟會得到什麼罪過？答：這只是突吉羅（Dukkata，輕罪），因為沒有眾法（Sanghakamma，僧團羯磨）的緣故。而且被勸諫的人破壞事情尚未完成，違背勸諫未滿，要等到事情完成才判吉羅（Dukkata，輕罪）。完成則判提舍尼（Tissaka，悔過罪）。第四句，眾人勸諫如同前文所述。第五句，如果不捨棄（惡行），下面總結罪過。其中輕重有兩種：一是自己違背勸諫的輕重，二是教唆他人違背的輕重。自己違背勸諫中又分兩種：一是未作勸諫前，但有違逆的方便，判突吉羅（Dukkata，輕罪）；二是作勸諫時，三羯磨（Tikamma，三次羯磨）完畢，犯僧殘（Sanghadisesa，僧殘罪）。如果白二羯磨（Dutiyakamma，第二次羯磨）完畢捨棄，犯三偷蘭遮（Thullaccaya，粗罪）。白一羯磨（Pathamakamma，第一次羯磨）完畢捨棄，犯二偷蘭遮（Thullaccaya，粗罪）。白（宣佈）完畢捨棄，犯一偷蘭遮（Thullaccaya，粗罪）。問：第三羯磨完畢時得到僧殘（Sanghadisesa，僧殘罪），是包括因地和果地嗎？答：如同五分律所說，憑藉之前的方便業（Upayakamma，方便業）、思業（Cetanakamma，思業）的勢力互相資助，使後面的心之業（Cittakamma，心業）次第增長執著。得到僧殘（Sanghadisesa，僧殘罪）時，還有偷蘭遮（Thullaccaya，粗罪）和突吉羅（Dukkata，輕罪）。另外需要懺悔，因為其業思（Kamma cetana，業思）輕重不同，感得的果報也有差異，所以不相成。四分律明確說明，只要作惡，步步都有罪。如同產生福報的文證，步步都有福報。多論如同想要盜竊殺人，步步偷蘭遮（Thullaccaya，粗罪）。現在所說二羯磨（Dutiyakamma，第二次羯磨）完畢三偷蘭遮（Thullaccaya，粗罪），說明因地中有罪。然而得到果報的時候，包括因地和果地。所以律中說，白（宣佈）未完畢，有突吉羅（Dukkata，輕罪）。作白（宣佈）完畢，直接判偷蘭遮（Thullaccaya，粗罪），不另外說有突吉羅（Dukkata，輕罪）可以懺悔。乃至三羯磨（Tikamma，三次羯磨）完畢成為僧殘（Sanghadisesa，僧殘罪）時，不另外說有三偷蘭遮（Thullaccaya，粗罪）需要懺悔。所以知道因地中雖然有罪，是因為以因成果。第二，教唆他人，分為三種：一，比丘教唆；二，比丘尼教唆；三，下眾教唆。不犯中律說，初次說話時捨棄，通開三種，即不犯突吉羅（Dukkata，輕罪）、偷蘭遮（Thullaccaya，粗罪）、僧殘（Sanghadisesa，僧殘罪）等三種罪過。如果破壞惡友、惡知識，以及二人三人想要作非法羯磨（Akammakamma，非法羯磨），或者為僧、塔、和尚（Upajjhaya，親教師）、阇梨（Acariya，阿阇梨）、知親友等作損害、作無住處，如果破壞這些人，不犯戒。 助破違諫戒第十一，制戒的用意：如同先前眾僧作法，勸諫提婆達多（Devadatta，佛陀的堂弟）時，四伴（Sihakumara，師子童子；Gaggara，迦伽羅；Alavaka，阿羅婆迦；Vakkula，薄拘羅）影響助成破僧。僧團隨即設立勸諫，（提婆達多）拒絕而不接受，所以說助破違諫。
【English Translation】 English version: The third sentence, if one does not use language to express it, this is rejecting admonishment. Question: What offense does rejecting admonishment ultimately incur? Answer: This is only a Dukkata (misdeed), because there is no Sanghakamma (act of the Sangha). Moreover, the person being admonished has not completed the act of destruction, and the violation of admonishment is not yet complete; one must wait until the act is completed to judge a Dukkata (misdeed). Completion results in a Tissaka (expiation). The fourth sentence, the admonishment of the assembly is as described in the previous text. The fifth sentence, if one does not abandon (the evil deed), the following concludes the offense. Among them, there are two degrees of severity: first, the severity of one's own violation of admonishment; second, the severity of instigating others to violate it. Within one's own violation of admonishment, there are again two types: first, before the admonishment is made, there is only the expedient of opposition, judged as a Dukkata (misdeed); second, when the admonishment is made, after the three Kamma (three acts) are completed, one commits a Sanghadisesa (formal meeting offense). If one abandons after the white second Kamma (second act of declaration) is completed, one commits three Thullaccaya (grave offenses). If one abandons after the white first Kamma (first act of declaration) is completed, one commits two Thullaccaya (grave offenses). If one abandons after the white (declaration) is completed, one commits one Thullaccaya (grave offense). Question: When one obtains a Sanghadisesa (formal meeting offense) upon the completion of the third Kamma (third act), does it encompass both the cause and the effect? Answer: As the five-part Vinaya states, relying on the power of the previous expedient Kamma (preparatory action), intentional Kamma (volitional action), the power of thought mutually assist each other, causing the subsequent mental Kamma (mental action) to gradually increase and become attached. When one obtains a Sanghadisesa (formal meeting offense), there are still Thullaccaya (grave offenses) and Dukkata (misdeed). Separate repentance is necessary because the severity of the intentional thought differs, and the resulting consequences also differ, so they do not combine. The four-part Vinaya clearly states that as long as one commits evil, there is offense at every step. Just as the textual evidence for generating merit states that there is merit at every step. The Mahavibhasa states that if one intends to steal or kill, there is Thullaccaya (grave offense) at every step. What is now said about three Thullaccaya (grave offenses) upon the completion of the second Kamma (second act of declaration) indicates that there is offense in the causal stage. However, when one obtains the result, it includes both the cause and the effect. Therefore, the Vinaya states that before the white (declaration) is completed, there is a Dukkata (misdeed). Upon completing the white (declaration), one directly judges a Thullaccaya (grave offense), without separately stating that there is a Dukkata (misdeed) that can be repented. Even when one becomes a Sanghadisesa (formal meeting offense) upon the completion of the three Kamma (three acts), one does not separately state that there are three Thullaccaya (grave offenses) that need to be repented. Therefore, it is known that although there is offense in the causal stage, it is because the result is based on the cause. Second, instigating others is divided into three types: first, instigation by a Bhikkhu (monk); second, instigation by a Bhikkhuni (nun); third, instigation by the lower assembly. The Vinaya on non-offenses states that abandoning at the first utterance generally opens up three types, that is, not committing the three offenses of Dukkata (misdeed), Thullaccaya (grave offense), and Sanghadisesa (formal meeting offense). If one destroys evil friends, evil acquaintances, or two or three people who intend to perform an illegal Kamma (unlawful act), or causes harm or homelessness to the Sangha, stupa, Upajjhaya (preceptor), Acariya (teacher), known relatives, etc., if one destroys these people, one does not violate the precepts. The eleventh precept on assisting in the destruction of violating admonishment, the intention of establishing the precept: As in the previous case of the Sangha performing the act, when admonishing Devadatta (Buddha's cousin), the four companions (Sihakumara, Gaggara, Alavaka, Vakkula) influenced and assisted in causing the schism in the Sangha. The Sangha immediately established admonishment, (Devadatta) refused and did not accept it, therefore it is said to assist in the destruction of violating admonishment.
諫戒 別緣有六。一調達作破僧事。二如法設諫。三遮僧設諫助成破僧。四僧眾如法諫此影助。五拒而不從。六羯磨竟即犯 四闕緣。比說可知。已下正明戒本。此戒因提婆達故執五法。眾僧諫時伴償比丘助破諫僧。佛因制戒。
若比丘有餘伴儻。若一二三乃至無數。彼比丘語是大德。莫諫此比丘。此比丘是法語比丘律語比丘。此比丘所說我等喜樂。此比丘所說我等忍可。彼比丘言。大德莫作是說。言此比丘是法語比丘。律語比丘。此比丘所說我等喜樂。此比丘所說我等忍可。然此比丘非法語比丘。非律語比丘。大德莫壞和合僧。汝等當樂欲壞和合僧大德與僧和合歡喜不諍。同一師學如水乳合。于佛法中有增益安樂住。是比丘如是諫時。堅持不捨。彼比丘應三諫舍是事故。乃至三諫舍者善。不捨者僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足戒本五句成就。一諫所違事。二彼比丘下屏諫方法。三是比丘下拒諫。四僧眾設諫。五不捨者結罪。初諫所為事文三。一總明其助破僧者。二伴儻之數。三正明助破文兩。一勸僧莫諫調達。二此比丘下釋勸意所以。我今勸僧莫諫者。以人如法。是故初二句人。如此提婆達發言有軌。故稱法語復能滅惡生善。故曰律語。次二句法。是故然令我等慶遇所聞。故曰喜樂。稱合道理安心從順。是故忍可。二屏
諫文四。一領前諫辭遮其影助。二然此已下人法但非顯影助非理。大德莫欲已下是非相對勸舍樂正。是諫辭所諫舍助順勸崇乳。四大德勸和有益。釋其勸意。第三句是比丘者。謂諸善比丘。如是諫時者。諫牒前諸善比丘。屏諫之時堅持不捨者。謂助破比丘執心拒勸。第四句三諫者舍善。聞即順從止不助破僧。一無違諫僧殘。二無助破僧蘭雜。斯二過故曰舍者善。第五句結罪可知此廣釋初句三。一人若比丘時破僧人。二伴儻之數四人。若過有二從順。一法順從。二衣食順從。無共興謀名為伴儻。要四人已上。始成邪僧。若佐成群侶名助伴儻。此二伴儻皆須設諫。余義如上所明。比類可知。
謗僧違諫戒第十二 一制意。眾僧自理諫彼是非理分固執拒勸。三諫不捨故結罪 二釋名。倚傍六人同作四人。不治跡涉愛憎故名曰謗。固執不捨名曰違諫。故曰也 三具緣。通緣如上。別緣有七。一作污家惡行。二心無改悔。三作法治殯。四非理謗僧。五如法設諫。六拒面不從。七三羯磨便犯 四闕緣。若闕初緣全無輕重。直有污家等罪。闕三闕四同於闕二闕五。謂作七非容得七位闌。然當位中闕緣或一二三蘭。諸諫闕如法諫緣。準此闕六七同五。已下正明戒本。此戒因阿濕婆等於䩭連聚落起過故佛制戒。
若比丘依聚
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：諫文四：第一，先前已經勸諫過，現在又遮蔽（破僧者的）影子，幫助（破僧者）。第二，然而，以下所說的是人法，但並非顯而易見的幫助，也並非合乎道理。大德們不要再這樣了，以下所說的是非相對，勸導捨棄樂於不正的行為。這是諫辭所要諫止的，捨棄幫助（破僧者），順從勸導，崇尚（如）乳（般的正法）。四大德勸導和合是有益的。解釋其勸導的意義。第三句『是比丘者』，指的是諸位善良的比丘。『如是諫時者』，指的是諫書呈給前面諸位善良的比丘。『屏諫之時堅持不捨者』，指的是幫助破僧的比丘執迷不悟，拒絕勸導。第四句『三諫者舍善』，（指被諫者）聽聞勸諫后立即順從，停止幫助破僧。一，沒有違背諫僧的僧殘罪；二，沒有幫助破僧，使僧團混亂雜亂。因為這兩個過失，所以說『舍者善』。第五句，總結罪行，可以知道，這是廣泛地解釋第一句。一，如果有人在比丘時期破壞僧團；二，同伴的數目是四人。如果超過四人，有兩種順從：一，在法上順從；二，在衣食上順從。沒有共同謀劃，稱為同伴。一定要四人以上，才能形成邪惡的僧團。如果幫助形成群體，稱為助伴。這兩種同伴都需要進行勸諫。其餘的意義如上面所說明的，可以類比得知。 謗僧違諫戒第十二：一，制定戒律的意圖。眾僧自己處理，勸諫那些不合道理的人，（如果他們）固執地拒絕勸導，經過三次勸諫仍然不捨棄，因此結罪。二，解釋名稱。依靠、依傍六人共同作惡，或者四人（作惡）。不追究（作惡的）痕跡，涉及愛憎，所以稱為『謗』。固執不捨棄（錯誤），稱為『違諫』。所以說『也』。三，具足的因緣。共同的因緣如上所述。特別的因緣有七種：一，做出玷污僧家的惡行；二，內心沒有悔改；三，做出依法懲治的行為；四，用不合道理的方式誹謗僧團；五，如法地進行勸諫；六，當面拒絕不聽從；七，經過三次羯磨（羯磨：僧團會議），就觸犯戒律。四，缺失的因緣。如果缺失第一個因緣，完全沒有輕重罪，只有玷污僧家等的罪過。缺失第三個或第四個因緣，等同於缺失第二個因緣。說的是做出七種非法行為，容許七種位置的阻攔。然而，在當位中，缺失一個、兩個或三個因緣。諸位勸諫者缺失如法的勸諫因緣，按照這個準則，缺失第六個或第七個因緣，等同於缺失第五個因緣。以下正式說明戒本。這條戒律是因為阿濕婆（Asvaka）等人于䩭連聚落（Kitagiri）發生過失，所以佛陀制定戒律。 若比丘依聚
【English Translation】 English version: Section 4 of Admonitions: First, having previously admonished, now obscuring the shadow (of the Sangha-breaker) and assisting (the Sangha-breaker). Second, however, what follows concerns human laws, but is neither obvious assistance nor reasonable. Great Virtues, do not continue in this way; what follows concerns relative right and wrong, urging the abandonment of delighting in improper conduct. This is what the admonition seeks to stop: abandoning assistance (to the Sangha-breaker), complying with admonition, and venerating (the Dharma) like milk. The Four Great Virtues encourage harmony, which is beneficial. Explaining the meaning of this encouragement. The third sentence, 'Those who are Bhikkhus' (Bhikkhus: Buddhist monks), refers to the virtuous Bhikkhus. 'When admonishing in this way' refers to the admonition presented to the aforementioned virtuous Bhikkhus. 'Those who persist in not abandoning during private admonition' refers to the Bhikkhus who assist in breaking the Sangha, stubbornly refusing admonition. The fourth sentence, 'Those who abandon goodness after three admonitions,' (refers to those who) immediately comply upon hearing the admonition, ceasing to assist in breaking the Sangha. One, there is no Sanghavasesa (Sanghavasesa: a type of serious offense) for violating the admonition of the Sangha; two, there is no assisting in breaking the Sangha, causing confusion and disorder in the Sangha. Because of these two faults, it is said that 'those who abandon are good.' The fifth sentence, summarizing the offenses, makes it clear that this is a broad explanation of the first sentence. One, if someone breaks the Sangha while being a Bhikkhu; two, the number of companions is four. If it exceeds four, there are two types of compliance: one, compliance in Dharma; two, compliance in clothing and food. Without common planning, they are called companions. It must be four or more people to form an evil Sangha. If they help form a group, they are called assistant companions. Both of these types of companions need to be admonished. The remaining meanings are as explained above and can be understood by analogy. The Twelfth Precept: Accusation of the Sangha and Disobeying Admonition: One, the intention of establishing the precept. The Sangha handles matters themselves, admonishing those who are unreasonable. (If they) stubbornly refuse admonition, and after three admonitions still do not abandon (their ways), therefore, an offense is incurred. Two, explaining the name. Relying on, or depending on, six people to commit evil together, or four people (committing evil). Not investigating (the traces of) evil deeds, involving love and hatred, therefore it is called 'accusation.' Stubbornly not abandoning (the error) is called 'disobeying admonition.' Therefore, it is said 'also.' Three, complete conditions. Common conditions are as mentioned above. Special conditions are seven: one, committing evil deeds that defile the Sangha; two, having no remorse in the heart; three, performing acts of legal punishment; four, slandering the Sangha in an unreasonable way; five, admonishing according to the Dharma; six, refusing to listen face-to-face; seven, after three Kammavācanā (Kammavācanā: formal acts of the Sangha), the precept is violated. Four, missing conditions. If the first condition is missing, there is no light or heavy offense at all, only the offense of defiling the Sangha, etc. Missing the third or fourth condition is equivalent to missing the second condition. It is said that committing seven illegal acts allows for obstruction in seven positions. However, in the current position, one, two, or three conditions may be missing. If the admonishers lack the conditions for proper admonition, according to this principle, missing the sixth or seventh condition is equivalent to missing the fifth condition. The following formally explains the Prātimokṣa (Prātimokṣa: the code of monastic rules). This precept was established by the Buddha because Asvaka (Asvaka) and others committed offenses in Kitagiri (Kitagiri). If a Bhikkhu relies on a village
落若城邑住。污他家行惡行污他家亦見亦聞行惡行亦見亦聞。諸比丘當語是比丘言。大德污他家行惡行污他家亦見亦聞。大德汝污他家行惡行今可遠此聚落去不須住此是比丘語彼比丘作是語。大德諸比丘有愛有恚有怖有癡有如是同罪比丘有驅者。諸比丘報大德莫作是語。有愛有恚有怖有癡有如是同罪比丘有驅者有不驅者。而諸比丘不愛不恚不怖不癡。大德污他家行惡行污他家亦見亦聞行惡行亦見亦聞之比丘如是諫時堅持不捨。彼比丘應再三諫舍此事故。乃至三諫舍者善。不捨者僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足文有五句。一非理傍僧諫所為事。二從諸比丘下自理屏諫。三是比丘下拒屏諫。四彼比丘下僧諫。五若不捨下結違諫罪。初文有四一犯人。二依聚若下正明起過自他俱壞。三諸比丘下牒過驅儐。四是比丘下非理傍僧。傍僧辭者。謂不治違路者名有愛。懼於走者名有怖。謂僧嗔我二人名有恚。此三皆非解心所為。不達治罰之方名有癡。如是同罪下顯已謗意。二屏諫文三。一諫莫謗僧故曰莫作是語等。二而諸比丘下得僧自雪已心。故曰而諸比丘不愛等路。懺已無罪可治名不愛。走人不現復不得治名不怖。汝等二人進不懺悔退不巡走。身過俱現。理合治罰名不恚。善達治儐故名不癡。三大德已下推過屬彼故曰大德污他家等。三是比丘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 住在村鎮中，他玷污他人家庭，做惡劣的行為，玷污他人家庭，（人們）也看見也聽見他做惡劣的行為，也看見也聽見。（此時）眾比丘應當對比丘說：『大德，你玷污他人家庭，做惡劣的行為，玷污他人家庭，（人們）也看見也聽見你做惡劣的行為，也看見也聽見。大德，你玷污他人家庭，做惡劣的行為，現在可以遠離這個村落，不必住在這裡。』 這個比丘對比丘這樣說：『大德，眾比丘有愛、有恨、有害怕、有愚癡，有像這樣同樣罪過的比丘，（所以）有驅逐（我的）。』眾比丘回答：『大德，不要這樣說。有愛、有恨、有害怕、有愚癡，有像這樣同樣罪過的比丘，有驅逐的，有不驅逐的。而且眾比丘不愛、不恨、不害怕、不愚癡。』 『大德，玷污他人家庭，做惡劣的行為，玷污他人家庭，（人們）也看見也聽見他做惡劣的行為，也看見也聽見的比丘，像這樣勸諫時，堅持不捨棄（惡行）。』這個比丘應該再三勸諫，捨棄這件事。乃至三次勸諫，捨棄（惡行）就好。不捨棄的，犯僧伽婆尸沙（saṃghāvaśeṣa，僧殘罪）。 這個滿足文有五句：一，不合道理地偏袒僧團，勸諫所做的事。二，從眾比丘以下，自己私下勸諫。三，這個比丘以下，拒絕私下勸諫。四，這個比丘以下，僧團勸諫。五，若不捨棄以下，判決違背勸諫的罪過。 初文有四：一，犯人。二，依聚落以下，正式說明發起過失，自己和他人一起敗壞。三，眾比丘以下，列舉過失，驅逐擯斥。四，這個比丘以下，不合道理地偏袒僧團。偏袒僧團的言辭是：不懲治違背戒律的人，叫做有愛。害怕逃走的人，叫做有怖。說僧團會嗔恨我們兩個人，叫做有恨。這三種都不是以理解的心所做。不通達懲治的方法，叫做有癡。像這樣同樣罪過以下，顯示已經誹謗的意思。 二，私下勸諫文有三：一，勸諫不要誹謗僧團，所以說『不要這樣說』等。二，而且眾比丘以下，讓僧團自己表白心跡，所以說『而且眾比丘不愛』等。懺悔后沒有罪可以懲治，叫做不愛。逃走的人不出現，又不能懲治，叫做不怖。你們兩個人進不懺悔，退不巡走，身口意三業的過失都已顯現，理應懲治，叫做不恨。善於通達懲治擯斥的方法，叫做不癡。三，大德以下，把過失推到他們身上，所以說『大德，你玷污他人家庭』等。三，這個比丘
【English Translation】 English version Dwelling in a town, he defiles other families, committing evil deeds, defiling other families, (people) both see and hear him committing evil deeds, both see and hear. The Bhikkhus should say to this Bhikkhu: 'Venerable, you defile other families, committing evil deeds, defiling other families, (people) both see and hear you committing evil deeds, both see and hear. Venerable, you defile other families, committing evil deeds, now you should leave this town and not stay here.' This Bhikkhu says to the Bhikkhus: 'Venerable, the Bhikkhus have love, hatred, fear, and delusion, and there are Bhikkhus with the same offenses (so there are those who) expel (me).' The Bhikkhus reply: 'Venerable, do not say this. There are those who have love, hatred, fear, and delusion, and there are Bhikkhus with the same offenses, some are expelled, and some are not expelled. Moreover, the Bhikkhus do not have love, hatred, fear, or delusion.' 'Venerable, a Bhikkhu who defiles other families, committing evil deeds, defiling other families, (people) both see and hear him committing evil deeds, both see and hear, when advised in this way, persists and does not abandon (the evil deeds).' This Bhikkhu should be advised again and again to abandon this matter. Up to three times of advising, it is good if he abandons (the evil deeds). If he does not abandon, he commits a Saṃghāvaśeṣa (僧殘罪, a formal meeting of the Sangha is required for absolution). This complete text has five sentences: First, unreasonably siding with the Sangha (僧團, monastic community), advising on the matter being done. Second, from the Bhikkhus downwards, privately advising oneself. Third, from this Bhikkhu downwards, rejecting private advice. Fourth, from this Bhikkhu downwards, the Sangha advises. Fifth, if he does not abandon downwards, judging the offense of disobeying the advice. The initial text has four parts: First, the offender. Second, based on the town downwards, formally explaining the initiation of the fault, ruining both oneself and others. Third, the Bhikkhus downwards, listing the faults, expelling and banishing. Fourth, this Bhikkhu downwards, unreasonably siding with the Sangha. The words of siding with the Sangha are: not punishing those who violate the precepts is called having love. Fearing those who run away is called having fear. Saying that the Sangha will be angry with the two of us is called having hatred. These three are not done with understanding. Not understanding the method of punishment is called having delusion. Like this, the same offense downwards shows the meaning of already slandering. Second, the private advice text has three parts: First, advising not to slander the Sangha, so it says 'Do not say this' etc. Second, moreover, the Bhikkhus downwards, letting the Sangha explain their intentions, so it says 'Moreover, the Bhikkhus do not have love' etc. After repentance, there is no offense that can be punished, which is called not having love. The person who ran away does not appear, and cannot be punished, which is called not having fear. The two of you do not repent when advancing, and do not patrol when retreating, the faults of body, speech, and mind are all revealed, it is reasonable to punish, which is called not having hatred. Being good at understanding the method of punishing and banishing is called not having delusion. Third, Venerable downwards, pushing the fault onto them, so it says 'Venerable, you defile other families' etc. Third, this Bhikkhu
者為諸善比丘。如是諫時者。謂牒前諸善比丘。屏諫之時堅持不捨者。謂能謗比丘執心拒勸。四三諫舍者善。聞則從順止不謗僧。離斯重過故曰舍者善。五結罪。自下廣釋文義。言若比丘者。義如釋。言聚落者。村有四種。如上。若城邑者。屬王處也。言污他家者。有男有女。名之曰家。污家有四。一總舉四數。二別釋。三總結。言總舉者。污家有四。一依家污家。一家得物又與一家。所得物處聞之不喜。所與物處思當報恩。即作是言。有與我者。我當報之。若不與我。我何故與。二者依利養污家。如法得利。及缽中余或與一居士。得者生念。當報其恩。若不與我。我何故與。三者依親友污家。若比丘依王大臣或為一居士。或不為一居士。便生念言。其為我者我當供養。不為我者我不供養。四者依僧伽藍污家。若比丘取僧華果與一居士。不與一居士。彼有德者思當供養。若不與者我不供養。以此四事故污家名污他家。言行惡行者。彼比丘作如是等非法行也。自種花樹。自溉灌。自摘花。自作鬘。以線貫系。自持與人。若復教人作如上事。村有婦女。同牀坐起。同器飲食。言語戲笑。或自歌舞倡伎。或他作己唱和。或作俳說。或繟鼓簧吹唄作眾鳥鳴。或走或揚跛行。或嘯或自作弄身。或受戲笑是。是名行惡行。言污他家
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這些是善良的比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教僧侶）。像這樣勸諫時，是指稟告之前的那些善良比丘。在私下勸諫時堅持不放棄，是指能夠誹謗比丘，並且執意拒絕勸告。經過三四次勸諫后，如果他能放棄錯誤是最好的。如果他聽從勸告，停止誹謗僧團，遠離這種嚴重的過錯，所以說『舍者善』。第五是結罪。 下面廣泛地解釋文義。『若比丘者』，意義如前解釋。『言聚落者』，村莊有四種，如前所述。『若城邑者』，是指屬於國王管轄的地方。『言污他家者』，有男有女，稱之為家。玷污他人家庭有四種情況：一是總括四種情況，二是分別解釋，三是總結。 『言總舉者，污家有四』：第一種是依靠家庭玷污家庭。一家從另一家得到財物，又把財物給另一家。得到財物的一家聽說后不高興，給予財物的一家則想著要報恩。於是就說，『有給我東西的，我應當報答他。如果不給我東西，我為什麼要給他？』第二種是依靠利養玷污家庭。如法得到的利益，以及缽中的剩餘食物，或者給一位居士。得到的人心生念頭，應當報答他的恩情。如果不給我，我為什麼要給他？ 第三種是依靠親友玷污家庭。如果比丘依靠國王、大臣，或者為一位居士，或者不為一位居士，就心生念頭說，『為我的人，我應當供養。不為我的人，我不供養。』第四種是依靠僧伽藍（Sangharama，僧院）玷污家庭。如果比丘拿僧院的花果給一位居士，不給另一位居士。那些有德行的人想著應當供養，如果不給，我就不供養。因為這四種緣故，玷污家庭，稱為玷污他人家庭。 『言行惡行者』，是指那位比丘做出像這樣等等的非法行為。自己種植花樹，自己澆灌，自己採摘花朵，自己製作花環，用線穿起來，自己拿著送給別人。或者教別人做像上面一樣的事情。在村莊里，與婦女同床坐臥，同器飲食，言語戲笑。或者自己唱歌跳舞，或者別人表演自己唱和。或者做滑稽的表演，或者吹奏樂器，或者模仿各種鳥的叫聲。或者跑，或者揚起跛腳走路，或者吹口哨，或者自己做弄身體，或者接受戲笑。這些都叫做『行惡行』。 『言污他家』
【English Translation】 English version: These are virtuous Bhikkhus (Buddhist monks). When admonishing in this way, it refers to reporting to the virtuous Bhikkhus mentioned earlier. Persisting without abandoning during private admonishment refers to being able to slander a Bhikkhu and stubbornly rejecting advice. If, after three or four admonishments, he can abandon his errors, that is best. If he listens to the advice, stops slandering the Sangha (monastic community), and stays away from such serious faults, it is said that 'abandoning is good'. Fifth is concluding the offense. Below is a broad explanation of the meaning of the text. 'If a Bhikkhu' has the same meaning as explained before. 'Speaking of settlements', there are four types of villages, as mentioned before. 'If a city' refers to a place under the jurisdiction of a king. 'Speaking of defiling another's family', having men and women is called a family. There are four situations of defiling another's family: first, a summary of the four situations; second, separate explanations; and third, a conclusion. 'Speaking of the summary, there are four ways to defile a family': The first is defiling a family by relying on another family. One family receives goods from another family and then gives the goods to another family. The family that received the goods is unhappy upon hearing this, while the family that gave the goods thinks about repaying the favor. So they say, 'If someone gives me something, I should repay them. If they don't give me anything, why should I give to them?' The second is defiling a family by relying on offerings. Righteously obtained benefits, as well as leftovers in the bowl, or giving them to a layperson. The person who receives them thinks that they should repay the kindness. If they don't give to me, why should I give to them? The third is defiling a family by relying on relatives and friends. If a Bhikkhu relies on a king, minister, or is for a layperson, or is not for a layperson, they think, 'Those who are for me, I should make offerings to. Those who are not for me, I will not make offerings to.' The fourth is defiling a family by relying on the Sangharama (monastery). If a Bhikkhu takes flowers and fruits from the monastery and gives them to one layperson but not to another. Those who are virtuous think that they should make offerings, but if they don't give to me, I will not make offerings. Because of these four reasons, defiling a family is called defiling another's family. 'Speaking of committing evil deeds' refers to that Bhikkhu committing such illegal acts. Planting flower trees themselves, watering them themselves, picking flowers themselves, making garlands themselves, stringing them with thread, and holding them to give to others themselves. Or teaching others to do things like the above. In the village, sitting and lying in the same bed with women, eating and drinking from the same utensils, talking and laughing. Or singing and dancing themselves, or others performing and they singing along. Or doing comical performances, or playing musical instruments, or imitating the sounds of various birds. Or running, or raising and walking with a limp, or whistling, or making fun of themselves, or accepting laughter. These are all called 'committing evil deeds'. 'Speaking of defiling another's family'
行惡行亦見亦聞者。律云。時有比丘。彼村止宿。著衣持缽入村乞食。法服齊整行去庠序。低目而行。既不顧視亦不言笑。不相周接善言問訊。我等不應與其飲食。不如阿濕婆等與人周接及上所言。應與供養。時彼乞食困乃得之。往至佛所具白佛言。令比丘往村驅出此前是依聚落起過。自他俱損。已下明牒過驅儐文。從諸比丘當語至不須住此已來是驅儐文。已下非理謗僧辭。從是比丘語彼有驅不驅者。其謗僧意。倚傍六人同作。祇云。三聞達多摩醯沙達多走至王道聚落。迦留陀夷闡陀逆路懺悔。此四不治跡涉。愛憎故起謗。謂不治逆路者名有愛。懼於走者名有怖。謂僧嗔我二人名有畏。此三皆非解心所為。不達治罰之方名有癡。顯已謗意故曰有驅者有不驅者。自下明屏諫文。所言大德莫作是語者。諫莫謗僧故曰莫作是語乃至有驅者有不驅者。已下僧自雪己心。故曰諸比丘不愛不恚不怖不癡。逆路懺已無罪可名治曰不愛。走人不現復不得治名曰不怖。汝等二人進不懺悔退不逃走。身過俱理合治罰名不恚。善達治儐故名不癡。已下推過屬彼。故曰不德污他家行乃至亦見聞是。已下明謗人拒諫不從。故文云。是比丘如是諫時堅持不捨。下明僧諫。文云。彼比丘應三諫舍此事故乃至三諫舍者善。應初諫言欲作白僧法當舍。若舍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 行惡行，也被看見也被聽見。（以下引自）律藏：當時有位比丘，在某個村莊借宿。他穿戴整齊，拿著缽進入村莊乞食。他的法衣整潔，行走時有秩序，目光低垂。他既不四處張望，也不言語微笑，不與人交往，也不用善言問候。『我們不應該給他食物。不如像阿濕婆等人那樣，與人交往，以及像上面所說的那樣，應該給予供養。』當時那位比丘乞食非常困難才得到一點食物，於是前往佛陀處，將情況詳細稟告佛陀。佛陀命令比丘前往村莊，驅逐那些人，因為這件事是依附聚落而引起的過失，會使自己和他人一同受損。以下說明記錄過失，驅逐賓客的條文。從『諸比丘應當說』到『不需要住在這裡』，是驅逐賓客的條文。以下是非理性的誹謗僧團的言辭。從『是比丘語彼有驅不驅者』開始，是他們誹謗僧團的意圖。他們依仗六個人一同作惡。只說：『三聞達多（Sravastadatta，人名）、摩醯沙達多（Maheshadatta，人名）逃到王道聚落。迦留陀夷（Kaludayi，人名）、闡陀（Chanda，人名）逆路懺悔。』這四個人不追究他們的軌跡，是因為愛憎而引起的誹謗。說不追究逆路者，是因為有愛。害怕逃走的人，是因為有怖。說僧團嗔恨我們二人，是因為有畏。這三種情況都不是以理解的心來做的。不通達懲治的方法，是因為有癡。顯露出已經誹謗的意圖，所以說『有驅逐的，有不驅逐的』。下面說明勸諫的言辭。所說的『大德，不要說這樣的話』，是勸諫不要誹謗僧團，所以說『不要說這樣的話』，乃至『有驅逐的，有不驅逐的』。下面是僧團自己表明心跡，所以說『諸比丘不愛不恚不怖不癡』。逆路懺悔已經沒有罪可以稱為懲治，這叫做不愛。逃走的人不出現，又無法懲治，這叫做不怖。你們二人進不懺悔，退不逃走，身口意三業的過失都符合懲治的條件，這叫做不恚。善於通達懲治賓客的方法，這叫做不癡。下面把過失歸於他們，所以說『不德污他家行』，乃至『也被看見也被聽見』。下面說明誹謗的人拒絕勸諫，不聽從。所以經文說：『是比丘這樣勸諫時，堅持不捨棄。』下面說明僧團的勸諫。經文說：『彼比丘應當勸諫三次，捨棄這件事，乃至勸諫三次捨棄是最好的。』應當第一次勸諫說：『想要作白僧法，應當捨棄。』如果捨棄
【English Translation】 English version Those who commit evil deeds are both seen and heard. The Vinaya states: 'At that time, there was a Bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) who stayed overnight in a certain village. Dressed in robes and carrying a bowl, he entered the village to beg for food. His monastic robes were neat, and he walked in an orderly manner, with his eyes lowered. He neither looked around nor spoke or smiled, did not interact with people, nor greeted them with kind words. We should not give him food. It is better to be like Ashvajit (one of the first five disciples of the Buddha) and others, who interact with people, and as mentioned above, should be given offerings.' At that time, that Bhikkhu had great difficulty obtaining a little food, so he went to the Buddha and reported the situation in detail. The Buddha ordered the Bhikkhus to go to the village and expel those people, because this matter was a fault arising from attachment to the settlement, which would harm both oneself and others. The following explains the recording of faults and the expulsion of guests. From 'The Bhikkhus should say' to 'There is no need to stay here' are the clauses for expelling guests. The following are irrational slanders against the Sangha (Buddhist monastic community). Starting from 'This Bhikkhu spoke to them about those who were expelled and those who were not,' is their intention to slander the Sangha. They relied on six people to commit evil together. They only said: 'Sravastadatta (name of a person), Maheshadatta (name of a person) fled to the royal road settlement. Kaludayi (name of a person), Chanda (name of a person) repented on the wrong path.' These four people were not investigated because the slander arose from love and hatred. Saying that those who repented on the wrong path were not investigated was because of love. Fearing those who fled was because of fear. Saying that the Sangha hated the two of us was because of dread. These three situations were not done with understanding. Not understanding the method of punishment was because of delusion. Revealing the intention to slander, they said, 'Some are expelled, and some are not.' The following explains the words of admonition. Saying 'Venerable ones, do not say such things' is admonishing not to slander the Sangha, so it says 'Do not say such things,' up to 'Some are expelled, and some are not.' The following is the Sangha expressing their own intentions, so it says 'The Bhikkhus are without love, without hatred, without fear, without delusion.' Repenting on the wrong path means there is no fault that can be called punishment, which is called without love. Those who fled did not appear and could not be punished, which is called without fear. The two of you neither repent nor flee, and the faults of body, speech, and mind all meet the conditions for punishment, which is called without hatred. Being good at understanding the method of punishing guests is called without delusion. The following attributes the fault to them, so it says 'Without virtue, defiling the conduct of others' families,' up to 'Also seen and also heard.' The following explains that the slanderers refused admonition and did not listen. So the sutra says: 'When this Bhikkhu admonished in this way, they insisted on not abandoning it.' The following explains the Sangha's admonition. The sutra says: 'That Bhikkhu should admonish three times to abandon this matter, and it is best to abandon it after three admonitions.' The first admonition should say: 'If you want to perform the white Sangha procedure, you should abandon it.' If they abandon it'
唯得吉。若不捨作白已即得偷蘭。復應諫言。大德作白已。余有三羯磨在可舍。此事莫為僧呵便犯重罪。乃至初羯磨第二第三已來。應如是諫。故文言舍者善。隨舍罪輕故曰善。已下明拒勸不捨而結僧殘罪。故文云。若不捨者僧伽婆尸沙。已下明不犯。律云。若得衣食與父母病人。與小兒與妊人。與牢獄系人。與寺中客作不名污家。若種樹花果。乃至教人貫花為三寶故不名惡行。若度河溝渠坑跳躑者不犯。若同伴在後還顧不見。而嘯喚者不犯。若為父母若為病人。若為信心檀越。乃至三寶事持書往反。皆不犯。
惡性拒僧違諫戒第十三 一制意。人非性知義無獨善。要賴善友互相匠導。方能離過修善。有出道之益。而今闡陀迷心造非。不自見過。他如法諫理宜順從。方復倚傍勝人尊處。其已人師敬友欲匡眾非分。自處情過深厚。是故聖制 二解名。可知 三別緣有六。一自身不能離惡。將欲作罪。二諸善比丘如法勸諫。三不受勸導。恃己陵物。望人師敬。四如法設諫。五拒而不捨。六三羯磨竟 四闕緣。比類可知。此戒因闡陀比丘惡性拒諫故起過。佛便制戒。
若比丘惡性不受人語。于戒法中諸比丘如法諫已。自身不受諫語。言諸大德莫向我說若好若惡。我亦不向諸大德說若好若惡。諸大德且止莫諫我。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 唯得吉（Vaidehi，人名）。若不捨作白（karma，羯磨，佛教儀式）已，即得偷蘭（sthulatyaya，粗罪）。復應諫言：『大德，作白已，余有三羯磨在，可舍。』此事莫為僧呵，便犯重罪。乃至初羯磨、第二、第三已來，應如是諫。故文言舍者善，隨舍罪輕故曰善。已下明拒勸不捨而結僧殘罪。故文云：『若不捨者，僧伽婆尸沙（samghavasesa，僧殘）。』已下明不犯。律云：『若得衣食與父母、病人，與小兒、與妊人，與牢獄系人，與寺中客作，不名污家。若種樹花果，乃至教人貫花為三寶故，不名惡行。若度河溝渠坑跳躑者不犯。若同伴在後還顧不見，而嘯喚者不犯。若為父母，若為病人，若為信心檀越（danapati，施主），乃至三寶事持書往返，皆不犯。
惡性拒僧違諫戒第十三 一制意。人非性知義無獨善。要賴善友互相匠導。方能離過修善。有出道之益。而今闡陀（Chanda，人名）迷心造非。不自見過。他如法諫理宜順從。方復倚傍勝人尊處。其已人師敬友欲匡眾非分。自處情過深厚。是故聖制 二解名。可知 三別緣有六。一自身不能離惡。將欲作罪。二諸善比丘如法勸諫。三不受勸導。恃己陵物。望人師敬。四如法設諫。五拒而不捨。六三羯磨竟 四闕緣。比類可知。此戒因闡陀比丘惡性拒諫故起過。佛便制戒。
若比丘惡性不受人語。于戒法中諸比丘如法諫已。自身不受諫語。言諸大德莫向我說若好若惡。我亦不向諸大德說若好若惡。諸大德且止莫諫我。
【English Translation】 English version: Only Vaidehi (name of a person) is acceptable. If one does not abandon after performing karma (Buddhist ritual), one incurs a sthulatyaya (serious offense). One should further advise: 'Venerable, having performed karma, there are three remaining karmas that can be abandoned.' If this matter is not criticized by the Sangha, one commits a grave offense. Even up to the first, second, and third karmas, one should advise in this manner. Therefore, the text says that abandoning is good; it is said to be good because the offense is lighter when abandoned. The following explains incurring a samghavesa (residual offense) for refusing advice and not abandoning. Therefore, the text says: 'If one does not abandon, it is a samghavesa.' The following explains non-offenses. The Vinaya says: 'If one obtains clothing and food and gives it to parents, the sick, children, pregnant women, those imprisoned, or guest workers in the temple, it is not considered defiling the household. If one plants trees, flowers, and fruits, or even teaches people to string flowers for the sake of the Three Jewels, it is not considered evil conduct. If one crosses rivers, ditches, canals, or pits by jumping, it is not an offense. If companions are behind and one looks back and does not see them, and then shouts, it is not an offense. If one carries letters back and forth for the sake of parents, the sick, faithful danapati (patrons), or even matters concerning the Three Jewels, it is not an offense.'
The Thirteenth Precept: Rejecting Admonishment of the Sangha Due to Malice. 1. The Reason for Establishment: Humans are not inherently knowledgeable, and there is no solitary goodness. One must rely on good friends to guide each other in order to avoid faults and cultivate goodness, which benefits the path to liberation. Now, Chanda (name of a person) is deluded and commits wrongdoings, not seeing his own faults. He should rightfully obey others' lawful admonishments. Moreover, he relies on superior individuals and occupies a position of respect. He considers himself a teacher and friend, desiring to correct the faults of the assembly, which is beyond his capacity. He deeply indulges in his own emotions and faults. Therefore, the Holy One established this precept. 2. Explanation of the Name: Understandable. 3. Six Distinguishing Conditions: 1. One is unable to abandon evil on one's own and intends to commit an offense. 2. Good Bhikkhus lawfully admonish. 3. One does not accept the admonishment, relying on oneself and belittling others, expecting to be respected as a teacher. 4. The admonishment is given lawfully. 5. One refuses and does not abandon. 6. The three karmas are completed. 4. Missing Conditions: Can be inferred by analogy. This precept arose because Bhikkhu Chanda maliciously rejected admonishment. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept.
If a Bhikkhu, due to malice, does not accept the words of others, and the Bhikkhus have lawfully admonished him regarding the precepts, but he himself does not accept the admonishment, saying, 'Venerables, do not speak to me about good or evil. I will not speak to the Venerables about good or evil either. Venerables, please stop admonishing me.'
彼比丘諫是比丘言。大德莫自身不受諫語。大德自身當受諫語。大德如法諫諸比丘。諸比丘亦當如法諫大德。如是佛弟子眾得增益展轉相諫。展轉相教。展轉懺悔。是比丘如是諫時堅持不捨彼比丘應三諫舍是事故。乃至三諫舍者善。不捨者僧伽婆尸沙 此滿足戒本文有五句。一初至莫諫我來明諫所為事。二彼比丘屏諫勸相受語。三是比丘下拒諫。四彼比丘不僧諫。五不捨下結違諫罪。初諫所為事文三。一出能拒人惡性不受人語。二于戒律中下諸善比丘如法呵諫。三自身已下受訓遵。望入師敬。文四。一不受勸導。二言諸大德下汝莫語我。三我亦不語汝。四大德下出不受道理。謂恃己陵物。又引契經。但自觀身行等故言且止也。屏諫文二。一先諫前人互相受語。二如是已下顯諫利益相。受語故。道相日進故。稱增益。為滅諫令不作故稱相諫。未修諸善方便令生。已與諸善修翼增廣故曰相教。已報惡業方便除遺故曰懺悔。各彼此互為感稱展轉。諫言。大德前止作二持所以成者。良由善知識等互相匠導。如何大德不相受語。問經佛說。但自觀身行。諦觀善不善。云何此中展轉相教等多雲佛隨時制教。言乖趣合不相違。皆若見前人心有愛憎發。言有損。故云但自觀身。若見前人內有慈心發言有益。故言展轉相教。又見前人少聞
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 那位比丘勸告另一位比丘說：『大德，請不要不接受別人的勸告。大德您自己應當接受勸告。大德您應當如法地勸告各位比丘，各位比丘也應當如法地勸告您。這樣，佛陀的弟子們就能得到增益，互相勸告，互相教導，互相懺悔。』如果那位比丘這樣勸告時，對方堅持不聽從，那麼這位比丘應當勸告他三次，讓他放棄這種行為。直到勸告三次後對方放棄才是好的。如果不放棄，就犯僧伽婆尸沙（Sanghavasesa，僧殘罪）。 這條戒律的完整條文有五句：一是最初的『不要勸告我』，表明勸告的原因。二是那位比丘私下勸告，勸對方接受勸告。三是這位比丘拒絕接受勸告。四是那位比丘不通過僧團勸告。五是『不放棄』，總結了違背勸告的罪過。 最初，關於勸告的原因，有三點：一是指出拒絕接受勸告的人的惡劣習性，不聽從別人的話。二是在戒律中，各位善良的比丘如法地呵斥勸告。三是『自己以下』，接受訓練和遵循，希望得到師長的尊敬。 關於接受訓練和遵循，有四點：一是不接受勸導。二是說『各位大德以下』，你不要告訴我。三是我也不告訴你。四是『大德以下』，指出不接受道理，就是依仗自己而輕視別人。又引用契經，但自己觀察身行等等，所以說且慢。 關於私下勸告，有兩點：一是先勸告對方，互相接受對方的話。二是『這樣以下』，顯示勸告的利益。因為接受勸告，所以道業日益精進，稱為增益。爲了消除勸告，不作惡事，所以稱為互相勸告。未修習的各種善法方便令其生起，已有的各種善法修習使其增長廣大，所以叫做相教。已經報應的惡業，方便去除遺留，所以叫做懺悔。各自彼此互相感應，稱為展轉。勸告說：『大德，先前停止作惡』，二者堅持，所以能夠成就，是因為善知識等互相引導。為什麼大德不互相接受勸告？ 問：經中佛說，但自己觀察身行，仔細觀察善與不善。為什麼這裡又說展轉相教等等？答：佛陀隨時制定教規，言語的旨趣並不相違背。如果看到對方心中有愛憎，發言有害處，所以說但自己觀察身行。如果看到對方內心有慈悲心，發言有益處，所以說展轉相教。又看到對方少聞。
【English Translation】 English version: That Bhikkhu admonishes that Bhikkhu, saying: 'Venerable sir, please do not refuse admonishment yourself. Venerable sir, you yourself should accept admonishment. Venerable sir, you should admonish the Bhikkhus according to the Dharma, and the Bhikkhus should also admonish you according to the Dharma. Thus, the disciples of the Buddha will gain benefit, admonishing each other, teaching each other, and confessing to each other.' If that Bhikkhu persists in not abandoning his ways when admonished in this way, then that Bhikkhu should admonish him three times to abandon this behavior. It is good if he abandons it after being admonished up to three times. If he does not abandon it, he commits a Sanghavasesa (Sanghavasesa, an offense requiring a meeting of the Sangha). The complete text of this precept has five clauses: first, the initial 'Do not admonish me,' indicating the reason for the admonishment. Second, that Bhikkhu admonishes privately, urging the other to accept the admonishment. Third, this Bhikkhu refuses to accept the admonishment. Fourth, that Bhikkhu does not admonish through the Sangha. Fifth, 'does not abandon,' summarizing the offense of violating the admonishment. Initially, regarding the reason for the admonishment, there are three points: first, pointing out the bad habits of the person who refuses to accept admonishment, not listening to others. Second, in the precepts, the virtuous Bhikkhus righteously scold and admonish. Third, 'oneself below,' accepting training and following, hoping to receive the respect of the teacher. Regarding accepting training and following, there are four points: first, not accepting guidance. Second, saying 'Venerable sirs below,' you do not tell me. Third, I also do not tell you. Fourth, 'Venerable sir below,' pointing out not accepting reason, that is, relying on oneself and belittling others. Also quoting the sutras, but observing one's own conduct and so on, therefore saying 'wait'. Regarding private admonishment, there are two points: first, first admonishing the other person, mutually accepting each other's words. Second, 'in this way below,' showing the benefits of admonishment. Because of accepting admonishment, the path of practice progresses daily, called benefit. In order to eliminate admonishment, not doing evil deeds, therefore called mutual admonishment. Various good methods that have not been cultivated are made to arise, and various good methods that have already been cultivated are made to increase and expand, therefore called mutual teaching. Evil karma that has already been repaid is conveniently removed and left behind, therefore called confession. Each mutually responds to each other, called turning around. The admonishment says: 'Venerable sir, stop doing evil earlier,' the two persist, so they can achieve, because good teachers and others guide each other. Why do Venerable sirs not mutually accept admonishment? Question: In the sutra, the Buddha said, but observe your own conduct, carefully observe good and bad. Why is it said here that there is mutual teaching and so on? Answer: The Buddha formulates precepts at any time, and the meaning of the words does not contradict each other. If you see that the other person has love and hatred in their heart, and speaking is harmful, therefore it is said to observe your own conduct. If you see that the other person has compassion in their heart, and speaking is beneficial, therefore it is said to teach each other. Also seeing that the other person has little learning.
無智出言無補。故言但自觀身行。若多聞有智言成有益。故云展轉相教。下三句可知。已下廣釋文句。言若比丘者。義如上。言惡性不受人語者。不忍不受人教誨。所言于戒法中者。以戒律如法授有七犯聚。波羅夷乃至惡說。諸比丘如法諫者。如法如律如佛所教。言自身不受諫且止莫諫我已來。是諫所為事。下四句準前可知 不犯中律云。初諫便舍。若非法呵諫。非法非律非佛所教者。若為無智人呵諫。時語彼言。汝和上阿阇梨所行亦爾。汝可更學問誦經。若其事實爾。若錯說者。一切不犯。
諸大德我已說十三僧伽婆尸沙法九初犯四乃至三諫 此結前十三戒。就中有二。初九。后四。諫不諫別故。云初作犯四至三諫。今釋諫不諫意。若語屏諫一切皆須。故云展轉相諫。不受諫中心虛結提。心實第五乃至此中違諫之事亦須說諫。故文中言莫為僧所呵更犯重罪。故知諫語通於一切。言僧諫者。具四義者有。不具者無。言四義者。一者性惡。二是顯露。三謂惱僧。四者倚傍。上之三義可知。言倚傍者。前之九戒條然。是非更無兩濫。倚傍聖教是非既分。過顯易識。何須設諫。開示其人。此四戒等皆有倚傍。言說相似濫理行二教。是非交雜真偽難分。須僧設諫開示是非。曉悟其壞。異彼改迷。棄惡就善。舍邪從正。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：沒有智慧的人說出的話毫無益處。因此，說話要反觀自身的行為。如果博學且有智慧的人說出的話，就能有所助益。所以說要輾轉互相教導。下面的三句話可以類推得知。以下廣泛解釋文句。『言若比丘者』（如果說比丘），意義如上文所述。『言惡性不受人語者』（如果說秉性惡劣不接受他人勸告的人），就是不能忍受且不接受他人的教誨。『所言于戒法中者』（所說的在戒法中），以戒律如法傳授有七種犯戒的類別，從波羅夷（斷頭罪）乃至惡說（誹謗）。諸位比丘如法勸諫，要如法、如律、如佛所教導的那樣。『言自身不受諫且止莫諫我已來』（如果自身不接受勸諫就停止，不要再勸諫我了），這是勸諫所要做的事情。下面的四句話可以參照前面的內容來理解。 不犯中律中說，第一次勸諫就放棄。如果是非法的呵斥勸諫，不符合佛法、戒律、佛陀的教導，如果是被沒有智慧的人呵斥勸諫，這時可以對他說：『你的和尚、阿阇梨（導師）也是這樣做的。你應該再去學習、背誦經典。』如果事實確實如此，或者說錯了，一切都不算犯戒。 諸位大德，我已經說了十三條僧伽婆尸沙法（僧殘罪），前九條是初犯，后四條需要經過一乃至三次勸諫。這裡總結了前面的十三條戒律。其中分為兩部分，前九條，后四條。因為勸諫與不勸諫有所區別。所以說初犯的前九條，以及需要一到三次勸諫的后四條。現在解釋勸諫與不勸諫的意義。如果私下勸諫，一切都需要勸諫。所以說要輾轉互相勸諫。不接受勸諫的人心中虛弱，容易被邪見所引導。心性堅實的人，即使犯了第五條戒乃至此處的違背勸諫之事，也需要勸諫。所以經文中說『不要被僧團呵責，更不要再犯重罪』。因此可知勸諫適用於一切情況。所說的僧團勸諫，具備四種條件才算有效，不具備則無效。所說的四種條件是：一是本性惡劣，二是行為顯露，三是惱亂僧團，四是倚仗權勢。以上三種情況容易理解。所說的倚仗權勢，前面的九條戒律條文清晰，是非分明，沒有模棱兩可的情況。倚仗聖教，是非已經區分清楚，過錯顯而易見，何須設立勸諫，開示其人？這四條戒律等都有所倚仗。言語說法相似，容易混淆道理和行為兩種教義。是非交織，真假難辨。需要僧團設立勸諫，開示是非，曉悟其錯誤，改變其迷惑，拋棄邪惡而歸向善良，捨棄邪見而歸從正道。
【English Translation】 English version: Words from the unwise are of no help. Therefore, in speaking, one should observe one's own conduct. If the learned and wise speak, their words will be beneficial. Hence, it is said to teach each other in turn. The following three sentences can be understood by analogy. The following is an extensive explanation of the phrases. 'If a Bhikshu (monk),' the meaning is as above. 'If one is of a wicked nature and does not accept the words of others,' it means one cannot endure and does not accept the teachings and admonishments of others. 'What is said within the precepts,' refers to the seven categories of offenses in the precepts as taught according to the Dharma, from Parajika (defeat) to evil speech (defamation). When Bhikshus admonish according to the Dharma, it should be according to the Dharma, the Vinaya (rules), and the teachings of the Buddha. 'If one does not accept admonishment, then stop and do not admonish me anymore,' this is what admonishment is for. The following four sentences can be understood by referring to the previous content. The Vinaya (rules) on non-offenses states that one should give up after the first admonishment. If the rebuke and admonishment are unlawful, not in accordance with the Dharma, the Vinaya, or the teachings of the Buddha, and if one is rebuked and admonished by an unwise person, then one can say to them: 'Your Upadhyaya (preceptor) and Acharya (teacher) also do the same. You should study and recite the scriptures more.' If the facts are indeed so, or if one speaks wrongly, then it is not an offense at all. Venerable ones, I have spoken of the thirteen Sanghavasesa (formal meeting) offenses, the first nine being initial offenses, and the last four requiring one to three admonishments. This summarizes the previous thirteen precepts. It is divided into two parts, the first nine and the last four, because there is a distinction between admonishment and non-admonishment. Therefore, it is said that the first nine are initial offenses, and the last four require one to three admonishments. Now, I will explain the meaning of admonishment and non-admonishment. If it is a private admonishment, then all require admonishment. Therefore, it is said to admonish each other in turn. Those who do not accept admonishment are weak in heart and easily led astray by wrong views. Those who are firm in nature, even if they commit the fifth precept or the matter of disobeying admonishment here, still need to be admonished. Therefore, the sutra says, 'Do not be rebuked by the Sangha (community), and do not commit serious offenses again.' Therefore, it can be known that admonishment applies to all situations. The so-called Sangha admonishment is effective only when it has four conditions; otherwise, it is ineffective. The four conditions are: first, being inherently wicked; second, the behavior being obvious; third, disturbing the Sangha; and fourth, relying on power. The above three situations are easy to understand. The so-called relying on power, the previous nine precepts are clear in their provisions, and right and wrong are clear, with no ambiguity. Relying on the holy teachings, right and wrong have already been distinguished, and the fault is obvious, so why set up admonishment and enlighten the person? These four precepts and so on all have something to rely on. The words and statements are similar, easily confusing the two teachings of reason and conduct. Right and wrong are intertwined, and it is difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood. The Sangha needs to set up admonishment, clarify right and wrong, enlighten their mistakes, change their confusion, abandon evil and turn to good, and abandon wrong views and follow the right path.
須設諫。如初二諫戒倚傍。如來四依之教。唱說相似。執乞食等名同。故曰倚傍污家。傍僧者執六人同作。而殯不殯濫。第四戒倚傍釋種輕陵諸比丘倚傍之義。此應廣說為如斯義。須僧設諫闕者無諫。今問有無。不問九殘。所以不諫。蓋問生罪之緣。所以僧殘罪齊。下四因諫而生前九。作便即結此。謂一切事中具四義者。須諫違而結殘。余無倚傍等不假僧諫。但以事實直作即犯。雖可諫不諫異殘位同。故是以共篇。
若比丘犯一一法知而覆藏應強與波利婆沙行彼利婆沙竟增上興六夜摩那埵行摩那埵已應與出罪應二十僧中出是比丘罪若少一人不滿二十眾出是比丘罪是比丘罪不得除諸比丘亦可呵此是時 此明懺僧殘法。略有其三。初治覆藏情過。謂波利婆沙此方云別住。母云。若犯此罪。隨覆藏曰行別住法別住。下房不得與僧同處共宿。雖入僧中不得談論亦不得問答。故言別住。設心不欲行強逼令行。故文言。若比丘犯一一法知而覆藏應強與波利婆沙。第二明治罪法。故文云。行波利婆沙竟增與六夜摩那埵。那埵者此云悅眾。由行別住如法令僧歡喜。故言悅眾亦云意喜前。雖自意歡喜亦生慚愧。亦使眾僧歡喜□前喜。故與其少日因少日。故始得喜名眾僧歡喜。此人因此改悔更不起惱成清凈人。第三與出罪法故文言摩
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：需要設立諫諍。例如最初的兩次諫諍是關於依靠和傍依。如來的四依教導，唱說相似，執持乞食等名稱相同，所以說依靠傍依是玷污僧團的行為。傍依僧人的人，執行六人共同行事，而殯葬和不殯葬的事情混雜不清。第四條戒律是關於依靠釋迦種姓而輕視其他比丘的依靠之義。這些應該廣泛地解釋，說明其含義。需要僧團設立諫諍，缺少諫諍則沒有諫諍。現在問的是有無諫諍，而不是問九種殘罪。之所以不問九殘，是因為問的是產生罪過的因緣，所以僧殘罪過相同。下面的四種罪過是因為諫諍而產生前面的九種罪過，一旦作出便立即構成此罪。這裡說的是在一切事情中具備四種條件的人，需要諫諍，違背諫諍就會構成僧殘罪。其餘的沒有依靠傍依等情況，不需要僧團諫諍，只要根據事實直接作出就構成犯罪。雖然可以諫諍，但諫諍與不諫諍的罪過等級相同，所以放在共同篇中。
如果比丘觸犯了任何一條戒律，明知而隱瞞，應該強制他進行波利婆沙（Parivasa，別住）的修行。在他完成波利婆沙之後，再增加六夜的摩那埵（Manatta，悅眾）修行。完成摩那埵之後，應該給予他出罪的機會。應該在二十位僧人中進行出罪，如果少於一人，不滿二十位僧人，那麼為這位比丘出罪是無效的，這位比丘的罪過無法消除，其他比丘也可以呵責他。這是適當的時機。這裡說明了懺悔僧殘罪的方法，大致有三個方面。首先是懲治隱瞞罪過的行為，即波利婆沙（Parivasa，別住），此地（指中國）稱之為別住。按照律母的說法，如果犯了這種罪，根據隱瞞的時間長短來執行別住法。別住期間，不得與僧眾同處一室，共同住宿。即使進入僧團之中，也不得談論，也不得問答，所以稱為別住。即使內心不願修行，也要強迫他修行，所以經文中說，『如果比丘觸犯了任何一條戒律，明知而隱瞞，應該強制他進行波利婆沙』。第二是明確治罪的方法，所以經文中說，『行波利婆沙竟增與六夜摩那埵』。摩那埵（Manatta）的意思是悅眾，因為通過別住修行，如法地令僧眾歡喜，所以稱為悅眾，也稱為意喜。之前雖然自己內心歡喜，但也生慚愧，也使眾僧歡喜，因此才給予他少日的修行機會，因為少日，所以才開始得到喜悅的名稱，眾僧歡喜。這個人因此改過自新，不再生起煩惱，成為清凈的人。第三是給予出罪的機會，所以經文中說摩那
【English Translation】 English version: It is necessary to establish admonishment. For example, the first two admonishments concern reliance and dependence. The Tathagata's teaching of the Four Reliances, the chanting and explanations are similar, and the names such as holding alms are the same, so it is said that relying and depending is an act of defiling the Sangha. Those who depend on monks, carry out the six people acting together, and the matters of burial and non-burial are mixed up and unclear. The fourth precept is about relying on the Shakya lineage and looking down on other Bhikkhus, the meaning of reliance. These should be explained extensively to clarify their meaning. It is necessary for the Sangha to establish admonishment, and without admonishment, there is no admonishment. Now the question is whether there is admonishment or not, not about the nine residual offenses. The reason for not asking about the nine residual offenses is because the question is about the causes and conditions for generating offenses, so the Sangha's residual offenses are the same. The following four offenses arise because of admonishment, generating the previous nine offenses, and once committed, they immediately constitute this offense. This refers to those who possess the four conditions in all matters, requiring admonishment, and violating admonishment constitutes a Sanghavasesa offense. The remaining situations without reliance or dependence do not require the Sangha's admonishment, and committing the act directly based on the facts constitutes an offense. Although admonishment is possible, the level of offense is the same whether admonishment is given or not, so it is placed in the common section.
If a Bhikkhu violates any of the precepts, knowingly concealing it, he should be forced to undergo Parivasa (separation). After he completes Parivasa, he should be given an additional six nights of Manatta (pleasing the Sangha). After completing Manatta, he should be given the opportunity to be absolved of his offense. The absolution should be performed among twenty monks. If there is one monk less, less than twenty monks, then absolving this Bhikkhu of his offense is invalid, and this Bhikkhu's offense cannot be removed, and other Bhikkhus can also rebuke him. This is the appropriate time. This explains the method of confessing Sanghavasesa offenses, which roughly has three aspects. First is to punish the act of concealing the offense, which is Parivasa (separation), which is called 'separate dwelling' in this land (China). According to the Vinaya Mother, if this offense is committed, the Parivasa practice is performed according to the length of time of concealment. During Parivasa, one must not be in the same room with the Sangha, or sleep together. Even when entering the Sangha, one must not talk or ask questions, so it is called 'separate dwelling'. Even if one is unwilling to practice in one's heart, one must be forced to practice, so the text says, 'If a Bhikkhu violates any of the precepts, knowingly concealing it, he should be forced to undergo Parivasa'. Second is to clarify the method of punishing the offense, so the text says, 'After completing Parivasa, give an additional six nights of Manatta'. Manatta means 'pleasing the Sangha', because through the practice of separate dwelling, the Sangha is pleased in accordance with the Dharma, so it is called 'pleasing the Sangha', also called 'joy of mind'. Although one is happy in one's heart before, one also feels ashamed, and also makes the Sangha happy, so he is given the opportunity to practice for a few days, and because of the few days, he begins to get the name of joy, and the Sangha is happy. This person therefore repents and reforms, no longer gives rise to afflictions, and becomes a pure person. Third is to give the opportunity to be absolved of the offense, so the text says Manatta
那埵已餘有出罪。猶有勝因改心懺悔。大德隨喜即為出罪令彼清凈。就出罪重文分為二。一者如法。此罪是重。要假二十清眾方能拔濟彼人。故文言。若少一人不滿二十出是比丘罪。是比丘罪不得除。眾既不滿出罪不成。勞而無功。二不如法故。故文云。諸比丘亦可呵。為出罪。闕緣法事不成故得結罪。所言如此。是時者。應順佛教名此是時。
今問諸大德是中清凈不(三說)諸大德是中清凈默然故是事如是持 謂於此篇得清凈不。由眾默然知清凈故。若實有罪三問不答。共一法故但得一罪。若實無罪為默然。故眾法成就。
諸大德是二不定法半月半月說戒經中來 此初標說儀。或欲令攝耳聽故若也。通論有防非義。故齊稱為戒。令此二法有四種。無揩準。自曰不定。言四法者。一犯不定。謂或犯夷犯殘。或犯提並犯三。或復犯二。多少差殊故。二舉不定。犯既不定可信。稱事而舉故亦不定。三自言不定。舉既多少自言列罪。寧容一準式。可自言不犯。四治罪不定。若自言夷滅殯治之。若自言犯殘別住治之等。乃至若不自言引罪。罪處所治故曰治罪不定。此不定犯。謂于屏處露雨處起。故言二不定法。又十律言。云何名不定。可信女人不知。犯不犯不。何處起不。不知犯名字。但言我見女人。是處來去坐
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 那埵已為他人出罪，但仍然可以通過勝妙的因緣，改變心意，進行懺悔。有德行的人隨喜讚歎，就可以幫助他出罪，使他清凈。關於出罪的重文，可以分為兩種情況。第一種是如法，這種罪過很重，需要藉助二十位清凈的比丘僧眾，才能救濟這個人。所以經文中說：『如果少一人，不滿二十人，就為比丘出罪，這個比丘的罪就不能消除。』僧眾既然不滿，出罪就不能成功，勞而無功。第二種是不如法，所以經文中說：『各位比丘也可以呵斥，為他出罪。』因為缺少因緣，法事不能成就，所以會結罪。所說的『是時』，應該遵循佛教的教義，稱之為『是時』。
現在問各位大德，這裡清凈嗎？（重複三次）各位大德，這裡清凈，因為大家默然不語，所以這件事就這樣成立了。』意思是說，對於這個篇章，大家覺得清凈嗎？因為僧眾默然不語，所以知道是清凈的。如果確實有罪，三次提問都不回答，因為只有一個法，所以只能得到一個罪。如果確實沒有罪，因為默然不語，所以眾法成就。
各位大德，這二種不定法，是從半月半月誦戒經中來的。』這是開始標明誦戒的儀軌，或許是爲了讓大家集中注意力聽講。如果通盤來說，有防止過失的意義。所以一概稱為戒，使這二種法有四種不確定的情況。沒有可以依據的標準，所以叫做不定。所說的四種情況是：一是犯戒不定，或者犯了波羅夷罪（Pārājika，斷頭罪），或者犯了僧殘罪（Saṃghādisesa，重罪），或者犯了提舍尼罪（Patidesaniya，應懺悔罪），或者犯了波逸提罪（Pācittiya，輕罪），或者同時犯了兩種罪。多少有差別，所以說不定。二是舉罪不定，既然犯戒的情況不定，可以相信，根據實際情況來舉罪，所以也不確定。三是自說不定，既然舉罪的情況多少不定，自己陳述罪行，怎麼能有一個統一的標準呢？可以自己說沒有犯戒。四是治罪不定，如果自己承認犯了波羅夷罪，就要滅擯（驅逐出僧團）並進行殯葬；如果自己承認犯了僧殘罪，就要進行別住（隔離懺悔）等。乃至如果不自己陳述罪行，罪行應該在哪裡處置，所以說治罪不定。這種不定犯，是指在隱蔽的地方或者露天的地方發生的，所以說是二種不定法。另外，《十誦律》中說：『什麼叫做不定？可以相信的女人不知道，犯了沒有犯？在哪裡發生的？不知道犯了什麼名字的罪？只是說我看見女人，在這個地方來來去去坐著。』 English version: Nātha has already helped others to be absolved of their sins, but they can still change their minds and repent through excellent causes. Virtuous people rejoice and praise, which can help them to be absolved of their sins and become pure. The important points about absolution can be divided into two situations. The first is according to the Dharma. This kind of sin is very serious and requires the help of twenty pure Bhikkhu (monks) to save this person. Therefore, the scripture says: 'If there is one person less, not enough twenty people, to absolve the Bhikkhu of his sins, then this Bhikkhu's sins cannot be eliminated.' Since the Sangha (community) is not complete, the absolution cannot be successful, and it is labor without merit. The second is not according to the Dharma, so the scripture says: 'The Bhikkhus can also rebuke and absolve him of his sins.' Because of the lack of conditions, the Dharma event cannot be accomplished, so a sin will be incurred. The so-called 'this time' should follow the teachings of Buddhism and be called 'this time'.
Now I ask all the virtuous ones, is this place pure? (Repeat three times) All the virtuous ones, this place is pure, because everyone is silent, so this matter is established in this way.' This means, for this chapter, do you think it is pure? Because the Sangha is silent, it is known to be pure. If there is indeed a sin, and there is no answer after three questions, because there is only one Dharma, only one sin can be obtained. If there is indeed no sin, because of the silence, all Dharmas are accomplished.
'Virtuous ones, these two uncertain Dharmas come from the fortnightly recitation of the precepts.' This is the beginning of marking the ritual of reciting the precepts, perhaps to make everyone concentrate on listening. If we talk about it in general, it has the meaning of preventing faults. Therefore, it is generally called precepts, so that these two Dharmas have four uncertain situations. There is no standard to follow, so it is called uncertain. The four situations are: first, the violation of precepts is uncertain, either violating Pārājika (expulsion offense), or violating Saṃghādisesa (formal meeting offense), or violating Patidesaniya (confession offense), or violating Pācittiya (expiation offense), or violating two offenses at the same time. The amount is different, so it is uncertain. Second, the accusation is uncertain. Since the situation of violating the precepts is uncertain, it can be believed that the accusation is made according to the actual situation, so it is also uncertain. Third, the self-reporting is uncertain. Since the situation of accusing is uncertain, how can there be a unified standard for self-reporting of sins? One can say that one has not violated the precepts. Fourth, the punishment is uncertain. If one admits to violating Pārājika, one must be expelled from the Sangha and buried; if one admits to violating Saṃghādisesa, one must undergo separate residence (isolation and repentance), etc. Even if one does not confess one's sins, where should the sins be dealt with? Therefore, it is said that the punishment is uncertain. This uncertain violation refers to what happens in a hidden place or in an open place, so it is said to be two uncertain Dharmas. In addition, the Tenfold Vinaya says: 'What is called uncertain? A credible woman does not know whether she has committed a crime or not? Where did it happen? Does not know what name of crime was committed? Just says I saw a woman, coming and going and sitting in this place.'
【English Translation】 Natha has already helped others to be absolved of their sins, but they can still change their minds and repent through excellent causes. Virtuous people rejoice and praise, which can help them to be absolved of their sins and become pure. The important points about absolution can be divided into two situations. The first is 'as the Dharma dictates'. This kind of sin is very serious and requires the help of twenty pure Bhikkhu (monks) to save this person. Therefore, the scripture says: 'If there is one person less, not enough twenty people, to absolve the Bhikkhu of his sins, then this Bhikkhu's sins cannot be eliminated.' Since the Sangha (community) is not complete, the absolution cannot be successful, and it is labor without merit. The second is 'not as the Dharma dictates', so the scripture says: 'The Bhikkhus can also rebuke and absolve him of his sins.' Because of the lack of conditions, the Dharma event cannot be accomplished, so a sin will be incurred. The so-called 'this time' should follow the teachings of Buddhism and be called 'this time'. Now I ask all the virtuous ones, 'is this place pure?' (Repeat three times) All the virtuous ones, this place is pure, because everyone is silent, so this matter is established in this way.' This means, for this chapter, 'do you think it is pure?' Because the Sangha is silent, it is known to be pure. If there is indeed a sin, and there is no answer after three questions, because there is only one Dharma, only one sin can be obtained. If there is indeed no sin, because of the silence, all Dharmas are accomplished. 'Virtuous ones, these two uncertain Dharmas come from the fortnightly recitation of the precepts.' This is the beginning of marking the ritual of reciting the precepts, perhaps to make everyone concentrate on listening. If we talk about it in general, it has the meaning of preventing faults. Therefore, it is generally called precepts, so that these two Dharmas have four uncertain situations. There is no standard to follow, so it is called uncertain. The four situations are: first, the violation of precepts is uncertain, either violating Pārājika (expulsion offense), or violating Saṃghādisesa (formal meeting offense), or violating Patidesaniya (confession offense), or violating Pācittiya (expiation offense), or violating two offenses at the same time. The amount is different, so it is uncertain. Second, the accusation is uncertain. Since the situation of violating the precepts is uncertain, it can be believed that the accusation is made according to the actual situation, so it is also uncertain. Third, the self-reporting is uncertain. Since the situation of accusing is uncertain, how can there be a unified standard for self-reporting of sins? One can say that one has not violated the precepts. Fourth, the punishment is uncertain. If one admits to violating Pārājika, one must be expelled from the Sangha and buried; if one admits to violating Saṃghādisesa, one must undergo separate residence (isolation and repentance), etc. Even if one does not confess one's sins, where should the sins be dealt with? Therefore, it is said that the punishment is uncertain. This uncertain violation refers to what happens in a hidden place or in an open place, so it is said to be two uncertain Dharmas. In addition, the Tenfold Vinaya says: 'What is called uncertain? A credible woman does not know whether she has committed a crime or not? Where did it happen? Does not know what name of crime was committed? Just says I saw a woman, coming and going and sitting in this place.'
立。亦見比丘來去坐立。不見作淫奪人命觸女殺草過中食飲酒。如是前事不決定故名不定 問。可信舉罪通許二三五七。何故置在殘下提上者 答。一釋上收于戒。下攝威儀故也。又釋為欲深妨不犯夷殘故。屏露獨坐能犯夷殘。如像即是為護二戒故。置於此非是欲攝提等下亦攝提 問。此二尼無者何 答。為有伴故。設令無伴希如不數。又可女人軟弱言不宣心。豈可與丈夫對事。故無者示。
屏處不定之戒 一制意。多論一為止誹謗故。二為除斗諍故。三為增上佛法故。出家之理宜跡絕塵染。為人天所宗。以道化物。而與女人屏說非法。上違旨下失天宗敬之心。四為斷障道惡法次第故 二釋名。可信至僧未定分別。僧亦未得定結其罪。故曰不定 三具緣。別緣有五。一屏處。二人女。三無第三人。四於四威儀說非法語。不見覓實事。五可信告僧事未決審。具此五者入不定治檢 四闕緣。比說可知。
若比丘共女人獨在屏處覆處障處可作淫處坐說非法語有住信優婆種於三法中以一一法說若波羅夷若僧伽婆尸沙若波逸提是坐比丘自言我犯是罪於三法中應一一法治若波羅夷若僧伽婆尸沙若波逸提如住信優婆種所說應如法治是比丘是名不定法 此戒文有四句。一至非說犯不定。二有住信下舉不定。三是比丘下自言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 立。也看見比丘來來去去，或坐或立。沒有看見（比丘）做淫事，搶奪他人性命，觸碰女子，殺害草木，過了中午還吃東西，以及飲酒。像這樣，之前的事情沒有確定，所以叫做不定。 問：可信的舉罪，普遍允許二個、三個、五個、七個人（舉罪）。為什麼把這條戒律放在殘罪（僧伽婆尸沙，Sanghavesesa）之下，又提上來呢？ 答：一種解釋是，上面收攝了戒律，下面統攝了威儀的緣故。另一種解釋是，爲了深深地防止（比丘）不犯波羅夷（Parajika，斷頭罪）和殘罪的緣故。在隱蔽的地方獨自坐著，能犯波羅夷和殘罪。就像影象一樣，這是爲了守護這兩種戒律的緣故。放在這裡，不是爲了統攝提舍尼（Patidesaniya，應懺悔罪）等罪，下面也統攝了提舍尼罪。 問：這兩條不定戒，為什麼沒有尼眾（比丘尼）呢？ 答：因為（比丘尼）有同伴的緣故。即使假設沒有同伴，也稀少得可以忽略不計。而且，女人軟弱，言語不能表達內心。怎麼能和丈夫（比丘）對質呢？所以沒有尼眾，是爲了說明這個道理。
屏處不定之戒 一、制定戒律的用意：多論中說，一是為止息誹謗的緣故；二是為消除鬥爭的緣故；三是為增長佛法的緣故。出家的道理，應該斷絕世俗的污染，成為人天所尊敬的對象，用佛法教化眾生。而（比丘）與女人在隱蔽的地方說非法之語，上違背了佛的旨意，下失去了天人尊敬的心。 四、爲了斷除障礙修道的惡法次第的緣故。 二、解釋名稱：可信的（優婆塞或優婆夷）向僧團舉報，事情還沒有確定，需要分別。僧團也沒有確定地判決他的罪行。所以叫做不定。 三、具足的因緣：個別的因緣有五種。一、隱蔽的地方。二、女人。三、沒有第三個人在場。四、在四種威儀（行、住、坐、臥）中，說非法之語。沒有看見（比丘）尋找真實的事情。五、可信的（優婆塞或優婆夷）告訴僧團，事情還沒有決定審判。具備這五種條件，就進入不定罪的懲治範圍。 四、缺少的因緣：和比丘尼說的情況可以類比得知。
如果比丘和女人獨自在隱蔽的地方、覆蓋的地方、有遮擋的地方、可以做淫事的地方坐著，說非法之語，有可信的優婆塞（Upasaka，男居士）或優婆夷（Upasika，女居士）說，（比丘）在三種罪（波羅夷、僧伽婆尸沙、波逸提，Pacittiya，單墮罪）中犯了一種罪。如果（比丘）自己說，我犯了這三種罪中的一種罪，那麼應該按照優婆塞或優婆夷所說的，依法懲治這個比丘。這就叫做不定法。 這條戒律的條文有四句。一、到非說犯不定。二、有住信下舉不定。三、是比丘下自言
【English Translation】 English version Standing. Also seeing monks coming and going, sitting or standing. Not seeing (monks) committing sexual acts, taking others' lives, touching women, killing plants, eating after noon, and drinking alcohol. Like this, the previous matters are not determined, so it is called undetermined. Question: Credible accusations are generally allowed by two, three, five, or seven people. Why is this precept placed under Sanghavesesa (residual offense) and then brought up? Answer: One explanation is that it encompasses the precepts above and governs deportment below. Another explanation is to deeply prevent (monks) from committing Parajika (defeat) and Sanghavesesa. Sitting alone in a secluded place can lead to committing Parajika and Sanghavesesa. Just like an image, this is to protect these two precepts. Placing it here is not to encompass Patidesaniya (offense to be confessed), etc.; the following also encompasses Patidesaniya. Question: Why are there no nuns (bhikkhunis) in these two undetermined precepts? Answer: Because (bhikkhunis) have companions. Even if we assume there are no companions, it is so rare that it can be ignored. Moreover, women are weak, and their words cannot express their inner thoughts. How can they confront a man (monk)? Therefore, the absence of nuns is to illustrate this principle.
Precepts on Undetermined Matters in Secluded Places 1. The intention of establishing the precepts: According to various treatises, one is to stop slander; two is to eliminate disputes; three is to increase the Buddhadharma. The principle of leaving home should be to cut off worldly defilements and become respected by humans and devas, using the Dharma to teach sentient beings. However, (monks) speaking unlawful words with women in secluded places violates the Buddha's intention above and loses the respect of humans and devas below. 4. To cut off the sequence of evil dharmas that obstruct the path of cultivation. 2. Explanation of the name: A credible (Upasaka or Upasika) reports to the Sangha, and the matter has not yet been determined and needs to be distinguished. The Sangha has not definitively judged his crime. Therefore, it is called undetermined. 3. Complete conditions: The individual conditions are five. 1. A secluded place. 2. A woman. 3. No third person present. 4. Speaking unlawful words in the four postures (walking, standing, sitting, lying down). Not seeing (monks) seeking real matters. 5. A credible (Upasaka or Upasika) tells the Sangha that the matter has not been decided and judged. Possessing these five conditions enters the scope of punishment for undetermined offenses. 4. Missing conditions: The situation of speaking with bhikkhunis can be known by analogy.
If a monk sits alone with a woman in a secluded place, a covered place, a sheltered place, a place where sexual acts can be committed, speaking unlawful words, and a credible Upasaka (male lay devotee) or Upasika (female lay devotee) says that (the monk) has committed one of the three offenses (Parajika, Sanghavesesa, Pacittiya (expiation offense)). If (the monk) himself says, 'I have committed one of these three offenses,' then this monk should be punished according to the law as stated by the Upasaka or Upasika. This is called an undetermined law. There are four sentences in this precept. First, to non-speaking commits undetermined. Second, there are residents under the undetermined. Third, the monk under self-declaration
不定。四而住信下治罪不定。次下廣釋文句。初文六句。一一除釋。若比丘者。義如上。言女人者。有智未命終也。祇云若母女姊妹親疏老少在家出家者是。所言獨者。一比丘一女人。言屏處者。屏有二種。一者見屏。若塵若霧。若黑若闇。中不相見也。二聞屏。處者乃至常語。不聞聲處。言覆處者。上有物作蓋也。遮障令人不見。言障處者。若樹若墻。若籬若衣。及余物障也。言可作淫處者。得容行淫處也。說非法語者。說淫慾法。上六句明犯罪不定。從住信優婆種已下。解第二舉罪不定。犯既不定。可信隨罪而舉。舉亦不定。故言若夷若殘若提。此中且就粗相。似三罪為言。理通五犯。言信者。謂得四不壞信終不為身。而作妄語等十惡之罪。是坐比丘已下。解第三自言不定。犯既不定。自言亦無揩準。隨引輕重如比丘所說治。故文云。我犯是罪已下。解第四治罪不定。治罪有二。一者舉已引罪。二者舉已不引罪。引罪者。如比丘所說治。不引罪者。如可信語也。治之此即引罪也。當如比丘所說治之。自言犯夷。宜從滅殯。若言犯殘。別住治之。若言犯提。令對手悔隨引而治。若不引罪。文云。如住信優婆種所說應如法治。故律云。說自言作者。應如比丘所說治不自言作者。應如住信語治之。今此不自言作。故如優
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不定。四種情況下，根據住信（Sotāpanna，須陀洹，證入預流果的聖者）的說法來判罪，判罪不定。接下來詳細解釋文句。首先，第一段有六句，逐一解釋。『若比丘者』，意義如前所述。『言女人者』，指有智慧且未命終的女子。祇園中說，無論是母親、女兒、姐妹，親戚或疏遠的人，年老或年少，在家或出家的女子都是。『所言獨者』，指一個比丘和一個女人。『言屏處者』，屏處有兩種：一是見屏，如塵土、霧氣、黑暗等，彼此不能相見；二是聞屏，即使常語，也聽不到聲音的地方。『言覆處者』，指上面有東西遮蓋的地方，遮擋住使人看不見。『言障處者』，指有樹木、墻壁、籬笆、衣服或其他東西遮擋的地方。『言可作淫處者』，指可以進行淫事的地方。『說非法語者』，指說關於淫慾的言語。以上六句說明犯罪的情況不確定。從『住信優婆種』以下，解釋第二種情況，即舉罪不確定。因為犯罪的情況不確定，可以根據可信之人的說法來舉罪，但舉罪也不確定，所以說『若夷若殘若提』。這裡只是就粗略的情況，類似三種罪過來說，實際上可以通用於五種罪過。『言信者』，指證得四不壞信（對佛、法、僧、戒的堅定信仰），終身不會爲了自身而說妄語等十惡之罪的人。『是坐比丘已下』，解釋第三種情況，即自言不確定。因為犯罪的情況不確定，自己所說的話也沒有準則，根據比丘所說的輕重來判罪。所以經文中說『我犯是罪已下』，解釋第四種情況，即治罪不確定。治罪有兩種：一是舉罪后引罪，二是舉罪后不引罪。引罪的，如比丘所說來判罪；不引罪的，如可信之人的話。『治之』，這就是引罪。應當如比丘所說來判罪。如果自言犯波羅夷（Pārājika，斷頭罪），應當判處滅擯（逐出僧團）；如果自言犯僧殘（Saṃghādisesa，僧伽伐舍沙，僅次於波羅夷的重罪），應當別住（暫時隔離）來治理；如果自言犯偷蘭遮（Thullaccaya，粗罪），令其向對方懺悔，根據所引用的罪名來治理。如果不引罪，經文中說『如住信優婆種所說應如法治』。所以律中說，說自己做了的，應當如比丘所說來判罪；不說自己做了的，應當如住信之人的話來判罪。現在這裡是不說自己做了，所以如優婆
【English Translation】 English version Indefinite. In four cases, the judgment is based on the statement of a Sotāpanna (stream-enterer), and the judgment is indefinite. Next, the text is explained in detail. First, the first paragraph has six sentences, which are explained one by one. 'If a Bhikkhu,' the meaning is as mentioned above. 'Speaking of a woman,' refers to a woman who is wise and has not died. In Jeta Grove, it is said that whether it is a mother, daughter, sister, relative or distant person, old or young, a woman who is a layperson or a renunciate. 'The so-called alone,' refers to one Bhikkhu and one woman. 'Speaking of a secluded place,' there are two kinds of secluded places: one is a place hidden from sight, such as dust, fog, darkness, etc., where they cannot see each other; the other is a place hidden from hearing, where even ordinary speech cannot be heard. 'Speaking of a covered place,' refers to a place with something covering it, blocking people from seeing it. 'Speaking of a place with obstacles,' refers to a place with trees, walls, fences, clothes, or other things blocking it. 'Speaking of a place where sexual acts can be performed,' refers to a place where sexual acts can be performed. 'Speaking of speaking unlawful words,' refers to speaking words about lust. The above six sentences explain that the circumstances of the offense are uncertain. From 'Sotāpanna Upāsaka' onwards, the second situation is explained, that is, the accusation is uncertain. Because the circumstances of the offense are uncertain, the accusation can be made based on the statement of a credible person, but the accusation is also uncertain, so it is said 'whether Pārājika, Saṃghādisesa, or Thullaccaya.' Here, it is only in terms of rough situations, similar to three offenses, but in fact it can be applied to five offenses. 'Speaking of faith,' refers to a person who has attained the four kinds of unwavering faith (firm faith in the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, and precepts) and will never lie or commit other ten evil deeds for himself. 'It is sitting Bhikkhu below,' explains the third situation, that is, the self-statement is uncertain. Because the circumstances of the offense are uncertain, there is no standard for what one says, and the judgment is based on the severity of what the Bhikkhu says. Therefore, the sutra says 'I have committed this offense below,' explaining the fourth situation, that is, the judgment is uncertain. There are two types of judgment: one is to cite the offense after the accusation, and the other is not to cite the offense after the accusation. For those who cite the offense, the judgment is based on what the Bhikkhu says; for those who do not cite the offense, it is based on the words of a credible person. 'Judge it,' this is citing the offense. The judgment should be based on what the Bhikkhu says. If he says that he has committed Pārājika (defeat), he should be sentenced to expulsion; if he says that he has committed Saṃghādisesa (formal meeting), he should be governed by separate residence (temporary isolation); if he says that he has committed Thullaccaya (serious offense), he should be made to confess to the other party, and the judgment should be based on the offense cited. If the offense is not cited, the sutra says 'As the Sotāpanna Upāsaka says, it should be governed according to the Dharma.' Therefore, the Vinaya says that if he says that he has done it himself, the judgment should be based on what the Bhikkhu says; if he does not say that he has done it himself, the judgment should be based on the words of the Sotāpanna. Now here, he does not say that he has done it himself, so it is like the Upā
婆種所說治也。不同十誦。比丘言我有是罪。而不往隨比丘語治。若言往不犯是罪。亦如比丘治。若言不往無罪。隨可信治。五分。若於三事一一法治中諸上座應問。是比丘汝往彼家不。若云往未應治。復應軟語與獨坐。不粗語不行淫不。若言不上坐下坐。應切問。汝實語莫妄語。如優婆夷說不。若言如優婆夷說。然後乃可隨治。若言不如比丘治。所以不似可信語者。善見論云。見聞或不審故所言是名不定法者結也 此雖是戒而無有罪。但于屏處與女說非法語招世譏謗。可信白佛故。曰此可信舉戒。
露處不定戒 緣制意釋名具緣闕緣四義同前。但屏露為異。余義皆同。已下明戒本。
若比丘共女人在露現處不可作淫坐作粗惡語有住信優婆種於二法中以一一法說若僧伽婆尸沙若波逸提是坐比丘自言我犯是事於二法中應一一治若僧伽婆尸沙若波逸提如住信優婆種所說應如法治是比丘是名不定法 此戒句同前亦四。一至粗語犯不定。二有住信下舉不定。二是比丘下自言不定。四如住信下治罪不定。但罪二三不同。余義皆等前戒。故不重釋。已下廣辯文句。初文亦六。一一牒釋。若比丘者同前。女人者亦爾。露現處者。謂無墻壁障也。不可作淫處者。不容行淫處也。作粗惡語者。說淫慾不凈行。讚歎二道好惡。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 婆種所說的處理方法是這樣的。這與《十誦律》不同。如果比丘說『我有這個罪』，但不按照其他比丘所說的話來處理，如果他說『去了就不會犯這個罪』，也像其他比丘一樣處理。如果他說『不去就沒有罪』，就按照可信的說法來處理。《五分律》中說，如果對於三件事中的每一件事都要依法處理，那麼上座比丘應該問：『這位比丘，你去了那家嗎？』如果他說『去了』，就不應該立即處理，還應該用溫和的語氣問他是否獨處，是否沒有說粗俗的話，是否沒有行淫。如果他說『沒有上座，沒有下坐』，就應該仔細地問：『你說的是實話嗎？不要說謊。就像優婆夷說的那樣嗎？』如果他說『就像優婆夷說的那樣』，然後才可以按照所說的來處理。如果他說『不像比丘說的那樣』，那麼不像可信的話的原因是，《善見論》中說，因為見聞可能不確實，所以所說的話被稱為不定法，也就是結罪。這雖然是戒律，但並沒有罪，只是在隱蔽的地方與女子說非法的話，招致世人的譏諷。因為可信，所以稟告佛陀，說這是可信的，舉出戒律。
露處不定戒：緣起、制定意圖、釋名、具緣、闕緣四種意義與前戒相同，只是屏處和露處不同。其餘意義都相同。下面說明戒本。
如果比丘與女人在露天的地方，不能行淫的地方，說了粗惡的話，有可信的優婆夷，在兩種情況中，以其中一種情況說，如果是僧伽婆尸沙罪，或者是波逸提罪，那麼坐著的比丘自己說『我犯了這件事』，在兩種情況中，應該按照其中一種情況來處理，如果是僧伽婆尸沙罪，或者是波逸提罪，就像可信的優婆夷所說的那樣，應該依法處理這位比丘，這叫做不定法。這條戒律的句式與前一條相同，也是四種情況。一是說到粗語就犯不定罪。二是有可信的優婆夷，舉出不定罪。三是比丘自己說不定罪。四是按照可信的優婆夷所說來判罪不定。只是罪的二種或三種不同。其餘意義都與前一條戒律相同，所以不再重複解釋。下面廣泛地辨析文句。第一段文字也有六個方面。一一解釋。『若比丘者』與前同。『女人者』也是如此。『露現處者』，是指沒有墻壁遮擋的地方。『不可作淫處者』，是指不能行淫的地方。『作粗惡語者』，是指說淫慾不凈的行為，讚歎男女二根的好壞。
【English Translation】 English version: The treatment described by Bhikkhuni is as follows. This differs from the Sarvastivada Vinaya. If a bhikkhu says, 'I have this offense,' but does not act according to what other bhikkhus say, if he says, 'Going there will not incur this offense,' he is treated like other bhikkhus. If he says, 'Not going there is not an offense,' he is treated according to credible statements. In the Panchavargika Vinaya, it says that if each of the three matters is to be dealt with according to the law, then the senior bhikkhus should ask: 'Bhikkhu, did you go to that house?' If he says 'I went,' he should not be dealt with immediately, and he should be asked gently whether he was alone, whether he did not speak vulgar words, and whether he did not engage in sexual activity. If he says 'There was no senior, no junior,' he should be asked carefully: 'Are you telling the truth? Do not lie. Is it as the female lay follower (Upasika) said?' If he says 'It is as the female lay follower said,' then he can be dealt with according to what was said. If he says 'It is not as the bhikkhus said,' then the reason why it is not like credible words is that, as the Samantapasadika says, because what is seen and heard may not be certain, what is said is called an indefinite law, which is a binding. Although this is a precept, there is no offense, but speaking unlawful words with a woman in a secluded place invites worldly criticism. Because it is credible, it is reported to the Buddha, saying that this is credible, citing the precept.
Indefinite Precept in an Open Place: The origin, intention of establishment, explanation of the name, complete conditions, and incomplete conditions are the same as the previous precept, except for the difference between secluded and open places. The remaining meanings are the same. The following explains the precept itself.
If a bhikkhu is with a woman in an open place, a place where sexual activity is not possible, and speaks coarse words, and there is a credible female lay follower (Upasika) who says in one of two situations, whether it is a Sanghavasesa offense or a Pacittiya offense, then the bhikkhu who is sitting says 'I have committed this offense,' in the two situations, he should be dealt with according to one of the situations, whether it is a Sanghavasesa offense or a Pacittiya offense, as the credible female lay follower (Upasika) said, this bhikkhu should be dealt with according to the law, this is called an indefinite law. The sentence structure of this precept is the same as the previous one, also with four situations. First, speaking coarse words incurs an indefinite offense. Second, there is a credible female lay follower (Upasika) who cites the indefinite offense. Third, the bhikkhu himself speaks of the indefinite offense. Fourth, the judgment of the offense is indefinite according to what the credible female lay follower (Upasika) said. Only the two or three types of offenses are different. The remaining meanings are the same as the previous precept, so they are not repeated. The following broadly analyzes the sentences. The first paragraph also has six aspects. Each is explained. 'If a bhikkhu' is the same as before. 'Woman' is also the same. 'Open place' refers to a place without walls. 'Place where sexual activity is not possible' refers to a place where sexual activity cannot be performed. 'Speaking coarse words' refers to speaking of impure sexual acts, praising the good and bad of the male and female organs.
此上六句此是犯不定。已下諸句文義同上。
諸大德我已說二不定法今問諸大德是中清凈不(三說)諸大德是中清凈默然故是事如是持 此文準前解釋。
諸大德是三十尼薩耆波逸提法半月半月說戒經中來 今明第三篇。三十九十雖同一篇。然舍不捨異故。戒本中分為二門。所以先明三十后說九十者。良以三十於此財物取濟失方廣生罪累。若欲洗心懺悔。要須對僧舍取物。及舍相續貪心事。既舍罪方除滅作法不易。欲使僧尼先識于難。次及於易故列在初九十事中。雖有因財生罪皆不須舍但斷犯心即得懺悔。作法易故留在後說。言尼薩耆者。此方名舍。舍有三種。一舍財物二舍畜心。三舍于罪。言波逸提者。此名墮。墮在燒煮覆障。故曰捨墮。今就三十總別兩釋。先總。后別。就總略辯八門。一對九十舍不捨異。凡三十舍咸具三義。一者屬己之財。二者財體見在受用有罪。三者舍已歸主受用愆。具此三義制令入舍。九十中二十五戒亦因財事不入舍者。三義中闕不得入舍。一由食生罪。有十四戒。未食無罪可舍。食方生罪。復無可舍。闕第二義故屬九十。如贊展別足勸非殘受美樂酒蟲水等。是二食中過三外財凈施。此二闕于初義體屬他物故不入舍。三十戒闕于第三故不入舍。如脫腳著覆無其舍法。白色三衣舍
【現代漢語翻譯】 以上這六句是犯不定法。以下的句子文義與上面相同。
各位大德，我已經說了二種不定法，現在問各位大德，這裡面清凈嗎？（重複三次）各位大德，這裡面清凈，因為大家默然，所以這件事就這樣決定了。這段文字參照前面的解釋。
各位大德，這三十條尼薩耆波逸提法，是從半月半月誦戒經中來的。現在說明第三篇。三十條和九十條雖然同屬一篇，但是舍與不捨不同。戒本中分為兩個部分。所以先說明三十條，后說九十條的原因是，三十條對於財物的獲取，濟助，失去，產生罪過的範圍更廣，罪業的積累更多。如果想要洗心懺悔，必須對僧眾捨棄所取的財物，以及捨棄相續的貪心。捨棄之後，罪過才能消除，作法也不難。想要讓僧尼先認識到難處，然後才容易，所以列在前面。九十條中，雖然有因為財物而產生罪過的，都不需要捨棄，只要斷除犯戒的心，就可以懺悔。作法容易，所以留在後面說。說到尼薩耆（Nissaggiya），在這裡的意思是『舍』。舍有三種：一是捨棄財物，二是捨棄貪心，三是捨棄罪過。說到波逸提（Pācittiya），意思是『墮』。墮在燒煮覆障之中，所以叫做捨墮。現在就三十條戒律，總的來說和分別來說明。先總的說，後分別說。總的來說，略微辨別八個方面：一是對九十條戒律，舍與不捨不同。凡是三十條舍戒，都具備三種含義：一是屬於自己的財物，二是財物本身現在受用是有罪的，三是捨棄之後歸還物主，受用就沒有罪過。具備這三種含義，就制定要捨棄。九十條戒律中，有二十五條戒律也是因為財物的事情，但是不屬於舍戒，是因為三種含義中缺少一種，所以不能屬於舍戒。一是因為食物而產生罪過，有十四條戒律，沒有吃的時候沒有罪過，吃了才產生罪過，又沒有可以捨棄的。缺少第二種含義，所以屬於九十條。例如贊展別足，勸非殘食，受美樂酒，蟲水等。這兩種食物中，超過三天的外財凈施。這兩種缺少第一種含義，本體屬於他物，所以不屬於舍戒。三十條戒律缺少第三種含義，所以不屬於舍戒。例如脫腳著覆，沒有捨棄的方法。白色三衣舍
【English Translation】 The above six sentences are offenses of the indefinite (Aniyata). The meaning of the sentences below is the same as above.
Venerable ones, I have now recited the two Aniyata Dharmas. I now ask the Sangha, are you pure in this matter? (said three times). Venerable ones, you are pure in this matter because you are silent. Thus, this matter is decided. This passage should be interpreted according to the previous explanation.
Venerable ones, these thirty Nissaggiya Pācittiya Dharmas come from the Prātimokṣa (recitation of precepts) recited every half-month. Now, I will explain the third section. Although the thirty and ninety precepts are in the same section, they differ in whether or not something must be forfeited. The Prātimokṣa is divided into two parts. The reason why the thirty precepts are explained first and the ninety precepts are explained later is that the thirty precepts involve a wider range of offenses and greater accumulation of demerit related to the acquisition, assistance, and loss of property. If one wishes to purify the mind and repent, one must forfeit the acquired property to the Sangha and relinquish the continuous greed. Only after forfeiting can the offense be eliminated, and the procedure is not difficult. The intention is to have the monks and nuns first recognize the difficult aspects and then the easier ones, so they are listed first. Among the ninety precepts, although some offenses arise from property, they do not require forfeiture. One only needs to eliminate the intention to violate the precepts to be able to repent. The procedure is easy, so they are discussed later. Nissaggiya (Nissaggiya) means 'forfeiture' in this context. There are three types of forfeiture: first, forfeiting property; second, forfeiting greed; and third, forfeiting offenses. Pācittiya (Pācittiya) means 'falling'. Falling into burning, cooking, and covering, hence it is called forfeiture and expiation. Now, regarding the thirty precepts, I will explain them generally and specifically. First, generally, then specifically. Generally speaking, I will briefly distinguish eight aspects: first, the difference between the thirty and ninety precepts in terms of forfeiture. All thirty precepts that require forfeiture have three meanings: first, the property belongs to oneself; second, the property itself is currently being used and is causing offense; and third, after forfeiting, it is returned to the owner, and there is no offense in using it. Possessing these three meanings, it is stipulated that it must be forfeited. Among the ninety precepts, there are twenty-five precepts that also involve property matters but do not require forfeiture because one of the three meanings is missing, so they cannot be classified as forfeiture precepts. One is that offenses arise from food, there are fourteen precepts. There is no offense when not eating, but an offense arises when eating, and there is nothing to forfeit. The second meaning is missing, so they belong to the ninety precepts. For example, praising, extending, distinguishing feet, encouraging non-leftover food, receiving delicious liquor, insect water, etc. Among these two types of food, the pure offering of external property exceeding three days. These two lack the first meaning, the substance belongs to others, so they do not belong to the forfeiture precepts. The thirty precepts lack the third meaning, so they do not belong to the forfeiture precepts. For example, removing a foot and putting on a covering, there is no method of forfeiture. Forfeiture of the white three robes.
已猶白不得著。如床須截牙角打破貯床挽腳故不入舍。第二自作教他 若論自作雖犯二十七除二浣與𦁉與𦁉但吉。二浣無犯。以佛不制故。今言一人晝犯三十者。通自作使人故爾。第三身口分別。此三十中擔用二局身。余通身口。第四性遮分別。回僧之物性惡氣分。余悉是遮。第五重不重犯者。有四戒。謂擔用二浣。此物現在容可更求故得重犯。如使尼二浣染等雨衣。數用擔毛數過。以其過不異前浣衣擘毛等浣上犯染打。打亦爾。故言使浣染打三尼薩耆。自余諸戒咸不得重。第六舍懺方法。綿褥獨舍。余悉對人中道俗。二寶對俗。余戒對道。道中通局乞缽局僧余多少。第七持犯有八。戒通持犯。五過二離減六年等。自余諸戒唯正持作犯。第八任運有十四戒。五過除樂。此四戒曰滿任運即犯。受寶奪衣二浣乞縷此戒。但使事成三性之中任運亦犯。余無任運。已下別釋。
畜長衣過限戒一 一制意。多論一因開畜長貪。于俗利壞道德之財。二比丘積貯與俗無別失敬之心。三違佛四依之教。即非節儉知足之行。故使不加凈法制與捨墮 二釋名。貯用屬己名畜。限分之餘稱長。越于期限故日過十日。能所通舉故曰畜長衣過十日戒 三具緣通緣如上。別緣有六。一已長衣。謂三衣之外財。其三衣三世諸佛應法之服。體無長
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 就像已經發白的衣服不能再染色。如同床需要截斷牙角，打破床腿，所以不能放入房間。第二，自己做或教別人做。如果論自己做，雖然犯二十七事，但除了二浣（duàn，指洗滌）和𦁉（yìn，指縫補），都是吉祥的。二浣沒有犯戒，因為佛陀沒有禁止。現在說一個人白天犯三十事，是包括自己做和使喚別人。第三，身口分別。這三十事中，擔（dān，指承擔）和用二局（指兩種情況）用身體，其餘的都通過身口。第四，性遮分別。回僧（指歸還給僧眾）的物品是性惡，氣分（指氣味）也是。其餘的都是遮戒。第五，重不重犯。有四戒，即擔、用、二浣。這些物品現在還可以重新獲得，所以可以重犯。例如，使尼（nī，指比丘尼）二浣染等雨衣，多次使用擔毛，次數超過。因為超過並不異於之前的浣衣、擘毛等，浣上犯染打，打也是如此。所以說使浣染打三尼薩耆（ní sēng qí，一種懺悔方式）。其餘的戒律都不能重犯。第六，舍懺方法。綿褥單獨舍，其餘的都對人，包括僧人和俗人。二寶（指佛寶和法寶）對俗人，其餘的戒律對僧人。僧人中包括乞缽（qǐ bō，指乞食用的缽）的僧人，其餘的多少。第七，持犯有八。戒律包括持戒和犯戒。五過（指五種過失）、二離（指兩種離棄）、減六年等。其餘的戒律只有正持和作犯。第八，任運有十四戒。五過除了樂。這四戒說滿了任運就犯戒。受寶、奪衣、二浣、乞縷這些戒律，只要事情完成，在三性（指善、惡、無記）之中任運也犯戒。其餘的沒有任運。以下分別解釋。
畜長衣過限戒一（chù cháng yī guò xiàn jiè yī，指儲存過長的衣服超過期限的戒律）：一、制意。多論認為，因為貪婪而儲存過長的衣服，對於世俗的利益有害，破壞道德的財富。二、比丘（bǐ qiū，指男性出家人）積攢財物，與世俗之人沒有區別，失去了敬重之心。三、違背佛陀四依（sì yī，指四種依靠）的教導，即不是節儉知足的行為。所以不加上清凈之法，制定為捨墮（shě duò，一種罪名）。二、釋名。貯藏使用屬於自己的物品稱為畜（chù，指儲存）。超過期限的部分稱為長（cháng，指過長）。超過期限，所以叫做過十日。能所通舉，所以叫做畜長衣過十日戒。三、具緣通緣如上。別緣有六。一、已長衣。指三衣（sān yī，指三種僧衣）之外的財物。這三衣是三世諸佛應法的服裝，本身沒有長短限制。
【English Translation】 English version: It is like already whitened clothes that cannot be dyed again. It is like a bed that needs to have its ivory corners cut off and its legs broken, so it cannot be placed in the room. Second, doing it yourself or teaching others to do it. If we talk about doing it yourself, although you commit twenty-seven offenses, except for two dhuvanas (washing) and indana (mending), they are all auspicious. Two dhuvanas are not offenses, because the Buddha did not prohibit them. Now, saying that a person commits thirty offenses during the day includes both doing it yourself and employing others. Third, distinguishing between body and speech. Among these thirty offenses, dama (bearing) and using two situations involve the body, and the rest involve both body and speech. Fourth, distinguishing between nature and prohibition. Returning items to the Sangha is inherently evil, and the smell is also. The rest are all prohibitive precepts. Fifth, whether the offense is repeatable or not. There are four precepts, namely dama, using, and two dhuvanas. These items can still be obtained again, so the offense can be repeated. For example, if a bhikkhuni (female monastic) does two dhuvanas to dye raincoats, and uses dama wool many times, exceeding the number. Because exceeding is no different from the previous washing of clothes, splitting wool, etc., washing on the dhuvanas commits dyeing and beating, and beating is also the same. Therefore, it is said that employing washing, dyeing, and beating are three nissaggiya (a type of expiation). The rest of the precepts cannot be repeated. Sixth, the method of relinquishment and confession. Cotton mattresses are relinquished separately, and the rest are done in front of people, including monastics and laypeople. The Two Jewels (Buddha and Dharma) are confessed to laypeople, and the rest of the precepts are confessed to monastics. Among monastics, it includes monastics who beg for alms with a bowl, and the rest, whether more or less. Seventh, upholding and violating have eight aspects. Precepts include upholding and violating. Five transgressions, two abandonments, reducing six years, etc. The rest of the precepts only have correct upholding and committing offenses. Eighth, there are fourteen precepts that are committed spontaneously. Five transgressions exclude pleasure. These four precepts say that the precept is violated as soon as the limit is reached. Receiving treasures, taking away clothes, two dhuvanas, and begging for thread, these precepts are also violated spontaneously among the three natures (good, evil, and neutral) as long as the matter is completed. The rest are not spontaneous. The following explains them separately.
The precept of storing long robes beyond the limit ( chù cháng yī guò xiàn jiè yī): 1. The intention of the precept. Many treatises believe that storing long robes out of greed is harmful to worldly benefits and destroys the wealth of morality. 2. Bhikkhus (male monastics) accumulating wealth are no different from worldly people, losing respect. 3. It violates the Buddha's teachings of the Four Reliances (sì yī), which is not an act of frugality and contentment. Therefore, without adding pure methods, it is established as nissaggiya (a type of expiation). 2. Explanation of the name. Storing and using items that belong to oneself is called chù (storing). The part that exceeds the limit is called cháng (long). Exceeding the time limit is called exceeding ten days. The ability and the object are both mentioned, so it is called the precept of storing long robes exceeding ten days. 3. The general conditions are as above. There are six specific conditions. 1. Already long robes. Refers to wealth other than the three robes (sān yī). These three robes are the appropriate clothing of the Buddhas of the three times, and there is no limit to their length.
過故爾。雖是已長若妄此財亦復無罪 是故第二知屬己物。物雖屬己若不應量畜過無罪。是故第三應量之財。財雖應量說凈無罪。故須第四不說凈。若有一因及起四想。被舉留難因緣亦是不犯。故須第五無因緣。多論初日得衣即被三殯來。乃至命盡不犯。雖無因緣畜未過限亦不得罪。故須第六十一日明相出犯 四闕比說可知。已下正明戒本。初略制。二牒制隨開。后廣制。言略者。不聽畜長。六群多積長衣。因此起過。佛便制戒。言牒制者。因阿難得一長衣。欲奉迦葉佛。隨開限十日。言廣制者。
若比丘衣已竟加絺那衣已出畜長衣經十日不凈施得畜若過十日尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文有五句。一犯人。二犯時。三所畜財體。四開限。五結犯。此五句文初略辯。后廣釋。言略辯者。若比丘是犯人。衣已竟迦絺那衣已出是犯時。三畜長衣是所畜財體。四得畜十日即是開限。五若過已下違教得罪。是結犯句。次下廣釋言。若比丘者。義如上辯。衣已竟者。見云。三衣具足竟明其未具無長故。又言。謂迦提月竟未竟不犯。所言迦絺那衣已出者。已出者舍也。舍方犯。故律云。謂出功德衣外時也。第三句畜長衣。謂所畜長衣及財。三衣之外皆名為長。于中有二。一辯衣體。二明尺量分齊。言衣體者。律云。有十種衣。皆
以麻絲毛綿為衣體。言長衣量者。律云。長如來八指廣四指。是名長。祇律長二肘廣一肘。見論長二搩手廣一搩手。四分律尺六八寸是名長。第四句言不凈施得畜十日者。是開限。律云。佛因阿難開畜十日。第五結罪句者。是尼薩耆波逸提。犯有二種。一者過犯。二者染犯。故律云。一日得衣畜。如是二日乃至十日。或日日得。或中間有得。不得至十日明相出已。於十日內隨所得衣一切犯長。初日衣是過犯。過十日故。下九日衣隨得者。是染犯。未過十日。猶初日衣犯長故染。十日內九所得衣者。亦合犯長。此尼薩耆位有其四。一須舍財。二須懺悔罪。三須還財。四不還結罪如律廣說。不犯中。若凈施。若與人。若失若壞。若作非衣。若作親厚意妄不說凈。若四想生不說凈。若受寄衣人命終。若遠出述道等不說凈。皆不犯。
離衣宿戒第二 一制意。三衣者乃是三世諸佛應法之服。資身長道最為要用。理宜隨身。如鳥二翼。而無暫離。今留衣在此身。居異處寒暑率起急須難得。又闕守護容成失。脫廢資身用事惱不輕。是故聖制 二釋名。人于異處名離。逕夜日宿久即事慢促則起惱。限其一日過則便犯。故曰離宿戒 三具緣。通緣知上。別緣有六。一是三衣。二加受持法。三人衣異界。四不捨念。五無因緣。六明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『以麻絲毛綿為衣體』。指的是衣服的長度和尺寸。律中說：『長如來八指，廣四指』，這叫做長。祇律中說長二肘，廣一肘。見論中說長二搩手，廣一搩手。《四分律》中說尺六八寸叫做長。第四句說『不凈施得畜十日』，這是開許的期限。律中說，佛因阿難（Ananda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）而開許畜養十日。第五句『結罪句』，是尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pacittiya，一種戒律名稱）。犯有兩種，一是過犯，二是染犯。所以律中說：『一日得衣畜』，這樣二日乃至十日，或者日日得到，或者中間有得到，不得超過十日明相出現。在十日內，無論得到什麼衣服，都犯長。初日的衣服是過犯，因為超過了十日。下九日的衣服，隨得到就犯，因為未過十日，猶如初日衣服犯長一樣。十日內九日所得的衣服，也同樣犯長。此尼薩耆（Nissaggiya）位有四種情況：一是必須舍財，二是必須懺悔罪，三是必須歸還財物，四是不歸還則按律結罪。不犯的情況有：若是凈施，若是給予他人，若是遺失或損壞，若是做成非衣，若是爲了親厚而妄說為凈，若是生起四想而不說為凈，若是接受寄託衣服的人去世，若是遠出述道等而不說為凈，都不犯。
『離衣宿戒第二』。一是制定意義。三衣（Ticīvara，比丘所持的三種袈裟）乃是三世諸佛應法的服裝，資養身體，增長道業，最為重要。理應隨身攜帶，如同鳥的雙翼，不能暫時分離。現在把衣服留在這裡，身體居住在別處，寒暑變化，急需時難以得到。又缺少守護，容易遺失。脫離了資身之用，事情繁瑣，惱怒不輕。因此聖人制定。二是解釋名稱。人在異處叫做離。經過一夜叫做宿，時間久了就會懈怠，事情緊迫就會惱怒。限定為一日，超過一日就犯戒，所以叫做離宿戒。三是具足因緣。通用的因緣如上所述。特別的因緣有六：一是三衣，二是加受持法，三是人衣在不同界限，四是不捨棄念，五是沒有因緣，六是明相出現。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Using linen, silk, wool, and cotton as the body of the robe.』 This refers to the length and size of the robe. The Vinaya states: 『The length is eight fingers of the Tathagata (Tathagata, one of the titles of the Buddha), and the width is four fingers,』 this is called long. The Sarvastivada Vinaya states that the length is two cubits and the width is one cubit. The Mulasarvastivada-vinaya states that the length is two spans and the width is one span. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states that six feet and eight inches is called long. The fourth sentence, 『receiving impure alms and keeping them for ten days,』 this is a permitted limit. The Vinaya states that the Buddha, because of Ananda (Ananda, one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha), permitted keeping them for ten days. The fifth sentence, 『the sentence of offense,』 is Nissaggiya Pacittiya (Nissaggiya Pacittiya, a type of precept). There are two types of offenses: one is an offense of transgression, and the other is an offense of defilement. Therefore, the Vinaya states: 『Receiving a robe and keeping it for one day,』 thus for two days up to ten days, either receiving it every day or receiving it in between, it must not exceed the appearance of the dawn of the tenth day. Within ten days, whatever robe is received, it is an offense of excess. The robe of the first day is an offense of transgression because it exceeds ten days. The robes of the following nine days, as they are received, are offenses of defilement because they have not exceeded ten days, just like the robe of the first day is an offense of excess. The robes received within nine days of the ten days are also offenses of excess. This Nissaggiya (Nissaggiya) position has four situations: first, one must relinquish the property; second, one must repent of the offense; third, one must return the property; and fourth, if one does not return it, one is convicted according to the Vinaya. Non-offenses include: if it is pure alms, if it is given to others, if it is lost or damaged, if it is made into a non-robe, if one falsely says it is pure out of affection, if one has four thoughts and does not say it is pure, if the person who entrusted the robe dies, if one goes far away to expound the Dharma and does not say it is pure, none of these are offenses.
『The Second Precept of Separating from Robes Overnight.』 First, the meaning of the establishment. The three robes (Ticīvara, the three Kasaya robes held by a Bhikkhu) are the appropriate garments of the Buddhas of the three worlds, nourishing the body and increasing the path, which is most important. It should be carried with one at all times, like the two wings of a bird, and cannot be separated even temporarily. Now, leaving the robe here and residing elsewhere, changes in cold and heat, and the difficulty in obtaining it when urgently needed. Also, lacking protection, it is easy to lose. Separating from the use of nourishing the body, matters are cumbersome, and annoyance is not light. Therefore, the sage established it. Second, explaining the name. A person in a different place is called separation. Passing the night is called lodging, and over time, it becomes lax, and when things are urgent, it becomes annoying. It is limited to one day, and exceeding one day is an offense, so it is called the precept of separating from lodging. Third, having the complete causes and conditions. The common causes and conditions are as mentioned above. The special causes and conditions are six: first, the three robes; second, the method of receiving and holding; third, the person and the robe are in different boundaries; fourth, not abandoning the thought; fifth, having no cause or condition; sixth, the appearance of dawn.
相出即犯 四闕。比說可知。已下正明此戒。文亦有三。初因六群留衣異處自往人間。因此起過。佛便略制。不聽離衣。次因有病比丘。衣重不能持行。佛聽作法開離無過。后乃廣制。
若比丘衣已竟迦絺那衣已出三衣中離一一衣異處宿除僧羯磨尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文句有六。一若比丘者。人分齊。二衣已竟等。犯時分齊。三衣中者。所離衣分齊。四離一一衣下。人衣互在分齊。五除十下。開法分齊。六尼薩耆下。結罪分齊。次下廣辯文句。言若比丘者。義如上釋。第二句言衣已竟等者。除不犯。泛五。謂一夜六夜一日九日。此五重中六夜難明。余之四重合開此戒。但一夜者。唯制非開。一月等三事開通制。第三句三衣言中者。明所離衣。初辯畜三衣意。一釋三衣不如義。多論云。現未曾有法故聽畜三衣。智論云。佛聖弟子在於中道故畜三衣。多論云。一衣不能除寒。三衣能除障寒。一衣不能除慚愧。三衣能除慚愧。一衣不中入聚落。三衣足故堪入聚落。一衣不能生善。三衣能發前人歡喜之心。一衣威儀不具。三衣能令威儀清凈。以此義故聽畜三衣。次明三衣如不如。一者體如。二者作如。三者量如。四者色如要具四法方可成受。有離宿過。言體如者。麻毛絲綿是正衣體。余並不堪。言作如者于中有四。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 相出即犯四闕（如果情況不符合，就觸犯四種缺失）。具體情況可以參考之前的解釋。以下是正式說明此戒律。內容分為三部分。首先，因為六群比丘將衣服留在不同的地方，自己前往人間，因此犯了過錯。佛陀因此略作規定，不允許離開衣服。其次，因為有生病的比丘，衣服太重無法攜帶，佛陀允許通過羯磨法（僧團的儀式）開許離開，沒有過錯。最後，進一步廣泛地制定了戒律。
『若比丘衣已竟迦絺那衣已出三衣中離一一衣異處宿除僧羯磨尼薩耆波逸提』（如果比丘的衣服已經完成，已經過了迦絺那衣的期限，在三衣中離開任何一件衣服，在不同的地方過夜，除非經過僧團羯磨，否則犯尼薩耆波逸提）。這條完整的戒律條文有六個要點。一是『若比丘』，指明了對象。二是『衣已竟等』，指明了觸犯的時間。三是『衣中』，指明了所離開的衣服。四是『離一一衣下』，指明了人和衣服相互分離的情況。五是『除十下』，指明了開許的情況。六是『尼薩耆下』，指明了判罪的情況。接下來詳細解釋條文。『若比丘』的含義如前所述。第二句『衣已竟等』，排除了不犯的情況，泛指五種情況，即一夜、六夜、一日、九日。這五種情況中，六夜難以明確，其餘四種情況符合開許此戒的條件。但一夜的情況，只是禁止而非開許。一月等三種情況，開許和禁止都適用。第三句『三衣言中』，說明了所離開的衣服。首先辨析擁有三衣的意義。一種解釋是三衣不如法。多論說，因為有現在和未曾有之法，所以允許擁有三衣。智論說，佛陀的聖弟子處於中道，所以擁有三衣。多論說，一件衣服不能禦寒，三件衣服能禦寒。一件衣服不能遮羞，三件衣服能遮羞。一件衣服不適合進入村落，三件衣服足夠進入村落。一件衣服不能產生善，三件衣服能引發他人歡喜之心。一件衣服威儀不具足，三件衣服能使威儀清凈。因為這些原因，所以允許擁有三衣。其次說明三衣如法不如法。一是體如法，二是製作如法，三是尺寸如法，四是顏色如法，必須具備這四種條件才能成就受持。有離開過夜的過失。所謂體如法，是指麻、毛、絲、綿是正衣的材料，其餘都不行。所謂製作如法，其中有四點。
【English Translation】 English version: 'If the situation does not meet the requirements, it violates the four deficiencies.' The specific situation can be referred to the previous explanation. The following is the formal explanation of this precept. The content is divided into three parts. First, because the Six Group Bhikkhus left their robes in different places and went to the human world by themselves, they committed a fault. The Buddha therefore made a brief rule, not allowing them to leave their robes. Second, because there were sick Bhikkhus whose robes were too heavy to carry, the Buddha allowed them to leave through the Karma (Sangha ritual), without fault. Finally, the precepts were further widely established.
'If a Bhikkhu's robe is completed, the Kathina robe period has passed, and among the three robes, he leaves any one robe and spends the night in a different place, unless through Sangha Karma, he commits Nissaggiya Pacittiya.' This complete precept text has six key points. First, 'If a Bhikkhu' specifies the object. Second, 'robe is completed, etc.' specifies the time of violation. Third, 'among the robes' specifies the robe that is left. Fourth, 'leaves any one robe' specifies the situation where the person and the robe are separated from each other. Fifth, 'except ten below' specifies the permitted situations. Sixth, 'Nissaggiya below' specifies the judgment of the offense. Next, the text is explained in detail. The meaning of 'If a Bhikkhu' is as explained before. The second sentence 'robe is completed, etc.' excludes the non-offense situations, generally referring to five situations, namely one night, six nights, one day, nine days. Among these five situations, six nights are difficult to clarify, and the remaining four situations meet the conditions for allowing this precept. However, the situation of one night is only prohibited and not allowed. The three situations such as one month are applicable to both permission and prohibition. The third sentence 'among the three robes' explains the robe that is left. First, analyze the meaning of possessing three robes. One explanation is that three robes are not in accordance with the Dharma. The Maha-Prajnaparamita-sastra says that because there are present and unprecedented Dharmas, it is allowed to possess three robes. The Maha-Prajnaparamita-sastra says that the Buddha's holy disciples are in the middle way, so they possess three robes. The Maha-Prajnaparamita-sastra says that one robe cannot keep out the cold, and three robes can keep out the cold. One robe cannot cover shame, and three robes can cover shame. One robe is not suitable for entering villages, and three robes are sufficient for entering villages. One robe cannot generate good, and three robes can evoke joy in others. One robe does not have complete dignity, and three robes can make the dignity pure. For these reasons, it is allowed to possess three robes. Secondly, explain whether the three robes are in accordance with the Dharma or not. First, the material is in accordance with the Dharma, second, the making is in accordance with the Dharma, third, the size is in accordance with the Dharma, and fourth, the color is in accordance with the Dharma. These four conditions must be met to achieve acceptance. There is the fault of leaving overnight. The so-called material in accordance with the Dharma means that hemp, wool, silk, and cotton are the materials for the proper robe, and the rest are not acceptable. The so-called making in accordance with the Dharma has four points.
須如法割截。二須條數如法。三重數多少。四剌作如法。具足四種名作如。言量如者。長五肘廣三肘。若增減不成受持。言色如法者謂青黃木蘭。余色之衣不堪受持。除糞掃衣。第四句言離一一衣異處宿者。明互離失義。初明離之法。人衣異界曰離。經夜日宿。此中離者謂離受持衣。若離余衣但得小罪。
問。三衣六物同是資身。所以離三衣失而犯提離。余衣等輕 答。三衣正制受通三品。今若離者違制罪重。而失受法。余衣物等開。于中下為資道不足。今若離者對開為違。唯得吉羅。而不受。此辯失衣分齊。三護衣之界有其二種。一者自然。二者作法界。自然之界多少不定。諸部通說總有十五。一者僧伽藍界。藍有四種。二者村界。亦有四種。謂周匝垣墻柵籬籬墻不周四周有屋等。三樹界。若樹葉相連。齊與人手足蔭覆跏趺坐。十誦取日正中時蔭影覆處。水不及處。是衣界。四場界。律云。治五穀處也。謂村外空靜處。五車界。六船界。並俱在陸地律云。若車船迴轉處。此但明住車。十誦行車者。前車向中車杖所及處。中車向前後車杖所及處。後車向中車杖所及處。若不及者是名異界。七舍界。謂村外祇云。若樓閣梯橙道外二十五肘名衣界。八堂界者。律云。多敞露。九庫界。積藏諸物。十倉界。儲積穀米處
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 須如法割截（必須按照規定正確地裁剪）。二須條數如法（第二，條數的數量必須符合規定）。三重數多少（第三，重疊的層數要符合規定）。四剌作如法（第四，縫製的方式要符合規定）。具備這四種條件才能稱為『如』。言量如者（所說的尺寸符合規定），長五肘廣三肘（長度為五肘，寬度為三肘）。如果增加或減少，就不能算是受持。言色如法者（所說的顏色符合規定），謂青黃木蘭（指青色、黃色或木蘭色）。其他顏色的衣服不能受持，除非是糞掃衣（用丟棄的布料縫製的衣服）。第四句說『離一一衣異處宿者』（離開每一件衣服在不同的地方過夜），說明了互相分離而遺失的含義。首先說明分離的方法，人和衣服在不同的界限內叫做分離，經過一夜一天。這裡所說的分離是指離開受持的衣服。如果離開其他的衣服，只是犯小罪。
問：三衣六物（比丘所擁有的三種袈裟和六種生活用具）同樣是資身之物，為什麼離開三衣會失去受持而犯提離罪，而離開其他的衣服等只是輕罪？答：三衣是正式規定的，普遍適用於上中下三品之人。現在如果離開三衣，就是違背了制度，罪過很重，並且會失去受持的資格。其他的衣服等是開許的，對於中下品之人來說，資身之物不足，現在如果離開，就是違背了開許，只能得到吉羅罪，而不會失去受持的資格。這是辨別遺失衣服的分界。三護衣的界限有兩種，一種是自然形成的，一種是人為設定的。自然形成的界限大小不定，各個部派普遍認為總共有十五種。一是僧伽藍界（僧眾居住的園林，藍有四種含義）。二是村界（村莊的界限，也有四種情況，即周圍有圍墻、柵欄、籬笆，或者籬笆墻不完整，四周有房屋等）。三是樹界（如果樹葉相互連線，高度與人的手腳相當，能夠遮蔽跏趺坐的人。十誦律中說，取日正午時陽光的陰影覆蓋之處，水淹不到的地方，就是衣服的界限）。四是場界（律中說，是處理五穀的地方，指村外空曠安靜的地方）。五是車界。六是船界。都在陸地上，律中說，是車船可以迴轉的地方。這裡只是說明停住的車。十誦律中說，行駛的車，前車到中間的車杖所能及之處，中間的車到前後車杖所能及之處，後車到中間的車杖所能及之處。如果不能及，就叫做不同的界限。七是舍界（指村外的房屋，律中說，如果是樓閣，梯子通道外二十五肘的地方是衣服的界限）。八是堂界（律中說，是多敞露的地方）。九是庫界（積藏各種物品的地方）。十是倉界（儲藏穀米的地方）。
【English Translation】 English version It must be cut properly according to the Dharma. Second, the number of strips must be according to the Dharma. Third, the number of layers must be appropriate. Fourth, the stitching must be done according to the Dharma. Having these four qualities is called 'according to'. 'The measurement is according to' means five cubits in length and three cubits in width. If it is increased or decreased, it cannot be accepted. 'The color is according to the Dharma' refers to blue, yellow, or magnolia. Clothes of other colors cannot be accepted, except for discarded cloth robes. The fourth sentence, 'leaving each garment to sleep in a different place,' clarifies the meaning of mutual separation and loss. First, it explains the method of separation. A person and clothing in different boundaries is called separation, passing through a night and a day. Separation here refers to leaving the accepted garment. If other garments are left, only a minor offense is committed.
Question: The three robes and six articles (the three kasayas and six requisites of a Bhikkhu) are equally for supporting the body. Why is it that leaving the three robes results in losing acceptance and committing a Tisal offense, while leaving other garments results in a minor offense? Answer: The three robes are formally prescribed and universally applicable to the upper, middle, and lower classes of people. Now, if one leaves the three robes, it is a violation of the system, the offense is serious, and one loses the qualification for acceptance. Other garments are permitted, and for the middle and lower classes of people, the means of supporting the body are insufficient. Now, if one leaves them, it is a violation of the permission, and one only receives a Dukkhata offense, without losing the qualification for acceptance. This distinguishes the boundaries of losing garments. There are two types of boundaries for protecting the three robes: one is natural, and the other is artificially established. The natural boundaries are of varying sizes, and the various schools generally recognize fifteen types. First, the Sangharama boundary (the garden where the Sangha resides, 'Rama' has four meanings). Second, the village boundary (the boundary of the village, which also has four situations, namely, surrounded by walls, fences, hedges, or incomplete hedges, with houses on all sides). Third, the tree boundary (if the leaves of the trees are connected to each other, the height is equivalent to a person's hands and feet, and it can cover a person sitting in the lotus position. The Ten Recitations Vinaya says that the place covered by the shadow of the sun at noon, where the water does not reach, is the boundary of the garment). Fourth, the field boundary (the Vinaya says that it is the place for processing the five grains, referring to a quiet and empty place outside the village). Fifth, the cart boundary. Sixth, the boat boundary. Both are on land. The Vinaya says that it is the place where carts and boats can turn around. This only explains the parked cart. The Ten Recitations Vinaya says that for a moving cart, the place that the front cart can reach with a staff to the middle cart, the place that the middle cart can reach with a staff to the front and rear carts, and the place that the rear cart can reach with a staff to the middle cart. If it cannot reach, it is called a different boundary. Seventh, the house boundary (referring to houses outside the village, the Vinaya says that if it is a pavilion, the place twenty-five cubits outside the ladder passage is the boundary of the garment). Eighth, the hall boundary (the Vinaya says that it is a place that is mostly open). Ninth, the storehouse boundary (the place where various items are stored). Tenth, the granary boundary (the place where grains are stored).
。十一阿蘭若界。律云。蘭若者無界。謂回在空野無別諸界。假以樹量大小。八樹中間一樹間七弓。弓長四肘。通計五十八步。兼其勢分七十有餘。十二道行界。十誦比丘與師持衣。通中行前後四十九尋內不失。論云。疑廣亦得四十九尋為護衣界。十三洲界。善見云。十四肘內不失衣。十四水界。見云。蘭若處坐禪。天欲曉患睡脫衣置岸入水池洗浴。明相出犯舍。祇云。水中道行界二十肘若船界者入水則異。母云。著衣岸上一腳入水一腳在岸不名異界。十五井界。僧祇道行露地井蘭傍宿。置衣在二十五肘內名護衣界。所言作法界者。依僧界結。律云。不失衣者。藍有一界。失衣者。藍有若干界。四分他部相成有四種。即染隔情界之礙。上之三礙通界並有。若論界礙彼此不通。故文云。失衣者。僧伽藍里有若干界。謂上三礙在伽藍院內。故衣則有多界。不失衣者。僧伽藍里有一界。謂無上三礙也。言染礙者。律云。藍內有一女人。來往衣須隨身。若女人在中人依彼此即名異界。所言隔礙者。律云。水陸道斷與衣不會者是。祇云。衣在房內。人在於外。不從籥。又無梯橙。名之為礙。言情礙者。多論王來界內大小行處。近王左右並非衣界。及以作幻作樂人皆名情礙。祇云。兄弟分齊之處亦名情礙。所言界礙者。如上所明。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 十一、阿蘭若界（Aranya-kshetra，指遠離人煙的修行場所的邊界）。《律藏》中說：『阿蘭若沒有固定的邊界』，指的是在空曠的郊野，沒有其他明確的界限。可以假設以樹木的數量來衡量大小，八棵樹中間隔一棵樹，樹間距離七弓（dhanus），一弓長四肘（hasta），總計五十八步。加上其延伸的區域，大約有七十多步。 十二、道行界（Patha-gamana-kshetra，指行走的道路的邊界）。《十誦律》中說：比丘和他的老師拿著衣服，在通常行走的道路上，前後四十九尋（vyama）的範圍內，衣服不會丟失。《論》中說：『如果懷疑範圍過大，也可以以四十九尋作為保護衣服的邊界』。 十三、洲界（Dvipa-kshetra，指島嶼的邊界）。《善見律毗婆沙》中說：『在十四肘（hasta）的範圍內，衣服不會丟失』。 十四、水界（Udaka-kshetra，指水域的邊界）。《善見律毗婆沙》中說：『在阿蘭若處坐禪，天快亮時感到睏倦，脫下衣服放在岸邊，進入水池洗浴。如果天亮了，就犯了捨墮（Nissaggiya Pacittiya）』。《僧祇律》中說：『在水中行走的邊界是二十肘，如果是船的邊界，進入水中情況就不同了』。《摩訶僧祇律》中說：『穿著衣服，一隻腳在岸上，一隻腳在水中，不稱為不同的邊界』。 十五、井界（Kupa-kshetra，指水井的邊界）。《僧祇律》中說：『在行走的露天場所，靠近水井的地方住宿，將衣服放在二十五肘的範圍內，稱為保護衣服的邊界』。 所說的『作法界』，是依據僧團的邊界來結界。《律藏》中說：『不丟失衣服的，僧伽藍（Samgharama，僧院）只有一個邊界；丟失衣服的，僧伽藍有若干個邊界』。《四分律》和其他部派的觀點綜合起來，有四種障礙，即染礙（Raga-avarana）、隔礙（Antaraya-avarana）、情礙（Citta-avarana）和界礙（Kshetra-avarana）。以上三種障礙普遍存在於各種邊界中。如果討論邊界的障礙，彼此之間互不相通。所以經文中說：『丟失衣服的，僧伽藍里有若干個邊界』，指的是以上三種障礙存在於伽藍的院內，所以衣服會有多個邊界。不丟失衣服的，僧伽藍里只有一個邊界，指的是沒有以上三種障礙。 所說的『染礙』，《律藏》中說：『僧伽藍內有一個女人，來來往往，衣服必須隨身攜帶。如果女人在中間，人們依據彼此的情況，就稱為不同的邊界』。 所說的『隔礙』，《律藏》中說：『水路或陸路中斷，衣服無法送達的情況』。《僧祇律》中說：『衣服在房間內，人在外面，沒有鑰匙，也沒有梯子，就稱為障礙』。 所說的『情礙』，《多論》中說：『國王來到邊界內，大小便的地方，靠近國王左右的地方，都不是衣服的邊界。以及表演幻術、演奏音樂的人，都稱為情礙』。《僧祇律》中說：『兄弟分居的地方，也稱為情礙』。 所說的『界礙』，如上面所說明的。
【English Translation】 English version Eleven, Aranya-kshetra (Boundary of Wilderness): The Vinaya says, 'Aranya has no boundary,' referring to the open wilderness without distinct limits. It can be assumed to measure the size by the number of trees, with one tree between every eight trees, and a distance of seven dhanus (bow-lengths) between trees, with one dhanu being four hasta (cubits), totaling fifty-eight steps. Including its extended area, it is approximately seventy steps or more. Twelve, Patha-gamana-kshetra (Boundary of the Walking Path): The Dasavarga Vinaya says: 'A Bhikshu and his teacher, carrying robes, within forty-nine vyamas (fathoms) before and behind on the usual walking path, the robe will not be lost.' The Abhidharma says, 'If there is doubt that the area is too large, forty-nine vyamas can also be used as the boundary for protecting the robe.' Thirteen, Dvipa-kshetra (Boundary of an Island): The Samantapasadika says, 'Within fourteen hasta (cubits), the robe will not be lost.' Fourteen, Udaka-kshetra (Boundary of Water): The Samantapasadika says, 'While meditating in an Aranya, feeling sleepy as dawn approaches, one takes off the robe and places it on the bank, entering the pond for bathing. If dawn breaks, it constitutes a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense.' The Mahasanghika Vinaya says, 'The boundary for walking in water is twenty hasta. If it is the boundary of a boat, the situation is different upon entering the water.' The Mahasanghika Vinaya also says, 'Wearing the robe, with one foot on the bank and one foot in the water, it is not considered a different boundary.' Fifteen, Kupa-kshetra (Boundary of a Well): The Mahasanghika Vinaya says, 'While lodging in an open area near a well on a walking path, placing the robe within twenty-five hasta is called the boundary for protecting the robe.' The so-called 'established boundary' is based on the boundary established by the Sangha. The Vinaya says, 'For those who do not lose the robe, the Samgharama (monastery) has only one boundary; for those who lose the robe, the Samgharama has several boundaries.' Combining the views of the Sarvastivada Vinaya and other schools, there are four kinds of hindrances, namely Raga-avarana (hindrance of attachment), Antaraya-avarana (hindrance of obstruction), Citta-avarana (hindrance of mind), and Kshetra-avarana (hindrance of boundary). The above three hindrances are commonly present in various boundaries. If discussing the hindrances of boundaries, they do not communicate with each other. Therefore, the text says, 'For those who lose the robe, there are several boundaries in the Samgharama,' referring to the presence of the above three hindrances within the monastery, so the robe will have multiple boundaries. For those who do not lose the robe, there is only one boundary in the Samgharama, referring to the absence of the above three hindrances. The so-called 'hindrance of attachment,' the Vinaya says, 'Within the Samgharama, there is a woman who comes and goes, and the robe must be carried with her. If the woman is in the middle, people consider it a different boundary based on each other's situation.' The so-called 'hindrance of obstruction,' the Vinaya says, 'When the water route or land route is interrupted, and the robe cannot be delivered.' The Mahasanghika Vinaya says, 'If the robe is inside the room, and the person is outside, without a key or a ladder, it is called an obstruction.' The so-called 'hindrance of mind,' the Abhidharma says, 'When the king comes within the boundary, the places for urination and defecation, and the places near the king's left and right, are not the boundary for the robe. And those who perform illusions and play music are all called hindrances of mind.' The Mahasanghika Vinaya says, 'The places where brothers live separately are also called hindrances of mind.' The so-called 'hindrance of boundary' is as explained above.
若有若干界即須身衣同處。若不爾即名失衣。乃至蘭若界亦復如是。準四分律加於勢分。諸部並無。言勢分者。藍分者藍外人搏石所及衣處。是名界分。乃至倉庫界亦如是。善見論云。中人擲石不健不羸人盡力擲石至落處。以量有十五步。此但道自然不通。作法必須入界方乃會衣。第五句開離分齊。言除僧羯磨者。律云。時有比丘病患因緣。三衣極重。意欲遊行。佛聽開。乞羯磨離衣九月。多論四義故開離衣。一有緣眾生應受作故。二宜遊行令病損故。三求行道所宜故四未降者降之。已降者令發喜故。開中有成不成。一要須衣重病人方成。餘三句互有俱無並作法不成。多論假使衣人互不如法。前人妄語得罪。作法得成。以羯磨防離衣宿不防病等故。五分律云。前安居人九月。后安居人八月。四分律云。留僧伽梨。祇五二律但留郁多僧。餘二不許。十多二文三衣之中俱有離義。離但一衣不得離二。第六句言尼薩耆波逸提者。明結罪分齊。于中有四。一舍所犯之衣。二懺所犯之罪。三卻還本衣。四不還結罪義。如律廣說。不犯者。于中有五。一作羯磨當受不失不犯。二會故不犯。三不捨故不犯。四四想等失受故不犯。五若水陸諸難故不失而不犯。並灑明相未出之前有此四。故方可不犯。水陸諸難不失受者。心知衣在恒作頌
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 若有若干界，即必須身衣同處。若不這樣，就叫做失衣。乃至蘭若界（Aranya boundary，指遠離村落的修行場所的邊界）也是這樣。按照《四分律》，要加上勢分。其他各部律典都沒有這個說法。所謂勢分，是指藍分（Lamba，可能指某種測量單位）之外，外人投擲石頭所能及的衣服處，這叫做界分。乃至倉庫界也是這樣。《善見論》說，中等力氣的人投擲石頭，不強也不弱的人盡力投擲石頭，石頭落下的地方。用測量工具量有十五步。但這只是說自然的情況，不通用。作法必須進入界限，才能算是會衣。 第五句是開許離衣的界限。說到『除僧羯磨者』，律典說，當時有比丘因為生病的原因，三衣非常重，想要（原文此處省略，可能指減輕負擔）。佛陀開許，可以乞求羯磨（Karma，指一種宗教儀式）離衣九個月。《多論》因為四種原因開許離衣：一是有緣眾生應該接受作法；二是適宜（原文此處省略）使疾病減輕；三是求取修行所適宜的；四是未降伏者降伏，已降伏者令其生歡喜。開許中有成與不成。一是要衣重，病人才能成就。其餘三句互相有無，並作法都不能成就。《多論》說，即使衣和人互相不如法，前人說妄語會得罪，但作法可以成就。因為羯磨可以防止離衣過夜，但不能防止疾病等。 《五分律》說，前安居的人九個月，后安居的人八個月。《四分律》說，留下僧伽梨（Sanghati，指大衣）。《祇五二律》只留下郁多僧（Uttarasangha，指上衣）。其餘兩件不允許。《十多二文》三衣之中都有離衣的意義。離衣只能離一件，不能離兩件。 第六句說『尼薩耆波逸提』（Nissaggiya Pacittiya，指捨墮罪），是說明結罪的界限。其中有四點：一是捨棄所犯的衣服；二是懺悔所犯的罪過；三是歸還原本的衣服；四是不歸還就結罪的意義。如律典廣說。不犯的情況有五種：一是作羯磨，應當接受而不失去，就不犯；二是會故不犯；三是不捨故不犯；四是四想等失去接受故不犯；五是如果遇到水陸等災難，不失去也不犯。並且灑水、天亮之前有這四種情況，才可以不犯。遇到水陸等災難不失去接受者，心裡知道衣服在哪裡，經常唸誦。
【English Translation】 English version If there are several boundaries, then the body and robes must be in the same place. If not, it is called losing the robe. Even the Aranya boundary (Aranya boundary, referring to the boundary of a place of practice away from villages) is the same. According to the 'Sarvastivada Vinaya', the 'force division' must be added. None of the other Vinayas have this. The so-called 'force division' refers to the place where the clothes can reach when a layman throws a stone outside the Lamba (Lamba, possibly referring to a certain unit of measurement), which is called the boundary. Even the warehouse boundary is the same. The 'Samantapasadika' says that a person of medium strength throws a stone, and a person who is neither strong nor weak throws a stone with all his strength, to the place where the stone falls. Measuring it, there are fifteen steps. But this only refers to the natural situation and is not universal. The procedure must enter the boundary to be considered a 'meeting of the robes'. The fifth sentence is the limit for allowing separation from robes. Speaking of 'except for Sangha Karma', the Vinaya says that at that time there were Bhikkhus who, due to illness, found the three robes very heavy and wanted to ** (the original text is omitted here, possibly referring to reducing the burden). The Buddha allowed them to request Karma (Karma, referring to a religious ritual) to separate from the robes for nine months. The 'Mahavibhasa' allows separation from robes for four reasons: first, sentient beings with affinity should receive the procedure; second, it is appropriate to ** (the original text is omitted) to reduce the illness; third, it is suitable for seeking the path of practice; fourth, to subdue those who have not been subdued, and to make those who have been subdued rejoice. There are successes and failures in allowing it. First, the robes must be heavy and the person must be ill to succeed. The remaining three sentences have mutual presence and absence, and the procedure cannot succeed. The 'Mahavibhasa' says that even if the robes and the person are not in accordance with the Dharma, the former person will be guilty of lying, but the procedure can succeed. Because Karma can prevent separation from robes overnight, but it cannot prevent illness, etc. The 'Pancavargika Vinaya' says that those who observe the early retreat have nine months, and those who observe the later retreat have eight months. The 'Dharmaguptaka Vinaya' says to leave the Sanghati (Sanghati, referring to the great robe). The 'Mahisasaka Vinaya' only leaves the Uttarasangha (Uttarasangha, referring to the upper robe). The other two are not allowed. The 'Ten Recitations' and 'Sarvastivada Vinaya' both have the meaning of separating from robes among the three robes. Only one robe can be separated from, not two. The sixth sentence says 'Nissaggiya Pacittiya' (Nissaggiya Pacittiya, referring to expiatory offenses involving forfeiture), which explains the limits of incurring guilt. There are four points: first, to abandon the robe that has been violated; second, to repent of the offense; third, to return the original robe; fourth, the meaning of incurring guilt if it is not returned. As the Vinaya says in detail. There are five situations in which one does not offend: first, if one performs Karma, one should accept it without losing it, and one does not offend; second, one does not offend because of meeting; third, one does not offend because of not abandoning; fourth, one does not offend because of losing acceptance due to the four thoughts, etc.; fifth, if one encounters water and land disasters, one does not lose it and does not offend. And if there are these four situations before sprinkling water and before dawn, then one can not offend. If one encounters water and land disasters and does not lose the receiver, one knows where the robe is in one's heart and often recites.
受之意為是不失。故律云。不犯者。僧作羯磨明相未出。若會衣。若作失想。若水陸道斷。有此諸難悉皆不犯。
月望衣戒三 一制意。衣為資身隨時受用。雖先有衣故爛弊壞。但任受持不堪著用。今得少財為作三衣。以換故者而少不足為持滿。故聖開。一月過畜長貪違教妨道故。所以制墮 二釋名可知 三別緣有六。一若是新衣現堪受用。余財不開故。衣方開故。第一緣故壞三衣。衣須故壞得財。若足亦受不開故。第二緣得少財不足。若不擬作三衣但犯。初戒不開。一月明須第三。為作三衣替故者。四不說凈作三衣。五無因緣。六過限便犯 闕緣比說。此戒因但三衣比丘開一月為限。若畜長衣者得即說凈。不須此戒。
若比丘衣已竟迦絺那衣已出若比丘得非時衣欲須便受受已疾疾成衣若足者善若不足者得畜一月為滿足故若過畜者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒本文有六句。一犯人。二除開緣出犯長時節。三若比丘下所得衣類。四受已疾疾下足則不開。五若不足者已不如其不足開齊一月。六若過已下隨違結犯。已下別解 言若比丘者。義如上辯。衣已竟迦絺那衣已出者。明出犯長時。若自恣后一月。若五月中是不犯時節。所言得非時衣者。明所得衣類。言非時者。謂過一月五月限時。第四句所言受已疾疾成者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：接受供養的意義在於不丟失（戒律）。因此，《律藏》中說：『不犯戒的情況包括：僧眾舉行羯磨（karma，一種宗教儀式）時，破曉之相尚未出現；或者（信徒）供養的衣物是會衣（僧眾集會時供養的衣物）；或者（比丘）作了失物想（認為自己丟失了衣物）；或者水路、陸路交通斷絕。』有這些困難情況，都不會犯戒。
月望衣戒有三個方面：一是制定戒律的意圖。衣物是爲了維持生活，隨時可以接受使用。即使先前有衣物，但已經腐爛破損，只能持有，不能穿用。現在得到少量財物，用來製作三衣（kasaya，佛教僧侶穿的袈裟），以更換舊的衣物，但還缺少一些才能達到持滿（戒律要求的數量）。因此，佛陀開許（可以暫時持有）。如果超過一個月還繼續積蓄，就是貪婪違背教義，妨礙修行，所以制定此戒條來懲罰（犯戒者）。二是解釋名稱，這部分內容容易理解。三是特別的因緣有六種：一是如果是新衣，現在就可以接受使用，有多餘的財物也不開許（繼續積蓄），因為衣物是開許的緣由。第一種緣由是舊的三衣破損。衣物必須是舊的破損了，得到財物才可以（製作新的）。如果（財物）足夠，也不開許（繼續積蓄）。第二種緣由是得到少量財物，不足以（製作三衣）。如果（比丘）不打算製作三衣，就觸犯了初戒，不被開許。一個月的時間必須用來製作三衣，更換舊的衣物，這是第三種緣由。四是沒有說凈（將多餘的衣物委託他人保管）就製作三衣。五是沒有（正當的）因緣。六是超過期限就犯戒。缺少因緣的情況可以類比推斷。這條戒律是因為只有三衣的比丘開許一個月為限。如果積蓄多餘的衣物，得到后立即說凈，就不需要遵守這條戒律。
如果比丘的三衣已經完成，或者已經過了迦絺那衣（kathina，雨季安居結束后僧侶接受供養的衣物）的佈施期，如果比丘得到非時衣（不在規定時間內得到的衣物），想要立即接受，接受后迅速製作成衣物。如果足夠了就好，如果不足夠，可以積蓄一個月來滿足（所需），如果超過期限繼續積蓄，就觸犯了尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pacittiya，一種戒律）。這條滿足戒的本文有六句話。一是犯戒的人。二是排除開許的因緣，指出觸犯戒律的期限。三是『若比丘下』，說明所得衣物的種類。四是『受已疾疾下』，說明（財物）足夠就不開許（繼續積蓄）。五是『若不足者』，說明如果不足夠，開許一個月的時間來滿足（所需）。六是『若過已下』，說明違反戒律的處罰。以下分別解釋。『言若比丘者』，意義如上所述。『衣已竟迦絺那衣已出者』，說明超出觸犯戒律的期限。如果是在自恣（pravāraṇā，雨季安居結束時的儀式）后一個月，或者五月中，是不犯戒的時間。『所言得非時衣者』，說明所得衣物的種類。『言非時者』，是指超過一個月或五個月的期限。第四句所言『受已疾疾成者』，
【English Translation】 English version: To receive offerings means not to lose (the precepts). Therefore, the Vinaya (rules of monastic discipline) says: 'Non-offenses include: when the Sangha (community of monks) performs the karma (a religious ceremony), the sign of dawn has not yet appeared; or the offered clothing is for a Sangha gathering; or (a bhikkhu/monk) has the thought of loss (believing he has lost clothing); or land and water routes are cut off.' With these difficulties, there is no offense.
The precept regarding clothing at the full moon has three aspects: First, the intention of establishing the precept. Clothing is for sustaining life and can be received and used at any time. Even if there was clothing before, but it is rotten and damaged, it can only be held but not worn. Now, if one obtains a small amount of wealth to make three robes (kasaya, the robes worn by Buddhist monks) to replace the old ones, but it is still insufficient to reach the full amount (required by the precepts), then the Buddha allows (temporary possession). If one continues to accumulate beyond one month, it is greed, violating the teachings and hindering practice, so this precept is established to punish (offenders). Second, the explanation of the name, which is easy to understand. Third, there are six special circumstances: First, if it is new clothing that can be received and used now, extra wealth is not allowed (to be accumulated), because clothing is the reason for the allowance. The first reason is that the old three robes are damaged. The clothing must be old and damaged to obtain wealth (to make new ones). If (the wealth) is sufficient, it is not allowed (to continue accumulating). The second reason is obtaining a small amount of wealth, insufficient (to make three robes). If (the bhikkhu) does not intend to make three robes, he violates the initial precept and is not allowed. One month must be used to make three robes to replace the old ones, this is the third reason. Fourth, making three robes without declaring it pure (entrusting the extra clothing to someone else for safekeeping). Fifth, there is no (legitimate) reason. Sixth, exceeding the time limit constitutes an offense. Situations lacking reasons can be inferred by analogy. This precept is because bhikkhus with only three robes are allowed a limit of one month. If one accumulates extra clothing, declaring it pure immediately after obtaining it, there is no need to observe this precept.
If a bhikkhu's three robes are completed, or the kathina (robes offered to monks after the rainy season retreat) season has passed, if a bhikkhu obtains untimely clothing (clothing obtained outside the prescribed time), wanting to receive it immediately, he should quickly make it into clothing after receiving it. If it is sufficient, that is good; if it is insufficient, he may accumulate it for one month to fulfill (the need). If he continues to accumulate beyond the time limit, he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (a type of offense). This precept of fulfillment has six sentences in the text. First, the offender. Second, excluding the allowed circumstances, pointing out the time limit for violating the precept. Third, 'If a bhikkhu...' explains the types of clothing obtained. Fourth, 'Having received it quickly...' explains that if (the wealth) is sufficient, it is not allowed (to continue accumulating). Fifth, 'If it is insufficient...' explains that if it is insufficient, one month is allowed to fulfill (the need). Sixth, 'If exceeding...' explains the punishment for violating the precept. The following explains each separately. 'The meaning of 'If a bhikkhu...' is as explained above. 'The robes are completed, the kathina season has passed' explains exceeding the time limit for violating the precept. If it is one month after the pravāraṇā (the ceremony at the end of the rainy season retreat), or in the middle of the fifth month, it is a time of non-offense. 'The so-called untimely clothing' explains the types of clothing obtained. 'Untimely' refers to exceeding the limit of one month or five months. The fourth sentence, 'Having received it quickly making it',
明犯限。若十日中同衣足者。割截說凈受持。若不者至十一日。隨衣多少並犯捨墮。第五句言若不足者得畜一月為滿足故。明第二犯。若同衣不足至十一日。應作衣浣染作凈已受持。若恐不竟粗行兼竟受持。后更細剌即免長過。故違者至十二日。隨衣多少並犯。乃至二十九日亦如是。若至三十日足已不足。同衣不同衣。即日應割截染持。恐不成者餘人相助免有犯過。此戒開限有三。初十日已同常開緣全是未犯。次十日已后至二十九日已來。隨何日得足者即應當日作說凈三。至三十日若足不足。若同不同。一向不開。第六句言若過畜者尼薩耆波逸提。是隨違過犯。犯中有四。一舍所犯之衣。二懺所犯之罪。三卻還本衣。四不還結罪。不犯中義如長衣開。
取非尼衣戒第四 一制意。有三種過。一者凡為下敬上仰奉情殷。所有財物思欲舍施。許無違從大僧非親多不籌量得便受之。令他財物竭盡。二有男女形別。理無脫三。涉財物既交思情。編親因事起染容壞梵行。臨危事撿可懼之甚。跡涉世譏致招誹謗。清白難分。莫能自拔以利諸過。是故聖制 二釋名可知 三別緣有五。一是比丘尼除下二眾。依祇下二眾衣不犯。多論下與尼同犯。二非親里除去親里不犯。三是應量是五衣。多論依者是應量衣吉。四虛心送與。謂乞
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 明犯限。如果十日內湊夠了同衣，就割截、說凈、受持。如果湊不夠，到第十一天，無論衣服多少，都犯捨墮罪。第五句說如果不夠，可以畜一月來湊足，說明第二次違犯。如果同衣到第十一天還不夠，應該把要做的衣服浣洗、染色，做乾淨后受持。如果擔心不能完成，可以粗略地做，同時完成受持。之後再精細地縫製，就可以免於長時期的過失。所以違背者到第十二天，無論衣服多少，都犯捨墮罪。乃至第二十九天也是如此。如果到第三十天，足夠或不足夠，是同衣或不同衣，當天就應該割截、染色、受持。如果擔心不能完成，可以請其他人幫助，以免犯過。這條戒律開許的期限有三個階段。最初十天，因為是同常開緣，所以完全沒有違犯。其次是十天之後到第二十九天之間，無論哪一天湊夠了，都應當天作說凈。到第三十天，無論足夠與否，無論同衣與否，一概不允許開緣。第六句說如果超過期限畜衣，就犯尼薩耆波逸提罪。這是隨違犯而產生的罪過。犯中有四個步驟：一是捨棄所犯的衣服，二是懺悔所犯的罪過，三是歸還原來的衣服，四是不歸還則結罪。不犯的情況如同長衣的開緣。
取非尼衣戒第四：一、制意。有三種過失。一是凡俗之人爲了表示對上位的尊敬和仰慕，懷著殷切的情感，想要舍施所有的財物。允許他們不違背、順從大僧，但不是親屬，考慮不周全就接受，導致他人財物耗盡。二是男女有別，理應避免接觸。涉及財物，雙方情思交織，容易產生親近之感，可能因此產生染污，破壞梵行。面臨危難之事，檢查起來令人恐懼。行為一旦涉及世俗，就會招致誹謗，清白難以分辯，無法自拔，帶來諸多過失。因此聖人制定此戒。二、釋名可知。三、別緣有五：一是比丘尼，除去下二眾（指式叉摩那和沙彌尼）。按照《祇》的說法，下二眾的衣服不犯。按照《多論》的說法，下二眾與比丘尼同犯。二是非親里，除去親屬不犯。三是應量衣，指五衣。按照《多論》的說法，應量衣是吉祥衣。四是虛心送與，指乞求。
【English Translation】 English version Clearly violating the limit. If enough 'same' robes are obtained within ten days, they should be cut, declared pure, and accepted. If not, by the eleventh day, regardless of the number of robes, it constitutes a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense. The fifth sentence states that if it's not enough, one may keep it for a month to fulfill the requirement, clarifying the second offense. If the 'same' robes are still insufficient by the eleventh day, the robes to be made should be washed, dyed, and purified before acceptance. If there's concern about not completing it, a rough completion along with acceptance should be done. Later, finer stitching can be done to avoid prolonged transgression. Therefore, those who violate this, by the twelfth day, regardless of the number of robes, commit a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense. This applies up to the twenty-ninth day as well. If, by the thirtieth day, it's sufficient or insufficient, whether it's the 'same' or different robes, they should be cut, dyed, and accepted on that day. If there's concern about not completing it, others can assist to avoid committing an offense. There are three stages of allowance for this precept. The initial ten days, being a common allowance, are entirely free from offense. The second stage is from after the ten days up to the twenty-ninth day; on whatever day it becomes sufficient, the declaration of purity should be made on that day. On the thirtieth day, whether it's sufficient or not, whether it's the 'same' robes or not, no allowance is permitted. The sixth sentence states that if robes are kept beyond the limit, it's a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense. This is an offense arising from violation. There are four steps in the offense: first, relinquishing the offending robe; second, confessing the offense; third, returning the original robe; fourth, incurring the penalty if not returned. The non-offense situations are like the allowance for long robes.
The Fourth Precept: Taking Robes from Non-Bhikkhunis. 1. The Reason for the Rule: There are three kinds of faults. First, ordinary people, out of respect and admiration for superiors, with sincere feelings, desire to donate all their possessions. They are allowed to not disobey and follow the great Sangha, but if they are not relatives and accept without careful consideration, it leads to the exhaustion of others' wealth. Second, there is a distinction between men and women, and contact should be avoided. Involving material possessions, the feelings of both parties become intertwined, easily leading to intimacy, which may cause defilement and ruin the Brahmacarya. Facing dangerous situations, examination is frightening. Once behavior involves worldly matters, it invites slander, making it difficult to distinguish purity, and one cannot extricate oneself, leading to many faults. Therefore, the Holy One established this precept. 2. The Explanation of the Name is self-explanatory. 3. Specific Conditions: There are five. First, it applies to Bhikkhunis, excluding the lower two groups (Sikkhamanas and Samaneris). According to the Gi, robes of the lower two groups do not constitute an offense. According to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, the lower two groups commit the same offense as Bhikkhunis. Second, it applies to non-relatives; taking from relatives is not an offense. Third, it refers to robes of proper measure, meaning the five robes. According to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, robes of proper measure are auspicious robes. Fourth, it is given with a sincere heart, referring to begging.
得貿易不犯。五領受屬己即犯 四闕緣。比說。已下正明戒本。此戒因乞食比丘從蓮華尼受貴價僧伽梨衣。故佛便制戒。
若比丘從非親里比丘尼取衣貿易尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二非親里尼。三取衣。四除貿易。五結犯。已下廣辯。若比丘者。義如上釋。非里者。非父母親及七世。反上是親。論云。所言親里者。父母七世骨血之親。了論明四種親。一父親。二父母親。三母父親。四母母親。此四親尼邊取之非犯。所言取衣者。衣有十種。如上所明多論比丘取一尼衣。多人犯。一比丘多尼邊取一衣。許尼多犯。故律中佛責尼言。婦人著上好衣。猶尚不能發前人敬心。何況弊故。隨聽畜五衣。故知衣本為資身。今以施人即得無衣立罪破戒行。檀事不應法故不取聽。若五衣外隨意施者得受。若僧得尼施時應檢問前人。知彼五衣不具即不得受。五衣具者得受無罪。十律若先請。若別房中住故與。若為說法故與不犯。五分若無心求自佈施。知彼有長乃若不犯 問。尼取僧衣但得吉羅者何 答。大僧上尊與尼義。希尼受不數故但犯吉 問。若爾大僧與希能與應輕所以提罪 答。僧與尼衣譏過中制患義深故得提罪。所言除貿易者。律云。二部僧得衣共分。錯得余衣。佛開互貿。言貿易者。以貿衣非衣貿
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 得貿易不犯：如果進行貿易交換，則不構成違犯。 五領受屬己即犯：如果接受並據爲己有，就構成違犯。 四闕緣：四種情況除外。 比說：以下對比丘進行說明。 已下正明戒本：以下正式闡明戒律的根本。 此戒因乞食比丘從蓮華尼（一位比丘尼的名字）受貴價僧伽梨衣（一種袈裟）而制定。因此，佛陀便制定了這條戒律。
若比丘從非親里比丘尼取衣貿易尼薩耆波逸提（若比丘從非親屬的比丘尼處獲取衣物進行交易，則犯捨墮）：這條完整的戒律原文有五句。一、犯戒者；二、非親屬的比丘尼；三、獲取衣物；四、排除貿易；五、構成違犯。以下詳細辨析。 若比丘者：含義如前所述。 非里者：非父母親及七世親屬。反之則是親屬。論中說：『所言親里者，父母七世骨血之親。』《了論》中明確了四種親屬：一、父親；二、父母親；三、母父親；四、母母親。從這四種親屬的比丘尼處獲取衣物，不構成違犯。 所言取衣者：衣物有十種，如上所述。《多論》中說，比丘從一位比丘尼處獲取多件衣物，多人犯戒；一位比丘從多位比丘尼處獲取一件衣物，允許比丘尼多次犯戒。因此，律中佛陀責備比丘尼說：『婦人穿著上好的衣服，尚且不能引發他人敬心，何況是破舊的衣服。』因此聽許蓄五衣。由此可知，衣物本是爲了資身，現在用來施捨他人，就等於自己沒有衣服，構成違犯戒律的行為。佈施的事情不符合佛法，因此不允許獲取。如果五衣之外隨意施捨的衣物，可以接受。如果僧人接受比丘尼的施捨時，應該檢查詢問對方，得知對方五衣不全，就不得接受。五衣齊全的，可以接受，沒有罪過。《十誦律》中說，如果事先請求，或者住在不同的房間而給予，或者爲了說法而給予，則不構成違犯。《五分律》中說，如果無心索取，對方主動佈施，並且知道對方有多餘的衣物，則不構成違犯。 問：比丘尼獲取僧人的衣物，只構成突吉羅（一種輕罪），是什麼原因？ 答：因為大僧是至上的，給予比丘尼是合乎道義的。比丘尼接受僧人的衣物並不常見，因此只犯突吉羅。 問：如果這樣，大僧給予比丘尼衣物，應該是更輕的罪過，為什麼會構成捨墮罪？ 答：僧人給予比丘尼衣物，是在譏嫌過失中制定的，違犯的意義深刻，因此構成捨墮罪。 所言除貿易者：律中說，二部僧人獲得衣物后共同分配，錯誤地獲得了多餘的衣物，佛陀開許互相交換。 言貿易者：指用衣物交換衣物，或者用非衣物交換衣物。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Gains through trade are not offenses': If trade or exchange occurs, it does not constitute a violation. 'Taking possession for oneself is an offense': If one receives and claims ownership, it constitutes a violation. 'Four exceptions': Four situations are excepted. 'Compared to the Bhikkhus': The following explains in relation to the Bhikkhus. 'The following clearly explains the precepts': The following formally elucidates the root of the precepts. This precept was established because a Bhikkhu who was begging for food received an expensive Sanghati robe (a type of robe) from Lianhua Ni (the name of a Bhikkhuni). Therefore, the Buddha established this precept.
'If a Bhikkhu takes a robe from a Bhikkhuni who is not a relative and trades it, it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (If a Bhikkhu obtains clothing from a Bhikkhuni who is not a relative and trades it, it constitutes a forfeiture and expiation)': This complete precept text has five clauses: 1. The offender; 2. The Bhikkhuni who is not a relative; 3. Obtaining the robe; 4. Excluding trade; 5. Constituting a violation. The following elaborates. 'If a Bhikkhu': The meaning is as explained above. 'Not a relative': Not parents or relatives within seven generations. The opposite is a relative. The commentary says: 'The so-called relatives are blood relatives of parents within seven generations.' The 'Liaolun' clarifies four types of relatives: 1. Father; 2. Parents; 3. Mother's father; 4. Mother's mother. Taking robes from these four types of Bhikkhunis does not constitute a violation. 'The so-called taking of robes': There are ten types of robes, as explained above. The 'Duo Lun' says that if a Bhikkhu takes multiple robes from one Bhikkhuni, multiple people commit offenses; if one Bhikkhu takes one robe from multiple Bhikkhunis, the Bhikkhunis are allowed to commit multiple offenses. Therefore, in the Vinaya, the Buddha rebuked the Bhikkhunis, saying: 'Even if women wear the finest clothes, they still cannot inspire respect in others, let alone worn-out clothes.' Therefore, it is permitted to possess five robes. From this, it can be known that robes are originally for supporting oneself, and now using them to give to others is equivalent to not having clothes oneself, constituting an act of violating the precepts. The act of giving does not conform to the Dharma, so it is not allowed to obtain. If robes other than the five robes are given at will, they can be accepted. If a Sangha member receives a donation from a Bhikkhuni, they should check and ask the other party, and if they know that the other party does not have the complete five robes, they must not accept it. If the five robes are complete, they can be accepted without sin. The 'Ten Recitations Vinaya' says that if it is requested in advance, or given because they live in different rooms, or given for the sake of teaching the Dharma, it does not constitute a violation. The 'Five Divisions Vinaya' says that if there is no intention to ask for it, and the other party takes the initiative to give, and it is known that the other party has extra robes, it does not constitute a violation. Question: Why does a Bhikkhuni obtaining a Bhikkhu's robe only constitute a Dukkhata (a minor offense)? Answer: Because the Sangha is supreme, and giving to the Bhikkhuni is righteous. It is not common for Bhikkhunis to receive robes from Bhikkhus, so it only constitutes a Dukkhata. Question: If so, giving robes to Bhikkhunis by the Sangha should be a lighter offense, so why does it constitute a Nissaggiya Pacittiya? Answer: The giving of robes to Bhikkhunis by the Sangha is established in the criticism of faults, and the meaning of violation is profound, so it constitutes a Nissaggiya Pacittiya. 'The so-called excluding trade': The Vinaya says that after the two groups of Sangha members obtain robes and distribute them together, if they mistakenly obtain extra robes, the Buddha allows them to exchange with each other. 'The so-called trade': Refers to exchanging robes for robes, or exchanging non-robes for robes.
衣。乃至一丸藥貿衣者是。所言尼薩耆波逸提是第五結罪句。于中有四。一必須舍衣。二應懺悔。三受者卻還。四與得罪。不犯者。從親邊取。若貿易得。若為僧為佛圖取者不犯。
使尼浣故衣戒五 一制意。上尊使下事順。而數下惰敬上裁抑是難。多不籌量有無客致惱。廢業損處不輕喜生染患。跡涉世譏致招誹謗。清白難分。莫知自拔以利諸過。是故聖制 問。浣染打等所以合制者何 答。一使尼處同。二俱由故衣。三容一衣相由致犯。垢污須浣失色。即染申舒故污 二釋名可知 三具緣通緣如上。別緣有六。一是比丘尼。二非親里。三是故衣。四使浣染打。多論若使書信吉羅。祇有四句。自與使受等二互二俱浣等並犯。五無因緣故律中開。若病浣染打。若借他衣浣染打不犯。除此等緣故。六浣染打竟即犯 四闕緣比說。已下正戒本。此戒因迦留陀夷使偷蘭難陀比丘尼從安多會衣。故佛制此戒。
若比丘令非親里比丘尼浣故衣若染若打尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足文有五句。一人。二非親里尼。三所浣故衣。四所浣染打。五結罪。言比丘者。如上。非親里者。亦如上。言故衣者。下至一經身著。衣者十種衣。若新衣浣者得吉。言若染若打者。是所作業。言尼薩耆波逸提者。是犯罪。若使浣染打尼具作得三提。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 衣。乃至用一丸藥交換衣服的也算。這裡所說的尼薩耆波逸提是第五個結罪句，其中有四點：一是必須捨棄衣服，二是應當懺悔，三是接受者歸還，四是給予者得罪。不犯的情況有：從親屬那裡取得，如果是通過交易獲得，或是爲了僧團、佛寺而取用，就不算犯戒。
使喚比丘尼洗舊衣服戒第五：一是制定戒律的用意。上級使喚下級事情順利，但多次使喚下級，下級會怠惰，恭敬上級的態度也會減少，這是很難調和的。很多時候不考慮實際情況，無端生事，導致煩惱，荒廢事業，損害自身，不謹慎就容易產生染著，行為容易引起世俗的譏諷，招致誹謗，清白難以分辯，不知道如何擺脫各種過失。因此，佛陀制定此戒律。問：洗、染、打等行為為何要一起制定戒律？答：一是使喚比丘尼的處境相同，二是都因為舊衣服，三是可能因為一件衣服而相互牽連導致犯戒。污垢需要清洗，褪色需要染色，伸展需要捶打。二是解釋名稱，容易理解。三是具緣和通緣如上所述。別緣有六點：一是比丘尼，二是非親屬，三是舊衣服，四是使喚洗、染、打。多論中說，如果使喚送信，只犯吉羅罪。自己做和使喚他人做，接受者和給予者，兩種情況相互組合，或者兩者都做洗等行為，都犯戒。五是沒有正當理由，律中開許的情況有：生病時洗、染、打，或者借用他人的衣服洗、染、打，不算犯戒。除了這些情況外，六是洗、染、打完畢就犯戒。四是缺少某種條件的比照說明。以下是正式的戒本。此戒的起因是迦留陀夷使喚偷蘭難陀比丘尼從安多拿取衣服，所以佛陀制定此戒。
『若比丘令非親里比丘尼浣故衣若染若打尼薩耆波逸提』。這段完整的經文有五句：一是人（比丘），二是非親屬的比丘尼，三是所洗的舊衣服，四是所做的洗染打行為，五是結罪。所說的比丘，如上所述。非親屬，也如上所述。所說的舊衣服，下至曾經穿過一次的衣服。衣服指十種衣。如果是洗新衣服，得吉羅罪。所說的洗染打，是所從事的作業。所說的尼薩耆波逸提，是所犯的罪。如果使喚洗染打，比丘尼全部完成，則得三個波逸提罪。
【English Translation】 English version Robe. Even exchanging a robe for a pill is included. What is referred to as Nissaggiya Pacittiya is the fifth clause of offense, which includes four points: first, the robe must be forfeited; second, one should confess; third, the recipient returns it; and fourth, the giver incurs an offense. Non-offenses include: obtaining from a relative, obtaining through trade, or taking for the Sangha or a Buddhist temple.
The fifth precept regarding instructing a Bhikkhuni to wash old robes: First, the intention behind establishing the precept. When superiors instruct subordinates, things go smoothly. However, repeated instructions can lead to subordinates becoming lazy and diminishing their respect for superiors, which is difficult to reconcile. Often, situations are not considered practically, causing unnecessary trouble, wasting efforts, harming oneself, and easily leading to attachment if one is not cautious. Actions can easily invite worldly criticism and slander, making it difficult to distinguish purity, and making it impossible to escape various faults. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept. Question: Why are washing, dyeing, and beating included together in the precept? Answer: First, the situation of instructing a Bhikkhuni is the same. Second, they all involve old robes. Third, it is possible to become entangled and commit an offense due to a single robe. Stains need washing, fading requires dyeing, and stretching requires beating. Second, the explanation of the terms is easily understood. Third, the complete and general conditions are as mentioned above. The specific conditions are six: first, it is a Bhikkhuni; second, she is not a relative; third, it is an old robe; fourth, instructing to wash, dye, or beat. The Mulasarvastivada Vinaya states that if instructing to send a letter, only a Dukkhata offense is incurred. Doing it oneself and instructing others, the recipient and the giver, combinations of these two situations, or both doing the washing, etc., all incur an offense. Fifth, there is no legitimate reason. The Vinaya allows exceptions for washing, dyeing, or beating when sick, or washing, dyeing, or beating borrowed robes, which do not incur an offense. Apart from these situations, sixth, the offense is incurred as soon as the washing, dyeing, or beating is completed. Fourth, an analogy is made when a certain condition is lacking. The following is the formal precept. The origin of this precept is that Kaludayi instructed Thullananda Bhikkhuni to take robes from Anto, so the Buddha established this precept.
'If a Bhikkhu instructs a Bhikkhuni who is not a relative to wash, dye, or beat an old robe, it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya.' This complete passage has five clauses: first, the person (Bhikkhu); second, the Bhikkhuni who is not a relative; third, the old robe being washed; fourth, the actions of washing, dyeing, or beating; fifth, the offense. The mentioned Bhikkhu is as described above. The non-relative is also as described above. The mentioned old robe refers to even a robe that has been worn once. Robe refers to the ten types of robes. If washing a new robe, a Dukkhata offense is incurred. The mentioned washing, dyeing, or beating refers to the actions being performed. The mentioned Nissaggiya Pacittiya is the offense committed. If instructing to wash, dye, or beat, and the Bhikkhuni completes all the actions, three Pacittiya offenses are incurred.
作二得二提。作一得一提。善見云。令出家婦浣染亦犯。五分令非親尼浣而親尼浣。如是互作五句。皆墮。若浣染尼師檀亦犯墮。十誦若犯捨墮。衣與浣犯小罪。若浣竟比丘復言未凈還使尼浣。比丘尼薩耆吉羅得二罪。若使尼浣染打。尼不浣不染不打得三吉。余互作不作推此可知 問。使下二眾何以得吉 答。非是弟子使希故輕。有非具戒不廢正修故輕。若依多論不二同尼犯提 問。新衣何以輕 答。新衣浣希有無緣患故得小罪。不犯者。律云。若宿若謂佛法僧使浣染等無罪從。
非親里居士乞衣戒六 凡出家人宜應知足。令三衣具備。長道緣脫。方廣乞求。增貪惱物。招世譏過。損壞不輕。是故聖制。別緣有六。一三衣具足。二無因緣。三非親里居士。四為己乞應量衣。五彼與。六領受入手便犯 闕緣比知。已下正明戒本。此戒因跋難陀從居士強索衣故。諸人譏嫌。佛制戒。
若比丘從非親里居士若居士婦乞衣除余時尼薩耆波逸提余時者若奪衣失衣燒衣漂衣是謂余時 此滿足戒文三。初略制。二牒隨開。三廣制。就廣制句有其五。一犯人二非親里居士。三乞衣。四除開緣 五結犯。余時者已下誦前四句。下辯五句文。若比丘者。義如上辯。非親里者。非七世親里。言乞衣。衣有十種。十誦僧祇乞得四肘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『作二得二提』：做了兩次得到兩次提罪（Tikicchā，一種輕微的罪）。『作一得一提』：做了一次得到一次提罪。《善見律毗婆沙》說：讓出家的婦女洗染也犯戒。《五分律》說：讓非親屬的比丘尼洗，而親屬的比丘尼洗，像這樣互相操作五種情況，都犯墮罪（Pācittiya，波逸提，一種戒律）。如果洗染尼師壇（Nisīdana，坐具）也犯墮罪。《十誦律》說如果犯捨墮（Nissaggiya Pācittiya，一種需要捨棄物品后懺悔的罪），衣和洗滌都犯小罪。如果洗完后比丘又說沒洗乾淨，還讓比丘尼洗，比丘尼犯僧殘罪（Saṃghādisesa，一種較重的罪），得到兩種罪。如果讓比丘尼洗、染、縫補，比丘尼不洗、不染、不縫補，得到三種吉罪（Dukkaṭa，惡作，一種輕罪）。其餘互相做或不做的，可以依此類推。 問：為什麼使喚下二眾（指沙彌、沙彌尼）會得到吉罪？ 答：因為不是弟子，使喚的情況比較少，所以罪輕。有些不是具足戒者，不妨礙正常的修行，所以罪輕。如果按照《多論》的說法，比丘和比丘尼犯同樣的提罪。 問：為什麼洗新衣服罪輕？ 答：因為新衣服很少洗，沒有因緣和患病等原因，所以只得到小罪。不犯戒的情況是，《律》中說：如果是爲了寺廟、佛法、僧團而洗染等，沒有罪過。
非親里居士乞衣戒第六：凡是出家人都應該知足，使三衣（Tricīvara，指出家僧人所擁有的三種袈裟）完備。如果因為長途跋涉等原因而脫離了三衣，就應該通過各種途徑乞求，如果增長貪慾，惱亂他人，招致世人的譏諷，損壞的是不輕的罪過。因此佛制定了戒律，有六種特殊情況可以乞求。一、三衣不完備。二、沒有其他因緣。三、向非親屬的居士乞求。四、為自己乞求符合標準的衣服。五、對方給予。六、領受並拿到手中，就犯戒。缺少任何一個條件，可以類比得知。以下正式說明戒本。這條戒律是因為跋難陀（Bhadanta，尊者）向居士強行索要衣服，眾人譏諷，佛陀因此制定戒律。
若比丘從非親里居士或居士婦乞衣，除了特殊情況，犯尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pācittiya）。特殊情況是指：衣服被搶奪、丟失、燒燬、漂走，這些稱為特殊情況。這條戒律完整地包含了三個方面。首先是簡略的制定，其次是根據情況開許，最後是詳細的制定。詳細制定的句子包含五個方面：一、犯戒的人。二、非親屬的居士。三、乞求衣服。四、排除開許的情況。五、總結犯戒。『余時者』以下誦讀前面的四句，下面辨析五句的內容。若比丘者，含義如上所述。非親里者，指非七世親屬。言乞衣，衣服有十種。《十誦律》、《僧祇律》中說，乞求得到四肘（單位）的布。
【English Translation】 English version 'Making two, one obtains two Tikicchā (a minor offense)'. 'Making one, one obtains one Tikicchā'. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: Causing a female monastic to wash and dye also constitutes an offense. The Pañcavargika Vinaya states: Causing a non-relative bhikkhunī to wash while a relative bhikkhunī washes; thus, mutually performing these five actions all result in a Pācittiya (an offense requiring expiation). If one washes or dyes a Nisīdana (sitting cloth), it also constitutes a Pācittiya. The Daśādhyāya Vinaya states that if one commits a Nissaggiya Pācittiya (an offense requiring forfeiture), the garment and the washing both incur minor offenses. If, after washing, a bhikkhu says it is not clean and has the bhikkhunī wash again, the bhikkhunī incurs a Saṃghādisesa (a serious offense requiring community penance), incurring two offenses. If one causes a bhikkhunī to wash, dye, or mend, and the bhikkhunī does not wash, dye, or mend, one incurs three Dukkaṭa (wrongdoing, a minor offense). Other mutual actions or inactions can be inferred from this. Question: Why does causing the lower two assemblies (novice monks and nuns) to act result in a Dukkaṭa? Answer: Because they are not disciples, causing them to act is rare, hence the offense is lighter. Some who are not fully ordained do not hinder proper practice, hence the offense is lighter. According to the Mahāyāna-sūtra, the bhikkhu and bhikkhunī commit the same Tikicchā. Question: Why is washing new clothes a lighter offense? Answer: Because new clothes are rarely washed, and there is no cause or illness, hence one incurs a minor offense. There is no offense if, as the Vinaya states, one washes and dyes for the monastery, the Dharma, or the Saṃgha.
The Sixth Precept Regarding Requesting Garments from Laypeople Who Are Not Relatives: All renunciants should be content, ensuring they possess the three robes (Tricīvara, the three robes possessed by a monastic). If, due to long journeys, the three robes are lost, one should seek them through various means. Increasing greed, disturbing others, and inviting worldly criticism are not light offenses. Therefore, the Buddha established precepts, allowing requests under six special circumstances: 1. The three robes are incomplete. 2. There is no other cause. 3. Requesting from laypeople who are not relatives. 4. Requesting a garment of appropriate size for oneself. 5. The other person gives it. 6. Receiving and taking it into one's hands constitutes an offense. Lacking any of these conditions can be inferred analogously. The following formally explains the precepts. This precept arose because Bhadanta (Venerable) Bhadanta forcibly demanded garments from laypeople, causing criticism, and the Buddha thus established the precept.
If a bhikkhu requests a garment from a layperson or a laywoman who is not a relative, except in special circumstances, it is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya. Special circumstances refer to: the garment being robbed, lost, burned, or washed away; these are called special circumstances. This precept fully encompasses three aspects: First, a concise formulation; second, allowances based on circumstances; and third, a detailed formulation. The detailed formulation contains five aspects: 1. The person committing the offense. 2. Laypeople who are not relatives. 3. Requesting a garment. 4. Excluding allowed circumstances. 5. Concluding the offense. 'Special circumstances' below recites the preceding four clauses, and below analyzes the content of the five clauses. 'If a bhikkhu', the meaning is as described above. 'Not a relative' refers to not being a relative within seven generations. 'Requesting a garment', there are ten types of garments. The Daśādhyāya Vinaya and Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya state that one can request cloth measuring four cubits (unit).
已上犯 若白乞使人乞作寒暑相。若方便說法得者皆犯 若乞小物施主與衣財者得取無犯。若本有方便心但索小者。或容得大犯舍。言除余時者。開索。律云。若被賊奪衣。裸形當以輕草樹葉覆形。應往寺邊。若取長衣。若親友邊取。若無者僧中問取可分衣。若無者問取僧衣臥具。若不與者自開庫看。若褥敷栴被摘解取裁作衣。出外乞衣。若得已應還浣染縫治安著本處。若不還本處如法治。言尼薩耆波逸提者。是遺制罪。于中亦四。如上所明。言余時者。是失奪等四緣。不犯中。律云。若奪失三衣從非親里乞。五分開衣壞時得乞通前五緣。又云。或為他乞。他不為己乞。或不求而得。若從親里乞。若從出家人乞。一切不犯。
過知足受衣戒第七 一制意。出家之人遇四因緣失奪三衣。篤信聞之端貧以施。理應隨施而受障已。內有廉節之心。外不惱物。今三衣已足過分更受。內長貪結。外乖施心。殊所不應。是故聖制 別緣有六。一比丘失奪三衣。二非親里居士。三為失故施。若不為失隨時受取無罪 四知為失故施。五過知足取應量衣。六領受入手即犯 闕緣可知。已下正明戒本。此戒因衣比丘檀越送衣比丘不受。為六群故取。佛便制戒。
若比丘失衣奪衣燒衣漂衣若非親里居士居士婦自恣請多與衣是比丘
當知足受衣若過受者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文有六句。一犯人。二遇四因緣。此謂施衣緣。三非親里居士施衣人。四自恣請下為失衣故施。五是比丘下教知足受。六為遇下過受結犯。前三句文可知。第四所言自恣多與者。若檀越多與衣比丘失一衣。于中有應取有不應取。若失一衣不應取。若失二衣余有一衣重數。若二若三若四應摘作餘二衣。若都失取上下衣。餘一衣別處取。若檀越多與薄細若不牢。應取作二三四重安緣肩上。應安鉤紐。余有殘物。語檀越言。此余殘裁作何等。若彼言。我不與失衣故與 我曹自與大德耳 若欲受者便應受。所言當知足受衣者。知足有二。一在家人知足。二出家知足。言在家知足者。隨白衣所以衣受者。謂諸白衣為失故施本為失三。今還受三。即是知足。然此知足順出家之軌。故曰出家人知足。此謂失三受三順三知足故。言若過尼薩耆波逸者。此第六句過受結罪。律云。失一受二。失二受三。失三受四等。並是足而受更受違二知足。故名為過知足。受者即犯捨墮。此衣應舍與僧。若一人若多人不得別眾舍。若舍不成舍。舍已應懺罪。然後彼應還衣。若不還衣得罪不犯中。律云。若知足取。若減知足。若衣體細薄不牢。重作故取不犯。
勸贊一居士增衣價第八 一制意。篤信居士
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：當知足地接受衣服，如果超過了應接受的數量，就會觸犯尼薩耆波逸提（Nisargiya Pacittiya，捨墮）。這條關於知足的戒律有六個要點：一、犯戒之人；二、遇到四種因緣，這裡指的是施衣的因緣；三、不是親屬的居士施衣之人；四、因為比丘失去衣服而隨意佈施；五、是比丘應當知道知足地接受；六、因為超過了應接受的數量而觸犯戒律。前三點文義顯而易見。第四點所說的隨意多給的情況是，如果施主隨意多給衣服，而比丘失去了一件衣服，其中有應該接受的，也有不應該接受的。如果只失去一件衣服，不應該接受額外的。如果失去兩件衣服，而剩餘還有一件可以算作重數的衣服，那麼無論是兩件、三件還是四件，都應該拆開作為額外的兩件衣服。如果全部都失去了，可以接受上下身的衣服。剩餘的一件衣服要從別處獲取。如果施主隨意多給的衣服輕薄不結實，應該拿來做成兩層、三層或四層，加固在肩膀上，並且應該安上鉤紐。剩餘的邊角料，要問施主說：『這些剩餘的邊角料可以用來做什麼？』如果他們說：『我不是因為你失去衣服才給的，我們只是供養大德您。』如果想要接受，就可以接受。所說的『應當知足地接受衣服』，知足有兩種：一是在家人知足，二是出家人知足。所說在家知足，是隨順白衣接受衣服的方式。比如，白衣因為失去三件衣服而佈施，現在又接受了三件，這就是知足。然而，這種知足是順應出家人的規範，所以說是出家人知足。這是指失去三件接受三件，順應三件而知足。所說『如果超過，觸犯尼薩耆波逸提』，這是第六點，超過應接受的數量就會觸犯捨墮罪。戒律上說，失去一件接受兩件，失去兩件接受三件，失去三件接受四件等等，都是因為不知足而接受更多，違背了兩種知足，所以稱為超過知足。接受者就觸犯了捨墮罪。這件衣服應該捨棄給僧團，無論是給一個人還是給多個人，都不能私自捨棄，如果捨棄不成功，捨棄之後應該懺悔罪過，然後他們應該歸還衣服。如果不歸還衣服，雖然有罪，但不犯戒。戒律上說，如果知足地接受，如果減少知足的數量，如果衣服的質地輕薄不結實，爲了重新制作而接受，就不算犯戒。 勸贊一位居士增加衣服的價格第八：一是制定意圖，篤信的居士。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Knowing contentment, receiving robes, if exceeding the receiver commits a Nisargiya Pacittiya (an offense entailing forfeiture). This precept of contentment has six points: 1. The offender. 2. Encountering four conditions, referring to the circumstances of offering robes. 3. A layperson who is not a relative offering robes. 4. Offering freely because the Bhikkhu has lost robes. 5. The Bhikkhu should know to receive with contentment. 6. Committing an offense by receiving excessively. The first three points are self-explanatory. The fourth point, concerning offering freely, refers to situations where a donor freely gives robes, and a Bhikkhu has lost a robe. There are cases where it is appropriate to accept and cases where it is not. If only one robe is lost, one should not accept extra. If two robes are lost, and there is one remaining robe that can be counted as a duplicate, then whether it is two, three, or four, one should separate them to make two extra robes. If all robes are lost, one may accept upper and lower garments. The remaining robe should be obtained from elsewhere. If the robes freely given by the donor are thin and flimsy, one should take them to make two, three, or four layers, reinforcing them on the shoulders, and hooks and buttons should be attached. If there are leftover scraps, one should ask the donor, 'What can be done with these leftover scraps?' If they say, 'I am not giving them because you lost robes; we are simply offering them to you, venerable sir,' then if one wishes to accept, one may accept. The phrase 'should know to receive robes with contentment' means that there are two kinds of contentment: contentment for laypeople and contentment for renunciants. Contentment for laypeople refers to following the way laypeople receive robes. For example, if a layperson offers because three robes were lost, and now three are received, this is contentment. However, this contentment aligns with the norms of renunciants, so it is called contentment for renunciants. This means losing three and receiving three, aligning with three and being content. The phrase 'if exceeding, commits a Nisargiya Pacittiya' refers to the sixth point, where exceeding the appropriate amount results in a forfeiture offense. The Vinaya states that losing one and receiving two, losing two and receiving three, losing three and receiving four, and so on, are all instances of receiving more due to a lack of contentment, violating the two kinds of contentment, and thus called exceeding contentment. The receiver commits a forfeiture offense. This robe should be forfeited to the Sangha (community), whether to one person or many, and cannot be forfeited privately. If the forfeiture is not done properly, after forfeiting, one should confess the offense, and then they should return the robe. If the robe is not returned, there is an offense, but it is not a major one. The Vinaya states that if one receives with contentment, if one reduces the amount to be content, or if the fabric of the robe is thin and flimsy, and one receives it to remake it, there is no offense.' Eighth: Encouraging and praising a layperson for increasing the price of robes. 1. Establishing the intention, a devout layperson.
標心舍價限已定。理宜隨施而受。不虧道法。今反嫌少過一更索長。己貪求壞彼信敬。是故聖制 別緣有六。一非親居士虛心辨衣價。二情期限定三知施心有限。四嫌少勸增。五彼為增價增縷。六領受便犯。已下正明戒本。因跋難陀起過。佛制此戒。
若比丘居士居士婦為比丘辦衣價買如是衣與某甲比丘是比丘先不受自恣請到居士家作如是言善哉居士為買如是衣與我為好故若得衣者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文有四句。一犯人。二施衣限定。三是比丘不嫌少勸增。四若得衣下得而結罪。上二句可知。第三為比丘至與我好故已來。明嫌少勸增義。衣價者。若錢若瓔珞等是。居士問比丘。須何等衣。佛聽索不如者。今乃居士為辯絹衣。若勸買紬即犯。故十誦云。勸增色亦犯。此戒為施心有限嫌少更求。乃至增一錢十六分之一分。若增縷亦犯。多論勵增色量價三舍墮。言得衣尼薩耆波逸提者。是第四結罪句。舍懺還不還義如上辯。不犯中。律云。先受自恣而往求知足。于求中減少作。若從親里求。若出家人求。或為他求。若求自得不犯。
勸二居士增衣價戒第九 制意犯緣如前無異。唯以二居士合作為別 問。勵增一綖即犯。何故乞衣得一條方犯 答。乞本無心及至乞時任彼籌量。惱義是微故一條方犯。辯中施主
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 標定衣價的期限已經確定。按理應該隨施主所施捨的接受，不違背佛法。現在反而嫌少，超過期限還要增加。自己貪求而破壞了施主的信心和恭敬心。因此，佛制定了特別的因緣有六種：一、非親屬的居士虛心辨別衣價；二、情意期限已定；三、知道施主的心意有限；四、嫌少而勸施主增加；五、施主爲了增加衣價而增加絲縷；六、領受了就犯戒。下面正式說明戒本，因為跋難陀（Nanda，佛陀的堂弟，十大弟子之一）的過失而起，佛制定此戒。
『如果比丘接受居士或居士婦為比丘準備的衣價，購買這樣的衣服給某某比丘，這位比丘先前沒有接受自恣（pravāraṇā，雨季安居結束時的儀式）的邀請，到居士家說這樣的話：『善哉！居士為我購買這樣的衣服，爲了我好。』如果得到衣服，就犯尼薩耆波逸提（nissaggiya pācittiya，捨墮罪）。』這句完整的戒文有四句：一、犯戒的人；二、施捨衣服的期限限定；三、這位比丘不嫌少而勸施主增加；四、如果得到衣服就結罪。上面兩句可以理解。第三句『為比丘至與我好故已來』，說明嫌少勸施主增加的意思。衣價，指錢或瓔珞等。居士問比丘需要什麼樣的衣服，佛允許索取不如意的。現在是居士為比丘準備絹衣，如果勸施主購買紬（chóu，一種絲織品）就犯戒。所以《十誦律》說，勸施主增加顏色也犯戒。此戒是因為施主的心意有限，嫌少而進一步索取，乃至增加一錢的十六分之一，如果增加絲縷也犯戒。《多論》說，努力增加顏色、數量、價格三種都犯捨墮罪。『得到衣服犯尼薩耆波逸提』，是第四句結罪。捨棄和懺悔，還不還的意義如上所述。不犯的情況，律中說：先前接受了自恣的邀請而去求，知道滿足，在求的時候減少。如果從親屬那裡求，如果出家人求，或者為他人求，如果求而自得，不犯戒。
勸兩個居士增加衣價戒第九，制定的意思和犯戒的因緣與前面沒有不同，只是以兩個居士合作為區別。問：努力增加一根絲線就犯戒，為什麼乞衣得到一條才犯戒？答：乞衣本來沒有貪心，以及到乞衣的時候任憑施主衡量。惱亂的意義是輕微的，所以一條才犯戒。辨別施主。
【English Translation】 English version The time limit for setting the price of the robe has been determined. It is reasonable to accept according to what the donor gives, without violating the Dharma. Now, on the contrary, they dislike it being too little, and even after the deadline, they demand more. They are greedy and destroy the donor's faith and respect. Therefore, the Buddha established six special conditions: 1. A non-relative layperson sincerely discerns the price of the robe; 2. The time limit has been set; 3. Knowing that the donor's intention is limited; 4. Disliking it being too little and encouraging the donor to increase it; 5. The donor increases the threads in order to increase the price of the robe; 6. Receiving it constitutes an offense. The following formally explains the precepts, arising from the fault of Nanda (Nanda, Buddha's cousin, one of the ten major disciples), the Buddha established this precept.
'If a bhikkhu (monk) accepts the price of a robe prepared by a layperson or a laywoman for a bhikkhu, buying such a robe for a certain bhikkhu, and this bhikkhu has not previously accepted an invitation to the pravāraṇā (the ceremony at the end of the rainy season retreat), and goes to the layperson's house and says such words: 'Excellent! Layperson, buy such a robe for me, for my benefit.' If he obtains the robe, he commits a nissaggiya pācittiya (an offense requiring forfeiture and confession).' This complete precept has four clauses: 1. The offender; 2. The time limit for donating the robe is set; 3. This bhikkhu does not dislike it being too little and encourages the donor to increase it; 4. If he obtains the robe, he incurs the offense. The above two clauses can be understood. The third clause, 'For the bhikkhu, up to 'for my benefit',' explains the meaning of disliking it being too little and encouraging the donor to increase it. The price of the robe refers to money or necklaces, etc. If the layperson asks the bhikkhu what kind of robe he needs, the Buddha allows requesting something inferior. Now, the layperson is preparing a silk robe for the bhikkhu, and if he encourages the layperson to buy紬 (chóu, a type of silk fabric), he commits an offense. Therefore, the 《Ten Recitation Vinaya》 says that encouraging the donor to increase the color also constitutes an offense. This precept is because the donor's intention is limited, and they dislike it being too little and further demand more, even increasing one-sixteenth of a coin. If they increase the threads, they also commit an offense. The 《Mahāyāna-samgraha》 says that striving to increase the color, quantity, and price all constitute an offense requiring forfeiture. 'Obtaining the robe constitutes a nissaggiya pācittiya' is the fourth clause of incurring the offense. The meaning of relinquishing and confessing, and whether to return it or not, is as described above. In the case of non-offense, the Vinaya says: Having previously accepted an invitation to the pravāraṇā and going to seek, knowing contentment, and reducing the request when seeking. If seeking from relatives, if a renunciant seeks, or if seeking for others, if seeking and obtaining it oneself, there is no offense.
The ninth precept on encouraging two laypersons to increase the price of the robe, the intention of the establishment and the causes of offense are no different from before, except that it is distinguished by the cooperation of two laypersons. Question: Striving to increase one thread constitutes an offense, why does obtaining a strip of cloth only constitute an offense when begging for a robe? Answer: Begging for a robe originally has no greed, and when begging for a robe, it is up to the donor to measure. The meaning of annoyance is slight, so only a strip of cloth constitutes an offense. Discriminating the donor.
先有虛心施。限以定不荷其恩。嫌少更索惱物情。深一綖即犯。已下正明戒本。
若比丘二居士居士婦與比丘辦價持如是價買如是衣與其甲是比丘先不受居士自恣請到二居士家作如是語善哉居士為我辦如是衣價與我共作一衣為好故若得衣者尼薩耆波逸提 此戒句亦有四 一犯人。二施衣服定。三是比丘下嫌少勸增。四若得衣下得而結罪。釋句之義如前戒。五分乃至勸夫婦合作一衣亦犯。祇中知足者與細言。我是蘭若頭陀住人索粗者皆犯。己口自述德故 問。所以無勸三居士者何 答。勸二容損。勸三惱微故無 問。若爾勸三居士棄布造紬。豈無損義 答。此乞衣戒攝。今此勸增者要就本體上增方犯。此戒故所已無開通。並如前戒。
過限切索衣價戒第十 一制意。然寶物世情所重。長貪妨道生患處深。非是比丘之所宜畜。今施住信心奉施以為衣價懼犯。畜寶無宜自受。故付俗人令貨凈物。尋索急切情無容豫。迭相摧促。過惱前人。故作限制三索六默然。今過索惱境結罪 別緣有五。一是施主送寶。二貿衣受用。三付彼凈人轉貨衣物。四過分齊索五得衣便犯已下正明戒本。此戒因跋難陀制。
若比丘若王若大臣若婆羅門若居士居士婦遣使為比丘送衣價。持如是衣價與某甲比丘。彼使至比丘所語比丘言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 首先要有虛心的佈施。限定了數額就不要再貪圖恩惠。嫌少而進一步索取會擾亂別人的心緒。哪怕只多要一根線，也是違犯戒律。以下正式闡明戒律的根本。
如果比丘與兩位居士（在家信徒）或居士婦（在家女信徒）一起籌辦衣物，居士們拿出錢財，說用這些錢買這樣的衣服給某某比丘。如果這位比丘事先沒有接受居士們的隨意佈施的邀請，卻到了兩位居士家，說：『善哉！居士們，為我籌辦這樣的衣物錢財，我們一起做一件好衣服。』如果得到了衣服，就觸犯了尼薩耆波逸提（捨墮）。這條戒律也有四個方面：一是犯戒的人；二是佈施衣服的數額已定；三是比丘嫌少而勸人增加；四是如果得到衣服，就因此結罪。解釋這些語句的含義如同前面的戒律。《五分律》中甚至說勸夫婦一起做一件衣服也是犯戒的。僧團中知足的人會用委婉的言語說：『我是住在蘭若（寂靜處）的頭陀（苦行）之人。』索要粗糙的衣物，索要精細的衣物都會犯戒，因為這是自己口頭稱讚自己的德行。問：為什麼沒有勸三位居士的情況呢？答：勸兩位或許還能承受損失，勸三位會造成輕微的困擾，所以沒有。問：如果這樣，勸三位居士捨棄粗布而製作絲綢，難道沒有造成損失的含義嗎？答：這屬於乞衣戒的範圍。現在這種勸人增加的情況，必須是在原有的基礎上增加才會犯戒。這條戒律沒有開通的情況，都和前面的戒律一樣。
超過限度索取衣物錢財戒第十：一是制定戒律的用意。然而寶物是世俗之人所看重的，增長貪婪會妨礙修行，產生禍患，不是比丘應該擁有的。現在有施主因為信心而奉獻佈施，作為購買衣物的錢財，害怕觸犯蓄積財物的戒律，不宜自己接受，所以交給俗人，讓他們變賣乾淨的物品。如果尋索急切，不給人寬裕的時間，互相催促，過度地困擾他人，所以制定了限制，三次索取，六次沉默。現在超過限度索取，困擾了對方，就因此結罪。別緣有五：一是施主送來寶物；二是交換衣物受用；三是交給凈人（不犯戒的在家人）轉賣衣物；四是超過限度索取；五是得到衣物就犯戒。以下正式闡明戒律的根本。這條戒律是因為跋難陀（比丘名）而制定的。
如果比丘，無論是國王、大臣、婆羅門（祭司）、居士（在家信徒）或居士婦（在家女信徒），派遣使者為比丘送來衣物錢財，拿著這些錢財給某某比丘。這位使者到了比丘那裡，對比丘說：
【English Translation】 English version: First, there must be a humble offering. Once the amount is set, do not covet the favor. Complaining about too little and further demanding will disturb others' minds. Even asking for just one more thread is a violation of the precept. The following formally clarifies the root of the precepts.
If a Bhikkhu (monk) and two Upasakas (lay male devotees) or Upasikas (lay female devotees) jointly prepare clothing, and the Upasakas offer money, saying, 'Use this money to buy such and such clothing for so-and-so Bhikkhu.' If this Bhikkhu has not previously accepted the Upasakas' invitation for voluntary offerings, but goes to the two Upasakas' homes and says, 'Excellent! Upasakas, prepare such clothing money for me, let us make a good garment together.' If the garment is obtained, it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (expiation involving forfeiture). This precept also has four aspects: first, the person who violates the precept; second, the amount of clothing offered is fixed; third, the Bhikkhu complains about too little and encourages increasing it; fourth, if the garment is obtained, guilt is incurred. The meaning of these statements is explained as in the previous precept. The 《Five-Part Vinaya》 even says that encouraging a husband and wife to make a garment together is also a violation. Those who are content in the Sangha (monastic community) will use tactful words, saying, 'I am a Dhuta (ascetic) living in a Aranya (secluded place).' Asking for coarse clothing, asking for fine clothing, all violate the precept, because it is verbally praising one's own virtues. Question: Why is there no situation of encouraging three Upasakas? Answer: Encouraging two may still be able to bear the loss, encouraging three will cause slight distress, so there is none. Question: If so, encouraging three Upasakas to abandon coarse cloth and make silk, does it not have the meaning of causing loss? Answer: This falls under the scope of the precept of begging for clothing. The current situation of encouraging increasing must be increasing on the original basis to violate the precept. This precept has no exceptions, and is the same as the previous precept.
The Tenth Precept of Demanding Clothing Money Beyond the Limit: First, the intention of establishing the precept. However, treasures are valued by worldly people, increasing greed hinders practice and causes harm, and are not what a Bhikkhu should possess. Now, some donors offer donations out of faith, as money for buying clothing, fearing violating the precept of accumulating wealth, it is not appropriate to accept it themselves, so they hand it over to laypeople, letting them sell clean items. If the demand is urgent, not giving people ample time, urging each other, excessively troubling others, so a limit is set, demanding three times, remaining silent six times. Now, demanding beyond the limit and troubling the other party incurs guilt. There are five separate conditions: first, the donor sends treasures; second, exchanging clothing for use; third, handing it over to a layperson (non-offending layperson) to resell clothing; fourth, demanding beyond the limit; fifth, obtaining the garment incurs guilt. The following formally clarifies the root of the precept. This precept was established because of Bālananda (name of a Bhikkhu).
If a Bhikkhu, whether it is a king, minister, Brahmin (priest), Upasaka (lay male devotee) or Upasika (lay female devotee), sends a messenger to send clothing money to the Bhikkhu, holding this money to give to so-and-so Bhikkhu. This messenger arrives at the Bhikkhu's place and says to the Bhikkhu:
。大德今為汝故送是衣價受取。是比丘語彼使如是言。我不應受此衣價。我若須衣合時清凈當受。彼使語比丘言。大德有執事人不須衣比丘應語言有。若僧伽藍人若優婆塞。此是比丘執事人。常為諸比丘執事。時彼使往執事人所與衣價已。還到比丘所如是言。大德所示某甲執事人我已與衣價。大德知時往彼當得衣。須衣比丘當往執事人所若二反三反為作憶念應言我須衣。若二反三反為作憶念得衣者善。若不得衣四反五反六反在前默然立。若四反五反六反在前默然住得衣者善。若不得衣。過是求得衣者尼薩耆波逸提。若不得衣從所得衣價處若自往若遣使往應言。汝先遣使持衣價與某甲比丘。是比丘竟不得衣。汝還取莫使失此是時 此滿足戒文有其二。初過索結犯。二若不得衣已下明不得進不。前文有六。一犯人。二若王已下。正明施主遣使奉寶為作衣價。三是比丘應語已下。恐犯畜寶自不敢受。四彼使語比丘下。正明使臣送寶付俗令貨凈物。五須衣比丘下。正開三語六默索衣方法。六若不得衣下過索分齊得衣結罪。然此六文位束為三。一犯人。二所犯事。三得衣結罪。犯人文可知。所犯之事文有其四。聖者立法。謂送寶不受付凈生已索之法。或就第四付凈生文復有其四。一問凈。二須衣比丘者。報凈人處。三付。四反報
【現代漢語翻譯】 大德，現在我爲了您的緣故送來這衣物價錢，請您收下。』那位比丘對使者這樣說：『我不應該接受這衣物價錢。如果我需要衣服，應該在適當的時候以清凈的方式接受。』使者對比丘說：『大德，有執事的人，不需要衣服的比丘應該告訴他們有。無論是僧伽藍（saṃghārāma，僧園）的人，還是優婆塞（upāsaka，在家男信徒），這些人都是比丘的執事人，經常為比丘們處理事務。』當時，那位使者前往執事人的住所，把衣物價錢交給了他。之後，使者回到比丘那裡，這樣說：『大德所指示的某甲執事人，我已經把衣物價錢交給他了。大德您知道時間到了，就去他那裡可以得到衣服。』需要衣服的比丘應當前往執事人的住所，如果兩次、三次地提醒他，應該說：『我需要衣服。』如果兩次、三次地提醒后能得到衣服，那是最好。如果得不到衣服，就四次、五次、六次地在他面前默默地站著。如果四次、五次、六次地在他面前默默地站著能得到衣服，那是最好。如果得不到衣服，超過這個次數再去索取衣服，就犯了尼薩耆波逸提（nissaggiya pācittiya，捨墮罪）。如果得不到衣服，就從得到衣物價錢的地方，或者自己去，或者派使者去，應該說：『你先前派使者把衣物價錢交給某甲比丘，那位比丘最終沒有得到衣服。你拿回去吧，不要讓它損失。這是時候了。』 這段滿足戒文有兩點：第一，超過索取次數就構成犯罪。第二，如果得不到衣服，以下說明得不到衣服的情況。前面的文有六點：第一，犯戒的人。第二，如果國王以下的人，正式派遣使者奉獻財物作為衣物價錢。第三，這位比丘應該說以下的話，因為害怕觸犯積蓄財物的戒律，所以不敢自己接受。第四，使者對比丘說以下的話，正式說明使臣把財物交給在家人，讓他們處理成清凈的物品。第五，需要衣服的比丘，正式開示三次請求、六次默然索取衣服的方法。第六，如果得不到衣服，超過索取的限度就構成犯罪。然而，這六段文字可以歸納為三點：第一，犯戒的人。第二，所犯的事情。第三，得到衣服就構成犯罪。犯戒的人容易理解。所犯的事情，這段文字有四點。聖者制定法律，是指送來財物，不接受，通過清凈的方式產生，然後索取的方法。或者就第四段交付清凈財物的文字，又有四點：第一，詢問是否清凈。第二，需要衣服的比丘。第三，告知清凈的人在哪裡。第四，回覆告知。
【English Translation】 'Venerable, I am now sending this clothing price for your sake, please accept it.' That Bhikkhu (monk) said to the messenger, 'I should not accept this clothing price. If I need clothing, I should accept it at the appropriate time in a pure manner.' The messenger said to the Bhikkhu, 'Venerable, there are stewards; a Bhikkhu who does not need clothing should tell them. Whether it is someone from the Saṃghārāma (monastery) or an Upāsaka (lay male devotee), these are the Bhikkhus' stewards, who often handle matters for the Bhikkhus.' At that time, that messenger went to the steward's residence and gave him the clothing price. Afterwards, the messenger returned to the Bhikkhu and said, 'The steward, so-and-so, whom the Venerable indicated, I have already given him the clothing price. Venerable, when you know the time is right, go to him and you can get clothing.' A Bhikkhu who needs clothing should go to the steward's residence, and if he reminds him two or three times, he should say, 'I need clothing.' If he can get clothing after reminding him two or three times, that is best. If he cannot get clothing, he should stand silently before him four, five, or six times. If he can get clothing by standing silently before him four, five, or six times, that is best. If he cannot get clothing, to ask for clothing beyond this limit constitutes a Nissaggiya Pācittiya (offense entailing forfeiture and expiation). If he cannot get clothing, he should go, either himself or by sending a messenger, to the place where the clothing price was received, and say, 'You previously sent a messenger to give the clothing price to Bhikkhu so-and-so, but that Bhikkhu ultimately did not get the clothing. Take it back, do not let it be lost. This is the time.' This complete precept text has two points: first, exceeding the number of requests constitutes an offense. Second, if clothing is not obtained, the following explains the situation where clothing is not obtained. The preceding text has six points: first, the offender. Second, if someone from the king downwards formally sends a messenger to offer wealth as the price of clothing. Third, this Bhikkhu should say the following, because he is afraid of violating the precept of accumulating wealth, so he dares not accept it himself. Fourth, the messenger says the following to the Bhikkhu, formally explaining that the messenger gives the wealth to a layperson to handle it as a pure item. Fifth, a Bhikkhu who needs clothing formally reveals the method of requesting three times and silently asking for clothing six times. Sixth, if clothing is not obtained, exceeding the limit of requesting constitutes an offense. However, these six paragraphs can be summarized into three points: first, the offender. Second, the offense committed. Third, obtaining clothing constitutes an offense. The offender is easy to understand. The offense committed, this text has four points. The Holy One established the law, which refers to sending wealth, not accepting it, generating it through pure means, and then requesting it. Or, regarding the fourth paragraph of delivering pure wealth, there are again four points: first, asking whether it is pure. Second, the Bhikkhu who needs clothing. Third, informing where the pure person is. Fourth, replying to inform.
比丘。第五索法。見論純語往索齊六不犯。過六方犯。純默十二未犯。十三反犯。默語相參。九反未犯。十反方犯。如是類知。五語二默七反未犯。四語四默八反未犯。三語六默九反未犯。二語八默十反未犯。一語十默十一未犯。全默十二未犯。十三始犯。第二不得中文三。一躬往遣使到施主所。二陳已㥾。三還本施主。已下廣辯前文。若比丘者。義如上釋。若王者。得自在無所屬。若大臣者。在左右若婆羅門者。有生婆羅門也若居士者。除王大臣婆羅門諸在家者是。居士婦者。在家婦也。遣使送衣至付比丘已來。是送寶之儀。從是比丘語使至當受已來。不受之法。彼使語比丘有執事人。是問凈主之法。須衣比丘至執事已來。是執凈主之處。彼使至與衣價已來。是付寶法。還到至當得衣已來。是執比丘法。已下明索衣方法。文略易顯 不犯者。若遣使告知。若彼言我今不須即相佈施。是比丘以時軟語方便索衣。若為作波利加羅故。與以時索。若方便索得者。一切不犯。
雜野蠶綿作臥具戒第十一 所以制者。良以貴物難得損生招譏。長貪妨道。過中之大是以聖制 別緣有五。一是憍奢邪。二乞求。三作臥具。四為己。五作時乞犯。多論憍奢邪者綿名。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群往蠶家索綿居士譏嫌。比丘舉過。
佛便制戒。
若比丘雜野蠶綿作新臥具尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文有三句。一犯人。二所犯事。三所為罪。言若比丘者。義如上釋。言雜野蠶綿蠶者。西方無家蠶。用野蠶作綿。成其三衣。外國作衣凡有二種。一細擗布貯如作栴法。二綿作縷織成衣。善見云。乃至雜一毛便犯。憍奢邪者絲中微者。蠶口初出名也。五分云。蠶家施綿受已施僧。不得自入。故知所制意重 野蠶尚犯。何況家蠶。雜綿尚犯。何況純作。言薩耆波逸提者。是犯名。多論若無蠶家。乞繭自作綿無罪。為賣故是蟲者吉。作不應量衣及敷具吉。自作教他成者犯墮。不成吉羅。犯尼薩耆衣應舍斧若斤剉斬。和泥以涂壁等用不得更著。若受用著著著得罪。不犯中。律云。若得已成。若乞成貯衣。若蟲壞者一切不犯黑羊毛作臥具戒第十二 所以不聽者。此毛貴物。無宜下用虛損施物。作無用之費。經營妨道。復招譏丑。是故須制 通緣如上。別緣有四。一純黑羊毛。貴好出四大國。貴而難得。二作臥具。三為己。四作成便犯。已下正明戒本。此因六群比丘見諸梨車子。作黑㲲被譏嫌。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘以新純黑羺羊毛作新臥具尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文有三句。一犯人。二毛作臥具。三結犯。若比丘者。義如上辯。言純黑毛者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 佛陀因此制定戒律。
如果比丘用摻雜了野生蠶絲的棉花製作新的臥具，觸犯尼薩耆波逸提（Nisargiya Pacittiya，捨墮）。這條完整的戒律條文包含三個部分：一是犯戒者，二是所犯之事，三是所犯之罪。『若比丘者』，意義如前文解釋。『言雜野蠶綿蠶者』，西方沒有家蠶，用野生蠶絲製作棉花，做成三衣。外國製作衣服通常有兩種方式：一是將細麻布搗碎，像製作栴（zhān）一樣；二是將棉花紡成線，織成衣服。《善見律毗婆沙》說，即使只摻雜一根蠶絲也會犯戒。『憍奢邪（kāśeya）』指的是蠶絲中最細微的部分，是蠶口最初吐出的絲。五分律說，蠶農施捨棉花，接受后施捨給僧眾，不得自己使用。由此可知，佛陀制定此戒律非常重視。野生蠶絲尚且犯戒，更何況家蠶？摻雜棉花尚且犯戒，更何況完全用蠶絲製作？『言薩耆波逸提者』，是罪名的名稱。《多論》說，如果沒有蠶農，乞討蠶繭自己製作棉花沒有罪過。爲了出售而養蠶是蟲吉（蟲類生存的吉兆）。製作不合尺寸的衣服和敷具是吉兆。自己製作並教他人完成的，觸犯墮罪；沒有完成的，觸犯吉羅（Dukkata，惡作）。觸犯尼薩耆罪的衣服應該用斧頭或斤（斧頭）砍碎，和泥塗在墻壁上等地方使用，不得再穿。如果受用或穿著，每次穿著都會獲罪。不犯的情況：律中說，如果已經得到成品，或者乞討得到成品儲存起來，或者被蟲蛀壞，一切都不犯。關於用黑羊毛製作臥具的戒律是第十二條。之所以不允許，是因為這種羊毛是貴重物品，不應該隨意使用，浪費施捨之物。製作無用的東西，妨礙修行，還會招致譏諷。因此需要制定戒律。通緣如上文所述。別緣有四點：一是純黑羊毛，是貴重的好東西，產自四大國，貴重且難以獲得；二是製作臥具；三是爲了自己；四是製作完成便犯戒。以下正式說明戒律的根本。起因是六群比丘看到諸梨車子（Licchavi，古印度部族）製作黑㲲（mò，毛織物）被，受到譏嫌。比丘們舉出過失，佛陀因此制定戒律。
如果比丘用新的純黑羺（nú，綿羊）羊毛製作新的臥具，觸犯尼薩耆波逸提。這條完整的戒律條文包含三個部分：一是犯戒者，二是羊毛製作臥具，三是結罪。『若比丘者』，意義如前文解釋。『言純黑毛者』，
【English Translation】 English version The Buddha then established a precept.
If a Bhikkhu uses mixed wild silkworm cotton to make a new bedding, it is a Nisargiya Pacittiya (an offense entailing forfeiture). This complete precept text has three parts: first, the offender; second, the offense committed; and third, the sin committed. 'If a Bhikkhu,' the meaning is as explained above. 'Speaking of mixed wild silkworm cotton,' the West does not have domestic silkworms, so they use wild silkworm silk to make cotton, forming the three robes. Foreign countries usually have two ways of making clothes: one is to pound fine linen, like making felt; the other is to spin cotton into thread and weave it into clothes. The Samantapasadika says that even mixing in one strand of silk is an offense. 'Kāśeya' refers to the finest part of silk, the silk initially produced from the silkworm's mouth. The Sarvastivada Vinaya says that if a silkworm farmer donates cotton, and after receiving it, it is donated to the Sangha, one must not use it oneself. From this, it is known that the Buddha placed great importance on establishing this precept. Using wild silkworm silk is already an offense, let alone domestic silkworm silk? Mixing cotton is already an offense, let alone making it entirely from silk? 'Speaking of Nisargiya Pacittiya,' it is the name of the offense. The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra says that if there is no silkworm farmer, begging for silkworm cocoons to make cotton oneself is not a sin. Raising silkworms for sale is an auspicious sign for insects. Making clothes and mats that are not of the proper size is an auspicious sign. Making it oneself and teaching others to complete it incurs a Pacittiya offense; not completing it incurs a Dukkata (an offense of wrong-doing). Clothes that incur a Nisargiya offense should be chopped up with an axe or adze, mixed with mud to plaster walls, etc., and must not be worn again. If one uses or wears them, one incurs a sin each time one wears them. Non-offenses: The Vinaya says that if one has already obtained a finished product, or begs for a finished product to store, or if it is damaged by insects, one does not incur any offense. The precept regarding making bedding from black sheep's wool is the twelfth. The reason it is not allowed is that this wool is a valuable item, and it should not be used casually, wasting donated items. Making useless things hinders practice and invites criticism. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a precept. The general conditions are as mentioned above. The specific conditions are four: first, pure black sheep's wool, which is a valuable and good item, produced in the four great countries, valuable and difficult to obtain; second, making bedding; third, for oneself; fourth, completing the making incurs an offense. The following formally explains the root of the precept. The cause is that the Six Group Bhikkhus saw the Licchavis making black wool blankets and were criticized. The Bhikkhus pointed out the fault, and the Buddha then established a precept.
If a Bhikkhu uses new pure black sheep's wool to make new bedding, it is a Nisargiya Pacittiya. This complete precept text has three parts: first, the offender; second, making bedding from wool; and third, incurring the offense. 'If a Bhikkhu,' the meaning is as explained above. 'Speaking of pure black wool,'
若生黑若染黑。言尼薩耆波逸提者。是犯名。犯相如前戒。不犯者。律云。若得成。若割載壞。若細薄疊作兩重。若小坐具。若作耨。若作帽。作袾作鑷熱巾。或作里革屣巾。並非披服之物故開無犯。
白毛臥具戒第十三 制意同前。十律此非純白善。是三毛參作不犯。三毛之中增黑毛一兩犯墮。貴故。增白一兩犯吉。賤故。增尨不犯。減一兩方犯 別緣有五。一三毛相參作。二疑作三衣臥具。三為己。四增好減惡下至一兩。五作成便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群作純白臥具。居士譏嫌。佛制參作故立此戒。
若比丘作新臥具應用二分純黑羊毛三分白四分尨若比丘不用二分黑三分白四分。尨作新臥具者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二故教比丘毛作法。三若比丘下不參結罪。言若比丘義如上辯。言作新臥具者。三衣白黑二毛各有兩種。一生白。二染白。言尨毛者是頭上毛。耳上毛。腳上毛。若余處粗毛並曰尨毛。言應分作者。若欲作四十缽羅臥具。二十缽羅黑。十缽羅白。十缽羅尨。乃至二十缽羅臥具準上可知。若增若減犯罪輕重如上釋。言若比丘不知作者得捨墮罪。就捨墮文有四種。如前所明不犯者。若應量作。若得已成。若割載壞作帽作袾作鑷熱巾。或作里革履巾一切不犯。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果（臥具）是黑色的，或者被染成黑色。這裡說的『尼薩耆波逸提』（Nissaggiya Pacittiya，捨墮）是指一種罪名。違犯的情況和之前的戒律一樣。不違犯的情況是：如果（臥具）已經完成，或者被切割損壞，或者（材料）很薄而疊成兩層，或者做成小坐具，或者做成鋤頭（耨），或者做成帽子，做成袾（zhū，僧衣的襯布），做成鑷熱巾（擦拭身體的毛巾），或者做成里革屣巾（鞋裡的墊巾），因為這些都不是披在身上的衣物，所以開許不犯。
白毛臥具戒第十三：制定的意圖和之前一樣。在十誦律（Sarvāstivāda Vinaya）中，這並非純白色就好。如果摻雜三種顏色的毛，就不算違犯。在三種毛中，如果增加黑毛一兩，就犯捨墮（Nissaggiya Pacittiya），因為黑毛貴。如果增加白毛一兩，犯吉（輕罪），因為白毛賤。如果增加雜色毛（尨 máng），不算違犯。減少一兩才算違犯。違犯的條件有五種：一是三種毛摻雜製作；二是懷疑是製作三衣臥具；三是為自己製作；四是增加好的，減少差的，哪怕只是一兩；五是製作完成就犯戒。下面正式說明戒本。這條戒律是因為六群比丘製作純白臥具，受到居士的譏諷，佛陀才制定摻雜製作的規定，因此設立此戒。
『若比丘作新臥具，應用二分純黑羊毛，三分白，四分尨。若比丘不用二分黑，三分白，四分尨，作新臥具者，尼薩耆波逸提』。這條完整的戒本有三句話。一是犯戒的人；二是教比丘製作毛料的方法；三是『若比丘』以下，不按規定摻雜就結罪。『若比丘』的含義如上所述。『作新臥具』是指，三衣的白毛和黑毛各有兩種：一是生來就是白的，二是染成白的。『尨毛』是指頭上、耳朵上、腳上的毛。如果其他地方的粗毛，都叫做尨毛。『應分作』是指，如果想做四十缽羅（Paṭra，容量單位）的臥具，就要用二十缽羅的黑毛，十缽羅的白毛，十缽羅的尨毛。乃至二十缽羅的臥具，按照上面的比例就可以知道。如果增加或減少，犯罪的輕重如上所述。『若比丘不知作者，得捨墮罪』。關於捨墮的條文有四種，如前所述。不違犯的情況是：如果按照規定的量製作，如果已經制作完成，如果切割損壞，做成帽子，做成袾，做成鑷熱巾，或者做成里革履巾，一切都不算違犯。
【English Translation】 English version: If it is black, or dyed black. The term 'Nissaggiya Pacittiya' (forfeiture with confession) refers to an offense. The circumstances of the offense are the same as the previous precept. Non-offenses are: if it is already completed, or cut and damaged, or (the material) is thin and folded into two layers, or made into a small seat, or made into a hoe (nou), or made into a hat, made into a 'zhu' (lining for a monastic robe), made into a 'nier re jin' (towel for wiping the body), or made into a 'li ge xi jin' (insole for shoes), because these are not items worn as clothing, therefore it is permitted without offense.
Thirteenth precept regarding bedding made of white wool: The intention of the rule is the same as before. In the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, it is not good if it is purely white. If it is mixed with three colors of wool, it is not an offense. Among the three types of wool, if one 'liang' (unit of weight) of black wool is added, it is an offense of Nissaggiya Pacittiya, because black wool is expensive. If one 'liang' of white wool is added, it is a 'ji' (minor) offense, because white wool is cheap. If 'mang' (mixed color) wool is added, it is not an offense. Reducing one 'liang' constitutes an offense. There are five conditions for an offense: first, the three types of wool are mixed together; second, suspecting it is for making bedding for the three robes; third, making it for oneself; fourth, increasing the good and decreasing the bad, even by just one 'liang'; fifth, the offense is committed upon completion of the making. The following formally explains the precept itself. This precept was established because the group of six monks made purely white bedding, which was criticized by laypeople, so the Buddha established the rule of mixing materials.
'If a bhikkhu makes new bedding, he should use two parts pure black sheep's wool, three parts white, and four parts 'mang'. If a bhikkhu does not use two parts black, three parts white, and four parts 'mang' when making new bedding, it is Nissaggiya Pacittiya.' This complete precept has three sentences. First, the offender; second, teaching the bhikkhus the method of making wool; third, from 'If a bhikkhu' onwards, incurring guilt for not mixing according to the rules. The meaning of 'If a bhikkhu' is as explained above. 'Making new bedding' refers to the white and black wool of the three robes each having two types: one is naturally white, and the other is dyed white. 'Mang wool' refers to the wool on the head, above the ears, and on the feet. If the coarse wool from other places is all called 'mang wool'. 'Should be divided' means that if one wants to make bedding of forty 'patra' (unit of volume), then one should use twenty 'patra' of black wool, ten 'patra' of white wool, and ten 'patra' of 'mang' wool. Even for bedding of twenty 'patra', one can know according to the above proportions. If there is an increase or decrease, the severity of the offense is as explained above. 'If a bhikkhu does not know the maker, he incurs an offense of forfeiture.' Regarding the clauses on forfeiture, there are four types, as explained before. Non-offenses are: if it is made according to the prescribed amount, if it is already made, if it is cut and damaged, made into a hat, made into a 'zhu', made into a 'nier re jin', or made into a 'li ge xi jin', none of these constitute an offense.
減六年臥具戒第十四 制意者。先有故臥具。未滿六年。足得資身。長道便罷不捨故者更復造新。長貪妨道。招世譏過。是故聖制 別緣有六。一有故臥具減六年。二不捨故者與人。三僧不聽許。四更作新者五為己。六作成便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒亦因六群比丘常營臥具。故佛制戒。就中有三。一略制。二牒隨開。三廣制。今明廣戒本。
若比丘作新臥具持至六年若減六年不捨故而更作新者除僧羯磨尼薩耆波逸提此 滿足戒文有三句。一犯人。二制限六年。三若限已下造新結犯。初句可知。言除僧羯磨者。明開意。律云。有比丘得干痟病。臥具甚重不堪持行。佛聽。隨僧乞法作新者。僧當白二聽作余新。僧祇云。若無老病因緣。六年不滿不得更作新臥具。若身不羸臞。顏色不惡。白二聽作羯磨。眾一一不成言尼薩耆波逸提者。是減限作故犯罪。舍懺如上。不犯者。律云。僧白二聽及滿六年。若減六年舍更作新。若得已成者。若無若他與作。一切不犯。
不揲尼師壇戒第十五 己有故坐具。障身便罷。令嫌故造新。虛損信施。長貪妨道。是以制揲為令息貪長道。物有受用之益。今更造新。不以故揲。違犯聖教。故製得 別緣有五。一有故尼師壇。二更作新者。三為己。四不以故揲。五作成便犯 問。尼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
減六年臥具戒第十四
制定此戒的原因是：先前已經有了舊的臥具，還沒滿六年，足夠用來維持生活，但長期修道的人就停止使用舊的臥具，不肯捨棄舊的，又重新制作新的，增長貪慾，妨礙修道，招致世人的譏諷和過失。因此，佛陀制定此戒。
開緣有六種情況：一是已經有舊的臥具但未滿六年；二是不捨棄舊的臥具給別人；三是沒有得到僧團的允許；四是重新制作新的臥具；五是爲了自己；六是臥具製作完成就犯戒。下面正式說明戒本。這條戒也是因為六群比丘經常經營臥具，所以佛陀制定此戒。其中有三種情況：一是簡略地制定；二是按照情況開許；三是廣泛地制定。現在說明廣泛的戒本。
『若比丘作新臥具，持至六年，若減六年，不捨故而更作新者，除僧羯磨（僧團的集體決議），尼薩耆波逸提（捨墮）。』
完整的戒文有三句：一是犯戒的人；二是限制六年；三是如果超過限制就製作新的，就會犯戒。第一句可以理解。說到『除僧羯磨』，是說明開許的情況。律中說：有比丘得了乾瘦病，臥具很重，無法攜帶行走。佛陀允許，可以隨僧團乞求，按照方法制作新的。僧團應當通過白二羯磨（一種僧團決議程式）允許製作新的。僧祇律中說：如果沒有年老生病的因緣，不滿六年不得重新制作新的臥具。如果身體不瘦弱，臉色不差，通過白二羯磨才能允許製作。僧團一一不成，說到『尼薩耆波逸提』，是因為減少年限制作臥具而犯罪。舍懺（捨棄並懺悔）如上所述。不犯戒的情況：律中說，僧團通過白二羯磨允許，以及滿六年，或者不滿六年捨棄舊的再製作新的，或者得到已經做好的，或者沒有，或者別人給做的，一切都不犯戒。
不揲尼師壇戒第十五
已經有了舊的坐具，妨礙身體就停止使用，因為嫌棄舊的就製作新的，白白浪費信徒的佈施，增長貪慾，妨礙修道。因此制定用舊的坐具縫製新的，是爲了止息貪慾，增長修道。物品有受用之益，現在重新制作新的，不用舊的坐具縫製，違犯佛陀的教導，因此制定此戒。
開緣有五種情況：一是已經有舊的尼師壇（坐具）；二是重新制作新的；三是爲了自己；四是不用舊的縫製；五是製作完成就犯戒。
問：尼 English version
Fourteenth precept on bedding less than six years – The reason for its establishment: Previously, there was old bedding that had not yet reached six years, sufficient for sustaining life. However, those practicing the long path would cease using the old bedding, unwilling to discard it, and instead create new bedding, increasing greed, hindering the path, and inviting worldly criticism and faults. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept.
There are six exceptions: First, having old bedding less than six years old; second, not discarding the old bedding to others; third, not obtaining permission from the Sangha; fourth, creating new bedding; fifth, doing it for oneself; sixth, committing the offense upon completion of the bedding. The following formally explains the precept itself. This precept was also established because the Six Group Bhikkhus (a group of monks known for their misconduct) frequently managed bedding. Among them, there are three situations: first, briefly establishing; second, opening according to circumstances; third, extensively establishing. Now, explaining the extensive precept itself.
『If a Bhikkhu makes new bedding, keeping it for six years, or less than six years, without discarding the old and making new, except by Sangha Karma (formal act of the Sangha), it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (an offense requiring forfeiture and confession).』
The complete precept text has three clauses: first, the offender; second, the six-year limit; third, if new bedding is made exceeding the limit, an offense is committed. The first clause is understandable. Regarding 『except by Sangha Karma,』 it clarifies the exception. The Vinaya (monastic rules) states: If a Bhikkhu suffers from a wasting disease, and the bedding is too heavy to carry, the Buddha allows him to request from the Sangha and make new bedding according to the method. The Sangha should allow the making of new bedding through a motion with one announcement and one confirmation (a type of Sangha resolution procedure). The Sarvastivada Vinaya states: If there is no cause of old age or illness, new bedding should not be made before six years. If the body is not emaciated and the complexion is not bad, permission to make it can be granted through a motion with one announcement and one confirmation. If the Sangha does not agree one by one, the term 『Nissaggiya Pacittiya』 refers to committing an offense by making bedding before the time limit. Forfeiture and confession are as described above. Situations where no offense is committed: The Vinaya states that if the Sangha allows it through a motion with one announcement and one confirmation, or after six years have passed, or discarding the old and making new before six years, or obtaining already made bedding, or having none, or having it made by others, no offense is committed.
Fifteenth precept on not using old material for a Nisidana (sitting cloth)
Having an old sitting cloth, one stops using it because it hinders the body, and makes a new one because one dislikes the old, wasting the offerings of believers, increasing greed, and hindering the path. Therefore, the rule is established to use the old sitting cloth to sew the new one, in order to stop greed and increase the path. Items have the benefit of being used, but now making new ones, not using the old sitting cloth to sew, violates the Buddha's teachings, therefore this precept is established.
There are five exceptions: First, already having an old Nisidana (sitting cloth); second, making a new one; third, doing it for oneself; fourth, not using the old one to sew; fifth, committing the offense upon completion.
Question: Ni
【English Translation】 Fourteenth precept on bedding less than six years – The reason for its establishment: Previously, there was old bedding that had not yet reached six years, sufficient for sustaining life. However, those practicing the long path would cease using the old bedding, unwilling to discard it, and instead create new bedding, increasing greed, hindering the path, and inviting worldly criticism and faults. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept. There are six exceptions: First, having old bedding less than six years old; second, not discarding the old bedding to others; third, not obtaining permission from the Sangha; fourth, creating new bedding; fifth, doing it for oneself; sixth, committing the offense upon completion of the bedding. The following formally explains the precept itself. This precept was also established because the Six Group Bhikkhus (a group of monks known for their misconduct) frequently managed bedding. Among them, there are three situations: first, briefly establishing; second, opening according to circumstances; third, extensively establishing. Now, explaining the extensive precept itself. 『If a Bhikkhu makes new bedding, keeping it for six years, or less than six years, without discarding the old and making new, except by Sangha Karma (formal act of the Sangha), it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (an offense requiring forfeiture and confession).』 The complete precept text has three clauses: first, the offender; second, the six-year limit; third, if new bedding is made exceeding the limit, an offense is committed. The first clause is understandable. Regarding 『except by Sangha Karma,』 it clarifies the exception. The Vinaya (monastic rules) states: If a Bhikkhu suffers from a wasting disease, and the bedding is too heavy to carry, the Buddha allows him to request from the Sangha and make new bedding according to the method. The Sangha should allow the making of new bedding through a motion with one announcement and one confirmation (a type of Sangha resolution procedure). The Sarvastivada Vinaya states: If there is no cause of old age or illness, new bedding should not be made before six years. If the body is not emaciated and the complexion is not bad, permission to make it can be granted through a motion with one announcement and one confirmation. If the Sangha does not agree one by one, the term 『Nissaggiya Pacittiya』 refers to committing an offense by making bedding before the time limit. Forfeiture and confession are as described above. Situations where no offense is committed: The Vinaya states that if the Sangha allows it through a motion with one announcement and one confirmation, or after six years have passed, or discarding the old and making new before six years, or obtaining already made bedding, or having none, or having it made by others, no offense is committed. Fifteenth precept on not using old material for a Nisidana (sitting cloth) Having an old sitting cloth, one stops using it because it hinders the body, and makes a new one because one dislikes the old, wasting the offerings of believers, increasing greed, and hindering the path. Therefore, the rule is established to use the old sitting cloth to sew the new one, in order to stop greed and increase the path. Items have the benefit of being used, but now making new ones, not using the old sitting cloth to sew, violates the Buddha's teachings, therefore this precept is established. There are five exceptions: First, already having an old Nisidana (sitting cloth); second, making a new one; third, doing it for oneself; fourth, not using the old one to sew; fifth, committing the offense upon completion. Question: Ni
師不揲而復過量得一罪二罪 答。一解二罪。舍時先載去量外。然後懺悔 若爾不揲者揲已懺悔。何須入舍。答。不揲尼師舉體有過。今雖更揲猶有本過。故須入舍。量過者量外有過。若載去已過內無過。何須入舍。又復還主無受用義。故要須載。若故物作但有過量。無不揲之愆。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群違制故結。
若比丘作新坐具當取故者縱廣一搩手揲新者上以壞色故若作新坐具不取故者縱廣一搩手揲新者上用壞色者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二制其揲法。三若比丘已下不揲結罪 言若比丘義如下辯。言新坐具者故揲一搩手是制揲法。律云。造新坐具時。若故未壞。未有穿孔。當取浣染治之。牽挽舒裁。取方一搩手揲著新者。若揲邊若中央。以壞色故。僧祇律云。若自無故者不得從少聞。犯戒者無聞者住壞房。不治者惡名人斷見人。遠離二師者不喜聽問人。不別魔事人。邊取者則反上。多論若無故者一搩手拒亦應用。善見云。故者下至一經坐不須揲。言若作新坐具至波逸提已來為不揲故結犯。就句有四義。一須舍物。二須懺罪。三應還物。四不與得罪。律云。若揲若自無得處不揲。若他為作。若得已成。若純故者作不犯。
擔羊毛過三由旬戒第十六 然出家之人躬擔羊毛。順俗
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 師不揲而復過量得一罪二罪。答：一解二罪。舍時先載去量外，然後懺悔。若爾，不揲者揲已懺悔，何須入舍？答：不揲尼師（坐具）舉體有過。今雖更揲，猶有本過，故須入舍。量過者，量外有過。若載去已，過內無過，何須入舍？又復還主，無受用義，故要須載。若故物作，但有過量，無不揲之愆。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群違制故結。
若比丘作新坐具，當取故者縱廣一搩手（約一拃長）揲（縫補）新者上，以壞色（非正色）故；若作新坐具，不取故者縱廣一搩手揲新者上，用壞色者，尼薩耆波逸提（捨墮罪）。此滿足戒本文有三句：一，犯人；二，制其揲法；三，若比丘已下不揲結罪。言若比丘義如下辯。言新坐具者，故揲一搩手是制揲法。律云：『造新坐具時，若故未壞，未有穿孔，當取浣染治之，牽挽舒裁，取方一搩手揲著新者，若揲邊若中央，以壞色故。』僧祇律云：『若自無故者，不得從少聞。犯戒者無聞者住壞房，不治者惡名人斷見人，遠離二師者不喜聽問人，不別魔事人。』邊取者則反上。多論若無故者，一搩手拒亦應用。善見云：『故者下至一經坐不須揲。』言若作新坐具至波逸提已來為不揲故結犯。就句有四義：一，須舍物；二，須懺罪；三，應還物；四，不與得罪。律云：『若揲若自無得處不揲，若他為作，若得已成，若純故者作不犯。』
擔羊毛過三由旬（古印度長度單位）戒第十六。然出家之人躬擔羊毛，順俗。
【English Translation】 English version If a monk does not mend (a sitting cloth) and exceeds the prescribed size, he incurs one or two offenses. Answer: One resolves two offenses. When relinquishing, first remove the excess beyond the prescribed size, and then confess. If that is the case, if one who did not mend has already mended and confessed, why is it necessary to enter the '舎' (a place for confession and relinquishment)? Answer: Not mending the entire Nishisadana (sitting cloth) is an offense. Even if it is mended later, the original offense remains, so it is necessary to enter the '舎'. As for exceeding the prescribed size, there is an offense for the excess. If the excess is removed, there is no offense within the prescribed size, so why is it necessary to enter the '舎'? Furthermore, returning it to the owner has no meaning of personal use, so it is necessary to remove the excess. If it is made from old material, there is only the offense of exceeding the size, but not the fault of not mending. The following clarifies the precepts. This precept was established because the Six Groups (of monks) violated the rules.
If a Bhikkhu (monk) makes a new sitting cloth, he should take an old piece, one span in length and width, and mend it onto the new one, using a deteriorated color. If he makes a new sitting cloth without taking an old piece, one span in length and width, and mending it onto the new one, using a deteriorated color, it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (an offense requiring forfeiture and confession). This complete precept has three parts: first, the offender; second, the prescribed method of mending; third, the offense of not mending. The meaning of 'If a Bhikkhu' will be discussed below. 'New sitting cloth' means that mending with one span of old cloth is the prescribed method. The Vinaya (monastic code) says: 'When making a new sitting cloth, if the old one is not damaged or has no holes, it should be washed, dyed, and treated. Stretch and cut it, taking a square of one span and mending it onto the new one, whether mending the edge or the center, using a deteriorated color.' The Sanghika Vinaya says: 'If one does not have an old piece himself, he should not ask from those of little learning. Those who violate the precepts, those who are unlearned, should live in dilapidated rooms; those who do not repair, those who are notorious, those with wrong views; those who distance themselves from the two teachers (preceptor and instructor) are those who do not like to listen and ask questions; those who do not distinguish demonic affairs.' Taking from the edge is the opposite. The Mahavibhasa (Great Commentary) says that if there is no old piece, a span of rejected material can also be used. The Samantapasadika (Commentary on the Vinaya) says: 'An old piece, even if it has only been sat on once, does not need to be mended.' The phrase 'If he makes a new sitting cloth' up to 'Pacittiya' establishes the offense for not mending. There are four meanings in the sentence: first, the object must be relinquished; second, the offense must be confessed; third, the object should be returned; fourth, not giving it results in an offense. The Vinaya says: 'If mending, if one has no way to obtain an old piece himself, he should not mend. If someone else makes it, if it is already made, if it is made entirely of old material, there is no offense.'
The Sixteenth Precept: Carrying wool beyond three Yojanas (an ancient Indian unit of distance). However, for a renunciate to personally carry wool is to conform to worldly customs.
而行跡同。凡辟動越威儀。招譏損道。故制不聽。所以復開。三由旬者有持之利。無以存濟。復開三過擔結罪 別緣有四。一貴羊毛除賤故。律云。頭頂足毛不犯。祇云。駝豬等毛越。二是己物。三自知。祇云。三人共有各持齊九由旬。重擔者俱犯。四過三由旬即犯。已下正戒本。此戒因跋難陀起過。便制此戒。
若比丘道路行得羊毛若無人持得自持乃至三由旬若無人持自特過三由旬尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯。二開三由旬。三持過結犯。初句可知。第二句持三由旬者。著道行。若住處得羊毛。須者應取。無人持自得持至三由旬。若有人者語。我有此物當助我持。若彼持后。於此中間比丘不得助持。若持犯吉。以非全自持過三故。令尼四眾持過者吉羅。除羊毛持余衣。若麻等犯吉。若擔余物杖頭亦吉。言過限持尼薩耆波逸提者。是犯句。犯相如上。不犯者。律云。若持至三由旬若減三由旬有人語持中間不助者。使尼四眾齊三由旬。若擔毳繩。若擔頭上毛作帽諸巾。並不犯。
使尼浣擗羊毛戒第十七 制意犯緣同浣衣戒。但此新故俱犯。以損功癡業。中制故爾。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群比丘使尼等擗染羊毛故起過。佛便制戒。
若比丘使非親里比丘尼浣染擗羊毛者尼薩耆波逸提 此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 而且行為習慣也一樣。所有不正當的行動、超越禮儀的行為，都會招致譏諷，損害修行。所以最初禁止比丘尼做這些事。之所以後來又開許，是因為在三由旬（Yojana，古印度長度單位，約合40-50里）的範圍內持有羊毛是有利的，如果沒有人幫助，就無法維持生計。如果超過三由旬，則會犯捨墮罪。其他特殊情況有四種：一是羊毛質量好，可以用來替換低賤的物品。律中說，頭頂和腳上的毛不算犯戒。只說駱駝、豬等的毛超過限制才犯戒。二是自己所有的物品。三是自己知道（情況）。只說，如果是三人共有，每人各自持有達到九由旬的量，那麼所有人都犯重罪。四是超過三由旬就會犯戒。以下是正式的戒本。這條戒律是因為跋難陀（Bhadanta，尊者的稱號）犯錯而制定的。 如果比丘在路上得到羊毛，如果沒有人幫忙拿，可以自己拿著，但最多隻能拿三由旬。如果超過三由旬，而且沒有人幫忙拿，就犯捨墮罪。這條完整的戒文有三句話。一是犯戒的情況。二是開許三由旬的情況。三是持有超過限制會犯戒。第一句很容易理解。第二句，持有三由旬的意思是，在路上行走時持有。如果在居住的地方得到羊毛，需要的人應該拿走。如果沒有人幫忙拿，自己可以拿著，但最多隻能拿三由旬。如果有人幫忙拿，就告訴他：『我有這個東西，請你幫我拿一下。』如果他拿了之後，在這期間比丘就不能再幫忙拿了。如果拿了，就犯吉羅罪（Dukkata，輕罪），因為不是完全自己拿著超過三由旬。讓比丘尼四眾拿著超過限制的，犯吉羅罪。除了羊毛，拿著其他的衣服，比如麻等，也犯吉羅罪。如果用棍子挑著其他東西，也犯吉羅罪。『超過限制持有，犯捨墮罪』，這是犯戒的句子。犯戒的情況如上所述。不犯戒的情況是，律中說：『如果拿著到三由旬，或者不到三由旬，有人說要幫忙拿，但中間沒有幫忙拿。』讓比丘尼四眾拿著到三由旬也是允許的。如果挑著毛繩，或者挑著頭上毛髮做的帽子、頭巾等，都不犯戒。 使喚比丘尼洗滌、捶打羊毛戒第十七。制戒的意圖和犯戒的因緣與洗衣服戒相同。但這條戒律新舊羊毛都犯戒，因為會耗費精力，是愚癡的行為。所以制定了這條戒律。以下是正式的戒本。這條戒律是因為六群比丘（group of six monks）使喚比丘尼等捶打、染色羊毛而犯錯，佛陀因此制定了這條戒律。 如果比丘使喚非親屬的比丘尼洗滌、染色、捶打羊毛，就犯捨墮罪。
【English Translation】 English version And their conduct is the same. All improper actions and behaviors that exceed propriety invite ridicule and damage practice. Therefore, it was initially forbidden for Bhikkhunis (female monastic) to do these things. The reason for later allowing it is that holding wool within three Yojana (ancient Indian unit of distance, approximately 40-50 li) is beneficial, and without assistance, it is impossible to sustain oneself. If it exceeds three Yojana, one commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (an offense requiring forfeiture). There are four other special circumstances: first, if the wool is of good quality and can be used to replace inferior items. The Vinaya (monastic code) states that hair on the head and feet is not an offense. It only mentions that camel, pig, etc., wool exceeding the limit is an offense. Second, if it is one's own property. Third, if one knows (the situation). It only says that if it is shared by three people, and each holds up to nine Yojana, then all commit a serious offense. Fourth, exceeding three Yojana constitutes an offense. The following is the formal precept. This precept was established because Bhadanta (title of respect for a monk) committed an offense. If a Bhikkhu (male monastic) obtains wool on the road, and if no one helps to carry it, he may carry it himself, but only up to three Yojana. If it exceeds three Yojana and no one helps to carry it, he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya. This complete precept has three sentences. First, the circumstances of committing the offense. Second, the allowance of three Yojana. Third, holding beyond the limit constitutes an offense. The first sentence is easy to understand. The second sentence, holding three Yojana, means holding it while walking on the road. If wool is obtained at the place of residence, those who need it should take it. If no one helps to carry it, one may carry it oneself, but only up to three Yojana. If someone helps to carry it, tell them: 'I have this item, please help me carry it.' If they carry it, the Bhikkhu cannot help carry it during this period. If he does, he commits a Dukkata (minor offense), because he is not entirely carrying it himself beyond three Yojana. Allowing the four assemblies of Bhikkhunis to carry it beyond the limit constitutes a Dukkata. Besides wool, carrying other clothing, such as hemp, also constitutes a Dukkata. If carrying other items on a stick, it also constitutes a Dukkata. 'Exceeding the limit of holding constitutes a Nissaggiya Pacittiya,' this is the sentence of offense. The circumstances of committing the offense are as described above. The circumstances of not committing the offense are, the Vinaya states: 'If carrying up to three Yojana, or less than three Yojana, and someone offers to help carry it, but does not help carry it in between.' Allowing the four assemblies of Bhikkhunis to carry it up to three Yojana is also permissible. If carrying a rope made of hair, or carrying hats, scarves, etc., made of hair on the head, it does not constitute an offense. The seventeenth precept regarding ordering Bhikkhunis to wash and beat wool. The intention of establishing the precept and the circumstances of committing the offense are the same as the precept regarding washing clothes. However, this precept applies to both new and old wool, because it consumes energy and is an act of ignorance. Therefore, this precept was established. The following is the formal precept. This precept was established because the group of six monks ordered Bhikkhunis to beat and dye wool, and the Buddha therefore established this precept. If a Bhikkhu orders a Bhikkhuni who is not a relative to wash, dye, or beat wool, he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya.
滿足戒本句亦有五。一犯人。三非親尼。三所染毛。四使染擗。五結罪。初二兩句可知。言浣染擗羊毛者。擗者下至以水一漬。染者下至一入染汁。辟者下至辟一片。余義皆如浣故衣戒同。所以不辯。
畜寶戒第十八 一制意。寶體利重。長貪妨道。喜生諍競。招世譏嫌。是故聖制。不聽受畜。然由資惡故開。付俗貨凈物受之故。多論與比丘結戒者有三益故。一為止誹謗。二為滅開諍。三為成聖種知足行故 二釋名。貯用屬己名之為誹。情所珍貴稱之為寶。故曰畜寶戒 三具緣通緣如上。別緣有四。一是錢寶。二知是錢寶。三為己。四受取便犯 四闕緣。若闕初緣犯吉。為寶者金銀錢是。余偽寶畜犯小罪。若闕第二緣犯吉。為想疑故。若闕第三第四罪無。已下正明戒本。此戒因跋難陀比丘起過。居土苦嫌。佛便制戒。
若比丘自手捉錢若金銀若教捉若置地受者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文有三句。一犯人。二所捉之寶。三自他二業捉而結犯。比丘者如上。言手捉錢者。多論明五種受俱犯。一以手捉取。二以衣捉他取。三器從他取。四若著是中。五若言與是凈人併成捉寶罪。三尼錢者。上有文像。言金銀者。生色似金。兩種皆名金銀。多論若捉金薄金像皆名捉罪。所言人捉者。置地受尼薩耆波逸提者。是結罪
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 滿足戒本句亦有五：一、犯人；二、非親尼（非親屬的比丘尼）；三、所染毛（被染色的羊毛）；四、使染擗（指使他人染色並分開羊毛）；五、結罪。 初二兩句可知。言浣染擗羊毛者，擗者下至以水一漬（『擗』指將羊毛分開，哪怕只是用水浸濕一次），染者下至一入染汁（『染』指染色，哪怕只是放入染料一次），辟者下至辟一片（『辟』指分開，哪怕只是分開一片）。余義皆如浣故衣戒同，所以不辯。
畜寶戒第十八：一、制意。寶體利重，長貪妨道，喜生諍競，招世譏嫌，是故聖制，不聽受畜。然由資惡故開，付俗貨凈物受之故。多論與比丘結戒者有三益故：一為止誹謗；二為滅開諍；三為成聖種知足行故。 二、釋名。貯用屬己名之為誹，情所珍貴稱之為寶，故曰畜寶戒。 三、具緣通緣如上。別緣有四：一是錢寶；二、知是錢寶；三、為己；四、受取便犯。 四、闕緣。若闕初緣犯吉。為寶者金銀錢是，余偽寶畜犯小罪。若闕第二緣犯吉，為想疑故。若闕第三第四罪無。已下正明戒本。此戒因跋難陀比丘（Bhadanta Bhikkhu）起過，居士苦嫌，佛便制戒。
若比丘自手捉錢若金銀若教捉若置地受者，尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pacittiya）。此滿足戒文有三句：一、犯人；二、所捉之寶；三、自他二業捉而結犯。比丘者如上。言手捉錢者，多論明五種受俱犯：一、以手捉取；二、以衣捉他取；三、器從他取；四、若著是中；五、若言與是凈人併成捉寶罪。三尼錢者，上有文像。言金銀者，生色似金，兩種皆名金銀。多論若捉金薄金像皆名捉罪。所言人捉者，置地受尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pacittiya）者，是結罪。
【English Translation】 English version There are also five aspects to fulfill this precept: 1. The offender; 2. A non-relative Bhikkhuni (nun); 3. The dyed wool; 4. Causing the dyeing and separating of the wool; 5. The completion of the offense. The first two aspects are self-explanatory. Regarding washing, dyeing, and separating wool: 'Separating' refers to even just wetting it once with water; 'Dyeing' refers to even just putting it into the dye once; 'Dividing' refers to even just separating one piece. The remaining meanings are the same as the precept regarding washing old clothes, so they are not discussed further.
The Eighteenth Precept: Possessing Valuables. 1. The reason for the prohibition: Valuables are profitable but heavy, increase greed, hinder the path, easily cause disputes, and invite worldly criticism. Therefore, the Holy One prohibited receiving and possessing them. However, it is permitted due to the need for resources for evil deeds, and because entrusting them to laypeople allows for the acceptance of purified goods. The Vinaya states that there are three benefits to establishing this precept for Bhikkhus: 1. To stop slander; 2. To eliminate disputes; 3. To cultivate contentment and the practice of the Noble Ones. 2. Explanation of the name: Storing and using for oneself is called 'defamation'; things cherished in the heart are called 'valuables.' Therefore, it is called the Precept Against Possessing Valuables. 3. The general conditions are as above. The specific conditions are four: 1. It is money or valuables; 2. Knowing it is money or valuables; 3. For oneself; 4. Receiving it results in an offense. 4. Lacking conditions: If the first condition is lacking, a minor offense is committed. 'Valuables' refers to gold, silver, and money; possessing other fake valuables results in a minor offense. If the second condition is lacking, a minor offense is committed, due to thinking or doubting. If the third or fourth condition is lacking, there is no offense. The following clarifies the precept itself. This precept arose because of an offense by Bhadanta Bhikkhu (Bhadanta Bhikkhu), which caused laypeople to complain bitterly, so the Buddha established this precept.
If a Bhikkhu personally takes money, whether gold or silver, or instructs someone to take it, or receives it when it is placed on the ground, it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (Nissaggiya Pacittiya). This complete precept has three aspects: 1. The offender; 2. The valuables taken; 3. The act of taking, whether by oneself or another, results in an offense. 'Bhikkhu' is as above. Regarding 'personally taking money,' the Vinaya states that all five ways of receiving result in an offense: 1. Taking it with one's hand; 2. Taking it through another person using cloth; 3. Taking it from another person using a container; 4. If it is placed in something; 5. If one says to give it to a layperson, it also constitutes the offense of taking valuables. 'Money' refers to having writing or images on it. 'Gold and silver' refers to things that resemble gold in color. Both are called gold and silver. The Vinaya states that taking gold leaf or gold images also constitutes an offense. Regarding someone else taking it, receiving it when it is placed on the ground is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (Nissaggiya Pacittiya), which constitutes an offense.
句。故律云。若教人捉同自捉犯。是以律佛告大臣曰。日有四患不令照。一者修羅。二者煙雲。三者塵。四者霧。沙門亦有四種過。中不令威儀清凈。一者不捨飲酒。二者不捨淫慾。三不捨手捉金銀。四者不捨邪命自活。故經說言。酒為放逸。淫是生死原。金銀生患重。邪命壞善根。以此義故佛自說言。若見沙門以我為師。而捉金銀我說此人非是沙門。智度論云。出家菩薩守護戒故不畜錢物。以戒功德勝於佈施。涅槃經云。菩薩持譏戒與性戒無差別。言尼薩耆者。是其舍法。若比丘欲舍錢寶。向信樂優婆塞語。此是我所不應。汝當知之。若彼取還與比丘者。當爲彼人物。故受令凈人掌。若得凈衣缽。應易受持。若彼取不還者。令余比丘語遣還。余比丘不語者。當日往語佛。為凈故遣與汝。若令與僧塔。乃至本主。為不欲使失彼信施故。不犯者如向所說。
貨寶戒第十九 制意者。以其寶物更互相貨為求息利。長貪妨道。招世譏過。故便聖制 別緣有五。一是寶物。二互相貿易。三決價。四為己。五領受即犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因跋難陀比丘往市以錢。居士譏。佛制戒。
若比丘種種買賣者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文有三句。一是犯人。二互相貿易。三結犯。初句可知。言種種買賣者。解第二句。律云。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，《律藏》說，如果教別人拿錢，就等同於自己拿錢，同樣犯戒。所以，《律藏》中佛告訴大臣說：太陽有四種情況不能照耀：一是阿修羅（非天，一種惡神），二是煙雲，三是塵土，四是霧。沙門（出家修道者）也有四種過失，導致威儀不清凈：一是不捨棄飲酒，二是不捨棄淫慾，三是不捨棄手拿金銀，四是不捨棄以不正當的手段謀生。所以經書上說：『酒使人放逸，淫是生死的根源，金銀帶來沉重的禍患，邪命敗壞善良的根基。』因為這個緣故，佛親自說：『如果看見沙門以我為師，卻拿取金銀，我說這個人不是沙門。』《智度論》說：出家的菩薩爲了守護戒律，不積蓄錢財物品，因為戒律的功德勝過佈施。《涅槃經》說：菩薩持守的譏嫌戒和根本戒沒有差別。說到『尼薩耆』（捨墮），就是捨棄的方法。如果比丘想要捨棄錢財珍寶，就對信奉佛法的優婆塞（在家男居士）說：『這些是我不應該擁有的，你應該知道。』如果那人拿回去又還給比丘，就當那是別人的東西，委託給凈人（不犯戒的在家信徒）掌管。如果得到乾淨的衣服和缽，應該換取並接受持有。如果那人不拿回去，就讓其他比丘告訴他讓他還回來。如果其他比丘不告訴他，就當天去告訴佛，爲了清凈的緣故送給你。或者讓他送給僧團或佛塔，乃至送還給原來的主人，因為不想讓他失去對佛法的信心。不犯戒的情況就像前面所說的。 貨寶戒第十九，制定此戒的用意是：因為用寶物互相交易是爲了求取利息，增長貪慾，妨礙修道，招致世人的譏諷和過失，所以佛才制定此戒。違犯此戒的因緣有五種：一是寶物，二是互相貿易，三是確定價格，四是爲了自己，五是領受，滿足這些條件就犯戒。以下正式說明戒本。此戒的起因是跋難陀比丘去市場用錢，被居士譏諷，佛因此制定此戒。 『若比丘種種買賣者，尼薩耆波逸提』，這句完整的戒文有三部分：一是犯戒的人，二是互相貿易，三是判決犯戒。第一句可以理解。說到『種種買賣』，解釋第二句。《律藏》說：
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the Vinaya says, 'If one instructs another to take money, it is the same as taking it oneself, and one commits an offense.' Thus, in the Vinaya, the Buddha told the ministers: 'The sun has four conditions that prevent it from shining: first, Asuras (non-gods, a type of evil spirit); second, smoke and clouds; third, dust; and fourth, fog. Sramanas (ordained practitioners) also have four faults that prevent their conduct from being pure: first, not abandoning alcohol; second, not abandoning sexual desire; third, not abandoning the handling of gold and silver; and fourth, not abandoning making a living through improper means.' Therefore, the scriptures say: 'Alcohol causes recklessness, sexual desire is the root of birth and death, gold and silver bring heavy misfortune, and improper livelihood destroys the roots of goodness.' Because of this reason, the Buddha himself said: 'If you see a Sramana who takes me as his teacher, yet takes gold and silver, I say that this person is not a Sramana.' The Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra says: 'An ordained Bodhisattva, in order to guard the precepts, does not accumulate money or possessions, because the merit of precepts surpasses giving.' The Nirvana Sutra says: 'There is no difference between the blameable precepts and the fundamental precepts held by a Bodhisattva.' When speaking of 'Nissaggiya' (forfeiture), it is the method of relinquishing. If a Bhikkhu wishes to relinquish money and treasures, he should say to a believing Upasaka (male lay devotee): 'These are things that I should not possess, you should know this.' If that person takes it back and returns it to the Bhikkhu, it should be regarded as someone else's property and entrusted to a Kappa-karaka (lay follower who is free from offenses) to manage. If clean robes and bowls are obtained, they should be exchanged and accepted. If that person does not take it back, another Bhikkhu should tell him to return it. If the other Bhikkhu does not tell him, he should tell the Buddha that day, 'For the sake of purity, I sent it to you.' Or have him give it to the Sangha or a stupa, or even return it to the original owner, because he does not want him to lose faith in the Dharma. Situations where one does not commit an offense are as described above. The Nineteenth Precept on Trading Valuables: The intention behind establishing this precept is: because trading valuables with each other is for seeking interest, increasing greed, hindering cultivation, and inviting worldly ridicule and faults, the Buddha established this precept. There are five conditions for violating this precept: first, valuables; second, mutual trade; third, determining the price; fourth, for oneself; and fifth, receiving. Fulfilling these conditions constitutes an offense. The following formally explains the precept. The origin of this precept is that Bhikkhu Baddananda went to the market with money and was ridiculed by a householder, so the Buddha established this precept. 'If a Bhikkhu engages in various kinds of buying and selling, it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya.' This complete precept statement has three parts: first, the offender; second, mutual trade; and third, the judgment of offense. The first sentence is understandable. Speaking of 'various kinds of buying and selling,' explains the second sentence. The Vinaya says:
若已成金未成金已成未成金。此三種相貿易。銀亦三種。錢唯一種。此七種互動易。錢者八種。金銀銅鐵白臘鉛錫木錢胡膠八種錢。皆名為錢。言尼薩耆波逸提者。是犯句。犯相如前捉寶戒同。不犯者。律云。若以錢貿瓔珞具。以錢易錢。為三寶。不犯。
販賣戒第二十 制意者。凡出家之人理息緣務靜坐修道。何得利自販博馳騁市肆。動越威儀。招世譏丑。財物既交或容犯重。臨危險行非高節。以斯諸過聖不許。多論四義故佛制此戒。一為佛法僧上故。二為止斗諍故。三為成聖種故。四為長信敬不誹謗故 別緣有六。一在家。二眾外道亦攝三共相貿易。三決價四為己。五自貿易。六領受即犯。已下正明戒本。此因跋難陀以生薑易食故起過。又共外道博衣悔而不得。遂譏嫌。佛便制戒。
若比丘種種販賣者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文有三句。一犯人。二明賣買。三結犯。初句可知。言種種販賣者。律云。五種物相易。以時藥易非時。以時易七日。以時易盡形。以時易衣。乃至以衣易衣。皆如是相互各五句。所以言販賣者。謂價直一錢數數上下。增賣者價直一錢言直三錢。重增價者價直一錢言直五錢。言直五錢亦有三種。一買。二增買。三重增買。言尼薩耆波逸提者。是所犯之罪。律云。衣藥交貨諍價高下
數數上下皆犯。多論此販賣墮一切墮中最重。寧作屠兒。何以故。屠兒止害。一生販賣一切俱害。不問道俗賢愚持戒毀戒。無往欺常壞惡心故。若居谷恒悕天下荒餓霜雹災變。若居鹽積貯恒愿四邊反亂王路隔塞。多有此過故。此販賣物作塔像不得向禮。又云。但作佛意禮之。設與僧作食。及四方僧房一切不得住中。持戒比丘不應受用。受用得罪。以過多故。若食販賣因因墮。作衣著著墮。作臥具隨轉轉墮。重於余墮。僧祇若自問價作不凈語。諍價高下皆越得物。若物直五十而索百錢。比丘以五十和之。如是求者不名為下價。若前欲買此物。比丘不得抄市。當問言汝止未為報云我休者。比丘方云。我以是價知是物好不。比丘自貨抄市者越。若自舉物價前人信之。貴取故犯盜罪。多論如販賣戒中物。或方便有罪。果頭無罪。如為利居鹽谷后得好心。即施僧作福。成果頭有罪。如為福余來不賣 后見利便賣。以利自入即是方便無罪。或俱有罪俱無罪類知。不犯者。律云。聽五眾出家人共交易。應自審定。不應共相高下如市道法。不得與人貨易。令凈人貨。若悔聽還。若由蘇相易者無犯。開供養燈明故。
畜長缽過限戒第二十一 制意者。然缽為應供之器。資身足。今過貯畜。長貪妨道。招世譏丑。累損壞不輕。是以聖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
買賣行為，無論買進賣出都屬於違犯戒律。在《多論》中說，這種販賣行為在一切墮罪中最為嚴重。寧可去做屠夫。《多論》中解釋說：為什麼呢？因為屠夫只傷害一生，而販賣則傷害一切人。無論僧俗、賢愚、持戒或毀戒之人，都無處不欺騙，常常懷著破壞性的惡意。如果居住在產糧區，就總是希望天下發生饑荒、霜凍冰雹等災難。如果居住在產鹽區，就總是希望四處發生叛亂，王路被隔斷。因為有太多這樣的過失。因此，用販賣得來的財物建造佛塔佛像，不得用來禮拜。又說，只能以作佛事的意念來禮拜。如果用這些財物供養僧眾食物，以及建造四方僧房，一切都不得居住在其中。持戒的比丘不應該接受使用，接受使用就會有罪，因為這些財物有太多的過失。如果吃了用販賣所得之物做成的食物，就會因『因』而墮落；如果穿了用販賣所得之物做成的衣服，就會因『著』而墮落；如果使用了用販賣所得之物做成的臥具，就會隨著『轉』而墮落。這些罪過比其他的墮罪更為嚴重。僧團如果自己詢問價格，說了不乾淨的話，爭論價格高低，都會觸犯戒律而得到物品。如果物品只值五十，卻要價一百，比丘用五十來調和，這樣來求購的人不稱為壓低價格。如果之前就想買這個東西，比丘不得搶先購買。應當問對方說：『你停止購買了嗎？』等到對方回答說：『我停止了。』比丘才能說：『我以這個價格來了解這個東西的好壞。』比丘自己抬高物價搶先購買，就觸犯了戒律。如果自己抬高物品的價格，前面的人相信了，用高價買走，就犯了盜罪。《多論》中說，如同販賣戒律中的物品，或者使用方便法門，會有罪過，但如果是果報的開端則沒有罪過。例如，爲了利益而居住在產鹽區，後來生起好的心念，就佈施給僧眾做功德，那麼果報的開端是有罪的。例如，爲了求福而剩餘下來的東西不賣，後來看到有利可圖就賣掉，把利益自己拿走，這就是使用方便法門，沒有罪過。或者兩者都有罪，或者兩者都沒有罪，可以依此類推得知。不觸犯戒律的情況是，《律》中說，允許五眾出家人共同交易，應當自己審慎決定，不應當像在市場上那樣互相抬高或壓低價格。不得與人交換貨物，讓凈人去交換。如果後悔了，允許退還。如果是用酥油互相交換，就沒有觸犯戒律，因為這是爲了供養燈明。,
畜長缽過限戒第二十一：制定這條戒律的用意是，缽是用來應供的器具，足夠維持生活就可以了。現在過度積蓄，增長貪慾，妨礙修行，招致世人的譏諷醜陋，累積損壞也不輕微，因此聖人制定了這條戒律。
【English Translation】 English version:
Buying and selling, whether buying or selling, are both violations of the precepts. In the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya (多論, Duō Lùn), it is said that this kind of trading is the most serious of all offenses. It is better to be a butcher. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya explains: Why? Because a butcher only harms one life, while trading harms everyone. Whether monks or laity, wise or foolish, those who uphold the precepts or break them, there is nowhere where they do not deceive, always harboring destructive malice. If living in a grain-producing area, they always hope for famine, frost, hail, and other disasters to occur in the world. If living in a salt-producing area, they always hope for rebellions to break out everywhere and the royal roads to be blocked. Because there are so many such faults. Therefore, using wealth obtained from trading to build pagodas and Buddha images is not allowed for worship. It is also said that one can only worship with the intention of doing Buddhist deeds. If using these things to offer food to the Sangha (僧眾, Sēngzhòng), and to build monasteries in all directions, one must not reside in them. Monks who uphold the precepts should not accept or use them, as accepting and using them will incur offenses because these things have too many faults. If one eats food made from things obtained from trading, one will fall due to the 'cause'; if one wears clothes made from things obtained from trading, one will fall due to 'wearing'; if one uses bedding made from things obtained from trading, one will fall as it 'turns'. These offenses are more serious than other offenses. If the Sangha itself asks for prices, speaks impure words, and argues about high or low prices, they will all violate the precepts and obtain the items. If an item is only worth fifty, but one asks for one hundred, and a monk reconciles it with fifty, the person seeking to buy in this way is not called undercutting the price. If one wanted to buy this item before, a monk must not preemptively buy it. One should ask the other party, 'Have you stopped buying?' Only when the other party replies, 'I have stopped,' can the monk say, 'I will use this price to understand whether this item is good or not.' If a monk raises the price himself and preemptively buys it, he violates the precepts. If one raises the price of an item himself, and the person in front believes it and buys it at a high price, he commits the crime of theft. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says that it is like selling items within the precepts, or using expedient means, there will be offenses, but if it is the beginning of the karmic result, there is no offense. For example, if one lives in a salt-producing area for profit, and later generates good thoughts and donates to the Sangha to make merit, then the beginning of the karmic result is an offense. For example, if one does not sell the remaining items for the sake of seeking blessings, and later sells them when seeing a profit, taking the profit for oneself, this is using expedient means and there is no offense. Or both have offenses, or both have no offenses, which can be known by analogy. Situations that do not violate the precepts are that the Vinaya says that the five groups of ordained people (五眾出家人, Wǔ zhòng chūjiārén) are allowed to trade together, and they should carefully decide for themselves, and should not raise or lower prices like in the market. One must not exchange goods with others, but let a layperson (凈人, Jìngrén) exchange them. If one regrets it, it is allowed to return them. If exchanging with ghee (酥油, Sūyóu), there is no violation of the precepts, because it is for offering lamps.
The Twenty-first Precept: Possessing a Bowl Beyond the Limit: The intention of establishing this precept is that the bowl is a tool for receiving offerings, and it is enough to sustain life. Now, excessive accumulation increases greed, hinders practice, invites worldly ridicule and ugliness, and accumulating damage is not minor, therefore the sages established this precept.
制。然以物變無恒容有失奪資身。要用事不可廢。施時不受。后則難求。故開十日說凈。而畜違過。聖教過則結犯 釋名者。五分有比丘得一缽。以佛不聽長故施他。己缽破。佛問幾后破。答十日。因開十日。四分因請遂亦開十日。故曰畜缽過十日戒 別有五。一先有受持缽。二更得缽。三如法缽非不犯。謂具三如。四不凈施。五過十日便犯 闕緣。比說可知。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群比丘多求好缽。居士譏嫌。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘畜長缽不凈施齊十日過者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二所畜長缽。三開十日畜。四為結犯。初句可知。言長缽者。律云。缽有六種。鐵缽黑缽赤蘇摩羅國缽烏伽羅國缽憂伽賒國缽。大要有二。一者鐵缽。二者泥缽。此二種缽。要具三。如方堪受持。一者缽如但唯泥鐵。二者量如大者三升。小者升半。三是色如見論。鐵缽五熏。凡缽三熏。已上方是色如具。此三方可說凈。言不凈施者。是犯緣。犯有二種。一者過犯。二者染犯。相對八門。是長衣戒不異。所齊十日者。是開限。故律云。阿難得缽欲奉迦葉。以常用故十日當還。恐犯捨墮。以事白佛。開至十日。所言過者尼薩耆波逸提。此是違限結犯相門。開通如長衣戒。
乞缽戒第二十二 制意者
。然缽減五綴不漏。堪資身用。今乃處處隨非親乞。長貪妨道。惱亂施主。于理不可。故須聖禁 別緣有六。一先有受持缽。二減五綴不漏。三隨非親里乞。四為己。五乞如法缽。六領受便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因跋難陀缽破。遂于多居士乞多缽。便被譏嫌。比丘舉過。佛因制戒。
若比丘畜缽減五綴不漏更求新缽為好故尼薩耆波逸提彼比丘應往僧中舍展轉取最下缽與之令持乃至破應持此是時 此滿足戒本通有兩段。先明乞缽制犯。此明持還方軌。初段戒本文三。一犯人。二舊缽未滿。三更求結犯。初文可知。第二文言缽減五綴不漏者。律云。相去兩指間一綴也。尼薩耆波逸提者。是第三結罪句。從彼比丘已下至此是時。明舍還方軌。則于中文二。初應往僧中者。明舍缽。二展轉已下共為一句。總論還缽文。言此是時者。謂是用舊持新時乃至破成持然下還中四段。廣如律明。一舍缽方法。二懺悔之儀。三還缽。四不還得吉罪。初舍缽者有四。一持缽往僧。二下境。三威儀。四作舍詞句。第二懺悔罪如上所辯。第三還缽文亦有四。一貴者奪留宜還下缽。二僧應作自與下缽令持。三罰破比丘令持新用舊。四令守護恐壞故用新。故律僧與下缽白二與彼應守護。不得著瓦石落處倚杖刀下。懸物下道中石上果樹下及不平
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：然而，缽如果縫綴少於五處且沒有漏洞，就足夠用來維持生活。現在卻到處向非親屬乞討，增長貪慾，妨礙修行，擾亂施主，于理不合。所以需要佛陀制定戒律禁止這種行為。另外還有六種情況：一是已經有受持的缽，二是缽縫綴少於五處且沒有漏洞，三是向非親屬乞討，四是爲了自己，五是乞討如法的缽，六是領受了就犯戒。以下正式闡明戒本。這條戒律的起因是跋難陀（Nanda）的缽破了，於是向很多居士乞討了很多缽，因此被譏諷嫌棄。比丘們指出了他的過錯，佛陀因此制定了戒律。
如果比丘擁有縫綴少於五處且沒有漏洞的缽，又爲了更好而尋求新的缽，就犯了尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pacittiya，捨墮）。這位比丘應該到僧團中捨棄，輪流取用最差的缽給他，讓他持有，直到缽破了才應該持有這個（新的缽）。這是時候了。這條完整的戒本總共有兩段。先說明乞缽的制止和犯戒，這裡說明歸還的方法。第一段戒本文分為三部分：一是犯戒的人，二是舊缽沒有滿足條件，三是再尋求新的缽就構成犯戒。第一部分的內容顯而易見。第二部分說缽縫綴少於五處且沒有漏洞，律中說，相距兩指之間算一處縫綴。尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pacittiya）是第三個結罪的句子。從『彼比丘』以下到『此是時』，說明捨棄歸還的方法。其中又分為兩部分：首先，『應往僧中』說明捨棄缽，其次，『展轉』以下合為一句，總論歸還缽的內容。說『此是時』，是指用舊的缽換新的缽的時候，直到（舊缽）破了才能持有（新的缽）。然後，歸還的內容分為四個部分，詳細內容如律中所說：一是舍缽的方法，二是懺悔的儀式，三是歸還缽，四是不歸還的吉罪。首先，舍缽有四個步驟：一是拿著缽到僧團中，二是降低姿態，三是注意威儀，四是說捨棄的詞句。第二，懺悔罪過如上所述。第三，歸還缽也有四個方面：一是貴重的缽應該奪走，留下適合的下等缽歸還。二是僧團應該主動給予下等缽讓他持有。三是懲罰打破缽的比丘，讓他持有新的缽，用舊的缽。四是讓他守護（新的缽），因為擔心損壞所以用新的缽。所以律中說，僧團給予下等缽，通過白二羯磨（ñatti-dutiya-kamma）給予他，應該守護，不能放在瓦礫石頭掉落的地方，倚靠在枴杖刀具下面，懸掛物品，放在路中間的石頭上，果樹下以及不平坦的地方。
【English Translation】 English version: However, a bowl with fewer than five stitches and no leaks is sufficient for sustaining life. Now, begging everywhere from non-relatives increases greed, hinders practice, and disturbs donors, which is unreasonable. Therefore, the Buddha needs to establish precepts to prohibit such behavior. There are also six other situations: first, having already received a bowl; second, the bowl having fewer than five stitches and no leaks; third, begging from non-relatives; fourth, doing it for oneself; fifth, begging for a lawful bowl; sixth, violating the precept upon receiving it. The following formally clarifies the Pratimoksha (戒本). The origin of this precept is that Nanda's (跋難陀) bowl was broken, so he begged for many bowls from many laypeople, and was therefore ridiculed and disliked. The monks pointed out his fault, and the Buddha therefore established this precept.
If a bhikkhu (比丘) possesses a bowl with fewer than five stitches and no leaks, and seeks a new bowl for the sake of betterment, he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (尼薩耆波逸提, an offense requiring expiation and forfeiture). This bhikkhu should go to the Sangha (僧團) and relinquish it, taking turns to use the worst bowl given to him, and should hold it until the bowl is broken before holding this (new bowl). This is the time. This complete Pratimoksha (戒本) has two sections in total. First, it explains the prohibition and violation of begging for a bowl, and here it explains the method of returning it. The first section of the precept text is divided into three parts: first, the person who violates the precept; second, the old bowl does not meet the conditions; third, seeking a new bowl constitutes a violation. The content of the first part is obvious. The second part says that the bowl has fewer than five stitches and no leaks. The Vinaya (律) says that a stitch is counted as one stitch when the distance between them is two fingers. Nissaggiya Pacittiya (尼薩耆波逸提) is the third sentence of conviction. From 'that bhikkhu' onwards to 'this is the time', it explains the method of relinquishing and returning. It is further divided into two parts: first, 'should go to the Sangha' explains relinquishing the bowl, and second, 'taking turns' onwards is combined into one sentence, which generally discusses the content of returning the bowl. Saying 'this is the time' refers to the time when the old bowl is exchanged for a new bowl, and only when (the old bowl) is broken can (the new bowl) be held. Then, the content of the return is divided into four parts, the details of which are as described in the Vinaya (律): first, the method of relinquishing the bowl; second, the ritual of repentance; third, returning the bowl; fourth, the auspicious offense of not returning it. First, there are four steps to relinquishing the bowl: first, taking the bowl to the Sangha (僧團); second, lowering one's posture; third, paying attention to deportment; fourth, saying the words of relinquishment. Second, repenting of the offense is as described above. Third, there are also four aspects to returning the bowl: first, the valuable bowl should be taken away, leaving a suitable inferior bowl to be returned. Second, the Sangha (僧團) should take the initiative to give the inferior bowl for him to hold. Third, punish the bhikkhu (比丘) who broke the bowl, let him hold the new bowl and use the old bowl. Fourth, let him guard (the new bowl), because he is worried about damage, so use the new bowl. Therefore, the Vinaya (律) says that the Sangha (僧團) gives the inferior bowl, giving it to him through ñatti-dutiya-kamma (白二羯磨), and should guard it, not placing it in places where tiles and stones fall, leaning against crutches and knives, hanging objects, placing it on stones in the middle of the road, under fruit trees, and uneven places.
地。不得一手捉兩缽。除指隔中央一手捉兩缽。不得開戶除用心。乃至不應故。壞故失。非缽用。此之四文並是取彼好缽。僧中次行取眾最下惡缽與彼令持。息貪過故。第四還缽文二。有緣轉還。無緣經宿羯磨其還。祇律若缽貴者。應取十缽直。九缽在八凈廚。一缽直還主。若乞得二缽直者。一缽入僧。一缽還主。如是隨得多少限一直還主。余直入僧廚。第四不還得罪者。律云。僧中舍缽竟不還者犯吉。教莫還亦吉。不犯中。律云。若五綴漏求新。若從新索。從出家人索。若為他他為己不求而得。若施次得。若自有價買畜者。一切不犯。
乞縷使非親織戒第二十三 制意者。然三衣具足得資身。今乃自乞縷線以憑勢貴。強逼織師織作三衣。長貪多欲。損惱織師。反譏謗。是故聖制 別緣有四。一自乞縷線。二是非親里俗人織師。三持勢遣織不與價直。四成便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒本跋難陀起過。故佛制戒。
若比丘自乞縷線使非親織作衣者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文有四句。一犯人。二自乞縷線若居士縷犯后戒故須自乞設。若不乞自縷應輕。三持勢逼織。以理求得無罪。與價亦不犯。四結犯。已下廣解上二句可知。言使非親織師織作衣者。多論織師非親有三句。此戒正明正損織師犯舍。非親乞縷吉。織
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不得一手拿兩個缽盂（bō yú，佛教僧侶用具）。除非用手指隔開，中央一手拿兩個缽盂。不得擅自開門，除非用心。甚至不應該故意損壞或遺失缽盂。如果缽盂不能使用，以上四種情況都是爲了拿走別人的好缽盂。僧團中按順序拿取大眾中最差的缽盂給那個人使用，爲了止息貪婪的過失。第四種歸還缽盂的情況有兩種：有因緣則歸還，沒有因緣則經過一夜羯磨（jié mó，佛教儀式）后再歸還。根據《祇律》（qí lǜ，佛教戒律），如果缽盂貴重，應該取十個缽盂的價值，九個缽盂的價值放在八凈廚（bā jìng chú，寺院廚房），一個缽盂的價值歸還給主人。如果乞討得到兩個缽盂的價值，一個缽盂歸入僧團，一個缽盂歸還給主人。像這樣，無論得到多少，都只歸還一個缽盂的價值給主人，剩餘的價值歸入僧團廚房。第四種不歸還缽盂會犯戒的情況，《律》中說：僧團中捨棄缽盂后不歸還的，犯吉（jí，輕罪）。教唆不歸還也犯吉。不犯的情況，《律》中說：如果缽盂有五個綴漏需要新的，或者向新索取，或者從出家人索取，或者為他人，他人為自己不求而得，或者施捨時得到，或者自己有價格購買的，一切都不犯戒。 乞求絲線讓非親屬織布的戒律第二十三條：制定此戒律的用意是，既然三衣（sān yī，佛教僧侶的服裝）已經足夠資身，現在卻自己乞求絲線，憑藉權勢，強迫織師織作三衣，這是貪得無厭，損害惱亂織師，反而招致譏諷誹謗，因此佛制定此戒律。違犯此戒律的因緣有四種：一是自己乞求絲線；二是非親屬的俗人織師；三是憑藉權勢遣使織布而不給予報酬；四是完成織布便犯戒。以下正式說明戒本。此戒本是跋難陀（bá nán tuó，人名）首先違犯，所以佛制定此戒律。 『若比丘自乞縷線使非親織作衣者尼薩耆波逸提』（ruò bǐ qiū zì qǐ lǚ xiàn shǐ fēi qīn zhī zuò yī zhě ní sà qí bō yì tí，如果比丘自己乞求絲線讓非親屬織布做衣服，則犯捨墮罪）。這條完整的戒文有四句：一是犯戒的人；二是自己乞求絲線，如果居士（jū shì，在家信徒）的絲線會犯後面的戒律，所以必須自己乞求，如果不乞求自己的絲線，罪過應該較輕；三是憑藉權勢強迫織布，以道理請求得到則沒有罪過，給予報酬也不犯戒；四是結罪。以下廣泛解釋以上兩句，可知其含義。說到『使非親織師織作衣者』，多論織師非親有三句，此戒律正是說明損害織師會犯捨墮罪，向非親屬乞求絲線則犯吉，織布。
【English Translation】 English version: One must not hold two bowls (bō yú, utensils used by Buddhist monks) in one hand, unless fingers separate the two bowls held in the center of one hand. One must not open doors without reason, unless with mindfulness. Furthermore, one should not intentionally damage or lose a bowl. If a bowl is unusable, the above four situations all involve taking another's good bowl. In the Sangha (sēng qié, Buddhist community), the worst bowl among the community's bowls is given to that person in order to cease the fault of greed. There are two situations for the fourth case of returning a bowl: if there is a reason, it is returned; if there is no reason, it is returned after a night of Karma (jié mó, Buddhist ritual). According to the 'Ghi律' (qí lǜ, Buddhist precepts), if a bowl is valuable, the value of ten bowls should be taken, the value of nine bowls placed in the eight pure kitchen (bā jìng chú, monastery kitchen), and the value of one bowl returned to the owner. If begging yields the value of two bowls, one bowl's worth goes to the Sangha, and one bowl's worth is returned to the owner. In this way, no matter how much is obtained, only the value of one bowl is returned to the owner, and the remaining value goes to the Sangha kitchen. Regarding the fourth situation where not returning a bowl incurs a transgression, the 'Vinaya' states: abandoning a bowl in the Sangha and not returning it is a 'Jí' (jí, minor offense). Instructing not to return it is also a 'Jí'. There is no offense if the bowl has five patches and leaks and a new one is requested, or if it is requested from a new person, or if it is requested from a monastic, or if it is for another person, or another person for oneself without asking and obtaining, or if it is obtained during alms giving, or if one has purchased it with one's own money. The twenty-third precept regarding requesting thread and having non-relatives weave: The intention of establishing this precept is that since the three robes (sān yī, Buddhist monastic clothing) are sufficient for sustenance, now one begs for thread oneself, relying on power and influence, forcing weavers to weave the three robes. This is insatiable greed, harming and troubling the weavers, and instead inviting ridicule and slander. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept. There are four conditions for violating this precept: first, requesting thread oneself; second, the weaver is a layperson who is not a relative; third, using power to send for weaving without giving compensation; fourth, the offense is completed when the weaving is finished. The following formally explains the precept. This precept was first violated by Bānántuó (bá nán tuó, a name), so the Buddha established this precept. 'If a Bhikkhu (bǐ qiū, Buddhist monk) himself requests thread and has a non-relative weave a robe, it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya' (ruò bǐ qiū zì qǐ lǚ xiàn shǐ fēi qīn zhī zuò yī zhě ní sà qí bō yì tí, If a monk himself begs for thread and has a non-relative weave a robe, he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense). This complete precept has four clauses: first, the person committing the offense; second, requesting thread oneself. If it is a layperson's (jū shì, lay devotee) thread, it will violate the subsequent precepts, so one must request it oneself. If one does not request one's own thread, the offense should be lighter; third, forcing weaving with power. There is no offense if it is obtained by requesting with reason, and there is no offense if compensation is given; fourth, the offense is concluded. The following extensively explains the above two clauses, and their meaning can be understood. Regarding 'having a non-relative weaver weave a robe', the 'Duo Lun' states that there are three clauses for a non-relative weaver. This precept precisely explains that harming the weaver will incur a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense, while requesting thread from a non-relative incurs a 'Jí' offense, and weaving.
師親非親合有三句。織師親里有二句闕事。第三俱親無罪。是以但有八句。正損織師犯提。兼損縷主舉一犯。通收重輕故。但言犯尼薩耆波逸提者是。第四結罪分齊。舍懺方軌。如律廣明。不犯中。律云。二俱親里。若自織作缽囊革屣囊針栴禪帶腰帶帽袾鑷熱巾里革屣巾者。一切不犯。
勸贊織師增織衣戒第二十四 制意者。篤信居士虛心辨縷與比丘。故織作三衣。宜應稱施而受。障已內有廉節之心。外不惱主。今乃勸贊織師。自與價直。損他縷主。自壞心行。彼我無益 故聖制 別緣有六。一居士自心辨縷遣織師織。二情期有限。三知有限。四與價勸織。五彼為增縷。六領受便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因跋難陀。往居士家擇取縷與織師。又許與價。居士譏嫌。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘居士居士婦使織師為比丘織作衣比丘先不受自恣請便往織師所語言此衣為我作與我極好織令廣大堅緻我當少多與汝價是比丘與衣價乃至一食直若得衣者尼薩耆波逸提 此戒有三。初略。二開。三滿足。滿足句四。一犯人。二縷主遣織三衣。三彼比丘下乃至食直勸織師自雇價直。四若得下結犯。上二句可知。言若比丘先不受自恣請者。是開文。律云。佛不聽往作衣家者。後有居士。請比丘與衣。比丘疑不敢往。佛因聽隨
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 師親非親合起來有三種情況。織師是親屬，縷主也是親屬，有兩種情況可以免於追究。第三種情況是織師和縷主都是親屬，則沒有罪過。因此，總共有八種情況。直接損害織師利益的，犯提舍尼罪。兼帶損害縷主利益的，舉出一個例子就構成犯罪。因為涵蓋了輕重不同的情況，所以只說是犯尼薩耆波逸提罪。第四，確定罪行的界限，舍懺的方法和規則，都按照戒律詳細說明。不犯戒的情況，戒律中說：如果織師和縷主都是親屬，或者自己編織缽囊、革屣囊、針栴、禪帶、腰帶、帽子、袾、鑷熱巾、里革屣巾等，一切都不算犯戒。
勸贊織師增織衣戒第二十四：制定此戒的目的是，虔誠的居士誠心誠意地辨別絲線，供給比丘織造三衣。應該稱量施捨的物品而接受，內心有廉潔的節操，對外不打擾施主。現在卻勸贊織師，自己支付價錢，損害其他縷主的利益，自己也破壞了修行。對彼此都沒有好處，所以佛陀制定此戒。違犯此戒的因緣有六種：一是居士自己辨別絲線，派遣織師織造；二是約定了期限；三是知道絲線的數量有限；四是給予價錢勸說織師；五是織師為此增加了絲線；六是接受了就構成犯罪。以下正式說明戒本。此戒的起因是跋難陀去居士家挑選絲線給織師，又答應支付價錢。居士譏諷嫌棄，比丘們指責他的過失，佛陀因此制定此戒。
如果比丘讓居士、居士婦人派遣織師為比丘織造衣服，比丘事先沒有接受自恣的邀請，就前往織師那裡說：『這件衣服為我做，給我織得非常好，織得寬大結實，我應當或多或少地給你價錢。』這個比丘給了衣服的價錢，乃至一頓飯的價值，如果得到了衣服，就犯尼薩耆波逸提罪。此戒有三個部分：一是略說，二是開緣，三是滿足。滿足句有四個方面：一是犯戒的人；二是縷主派遣織造三衣；三是那個比丘，乃至一頓飯的價值，勸說織師自己僱傭支付價錢；四是如果得到了衣服，就判定犯戒。上面兩句可以理解。『如果比丘事先沒有接受自恣的邀請』，這是開緣的情況。戒律中說：佛陀不允許去製作衣服的居士家。後來有居士邀請比丘給予衣服，比丘疑惑不敢前往，佛陀因此允許隨順。
【English Translation】 English version: The combination of teacher's relatives and non-relatives results in three situations. If the weaver is a relative and the thread owner is also a relative, there are two situations where one can be exempt from investigation. The third situation is when both the weaver and the thread owner are relatives, then there is no offense. Therefore, there are a total of eight situations. Directly harming the interests of the weaver constitutes a Tissani offense. Incidentally harming the interests of the thread owner, citing one example constitutes an offense. Because it covers situations of varying degrees of severity, it is only said to be a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense. Fourth, the boundaries of determining the offense, the methods and rules of confession and repentance, are all explained in detail according to the precepts. In the case of not violating the precepts, the precepts state: If both the weaver and the thread owner are relatives, or if one weaves their own bowl bag, leather shoe bag, needle case, meditation belt, waist belt, hat, 'zhu', tweezers, hot towel, or inner leather shoe towel, then none of these constitute an offense.
The Twenty-Fourth Precept: Encouraging and Praising Weavers to Increase the Weaving of Robes: The purpose of establishing this precept is that devout laypeople sincerely discern threads and provide them to monks for weaving the three robes. One should weigh the items being donated and accept them, having integrity in one's heart and not disturbing the donors externally. Now, however, one encourages and praises the weaver, paying the price oneself, harming the interests of other thread owners, and destroying one's own practice. There is no benefit to either party, so the Buddha established this precept. There are six conditions for violating this precept: First, the layperson discerns the threads themselves and sends the weaver to weave; second, a deadline is agreed upon; third, the quantity of threads is known to be limited; fourth, one gives a price to encourage weaving; fifth, the weaver increases the threads for this reason; sixth, accepting it constitutes an offense. The following formally explains the precept itself. The origin of this precept is that Nanda went to a layperson's house to select threads for the weaver and also promised to pay the price. The layperson ridiculed and disliked this, the monks pointed out his fault, and the Buddha therefore established this precept.
If a monk has a layperson or a laywoman send a weaver to weave a robe for the monk, and the monk has not previously accepted an invitation for self-determination, he goes to the weaver and says: 'Make this robe for me, weave it very well, weave it wide and strong, and I will give you a price, more or less.' If this monk gives the price of the robe, even the value of one meal, and if he obtains the robe, he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense. This precept has three parts: first, a brief explanation; second, exceptions; and third, fulfillment. There are four aspects to the fulfillment clause: first, the person committing the offense; second, the thread owner sends the weaver to weave the three robes; third, that monk, even to the value of one meal, encourages the weaver to hire and pay the price himself; fourth, if he obtains the robe, it is judged to be an offense. The above two sentences are understandable. 'If the monk has not previously accepted an invitation for self-determination,' this is the situation of an exception. The precepts state: The Buddha does not allow going to the house of a layperson who makes clothes. Later, a layperson invited a monk to give clothes, and the monk hesitated and did not dare to go, so the Buddha therefore allowed it to be followed.
意往。取少欲知足索不如者。余句文顯。可知 問。此與前戒織何別 答。有四不同。一前損織師不損縷主。以乞得故。此損縷主不損織師。二前戒由戒損織師不與價犯。此損縷主與價故犯。三前非親犯。親則不犯。此親非親犯。四前是已縷織成即犯。此是他縷領受方犯。律云。不犯者。先受請往求知足減少求。若從親里索。從出家人索。或為他索。他為己索。或不索而得者。一切不犯。
奪比丘衣戒二十五 制意者。先與他衣規欲共行。彼苦不去。理應和豫。而索本自無過。嗔心強奪。共相逼惱。特非所宜。故須聖制。
別緣有五。一大比丘甄沙彌不犯非行類故。二先與衣規欲共行。三不定與前人不定取多生惱故。四句中二句初受與俱決定。二決定與而受者不定。奪取犯重。若與受俱不定者吉。四瞋強奪。五得物屬己便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因難陀起過。佛制是戒。
若比丘先與比丘衣后瞋恚故若自奪若教人奪還我衣來不與汝彼應還衣若取者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足本文有三句。一犯人。二先與衣。三後心奪而結罪。初句可知。第二句本規同行故與衣。后彼不肯因便劫取。故曰先與比丘衣。第三句奪者。律云。若嗔心自奪及教人奪而藏者犯。謂對面見在奪。若奪不藏者吉羅。事未分制未成犯藏而
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 意往：指心裡的意圖。『取少欲知足索不如者』：索取少欲知足的人不需要的東西。其餘語句文意顯明，可以理解。 問：這與前面的戒律禁止織布有什麼區別？ 答：有四點不同：一、前戒律損害的是織工，不損害布匹的主人，因為是乞討所得。此戒律損害的是布匹的主人，不損害織工。二、前戒律因為損害織工，即使不給價錢也犯戒。此戒律因為損害布匹的主人，即使給了價錢也犯戒。三、前戒律非親屬犯戒，親屬則不犯戒。此戒律親屬非親屬都犯戒。四、前戒律是線已經織成才犯戒，此戒律是接受了他人的線才犯戒。律中說，不犯戒的情況有：事先接受請求，前往索取知足少欲的人不需要的東西；如果是從親屬那裡索取；從出家人那裡索取；或者為他人索取；他人為自己索取；或者不索取而得到，一切都不犯戒。
奪比丘衣戒第二十五：制定此戒律的用意是，先將衣服給予他人，約定一同修行，對方感到痛苦不願前往，理應好言相勸，而索回原本沒有過錯，但因嗔恨心強行奪取，互相逼迫惱怒，實在不合適，所以需要佛陀制定戒律。
別緣有五：一、大比丘甄沙彌不犯戒，因為不是同一類修行人。二、先前給予衣服，約定一同修行。三、不定給予，先前的人不定要，多次產生惱怒。四、語句中有兩句，初句是給予和接受都已確定。二句是確定給予，但接受者不確定，奪取就犯重罪。如果給予和接受都不確定，則無罪。四、嗔恨強奪。五、得到物品歸自己所有就犯戒。以下正式闡明戒本。此戒律因難陀的過失而起，佛陀因此制定此戒律。
『若比丘先與比丘衣，后嗔恚故，若自奪，若教人奪，還我衣來，不與汝，彼應還衣，若取者，尼薩耆波逸提。』此滿足本文有三句：一、犯戒的人。二、先前給予衣服。三、後來因嗔恨心奪取而結罪。第一句可以理解。第二句是原本約定一同修行所以給予衣服，後來對方不願意，因此搶奪，所以說『先與比丘衣』。第三句關於『奪』，律中說：如果因嗔恨心自己奪取或教唆他人奪取並藏起來就犯戒。指的是當面奪取。如果奪取后不藏起來，則犯輕罪。事情未分明，戒律未成立，犯了藏匿罪。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Intention goes』: Refers to the intention in one's mind. 『Taking what a person of few desires and contentment does not need』: Taking what a person of few desires and contentment does not require. The remaining sentences are clear in meaning and can be understood. Question: What is the difference between this and the previous precept against weaving? Answer: There are four differences: First, the previous precept harms the weaver, not the owner of the cloth, because it was obtained by begging. This precept harms the owner of the cloth, not the weaver. Second, the previous precept, because it harms the weaver, is violated even if no price is given. This precept, because it harms the owner of the cloth, is violated even if a price is given. Third, the previous precept is violated by non-relatives, but not by relatives. This precept is violated by both relatives and non-relatives. Fourth, the previous precept is violated when the thread has already been woven, while this precept is violated when accepting thread from others. The Vinaya says that there is no offense in the following situations: first, accepting a request beforehand, going to ask for something that a contented person of few desires does not need; if it is taken from a relative; taken from a monastic; or taken for another; another takes it for oneself; or if it is obtained without asking, in all these cases there is no offense.
The twenty-fifth precept, 『Depriving a Bhikkhu of Clothing』: The intention behind establishing this precept is that, having first given clothing to another, agreeing to practice together, if the other feels distressed and is unwilling to go, one should reason with them kindly. To demand it back would not originally be a fault, but to forcibly take it back out of anger, mutually forcing and annoying each other, is truly inappropriate, so the Buddha needed to establish this precept.
There are five separate conditions: First, a senior Bhikkhu and a Shramanera (novice monk) do not violate the precept, because they are not the same type of practitioner. Second, the clothing was given previously, agreeing to practice together. Third, the giving is uncertain, the previous person is uncertain about wanting it, causing repeated annoyance. Fourth, in the sentences, there are two clauses: the first clause is that both the giving and receiving are definite. The second clause is that the giving is definite, but the receiver is uncertain, taking it back constitutes a grave offense. If both the giving and receiving are uncertain, there is no offense. Fourth, forcibly taking it back out of anger. Fifth, obtaining the item and claiming ownership of it constitutes an offense. The following formally clarifies the precept. This precept arose because of Nanda's transgression, and the Buddha therefore established this precept.
『If a Bhikkhu first gives clothing to a Bhikkhu, and later, out of anger, either takes it back himself or instructs another to take it back, saying, 「Return my clothing, I will not give it to you,」 the other should return the clothing. If he takes it, it is a Nissaggiya Pacittiya.』 This complete text has three clauses: First, the person who commits the offense. Second, having previously given the clothing. Third, later taking it back out of anger, resulting in the offense. The first clause is understandable. The second clause refers to giving the clothing because of the original agreement to practice together, but later the other person is unwilling, so it is snatched back, hence 『having previously given clothing to a Bhikkhu.』 The third clause concerns 『taking back』: the Vinaya says: If, out of anger, one takes it back oneself or instructs another to take it back and hides it, it is an offense. This refers to taking it back face-to-face. If one takes it back but does not hide it, it is a minor offense. If the matter is not clear, the precept is not established, committing the offense of concealment.
方犯。若著樹上枷上床上。及余著處離處犯吉。故戒本云。取衣者尼薩耆波逸提。舍懺方軌如律所明。不犯者。律云。不嗔言。我悔不與。還我衣來。彼心悔可即還衣。若餘人言。此比丘欲悔還他衣。若借他衣著。無道理還奪不犯。若恐失恐壞。若人破戒破見破威儀。若被舉滅殯應殯。若為此事命梵難。一切不奪取不藏舉者。皆不犯。
畜藥過七日戒二十六 一制意者。凡夫之背以四大為驅憂。末秋初節氣交競四大轉改諸病即生。既有疾惱。防廢修道。大聖愍念。方便開聽畜。服諸藥以療病苦。趣令安身。進修道業。因聖開聽。廣貯眾藥。長貪壞行。違教招譏過。是不輕故制提罪 二釋名者。貯用屬己名之為畜。療患稱藥越于期限名過七日。故曰畜藥過七日戒 三具緣通緣如上。別緣有四。一是七日藥。二加手口二受。三不說凈。四畜過七日便犯 四闕緣類知。已下正明戒本。此戒因畢陵加弟子起過。故佛制戒。
若比丘有病畜殘藥蘇油生蘇蜜石蜜齊七日得服若過七日服者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二有病者畜藥之緣。三殘藥已下所畜藥體。四開齊七日。五過限結罪。下釋中初句可知。第二句言有病者。律云。秋月風病動形體枯墋。又生惡創等是畜藥之緣。第三言殘藥蘇油生蘇蜜石蜜
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『方犯』：如果（將衣物）放在樹上、枷鎖上、床上以及其他放置處或離開處，觸犯輕罪。因此，《戒本》說：『拿取衣物者，尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pacittiya，捨墮）。』舍懺的方法依照戒律所說明的進行。不觸犯的情況是，戒律說：不生氣地說：『我後悔不給你，把我的衣服還來。』如果對方後悔，可以立即歸還衣物。如果其他人說：『這位比丘想要後悔，歸還他的衣物。』如果借給他人衣物穿著，沒有道理強行奪回，不觸犯。如果害怕遺失、害怕損壞，如果有人破戒、破見解、破威儀，如果被舉罪、滅擯、應該被殯葬，如果爲了這些事情危及性命或梵行，一切不奪取、不藏匿的行為，都不觸犯。
『畜藥過七日戒』（儲存藥物超過七天的戒律）第二十六：一、制定原因：凡夫的身體以四大（地、水、火、風）為根本，晚秋初冬時節，氣候變化，四大轉變，各種疾病就會產生。既然有了疾病困擾，就會妨礙修行。大聖（佛陀）憐憫，方便開許儲存、服用各種藥物來治療病苦，爲了使身體安康，精進修道。因為佛陀開許，（有些比丘）就廣泛儲存各種藥物，增長貪慾，敗壞行為，違背教導，招致譏諷。因為這種過失不輕，所以制定提罪（Pacittiya，波逸提）。二、解釋名稱：儲存供自己使用，稱為『畜』（儲存）。治療疾病稱為『藥』。超過期限稱為『過七日』。所以說『畜藥過七日戒』。三、共同條件：共同條件如上所述。特別條件有四：一是七日藥，二是加上手和口兩種接受方式，三是不說凈（不作凈施），四是儲存超過七天就觸犯。四、缺少條件的情況可以類推得知。以下正式說明戒本。這條戒律是因為畢陵伽（Pillindavaccha）的弟子犯過，所以佛陀制定戒律。
『若比丘有病，畜殘藥蘇油、生蘇、蜜、石蜜，齊七日得服；若過七日服者，尼薩耆波逸提。』這條完整的戒律正文有五句。一、犯戒者。二、有病是儲存藥物的緣由。三、『殘藥』以下是所儲存的藥物種類。四、開許期限為七日。五、超過期限，構成罪行。下面的解釋中，第一句可以知道。第二句說『有病』，戒律說：秋月風病發作，形體枯槁，又生惡瘡等，是儲存藥物的緣由。第三句說『殘藥、蘇油、生蘇、蜜、石蜜』。
【English Translation】 English version: '方犯 (Fang fan)': If (the robe) is placed on a tree, on a cangue, on a bed, or in any other place, whether placed or left, a minor offense is committed. Therefore, the Vinaya states: 'One who takes a robe, Nissaggiya Pacittiya (an offense entailing forfeiture and expiation).' The method of confession and expiation should follow the Vinaya's instructions. Non-offenses include: the Vinaya states: not angrily saying, 'I regret not giving it to you; return my robe.' If the other person regrets, the robe can be returned immediately. If someone else says, 'This bhikkhu wants to regret and return the robe,' or if a robe is lent to someone and there is no reason to forcibly take it back, no offense is committed. If there is fear of loss or damage, if someone violates the precepts, holds wrong views, or violates decorum, if someone is subject to suspension, expulsion, or should be cremated, or if these matters endanger life or the Brahmacariya (holy life), any act of not taking back or concealing is not an offense.
'畜藥過七日戒 (Chuxu guo qi ri jie)' (The precept against storing medicine for more than seven days), the twenty-sixth: 1. Reason for establishment: The body of an ordinary person relies on the Four Great Elements (earth, water, fire, and wind). In late autumn and early winter, the climate changes, the Four Great Elements transform, and various diseases arise. Since there are illnesses, they hinder practice. The Great Sage (the Buddha) has compassion and allows the storing and taking of various medicines to treat illness, in order to keep the body healthy and diligently cultivate the path. Because the Buddha allowed it, (some bhikkhus) widely stored various medicines, increasing greed, corrupting conduct, violating the teachings, and inviting criticism. Because this fault is not minor, the Pacittiya (expiation) offense is established. 2. Explanation of the name: Storing for one's own use is called '畜 (chuxu)' (storing). Treating illness is called '藥 (yao)' (medicine). Exceeding the time limit is called '過七日 (guo qi ri)' (exceeding seven days). Therefore, it is called '畜藥過七日戒 (Chuxu guo qi ri jie)' (the precept against storing medicine for more than seven days). 3. Common conditions: The common conditions are as mentioned above. Special conditions are four: first, seven-day medicine; second, adding the two ways of receiving with hand and mouth; third, not making it凈 (jing) (not making a pure offering); fourth, storing for more than seven days constitutes an offense. 4. Cases of missing conditions can be inferred. The following is the formal explanation of the precept. This precept was established by the Buddha because the disciples of Pillindavaccha (畢陵伽) committed an offense.
'若比丘有病，畜殘藥蘇油、生蘇、蜜、石蜜，齊七日得服；若過七日服者，尼薩耆波逸提 (Ruo biqiu you bing, chu canyao suyou, shengsū, mi, shimi, qi qi ri de fu; ruo guo qi ri fu zhe, Nissaggiya Pacittiya).' This complete precept text has five sentences. 1. The offender. 2. Having an illness is the reason for storing medicine. 3. '殘藥 (canyao)' (leftover medicine) and below are the types of medicine stored. 4. The allowed time limit is seven days. 5. Exceeding the time limit constitutes an offense. In the following explanation, the first sentence is understandable. The second sentence says '有病 (you bing)' (having an illness). The Vinaya says: In autumn, wind diseases arise, the body becomes withered, and evil sores appear, etc., which are reasons for storing medicine. The third sentence says '殘藥、蘇油、生蘇、蜜、石蜜 (canyao, suyou, shengsū, mi, shimi)' (leftover medicine, ghee, fresh ghee, honey, rock sugar).
者。是所畜藥體。第四言齊七日得服者。是其開限八門句義如長衣戒說。第五言若過七日服者尼薩耆波逸提。是過限吉罪。律云。一日得藥乃至七日得藥至第八日。初日藥過染下六日隨藥多少相與俱犯。故言盡尼薩耆波逸提 問。下六日藥被染犯時失受。以不解有二種。今且一釋說凈犯。下之六日亦未說凈。同是長位故。為初染口受之法。為妨宿解。不妨于長。既所防不同。日限未滿故。初日藥不能染下並令失受。是以律云。至第七日藥與諸比丘食。若當失受即有宿解等生。何故聽食。故知不失。若爾餘五日應還主。食所以還令涂足然燈 答。實不失受俱輕。貯畜有彼情過藥資義。狹罰不聽服。以息情過非藥不凈。不同於衣資身義。寬得歸本主。還作衣用。余句類知。律云。此藥應舍與僧已。自懺除竟還彼藥。第七日藥舍與比丘。彼應服。過七日藥蘇涂戶。石蜜與守園人。減七日者白二還之。比丘當取涂腳然燈。不犯者如上。
過前求雨衣戒過前用戒二十七 此兩戒合制。依多論亦過前求過前用二俱尼薩耆。所以不聽。過前求用者。然此雨衣資身要用。是以開聽時中乞用。今時未至類乞先用 長己貪結違反聖教。是以聖制 過前求別緣有五。一是雨衣。二是過前求。三為己。彼與。五領受便犯。過前用戒別緣具
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這些是關於所儲存藥物的規定。第四點說，限定七日內可以服用，這是開啟時限的含義，如同長衣戒所說。第五點說，如果超過七日服用，則犯尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pacittiya，捨墮罪），這是超過時限的罪過。律中說，從獲得藥物的第一天到第七天，直到第八天，第一天的藥物已經構成違犯，接下來的六天，根據藥物的多少，相互之間都構成違犯。所以說，全部構成尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pacittiya，捨墮罪）。 問：接下來的六天，藥物被染污而違犯時，是否會失去受戒資格？因為不理解，有兩種解釋。現在先解釋一種，即說清凈的違犯。接下來的六天也未說清凈，同樣是長位，所以最初染污口受之法，是爲了防止宿解（提前解除），不妨礙長位。既然所防止的不同，日期限制未滿，所以第一天的藥物不能染污下面的藥物，並導致失去受戒資格。因此律中說，到第七天，藥物可以給其他比丘食用。如果會失去受戒資格，就會產生宿解等問題。為什麼允許食用？所以知道不會失去受戒資格。如果這樣，剩餘的五天應該還給施主，讓他們用來塗抹腳或點燈。 答：實際上不會失去受戒資格，只是犯輕罪。儲存藥物有過度的貪求，藥物的用途受到限制，因此處以輕罰，不允許服用，是爲了消除貪求，並非藥物不凈。這不同於衣服等資身之物，可以寬限歸還給原來的主人，重新制作衣服使用。其餘的句子可以類推得知。律中說，這種藥物應該舍給僧團，自己懺悔完畢后，再取回藥物。第七天的藥物舍給其他比丘，他們可以服用。超過七天的藥物，可以用來塗抹門，石蜜（Sakkharā，冰糖）可以給守園人。少於七天的，白二羯磨（ñatti-dutiyakamma，兩次表決）后歸還。比丘應當取來塗抹腳或點燈。不違犯的情況如上所述。 關於提前祈求雨衣戒和提前使用雨衣戒，共二十七條。這兩條戒律合併制定。根據《多論》的說法，提前祈求和提前使用都犯尼薩耆（Nissaggiya，捨墮）。不允許的原因是，雨衣是資身的重要物品，所以允許在規定的時間內乞求和使用。現在時間未到，類似於提前乞求和使用，增長了貪慾之心，違反了聖教，所以佛陀制定了戒律。提前祈求的特殊因緣有五種：一是雨衣，二是提前祈求，三是爲了自己，四是他人給予，五是領受便犯。提前使用雨衣戒的特殊因緣也具備。
【English Translation】 English version These are the rules regarding stored medicines. The fourth point states that it is permissible to take the medicine within seven days, which is the meaning of opening the time limit, as stated in the long robe precept. The fifth point states that if the medicine is taken after seven days, it constitutes a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (an offense entailing forfeiture and confession), which is the offense of exceeding the time limit. The Vinaya states that from the first day of obtaining the medicine until the seventh day, up to the eighth day, the medicine from the first day constitutes a violation, and the subsequent six days, depending on the amount of medicine, mutually constitute a violation. Therefore, it is said that all constitute a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (an offense entailing forfeiture and confession). Question: In the subsequent six days, when the medicine is defiled and violated, is the ordination lost? Because of misunderstanding, there are two explanations. Now, let's explain one, which is to say a pure violation. The subsequent six days are also not said to be pure, and are also in a long position, so the initial defilement of the oral acceptance method is to prevent premature release (anticipatory dissolution), which does not hinder the long position. Since what is prevented is different, and the date limit is not full, the medicine of the first day cannot defile the medicine below and cause the loss of ordination. Therefore, the Vinaya states that on the seventh day, the medicine can be given to other bhikkhus to eat. If the ordination is lost, problems such as premature release will arise. Why is it allowed to eat? Therefore, it is known that the ordination is not lost. If so, the remaining five days should be returned to the donor for them to use to anoint their feet or light lamps. Answer: In reality, the ordination is not lost, but a minor offense is committed. Storing medicine has excessive greed, and the use of medicine is restricted, so a light penalty is imposed, and it is not allowed to be taken in order to eliminate greed, not because the medicine is impure. This is different from clothing and other personal necessities, which can be returned to the original owner within a grace period for remaking clothes. The remaining sentences can be inferred by analogy. The Vinaya states that this medicine should be given to the Sangha, and after one has confessed, the medicine should be taken back. The medicine of the seventh day should be given to other bhikkhus, and they can take it. Medicine that is more than seven days old can be used to smear the door, and Sakkharā (rock candy) can be given to the garden keeper. If it is less than seven days, it should be returned after a ñatti-dutiyakamma (formal act with two announcements). The bhikkhus should take it to anoint their feet or light lamps. The situations in which there is no violation are as described above. Regarding the precept of requesting rain robes in advance and the precept of using rain robes in advance, there are a total of twenty-seven. These two precepts are formulated together. According to the Samantapāsādikā, requesting and using in advance both constitute a Nissaggiya (an offense entailing forfeiture). The reason it is not allowed is that the rain robe is an important item for personal use, so it is allowed to request and use it within the prescribed time. Now that the time has not arrived, it is similar to requesting and using in advance, which increases greed and violates the Holy Teaching, so the Buddha formulated the precepts. There are five special conditions for requesting in advance: one is the rain robe, two is requesting in advance, three is for oneself, four is given by others, and five is that receiving constitutes a violation. The special conditions for using the rain robe in advance are also complete.
四。一是己雨衣。二非時中得。三時前受持。四過前用犯。此二戒同是雨衣義容相由生罪。是以合制。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群比丘常求雨衣。佛便制戒。
若比丘春殘一月在當求雨浴衣半月應用浴若比丘過一月前求雨浴衣過半月前用浴尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文有三句。一犯人。二求用時節。三過前求用違教結罪度。解中初句可知。第二句言春殘一月在求雨浴衣者。春者西方法。謂從十二月十六日後至四月十五日已還名春。又至八月半名夏。又至十二月半名冬。今言春殘一月在者。謂三月十六日應求雨浴衣。雨浴衣者比丘用雨中浴。言半月應用浴者。律云。四月一日應用浴。第三句言若過一月前求過半月前用尼薩耆波逸提。是違教結罪。又言過一月前求者。為三月十五日前求也。言過半月前者。謂三月盡日。言尼薩耆者。是舍也。言波逸提者。是罪也。下雜明文義。論雨衣二益。若天雨時若天熱時。皆得彰身洗浴。若閏者無罪。若閏四月前十六日安居者。即日受雨衣用。乃至七月十五日百二十日用。以夏多雨濕熱故。求有所惱故。不得含閏前求用。無貪惱故。聽含閏不答得衣。利多有長□過故。但五月雨衣利少用開含閏。祇中從四月十六日乃至八月。眾中舍言。大德僧聽。今日眾僧舍雨衣。如是三說。余用
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "四。第一條是關於雨衣的。第二條是非時節獲得雨衣。第三條是在規定時間之前接受和持有雨衣。第四條是超過規定時間使用雨衣。這兩條戒律都與雨衣有關，因不合儀容而產生罪過，所以合併制定。以下正式闡明戒本。這條戒律的起因是六群比丘經常索要雨衣，佛陀因此制定了戒律。", "", "若比丘在春季剩餘一個月時，應當尋求雨浴衣；半個月后可以使用。若比丘超過一個月前尋求雨浴衣，超過半個月前使用，則犯尼薩耆波逸提罪。（尼薩耆意為『舍』，波逸提意為『罪』）這條完整的戒文包含三個部分：一是犯戒之人；二是尋求和使用雨浴衣的時間；三是超過規定時間尋求和使用雨浴衣，違背教導而結罪的程度。解釋中第一部分容易理解。第二部分說，『春季剩餘一個月時尋求雨浴衣』，這裡的『春季』是西方的說法，指從十二月十六日之後到四月十五日之前這段時間。到八月一半時稱為『夏季』，到十二月一半時稱為『冬季』。現在說『春季剩餘一個月時』，是指三月十六日應當尋求雨浴衣。『雨浴衣』是比丘在下雨時用來洗浴的衣服。『半個月后可以使用』，律中說，四月一日可以使用雨浴衣。第三部分說，『若超過一個月前尋求，超過半個月前使用，則犯尼薩耆波逸提罪』，這是違背教導而結罪。『超過一個月前尋求』，是指三月十五日之前尋求。『超過半個月前』，是指三月底。『尼薩耆』，是『舍』的意思。『波逸提』，是『罪』的意思。下面雜述經文的含義。論述雨衣的兩種益處：一是下雨時，二是天氣炎熱時，都可以遮蔽身體進行洗浴。如果是閏月，則沒有罪過。如果閏四月十六日之前安居，則當日接受雨衣並使用，直到七月十五日，共一百二十天可以使用。因為夏季多雨濕熱，容易受到困擾。不得在包含閏月之前尋求和使用，因為沒有貪慾和困擾。允許包含閏月而不回答是否得到雨衣，是因為利益較多，有延長的空間。但五月雨衣利益較少，允許包含閏月使用。僧團中捨棄雨衣時說：『大德僧眾請聽，今日僧眾捨棄雨衣。』如此說三遍。剩餘的用法。", "", "", "english_translations": [ "English version", "Four. The first is about raincoats (Yuyi). The second is obtaining a raincoat (Yuyi) at an inappropriate time. The third is receiving and holding a raincoat (Yuyi) before the prescribed time. The fourth is using a raincoat (Yuyi) beyond the prescribed time. These two precepts are both related to raincoats (Yuyi), and offenses arise from improper conduct, so they are combined. The following formally clarifies the precepts. The origin of this precept is that the Six Group Bhikshus (Liuqun Biqiu) frequently demanded raincoats (Yuyi), so the Buddha (Fo) established the precept.", "", "If a Bhikshu (Biqiu) should seek a bathing raincoat (Yuyuyi) in the last month of spring, and may use it after half a month. If a Bhikshu (Biqiu) seeks a bathing raincoat (Yuyuyi) more than a month in advance, or uses it more than half a month in advance, he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (Nisagi Boyiti) offense. (Nissaggiya (Nisagi) means 'forfeiture', Pacittiya (Boyiti) means 'expiation'.) This complete precept contains three parts: first, the offender; second, the time for seeking and using the bathing raincoat (Yuyuyi); and third, the degree of culpability for seeking and using the bathing raincoat (Yuyuyi) beyond the prescribed time, violating the teachings. The first part of the explanation is easy to understand. The second part says, 'seek a bathing raincoat (Yuyuyi) in the last month of spring,' where 'spring' is the Western term, referring to the period from December 16th to April 15th. Halfway through August is called 'summer', and halfway through December is called 'winter'. Now it says 'in the last month of spring,' meaning that one should seek a bathing raincoat (Yuyuyi) on March 16th. A 'bathing raincoat (Yuyuyi)' is clothing used by Bhikshus (Biqiu) for bathing in the rain. 'May use it after half a month,' the Vinaya (Lu) says that one may use the bathing raincoat (Yuyuyi) on April 1st. The third part says, 'if one seeks more than a month in advance, or uses it more than half a month in advance, he commits a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (Nisagi Boyiti) offense,' which is an offense for violating the teachings. 'Seeks more than a month in advance' refers to seeking before March 15th. 'More than half a month in advance' refers to the end of March. 'Nissaggiya (Nisagi)' means 'forfeiture'. 'Pacittiya (Boyiti)' means 'expiation'. Below are miscellaneous explanations of the meaning of the text. Discussing the two benefits of raincoats (Yuyi): first, when it rains; second, when the weather is hot, one can cover the body and bathe. If it is a leap month, there is no offense. If one dwells in peace before the 16th of the leap April, one receives and uses the raincoat (Yuyi) on that day, and can use it for one hundred and twenty days until July 15th. Because summer is rainy and humid, and one is easily troubled. One must not seek and use it before including the leap month, because there is no greed or trouble. It is permissible to include the leap month without answering whether one has obtained the raincoat (Yuyi), because there are more benefits and there is room for extension. However, the benefits of the May raincoat (Yuyi) are fewer, and it is permissible to include the leap month for use. When the Sangha (Sengjia) relinquishes the raincoat (Yuyi), they say: 'Venerable Sangha (Seng), please listen, today the Sangha (Seng) relinquishes the raincoat (Yuyi).' Say this three times. The remaining uses." ] }
不犯。五分若過限不作余衣受持凈。施不施人者吉。故律云。若舍作余用。若著而浴浣。若舉者。並皆不犯。
過前受急施衣過畜戒二十八 此二戒共為一戒。若過前受或過後畜俱犯捨墮。同由急施衣生是用須合。若非急施安居未竟。佛不聽受。受得吉羅。五分成文佛既制意。后因梨師大臣請僧安居。忽命征討。舍物施僧。如安居法。諸比丘等以安居未竟不能輒受。佛為利益施主。及潤比丘潤時前十日內受不犯吉羅。因聖開。知故見急施過前而受違返兩教。貪長處深故舍墮 過前受別緣有五。一是急施。二知是急施。三過十日前。四無因緣。五領受便犯。過後畜亦五緣成。一是急施。二知。三十五日內受。四不作凈。五過限。已下正明戒本。此因六群比丘常乞衣受衣。又跋難陀異處安居異處受衣。又大臣為安居施。佛因開而制戒。
若比丘十日未竟夏三月諸比丘得急施衣比丘知是急施衣當受受竟乃至衣時應畜若過畜者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒文有五句。一犯人。二受衣時限故日未竟夏三月。非急不聽故。此第三諸比丘下是急聽受。四受衣已已下開時畜無罪。五若過下結過後畜。畜捉下廣釋中初句可知。第二畜十日未竟夏三月者。律云。謂七月六已后十五日已前是受衣時限。第三言諸比丘得急施衣當受者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不犯。如果五分衣超過限制，不作為剩餘的衣服接受和持有，是清凈的。佈施或不佈施給他人都是吉祥的。所以律中說：『如果捨棄後作其他用途，如果穿著它洗澡或洗滌，如果舉起它，』這些都不算違犯。
超過期限接受緊急佈施的衣服，超過了儲存戒律的二十八條——這兩條戒律合為一條戒律。如果超過期限接受，或者超過期限儲存，都會觸犯捨墮罪。同樣是因為緊急佈施的衣服產生，所以必須合併使用。如果不是緊急佈施，安居還沒有結束，佛不允許接受，接受了會犯吉羅罪。五分律中明確記載了佛的制定意圖。後來因為梨師（Lishi，人名）大臣請求僧眾安居，忽然命令征討，捨棄財物佈施給僧眾，按照安居的規矩。各位比丘因為安居沒有結束，不能隨便接受。佛爲了利益施主，以及滋潤比丘，允許在安居結束前十日內接受，不犯吉羅罪。因為聖人的開許，明知是緊急佈施，卻超過期限接受，違反了兩種教義，貪圖長久的利益，所以犯捨墮罪。超過期限接受，還有五種特殊情況：一是緊急佈施；二是知道是緊急佈施；三是超過十日前；四是沒有因緣；五是領受了就犯戒。超過期限儲存，也有五種情況：一是緊急佈施；二是知道；三是在三十五日內接受；四是不作凈（不按照規定處理）；五是超過期限。下面正式說明戒本。這是因為六群比丘（Liuqun Biqiu，指六群比丘）經常乞討衣服和接受衣服，又跋難陀（Batuantu，人名）在不同的地方安居，在不同的地方接受衣服，又有大臣爲了安居而佈施，佛因此開許而制定戒律。
如果比丘在十日未滿，夏季三個月內，各位比丘得到緊急佈施的衣服，比丘知道是緊急佈施的衣服，應當接受，接受后乃至衣時（衣時，指規定的時間）應當儲存，如果超過期限儲存，就犯尼薩耆波逸提罪。這條完整的戒律有五句話：一是犯戒的人；二是接受衣服的時間限制，即十日未滿的夏季三個月，不是緊急情況不允許，所以這第三句『各位比丘』以下是緊急情況允許接受；四是接受衣服以後，允許在規定的時間內儲存，沒有罪過；五是如果超過期限，就犯過後儲存的罪過。『儲存』以下在廣釋中第一句可以知道。第二句『儲存十日未滿的夏季三個月』，律中說：『指七月六日以後，十五日以前，是接受衣服的時間限制。』第三句說『各位比丘得到緊急佈施的衣服應當接受』。
【English Translation】 English version: Not an offense. If the five-part robe exceeds the limit, it is pure not to accept and hold it as a remaining robe. Giving or not giving to others is auspicious. Therefore, the Vinaya says: 'If it is discarded for other uses, if it is worn for bathing or washing, if it is raised,' none of these are offenses.
Accepting urgently donated robes beyond the time limit, exceeding the twenty-eighth precept of storing precepts—these two precepts are combined into one precept. If accepted beyond the time limit, or stored beyond the time limit, both constitute the offense of expiation involving forfeiture. Similarly, it arises from urgently donated robes, so it must be used together. If it is not an urgent donation, and the rainy season retreat (Anju) has not ended, the Buddha does not allow acceptance, and acceptance incurs a Dukkhata offense. The five-part Vinaya clearly records the Buddha's intention in establishing this. Later, because Minister Lishi requested the Sangha to observe the rainy season retreat, he suddenly ordered a campaign, abandoning property to donate to the Sangha, according to the rules of the rainy season retreat. The Bhikkhus, because the rainy season retreat had not ended, could not accept it casually. The Buddha, for the benefit of the donors and to nourish the Bhikkhus, allowed acceptance within ten days before the end of the rainy season retreat, without incurring a Dukkhata offense. Because of the saint's permission, knowingly accepting urgent donations beyond the time limit violates both teachings, and greed for long-term benefits constitutes the offense of expiation involving forfeiture. Accepting beyond the time limit has five special circumstances: first, urgent donation; second, knowing it is an urgent donation; third, exceeding ten days before; fourth, no cause; fifth, committing the offense upon acceptance. Storing beyond the time limit also has five circumstances: first, urgent donation; second, knowing; third, accepting within thirty-five days; fourth, not making it allowable (not processing according to regulations); fifth, exceeding the time limit. The following formally explains the precept text. This is because the Group of Six Bhikkhus (Liuqun Biqiu) often begged for robes and accepted robes, and Bhadanta (Batuantu) observed the rainy season retreat in different places and accepted robes in different places, and ministers donated for the rainy season retreat, so the Buddha permitted and established the precept.
If a Bhikkhu, within ten days before the end of the three months of summer, the Bhikkhus receive urgently donated robes, and the Bhikkhu knows that they are urgently donated robes, he should accept them, and after accepting them, he should store them until the robe season (robe season, referring to the prescribed time). If he stores them beyond the time limit, he commits the offense of Nissaggiya Pacittiya. This complete precept has five sentences: first, the offender; second, the time limit for accepting robes, that is, the three months of summer before the ten days are up, not allowing it if it is not an emergency, so this third sentence 'the Bhikkhus' below is allowing acceptance in an emergency; fourth, after accepting the robes, allowing storage within the prescribed time without offense; fifth, if exceeding the time limit, committing the offense of storing beyond the time limit. 'Storing' below can be understood in the first sentence of the extensive explanation. The second sentence 'storing for the three months of summer before the ten days are up,' the Vinaya says: 'refers to after July 6th and before the 15th, which is the time limit for accepting robes.' The third sentence says 'the Bhikkhus receive urgently donated robes and should accept them.'
是急聽受。故律云。若受便得不受便失。故名急也。衣者十種。第四言竟乃至衣時應畜者。是開時畜無罪。故律云。衣時者。自恣竟不受迦絺那衣。一月受衣五月。若自恣十日在。得急施衣。受已至一月五月畜。乃至明日自恣應受。一月五日外更增九日。第五言若過時畜尼薩耆波逸提者。是結過後畜提。故律云。得急施衣。若過前若過後並犯捨墮。已下雜明 問。泛爾長衣十日不說越。十一日明相出便犯。此急施衣七月十六日受者十日無罪。入十六日明相應犯。何故乃言一月五月應畜不犯 答。長衣不與時分明接者。但有前開無其後開。是以便犯。此急施衣十日受者。是其前開。入十六日後是后開。相接越此分齊。是以無罪。不犯者。律云。不過前不后畜。若為賊奪衣失衣燒衣漂衣過前受不犯者。若作失等四想有險難道路不通。乃至河水大張。若彼受比丘或死或出行等難故過後畜。一切不犯。
有難蘭若離衣六宿戒二十九 此戒同異如前已辯。但前戒聚落清第一宿即犯。此蘭若險怖過六夜犯。前是常流人有德衣開。此是有難。又兼勝行。不受德衣。但有迦提。以非作故此二開限。別緣有七。一受持三衣。二冬分非時。故律云。夏三月竟迦提月滿。三有極怖處。四置衣在聚落。五不捨會。六無因緣。七第七日明相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 是緊急聽受。所以律中說：『如果接受就得到，不接受就失去。』因此稱為『急』。關於『衣』有十種情況。第四種說『說完乃至穿衣時應該持有』，這是說在允許的時間內持有沒有罪過。所以律中說：『穿衣時，從自恣結束到不接受迦絺那衣（Kathina，一種功德衣）的一個月和接受衣的五個月。』如果自恣在十天之內，可以接受緊急佈施的衣。接受后可以持有一個月和五個月。甚至到第二天自恣時應該接受。在一個月五天的基礎上再增加九天。第五種說『如果過了時間持有，犯尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pacittiya，捨墮罪）』，這是說過了期限持有犯捨墮罪。所以律中說：『得到緊急佈施的衣，如果超過之前或超過之後都犯捨墮罪。』以下是雜項說明。 問：一般長衣超過十天不說越期，第十一天天亮就犯戒。這緊急佈施的衣在七月十六日接受，十天內沒有罪過。進入十六日天亮就應該犯戒。為什麼說一個月五個月內持有不犯戒？答：長衣沒有與時限明確連線，只有前開沒有後開，因此就犯戒。這緊急佈施的衣在十天內接受，是前開。進入十六日後是后開，相互連線超過了這個界限，因此沒有罪過。不犯戒的情況是，律中說：『不超過前，不后持有。』如果因為賊人搶奪、衣物丟失、衣物燒燬、衣物被水沖走而超過期限接受，不犯戒的情況是，如果作丟失等四種想法，有險難道路不通，甚至河水大漲。如果接受的比丘死亡或出行等困難，因此過後持有，一切不犯戒。 有難蘭若（Aranya，寂靜處）離衣六宿戒二十九：此戒的相同和不同之處如前已辯。但前面的戒律在聚落清凈的第一夜就犯戒，這蘭若險惡恐怖超過六夜才犯戒。前面是常人有功德衣的開許，這是有難。又兼殊勝的修行，不接受功德衣，只有迦提（Kathina，功德衣）。因為不是製作的緣故，這兩種開許的期限不同。別緣有七種：一、受持三衣。二、冬分非時。所以律中說：『夏季三個月結束，迦提月滿。』三、有極度恐怖的地方。四、將衣物放置在聚落。五、不捨棄集會。六、沒有因緣。七、第七天天亮。
【English Translation】 English version It is urgent to listen and receive. Therefore, the Vinaya (rules) says: 'If you accept, you gain; if you don't accept, you lose.' Hence it is called 'urgent.' There are ten kinds of 'robes.' The fourth says, 'After speaking, even until the time of wearing the robe, one should possess it.' This means that possessing it within the permitted time is without fault. Therefore, the Vinaya says: 'The time of wearing the robe is from the end of the Pavarana (self-surrender ceremony) until one month after not accepting the Kathina (Kathina, a meritorious robe) and five months of accepting the robe.' If the Pavarana is within ten days, one can accept the robe given urgently. After accepting, one can possess it for one month and five months. Even until the next day of Pavarana, one should accept it. Adding nine days to the one month and five days. The fifth says, 'If one possesses it after the time has passed, one commits Nissaggiya Pacittiya (Nissaggiya Pacittiya, an offense requiring forfeiture).' This means that possessing it after the deadline results in an offense requiring forfeiture. Therefore, the Vinaya says: 'Having obtained a robe given urgently, if one exceeds the time before or after, one commits an offense requiring forfeiture.' The following are miscellaneous explanations. Question: Generally, for a long robe, exceeding ten days is not mentioned as a violation; one commits an offense at dawn on the eleventh day. This robe given urgently, if received on the sixteenth day of the seventh month, is without fault for ten days. Entering the dawn of the sixteenth day, one should commit an offense. Why is it said that possessing it within one month and five months is without fault? Answer: A long robe does not have a clear connection with the time limit; it only has a beginning but no end. Therefore, one commits an offense. This robe given urgently, if received within ten days, is the beginning. Entering after the sixteenth day is the end, connecting and exceeding this boundary. Therefore, there is no fault. The situations where one does not commit an offense are, as the Vinaya says: 'Not exceeding before, not possessing after.' If one exceeds the time limit due to theft, loss of clothing, burning of clothing, or clothing being washed away by water, the situations where one does not commit an offense are if one thinks of loss, etc., has dangerous roads impassable, or even a great surge of river water. If the Bhikkhu (monk) who received it dies or travels, etc., due to difficulties, therefore possessing it afterward, everything is without offense. The twenty-ninth precept regarding dwelling in a dangerous Aranya (Aranya, a quiet place) and being separated from robes for six nights: The similarities and differences of this precept have been discussed before. But the previous precept is violated on the first night of purity in a village, while this Aranya, being dangerous and frightening, is violated after six nights. The former is an allowance for ordinary people with meritorious robes; this is due to difficulties. It also involves superior practice, not accepting meritorious robes, but only Kathina (Kathina, a meritorious robe). Because it is not made, the time limits for these two allowances are different. There are seven separate reasons: 1. Possessing three robes. 2. Winter season, not the right time. Therefore, the Vinaya says: 'The three months of summer end, the Kathina month is full.' 3. There is an extremely frightening place. 4. Placing clothing in a village. 5. Not abandoning the assembly. 6. Without a cause. 7. The dawn of the seventh day.
出便犯。已下正明戒本。此因六群比丘寄衣遊行。同徒舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘夏三月竟后迦提一月滿在阿蘭若有疑恐懼處比丘在如是處住三衣中欲留一一衣置村舍內諸比丘有因緣離衣宿乃至六夜若過者尼薩耆波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一者犯人。二明非時分甄去時分不犯。三在阿蘭若已下有極怖處。四在如是處下開置舍內六夜一會。五若過下結罪。廣釋中初句。言若比丘者。義如上辯。第二言夏三月竟后迦提一月滿者。明非時分。故律云。為八月半后也。第三言若阿蘭若有疑恐懼怖處者。是極畏處也。故律云。有疑者疑賊盜。恐怖處者中有恐怖賊盜也。第四言比丘在如是處住三衣中欲留一一衣置村舍內至六夜已來。是明開離衣限。故律云。若有因緣離衣宿齊六夜得至第七夜。明相未出前。應會衣。又多論云。有病得僧羯磨亦無過。問。外難何故定開六夜內因緣。直作羯磨不局日限者何 答。外難進否不可得知。故須定六內病差否。義在易知。故以病差為期。不須定限 若爾七日藥亦應差否。易知面定言七 答。藥之功能七日內來有療患之功。依藥勢力故定七日。如祇律說。又云。寄著可疑。俗人家五分上二衣中隨所重者。聽寄一衣不得寄不衣。以隨身故。禮拜入寺乞食不得單著。但得寄一衣。善見若防
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 出便犯（指違反戒律）。以下正式闡明戒本。此事緣起於六群比丘寄放衣物，同伴之間互相指責過失，佛陀因此制定戒律。
『若比丘夏三月竟后迦提一月滿在阿蘭若有疑恐懼處比丘在如是處住三衣中欲留一一衣置村舍內諸比丘有因緣離衣宿乃至六夜若過者尼薩耆波逸提』（如果比丘在夏季三個月結束后，迦提月（Katika）一個月圓滿時，住在阿蘭若（Aranya，意為寂靜處）有疑慮和恐懼的地方，比丘在這種地方居住，想要將三衣中的一件或全部留在村舍內，諸位比丘因為某種因緣需要離衣過夜，最多可以六夜，如果超過這個期限，就犯了尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pacittiya，意為捨墮））。這條戒律的完整條文有五個要點：一是犯戒之人；二是說明非時節，區分可以離開的時間和不可離開的時間；三是在阿蘭若之後，說明極其恐怖的地方；四是在『在如是處下』之後，說明允許放置在村舍內六夜的情況；五是『若過下』之後，說明判罪。詳細解釋中，第一句『言若比丘者』，意義如前所述。第二句『言夏三月竟后迦提一月滿者』，說明非時節。所以律中說，是爲了八月半之後。第三句『言若阿蘭若有疑恐懼怖處者』，是極其畏懼的地方。所以律中說，『有疑者』，是懷疑有賊盜；『恐怖處者』，是指有令人恐怖的賊盜。第四句『比丘在如是處住三衣中欲留一一衣置村舍內至六夜已來』，是說明允許離衣的期限。所以律中說，『若有因緣離衣宿齊六夜得至第七夜』，說明在天亮之前，應該回到衣物處。還有《多論》（Samantapasadika）中說，有疾病可以進行僧羯磨（Sanghakamma，意為僧團的儀式），也沒有過失。問：外難（指其他宗派的質疑）為什麼規定允許六夜的期限，而內部原因（指生病）可以直接進行羯磨，不侷限於日期？答：外難是否會發生無法預知，所以需要規定六夜的期限；內部疾病是否痊癒，比較容易知道，所以以疾病痊癒為期限，不需要規定期限。如果這樣，七日藥也應該以痊癒為標準，容易知道，為什麼規定七日？答：藥物的功能在七日內發揮療效，依靠藥物的效力，所以規定七日。如《祇律》（Sarvastivada Vinaya）所說。又說，寄放衣物時，要選擇可信任的俗人家，在上衣和下衣中，選擇比較貴重的一件，允許寄放一件，不能寄放內衣，因為內衣要隨身攜帶。禮拜、進入寺廟、乞食時，不能只穿一件衣服，只能寄放一件衣服。《善見律毗婆沙》（Samantapasadika）中說，如果爲了防備……
【English Translation】 English version: 『Chu bian fan』 (refers to violating the precepts). The following formally clarifies the precepts. This matter originated from the Six Group Bhikkhus (monks) lodging their robes, with companions accusing each other of faults, and the Buddha therefore established the precepts.
『If a Bhikkhu, after the three months of summer and the full month of Katika (October-November), dwells in an Aranya (Aranya, meaning a quiet place) where there is doubt and fear, and the Bhikkhu living in such a place wishes to leave one or all of the three robes in a village dwelling, and the Bhikkhus need to spend the night away from their robes due to some cause, they may do so for up to six nights. If they exceed this limit, they commit a Nissaggiya Pacittiya (Nissaggiya Pacittiya, meaning forfeiture and expiation).』 This complete precept has five key points: first, the person who violates the precept; second, clarifying the non-seasonal time, distinguishing between times when it is permissible to leave and times when it is not; third, after 『in an Aranya,』 explaining extremely fearful places; fourth, after 『living in such a place,』 explaining the situation where it is permissible to leave the robes in a village dwelling for six nights; fifth, after 『if they exceed,』 explaining the judgment of the offense. In the detailed explanation, the first sentence, 『If a Bhikkhu,』 has the meaning as previously stated. The second sentence, 『after the three months of summer and the full month of Katika,』 explains the non-seasonal time. Therefore, the Vinaya (book of discipline) says it is for after the middle of August. The third sentence, 『in an Aranya where there is doubt and fear,』 refers to extremely fearful places. Therefore, the Vinaya says, 『where there is doubt』 refers to suspicion of thieves; 『fearful places』 refers to thieves who cause fear. The fourth sentence, 『the Bhikkhu living in such a place wishes to leave one or all of the three robes in a village dwelling for up to six nights,』 explains the permissible limit for leaving the robes. Therefore, the Vinaya says, 『if there is a cause to spend the night away from the robes, they may do so for up to six nights, reaching the seventh night,』 explaining that before dawn, they should return to the place where the robes are. Also, the Samantapasadika says that if there is illness, Sanghakamma (Sanghakamma, meaning an act of the Sangha) can be performed, and there is no fault. Question: Why does the external difficulty (referring to the questioning of other sects) specify a limit of six nights, while the internal cause (referring to illness) can directly perform Sanghakamma without being limited by dates? Answer: Whether external difficulties will occur is unpredictable, so it is necessary to specify a limit of six nights; whether internal illnesses have healed is relatively easy to know, so the healing of the illness is taken as the limit, without needing to specify a date. If so, the seven-day medicine should also be based on healing, which is easy to know, so why specify seven days? Answer: The function of the medicine is to have a therapeutic effect within seven days, relying on the power of the medicine, so seven days are specified. As the Sarvastivada Vinaya says. It also says that when lodging robes, one should choose a trustworthy layperson's home, and among the upper and lower robes, choose the more valuable one, allowing one to be lodged, but not the undergarment, because the undergarment should be carried with oneself. When bowing, entering a temple, or begging for food, one cannot wear only one garment, only one garment can be lodged. The Samantapasadika says that if it is for protection...
堅蜜不須寄衣。無者得寄。六夜一看見衣已還蘭若所。第五言若過者尼薩耆波逸提。是過限結罪文。開通如前離衣戒說。不犯中。律云。已寄六夜至第七夜。明相未出前。若到衣所。若舍衣若奪等四想。若道路險難不通。不捨不至衣所。一切不犯。
回僧物入己戒三十 制意者。出家之士理遵少欲知足。為雖聞他居士許欲施僧。方便勸化回來入己。內長貪結外惱他主。又復損僧。殊所不應。是故聖制 別緣有四。一是許僧物。二作許想。三回入己。四領受便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因跋難陀起過。佛為制戒。
若比丘知是僧物自求入己者尼薩耆波逸提。 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二若知。三許僧物。四迴向便犯。廣解中初句可知。第二言知者。律云。若不知許僧回者非。第三言是僧物者。律云。有三種僧物。一已許僧為僧故作。二未許僧為僧故作。如俗家為僧作。床褥器具供僧之物。三已與僧者已許僧已舍僧。此三句之物回有輕重。初物犯舍。回第二物犯吉。回第三犯重。第四言求入己尼薩耆波逸提者。是犯罪句。舍懺之法如前所明。下雜明僧祇。若人持物來 問。僧何處佈施 答。言隨汝所敬處與 若何處果報多 答。施僧。若言何者持戒清凈。若言無犯戒不清凈。若言我已施僧。今施尊者得受
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不得將袈裟寄放過久。如果沒有袈裟，可以寄放。每六個晚上必須去看一次袈裟，看完後放回蘭若（Araṇya，遠離人煙的處所）。如果超過期限，則觸犯尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pācittiya，捨墮罪）。這是關於超過期限而結罪的條文。開通情況如同前面關於離衣戒的說明。不犯的情況包括：律中說，已經寄放六個晚上，到了第七個晚上的黎明之前，如果到達袈裟所在之處，或者捨棄袈裟，或者被奪走等四種情況，或者道路險阻難以通行，沒有捨棄也沒有到達袈裟所在之處，一切都不算犯戒。
將僧眾的財物轉為己有戒（第三十條）：制定此戒的用意是，出家之人理應遵從少欲知足的原則。因為即使聽說有在家居士想要佈施給僧眾，卻用方便的言語勸誘使其轉為己有，對內增長貪慾的煩惱，對外困擾施主。而且損害僧眾的利益，實在不應該。因此佛陀制定此戒。 別緣有四種情況：一是已經許諾給僧眾的財物，二是作意認為是許諾給僧眾的財物，三是將財物轉為己有，四是領受了這些財物，就觸犯戒律。以下正式說明戒本。此戒因跋難陀（Bhallika）的過失而制定，佛陀因此制定戒律。
如果比丘明知是僧眾的財物，卻自己要求轉為己有，則觸犯尼薩耆波逸提（Nissaggiya Pācittiya，捨墮罪）。此滿足戒本文有四句：一、犯戒之人；二、如果明知；三、許諾給僧眾的財物；四、轉為己有便觸犯戒律。詳細解釋中，第一句可知。第二句『明知』，律中說，如果不知是許諾給僧眾的財物而轉為己有，則不犯戒。第三句『是僧眾的財物』，律中說，有三種僧眾的財物：一是已經許諾給僧眾，爲了僧眾的緣故而製作的；二是未許諾給僧眾，爲了僧眾的緣故而製作的，如在家俗人為僧眾製作的床褥器具等供僧之物；三是已經給予僧眾的，已經許諾給僧眾，已經捨棄給僧眾的。這三種財物轉為己有，罪行有輕重。第一種財物犯舍罪，轉回第二種財物犯吉罪，轉回第三種財物犯重罪。第四句『求入己尼薩耆波逸提』，是犯罪的語句。舍懺的方法如前所述。下面雜項說明僧祇（Saṃgha，僧團）。如果有人拿著財物來，問：僧眾在哪裡佈施？回答說：隨你所敬重的地方給予。如果問：哪裡果報多？回答說：佈施給僧眾。如果說：誰持戒清凈？如果說：沒有犯戒的清凈。如果說：我已經佈施給僧眾，現在佈施給尊者可以接受嗎？
【English Translation】 English version A robe should not be left on deposit for too long. If one has no robe, it may be deposited. One must inspect the robe every six nights and return it to the Araṇya (secluded dwelling). If this limit is exceeded, one commits a Nissaggiya Pācittiya (an offense entailing forfeiture and confession). This is the rule concerning incurring an offense by exceeding the limit. The allowances are as previously stated in the rule concerning being separated from a robe. Non-offenses include: The Vinaya states that if the robe has been deposited for six nights, and before the dawn of the seventh night, one arrives at the place where the robe is, or one abandons the robe, or it is taken away, etc., or if the road is dangerous and impassable, and one neither abandons nor arrives at the place where the robe is, none of these constitute an offense.
The Thirtieth Offense: Converting Property Intended for the Saṃgha to One's Own Use. The intention behind this rule is that monks should adhere to the principles of few desires and contentment. Even if one hears that a layperson intends to donate to the Saṃgha, one should not use persuasive words to convert it to one's own use, thereby increasing the defilement of greed internally and troubling the donor externally. Furthermore, it harms the Saṃgha's interests, which is entirely inappropriate. Therefore, the Buddha established this rule. There are four conditions for a separate offense: first, property promised to the Saṃgha; second, the intention that it is promised to the Saṃgha; third, converting it to one's own use; and fourth, receiving it, which constitutes an offense. The following formally explains the rule. This rule was established due to the transgression of Bhallika, and the Buddha therefore established the rule.
If a bhikkhu, knowing that it is property of the Saṃgha, seeks to convert it to his own use, he commits a Nissaggiya Pācittiya (an offense entailing forfeiture and confession). This complete rule has four clauses: 1. The offender; 2. If knowing; 3. Property promised to the Saṃgha; 4. Converting it to one's own use constitutes an offense. In the detailed explanation, the first clause is self-explanatory. Regarding the second clause, 'knowing,' the Vinaya states that if one does not know that it is property promised to the Saṃgha and converts it, there is no offense. Regarding the third clause, 'property of the Saṃgha,' the Vinaya states that there are three types of Saṃgha property: first, that which has been promised to the Saṃgha and made for the sake of the Saṃgha; second, that which has not been promised to the Saṃgha but made for the sake of the Saṃgha, such as beds, bedding, utensils, and offerings made by laypeople for the Saṃgha; third, that which has been given to the Saṃgha, promised to the Saṃgha, and relinquished to the Saṃgha. Converting these three types of property carries different degrees of offense. Converting the first type incurs a forfeiture offense, converting the second type incurs a minor offense, and converting the third type incurs a major offense. The fourth clause, 'seeks to convert it to his own use, Nissaggiya Pācittiya,' is the offense clause. The method of forfeiture and confession is as previously explained. The following miscellaneous section explains the Saṃgha. If someone comes with property and asks, 'Where does the Saṃgha make donations?' Answer, 'Give it wherever you respect.' If they ask, 'Where is the reward greater?' Answer, 'Giving to the Saṃgha.' If they say, 'Who is pure in keeping the precepts?' If they say, 'Those who have not violated the precepts are pure.' If they say, 'I have already donated to the Saṃgha, may I now donate to the venerable one?'
無罪。若言此物置何處使我常見受用 答。某甲比丘坐禪誦經持戒。若施彼者長見受用。四分律云。明四對八句。謂回不入己教犯輕罪。一塔相對。二四方現前相對。三僧尼兩眾相對。四料間上三同類。同類回此與。彼故言許異處。故律云若物許僧轉與塔。許四方僧回與現在僧。許比丘僧回與尼僧許異處。乃至許異處回與此處。一切吉羅。並謂未決定。若決別施隨前犯。僧祇回此彼畜生物越心悔。但還物之中四五十三律舍竟自用不須還僧。以不定屬僧故。祇律云。五敷具回僧對僧舍入僧己隨僧作何等用。多見兩論。舍竟還僧。不還犯重。了論回僧所應得施入己應舍還大眾故。十誦多論云。若壇越施此自恣僧物回與彼自恣僧者。物應還此比丘作吉悔。若不還此僧討錢成重。乃至此彼一人物回亦成重。準此定屬僧此次回與他人成重。不犯中。律云。若不知若已許作不許想。若許惡勸與好。若許少勸與多。若許一人勸與多人。若誤若戲若錯說者。並皆不犯。
諸大德我已說三十尼薩耆波逸提法今問諸大德是中清凈不(三說)諸大德是清凈默然故是事如是持。
此戒結前三十捨墮。亦通問諸戒中清凈法猶默然。知清凈故。言是事如是持。
四分戒疏卷第二 大正藏第 85 冊 No. 2787 四分戒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無罪。如果問：『這物品放在哪裡才能讓我經常見到並使用？』回答：『某甲（指代某個比丘）在坐禪、誦經、持戒。如果施捨給他們，你就能經常見到並使用。』《四分律》中說，要明白四對八句的含義。也就是迴轉不入自己所屬的教團，會犯輕罪。一是塔相對，二是四方現前僧相對，三是比丘僧和比丘尼僧兩眾相對，四是料簡（區分）以上三種同類情況。同類情況迴轉施與，因為允許在不同地方。所以律中說，如果物品允許僧團轉施給塔，允許四方僧迴轉施給現在僧，允許比丘僧迴轉施給比丘尼僧，允許在不同地方迴轉施給這個地方，都犯吉羅罪。這些都是指未決定的情況。如果已經決定施捨給誰，就按照之前的犯戒情況處理。《僧祇律》中，迴轉施與此處的彼處畜生物，要越心懺悔。但歸還物品時，如果物品已經按照《四五三次律》捨棄完畢，自己使用就不需要歸還僧團，因為這物品不確定屬於哪個僧團。 《祇律》中說，五種敷具迴轉僧團，要當著僧團的面捨棄，歸入僧團，僧團可以隨意使用。大多數論典認為，捨棄完畢后還要歸還僧團，不歸還就犯重罪。《了論》認為，迴轉僧團所應得的施捨，納入自己私用，應該捨棄歸還大眾。 《十誦律》和《多論》中說，如果施主施捨給這個自恣僧團的物品，迴轉施給那個自恣僧團，物品應該歸還給這個比丘，犯吉悔罪。如果不歸還，這個僧團討要錢財，就構成重罪。甚至此人和彼人是同一個人，迴轉施與也構成重罪。按照這個標準，如果確定屬於僧團的物品，這次迴轉施與他人就構成重罪。不犯戒的情況包括：如果不知道，或者已經允許但後來又不想允許，或者允許了不好的，卻勸人給好的，或者允許給少的，卻勸人給多的，或者允許給一個人，卻勸人給多人，或者誤解，或者開玩笑，或者說錯了，這些都不犯戒。
各位大德，我已經說了三十條尼薩耆波逸提法，現在問各位大德，這裡面清凈嗎？（重複三次）各位大德是清凈的，因為大家默然不語，這件事就這樣定了。
此戒總結了之前的三十條捨墮戒，也同樣可以用來詢問其他戒律是否清凈，因為大家默然不語，就知道是清凈的。所以說這件事就這樣定了。
《四分戒疏》卷第二 《大正藏》第85冊 No. 2787 《四分戒》
【English Translation】 English version: No offense. If asked, 'Where should this item be placed so that I can see and use it often?' Answer: 'So-and-so Bhikshu (a monk) is meditating, reciting scriptures, and upholding the precepts. If you donate to them, you will see and use it often.' The Si Fen Lu (Four-Part Vinaya) states that one should understand the meaning of the four pairs and eight sentences. That is, transferring something without it entering one's own Sangha (community) incurs a minor offense. The four pairs are: 1. Stupa (塔, pagoda) relative; 2. Sangha of the four directions present; 3. Bhikshu Sangha and Bhikshuni (尼, nun) Sangha, the two communities; 4. Distinguishing the above three similar situations. Transferring donations within similar situations is permissible because it is allowed in different places. Therefore, the Vinaya states that if an item is permitted for the Sangha to transfer to a Stupa, if the Sangha of the four directions is permitted to transfer back to the present Sangha, if the Bhikshu Sangha is permitted to transfer to the Bhikshuni Sangha, if transferring from a different place to this place is permitted, all incur a jila (吉羅, a minor offense). These all refer to undecided situations. If it has been decided to donate to someone, then handle it according to the previous offense situation. In the Seng Qi Lu (僧祇律, Sanghika-vinaya), transferring livestock from here to there requires repentance with a changed mind. However, when returning the item, if the item has already been discarded according to the Si Wu San Ci Lu (四五三次律, a specific rule), then using it oneself does not require returning it to the Sangha, because the item does not definitively belong to any particular Sangha. The Qi Lu (祇律, another Vinaya text) states that when transferring the five kinds of seating, one must discard them in front of the Sangha, returning them to the Sangha, and the Sangha can use them as they please. Most commentaries believe that after discarding, one must still return them to the Sangha; not returning them incurs a major offense. The Liao Lun (了論, a commentary) believes that transferring donations that the Sangha should receive and incorporating them into one's own use requires discarding and returning them to the community. The Shi Song Lu (十誦律, Sarvastivada Vinaya) and the Duo Lun (多論, a commentary) state that if a donor donates an item to this zi zi (自恣, Pravarana) Sangha and transfers it to that zi zi Sangha, the item should be returned to this Bhikshu, incurring a ji hui (吉悔, a minor offense of repentance). If it is not returned, and this Sangha demands money, it constitutes a major offense. Even if this person and that person are the same person, transferring the donation also constitutes a major offense. According to this standard, if an item is definitively owned by the Sangha, transferring it to someone else constitutes a major offense. Situations where no offense is committed include: if one does not know, or if one has already permitted but later does not want to permit, or if one permits something bad but encourages giving something good, or if one permits giving a little but encourages giving a lot, or if one permits giving to one person but encourages giving to many people, or if there is a misunderstanding, or if one is joking, or if one says something wrong, these do not constitute an offense.
Venerable ones, I have now recited the thirty Nissaggiya Pacittiya (尼薩耆波逸提, offenses entailing forfeiture) rules. Now I ask you, venerable ones, are you pure in these? (repeated three times) Venerable ones, you are pure because you are silent. Therefore, this matter is thus held.
This precept summarizes the previous thirty offenses entailing forfeiture. It can also be used to ask whether other precepts are pure. Because everyone is silent, it is known to be pure. Therefore, it is said that this matter is thus held.
Si Fen Jie Shu (四分戒疏, Commentary on the Four-Part Vinaya), Volume 2 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 85, No. 2787, Si Fen Jie (四分戒, Four-Part Vinaya)
本疏卷第一．第二．第三
四分戒本疏卷第三
沙門慧述
諸大德是九十波逸提法半月半月說戒經中來 此明第三篇。初標說儀。次陳本戒。后問清凈。此是標文也。初約總相七門分別。后乃別隨文解釋。言總相者。一約身口分別。二約自他兩業。三約遮性辨釋。四就持犯。五隨違制不同。六約二部同異。七就下眾任運。初身口者位有其三。一有二十戒口業成犯。二有三十一戒身業成犯。三有三十九戒身口合犯。口二十者。謂妄語毀呰兩舌同誦說粗實得道說法過五六嫌罵輒教譏教十日暮恐怖疑慳發諍說欲不障拒勸學毀毗尼同羯磨悔與欲已悔無根謗等是。身業三十一戒者。二宿強敷坐脫著覆為尼作衣尼坐過受別眾三缽十非時殘宿不受外道食藥請三坐前。二軍陣十如非時食咽咽者。豈非通名身業。此一既爾。余類可知。第三軍陣飲酒水戲過洗擊歷自色三衣二隨打博突入一等是。身口合犯三十九者。位以為三。第一有兩戒。身口正作業共身犯。謂屏露二敷具。若自敷身作業。若教人敷口作業。去時不自舉身正業。不教人舉口正業。出門界犯。豈非共身犯。第二有七戒口家正業共身犯。謂覆藏粗罪。見論身心犯。見聞作犯。此是通名身業。未即成罪。若發露無過。由口正不發露故。心地覆藏逕夜便犯。是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
本疏卷第一．第二．第三
四分戒本疏卷第三
沙門慧述
諸位大德，以下是九十波逸提法，每半月于說戒經中宣講的內容。這裡闡明第三篇的內容。首先標明宣講的儀軌，其次陳述根本戒條，最後詢問是否清凈。這是標文的含義。首先從總體上用七個方面來分別解釋，然後才分別按照文句來解釋。所說的總相，包括：一、從身口兩方面來分別；二、從自作和他作兩種行為來區分；三、辨析遮戒和性戒；四、關於持戒和犯戒；五、根據違犯戒律的不同情況；六、關於比丘和比丘尼兩部的同異；七、關於下座比丘的任運。首先，身口方面，有三種情況：一是有二十條戒律是由於口業而構成違犯；二是有三十一條戒律是由於身業而構成違犯；三是有三十九條戒律是身口共同作用而構成違犯。口業二十條包括：妄語（虛假陳述），毀呰（惡語中傷），兩舌（挑撥離間），同誦（背誦錯誤），說粗實（粗惡言語），得道說法（未得道而妄稱得道），過五六（過量飲食），嫌罵（嫌棄辱罵），輒教（擅自教導），譏教（譏諷教導），十日暮（過期索取），恐怖（恐嚇他人），疑慳（懷疑吝嗇），發諍（引發爭端），說欲（泄露秘密），不障拒（不阻止），勸學（勸勉學習），毀毗尼（誹謗戒律），同羯磨（共同羯磨），悔與欲已悔（後悔給予同意），無根謗（無根據誹謗）等。身業三十一條包括：二宿（過夜），強敷坐（強行鋪設座位），脫著（脫穿衣服），覆（覆蓋），為尼作衣（為比丘尼做衣服），尼坐（比丘尼坐），過受（過度接受），別眾（單獨接受），三缽（三個缽），十非時（十種非時），殘宿（剩餘食物過夜），不受外道食（不接受外道食物），藥請（請求藥物），三坐前（在三個座位前），二軍陣（兩次軍隊陣列），十如（十種不如法），非時食咽咽（非時飲食每一口）。難道非時食不是普遍地稱為身業嗎？既然這一條是這樣，其餘的類別也可以依此類推。第三，軍陣飲酒（軍隊陣列中飲酒），水戲（戲水），過洗（過度洗浴），擊歷（擊打歷算），自色（自身顏色），三衣（三衣），二隨（二種隨順），打博（打牌賭博），突入（突然闖入）等。身口合犯三十九條，可以分為三種情況。第一種有兩條戒律，身口共同作業，與身體共同違犯。指的是屏處敷具（在隱蔽的地方鋪設臥具）和露處敷具（在露天的地方鋪設臥具）。如果是自己鋪設，是身體的作業；如果是教別人鋪設，是口頭的作業。離開的時候不自己收起，是身體的正業；不教別人收起，是口頭的正業。出門界就構成違犯，難道不是共同的身體違犯嗎？第二種有七條戒律，口頭上的行為是正業，與身體共同違犯。指的是覆藏粗罪（掩蓋粗罪），見論（見到爭論），身心犯（身心違犯），見聞作犯（見聞而作違犯）。這通常被認為是身業，但未立即構成犯罪。如果發露懺悔就沒有過失。由於口頭沒有如實發露，在心中覆藏過夜就構成違犯。這是……
【English Translation】 English version
This commentary, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3
Commentary on the Four-Part Vinaya, Volume 3
Shramana Hui Shu
Virtuous ones, these are the ninety pācittiya (expiation) rules, recited every half-month in the Prātimokṣa (monastic code) recitation. This clarifies the third section. First, it marks the recitation's procedure. Second, it presents the fundamental precepts. Finally, it asks about purity. This is the meaning of marking the text. First, it is explained generally in seven aspects, and then explained separately according to the text. The general aspects include: one, distinguishing between body and speech; two, distinguishing between self-action and other-action; three, distinguishing between prohibitive precepts and nature precepts; four, concerning upholding and violating precepts; five, according to different circumstances of violating the precepts; six, concerning the similarities and differences between the bhikṣu (monk) and bhikṣuṇī (nun) communities; seven, concerning the spontaneous actions of junior monks. First, regarding body and speech, there are three situations: one, there are twenty precepts where the violation is constituted by verbal actions; two, there are thirty-one precepts where the violation is constituted by bodily actions; three, there are thirty-nine precepts where the violation is constituted by both body and speech. The twenty verbal actions include: mṛṣāvāda (false speech), paiśunya (malicious speech), samṁbhinnapalāpa (divisive speech), reciting incorrectly, speaking harsh words, claiming enlightenment without attainment, excessive eating, scolding, unauthorized teaching, sarcastic teaching, requesting beyond ten days, frightening others, suspecting stinginess, initiating disputes, revealing secrets, not preventing, encouraging learning, slandering the Vinaya (monastic discipline), participating in the same karma (action), regretting giving consent, unfounded slander, and so on. The thirty-one bodily actions include: keeping overnight, forcibly spreading a seat, taking off and putting on clothes, covering, making clothes for a bhikṣuṇī, a bhikṣuṇī sitting, excessive receiving, separate assembly, three bowls, ten unseasonable things, leftover food overnight, not accepting food from non-Buddhists, requesting medicine, in front of three seats, two army formations, ten unwholesome things, unseasonable eating mouthful by mouthful. Isn't unseasonable eating generally considered a bodily action? Since this one is like this, the remaining categories can be inferred accordingly. Third, drinking alcohol in army formations, playing in water, excessive bathing, striking and calculating, one's own color, three robes, two followings, gambling, suddenly entering, and so on. The thirty-nine violations involving both body and speech can be divided into three situations. The first has two precepts, where the actions of body and speech together constitute a violation. This refers to spreading a seat in a hidden place and spreading a seat in an open place. If one spreads it oneself, it is a bodily action; if one instructs others to spread it, it is a verbal action. When leaving, not picking it up oneself is a bodily action; not instructing others to pick it up is a verbal action. Leaving the boundary constitutes a violation, isn't it a joint bodily violation? The second has seven precepts, where the verbal action is the primary action, and it jointly violates with the body. This refers to concealing a gross offense, seeing a dispute, violating in body and mind, seeing and hearing and then acting to violate. This is generally considered a bodily action, but it does not immediately constitute a crime. If one confesses, there is no fault. Because one does not truthfully confess verbally, concealing it in the heart overnight constitutes a violation. This is...
名假正業共身犯。余有六戒。皆有口業作法。本自無過。由口止故身作前事即得其罪。謂皆請足食。二入聚輒著不與欲。是等假口正業共身犯。第三有三十戒口作共身犯。于內位四。一有十九戒。自口作業假他身。是中若論自作唯身心犯。且約教人邊說。如教壞地。言雖了了未即犯提。要假前人身業壞地教者方犯。是名自口作業假他身犯。余皆類然。教人壞生掘地牽他出房用蟲水無事然火藏他衣缽殺畜生驅他出聚飲蟲水遣使持己衣與尼捉寶高床。下次第七戒。此等戒是第二有四戒。自身假他口。謂贊食減年受戒不攝耳聽屏聽。此等是如尼贊食戒。若尼不讚但爾直食本自無犯。假尼口贊食方成犯。減年受戒和尚得提。假羯磨竟。餘者可知。第三有五戒。自身口假他身。如四期。索美食。第四有兩戒。自身口假他口。假異語觸惱。身口兩業假僧作白。又須喚問故。假他口不受屏諫所作之事。通於七聚。豈非身口。要假他諫作方得犯故。第二自作教他兩業者。勸足一戒唯教他業。足食一戒唯自作業。自他兩業分為二戒。有二十一戒。有教人同犯。而不別立自他之異。既知斯義位約為四。一唯教人。謂勸足是。第二有十一戒。自他俱犯。謂掘地壞生牽出二蟲水恐有然火藏衣缽殺畜生無根謗捉寶。于中掘壞捉寶此三大護佛法故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：'名假正業共身犯'指的是，雖然表面上是正當的職業，但實際上卻共同觸犯了戒律。我還有六條戒律，都與口業有關，需要通過一定的儀式（作法）來持守。這些戒律本身並沒有過錯，但如果因為說了不該說的話，導致身體做了不該做的事，就會因此而犯罪。例如，請求過量的食物（請足食），或者進入人群聚集的地方卻不給予應有的尊重（二入聚輒著不與欲），這些都屬於通過口業，表面上是正當的職業，但實際上共同觸犯了戒律的情況。 第三類有三十條戒律，是口業和身體共同觸犯的。其中又分為四種情況。第一種有十九條戒律，通過自己的口業，假借他人的身體來完成。這裡如果只論自己做，那麼只有身和心的犯罪。但這裡主要討論教唆他人犯罪的情況。例如，教唆他人破壞土地（教壞地），即使言語已經表達清楚，也不會立刻構成犯罪，必須要等到被教唆的人實際破壞了土地，教唆者才會構成犯罪。這叫做通過自己的口業，假借他人的身體來犯罪。其餘的戒律都可以依此類推。例如，教唆他人破壞生命（教人壞生）、挖掘土地（掘地）、把人拉出房間（牽他出房）、使用蟲水（用蟲水）、無事生非地點火（無事然火）、藏匿他人的衣缽（藏他衣缽）、殺害牲畜（殺畜生）、驅趕他人離開群體（驅他出聚）、飲用含有蟲子的水（飲蟲水）、派遣使者拿著自己的衣服給比丘尼（遣使持己衣與尼）、拿取寶物（捉寶）、使用高床（高床）。接下來是第七條戒律。這些戒律屬於第二種情況，有四條戒律，是自身假借他人的口業來完成。例如，讚美食物（贊食）、減少受戒的年份（減年受戒）、不攝耳聽（不攝耳聽）、偷聽（屏聽）。這些戒律就像比丘尼讚美食物的戒律一樣。如果比丘尼沒有讚美，只是直接食用，本來沒有犯戒。但如果假借比丘尼的口來讚美食物，就構成了犯戒。減少受戒年份，和尚會因此受到懲罰（得提），因為假借了羯磨（羯磨：佛教儀式）的完成。其餘的情況可以依此類推。 第三種情況有五條戒律，是自身、口業假借他人的身體來完成。例如，四期（四期：指比丘尼的四種時期，受具足戒后，每兩年要向僧團報告一次自己的情況）、索要美食（索美食）。第四種情況有兩條戒律，是自身、口業假借他人的口業來完成。例如，用不同的語言觸惱他人（假異語觸惱），身體和口業假借僧團的白法（白法：佛教術語，指宣佈或決議），又需要呼喚詢問，所以假借他人的口業不接受屏諫（屏諫：私下勸諫），所做的事情，通於七聚（七聚：佛教術語，指七種不同的罪行）。難道不是身口（身口：身體和口）的犯罪嗎？必須要假借他人的勸諫才能構成犯罪。 第二大類是自己做和教唆他人兩種行為。勸足（勸足：勸人多吃）一條戒律只涉及教唆他人。足食（足食：吃得過多）一條戒律只涉及自己做。自己做和教唆他人兩種行為分為兩條戒律。有二十一條戒律，有教唆他人共同犯罪的情況，但沒有特別區分自己做和他人的不同。既然明白了這些道理，就可以將它們歸納為四種情況。第一種只有教唆他人，例如勸足。第二種有十一條戒律，自己做和教唆他人都會犯罪。例如，挖掘土地（掘地）、破壞生命（壞生）、拉出（牽出）、兩種蟲水（二蟲水）、恐怕有（恐有）、點火（然火）、藏匿衣缽（藏衣缽）、殺害牲畜（殺畜生）、無根誹謗（無根謗）、拿取寶物（捉寶）。其中，挖掘土地、破壞生命、拿取寶物這三大類，是爲了守護佛法。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Name, false profession, jointly committing offenses' refers to ostensibly legitimate professions that, in reality, jointly violate precepts. I have six additional precepts, all related to verbal karma, which require adherence through specific rituals (karma). These precepts are not inherently flawed, but if improper speech leads to improper actions, offenses are committed. For example, requesting excessive food (please sufficient food), or entering gatherings without due respect (entering gatherings without giving due respect), are instances where verbal karma, seemingly a legitimate profession, jointly violates precepts. The third category contains thirty precepts involving joint offenses of verbal and physical karma, further divided into four situations. The first involves nineteen precepts where one's verbal karma is used to commit offenses through another's physical actions. If considering only one's own actions, only the body and mind are culpable. However, the focus here is on inciting others to commit offenses. For example, inciting someone to damage land (teaching to damage land); even if the words are clear, the offense is not immediately committed. Only when the incited person actually damages the land does the inciter become culpable. This is termed committing offenses through one's verbal karma by using another's physical actions. The remaining precepts can be understood similarly. Examples include inciting others to destroy life (teaching to destroy life), dig land (digging land), pull someone out of a room (pulling someone out of a room), use insect-infested water (using insect-infested water), groundlessly start a fire (groundlessly starting a fire), hide another's robes and bowl (hiding another's robes and bowl), kill livestock (killing livestock), drive someone out of a community (driving someone out of a community), drink water containing insects (drinking water containing insects), send a messenger with one's own robe to a nun (sending a messenger with one's own robe to a nun), take treasures (taking treasures), and use a high bed (high bed). Next is the seventh precept. These precepts belong to the second situation, involving four precepts where one's own actions are accomplished through another's verbal karma. Examples include praising food (praising food), reducing the years of ordination (reducing the years of ordination), not restraining the ears (not restraining the ears), and eavesdropping (eavesdropping). These precepts are like the precept against nuns praising food. If a nun does not praise but simply eats, there is no offense. However, if food is praised through a nun's words, an offense is committed. Reducing the years of ordination will result in punishment for the abbot (receiving punishment), because it involves the completion of karma (karma: Buddhist ritual). The remaining situations can be understood similarly. The third situation involves five precepts where one's own actions and verbal karma are accomplished through another's physical actions. Examples include the four periods (four periods: referring to the four periods of a nun's life, where every two years after full ordination, she must report her status to the monastic community) and demanding delicious food (demanding delicious food). The fourth situation involves two precepts where one's own actions and verbal karma are accomplished through another's verbal karma. Examples include offending others with different languages (offending others with different languages), where physical and verbal karma are accomplished through the Sangha's white dharma (white dharma: Buddhist term, referring to announcements or resolutions), and requiring calling and questioning, thus relying on another's verbal karma to reject private admonishments (private admonishments: private advice), and the actions taken pertain to the seven aggregates (seven aggregates: Buddhist term, referring to seven different types of offenses). Isn't this an offense of body and speech (body and speech: body and mouth)? It is necessary to rely on another's admonishment to constitute an offense. The second major category involves both self-action and inciting others. The precept of urging to eat more (urging to eat more) only involves inciting others. The precept of eating excessively (eating excessively) only involves self-action. Self-action and inciting others are divided into two precepts. There are twenty-one precepts where there are situations of inciting others to jointly commit offenses, but there is no specific distinction between self-action and the actions of others. Having understood these principles, they can be summarized into four situations. The first only involves inciting others, such as urging to eat more. The second involves eleven precepts where both self-action and inciting others result in offenses. Examples include digging land (digging land), destroying life (destroying life), pulling out (pulling out), two types of insect-infested water (two types of insect-infested water), fearing there is (fearing there is), starting a fire (starting a fire), hiding robes and bowls (hiding robes and bowls), killing livestock (killing livestock), groundless slander (groundless slander), and taking treasures (taking treasures). Among these, digging land, destroying life, and taking treasures are the three major categories for protecting the Buddha's Dharma.
余總境重故。但使教人一切同犯。第三有十戒。教人同不同。謂屏露二敷持衣與尼高床下七教人作。此於己有閨。是以同犯。若直教人於己無益但得輕愆。第四餘有六十八中六十七戒。自重教輕。足食一戒但自作業。第三遮性分別者。三十是性。余悉輕遮。其三十者。謂妄毀兩粗異嫌強牽用譏驅諫恐殺飲疑覆起說隨拒毀同欲悔聽打博謗。此等性惡。余並遮愆。第四持犯者。有十三戒。具二持犯。謂五雙三隻。如得羯磨。一雙說粗教誡。尼受功德衣復有一雙不犯。皆別囑受一入聚落作餘食法得無足食勸足七日盡形作口法受不犯。殘宿不受凈施。問主無其輒罪。如粗發露僧事與欲。此復三只。合十三戒。由聖開聽作其口法。若順聖教作口法竟作此十三而無罪過。名為作持。止持不作法。而身作事有違名為止犯。據作事邊複名作犯。此上止作二。犯業思體一而名是別。若止法止事名為止持。作持止持名體各別。亦可作法作事望作法邊即是作持。以作法故。縱作前事而無作犯。反卻作犯。豈非止持。此亦體一名異。餘七十七單持犯中不攝耳。一作持止犯。余止持作犯。如釋時不攝耳。一唯作持止犯。十三少分作持止犯。餘七十七及十三少分通論八十九止持作犯。犯時品別已如上辨。第五違制不同者。異語說欲及以二隨此違僧制
。余違佛制通如言之。並是佛制。但諸羯磨要須僧秉若不作此羯磨法作無所違。故言違僧製得罪。第六二部同異者。三種不同。一有三戒有無不同。謂輒教日暮譏教戒師大僧則有尼無可知。二有十三戒輕重不同。謂食三衣五坐一行三牙角針筒大僧便重。尼眾咸輕。多以大僧數故便重。尼希故輕。謂贊食勸足索美三與尼衣作及三過量是衣五。三有五戒。犯同緣異。謂皆請足食犯同而開緣不同亦可離合不同。與外道食犯。雖是同與緣不同。一減年受戒緣同不過量。浴衣生犯緣同緣不同。亦可名字不同。此等俱得提罪。名為犯同。緣有異故。下尼律云。別制不同之義。至文中解。余以同故。至尼法中直列戒本。此位言于中細論如覆藏僧寬尼狹或有竟界。翻到隨義有異。如兩舌毀呰二宿過五六語等反說可知第七任運者。前自他四位。第二第三教人犯中二十一戒。除屏露二敷餘十九戒容有任運。余未可知已下隨文別釋。
故妄語戒第一 一制意者。然出家之人理宜稱實。寧喪身命許無虛謬。今反違心背想。欺誑前人令他虛解自失。正利過患之甚。是以聖制 二釋名者。言不稱實。所以名妄。彰之在口曰語。無心不犯故。曰故妄語戒 三具緣通緣如上。別緣有六。一人。二作人想。三遣想說。四知違想語說。五口言了了。六
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：我違背了佛制，像如來說的那樣說。這些都是佛制。但是，所有的羯磨（kamma，業）都需要僧團來主持。如果不是按照羯磨法來做，就沒有什麼違背的。所以說違背僧制會獲罪。第六，二部（指比丘和比丘尼）的同異之處在於，有三種不同。一是三戒的有無不同。比如，輒教、日暮譏教、戒師、大僧，這些比丘有而比丘尼沒有，這是可以知道的。二是十三戒的輕重不同。比如，食、三衣、五坐、一行、三牙角針筒，大僧（比丘）犯了就重，尼眾（比丘尼）犯了就輕。多數情況下，因為大僧人數多所以就重，比丘尼稀少所以就輕。比如，贊食、勸足、索美、三與尼衣作以及三過量是衣五。三是有五戒，犯戒的緣由相同，但開緣不同。比如，都請足食犯戒相同，但開緣不同，也可以離合不同。與外道食犯戒，雖然是相同，但緣由不同。一是減年受戒緣由相同，但不過量。浴衣生犯緣由相同，但緣由不同。也可以名字不同。這些都可能構成提罪（tikiccha，懺悔），名為犯戒相同，但緣由有差異。下面的尼律（Bhikkhuni Patimokkha，比丘尼戒本）中說，別制的不同之處，在文中會解釋。其餘因為相同，所以在尼法中直接列出戒本。這個位置說的是，其中細論如覆藏僧寬尼狹或有竟界。翻到隨義有異。如兩舌毀呰二宿過五六語等反說可知第七任運者。前自他四位。第二第三教人犯中二十一戒。除屏露二敷餘十九戒容有任運。余未可知已下隨文別釋。 所以妄語戒第一。一、制意：出家之人理應誠實，寧可喪失生命，也不應有虛假。現在反而違背內心所想，欺騙他人，使他人產生錯誤的理解，自己也失去正當的利益，過患非常嚴重。因此，佛制定了這條戒律。二、釋名：言語不符合事實，所以稱為『妄』。通過口說出來，稱為『語』。無心之過不構成犯戒，所以稱為『故妄語戒』。三、具緣：通緣如上所述。別緣有六：一是人；二是作人想；三是遣想說；四是知違想語說；五是口言了了；六。
【English Translation】 English version: I violate the Buddha's precepts and speak as the Tathagata (如來) said. These are all Buddha's precepts. However, all Kamma (羯磨, action, deed) must be presided over by the Sangha (僧, monastic community). If it is not done according to the Kamma method, there is nothing to violate. Therefore, it is said that violating the Sangha's precepts will incur offenses. Sixth, the similarities and differences between the two groups (referring to Bhikkhus (比丘, monks) and Bhikkhunis (比丘尼, nuns)) lie in three differences. One is the difference in the presence or absence of the three precepts. For example, '輒教' (teaching without permission), '日暮譏教' (criticizing teaching at dusk), '戒師' (preceptor), and '大僧' (senior monks) are present for Bhikkhus but not for Bhikkhunis, which is knowable. Second, there are differences in the severity of the thirteen precepts. For example, '食' (eating), '三衣' (three robes), '五坐' (five sitting cloths), '一行' (one practice), '三牙角針筒' (three ivory, horn, and needle cases), are considered serious offenses for Bhikkhus but light offenses for Bhikkhunis. In most cases, because there are more Bhikkhus, the offense is considered serious, while because there are fewer Bhikkhunis, the offense is considered light. For example, '贊食' (praising food), '勸足' (encouraging enough), '索美' (asking for delicacies), '三與尼衣作' (three making robes for nuns), and '三過量是衣五' (three excessive amounts are five robes). Third, there are five precepts where the causes of offenses are the same, but the opening conditions are different. For example, both '請足食' (inviting enough food) have the same offense, but the opening conditions are different, and they can also be separated or combined differently. Eating with outsiders is an offense, although it is the same, but the causes are different. One is that the cause of receiving ordination with a reduced age is the same, but it is not excessive. The cause of bathing robe arising is the same, but the causes are different. The names may also be different. All of these can constitute a Tikiccha (提罪, expiation), called the same offense, but the causes are different. The Bhikkhuni Patimokkha (尼律, nuns' precepts) below says that the differences in separate regulations will be explained in the text. The rest are the same, so the precepts are directly listed in the Bhikkhuni Dharma. This position says that the detailed discussion is like covering up, with the Sangha being lenient and the nuns being strict, or there may be a boundary. Turning to the meaning varies. For example, '兩舌' (divisive speech), '毀呰' (criticism), '二宿過五六語' (spending two nights exceeding five or six words), etc., can be understood by reverse explanation. Seventh, '任運' (spontaneous action) refers to the previous four positions of self and others. The second and third teach people to violate twenty-one precepts. Except for the two coverings of '屏露' (seclusion and exposure), the remaining nineteen precepts may have spontaneous actions. The rest is unknown and will be explained separately according to the text below. Therefore, the first precept is against false speech. 1. The intention of the precept: Those who have left home should be truthful. It is better to lose one's life than to have falsehoods. Now, on the contrary, one goes against what one thinks in one's heart, deceiving others, causing them to have wrong understandings, and losing one's own proper benefits, which is a very serious fault. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept. 2. Explanation of the name: Words that do not conform to the facts are called 'falsehood' (妄). Speaking through the mouth is called 'speech' (語). An unintentional mistake does not constitute an offense, so it is called the 'precept against intentional false speech' (故妄語戒). 3. Conditions: The general conditions are as described above. The specific conditions are six: one is a person; two is the thought of a person; three is the thought of sending a message; four is knowing the violation and thinking of speaking; five is clear speech; six.
前人聞知 四闕緣。比說可知。多論妄語兩舌惡口歷作四句。或有是妄語非兩舌非惡口。傳他語時。以不實故是妄語。不分離心非兩舌。軟語說故非惡口。第二是妄語是兩舌非惡口。不實故是妄。分離心故是兩舌。軟語說故非惡口。第三是妄是惡口非兩舌。第四具有三。下毀呰兩舌作法亦有四句。類說可知。已下正明本。此戒因象力比丘善能談論與外道。議前後語異。梵志譏嫌。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘知而妄語者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一者犯人。二故妄語。三違制結犯。初句可知。第二言知而妄語者。于中文三。一明妄語境。二辯誑人犯義。三前後方便多少。言妄語境者。有其八種。一見言不見。二聞言不聞。三觸言不觸。四知言不知。餘四反上可知。此是妄語境。言第二犯語者。眼見者識能見知者。乃至意能知。不見者除眼識。餘五識是類反。言第三方便多少者。于中有四。初三時有心本作妄語。念時憶是妄語。語已知是妄語。第二第三各有兩句。二時有心一時無心。第四一句三時無心。第三言波逸提者。犯名。若三時有心妄語者。皆得根本提罪。次有兩句。二時有心一時無心者。未句根本。有心前後無心。此四亦提。前後有心根本。無心前一有心后二無心。后一有心前二無心。此三得吉。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 先前的人聽聞並瞭解了四種缺緣的情況。通過比較說明就可以明白。關於妄語、兩舌、惡口的討論，可以列出四種情況。或者有的是妄語，但不是兩舌，也不是惡口。在轉述別人的話時，因為不真實所以是妄語，沒有離間他人之心所以不是兩舌，用柔和的語言說所以不是惡口。第二種是妄語，是兩舌，但不是惡口。因為不真實所以是妄語，因為有離間之心所以是兩舌，用柔和的語言說所以不是惡口。第三種是妄語，是惡口，但不是兩舌。第四種是同時具備這三種。接下來，譭謗和兩舌的作法也有四種情況，可以類比說明。以下正式闡明戒律的根本。這條戒律的起因是象力（Ejakti，比丘名）比丘善於談論，與外道辯論時前後言語不一致，梵志（Brahmin，指婆羅門）譏諷嫌棄，比丘舉出他的過失，佛陀因此制定了這條戒律。
『若比丘知而妄語者，波逸提』（Pacittiya，一種罪名）。這條完整的戒律正文有三句話。一是犯戒的人，二是故意妄語，三是違背戒律而結罪。第一句可以理解。第二句『知而妄語者』，其中又分為三點。一是說明妄語的對境，二是辨別欺騙他人的犯戒含義，三是前後方便的多少。說到妄語的對境，有八種情況。一是見到說沒見到，二是聽到說沒聽到，三是接觸到說沒接觸到，四是知道說不知道。其餘四種與以上相反，可以類比得知。這些是妄語的對境。說到第二點犯語者，眼睛見到的，意識能夠見到的，乃至意根能夠知道的。沒見到的，除了眼識，其餘五識是同類反例。說到第三點方便多少，其中有四種情況。最初三種是三個時段都有心而作妄語，念頭產生時憶起這是妄語，說話時已經知道這是妄語。第二種和第三種各有兩種情況，即兩個時段有心，一個時段無心。第四種是一種情況，即三個時段都無心。第三句說到『波逸提』，是罪名的名稱。如果三個時段都有心而妄語，都會得到根本的『提罪』（Thullaccaya，一種罪名）。其次有兩種情況，即兩個時段有心，一個時段無心，未完成句子是根本罪。有心在前，無心在後，這四種情況也是『提罪』。前後有心是根本罪。無心在前，一個時段有心，后兩個時段無心；后一個時段有心，前兩個時段無心。這三種情況得到『吉』（Sukha，指免罪）。
【English Translation】 English version The former people heard and understood the four missing conditions. It can be understood by comparison and explanation. Regarding the discussion of false speech, divisive speech, and harsh speech, four situations can be listed. Or there is false speech, but it is not divisive speech, nor is it harsh speech. When relaying other people's words, because it is not true, it is false speech; there is no intention to alienate others, so it is not divisive speech; it is spoken in a gentle language, so it is not harsh speech. The second type is false speech, it is divisive speech, but it is not harsh speech. Because it is not true, it is false speech; because there is an intention to alienate, it is divisive speech; it is spoken in a gentle language, so it is not harsh speech. The third type is false speech, it is harsh speech, but it is not divisive speech. The fourth type possesses all three. Next, there are also four situations for slander and divisive speech, which can be explained by analogy. The following formally clarifies the root of the precepts. The cause of this precept is that the Bhikkhu Ejakti (name of a Bhikkhu), who was good at speaking, had inconsistent words before and after arguing with outsiders. The Brahmin (Brahmin, referring to the Brahmins) ridiculed and disliked him, and the Bhikkhu pointed out his faults, so the Buddha formulated this precept.
『If a Bhikkhu knowingly speaks falsely, it is a Pacittiya (a type of offense).』 This complete precept text has three sentences. The first is the person who violates the precept, the second is intentionally speaking falsely, and the third is incurring guilt for violating the precept. The first sentence can be understood. The second sentence, 『knowingly speaks falsely,』 is further divided into three points. The first is to explain the object of false speech, the second is to distinguish the meaning of committing an offense by deceiving others, and the third is the amount of prior and subsequent means. Speaking of the object of false speech, there are eight situations. The first is seeing and saying not seeing, the second is hearing and saying not hearing, the third is touching and saying not touching, and the fourth is knowing and saying not knowing. The remaining four are the opposite of the above, which can be understood by analogy. These are the objects of false speech. Speaking of the second point, the offender, what the eye sees, what the consciousness can see, and even what the mind root can know. What is not seen, except for eye consciousness, the remaining five consciousnesses are similar counterexamples. Speaking of the third point, the amount of means, there are four situations. The first three are intentionally making false speech in three time periods, recalling that it is false speech when the thought arises, and already knowing that it is false speech when speaking. The second and third each have two situations, that is, having intention in two time periods and no intention in one time period. The fourth is one situation, that is, having no intention in all three time periods. The third sentence speaks of 『Pacittiya,』 which is the name of the offense. If one intentionally speaks falsely in three time periods, one will receive the fundamental 『Thullaccaya (a type of offense).』 Next, there are two situations, that is, having intention in two time periods and no intention in one time period, the unfinished sentence is the fundamental offense. Having intention before and no intention after, these four situations are also 『Thullaccaya.』 Having intention before and after is the fundamental offense. Having no intention before, having intention in one time period, and having no intention in the last two time periods; having intention in the last time period and having no intention in the first two time periods. These three situations receive 『Sukha (referring to acquittal).』
如律廣說。第四一句三時無心悉皆不犯。又律云。所見異所忍異所欲異所觸異所想異所心異。如此諸事皆是妄語。言所見異者。行心之中見於虎狼。言見佛像是。言所忍異者。領納違境安心苦受。名之為忍。對他樂受異。本所忍故曰所忍異。言所欲者。緣于財色悕須名欲。即言欲得聞法故曰所欲異。言所觸異者。坐禪行中實得冷觸。言得熱觸。是名熱觸異。言所想異者。無生異怨想。言有親想故曰也。言所心異者。行心緣此益。言緣彼故云所心異。皆得提罪。又律云。說戒時乃至三問。憶念有罪。而不發露者犯默妄吉羅。僧祇屠兒等逐畜生問言見不不得。妄語不得。爾處應問餘事。乃至看自指甲應方便引接。令畜生遠去。如是方便無犯。十誦若語高性人云。是下性者犯墮。若語兩眼人云。如一眼得妄語提。又輕惱比丘故提。若語一眼人云。汝是瞎眼人得輕惱他罪。又明五種妄語。從夷至吉是。今約此戒因果三種。若起心欲誑前人得責吉。若發言前人未解得對首吉。若言了前人解即得提罪。不犯中。律云。但稱想說。見言見。不見言不見。乃至知等八種皆爾。若意有見想便說者皆不犯。
毀呰戒第二 一制意者。然夫人之法宜出善言。遞相讚歎令彼歡喜勇進修道。反以下賤之言形呰。前人令彼慚愧。廢修正業。傷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如律廣說。（具體內容參照戒律的詳細解釋） 第四句說，在三種情況下（過去、現在、未來）無心的情況下，都不會觸犯戒律。另外，戒律中說：『所見不同，所忍不同，所欲不同，所觸不同，所想不同，所心不同。』 像這些情況都屬於妄語。 『言所見異者』，指的是在修行過程中，心裡明明看到的是虎狼，卻說看到的是佛像。 『言所忍異者』，指的是內心明明領受的是違逆之境帶來的痛苦感受，這稱為『忍』，卻說自己感受的是快樂，這與原本所忍受的不同，所以說是『所忍異』。 『言所欲者』，指的是內心貪戀財色，希望得到，這稱為『欲』，卻說自己只想聽聞佛法，所以說是『所欲異』。 『言所觸異者』，指的是在坐禪修行中，實際感受到的是寒冷，卻說感受到的是溫暖，這就叫做『熱觸異』。 『言所想異者』，指的是明明對眾生沒有慈悲心，卻說有慈悲心，所以說是『所想異』。 『言所心異者』，指的是修行時內心明明緣于這個有益的事情，卻說緣于另外的事情，所以說是『所心異』。這些情況都會構成提罪（Thullaccaya，一種較輕的罪）。 另外，戒律中說，在說戒的時候，即使問了三次，如果憶念起自己有罪，卻不坦白承認，就會犯默妄吉羅（Dukkata，一種輕罪）。 《僧祇律》（Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya）中說，屠夫等人追逐牲畜，問它們『你看見了嗎？』，如果說了妄語，也是不允許的。在這種情況下，應該問其他的事情，甚至可以看看自己的指甲，用方便的方法引導，讓牲畜遠離。像這樣用方便的方法，就不會犯戒。 《十誦律》（Daśabhāṇavāra Vinaya）中說，如果對高種姓的人說，『你是低種姓的人』，就會犯墮罪（Pāṭayantika，一種較重的罪）。如果對雙眼健全的人說，『你像獨眼人一樣』，就會因為妄語而犯提罪。 另外，如果因為輕視惱怒比丘而說妄語，也會犯提罪。如果對獨眼人說，『你是瞎眼人』，就會犯輕惱他人的罪。 另外，明確了五種妄語，從夷罪（Parajika，最重的罪）到吉羅罪（Dukkata，最輕的罪）都有。現在根據這條戒律，從因、果、三種情況來分析：如果內心生起欺騙他人的念頭，就會犯責吉羅罪（Dukkata，一種輕罪）；如果說出了口，但對方沒有理解，就會犯對首吉羅罪（Dukkata，一種輕罪）；如果說出口，對方也理解了，就會犯提罪。 不犯戒的情況，戒律中說，只要是如實地陳述自己的想法，『見到就說見到，沒見到就說沒見到』，乃至『知道』等八種情況都是如此。如果心裡確實有這樣的想法，並且如實說出來，就不算犯戒。
毀呰戒第二（這條戒律是關於禁止詆譭他人的） 一、制意：一般來說，出家人的言語應該善良，互相讚歎，使對方歡喜，勇猛精進地修行。反過來，如果用惡毒的言語詆譭他人，使對方感到慚愧，從而放棄修行，傷害...
【English Translation】 English version: As explained extensively in the Vinaya (rules of discipline). (Refer to the detailed explanations of the precepts for specific content). The fourth sentence states that in three instances (past, present, future) where there is no intention, there is no violation of the precept. Furthermore, the Vinaya states: 'What is seen is different, what is endured is different, what is desired is different, what is touched is different, what is thought is different, what is intended is different.' Such matters are all considered false speech. 'What is seen is different' refers to, during the practice, seeing tigers and wolves in the mind, but saying that one sees images of the Buddha. 'What is endured is different' refers to inwardly experiencing the suffering arising from adverse circumstances, which is called 'endurance,' but saying that one is experiencing pleasure. This is different from what is actually being endured, hence 'what is endured is different.' 'What is desired' refers to being attached to wealth and sensual pleasures, hoping to obtain them, which is called 'desire,' but saying that one only desires to hear the Dharma, hence 'what is desired is different.' 'What is touched is different' refers to actually feeling cold during meditation, but saying that one feels warmth, which is called 'different warm touch'. 'What is thought is different' refers to not having compassion for sentient beings, but saying that one has compassion, hence 'what is thought is different.' 'What is intended is different' refers to, during practice, the mind being focused on something beneficial, but saying that it is focused on something else, hence 'what is intended is different.' These situations all constitute a Thullaccaya offense (a minor offense). Furthermore, the Vinaya states that during the recitation of the precepts, even if asked three times, if one remembers having committed an offense but does not confess it, one commits a Dukkata offense (a minor offense) of silent falsehood. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states that if butchers and others chasing livestock ask them, 'Did you see?', it is not permissible to lie. In such cases, one should ask about other matters, or even look at one's own fingernails, using skillful means to guide the livestock away. Using such skillful means, there is no offense. The Daśabhāṇavāra Vinaya states that if one says to a person of high caste, 'You are of low caste,' one commits a Pāṭayantika offense (a serious offense). If one says to a person with two good eyes, 'You are like a one-eyed person,' one commits a Thullaccaya offense due to false speech. Furthermore, if one speaks falsely out of contempt or anger towards a Bhikkhu, one also commits a Thullaccaya offense. If one says to a one-eyed person, 'You are a blind person,' one commits the offense of insulting another. Furthermore, it clarifies five types of false speech, ranging from Parajika (the most serious offense) to Dukkata (the least serious offense). Now, according to this precept, we analyze it from the perspectives of cause, effect, and three situations: if the intention to deceive another arises in the mind, one commits a Dukkata offense; if it is spoken but the other person does not understand, one commits a Dukkata offense; if it is spoken and the other person understands, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. Regarding situations where there is no offense, the Vinaya states that as long as one truthfully states one's thoughts, 'If one sees, one says one sees; if one does not see, one says one does not see,' and so on for eight situations including 'knowing.' If one truly has such thoughts and speaks truthfully, it is not considered an offense.
The Second Precept Against Slander (This precept is about prohibiting the disparagement of others) 1. The Intention of the Rule: Generally speaking, the words of renunciants should be kind, praising each other, making the other happy, and encouraging them to diligently practice. Conversely, if one uses malicious words to disparage others, causing them to feel ashamed, thereby abandoning their practice, harming...
初人心甚於劍割。惱處不輕故。所以聖制 別緣有六。一大比丘。十誦五分毀下四眾皆吉。二是毀呰語。三知是毀呰語。四作折辱意。五言章了了。六前人聞知。此毀語亦有四句。比前而說。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群比丘。斷事種類罵彼。忘失前後慚愧不語。比丘舉過。佛引古牛以譬畜生得毀不堪進力等。便制此戒。
若比丘種類毀呰語者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二毀語。三結犯。初句可知。言種類毀呰者。于中有二。初引六惡法。次明所罵事。言六惡者如律中說種類。一種卑。二性卑。三業卑。四相貌卑。五犯過卑。六結使卑。言種卑者。汝是卑家生。言性卑者 汝是下姓人。言業卑者。汝是伎術工巧人。言相貌卑者。汝是盲瞎等人。言犯過卑者。汝是犯過人。言結使卑者。汝是多結使人。第二所罵事者有三。一若面罵。二喻罵。三自比罵。言面罵者。汝是除糞家生等是。言喻罵者。汝似除糞種等。言自比罵者。我非除糞種。乃至我非販賣殺牛羊跛躄人等。又作善法罵亦三種。面罵者。汝是阿蘭若坐禪等人。餘二例知。第三句言波逸提者。是結罪文。于輕重有二。一以六種惡法罵比丘者皆得提罪。二以善法三種罵者悉犯吉羅。就惡法罵中。若罵比丘及父母者得提罪。若罵和上阇梨得蘭。若罵
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 剛開始修行的人，內心很容易像被劍割一樣痛苦。因為煩惱不容易輕易消除。所以佛制定了戒律，特別說明了六種因緣：第一，如果一位大比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教出家男眾），依據《十誦律》（Daśabhāṇavāra-vinaya）或《五分律》（Mahāvastu）譭謗、貶低其他四眾弟子（比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞、優婆夷）都是可以的。第二是毀呰語（khijjā，責罵、輕蔑的言語）。第三是明知那是毀呰語。第四是帶有折辱對方的意圖。第五是言語表達清晰完整。第六是對方能夠聽懂理解。這種毀呰語也有四種情況，可以參照前面的說明來理解。以下正式闡明戒本（prātimokṣa，戒律的根本）。這條戒律的起因是六群比丘（chabbaggiya，指六個行為不端的比丘），在處理事務時用各種方式辱罵他人，忘記了慚愧，不肯認錯。有比丘指出他們的過錯，佛陀便引用古時候的牛來比喻，說畜生如果被毀壞了，就不能再努力耕田了。因此制定了這條戒律。
『如果比丘用各種方式說毀呰語，犯波逸提（pācittiya，一種輕罪）。』這條完整的戒本有三句話：一是犯戒的人，二是毀呰語，三是判罪。第一句很容易理解。所謂『種類毀呰』，其中包含兩方面：首先是引用六種惡法，其次是說明所罵的事情。所說的六種惡法，就像律中說的那樣，包括：一是種姓卑賤，二是性格卑賤，三是職業卑賤，四是相貌卑賤，五是犯過卑賤，六是煩惱卑賤。所謂種姓卑賤，就是說『你是卑賤家庭出生的』。所謂性格卑賤，就是說『你是下等人』。所謂職業卑賤，就是說『你是從事伎藝或工巧的』。所謂相貌卑賤，就是說『你是盲人或瞎子』等等。所謂犯過卑賤，就是說『你是犯過錯誤的人』。所謂煩惱卑賤，就是說『你是有很多煩惱的人』。第二方面，所罵的事情有三種：一是當面罵，二是比喻罵，三是自比罵。所謂當面罵，就是說『你是從倒糞人家裡出生的』等等。所謂比喻罵，就是說『你像倒糞的種』等等。所謂自比罵，就是說『我不是倒糞的種』，乃至『我不是販賣、宰殺牛羊或瘸腿的人』等等。用善法來罵人也有三種，當面罵就是說『你是住在阿蘭若（arañña，寂靜處）坐禪的人』等等。其餘兩種可以類推得知。第三句話說『犯波逸提』，是判罪的語句。對於罪的輕重有兩種情況：一是用六種惡法罵比丘，都犯提罪（即波逸提）。二是用三種善法罵人，都犯吉羅（dukkata，一種更輕的罪）。在用惡法罵人中，如果罵比丘及父母，得提罪。如果罵和尚（upādhyāya，親教師）或阿阇梨（ācārya，軌範師），得蘭罪（sthūlātyaya，一種中等罪）。
【English Translation】 English version: The mind of a beginner is more easily hurt than being cut by a sword. Because afflictions are not easily eliminated. Therefore, the Buddha established precepts, specifically outlining six conditions: First, if a Bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) according to the Daśabhāṇavāra-vinaya or the Mahāvastu, slanders or belittles the other four assemblies (Bhikkhus, Bhikkhunis, Upāsakas, Upāsikās), it is permissible. Second is khijjā (abusive language, contemptuous speech). Third is knowing that it is khijjā. Fourth is having the intention to humiliate the other person. Fifth is expressing the words clearly and completely. Sixth is that the other person can understand. This kind of khijjā also has four situations, which can be understood by referring to the previous explanation. The following formally clarifies the prātimokṣa (the fundamental precepts). The origin of this precept is that the Chabbaggiya (group of six misbehaving monks) used various ways to insult others when handling affairs, forgetting shame and refusing to admit their mistakes. When a Bhikkhu pointed out their faults, the Buddha used the analogy of an old ox, saying that if a livestock is damaged, it can no longer work hard in the fields. Therefore, this precept was established.
'If a Bhikkhu uses various ways to speak abusive language, he commits a pācittiya (a minor offense).' This complete precept has three sentences: First, the offender; second, the abusive language; third, the judgment of the offense. The first sentence is easy to understand. The so-called 'abusive language by kind' includes two aspects: First, citing six evil dharmas; second, explaining the matters being cursed. The six evil dharmas, as mentioned in the Vinaya, include: First, low birth; second, low nature; third, low occupation; fourth, low appearance; fifth, low offense; sixth, low afflictions. Low birth means saying 'You are born from a lowly family.' Low nature means saying 'You are a low-class person.' Low occupation means saying 'You are engaged in performing arts or craftsmanship.' Low appearance means saying 'You are blind or blind,' and so on. Low offense means saying 'You are a person who has committed offenses.' Low afflictions means saying 'You are a person with many afflictions.' The second aspect, the matters being cursed, has three types: First, cursing face to face; second, cursing by analogy; third, cursing by self-comparison. Cursing face to face means saying 'You are born from a family that removes excrement,' and so on. Cursing by analogy means saying 'You are like the kind that removes excrement,' and so on. Cursing by self-comparison means saying 'I am not the kind that removes excrement,' and even 'I am not a person who sells, slaughters cattle and sheep, or is lame,' and so on. Cursing with good dharmas also has three types, cursing face to face means saying 'You are a person who lives in arañña (secluded place) and meditates,' and so on. The other two can be inferred. The third sentence says 'commits a pācittiya,' which is the statement of judgment. There are two situations regarding the severity of the offense: First, using the six evil dharmas to curse a Bhikkhu, all commit a thullaccaya (pācittiya). Second, using the three good dharmas to curse people, all commit a dukkata (a lighter offense). Among cursing with evil dharmas, if cursing a Bhikkhu and his parents, one commits a thullaccaya (pācittiya). If cursing an upādhyāya (preceptor) or ācārya (teacher), one commits a sthūlātyaya (a medium offense).
親罵親友同學等吉。毗尼云。比罵外更加是中有如是人亦犯。謂小姓比丘與大姓者同住。云此中有小姓比丘。不犯者。律云。若為相利故說。為法故說。為律故說。為教授故說。為親友故說。或喜笑或因語。次或失口或觸處說。或誤說。皆不犯。
兩舌語戒第三 制意。夫出家同住無心生別。專構私屏。傳於彼此。令僧未有諍事。而生已有諍事不可除滅。聞亂僧眾惱懷處重。是故聖制 別緣有六。一善大比丘。除餘眾及破僧助伴等。二說鄙惡事。三傳於彼此。四作離意。五言章了了。六前人文知。論云。斗亂大比丘提。餘眾罪輕。以斗比丘容有別部。破僧事起為斯故重。亦有四句。比說可知。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群傳他彼此。令眾斗諍。不能除滅。比丘舉過。佛引野干斗諍二獸。況復於人。便為制戒。
若比丘兩舌語者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二兩舌。三結罪。初句可知。二言兩舌語者。斗亂兩頭令他破也。故律云。斗亂十眾。出家五眾在家亦爾。三言波逸提者。是結犯文。律云。若斗亂比丘者犯提。餘九悉輕。祇云。以惡法告言某甲說。汝是無有上中下法。欲令他離。若彼離不離皆墮。多論說以更說墮。若不傳彼此語。但兩邊說合離散者一切吉羅。不犯中。律云。若破惡知識惡伴黨
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 辱罵親戚、朋友、同學等是允許的。根據《毗尼》（Vinaya，戒律）的說法，辱罵僧侶比辱罵外人罪過更重。如果有人這樣做，也算犯戒。例如，一個小姓（種姓低的）比丘與一個大姓（種姓高的）比丘同住，說『這裡有個小姓比丘』，這不算犯戒。律典中說，如果是爲了互相利益而說，爲了佛法而說，爲了戒律而說，爲了教授而說，爲了親友而說，或者因為嬉笑，或者因為說話，或者失口，或者觸及痛處而說，或者誤說，都不算犯戒。 兩舌語戒第三：制定此戒的目的是，出家人同住，不應心生隔閡，私下製造隔閡，在彼此之間搬弄是非，導致僧團本來沒有爭端，卻因此產生爭端，而且無法消除。聽到擾亂僧眾的事情，內心感到沉重。因此，佛陀制定此戒。 別緣有六種：一是善良的大比丘（Bhikkhu，比丘），排除其他大眾以及破壞僧團的助伴等；二是說鄙俗惡劣的事情；三是在彼此之間傳話；四是製造離間之意；五是言語表達清晰；六是前面的人明白。論中說，挑撥離間大比丘的罪過較重，挑撥離間其他大眾的罪過較輕。因為挑撥離間比丘可能會導致分裂僧團，所以罪過更重。也有四種情況，可以根據情況判斷。下面正式說明戒本。此戒是因為六群比丘（Six Groups of Monks）在彼此之間搬弄是非，導致大眾爭鬥，無法消除。比丘舉出過失，佛陀引用野干（jackal）爭鬥兩獸的例子，更何況是人呢？因此制定此戒。 『若比丘兩舌語者，波逸提（Pācittiya，一種罪名）』。這句戒文完整，有三部分：一是犯戒的人；二是兩舌；三是結罪。第一句容易理解。第二句『兩舌語者』，是指挑撥離間，使他人破裂。所以律典中說，挑撥離間十種人，出家五眾，在家亦是如此。第三句『波逸提』，是結罪的文句。律典中說，如果挑撥離間比丘，就犯提（Thullaccaya，一種罪名），其餘九種情況罪過較輕。《祇》（祇夜經）中說，用惡法告發，說某甲說你沒有上中下法，想要使他離開，如果他離開或不離開，都墮罪。《多論》（《薩婆多毗尼毗婆沙》）說，如果重複說，就墮罪。如果不傳彼此的話，只是在兩邊說，使他們合離散，一切都犯吉羅（Dukkata，一種輕罪）。不犯的情況，律典中說，如果是爲了破除惡知識、惡伴黨。
【English Translation】 English version It is permissible to scold relatives, friends, classmates, etc. According to the Vinaya (discipline), scolding a monk is a more serious offense than scolding an outsider. If someone does this, it is also considered a violation. For example, if a Bhikkhu (monk) of a lower caste lives with a Bhikkhu of a higher caste and says, 'There is a Bhikkhu of a lower caste here,' this is not considered a violation. The Vinaya states that if it is said for mutual benefit, for the sake of the Dharma (teachings), for the sake of the Vinaya, for the sake of instruction, for the sake of friends, or because of jesting, or because of speaking, or a slip of the tongue, or touching a sore spot, or a mistake, it is not considered a violation. The Third Precept Against Divisive Speech: The purpose of establishing this precept is that when renunciates live together, they should not harbor alienation, privately create discord, and gossip between each other, causing disputes in the Sangha (monastic community) that did not exist before, and making it impossible to eliminate them. Hearing about disturbances in the Sangha causes heaviness in the heart. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept. There are six separate conditions: First, a virtuous great Bhikkhu, excluding other assemblies and those who assist in destroying the Sangha; second, speaking of vulgar and evil matters; third, conveying words between each other; fourth, creating the intention of discord; fifth, the words are clearly expressed; sixth, the person in front understands. The commentary says that inciting great Bhikkhus is a heavier offense, while inciting other assemblies is a lighter offense. Because inciting Bhikkhus may lead to the division of the Sangha, the offense is more serious. There are also four situations that can be judged according to the circumstances. The precept itself is explained below. This precept is because the Six Groups of Monks gossiped between each other, causing the assembly to fight and unable to eliminate the disputes. When a Bhikkhu pointed out the fault, the Buddha cited the example of jackals fighting, let alone humans? Therefore, this precept was established. 'If a Bhikkhu engages in divisive speech, it is a Pācittiya (an offense requiring confession)'. This precept is complete and has three parts: first, the person who commits the offense; second, divisive speech; third, the conclusion of the offense. The first sentence is easy to understand. The second sentence, 'engages in divisive speech,' refers to inciting discord and causing others to break apart. Therefore, the Vinaya states that inciting ten types of people, the five assemblies of renunciates, and those at home are the same. The third sentence, 'Pācittiya,' is the concluding sentence of the offense. The Vinaya states that if one incites a Bhikkhu, one commits a Thullaccaya (a serious offense), and the other nine situations are lighter offenses. The Gī (Gīyatthasutta) says that if one accuses with evil Dharma, saying that so-and-so said that you do not have the upper, middle, and lower Dharma, wanting to make him leave, whether he leaves or does not leave, he falls into offense. The Abhidharma (Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā) says that if one repeats the statement, one falls into offense. If one does not convey words between each other, but only speaks on both sides, causing them to unite and disperse, everything is a Dukkata (a minor offense). In the case of non-violation, the Vinaya states that if it is for the purpose of breaking away from evil knowledge and evil companions.
。和上同師親友知識。于僧塔廟作無利。欲方便作無義。破如是人者。一切無犯。
共女人同室宿戒第四 制意者。男女形殊理無同居。境界交涉容生穢染。又致譏丑。莫能自拔患累不輕。是故聖制 別緣有五。一是人女。二室相成就。三共同室宿。四知共宿。五隨臥轉側結罪。言人女者。四五二律局取人女人。簡余女簡異男等。但是人女不問道俗親疏大小。五分乃至初生具除死女也。祇云。十二律通三趣女。謂祇中雲。母女姊妹大小道俗咸是犯境。十律云。三趣女共宿並犯。若駝馬牛羊。若臥若立等。鵝鷹孔雀鷂等。若一腳立頭置頂上即名宿犯。乃至他舍有女人。客貓子處宿亦犯。四知共同宿者。但知宿即犯。不同二行。要須共期方犯。五分若母女姊妹近親病。若有知界自伴不臥皆不犯。此律下開自病不犯。對此病開亦應立緣。已下正明戒本。此戒因阿那律行路至淫女舍宿。被女嬈。尊者升在虛空中。彼慚愧懺悔。說法得道。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘與女人同室宿者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二女人。三同室宿。四結犯。初句可知。第二言與女人者。律云。人女有知命根不斷。三言室宿者。室有四種。一四周障上有覆。即同在一堂內。中有隔者準論不合。二前敞無壁。即長行房擔下
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：和與自己一樣的老師、親友、知識（指有學問的人）。在僧人的塔廟裡做沒有利益的事情。想要方便卻做了沒有意義的事情。破斥這樣的人，一切都沒有罪過。
共女人同室宿戒第四：制定的意義在於，男女形體不同，道理上不應同居。境界交涉容易產生污穢染著，又會導致譏諷醜陋，不能自拔，禍患牽累不輕。因此聖人制定此戒。
別的原因有五種：一是人女，二是房間條件具備，三是共同在房間里住宿，四是知道共同住宿，五是隨著臥倒、轉身而結罪。說『人女』，四分律、五分律只取人道女人，排除其他道的女子，排除異性男子等。只要是人道女子，不論是出家在家、親疏大小，五分律乃至剛出生、已去世的女子都包括在內。祇洹律云，十二種律都包括三惡道女子。祇洹律中說，母親、女兒、姐妹，無論大小、出家在家，都是犯戒的對象。十誦律說，和三惡道女子同宿都犯戒。如果是駝、馬、牛、羊，無論是臥還是立等。鵝、鷹、孔雀、鷂等，如果一隻腳站立，頭放在頂上，也算犯戒。乃至在別人家有女人的地方，在寄養的小貓處住宿也犯戒。四是知道共同住宿，只要知道住宿就犯戒，不同於前兩條，需要共同約定才犯戒。五分律說，如果是母親、女兒、姐妹等近親生病，如果有知事人陪伴而不一起睡覺，都不算犯戒。此律下文開許自己生病不犯戒。對此生病開許也應該立一個緣由。以下正式說明戒本。此戒的起因是阿那律（Anuruddha，佛陀十大弟子之一）行路到**舍住宿，被女子調戲。尊者升到虛空中，女子慚愧懺悔，說法后得道。比丘們舉發此事，佛陀便制定此戒。
若比丘與女人同室宿者，波逸提（Pācittiya，一種輕罪）：此滿足戒本文有四句。一是犯戒者，二是女人，三是同室住宿，四是結罪。第一句可知。第二句說『與女人』，律中說，人道女子有知覺，命根不斷。三句說『室宿』，房間有四種：一是四周有墻壁，上面有覆蓋，即同在一個堂內，中間有隔斷的，按照論典不符合條件。二是前面敞開沒有墻壁，即長長的房屋，在屋檐下。
【English Translation】 English version: With the same teachers, relatives, and knowledgeable friends. To do unprofitable things in the stupas and temples of monks. To desire convenience but do meaningless things. To refute such people, there is no offense at all.
The Fourth Precept on Sleeping in the Same Room with a Woman: The reason for its establishment is that men and women have different forms, and it is unreasonable to live together. Interactions easily lead to defilement and attachment, and can also lead to ridicule and ugliness, making it impossible to extricate oneself, and the troubles are not light. Therefore, the Holy One established this precept.
There are five separate reasons: First, a human woman; second, the room conditions are met; third, cohabiting in the same room; fourth, knowing about cohabitation; and fifth, incurring guilt by lying down and turning over. 'Human woman' means that the Four-Part Vinaya and Five-Part Vinaya only take women of the human realm, excluding women of other realms and excluding heterosexual men, etc. As long as it is a woman of the human realm, regardless of whether she is ordained or lay, close or distant, young or old, the Five-Part Vinaya even includes newly born and deceased women. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says that the twelve Vinayas all include women of the three evil realms. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says that mothers, daughters, and sisters, whether young or old, ordained or lay, are all objects of offense. The Ten Recitation Vinaya says that cohabiting with women of the three evil realms is an offense. If it is a camel, horse, cow, or sheep, whether lying down or standing, etc. Geese, eagles, peacocks, hawks, etc., if standing on one foot with the head on top, it is considered an offense. Even sleeping in another person's house where there is a woman, or sleeping where there is a fostered kitten, is also an offense. Fourth, knowing about cohabitation, as long as one knows about the cohabitation, it is an offense, unlike the previous two, which require a mutual agreement to be an offense. The Five-Part Vinaya says that if a mother, daughter, or sister is sick, and if there is a knowledgeable person accompanying them without sleeping together, it is not an offense. The text below this precept allows for not being an offense when one is sick oneself. This allowance for sickness should also establish a reason. The following formally explains the precept itself. The origin of this precept is that Ānanda (Anuruddha, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) traveled to **'s house and was harassed by a woman. The Venerable One ascended into the void, and the woman was ashamed and repented, and attained enlightenment after hearing the Dharma. The monks reported this matter, and the Buddha established this precept.
If a bhikkhu sleeps in the same room with a woman, it is a Pācittiya (Pācittiya, a minor offense): This complete precept text has four clauses. First, the offender; second, the woman; third, cohabitation in the same room; and fourth, incurring guilt. The first clause is self-explanatory. The second clause says 'with a woman,' and the Vinaya says that a woman of the human realm has consciousness and her life force is not interrupted. The third clause says 'room,' and there are four types of rooms: First, surrounded by walls and covered above, that is, in the same hall, and if there is a partition in the middle, it does not meet the conditions according to the commentaries. Second, open in the front without walls, that is, a long house, under the eaves.
兩頭有障。三雖覆而不遍。即同院一門上通覆開中央。四雖覆遍而有開處。謂通覆障上少開明孔。言宿者。此等四室比丘與女人同宿戒。女人後至。或比丘后至。或二人俱至。若亞臥隨脅轉側。一一皆犯。四言波逸提者。是犯句。于中有二。若與女人同室宿隨轉側一一犯提。若與女人畜生若人黃門二根人同宿吉羅。若比丘盡日臥女人立者吉羅。女人若坐犯屏墮。多善二論若都集堂同障內設使出入皆犯。十誦若在室中通夜坐者不犯。必應多共處有明不睡者。祇云。一房別戶有隔無犯。若大會通夜說法露地風雨寒雪欲入房內。應端身直坐。若老病不能坐者。當施隔不得用疏物。高齊肩腋。下至地不得容貓兒過。若無隔者女人可信應語女人言。汝先眠。我坐。比丘欲眠。語令起我。欲眠。汝莫眠。若眠者汝無福行。多論與十女宿得十墮。一一轉各各得十墮。若白衣舍與女人並房不閉戶吉羅。不犯中。律云。若先不知室內有女宿。若不成室相。若坐若行若病。若為強力所投。若為人所縛。若命梵等並皆無犯。
與未受具人同室宿過限戒第五 制意者。凡道俗路乖情事相反。始習未閉事多相惱近則生慢。亂道廢業。故宜別處存道益敬為。是故須制。然出家之人棲心無定事有遊行。投人止宿存形濟命。又沙彌離俗憑蔭在此處
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 兩頭都有障礙。三種情況雖然覆蓋但不完全，如同在一個院子里，一扇門上部相通，覆蓋並打開中央部分。四種情況雖然覆蓋且完全，但有打開的地方，指的是覆蓋的障礙物上有少許透光的孔洞。這裡說的『宿』，指的是這四種房間里的比丘與女人同住的情況。女人後到，或者比丘後到，或者兩人同時到達。如果（比丘）亞臥，隨著（女人）身體轉動，每一次都犯戒。這裡說的『波逸提』，是犯戒的罪名。其中有兩種情況：如果與女人同室而眠，隨著（女人）身體轉動，每一次都犯波逸提罪。如果與女人、畜生、人妖、雙性人同住一室，則犯吉羅罪。如果比丘整天躺臥，而女人站立，則犯吉羅罪。如果女人坐著，則犯屏墮罪。《多善毗尼毗婆沙》和《善見律毗婆沙》中說，如果都在集會堂里，在同一障礙物內，即使只是出入也犯戒。《十誦律》中說，如果在房間里通宵坐著，不犯戒。必須是多人共處，有光亮且不睡覺的情況。祇園中說，一間房，不同的門戶，有隔斷，就不犯戒。如果大會通宵說法，露天風雨寒雪，想要進入房間內，應該端身正坐。如果年老生病不能坐著，應當設定隔斷，不能用稀疏的物品，高度齊肩腋，下至地面，不能讓貓兒通過。如果沒有隔斷，女人可以信任，應該告訴女人說：『你先睡，我坐著。』比丘想要睡覺，告訴（女人）讓她起來，『我想要睡覺，你不要睡。如果睡著了，你就沒有福報。』《多論》中說，與十個女人同住，得十個墮罪，每一次轉動，各自得十個墮罪。如果在白衣的住所，與女人並排房間但不關門，犯吉羅罪。不犯戒的情況有：律中說，如果事先不知道室內有女人住宿；如果不是完整的房間；如果坐著、行走、生病；如果被強力投擲進來；如果被人捆綁；如果是爲了性命或清凈梵行等，都不犯戒。
與未受具足戒的人同室住宿超過限制的戒律第五。制定這條戒律的目的是：凡是道俗之人，道路不同，情感和事情相反，剛開始學習的人心性未定，事情多有互相干擾，接近了就容易產生傲慢，擾亂修行，荒廢事業。所以應該分開居住，保持修道之心，增進恭敬之意。因此需要制定戒律。然而出家之人，棲身之處沒有定所，事情有緊急情況，投靠他人止宿，儲存形體，維持生命。而且沙彌離開世俗，依靠庇護也在這裡。
【English Translation】 English version There are obstacles on both sides. Although three situations cover, they are not complete, like in a courtyard, the upper part of a door is connected, covering and opening the central part. Although four situations cover completely, there are openings, referring to a few light-transmitting holes on the covering obstacle. The term 'lodging' here refers to the situation where Bhikkhus in these four types of rooms live with women. The woman arrives later, or the Bhikkhu arrives later, or both arrive at the same time. If (the Bhikkhu) lies down sideways, turning with (the woman)'s body, each time he commits an offense. The term 'Payantika' here is the name of the offense. There are two situations: if sleeping in the same room with a woman, turning with (the woman)'s body, each time he commits a Payantika offense. If living in the same room with a woman, an animal, an eunuch, or a hermaphrodite, he commits a Dukkhata offense. If the Bhikkhu lies down all day while the woman stands, he commits a Dukkhata offense. If the woman sits, he commits a Patayantika offense. The Samantapasadika and the Kankhavitarani say that if they are all in the assembly hall, within the same barrier, even just entering and exiting is an offense. The Sarvastivada Vinaya says that if sitting in a room all night, there is no offense. It must be a situation where many people are together, there is light, and they are not sleeping. The Jetavana says that if it is one room, different doors, and there is a partition, there is no offense. If there is a large assembly giving Dharma talks all night, and it is windy, rainy, cold, and snowy outdoors, and they want to enter the room, they should sit upright. If they are old and sick and cannot sit, they should set up a partition, and they cannot use sparse materials. The height should be level with the shoulders and armpits, and the bottom should reach the ground, not allowing a cat to pass through. If there is no partition and the woman is trustworthy, they should tell the woman: 'You sleep first, I will sit.' When the Bhikkhu wants to sleep, tell (the woman) to get up, 'I want to sleep, do not sleep. If you fall asleep, you will have no merit.' The Samghabhadra says that lodging with ten women results in ten Patayantika offenses, and each turn results in ten Patayantika offenses. If in a layman's house, the room is next to a woman's room but the door is not closed, it is a Dukkhata offense. Situations where there is no offense: The Vinaya says that if one did not know beforehand that there was a woman lodging in the room; if it is not a complete room; if sitting, walking, or sick; if thrown in by force; if bound by someone; if it is for life or pure Brahmacharya, there is no offense.
The fifth precept regarding lodging in the same room with one who has not received full ordination beyond the limit. The purpose of establishing this precept is: Generally, those who are monastic and those who are lay have different paths, and their emotions and affairs are contrary. Those who are just beginning to learn have unsettled minds, and there are many mutual disturbances in affairs. Being close can easily lead to arrogance, disrupting practice and wasting endeavors. Therefore, they should live separately, maintaining the mind of practice and increasing respect. Therefore, it is necessary to establish precepts. However, those who have left home have no fixed abode, and there are urgent matters. They rely on others for lodging, preserving their bodies and maintaining their lives. Moreover, the Shramanera leaves the secular world and relies on protection here.
。無所杖事須眷接。是以開聽限期二宿。然禁則防其過。開則通其益。開制之宜理所應然 別緣具五。一未受具人男子簡去女人以佛不聽與女人同室。本不開二夜。何有過三之咎。故伽論云。以二夜共沙彌宿。第三夜共女人宿。得二提罪。二室相成就。三共同室。四知同室。五隨過三夜犯提。已下正明戒本。此戒文三。初句略制。三牒制隨開二夜三夜。后廣制。言略制者。因六群共長者同室宿。中有比丘。亂心睡眠形露。為彼調持。佛制不聽共宿。言牒隨開者。次因羅云開聽二三 問。佛既不聽與未具人宿。驅出羅云應是順教。何以呵。言癡人無慈不護我意 答。夫為弟子有事之時。理須咨啟。佛因事開輒爾。驅出乖弟子之儀。無慈之甚。是以佛呵癡人無慈親。是佛子尚不慈念。豈況餘人寧有慈愍。五分佛呵癡人云。何野干驅逐師子。讚歎持戒因聽共未具人二宿。言第三廣制者。下所辨是。
若比丘與未受具戒人共宿過二宿至三宿波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二未受具人。三共宿過限。四結罪。初句可知。二言未受具人者。除比丘比丘尼余未受大戒人是。三言共宿者。律云。同室宿有四種。如前所明。于中四句差別。二人一室異。二室一人異。三人室俱一。四人室俱異。此等並是共宿中攝。言過二宿
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 沒有可以依靠的人，需要眷顧接引。因此，允許（他們）住兩夜。然而，禁止是爲了防止過度，允許是爲了疏通利益。允許和禁止的制度，理應如此。 另外有五個原因：一是未受具戒的男子，要簡別去除女人，因為佛不允許與女人同室。本來就不允許住兩夜，哪裡會有超過三夜的罪過？所以《伽論》說：『與沙彌共宿兩夜，第三夜與女人共宿，得二提罪。』二是房間條件具備，三是共同一室，四是知道共同一室，五是超過三夜犯提罪。以下正式說明戒本。此戒文有三部分：初句是簡略的制戒，第二句是重申制戒，允許住兩夜，三夜，后一句是廣泛的制戒。說『簡略的制戒』，是因為六群比丘與長者同室而宿，其中有比丘心神紊亂，睡眠時露出形體，爲了調伏他們，佛制定不允許共同住宿。說『重申允許』，是因為羅睺羅（Rahula）開許可以住兩三夜。問：佛既然不允許與未受具戒的人同宿，驅逐羅睺羅應該是順從教誨，為什麼還要呵斥？回答：因為作為弟子，有事的時候，理應請示。佛因為有事才開許，擅自驅逐，不合弟子的禮儀，非常沒有慈悲心。所以佛呵斥（他）是『癡人無慈』，連自己的佛子尚且不慈念，更何況其他人呢？哪裡會有慈悲憐憫之心？《五分律》中佛呵斥（他）說：『怎麼能像野干（一種動物）驅逐師子（獅子）一樣？』讚歎持戒是因為允許與未受具戒的人同宿兩夜。說『第三句廣泛的制戒』，下面所辨析的就是。
若比丘與未受具戒人共宿過二宿至三宿波逸提（Pacittiya，一種罪名）。此滿足戒本文有四句：一是犯戒的人，二是未受具戒的人，三是共同住宿超過期限，四是判決罪名。第一句可以理解。二說『未受具戒的人』，是指除了比丘（Bhikkhu）比丘尼（Bhikkhuni）之外，其他未受大戒的人。三說『共同住宿』，律中說：『同室住宿有四種情況，如前所述。』其中有四種差別：二人一室，房間不同；二室一人，房間不同；三人房間相同；四人房間不同。這些都屬於共同住宿的範疇。說『超過兩夜』
【English Translation】 English version: Without anyone to rely on, they need care and guidance. Therefore, (they) are allowed to stay for two nights. However, prohibition is to prevent excess, and permission is to facilitate benefits. The system of permission and prohibition should be so. There are also five reasons: First, for men who have not received full ordination, women should be excluded, because the Buddha does not allow cohabitation with women. Originally, staying for two nights was not allowed, so how could there be a fault of exceeding three nights? Therefore, the 'Galuṅ' says: 'Staying with a Shramanera (novice monk) for two nights, and staying with a woman on the third night, incurs two offenses.' Second, the room conditions are met, third, they share the same room, fourth, they know they share the same room, and fifth, exceeding three nights incurs an offense. The following formally explains the precepts. This precept has three parts: the first sentence is a brief prohibition, the second sentence reiterates the prohibition, allowing a stay of two nights, three nights, and the last sentence is a broad prohibition. Saying 'brief prohibition' is because the six groups of monks stayed in the same room with the elders, and among them, some monks were mentally disturbed and exposed their bodies while sleeping. To subdue them, the Buddha forbade cohabitation. Saying 'reiterating permission' is because Rahula (Rahula) was allowed to stay for two or three nights. Question: Since the Buddha does not allow cohabitation with those who have not received full ordination, expelling Rahula should be in accordance with the teachings, so why scold? Answer: Because as a disciple, when something happens, one should consult. The Buddha only allowed it because of something, and expelling him without authorization is not in accordance with the etiquette of a disciple and is very unkind. Therefore, the Buddha scolded (him) as 'foolish and unkind,' and even his own Buddha's son is not compassionate, let alone others? Where would there be compassion and pity? In the 'Five-Part Vinaya,' the Buddha scolded (him) and said: 'How can one drive away a lion (lion) like a jackal (a type of animal)?' Praising upholding the precepts is because it is allowed to stay with those who have not received full ordination for two nights. Saying 'the third sentence is a broad prohibition,' what is analyzed below is.
If a Bhikkhu (monk) sleeps with a person who has not received full ordination for more than two nights, up to three nights, it is a Pacittiya (Pacittiya, a type of offense). This complete precept has four parts: first, the person who committed the offense, second, the person who has not received full ordination, third, cohabitation exceeding the limit, and fourth, judging the offense. The first sentence can be understood. Second, saying 'a person who has not received full ordination' refers to people other than Bhikkhus (Bhikkhu) and Bhikkhunis (Bhikkhuni) who have not received the major precepts. Third, saying 'cohabitation' means, 'There are four situations of cohabitation in the Vinaya, as mentioned earlier.' Among them, there are four differences: two people in one room, different rooms; one person in two rooms, different rooms; three people in the same room; four people in different rooms. These all fall into the category of cohabitation. Saying 'exceeding two nights'
至三宿者是開限律云。共宿至三夜明相未出應起避去。若至第四宿。若自去。若使彼去。若不避明相似應明想出至第四日旦即犯一提。若避明相旦時未犯于第四夜。隨宿轉側一一提罪。今戒本中直對不避明相違法一邊而結故。言過二宿至三宿提。若避明相過三未犯第四夜。祇若三夜犯竟未懺悔。無二夜開隨宿人結罪。若懺竟得開二夜。十誦若通夜坐。若病得與沙彌過宿病人臥者開。余不病比丘不應臥。四言波逸提者。是犯名。母論云。若至第三夜比丘無去處者不應臥坐。至明相現。若至第四宿。又無去處明相欲現時。若自去。若遣彼去。若不爾者皆犯提罪。若與非人畜生男共過三宿一切吉羅余不犯緣並同前戒。
共未受具人同誦戒第六 制意者。多論四種義故佛制此戒。一為異外道故。二為師與弟子位別故。三為分別言語分了故。四為依實義不貴音聲故 別緣有五。一是佛所說法。二字句味。三未具人。四齊聲同誦。五言說了了便犯。已下明戒本。此戒因六群比丘與諸長者在講堂。高聲同誦經語。惱亂坐禪比丘。佛便制戒。
若比丘與未受具戒人同誦者波逸提。此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二未受具人。三同誦。四結罪。前二句可知。三言同誦法者。誦謂名文不前不後同時而誦。戒抄前抄后二誦皆名同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『至三宿者是開限律云』，意思是共同居住最多三個晚上，在黎明破曉之前應該起身離開。如果到了第四個晚上，無論是自己離開，還是讓對方離開，或者不避開黎明，看起來好像黎明已經到來，到了第四天的早晨，就犯了『一提』（一種罪名）。如果避開了黎明，在第四個晚上到來之前沒有犯戒。隨著居住的夜晚增加，每晚都會增加『提』罪。現在的戒本中直接針對不避開黎明違背戒律的一方面進行判決，所以說超過兩個晚上，到了第三個晚上就會犯『提』罪。如果避開了黎明，超過三個晚上但未到第四個晚上，或者僅僅是三個晚上犯戒完畢但未懺悔，沒有兩個晚上的開許，隨著居住的人增加而增加罪責。如果懺悔完畢，可以開許兩個晚上。《十誦律》中說，如果通宵打坐，或者生病，可以允許與沙彌一起過夜，病人可以躺臥。其餘沒有生病的比丘不應該躺臥。四言『波逸提』（Pācittiya）者，是罪名的名稱。《母論》中說，如果到了第三個晚上，比丘沒有去處，不應該躺臥或坐著，直到黎明出現。如果到了第四個晚上，又沒有去處，黎明將要出現時，無論是自己離開，還是讓對方離開，否則都犯『提』罪。如果與非人、畜生、男性共同度過三個晚上，一切都是『吉羅』（Dukkata，一種輕罪），其餘不犯戒的情況與前面的戒律相同。
『共未受具人同誦戒第六』，制定此戒的意義在於，《多論》中有四種原因，所以佛陀制定此戒。一是爲了區別于外道；二是為師父與弟子的地位有所區別；三是爲了分別言語，使之清晰明瞭；四是爲了依據真實的意義，不重視聲音。特別的因緣有五種：一是佛所說的法；二是字句的含義；三是未受具戒的人；四是齊聲共同誦讀；五是說了就立刻犯戒。以下說明戒本。此戒的起因是六群比丘與諸位長者在講堂中，高聲共同誦讀經文，惱亂了坐禪的比丘，佛陀因此制定此戒。
『若比丘與未受具戒人同誦者，波逸提』。這條完整的戒本有四句話：一是犯戒的人；二是未受具戒的人；三是共同誦讀；四是判決罪名。前兩句可以理解。三是『同誦法』，誦讀是指名文不前不後，同時誦讀。《戒抄》中說，在前或在後誦讀都稱為『同誦』。
【English Translation】 English version: 'To stay for three nights is according to the 'opening limit' rule. It means cohabitating for a maximum of three nights, and one should rise and leave before the dawn breaks. If it reaches the fourth night, whether one leaves on their own, or makes the other person leave, or does not avoid the dawn, and it appears as if dawn has arrived, then upon the dawn of the fourth day, one commits a 'Thullaććaya' (a type of offense). If one avoids the dawn, and has not committed an offense before the arrival of the fourth night, with each additional night of cohabitation, the offense of 'Thullaććaya' increases. The current precepts directly address the aspect of violating the precepts by not avoiding the dawn, therefore it is said that exceeding two nights and reaching the third night results in a 'Thullaććaya' offense. If one avoids the dawn, exceeding three nights but not reaching the fourth night, or merely completing the three nights of offense without repentance, there is no allowance for two nights; the offense increases with the number of people cohabitating. If repentance is completed, an allowance of two nights is permitted. The 'Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya' states that if one is meditating through the night, or is ill, it is permissible to spend the night with a Śrāmaṇera, and a sick person may lie down. Other monks who are not sick should not lie down. The term 'Pācittiya' is the name of an offense. The 'Mātṛkā' states that if, on the third night, a monk has nowhere to go, they should not lie down or sit until dawn appears. If, on the fourth night, there is still nowhere to go, and dawn is about to appear, whether one leaves on their own or makes the other person leave, otherwise, one commits a 'Thullaććaya' offense. If one spends three nights with a non-human, an animal, or a male, everything is a 'Dukkata' (a minor offense); other non-offending circumstances are the same as the previous precepts.
'The Sixth Precept on Joint Recitation with Those Not Fully Ordained': The significance of establishing this precept is that, according to the 'Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra', there are four reasons why the Buddha established this precept: first, to distinguish from non-Buddhist paths; second, to differentiate the positions of teacher and disciple; third, to distinguish speech and make it clear; fourth, to rely on the true meaning and not value sound. There are five special conditions: first, the Dharma spoken by the Buddha; second, the meaning of the words and sentences; third, a person who is not fully ordained; fourth, reciting together in unison; fifth, committing an offense immediately upon speaking. The following explains the precepts. The origin of this precept is that the Six Group Bhikkhus were in the lecture hall with various elders, loudly reciting scriptures together, disturbing the meditating Bhikkhus, and the Buddha therefore established this precept.
'If a Bhikkhu recites together with a person who is not fully ordained, it is a Pācittiya offense.' This complete precept has four clauses: first, the person committing the offense; second, the person who is not fully ordained; third, reciting together; fourth, the judgment of the offense. The first two clauses are understandable. The third is 'reciting together,' which means reciting the text simultaneously, neither before nor after. The 'Vinaya-sūtra' states that reciting before or after is both considered 'reciting together.'
誦。所言法者。佛所說聲聞所說仙人所說諸天所說皆是正法。四言波逸提者。是違犯罪。故律云。若聲聞弟子餘人等說。為佛印可者即名為法。此法若抄前抄后而說皆犯提罪。故律云。共誦者。謂誦句義。句味字義。非句義而亦爾。言句義者。二人齊誦聲同句表三行。理同名為句義。犯提。十誦云。齊聲句異吉羅。言非句義者。前人說諸惡莫作。未竟後人抄前。言諸惡莫作。使前人言教表正行不圓。故曰非句義。亦犯提罪。以句同聲相接故。言句味者。句表無常理。周有資神之益。名曰句味。抄奪前言表理不周無資神之用。故曰非句義。言字義者。齊聲同誦表名體。理圓名為字義。抄奪前言名體不圓。故曰非字義。見論云。一切律藏阿毗曇修多羅是佛所說。后五百羅漢結集。此法同誦悉犯提罪。十誦隨一品一章一段各得提愆。若自以己意撰集文字。乃至俗書非佛所說故無罪。不犯中。律云。應言我說竟汝說。若一人誦竟一人書。若二人同業同誦。若錯說彼此。皆不犯。
向未受具人說他粗罪戒第七 制意者。出家僧眾理宜清顯。善名外障生人信教。以此比丘粗惡之事。向俗人說前人聞之。于彼僧寶情生薄淡。失其敬信崇重之意。損壞處深。故須聖制 別緣有七。一是比丘及尼。二犯初二篇罪。三知犯粗罪。四無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 誦。所言法者，佛所說、聲聞（Sravaka，聽聞佛陀教誨的弟子）所說、仙人所說、諸天所說，皆是正法。四言波逸提（Payantika，一種戒律名稱）者，是違犯罪。故律中說：『若聲聞弟子或其他人等所說，為佛陀認可的，即名為法。』此法若抄前句或抄后句而說，皆犯波逸提罪。故律中說：『共誦者，謂誦句義。』句味、字義，非句義也如此。言句義者，二人齊誦，聲音相同，句意表達三行之理，意義相同，名為句義，犯波逸提罪。《十誦律》云：『齊聲句異，吉羅（Dukkata，一種較輕的罪名）。』言非句義者，前人說『諸惡莫作』，未說完，後人抄前句，說『諸惡莫作』，使前人言教表達的正行不圓滿，故曰非句義，亦犯波逸提罪，以句同聲相接故。言句味者，句意表達無常之理，周全而有資助精神之益，名曰句味。抄奪前言，表理不周全，無資助精神之用，故曰非句義。言字義者，齊聲同誦，表達名相本體，道理圓滿，名為字義。抄奪前言，名相本體不圓滿，故曰非字義。《見論》云：『一切律藏（Vinaya Pitaka，戒律經典）、阿毗曇（Abhidhamma，論藏）、修多羅（Sutra，經藏），是佛所說，後由五百羅漢（Arhat，證悟者）結集。』此法同誦，悉犯波逸提罪。《十誦律》中，隨一品、一章、一段，各得波逸提罪。若自己以己意撰集文字，乃至俗書，非佛所說，故無罪。不犯的情況中，律中說：『應說我說完你再說。』若一人誦完一人書寫，若二人同行業同誦，若錯說彼此，皆不犯。
向未受具足戒（Upasampada，比丘戒）的人說他人粗罪戒第七。制定的用意是：出家僧眾理應清凈顯明，好的名聲是外在的屏障，使人生起對佛教的信心。因此，將比丘粗惡之事向俗人說，前人聽聞后，對僧寶的情感產生淡薄，失去敬信崇重之意，損壞之處很深，故須聖制。別緣有七：一是比丘及比丘尼（Bhikkhuni，比丘尼）；二是犯初二篇罪；三是知犯粗罪；四是無
【English Translation】 English version: Recitation. What is meant by 'Dharma' (法, the teachings of the Buddha)? It is the correct Dharma (正法) whether spoken by the Buddha, Sravakas (聲聞, disciples who hear the Buddha's teachings), immortals, or devas (諸天, gods). The term 'Payantika' (波逸提, a type of precept) refers to offenses. Therefore, the Vinaya (律, monastic rules) states: 'If a Sravaka disciple or others speak something that is approved by the Buddha, it is called Dharma.' If this Dharma is recited by copying the preceding or following phrases, it constitutes a Payantika offense. Thus, the Vinaya states: 'Reciting together means reciting the meaning of the phrase.' The flavor of the phrase and the meaning of the word, even if not the meaning of the phrase, are also included. 'The meaning of the phrase' refers to two people reciting in unison, with the same sound, and the meaning of the phrase expresses the principle of the three actions; if the meaning is the same, it is called the meaning of the phrase, and it constitutes a Payantika offense. The 'Ten Recitations Vinaya' (十誦律) states: 'Different phrases with the same sound constitute a Dukkata (吉羅, a minor offense).' 'Not the meaning of the phrase' refers to a situation where the first person says 'Do no evil,' and before they finish, the second person copies the preceding phrase and says 'Do no evil,' causing the righteous conduct expressed by the first person's teaching to be incomplete. Therefore, it is called 'not the meaning of the phrase,' and it also constitutes a Payantika offense because the phrases are connected with the same sound. 'The flavor of the phrase' refers to the meaning of the phrase expressing the principle of impermanence, being complete and beneficial for nourishing the spirit; this is called the flavor of the phrase. Copying and taking away the preceding words makes the expression of the principle incomplete and without the use of nourishing the spirit; therefore, it is called 'not the meaning of the phrase.' 'The meaning of the word' refers to reciting in unison, expressing the essence of the name, and the principle being complete; this is called the meaning of the word. Copying and taking away the preceding words makes the essence of the name incomplete; therefore, it is called 'not the meaning of the word.' The 'Seeing Treatise' (見論) states: 'All the Vinaya Pitaka (律藏, collection of monastic rules), Abhidhamma (阿毗曇, collection of philosophical treatises), and Sutras (修多羅, collection of discourses) were spoken by the Buddha and later compiled by five hundred Arhats (羅漢, enlightened beings).' Reciting this Dharma together constitutes a Payantika offense. In the 'Ten Recitations Vinaya,' each chapter, section, or paragraph constitutes a Payantika offense. If one compiles words and writings according to one's own ideas, even secular writings not spoken by the Buddha, there is no offense. In the case of non-offense, the Vinaya states: 'One should say, 'Let me finish speaking, then you speak.'' If one person finishes reciting and another person writes, if two people are in the same profession and recite together, or if they mistakenly speak to each other, there is no offense.
The seventh precept against telling someone who has not received full ordination (Upasampada, 具足戒, full monastic ordination) about another's serious offense. The intention of the prohibition is: The Sangha (僧眾, monastic community) should be pure and manifest, and a good reputation is an external barrier that generates faith in the teachings. Therefore, telling a layperson about a Bhikkhu's (比丘, fully ordained monk) serious offense causes the layperson to develop a weak feeling towards the Sangha, lose respect and faith, and cause deep damage; therefore, it is necessary to have this sacred prohibition. There are seven separate conditions: first, a Bhikkhu and a Bhikkhuni (比丘尼, fully ordained nun); second, committing offenses in the first two categories; third, knowing that a serious offense has been committed; fourth, no
僧法開。五向未受具人說。六言辭了了。七前人聞知。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群比丘向白衣說犯僧殘。比丘過彼犯者聞聲乃慚。余比丘白佛。佛便制戒。
若比丘知他比丘犯粗惡罪向未受大戒人說除僧羯磨波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二知粗罪。三向未受人說。四除僧羯磨。五結罪。初句可知。第二句言知他犯粗者。律云。犯初二兩篇名為粗惡罪。第三句言向未受戒人說者。律云。除比丘比丘尼餘人是。第四句言除僧羯磨者。是開限文。第五句言波逸提者。是違犯罪。故多論云。寧破塔壞像不說他粗罪。若破佛塔其罪有限。說他粗罪破壞法身罪同五逆。故律云。不問前人有罪無罪。眾僧不作羯磨。向人說一一皆墮。五分尼白衣說僧泛爾。小小罪過皆墮。僧祇若人問某甲比丘犯淫飲酒。答云。彼自當知。除上二篇說餘罪。一一犯吉。又若說名字。若種姓若衣服。若房舍若相貌皆犯提罪。說下三篇得吉。若自說粗罪亦犯吉羅。不犯者。若不知。若僧差。若非粗想。若白衣先已聞。皆不犯。非不有小罪。
實得道向未受具戒人說戒第八 論云。二義故制。一為大人法故。理宜功德覆藏諸惡發露。今自說德行隱匿罪過非大人之法。二自顯聖德。則賢愚有異。前人聞之。偏心專敬。失於平等凈善之心。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 僧法開（僧人名）。（如果）向未受具足戒的人說（其他比丘的罪過），（需要犯戒）。六、言辭清晰明瞭。七、之前的人已經知曉（此事）。以下正式闡明戒本。（制定）此戒的原因是六群比丘向在家居士說其他比丘犯了僧殘罪（一種重罪）。犯戒的比丘聽到後感到慚愧。其他比丘稟告佛陀。佛陀因此制定此戒。
若比丘明知其他比丘犯了粗惡罪，卻向未受具足戒的人說，除非經過僧團羯磨（一種宗教儀式），否則犯波逸提罪（一種輕罪）。此條完整的戒本有五句：一、犯戒之人。二、明知粗惡罪。三、向未受戒之人說。四、除非經過僧團羯磨。五、判決罪行。第一句容易理解。第二句說『明知他人犯粗惡罪』，律中說，犯最初的兩種重罪（指波羅夷和僧殘）稱為粗惡罪。第三句說『向未受戒之人說』，律中說，除了比丘和比丘尼，其餘的人都是未受戒之人。第四句說『除非經過僧團羯磨』，這是開許的例外情況。第五句說『波逸提』，是指違犯戒律的罪行。所以《多論》中說，寧可破壞佛塔、毀壞佛像，也不要說他人的粗惡罪。破壞佛塔，其罪過還有限度；說他人的粗惡罪，破壞法身，罪同五逆（五種極重的罪）。所以律中說，不論之前的人是否有罪，只要僧團沒有進行羯磨，向人說了，每一句都要墮罪。五分律中說，向在家白衣說僧團中泛泛的、小小的罪過，都要墮罪。《僧祇律》中說，如果有人問某甲比丘是否犯了淫戒、飲酒戒，回答說：『他自己應當知道。』除了上面兩種重罪，說其他的罪，每一項都犯吉羅罪（一種輕罪）。此外，如果說出名字、種姓、衣服、房舍、相貌，都犯提罪（一種輕罪）。說後面的三種罪（指單墮、悔過、眾學）則無罪。如果自己說自己的粗罪，也犯吉羅罪。不犯戒的情況有：如果不知道，如果是僧團指派，如果不是粗惡罪的想法，如果在家居士之前已經聽說了，都不犯戒。但並非沒有小罪。
真實證得道果，卻向未受具足戒的人宣揚（此事），是第八條戒。論中說，因為兩個原因制定此戒：一、爲了大人之法。道理上應該隱藏功德，顯露罪過。現在自己宣揚德行，隱藏罪過，不是大人之法。二、自己顯耀聖德，就會使賢能和愚笨的人產生差別。之前的人聽了，就會產生偏頗之心，專一地恭敬，失去平等清凈善良之心。
【English Translation】 English version The monk Fa Kai (name of a monk). (If) speaking to someone who has not received the full precepts (about the transgressions of other monks), (it constitutes an offense). Six, the words are clear and distinct. Seven, the person beforehand already knows (about the matter). The following formally clarifies the precepts. (The reason for establishing) this precept is that the Six Group Bhikkhus spoke to laypeople about other monks committing Sanghavasesa (a serious offense). The offending monk felt ashamed upon hearing this. Other monks reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha therefore established this precept.
If a Bhikkhu knowingly speaks to someone who has not received the full precepts about another Bhikkhu committing a grave offense, except after a Sangha Karma (a religious ceremony), it constitutes a Pacittiya offense (a minor offense). This complete precept has five clauses: One, the offender. Two, knowing the grave offense. Three, speaking to someone who has not received the precepts. Four, except after a Sangha Karma. Five, judging the offense. The first clause is easy to understand. The second clause says 'knowing that another has committed a grave offense.' The Vinaya states that committing the first two major offenses (referring to Parajika and Sanghavasesa) is called a grave offense. The third clause says 'speaking to someone who has not received the precepts.' The Vinaya states that everyone other than Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis is considered someone who has not received the precepts. The fourth clause says 'except after a Sangha Karma,' which is a permitted exception. The fifth clause says 'Pacittiya,' which refers to the offense of violating the precepts. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa says, 'Rather break a stupa or destroy an image than speak of another's grave offense.' Destroying a stupa has a limited consequence; speaking of another's grave offense destroys the Dharma body, and the sin is equivalent to the Five Rebellious Acts (five extremely grave sins). Therefore, the Vinaya states that regardless of whether the person beforehand is guilty or not, if the Sangha has not performed a Karma and one speaks to others, each statement incurs an offense. The Five-Part Vinaya states that speaking to lay white-robed people about the Sangha's general, minor transgressions incurs an offense. The Samghika Vinaya states that if someone asks whether a certain Bhikkhu has committed adultery or drunk alcohol, answering 'He should know for himself' is acceptable. Speaking of other offenses besides the above two major offenses incurs a Dukkata offense (a minor offense) for each item. Furthermore, if one mentions the name, lineage, clothing, dwelling, or appearance, it incurs a Thullaccaya offense (a minor offense). Speaking of the latter three offenses (referring to Nissaggiya Pacittiya, Pacittiya, and Sekhiya) is not an offense. If one speaks of one's own grave offense, it also incurs a Dukkata offense. Situations where there is no offense include: if one does not know, if one is assigned by the Sangha, if one does not think it is a grave offense, or if the layperson has already heard about it, there is no offense. However, it does not mean there is no minor offense.
Truly attaining the Path and proclaiming (this) to someone who has not received the full precepts is the eighth precept. The commentary states that this precept was established for two reasons: One, for the sake of the Dharma of great individuals. In principle, one should conceal merits and reveal transgressions. Now, proclaiming one's own virtues and concealing one's own transgressions is not the Dharma of great individuals. Two, self-aggrandizement of one's own saintly virtues will cause differences between the wise and the foolish. Those who hear this will develop biased minds and exclusive reverence, losing the mind of equality, purity, and goodness.
是故聖制 別緣有五。一內有實德蠲去增上慢人境虛不犯。二自言己有。三向未受具人說。四言辭了了。五前人聞知。然復此戒不別有緣。舉大妄語中。或有實得音以制斯戒。此聖人制竟不復更犯。謂是制聖遮凡。
若比丘向未受戒人說過人法言我見是我知是實者波逸提 此戒文有四句。一人。二前境。三說已所得。四緣罪。言若比丘者。義如上辨。言未受具戒者。除比丘比丘尼餘人是。言過人法者。是聖所證法是。言波逸提者。是違犯罪。故十律云。比丘實是四果四向。或得四禪四空。或成就慈悲喜捨不凈阿那等說者。皆犯提罪。或見實諸天龍鬼來至我所說者亦提 問。說已得罪別夷提。所以現通但有吉羅 答。若論口說義通凡聖。事簡虛實。虛則過重。實則愆微故別夷提。神通聖能更無有濫。但得吉羅 問。夷境所對該七眾犯。實除二具。現神足者唯二俗犯。所以不同 答。咸據過有增微故。此階降然。復此戒不別有緣舉大妄語中。
與女人說法過五六語戒第九 制意者。凡說法生善事。須應時。不請而說。理無強。授本無信敬情。懷奢慢脫因。斯次致興過非不免此呵。又女人形自十福緣難遇。若全不說無由生善。於法長隔永淪苦海。故復聽說。齊五六語過則制犯 別緣有六。一是人女。二知是人女
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，聖人制定了五種特別的開緣情況。第一，內心確實具有真實的功德，能夠去除增上慢，所證境界真實不虛。第二，自己聲稱已經獲得。第三，向未受具足戒的人說。第四，言辭清晰明瞭。第五，聽者能夠理解。然而，這條戒律沒有其他的開緣情況，它包含在大妄語之中。或許因為有人確實獲得了某種功德，所以制定了這條戒律。聖人的制定最終是爲了防止進一步的違犯，這是爲了約束聖人，防止凡夫。
如果比丘向未受戒的人說自己已經證得過人法（超凡的境界或能力），例如『我見』或『我知道』是真實的，就犯波逸提（一種輕罪）。這條戒律包含四個方面：一是人（指比丘），二是對像（指未受戒者），三是說出自己已獲得的，四是觸犯的罪行。『若比丘者』的含義如前所述。『未受具戒者』，指的是除了比丘和比丘尼之外的其他人。『過人法者』，指的是聖人所證悟的法。『波逸提者』，指的是違犯的罪行。因此，《十誦律》中說，如果比丘實際上證得了四果（須陀洹、斯陀含、阿那含、阿羅漢）和四向（趨向於四果的修行階段），或者獲得了四禪（色界四禪）和四空（無色界四空），或者成就了慈悲喜捨四無量心、不凈觀、阿那般那念等，如果說出來，都犯波逸提罪。或者說，如果真的有諸天、龍、鬼來到我這裡，如果說出來，也犯波逸提罪。問：說出自己已得的罪行，如果涉及根本大妄語，則犯波羅夷（一種重罪），為什麼現在只是輕罪吉羅（一種更輕的罪）？答：如果從口說方面來說，凡夫和聖人都可能犯，關鍵在於事情的真假。虛假的，罪過就重；真實的，罪過就輕微，所以判為波羅夷。神通和聖人的能力，不會有虛假的情況，所以只判吉羅。問：波羅夷所針對的對象包括七眾（比丘、比丘尼、式叉摩那、沙彌、沙彌尼、優婆塞、優婆夷），觸犯的範圍廣。而顯現神通，只有對在家的男女二眾才會觸犯，為什麼不同？答：因為所犯的罪過有輕重之分，所以有這樣的差別。此外，這條戒律沒有其他的開緣情況，它包含在大妄語之中。
與女人說法超過五六句話，犯第九戒。制定的目的是：凡是說法，是爲了產生善事，必須應時。不請而說，道理上說不過去。給予沒有信心和恭敬心的人說法，懷有奢侈和傲慢的想法，脫離了正因。這些都會導致過失，難以避免受到呵責。而且，女人的形體，由於十福的因緣難以獲得。如果完全不說，就無法產生善，在佛法上長期隔絕，永遠沉淪在苦海中。所以允許說法，但以五六句話為限，超過就觸犯戒律。特別的開緣情況有六種：一是對象是女人，二是知道對方是女人。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, the Sage established five special exceptions. First, one genuinely possesses real virtues, can eliminate arrogance, and the realm of experience is real and not false. Second, one claims to have attained it oneself. Third, one speaks to someone who has not received the full ordination. Fourth, the words are clear and distinct. Fifth, the listener understands. However, this precept has no other exceptions; it is included within the great lie. Perhaps because someone has actually attained some merit, this precept was established. The Sage's establishment is ultimately to prevent further violations; this is to restrain the Sage and prevent ordinary people.
If a Bhikshu (monk) tells someone who has not received ordination that he has attained superhuman qualities (transcendental states or abilities), such as 'I see' or 'I know' is true, he commits a Payantika (a minor offense). This precept includes four aspects: one is the person (referring to the Bhikshu), two is the object (referring to the unordained), three is speaking of what one has attained, and four is the offense committed. The meaning of 'If a Bhikshu' is as previously explained. 'Unordained' refers to anyone other than Bhikshus and Bhikshunis (nuns). 'Superhuman qualities' refers to the Dharma (teachings) realized by the Sage. 'Payantika' refers to the offense committed. Therefore, the Tenfold Vinaya (rules) says that if a Bhikshu has actually attained the Four Fruits (Srotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami, Arhat) and the Four Paths (stages of practice leading to the Four Fruits), or has attained the Four Dhyanas (Four Jhanas of the Form Realm) and the Four Formless Realms, or has achieved the Four Immeasurables (loving-kindness, compassion, joy, equanimity), the contemplation of impurity, Anapanasati (mindfulness of breathing), etc., if he speaks of them, he commits a Payantika offense. Or if it is true that gods, dragons, or ghosts come to me, if he speaks of it, he also commits a Payantika offense. Question: Speaking of one's attainments, if it involves a fundamental great lie, constitutes a Parajika (a major offense), why is it now only a minor offense of Dukkata (a lighter offense)? Answer: If speaking is considered, both ordinary people and sages can commit it; the key lies in the truth or falsehood of the matter. If it is false, the offense is serious; if it is true, the offense is slight, so it is judged as Parajika. Supernatural powers and the abilities of sages cannot be false, so only Dukkata is judged. Question: The objects targeted by Parajika include the Seven Assemblies (Bhikshu, Bhikshuni, Shikshamana, Shramanera, Shramanerika, Upasaka, Upasika), and the scope of violation is broad. However, manifesting supernatural powers only offends the two lay assemblies of men and women; why is it different? Answer: Because the offenses committed have varying degrees of severity, there is such a difference. Furthermore, this precept has no other exceptions; it is included within the great lie.
Speaking to a woman more than five or six sentences violates the ninth precept. The purpose of the establishment is: all speaking of the Dharma is to generate good deeds and must be timely. Speaking without being asked is unreasonable. Giving Dharma to those without faith and respect, harboring extravagant and arrogant thoughts, deviating from the proper cause. These will lead to faults and are difficult to avoid being blamed. Moreover, the female form is difficult to obtain due to the causes of the ten blessings. If one does not speak at all, one cannot generate good, is long separated from the Dharma, and is forever immersed in the sea of suffering. Therefore, speaking is allowed, but limited to five or six sentences; exceeding that violates the precept. The special exceptions are six: one is that the person is a woman, and two is knowing that the person is a woman.
。三不請。四無有知俗人男子。五言辭了了。六過五六語便犯。已正明戒本。此戒因迦留陀夷在姑前與兒婦耳語說法。便起譏謗。佛便制斷。后因請說故聽齊五六語及有智男證開過限說。
若比丘與女人說法過五六語除有智男子波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二所為女人。三說過限。四除開。五結罪。初二兩句可知。三言說法過五六語者。法者謂是如來親所宣說。及諸天等所說亦名為法。言過五六語者。五謂五蘊。言色是無常。受想行識亦復無我。六謂六根。言眼是無常。乃至意亦無常。謂五至六過六至七。故名過五六語。四言除有智男子者。是開緣。律云。智男子者。知粗惡不粗惡事。多論解人情語可作證明。故名有智男子。中邊不同者。不聽必須俗人出家。不得以事同故。若盲若聾。亦此二當一人。若眠亦名無人。若咸七歲若過不解好惡義味亦名無人。知男子及上可是。五言波逸提者。是違犯罪。律云。若過已外說聲相接不斷一罪。若句句斷絕說句句提罪。五分為說五六竟。從坐起去。更有因緣還坐為說不犯。若五六語竟為后女人說。如是相因為無量女人說不犯。反上即犯。若辭句不了了犯吉。若向非人畜生說亦吉。不犯者。律云。若依限說。若知男子前過說。若無男子請應廣說。若受五戒說五戒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 三不請（未經邀請）。四無有知俗人男子（沒有理解能力的世俗男子）。五言辭了了（言辭清晰明瞭）。六過五六語便犯（超過五六句話就構成違犯）。以上是明確戒本的內容。 此戒的起因是迦留陀夷在婆婆面前與兒媳婦耳語說法，引起了譏諷和誹謗。佛陀因此制定了這條戒律。後來因為有人請求說法，所以允許在有智慧的男子作證的情況下，可以齊備地說五六句話，超過這個限度就構成違犯。
『若比丘與女人說法過五六語除有智男子波逸提』（如果比丘與女人說法超過五六句話，除非有智慧的男子在場，否則構成波逸提罪）。這條完整的戒本有五個部分：一、犯戒者；二、所針對的女人；三、超過了限定的語言；四、例外情況；五、判罪。 前兩句很容易理解。三、『說法過五六語者』，『法』指的是如來親自宣說的，以及諸天等所說的，都可以稱為『法』。『過五六語者』，『五』指的是五蘊，即說『色是無常，受想行識也是無我』。『六』指的是六根，即說『眼是無常，乃至意也是無常』。所謂五到六，超過六到七，因此稱為『過五六語』。 四、『除有智男子者』，這是開緣（例外情況）。律中說，『智男子者』，是指知道什麼是粗惡，什麼不是粗惡的人。多論解釋說，是懂得人情世故，可以作為證明的人，因此稱為『有智男子』。中邊不同之處在於，不允許必須是世俗之人出家，不能因為事情相同就混淆。如果是盲人或聾人，也算作沒有人在場。如果正在睡覺，也算作無人。如果是七歲以下或超過七歲但不理解好壞意義的人，也算作無人。知道男子及以上的情況是可以的。 五、『波逸提者』，是違犯罪。律中說，如果超過限定的語言，聲音相接不斷，算作一罪。如果一句一句斷絕地說，每一句都構成提罪。《五分律》中說，說了五六句后，從座位上起身離開，之後因為其他因緣又回到座位上繼續說，不構成違犯。如果說了五六句話后，又為後面的女人說，這樣相繼為無量的女人說，不構成違犯。反之則構成違犯。如果言辭不清晰明瞭，構成吉罪。如果向非人或畜生說法，也構成吉罪。 不構成違犯的情況：律中說，如果按照限定的語言說；如果在有智慧的男子面前超過限定的語言說；如果沒有男子請求，應該廣泛地說；如果接受五戒，說五戒的內容。
【English Translation】 English version: Three uninvited (not invited). Four ignorant laymen (laymen without understanding). Five clear words (clear and understandable words). Six violations occur after exceeding five or six words (exceeding five or six words constitutes a violation). The above is the content of the clearly defined precepts. The origin of this precept is that Kālodāyin (name of a monk) whispered Dharma to his daughter-in-law in front of his mother-in-law, causing ridicule and slander. The Buddha therefore established this precept. Later, because someone requested Dharma teaching, it was allowed to say five or six sentences completely with a wise man as a witness; exceeding this limit constitutes a violation.
'If a Bhikkhu speaks Dharma to a woman exceeding five or six words, except in the presence of a wise man, it constitutes a Pācittiya (a type of offense)' This complete precept has five parts: 1. The offender; 2. The woman involved; 3. Exceeding the limited language; 4. Exceptions; 5. Judgment of guilt. The first two sentences are easy to understand. 3. 'Speaking Dharma exceeding five or six words', 'Dharma' refers to what the Tathagata (another name for the Buddha) personally proclaimed, and what the devas (gods) and others said can also be called 'Dharma'. 'Exceeding five or six words', 'five' refers to the five skandhas (aggregates), that is, saying 'form is impermanent, and sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness are also without self'. 'Six' refers to the six sense bases, that is, saying 'the eye is impermanent, and even the mind is impermanent'. The so-called five to six, exceeding six to seven, is therefore called 'exceeding five or six words'. 4. 'Except in the presence of a wise man', this is an exception. The Vinaya (monastic rules) says, 'a wise man' refers to a person who knows what is coarse and evil and what is not. Many commentaries explain that it is a person who understands human relationships and can serve as proof, therefore called 'a wise man'. The difference in the middle and edges is that it is not allowed for a secular person to become a monk, and things cannot be confused just because they are the same. If a person is blind or deaf, it is also considered that no one is present. If someone is sleeping, it is also considered that no one is present. If someone is under seven years old or over seven years old but does not understand the meaning of good and bad, it is also considered that no one is present. Knowing the situation of a man and above is acceptable. 5. 'Pācittiya' is a violation. The Vinaya says that if the limited language is exceeded and the sound is connected continuously, it is counted as one offense. If it is said in broken sentences, each sentence constitutes a Thullaccaya (a type of offense). The Pañcavargika Vinaya (another name for a set of monastic rules) says that after saying five or six sentences, getting up from the seat and leaving, and then returning to the seat to continue speaking due to other causes, does not constitute a violation. If after saying five or six sentences, speaking to the women behind, and continuing to speak to countless women in this way, it does not constitute a violation. The opposite constitutes a violation. If the words are not clear and understandable, it constitutes a Dukkaṭa (a minor offense). If speaking to non-humans or animals, it also constitutes a Dukkaṭa. Situations that do not constitute a violation: The Vinaya says that if speaking according to the limited language; if speaking beyond the limited language in front of a wise man; if there is no man requesting, it should be spoken extensively; if receiving the five precepts, speaking the content of the five precepts.
法。受八關齋法乃至女人聽明轉生疑問。隨問廣說。皆得無犯。
堀地戒第十 多於三種益故不聽堀地壞生。一為不惱害眾生故。出家修慈宜愍物命。二為止誹謗故。三為大護佛法故。若佛不制此二戒者。國王大臣役使比丘。由佛制故王臣息心不復役使。得令靜緣修道發智斷或。是名大護 別緣有五。一是生地。二作生地想。三自堀。四使人堀時不作知靜語。五隨傷便犯。已下正明戒本。此因六群為修治溝堂故自堀地。居士譏嫌。比丘舉過。佛為制戒。
若比丘自手堀地若教人堀地者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三節。一自堀故略制。二教人堀時不行知凈前制非圓更復續結。三滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二自作業。三所傷地。四教人業。五結罪。初句可知。第二言自手堀者。律云。若用鋤鑺或推打刀刺指掏扴傷。第三言地者。律云。若已提地。已堀者經四月被雨漬還如本。見於生地。無有砂石瓦礫能土。是名生地。若四分砂一分土非生地。自堀無過。祇云。地有二種。一生。二作。生者大地。作者有二。一基作者露地壁。二上作者重閣上露土。是皆名所傷之地第四言若教堀者。律云。若不教言看是亦是犯緣。第五言波逸提者。是違犯罪。律云。若比丘如上所傷之地。若以用鋤鑺乃至指抓損傷及地上燃火。但
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：關於受持八關齋戒，乃至女人聽聞后對轉生有疑問，都可以隨其所問詳細解說，這樣都不會犯戒。
掘地戒第十：因為掘地會帶來三種損害，所以不允許掘地，以免傷害生命。一是為不惱害眾生，出家人修行慈悲，應該憐憫一切生命。二是為止息誹謗。三是爲了大大地守護佛法。如果佛陀不制定這兩條戒律，國王大臣就會役使比丘。由於佛陀制定了戒律，國王大臣才會息心，不再役使比丘，使比丘能夠安靜地修行，開發智慧，斷除迷惑。這就是所謂的大護佛法。別緣有五種：一是生地（未曾耕作過的土地），二是作生地想（認為那是未曾耕作過的土地），三是親自挖掘，四是使喚他人挖掘時沒有告知凈化處理的方法，五是隨著傷害的發生而犯戒。以下正式闡明戒本。這件事的起因是六群比丘爲了修繕溝渠和廳堂而親自掘地，居士們譏諷責難，比丘們向上舉報，佛陀因此制定了戒律。
『若比丘自手掘地，若教人掘地者，波逸提（一種罪名）。』這條戒律的完整戒本有三個部分。一是親自掘地，所以略作規定。二是教唆他人掘地時，沒有告知凈化處理的方法，之前已經制定了非圓滿的戒律，現在又繼續補充。三是完整的戒本有五句話。一是犯戒的人，二是親自作業，三是所傷害的土地，四是教唆他人作業，五是判罪。第一句容易理解。第二句『自手掘者』，律中說：如果用鋤頭、镢頭，或者推、打、刀刺、指掏、扴傷。第三句『地者』，律中說：如果已經提煉過的土地，已經挖掘過的土地，經過四個月的雨水浸泡后恢復原狀，看起來像生地，沒有砂石瓦礫，能夠成為土壤，這就是生地。如果四分砂一分土，就不是生地，親自挖掘就沒有罪過。祇園寺說：地有兩種，一是生，二是作。生者，指大地。作者有兩種，一是基作者，指露地墻壁；二是上作者，指重閣上的露土。這些都叫做所傷害的土地。第四句『若教掘者』，律中說：如果不教導說『看這裡』，也算是犯戒的因緣。第五句『波逸提者』，是違犯罪。律中說：如果比丘像上面所說的傷害土地，如果用鋤頭、镢頭，乃至用手指抓撓損傷，以及在地上燃火，都...
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding upholding the Eight Precepts, even if a woman listens and has doubts about rebirth, you can explain in detail according to her questions, and in this way, there will be no violation of the precepts.
The Tenth Precept on Digging the Ground: Because digging the ground brings three kinds of harm, it is not allowed to dig the ground to avoid harming life. First, it is to avoid disturbing sentient beings. Monastics cultivate compassion and should have pity for all life. Second, it is to stop slander. Third, it is to greatly protect the Buddha's Dharma. If the Buddha did not establish these two precepts, kings and ministers would employ monks. Because the Buddha established the precepts, kings and ministers would calm their minds and no longer employ monks, allowing them to quietly cultivate, develop wisdom, and cut off delusions. This is what is called greatly protecting the Dharma. There are five separate conditions: first, virgin land (land that has never been cultivated); second, the thought of virgin land (thinking that it is land that has never been cultivated); third, digging oneself; fourth, when employing others to dig, not informing them of the method of purification; fifth, violating the precept as the harm occurs. The following formally clarifies the precepts. The cause of this was that the Six Group Bhikkhus personally dug the ground to repair ditches and halls. Laypeople ridiculed and blamed them, and the bhikkhus reported it, so the Buddha established the precepts.
'If a bhikkhu digs the ground himself, or instructs others to dig the ground, it is a pācittiya (a type of offense).' The complete text of this precept has three parts. First, digging oneself, so it is briefly stipulated. Second, when instructing others to dig, not informing them of the method of purification; previously, an incomplete precept had been established, and now it is supplemented. Third, the complete precept has five sentences. First, the person who violates the precept; second, personally doing the work; third, the land that is harmed; fourth, instructing others to do the work; fifth, judging the offense. The first sentence is easy to understand. The second sentence, 'digging oneself,' the Vinaya says: If using a hoe, mattock, or pushing, hitting, stabbing with a knife, picking with a finger, or injuring with a wedge. The third sentence, 'land,' the Vinaya says: If the land has been refined, the land has been dug, after four months of rain it returns to its original state, looking like virgin land, without sand, stones, or gravel, and can become soil, this is virgin land. If it is four parts sand and one part soil, it is not virgin land, and there is no offense in digging oneself. Jetavana says: There are two kinds of land, one is raw, and the other is worked. Raw refers to the earth. Worked has two kinds, one is the base worker, referring to open ground walls; the second is the upper worker, referring to exposed soil on the upper floors. These are all called the land that is harmed. The fourth sentence, 'if instructing to dig,' the Vinaya says: If not instructing to say 'look here,' it is also considered a cause for offense. The fifth sentence, 'pācittiya,' is a violation of the offense. The Vinaya says: If a bhikkhu harms the land as mentioned above, if using a hoe, mattock, or even scratching with fingers, and burning fire on the ground, all...
使地作地想。一切皆墮 若使堀時不教看是知是亦犯吉羅。祇云。若轉石掃地驅牛欲使地平。意傷如蚊腳。一切犯提。土塊一人不勝破者犯提。畫地作字亦提。若大小便時水手磨地犯墮。若瓶器物木磚瓦等在露地。經雨已不得自取犯提。若純砂無罪。半砂得吉。多論使僧尼堀地作知凈語提。教下三眾凈人堀不作知凈語吉。若三眾不為三寶利益因緣自壞土木者吉羅。五分云。蘭若無凈人聽比丘。以水澆地。搏草布上踐。使成泥取用。祇云。覆處地得自堀。不犯者。律云。若語言知是看是。若曳木材若扶籬正。若反磚石取牛屎。取崩岸地。若鼠壤土。除經行處土及屋內土。若來住掃地。不作故堀意。一切不犯。
壞生種戒第十一 制意如上。犯緣亦同。此戒不別有緣。舉前房戒緣中。比丘自斫樹以為緣起。
若比丘壞鬼神村者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二壞業。三鬼神。四所傷之境。五結犯。初句可知。二言壞者。律云。若斫若截若墮若落併名為壞。三言鬼神者。律云。非人是也。四言村者。一切草木是鬼畜所依名村。十云。村者蚊䗈蛺蝶蟻子諸蟲。以之為舍。律云。村有五種。一謂根種。二謂枝種。三謂節種。四謂覆羅種。五子種。生種雖有五合則是三。第一種根生。二種枝生。三種子生。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 使土地作土地想（認為土地就是土地）。一切都墮落（犯戒）。如果使人挖掘土地時，不教導他們觀察（土地中的生命），知道（這樣做）也是犯吉羅（輕罪）。只說，如果轉動石頭、掃地、驅趕牛，想要使土地平整，（即使）意圖傷害像蚊子腳一樣微小，一切都犯提（波逸提，一種戒律）。土塊一個人不能搬動或打破的，打破它就犯提。在地上畫字也犯提。如果大小便時，用水手磨地，犯墮（墮落罪）。如果瓶子、器物、木頭、磚瓦等在露天，經過下雨後，不得擅自取用，犯提。如果是純沙，沒有罪。半沙，得到吉（可以）。《多論》說，使僧尼挖掘土地，不作『知道是凈地』的告知，犯提。教導下三眾（比丘尼、沙彌、沙彌尼）和凈人挖掘土地，不作『知道是凈地』的告知，吉（無罪）。如果三眾不爲了三寶的利益因緣，自己破壞土木，犯吉羅。《五分律》說，在蘭若（寺院）沒有凈人的情況下，允許比丘用水澆地，用草覆蓋在上面踐踏，使之成為泥土取用。《祇》說，覆蓋的地方的土地可以自己挖掘，不犯戒。不犯戒的情況是，《律》說，如果語言告知『知道是』、『看到是』，或者拖曳木材，或者扶正籬笆，或者翻轉磚石，取牛糞，取崩塌的岸邊的土，或者老鼠挖出的土，除去經行處的土以及屋內的土，如果是來居住而掃地，沒有故意挖掘的意圖，一切都不犯戒。
壞生種戒第十一（破壞生長植物的戒律，第十一） 制定的意義如上所述。違犯的因緣也相同。此戒沒有其他的因緣。舉前面的房戒的因緣中，比丘自己砍樹作為緣起。
若比丘壞鬼神村者波逸提（如果比丘破壞鬼神村落，犯波逸提） 這條完整的戒律條文有五句。一、犯戒的人。二、破壞的行為。三、鬼神。四、所傷害的境地。五、結罪。第一句可以知道。二、說『壞』，《律》中說，如果砍、截、墮、落，都叫做『壞』。三、說『鬼神』，《律》中說，就是非人。四、說『村』，一切草木是鬼畜所依靠的，叫做『村』。《十誦律》說，『村』就是蚊、䗈（音kuí，小飛蟲）、蛺蝶（蝴蝶）、螞蟻等蟲子，把草木作為它們的住所。《律》中說，『村』有五種：一、根生。二、枝生。三、節生。四、覆羅生（蔓生植物）。五、子生。生長的植物雖然有五種，但實際上是三種。第一種是根生，第二種是枝生，第三種是子生。又
【English Translation】 English version To think of the ground as ground. All fall (into offense). If, when having someone dig the ground, one does not teach them to observe (the life within the soil), knowing (this action) is also committing a Dukkaṭa (minor offense). It is only said that if one turns stones, sweeps the ground, or drives cattle, intending to make the ground level, (even if) the intention to harm is as small as a mosquito's leg, all commit a Thullaccaya (a type of offense). A clod of earth that one person cannot lift or break, breaking it constitutes a Thullaccaya. Drawing characters on the ground is also a Thullaccaya. If, when urinating or defecating, one uses water to smooth the ground, one commits a Pācittiya (an offense requiring confession). If bottles, utensils, wood, bricks, tiles, etc., are in the open and have been rained on, one must not take them without permission, committing a Thullaccaya. If it is pure sand, there is no offense. Half sand, one obtains good (it is permissible). The Mahāvastu says that having monks or nuns dig the ground without declaring 'knowing it is pure ground' constitutes a Thullaccaya. Teaching the lower three groups (bhikkhunis, novices, female novices) and laypeople to dig the ground without declaring 'knowing it is pure ground' is permissible (no offense). If the three groups, not for the benefit of the Triple Gem, destroy earth and wood themselves, they commit a Dukkaṭa. The Vinaya-mātṛkā says that if there are no lay attendants in the monastery, the bhikkhus are allowed to water the ground, cover it with grass, and tread on it to make mud for use. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya says that one may dig the ground in covered areas without committing an offense. Situations where one does not commit an offense are, according to the Vinaya, if one verbally declares 'knowing it is' or 'seeing it is', or dragging timber, or straightening fences, or turning bricks and stones, taking cow dung, taking soil from collapsed banks, or soil dug by rats, removing soil from walking paths and inside buildings, or if one is sweeping the ground upon arrival without the intention of deliberately digging, all do not constitute an offense.
The Eleventh Precept on Destroying Growing Plants. The meaning of the prohibition is as stated above. The circumstances of offense are also the same. This precept does not have separate circumstances. Citing the circumstances of the previous precept on dwellings, the bhikkhu himself cutting down a tree serves as the origin.
If a bhikkhu destroys a village of spirits, it is a Pācittiya. This complete precept text has five clauses: 1. The offender. 2. The act of destruction. 3. Spirits. 4. The object harmed. 5. The conclusion of the offense. The first clause is self-explanatory. Second, regarding 'destroys', the Vinaya says that cutting, severing, causing to fall, or dropping are all called 'destruction'. Third, regarding 'spirits', the Vinaya says that it refers to non-humans. Fourth, regarding 'village', all plants and trees that spirits and animals rely on are called 'village'. The Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya says that 'village' refers to mosquitoes, small flying insects, butterflies, ants, and other insects that use plants and trees as their dwellings. The Vinaya says that there are five types of 'village': 1. Root-grown. 2. Branch-grown. 3. Node-grown. 4. Spreading-grown (creepers). 5. Seed-grown. Although there are five types of growing plants, in reality, there are three. The first type is root-grown, the second is branch-grown, and the third is seed-grown. Furthermore,
根分二。不假節生作根種之。名根中假節生者。作覆羅種之。又枝種亦二。枝中不假節生者。作枝種之。名假節生者。節生之因子。子種中當體立。一始終差別離成有五。合即是三。此等皆名所傷之境。五言波逸提者。是違犯罪句。律云。若此五生種就地離地。以刀乃至余物壞者。皆名壞村而得提罪。祇云。堀地壞草竟日不止者一提。若中間息一一提也。又曰自壞他壞俱墮。若打杙著生草樹上。若以火燃並墮。若壞多分生草木者墮。壞半乾半生吉。若不言知是看是亦吉。因明凈生種法。祇云。根莖種以刀中破凈。節種者亦以刀破。又摘卻牙自凈。心種者謂羅勒[藋-隹+(黍-禾)]等柔[打-丁+修]凈。子種者十七種谷脫皮。火凈通五種。又五果中裹核種如棗杏之屬。爪甲凈去捃食。火凈合食。火凈者謂生熟二棗合核膚。果種者火凈合食。如畢缽桑椹梨柰之屬。若熟時落地。傷如蚊腳者。名瘡凈去子食。谷裹種者火凈。椰子胡桃石榴之屬。檜裹種者香柔蘇荏之屬。未有子火凈。角裹種者凈法如檜裹法。大小豆等也。準此蒿中含子之草應得火凈。但令相著即得凈法。爾故律云。若以五生種擲著池井水中大小便中糞掃中吉。若飛犯提。若草中行欲令死吉。傷如蚊腳提 問。打杙樹上隨打多少一一提罪。殺畜何不隨斫得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 根的種植方法分為兩種。一種是不經過嫁接直接生長的，用作根的種子，這被稱為『根中不假節生』。另一種是經過嫁接生長的，用作覆羅（一種植物）的種子。另外，枝條的種植方法也分為兩種。一種是枝條不經過嫁接直接生長的，用作枝條的種子，另一種被稱為『假節生』，是嫁接生長的因子。種子的種植方法是當體而立。從一到始終，差別分離，成就五種。合起來就是三種。這些都叫做所損害的境界。五言波逸提（一種戒律名稱），是違犯戒律的罪句。律中說，如果這五種生種（指植物的種子）就地或離地，用刀乃至其他東西損壞它們，都叫做破壞村落，會得到提罪（一種罪名）。祇（律藏的註釋）中說，挖掘土地，破壞草木，整日不止，算一提罪。如果中間停止，每一次停止都算一提罪。又說，自己破壞或他人破壞，都會墮落。如果把木樁打在生長著的草木上，或者用火焚燒，都會墮落。如果破壞大部分生長著的草木，會墮落。破壞一半乾燥一半生長的草木，是吉利的。如果不知道，只是看著，也是吉利的。根據明凈生種法，祇（律藏的註釋）中說，根莖類的種子用刀從中破開，就清凈了。節類的種子也用刀破開。或者摘掉芽，就自然清凈了。心類的種子，比如羅勒（一種香草）、[藋-隹+(黍-禾)]（一種植物）等，用手輕輕揉搓就清凈了。子類的種子，比如十七種穀物，脫掉皮，用火燒一下就清凈了，這適用於五種。另外，五果中包裹著核的種子，比如棗、杏之類，用指甲刮乾淨，去掉果肉食用。用火燒一下，就可以連核一起食用。用火燒一下，就可以連核和皮一起食用，比如生棗和熟棗。果類的種子，用火燒一下就可以連果肉一起食用，比如畢缽（一種香料）、桑椹、梨、柰之類。如果成熟時掉在地上，損傷像蚊子腳一樣，叫做瘡，刮乾淨，去掉子食用。穀物包裹著的種子，用火燒一下就清凈了，比如椰子、胡桃、石榴之類。檜樹包裹著的種子，比如香柔蘇、荏之類，還沒有子的時候用火燒一下就清凈了。角包裹著的種子，清凈的方法和檜樹包裹的方法一樣，比如大小豆等。按照這個標準，蒿中含有種子的草，應該可以用火燒一下就清凈了。只要讓它們互相接觸，就可以得到清凈的方法。因此，律中說，如果把五種生種扔到池井水中、大小便中、糞堆中，是吉利的。如果飛過而犯戒，會得到提罪。如果在草中行走，想要讓草死掉，是吉利的。損傷像蚊子腳一樣，會得到提罪。問：把木樁打在樹上，隨著打擊的多少，每一次都得到提罪，那麼殺害畜生為什麼不隨著砍斫的次數得到罪呢？
【English Translation】 English version There are two types of root propagation. One is where the root grows directly without grafting, and it is used as a root seed. This is called 'root without false joint growth'. The other is where the root grows through grafting, and it is used as a seed for fu luo (a type of plant). Additionally, there are also two types of branch propagation. One is where the branch grows directly without grafting, and it is used as a branch seed. The other is called 'false joint growth', which is the factor for grafted growth. Seed propagation is established as the entity itself. From one to the end, differences are separated, achieving five types. Combined, there are three types. These are all called the objects of harm. The five bo yi ti (a type of precept name) are sentences of violating the precepts. The Vinaya (monastic rules) says that if these five types of living seeds (referring to plant seeds) are on or off the ground, and they are damaged by a knife or other things, it is called destroying a village, and one will receive a ti offense (a type of offense). The Qi (commentary on the Vinaya) says that digging the ground and destroying plants without stopping all day counts as one ti offense. If one stops in the middle, each stop counts as one ti offense. It also says that whether one destroys it oneself or someone else destroys it, one will fall. If one drives a stake into a growing plant, or burns it with fire, one will fall. If one destroys most of the growing plants, one will fall. Destroying half-dry and half-growing plants is auspicious. If one does not know and is just watching, it is also auspicious. According to the method of purifying living seeds, the Qi (commentary on the Vinaya) says that root and stem seeds are purified by breaking them in the middle with a knife. Joint seeds are also broken with a knife. Or, plucking off the buds will naturally purify them. Heart seeds, such as basil and [藋-隹+(黍-禾)] (a type of plant), are purified by gently rubbing them with the hand. Seed seeds, such as seventeen types of grains, are purified by removing the skin and burning them with fire, which applies to five types. In addition, for seeds wrapped in pits among the five fruits, such as dates and apricots, scrape them clean with your fingernails and remove the flesh to eat. Burning them with fire allows you to eat them together with the pit. Burning them with fire allows you to eat them together with the pit and skin, such as raw and cooked dates. Fruit seeds can be eaten together with the flesh after burning them with fire, such as bi bo (a type of spice), mulberries, pears, and nai. If they fall on the ground when ripe and the damage is like a mosquito's foot, it is called a sore. Scrape it clean, remove the seed, and eat it. Seeds wrapped in grains are purified by burning them with fire, such as coconuts, walnuts, and pomegranates. Seeds wrapped in juniper, such as fragrant soft su and ren, are purified by burning them with fire before they have seeds. Seeds wrapped in horns have the same purification method as seeds wrapped in juniper, such as large and small beans. According to this standard, grass containing seeds in artemisia should be purified by burning them with fire. As long as they are in contact with each other, they can obtain the method of purification. Therefore, the Vinaya says that it is auspicious to throw the five types of living seeds into ponds, wells, urine, feces, or garbage heaps. If one violates the precepts by flying over them, one will receive a ti offense. It is auspicious to walk in the grass and want to kill the grass. Damage like a mosquito's foot will result in a ti offense. Question: Driving stakes into a tree, with each strike resulting in a ti offense, why is it that killing animals does not result in an offense for each chop?
提。要待斷命耶 答。草木有多生相故。隨壞處皆障一分生不起。是以隨壞得罪。畜生報者。一假名命。要斷方犯。律云。不犯者。若言看是知是。若斷乾枯草木。若於生草木上曳材曳竹。正籬障。若撥塹石。若取牛屎。若生草覆道以杖披遮令開。若以瓦石拄之而斷傷草木。若除經行地土。若掃經行地若以杖筑地而誤撥生草木斷者。並皆不犯。
異語惱僧戒第十二 制意者。凡身口業綺微面難制。過不至重惱眾。非輕事須眾僧作法。呵制仍作不正。違法惱僧其過不淺。故隨得罪 別緣有五。一身口業。二數惱不止。三作白呵制。四如法喚問。五更作便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒未作制前。未有僧命眾法可違但犯小愆。制后違者方犯提罪。口業綺者。作異語之名。身業綺者。作觸惱之稱。雖前後二結違制處同合為一戒。口餘三過妄毀兩舌惱境事重。直作即提。此之綺者事似輕微惱眾不少。故制方犯提。如闡陀比丘犯罪。余比丘問。以別事答。佛便呵已作余語白。后便惱僧。喚來不來。乃至不應語而語。又佛呵已作觸惱白。因此制戒。
若比丘妄作異語惱他者波逸提 此一戒本文有三節。初略制。次隨結。后滿足制持。此滿足戒本句有三。一犯人。二惱業。三結罪。初句可知。二言妄語作余語惱他者。于中分二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 提：一定要斷絕（眾生的）命根嗎？ 答：草木有多次生長的特性，因此，在任何破壞之處都會阻礙一部分生命的生起。所以，隨意破壞會獲罪。如果是畜生道的生命，那只是一種假名安立的『命』，一定要斷絕其命根才會構成犯罪。律中說，以下情況不構成犯罪：如果說『看看』、『知道了』；如果砍伐乾枯的草木；如果在生長的草木上拖拉木材或竹子；修整籬笆；挖掘地基的石頭；拿取牛糞；用生草覆蓋道路，用棍子撥開遮擋；用瓦片或石頭支撐（草木）導致其斷裂受傷；清除經行地的泥土；掃經行地；用棍子夯實地面，不小心撥斷生長的草木。以上這些情況都不構成犯罪。
異語惱僧戒第十二：制定此戒的用意是，凡是身口意三業中的綺語，細微之處難以控制，過失雖然不至於很嚴重，但惱亂大眾也不是小事，必須由僧團依法呵斥制止。如果仍然不正，違法惱亂僧眾，其過失不淺，所以隨犯隨得罪。違犯此戒的因緣有五種：一是身口業，二是多次惱亂不止，三是作白（向大眾宣告）呵斥制止，四是如法地喚問，五是再次違犯便構成犯罪。以下正式闡明戒本。此戒在制定之前，沒有僧團的命令或大眾的法規可以違背，只能算犯小過。制定之後，違背者才構成提罪。口業的綺語，是指作異語（不實之語）；身業的綺語，是指作觸惱（使人煩惱）的行為。雖然前後兩種行為都屬於違背戒律，但因為違犯之處相同，所以合為一戒。口業中的其餘三種過失——妄語、譭謗、兩舌，惱亂的對象事關重大，直接觸犯即構成提罪。而這裡的綺語，事情看似輕微，但惱亂大眾也不少，所以制定此戒，違犯才構成提罪。例如，闡陀比丘犯了罪，其他比丘詢問他，他用別的事情來回答。佛陀呵斥之後，（比丘們）作余語白（稟告佛陀）。後來闡陀便惱亂僧眾，叫他不來，甚至不應該說的話也說。佛陀呵斥之後，（比丘們）作觸惱白（稟告佛陀）。因此制定此戒。
若比丘妄作異語惱他者，波逸提：這一條戒文有三個部分。首先是簡略的制定，其次是隨事而結罪，最後是完整的制定和持守。這完整的戒本語句有三個要素：一是犯戒的人，二是惱亂的行為，三是結罪。第一句很容易理解。第二句說，用妄語、作異語來惱亂他人。其中又分為兩種情況。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Must one sever the life-force? Answer: Plants and trees have multiple phases of growth, so any damage obstructs a portion of life from arising. Therefore, one incurs offense by damaging them at will. As for the lives of animals, it's merely a nominal 'life'; only severing that life-force constitutes an offense. The Vinaya states that the following do not constitute offenses: saying 'take a look' or 'I know'; cutting dry grass or wood; dragging materials or bamboo over living plants; repairing fences; digging stones from the ground; taking cow dung; covering a path with fresh grass and using a stick to clear it; propping up plants with tiles or stones, causing them to break; clearing earth from a walking path; sweeping a walking path; or accidentally breaking living plants while tamping the ground with a staff. All these are not offenses.
The Twelfth Offense of Annoying Monks with Divergent Speech: The intention behind this rule is that frivolous speech and actions are difficult to control, and while the offense may not be severe, annoying the Sangha is not a trivial matter. It requires the Sangha to formally admonish and restrain the offender. If the offender persists in improper behavior and violates the rules, the offense is not minor, and one incurs offense accordingly. There are five conditions for violating this rule: (1) actions of body and speech, (2) repeated annoyance, (3) formal admonishment, (4) lawful questioning, and (5) repeated offense. The following clarifies the precepts. Before this rule was established, there was no Sangha order or communal law to violate, so only minor offenses were incurred. After the rule was established, violation constitutes a 'thullaccaya' offense. Frivolous speech involves using divergent speech (untruthful speech), and frivolous actions involve causing annoyance. Although both actions violate the rule, they are combined into one precept because the violation is the same. The other three offenses of speech—false speech, slander, and divisive speech—involve serious matters and directly incur a 'thullaccaya' offense. Frivolous speech, while seemingly minor, can still cause considerable annoyance to the Sangha, so it is only an offense if the rule is violated. For example, when Bhikkhu Chanda committed an offense and other bhikkhus questioned him, he answered with irrelevant matters. After the Buddha rebuked him, the bhikkhus reported the matter. Later, Chanda annoyed the Sangha by ignoring summons and speaking inappropriately. After the Buddha rebuked him, the bhikkhus reported the annoyance. Therefore, this rule was established.
If a bhikkhu annoys another with false or divergent speech, it is a pacittiya offense: This precept has three parts. First, a brief statement of the rule; second, the specific circumstances of the offense; and third, the complete statement of the rule and its observance. The complete statement of the rule has three elements: (1) the offender, (2) the annoying action, and (3) the offense. The first element is self-explanatory. The second element refers to annoying others with false or divergent speech, which can be divided into two situations.
。初僧未白前妄作余語者。律云。余語者。汝向誰說。為說何事。為論何理。為我說為餘人說。我不見此罪。如是語者犯吉。若僧白已如是語者犯提。二惱他者。如律中說。僧喚來不來乃至不應語而語。未作白前如是惱者得吉羅。若白已作者犯提。三言波逸提者。是違犯之罪。律云。如上惱僧者一一犯提。若上坐喚來不來吉羅。不犯者。重聽不解。前語有參錯。便言汝向說誰。為論何事。乃至我不見此罪。若欲作非法無利羯磨。不與和合。喚來不來不犯。若為作非法羯磨。若不欲知教言莫來便來不犯。若一坐食。若不作餘食法食。若病喚起不起不犯。若命難梵難教莫起不犯。便起不犯。若噁心問不與說。若作非法事便語者。若小語錯誤一切不犯。及人見云。畏成斗僧默然者得。
嫌罵戒第十三 制意者。凡僧事務廣處之不易。故簡備德之人如法料理。宜應讚歎。令彼勤營。反壞恚忿發。言嫌罵令彼生惱。廢營僧事。損壞不輕。是故須制 次釋名者。見而不聞處說有愛恚名嫌。聞不見處名罵。雖前後二結同惱知事合為一戒 次辨具緣。通緣如上。別緣有六。一是羯磨所差。二知是所差人。三如法經營無受恚等。四說嫌罵語。五言詞了了。六前人見而不聞。聞而不見便犯 闕緣。比說可知。已下正明戒本。此戒因慈
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：最初，僧侶在未稟告之前，妄自說其他話。戒律說：『說其他話』，你向誰說？說了什麼事？說了什麼道理？為我說，還是為其他人說？我沒有看到這種罪過。這樣說話的，犯吉羅罪。如果僧侶稟告之後這樣說話的，犯提舍尼罪。第二，惱亂他人。如戒律中所說，僧侶叫來不來，乃至不應該說而說。未稟告之前這樣惱亂的，得吉羅罪。如果稟告之後這樣做的，犯提舍尼罪。第三，說波逸提罪，是違犯之罪。戒律說，如上惱亂僧侶的，一一犯提舍尼罪。如果上座叫來不來，犯吉羅罪。不犯的情況：重聽不理解，之前說的話有參差錯誤，便說你向誰說？說了什麼事？乃至我沒有看到這種罪過。如果想要做非法無利的羯磨（僧團事務），不與和合，叫來不來不犯。如果爲了做非法羯磨，如果不想要知道教言，叫莫來卻來了，不犯。如果一坐食，如果不做餘食法食，如果生病叫起不起不犯。如果命難梵難，教莫起不犯，便起不犯。如果噁心問不與說，如果做非法事便說話的，如果小語錯誤，一切不犯。以及人看見說，畏懼成為斗諍僧，默然的，可以。 嫌罵戒第十三，制定此戒的用意是：凡是僧團事務，在廣闊的地方不容易處理好，所以選拔具備德行的人，如法料理。應該讚歎他們，讓他們勤勉經營。反而生起嗔恚忿怒，說嫌罵的話，讓他們生惱，廢棄經營僧事，損壞不輕。因此需要制定此戒。其次解釋名稱：見而不聞的地方說有愛恚，名為嫌。聞而不見的地方，名為罵。雖然前後兩個結罪都惱亂知事僧，合為一條戒。其次辨別構成犯罪的條件。共同的條件如上所述。特別的條件有六：一是羯磨（僧團決議）所差遣，二是知道是被差遣的人，三是如法經營，沒有受到嗔恚等，四是說了嫌罵的話，五是言詞清楚明瞭，六是前面的人見而不聞，聞而不見，便犯。缺少任何一個條件，比照上面所說可以知道。以下正式說明戒本。此戒的因是慈心。
【English Translation】 English version: Initially, a monk who, before making a formal announcement, presumptuously speaks other words. The Vinaya says: 'Speaking other words,' to whom did you speak? What did you speak about? What principle did you discuss? Did you speak for me, or for others? I do not see this as an offense. Speaking in this way incurs a Dukkaṭa offense. If a monk speaks in this way after making a formal announcement, it incurs a Nissaggiya Pācittiya offense. Second, disturbing others. As the Vinaya says, if a monk is called but does not come, or speaks when he should not speak. Disturbing in this way before making a formal announcement incurs a Dukkaṭa offense. If done after making a formal announcement, it incurs a Nissaggiya Pācittiya offense. Third, saying Pācittiya offense, is an offense of transgression. The Vinaya says, as above, disturbing the Sangha incurs a Nissaggiya Pācittiya offense for each instance. If a senior monk calls and one does not come, it incurs a Dukkaṭa offense. Non-offenses: If one is hard of hearing and does not understand, if there are discrepancies in what was said before, and one says, 'To whom did you speak? What did you discuss?' and so on, 'I do not see this as an offense.' If one intends to perform an unlawful and unprofitable Kamma (Sangha business), and does not cooperate, not coming when called is not an offense. If it is for performing an unlawful Kamma, if one does not want to know the teachings and is told not to come but comes anyway, it is not an offense. If one eats in one sitting, if one does not perform the extra food procedure, if one is sick and does not get up when called, it is not an offense. If there is danger to life or the holy life, and one is told not to get up, it is not an offense if one gets up anyway. If one asks with ill intent and is not told, if one speaks when unlawful things are being done, if there is a small verbal error, there is no offense at all. And if people see and say they fear becoming a quarrelsome Sangha, remaining silent is permissible. The Thirteenth Precept on Reviling and Scolding: The intention behind establishing this precept is that Sangha affairs are not easily managed in a vast place, so virtuous people are selected to manage them according to the Dharma. They should be praised to encourage their diligent management. On the contrary, if anger and resentment arise, and reviling and scolding words are spoken, causing them distress, abandoning the management of Sangha affairs, the damage is not light. Therefore, this precept needs to be established. Next, explaining the name: Speaking with love and hate in a place where one sees but does not hear is called reviling. Speaking in a place where one hears but does not see is called scolding. Although both instances of concluding the offense involve disturbing the Sangha officer, they are combined into one precept. Next, distinguishing the conditions for constituting an offense. The common conditions are as stated above. The specific conditions are six: First, being appointed by a Kamma (Sangha resolution); second, knowing that one is the appointed person; third, managing affairs lawfully, without being subjected to anger, etc.; fourth, speaking reviling or scolding words; fifth, the words are clear and distinct; sixth, the person in front sees but does not hear, or hears but does not see, then an offense is committed. If any one of these conditions is lacking, it can be understood by referring to what was said above. The following formally explains the precept itself. The cause of this precept is loving-kindness.
地比丘。于沓婆比丘所有恨故齊眼見處譏嫌。余比丘白佛。佛便呵制戒。后又于聞處罵。以事白佛。乘前重製此戒。故律云。初略。次隨。后廣制。
若比丘嫌罵者波逸提 此滿足本文有三句。一犯人。二罵業。三結犯。初句可知。亦言嫌罵者。律云。嫌者謂面見不聞處謗言有愛有恚有怖有癡等是言罵者背面耳聞不見處而設罵。三言波逸提者。是違犯罪。問。此罵戒何別答。前非知事人。此是知事人。又前戒實不實犯。此戒實不犯虛。律云。若虛嫌罵者墮。嫌罵一一墮。若不受上座教嫌罵者吉羅。律云。不犯者。實有其事。恐後悔悔恨。語令如法發露。便言有愛恚等。若戲若錯說者。並皆不犯。
露處敷僧臥具戒第十四 制意者。多論云。三義故制此戒。一臥具是四方僧物。皆是篤信檀越所施供。僧受用利益事廓理宜賞護。資身行道得安樂故。二既是施主之物。詳心愛惜常存愛用。為令增長信敬之心。三用助收舉使僧物不壞。令受用功德反資施主。善恨成就故。為茲三益。是以聖制 別緣有六。一四方僧臥具。二知是僧物。三露處。四自敷使人敷為己受用。五去時不自舉不教舉。六出門便犯。十云。出門四十九步。祇二十五肘乃犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群比丘。敷僧坐具妄去。不收風塵所污。佛便制
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『地』（Dì，尊稱）比丘因為對沓婆（Tàpó，人名）比丘懷有恨意，所以在眼睛能看到的範圍內譏諷和嫌棄他。其他比丘將此事稟告佛陀。佛陀隨即呵斥並制定戒律。後來，又在能聽到的地方謾罵。又將此事稟告佛陀。佛陀依照之前的做法，加重了對此事的懲戒。所以律典中說，最初是簡略地制定，然後根據情況補充，最後才廣泛地制定。
『若比丘嫌罵者波逸提』（Ruo bǐqiū xián mà zhě bō yì tí，如果比丘嫌棄謾罵，則犯波逸提罪）。這句滿足了本文的三層含義：一是犯戒的人，二是謾罵的行為，三是判定的罪名。第一句很容易理解。也即是說，嫌棄謾罵的人。律典中說，『嫌』指的是當面或者在聽不到的地方誹謗，說對方有愛、有恨、有恐懼、有愚癡等等。『罵』指的是背地裡或者在耳朵能聽到但看不到的地方進行謾罵。『波逸提』指的是違犯了戒律。
問：這個謾罵戒律有什麼不同？答：之前的戒律針對的是非知事人，這個戒律針對的是知事人。而且，之前的戒律無論真實與否都會犯戒，這個戒律只有真實才會犯戒，虛假的則不會。律典中說，如果虛假地嫌棄謾罵，就會墮落。嫌棄謾罵一次，就墮落一次。如果不接受上座的教導而嫌棄謾罵，就會犯吉羅罪。律典中說，以下情況不犯戒：確實有這件事，但害怕之後後悔，所以告訴對方讓他如法懺悔，並說對方有愛、有恨等等。如果是開玩笑或者說錯了，都不犯戒。
『露處敷僧臥具戒第十四』（Lù chù fū sēng wòjù jiè dì shísì，在露天的地方鋪僧眾的臥具戒第十四）。制定這條戒律的原因是，《多論》（Duō lùn，經書名）中說，有三個原因：一是臥具是四方僧眾的物品，都是虔誠的施主所供養的，僧眾使用這些物品，應該妥善保管和愛護，這樣才能資養身體，修行得安樂。二是既然是施主的物品，就應該用心愛惜，常存愛護之心，這樣才能增長施主的信心和敬意。三是幫助僧眾收舉臥具，使僧眾的物品不損壞，讓僧眾受用功德，反過來資助施主，使善根得以成就。爲了這三個益處，所以佛陀制定了這條戒律。
違犯的條件有：一是四方僧眾的臥具，二是知道是僧眾的物品，三是在露天的地方，四是自己鋪或者讓人鋪，爲了自己受用，五是離開的時候不自己收也不教別人收，六是出門就犯戒。《十誦律》（Shí sòng lǜ，經書名）中說，出門四十九步，或者二十五肘才算犯戒。下面正式說明戒律的根本。這條戒律的起因是六群比丘鋪了僧眾的坐具就隨意離開，不收拾，導致被風塵污染，佛陀因此制定了這條戒律。
【English Translation】 English version: The Bhikkhu 'Di' (Dì, an honorific) harbored hatred towards the Bhikkhu Taba (Tàpó, a name), so he reviled and slandered him within sight. Other Bhikkhus reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha immediately rebuked and established a precept. Later, he cursed within earshot. This matter was again reported to the Buddha. The Buddha followed the previous practice and increased the punishment for this matter. Therefore, the Vinaya says that initially it was formulated briefly, then supplemented according to the situation, and finally formulated extensively.
'If a Bhikkhu reviles and curses, it is a Pacittiya' (Ruo bǐqiū xián mà zhě bō yì tí). This sentence satisfies the three meanings of this text: first, the person who violates the precept; second, the act of cursing; and third, the determined crime. The first sentence is easy to understand. That is, the person who reviles and curses. The Vinaya says, 'Revile' refers to slandering face-to-face or in a place where it cannot be heard, saying that the other person has love, hatred, fear, ignorance, etc. 'Curse' refers to cursing behind the back or in a place where it can be heard but not seen. 'Pacittiya' refers to violating the precept.
Question: What is the difference between this cursing precept? Answer: The previous precept was aimed at non-knowledgeable people, and this precept is aimed at knowledgeable people. Moreover, the previous precept is violated whether it is true or not, and this precept is only violated if it is true, and not if it is false. The Vinaya says that if you falsely revile and curse, you will fall. Revile and curse once, and fall once. If you do not accept the teachings of the senior monk and revile and curse, you will commit a Dukkhata offense. The Vinaya says that the following situations do not constitute an offense: if the matter is indeed true, but you are afraid of regretting it later, so you tell the other person to confess according to the Dharma, and say that the other person has love, hatred, etc. If it is a joke or a mistake, it is not an offense.
'The fourteenth precept of laying out the Sangha's bedding in an exposed place' (Lù chù fū sēng wòjù jiè dì shísì). The reason for formulating this precept is that the Mahavibhasa (Duō lùn, name of a scripture) says that there are three reasons: first, the bedding is the property of the Sangha of the four directions, all of which are offered by devout donors. The Sangha uses these items and should take good care of them, so that they can nourish their bodies and practice in peace. Second, since it is the property of the donors, it should be cherished with care and love, so as to increase the donors' faith and respect. Third, it helps the Sangha to collect the bedding, so that the Sangha's property is not damaged, and the Sangha can enjoy the merits and in turn help the donors, so that the roots of goodness can be achieved. For these three benefits, the Buddha formulated this precept.
The conditions for violation are: first, the bedding of the Sangha of the four directions; second, knowing that it is the property of the Sangha; third, in an exposed place; fourth, laying it out yourself or having someone else lay it out for your own use; fifth, not collecting it yourself or teaching others to collect it when leaving; sixth, violating the precept as soon as you leave. The Sarvastivada Vinaya (Shí sòng lǜ) says that leaving forty-nine steps, or twenty-five cubits, constitutes a violation. The following is a formal explanation of the root of the precept. The origin of this precept is that the six-group Bhikkhus laid out the Sangha's sitting mats and left at will, without cleaning them up, causing them to be contaminated by wind and dust, so the Buddha formulated this precept.
戒。
若比丘取僧繩床木床若臥具坐蓐露地敷若教人敷捨去不自舉不教人舉波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二是僧物。三露已下正明受用。四捨去已下結不舉之罪。一言若比丘者。義如上辨。二言取僧物者。律云。僧者謂四方現前僧。言物者繩床有五。旋腳直腳曲腳入[打-丁+坒]無腳。木床亦有五種。如上所說。臥具或用坐或用臥。坐蓐者擬常用坐。此等四種皆是僧物。三言露地敷若教人敷。是其露地受用。四言捨去不自舉不教人舉波逸提者。是不舉之罪。律云。若比丘敷僧物已而不收舉。出寺時不囑知事者。出門便犯墮。若方便還悔者吉羅。若二人同座下座收。不者犯二罪。上座犯一提。若俱不收二俱墮。故論云。上座與下座同一床座。下座謂上座不收下座犯提及吉。上座意謂下座當收。下座竟不收。上座犯提。二人不前不後俱不收二俱得提。若露敷僧物而入房思惟吉。五分見僧臥具在露地。以不自敷不使人敷。故而不舉亦墮。到尼寺敷尼僧臥具。不舉亦提。又俗人家會借僧臥具。食訖比丘不舉亦墮。祇云。若行路中挹亂草坐已去時聚已當去。多雲。露地敷已不囑人。遊行諸房吉。不犯者。律云。若取僧物露地敷。去時語知事人令知。若無餘人當舉著屏處。若無屏處必知不失。當持粗者露好者上
【現代漢語翻譯】 戒（Śīla）。
若比丘取僧繩床（用繩子編的床）木床（木頭床）若臥具（睡覺用的墊子）坐蓐（坐墊）露地敷（在露天鋪開），若教人敷（或者教別人鋪開），捨去不自舉（離開時不自己收起來），不教人舉（也不教別人收起來），波逸提（Pācittiya，一種罪名）。此滿足戒本文有四句：一、犯人；二、是僧物（僧團的物品）；三、露已下正明受用（在露天使用）；四、捨去已下結不舉之罪（離開后不收起來的罪過）。
一言『若比丘者』，意義如上辨（如前面解釋過的一樣）。二言『取僧物者』，律云：『僧者謂四方現前僧（Saṃgha，指來自四面八方的僧團）。言物者，繩床有五：旋腳（可以旋轉的腳）直腳（直的腳）曲腳（彎曲的腳）入[打-丁+坒]（嵌入式的腳）無腳（沒有腳）。木床亦有五種，如上所說。臥具或用坐或用臥。坐蓐者擬常用坐（通常用來坐）。此等四種皆是僧物。』三言『露地敷若教人敷』，是其露地受用（指在露天使用）。四言『捨去不自舉不教人舉波逸提者』，是不舉之罪（指不收起來的罪過）。律云：『若比丘敷僧物已而不收舉（如果比丘鋪開僧團的物品后不收起來），出寺時不囑知事者（離開寺院時沒有告知負責的人），出門便犯墮（一出門就犯墮罪）。若方便還悔者吉羅（如果設法回來懺悔，則犯吉羅罪）。若二人同座下座收（如果兩個人同坐，後下座的人收起來），不者犯二罪（否則兩人都犯兩種罪）。上座犯一提（上座犯一種罪）。若俱不收二俱墮（如果都不收，兩人都犯墮罪）。』故論云：『上座與下座同一床座（上座和下座同坐一張床或座位），下座謂上座不收下座犯提及吉（下座認為上座不會收，下座犯提及吉羅罪）。上座意謂下座當收（上座認為下座會收），下座竟不收（下座最終沒有收），上座犯提（上座犯提罪）。二人不前不後俱不收二俱得提（兩人都不先不后收，兩人都犯提罪）。若露敷僧物而入房思惟吉（如果在露天鋪開僧團的物品後進入房間思惟，則無罪）。』
五分見僧臥具在露地（《五分律》中，看到僧團的臥具在露天），以不自敷不使人敷（因為不是自己鋪的，也不是自己讓人鋪的），故而不舉亦墮（所以不收起來也犯墮罪）。到尼寺敷尼僧臥具（到比丘尼寺院鋪比丘尼的臥具），不舉亦提（不收起來也犯提罪）。又俗人家會借僧臥具（又有在家信徒可能會借僧團的臥具），食訖比丘不舉亦墮（吃完飯後比丘不收起來也犯墮罪）。祇云：『若行路中挹亂草坐已去時聚已當去（《祇洹律》中說，如果在路上撥開雜草坐下，離開時應該把草聚攏后再離開）。』多雲：『露地敷已不囑人，諸房吉（大多數律典說，在露天鋪開后沒有囑咐別人，在房間里則無罪）。』
不犯者：律云：『若取僧物露地敷（不犯的情況是，律典說，如果取僧團的物品在露天鋪開），去時語知事人令知（離開時告知負責的人），若無餘人當舉著屏處（如果沒有其他人，應當收起來放在隱蔽的地方），若無屏處必知不失（如果沒有隱蔽的地方，必須確保不會丟失），當持粗者露好者上（應當把粗糙的放在外面，好的放在上面）。』
【English Translation】 Precepts (Śīla).
If a Bhikkhu takes a Saṃgha rope bed (a bed woven with ropes), a wooden bed (a bed made of wood), or bedding (a mat for sleeping), a seat (a cushion), spreads it in the open (spreads it in an open area), or instructs others to spread it, and leaves without picking it up himself (leaves without collecting it himself), or instructing others to pick it up, it is a Pācittiya (a type of offense). This complete precept text has four parts: 1. The offender; 2. It is Saṃgha property (property of the monastic community); 3. 'In the open' onwards clarifies the usage (using it in the open); 4. 'Leaves' onwards concludes the offense of not picking it up (the offense of not collecting it after leaving).
The phrase 'If a Bhikkhu' has the same meaning as explained above. The phrase 'takes Saṃgha property,' the Vinaya (monastic code) says: 'Saṃgha refers to the Saṃgha present from the four directions (the monastic community from all over). Property refers to rope beds, of which there are five types: with rotating legs, straight legs, curved legs, embedded legs, and no legs. There are also five types of wooden beds, as mentioned above. Bedding can be used for sitting or sleeping. Seats are intended for regular sitting. All four of these are Saṃgha property.' The phrase 'spreads it in the open or instructs others to spread it' refers to using it in the open. The phrase 'leaves without picking it up himself or instructing others to pick it up, it is a Pācittiya' refers to the offense of not picking it up. The Vinaya says: 'If a Bhikkhu spreads Saṃgha property and does not pick it up (if a Bhikkhu spreads out the Saṃgha's property and does not collect it), and does not inform the person in charge when leaving the monastery (and does not inform the person in charge when leaving the monastery), he commits a Dukkaṭa (a minor offense) as soon as he leaves (he commits a Dukkaṭa as soon as he leaves). If he manages to return and repent, it is a Thullaccaya (a heavier offense). If two people are sitting together, the one who gets up later should pick it up (if two people are sitting together, the one who gets up later should pick it up), otherwise both commit two offenses (otherwise both commit two offenses). The senior monk commits one offense (the senior monk commits one offense). If neither picks it up, both commit a Dukkaṭa (if neither picks it up, both commit a Dukkaṭa).' Therefore, the commentary says: 'If a senior monk and a junior monk share the same bed or seat (if a senior monk and a junior monk share the same bed or seat), and the junior monk assumes the senior monk will not pick it up, the junior monk commits a Thullaccaya and a Dukkaṭa (and the junior monk assumes the senior monk will not pick it up, the junior monk commits a Thullaccaya and a Dukkaṭa). If the senior monk assumes the junior monk will pick it up (if the senior monk assumes the junior monk will pick it up), and the junior monk does not pick it up (and the junior monk does not pick it up), the senior monk commits a Thullaccaya (the senior monk commits a Thullaccaya). If neither picks it up, both commit a Thullaccaya (if neither picks it up, both commit a Thullaccaya). If one spreads Saṃgha property in the open and enters a room to contemplate, there is no offense (if one spreads Saṃgha property in the open and enters a room to contemplate, there is no offense).'
The Pañcavargika-vinaya (Five-Part Vinaya) sees Saṃgha bedding in the open (the Pañcavargika-vinaya sees Saṃgha bedding in the open), and because it was not spread by oneself or by one's instruction (and because it was not spread by oneself or by one's instruction), not picking it up also constitutes a Dukkaṭa (not picking it up also constitutes a Dukkaṭa). Going to a nunnery and spreading the bedding of a nun (going to a nunnery and spreading the bedding of a nun), not picking it up also constitutes a Thullaccaya (not picking it up also constitutes a Thullaccaya). Also, laypeople may borrow Saṃgha bedding (also, laypeople may borrow Saṃgha bedding), and after eating, if a Bhikkhu does not pick it up, it also constitutes a Dukkaṭa (and after eating, if a Bhikkhu does not pick it up, it also constitutes a Dukkaṭa). The Gītaṃ Vinaya says: 'If one parts tangled grass in the road and sits down, one should gather it together before leaving (if one parts tangled grass in the road and sits down, one should gather it together before leaving).' Most Vinayas say: 'Spreading it in the open without entrusting it to someone, there is no offense in the rooms (spreading it in the open without entrusting it to someone, there is no offense in the rooms).'
The exceptions: The Vinaya says: 'If one takes Saṃgha property and spreads it in the open (the exceptions: The Vinaya says: 'If one takes Saṃgha property and spreads it in the open), one should inform the person in charge when leaving (one should inform the person in charge when leaving), and if there is no one else, one should put it in a hidden place (and if there is no one else, one should put it in a hidden place), and if there is no hidden place, one must ensure it is not lost (and if there is no hidden place, one must ensure it is not lost), one should keep the rougher ones exposed and the better ones on top (one should keep the rougher ones exposed and the better ones on top).'
。若即時還便應墮。雨中疾及時還往。彼次第作如是方便應去。若不爾者初出門即犯罪。
屏處敷僧臥具戒第十五 制意同前。六緣成犯。一是僧物。二知是僧物。三是屏處。四為己敷用。五去時不舉。六過限便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因客比丘在邊房敷臥具宿。去時不語知事。臥具爛壞。蟲嚙色變。佛便制戒。
若比丘于僧房中敷僧臥具若自敷若教人敷若坐若臥去時不自舉不教波逸提。此滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二屏處。三用僧物。四為己受用。五時已下結不舉罪。比丘義如上。僧房者屏處。僧臥具者。謂繩床木床上栴蓐。坐具下至臥栴。四言若自敷若教人敷者。為己受用故。五言去時不自舉不教人舉波逸提者。不舉之罪。律云。彼去時應語舊住比丘言。與我牢舉。若無人不畏失。當移床離壁高枝床腳。持栴蓐臥具置裹。以余重覆。若恐壞敗。取臥具等置衣枷上。堅床而去。若不作如是出界犯墮。欲去還悔吉羅。若即曰還不久聽二宿界外。第三宿明相未出。若自至房中。若遣使至語知事人。賞護不者明相出便犯。不犯者。作如上方便。或水陸道斷。命梵等緣者開。
強敷臥具戒第十六 制意者。然物有限事局彼此。情同則我為彼有。意隔即事須進否。然知失得住處竟不籌量。輒便於中強敷臥
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果立即歸還，則不會犯戒。如果在雨中，應儘快歸還。應該按順序採取這些措施離開。否則，剛出門就犯戒。
屏處敷僧臥具戒第十五：制戒的意圖與之前相同。有六種情況會構成犯戒：一是僧眾的物品，二是明知是僧眾的物品，三是在隱蔽的地方，四是為自己鋪設使用，五是離開時不拿走，六是超過期限就犯戒。下面正式說明戒條的根本。這條戒律的起因是有客比丘在邊房鋪設臥具住宿，離開時沒有告知知事，導致臥具腐爛損壞，被蟲子咬噬，顏色改變。佛陀因此制定了這條戒律。
『若比丘于僧房中敷僧臥具，若自敷，若教人敷，若坐若臥，去時不自舉，不教舉，波逸提。』這條完整的戒條原文有五句：一是犯戒的人，二是在隱蔽的地方，三是使用僧眾的物品，四是爲了自己受用，五是時間到了卻不拿走，構成犯戒。比丘的含義如上所述。僧房指的是隱蔽的地方。僧臥具指的是繩床、木床上的褥子，坐具下至臥具。『若自敷，若教人敷』，是爲了自己受用。『去時不自舉，不教人舉，波逸提』，是不拿走的罪過。律中說：他離開時應該告訴舊住的比丘說：『請幫我牢固地拿走。』如果沒有人，也不擔心丟失，應當將床移離墻壁，抬高床腳。將褥子臥具包裹起來，用其他重物覆蓋。如果擔心損壞，將臥具等放在衣架上，固定好床，然後離開。如果不這樣做就出界，就犯戒。想要離開又後悔，犯吉羅罪。如果當天返回，不久后離開，允許住兩夜。第三天早晨天亮之前，如果親自回到房中，或者派人告知知事人，（知事人）會照看，否則天亮就犯戒。不犯戒的情況：採取如上措施，或者遇到水路交通中斷，或者有性命攸關的事情等情況，可以開許。
強敷臥具戒第十六：制戒的意圖是：物品是有限的，事情是侷促的，彼此的情感相同，那麼我的就等同於他的。如果意念隔閡，那麼事情就需要考慮是否可行。如果知道（這樣做會）失去或得到（什麼），居住的地方最終沒有經過衡量，就擅自在這裡強行鋪設臥具。
【English Translation】 English version: If it is returned immediately, there is no offense. If it is raining, it should be returned as soon as possible. He should take these measures in order to leave. Otherwise, he commits an offense as soon as he leaves the door.
The Fifteenth Pārājika Concerning Spreading Out Monastic Bedding in a Secluded Place: The intention of the rule is the same as before. Six conditions constitute an offense: first, it is monastic property; second, he knows it is monastic property; third, it is in a secluded place; fourth, he spreads it out for his own use; fifth, he does not take it away when he leaves; sixth, he commits an offense if the time limit is exceeded. The following is a formal explanation of the fundamental of the precept. The origin of this precept is that a guest bhikkhu spread out bedding in a side room to stay overnight, and did not inform the in-charge person when he left, resulting in the bedding rotting and being damaged, being gnawed by insects, and changing color. The Buddha therefore established this precept.
'If a bhikkhu spreads out monastic bedding in a monastic dwelling, whether he spreads it out himself or instructs others to spread it out, whether he sits or lies down, and does not take it away himself when he leaves, or does not instruct others to take it away, it is a pācittiya.' This complete precept has five clauses in the original text: first, the offender; second, in a secluded place; third, using monastic property; fourth, for one's own use; fifth, failing to take it away when the time has come, constituting an offense. The meaning of bhikkhu is as described above. Monastic dwelling refers to a secluded place. Monastic bedding refers to mattresses on rope beds or wooden beds, sitting mats down to sleeping mats. 'Whether he spreads it out himself or instructs others to spread it out' is for his own use. 'Does not take it away himself when he leaves, or does not instruct others to take it away, it is a pācittiya' is the offense of not taking it away. The Vinaya says: When he leaves, he should tell the bhikkhu who lives there, 'Please take it away securely for me.' If there is no one and he is not worried about losing it, he should move the bed away from the wall and raise the bed legs. Wrap the mattress and bedding, and cover it with other heavy objects. If he is worried about damage, put the bedding etc. on a clothes rack, secure the bed, and then leave. If he does not do this and leaves the boundary, he commits an offense. If he wants to leave but regrets it, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If he returns on the same day and leaves soon after, he is allowed to stay for two nights. Before dawn on the third day, if he returns to the room himself, or sends someone to inform the in-charge person, (the in-charge person) will take care of it, otherwise he commits an offense when dawn breaks. Situations where there is no offense: taking the above measures, or encountering interrupted water or land transportation, or having life-threatening matters, etc., are allowed.
The Sixteenth Pārājika Concerning Forcibly Spreading Out Bedding: The intention of the rule is: items are limited, matters are constrained, if the feelings are the same, then mine is equivalent to his. If the thoughts are separated, then the matter needs to be considered whether it is feasible. If one knows (what will be) lost or gained (by doing so), and the place of residence has not been measured in the end, then one forcibly spreads out bedding here without permission.
具。共相逼慳非出家之式故佛所制 別緣有六。一先得住處安止已定。二知他先住。三作惱彼意。四強敷臥具。五無因緣。謂無觀舊人及病與二難等緣。六隨臥犯提。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群比丘惱十七群比丘。故佛制斯戒。
若比丘知先比丘住處後來強於中間敷臥具止宿念言彼若嫌責者自當避我去作如是因緣非余非威儀波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二知他先得住處。三後來下強敷相惱。四作是下結非威儀罪。初二兩句可知。三言強於中間敷臥具者。中間者若頭邊若腳邊若兩脅邊是。敷臥具者。若草敷業敷下至地敷臥氈。四言作如是因緣者。謂作故惱因緣。言非餘者。非病等諸緣故。言非威儀者。彰顯其過。言波逸提者。是犯罪。如律所言。知他失得住處後來強於中間敷臥具止宿。隨轉側脅著床結犯。十云。若為惱他故開戶閉戶。然火滅火。若唄咒愿讀經說法。隨他不樂事作一一墮。不犯者。律云。若先不知。若語已住。先與開間。若間寬不相妨惱。若親舊教言。但敷我自語主。若倒地若病轉側墮上。若命犯等難。一切不犯。
牽他出房戒第十七 制意者。然四方僧房眾人共有理無邊。囑先料理安止已定。後來之徒宜共受用。瞋心牽出。自壞惱他。諍競之本。損處不輕。是以須制 別緣有六
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 具。共同爭奪住所，是違背出家人清凈簡樸的原則的，所以佛陀制定此戒。 別緣有六種情況：一、先已得到住處並安頓下來。二、明知他人先已居住。三、故意使他人煩惱。四、強行鋪設臥具。五、沒有正當理由，即沒有探望舊人、生病或遭遇二難等情況。六、隨意鋪設臥具即犯提罪。以下正式闡明戒本。此戒的起因是六群比丘惱亂十七群比丘，所以佛陀制定此戒。
若比丘明知有比丘先已居住，後來強行在中間鋪設臥具並在此止宿，心想：『他如果嫌棄責備，我便會避開離去。』以製造事端為目的，而非因為其他原因或威儀不莊重，則犯波逸提（Payittiya）。此戒的完整戒本包含四句：一、犯戒者。二、明知他人先已得到住處。三、後來強行鋪設臥具以惱亂他人。四、『作是下』總結為非威儀罪。前兩句容易理解。三，『強於中間敷臥具者』，『中間』指的是頭邊、腳邊或兩脅邊。『敷臥具者』，指的是鋪設草墊、坐具，下至地墊、臥氈。四，『作如是因緣者』，指的是故意製造惱人的事端。『言非餘者』，不是因為生病等其他原因。『言非威儀者』，彰顯其過失。『言波逸提（Payittiya）者』，是犯罪。如律中所說：明知他人已獲得住處，後來強行在中間鋪設臥具並在此止宿，隨著身體轉動、側臥，身體接觸到床鋪即構成犯罪。《十誦律》中說：如果爲了惱亂他人而開關門，點火或熄滅火，或者唄唱、祝願、讀經、說法，只要做了任何使他人不悅的事情，每一件都會構成墮罪。不犯戒的情況：律中說，如果事先不知道，如果說了之後才住下，事先被允許留出空位，如果空位寬敞不妨礙他人，如果是親友勸說：『你只管鋪，我自會告訴主人。』如果跌倒、生病、翻身時不小心碰到，或者遇到性命攸關等危難情況，一切都不構成犯罪。
牽他出房戒第十七。制定此戒的原因是：四方僧房是大眾共同擁有的，理應沒有偏頗。先到的人料理安頓好之後，後來的人應該共同使用。如果心懷嗔恨將他人拉出房間，既破壞了僧團的和合，又惱亂了他人，是爭端之源，造成的損害不輕，因此需要制定此戒。別緣有六種情況。 English version: Concerning requisites. Competing for lodging is not in accordance with the ascetic practices of a renunciant, hence the Buddha established this precept. There are six specific circumstances: 1. Having already obtained lodging and settled in. 2. Knowing that another has already resided there. 3. Intending to cause annoyance to that person. 4. Forcibly spreading out bedding. 5. Having no valid reason, i.e., not visiting an old acquaintance, being ill, or facing two difficulties (two kinds of danger). 6. Spreading out bedding at will constitutes a Payittiya (波逸提) offense. The following formally clarifies the precepts. This precept arose because the Group of Six Bhikkhus (六群比丘) annoyed the Group of Seventeen Bhikkhus (十七群比丘), hence the Buddha established this precept.
'If a bhikkhu, knowing that another bhikkhu is already residing in a place, later forcibly spreads out bedding in the middle and stays there, thinking, 'If he dislikes it and blames me, I will avoid him and leave,' intending to create trouble, and not for other reasons or improper conduct, it is a Payittiya (波逸提).' This complete precept contains four clauses: 1. The offender. 2. Knowing that another has already obtained lodging. 3. Later forcibly spreading out bedding to annoy others. 4. '作是下' concludes with the offense of improper conduct. The first two clauses are easily understood. 3. 'Forcibly spreading out bedding in the middle' refers to the head side, foot side, or either side of the body. 'Spreading out bedding' refers to spreading out grass mats, sitting mats, down to ground mats and sleeping felts. 4. 'Intending to create trouble' refers to deliberately creating annoying situations. '言非餘者' means not due to illness or other reasons. '言非威儀者' highlights the fault. '言波逸提 (Payittiya) 者' means committing an offense. As stated in the Vinaya: Knowing that another has obtained lodging, later forcibly spreading out bedding in the middle and staying there, turning the body, lying on the side, and touching the bed constitutes an offense. The Tenfold Vinaya (《十誦律》) states: If one opens or closes the door to annoy others, lights or extinguishes a fire, or chants, makes vows, reads scriptures, or preaches the Dharma, each action that displeases others constitutes a Dukkaṭa (墮罪) offense. Situations where no offense is committed: The Vinaya states that if one did not know beforehand, if one stayed after speaking, if one was allowed to leave space beforehand, if the space is wide and does not interfere with others, if a relative or friend advises, 'Just spread out your bedding, I will tell the owner myself,' if one falls down, is ill, accidentally touches it while turning over, or encounters life-threatening dangers, no offense is committed.
The Seventeenth Precept: Pulling Another Out of a Room. The reason for establishing this precept is that the monastic dwellings in all directions are commonly owned by the Sangha (僧伽), and there should be no bias. Those who arrive first should manage and settle in, and those who arrive later should share the use. If one pulls another out of the room with anger, it not only disrupts the harmony of the Sangha (僧伽) but also annoys the other person, which is the source of disputes, and the damage caused is not light, so this precept needs to be established. There are six specific circumstances.
【English Translation】 Concerning requisites. Competing for lodging is not in accordance with the ascetic practices of a renunciant, hence the Buddha established this precept. There are six specific circumstances: 1. Having already obtained lodging and settled in. 2. Knowing that another has already resided there. 3. Intending to cause annoyance to that person. 4. Forcibly spreading out bedding. 5. Having no valid reason, i.e., not visiting an old acquaintance, being ill, or facing two difficulties. 6. Spreading out bedding at will constitutes a Payittiya offense. The following formally clarifies the precepts. This precept arose because the Group of Six Bhikkhus annoyed the Group of Seventeen Bhikkhus, hence the Buddha established this precept. 'If a bhikkhu, knowing that another bhikkhu is already residing in a place, later forcibly spreads out bedding in the middle and stays there, thinking, 'If he dislikes it and blames me, I will avoid him and leave,' intending to create trouble, and not for other reasons or improper conduct, it is a Payittiya.' This complete precept contains four clauses: 1. The offender. 2. Knowing that another has already obtained lodging. 3. Later forcibly spreading out bedding to annoy others. 4. '作是下' concludes with the offense of improper conduct. The first two clauses are easily understood. 3. 'Forcibly spreading out bedding in the middle' refers to the head side, foot side, or either side of the body. 'Spreading out bedding' refers to spreading out grass mats, sitting mats, down to ground mats and sleeping felts. 4. 'Intending to create trouble' refers to deliberately creating annoying situations. '言非餘者' means not due to illness or other reasons. '言非威儀者' highlights the fault. '言波逸提者' means committing an offense. As stated in the Vinaya: Knowing that another has obtained lodging, later forcibly spreading out bedding in the middle and staying there, turning the body, lying on the side, and touching the bed constitutes an offense. The Tenfold Vinaya states: If one opens or closes the door to annoy others, lights or extinguishes a fire, or chants, makes vows, reads scriptures, or preaches the Dharma, each action that displeases others constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense. Situations where no offense is committed: The Vinaya states that if one did not know beforehand, if one stayed after speaking, if one was allowed to leave space beforehand, if the space is wide and does not interfere with others, if a relative or friend advises, 'Just spread out your bedding, I will tell the owner myself,' if one falls down, is ill, accidentally touches it while turning over, or encounters life-threatening dangers, no offense is committed. The Seventeenth Precept: Pulling Another Out of a Room. The reason for establishing this precept is that the monastic dwellings in all directions are commonly owned by the Sangha, and there should be no bias. Those who arrive first should manage and settle in, and those who arrive later should share the use. If one pulls another out of the room with anger, it not only disrupts the harmony of the Sangha but also annoys the other person, which is the source of disputes, and the damage caused is not light, so this precept needs to be established. There are six specific circumstances.
。一四方僧春冬房。二先至安止已定。三作惱亂彼意。四瞋心牽出。五無因緣為舉等不犯故。六隨出門便犯。已下正明戒本。此因六群比丘共十七群。道行至小住處。十七群先入寺掃灑房舍令凈。六群知彼得好住處。遂牽出房。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘嗔他比丘不喜僧房舍中若自牽出教他牽出波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二內心瞋忿。三是僧房私房不犯。四若自己下牽出結罪。前三句可知。第四言自牽出至波逸提已來。是為犯罪。故律云。隨所牽多少一一皆犯。若牽多人出一戶多提。若牽一人出多戶多提。若遣一人出一戶一提。若牽多人出多戶多提。五分若后屋牽至前屋。前屋前屋牽至戶外。戶外牽至庭中。庭中牽至庭外。一一犯提。若持他物擲著戶外閉他戶外並吉。祇云。牽他出時。若抱柱捉戶倚壁一一提。若呵吒隨語一一離一一提若嗔蛇鼠驅出越。若言此無益物驅出無罪。十云。若喜鼾眠應去經行。不能經行應起屏處。不應惱他。五分若降伏弟子而牽出者不犯。若持不喜人來。故令自出。出不出吉羅。牽下四眾亦吉。律云。不犯者。無嗔恨心隨次出。共宿過限遣。未受具人出。若破戒見威儀為他舉及檳應檳。因此故有命梵難驅出。並皆不犯 問。前房開親不蘭凈穢。此戒局凈。不除親者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 一、四方僧眾春季和冬季居住的僧房。 二、先到達的僧人已經安頓住下。 三、做出惱亂他們心意的事情。 四、被嗔恨心驅使而做出牽拉驅趕的行為。 五、如果沒有因緣而為他人舉罪等情況，則不構成違犯。 六、只要開始驅趕，就構成違犯。以下正式闡明戒本的內容。這件事的起因是六群比丘（指一群行為不端的比丘）與另外十七群比丘，他們在前往一個小住處的路上。十七群比丘先進入寺廟打掃房舍，使之乾淨。六群比丘得知他們得到了好的住處，於是將他們從房中拉出。其他比丘指責他們的過錯，佛陀因此制定了戒律。
『若比丘嗔恨其他比丘，不喜其居住在僧房舍中，無論是自己拉出，還是教唆他人拉出，都犯波逸提（一種罪名）。』這條戒律包含四個要點：一、犯戒之人。二、內心懷有嗔恨忿怒。三、如果是僧眾的公共房產或自己的私有房產，則不構成違犯。四、如果是自己動手拉出，則構成犯罪。前三點容易理解。第四點，從『自己拉出』到『波逸提』，都屬於犯罪行為。因此律中說，無論拉出多少，每一次都構成違犯。如果拉多人出同一戶，多次犯提（波逸提的簡稱）。如果拉一人出多戶，多次犯提。如果派遣一人出一戶，一次犯提。如果拉多人出多戶，多次犯提。《五分律》中說，如果從后屋拉到前屋，從前屋拉到屋外，從屋外拉到庭院中，從庭院中拉到庭院外，每一次都犯提。如果將他人的物品扔到屋外，或者關閉他人的房門，都是允許的。祇雲中說，拉他人出去時，如果對方抱著柱子、抓住門框、倚靠墻壁，每一次都犯提。如果呵斥對方，隨著每一句話、每一次離開，都犯提。如果嗔恨蛇鼠而驅趕它們，不算違犯。如果說這是無益之物而驅趕，則沒有罪過。《十誦律》中說，如果喜歡打鼾睡覺，應該去經行（一種修行方式），如果不能經行，應該起身到僻靜之處，不應該打擾他人。《五分律》中說，如果降伏弟子而將其拉出，則不構成違犯。如果帶著不喜歡的人來，故意讓他們自己出去，無論出去與否，都犯吉羅（一種較輕的罪名）。拉下四眾（比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞、優婆夷）也犯吉羅。律中說，以下情況不構成違犯：沒有嗔恨心，按照順序請出；共同住宿超過期限而請出；請未受具足戒的人出去；如果破戒者有威儀，為他人舉罪以及檳治（一種懲罰方式），因此有命梵難（一種戒律），驅趕出去，都不構成違犯。 問：前面的房舍區分親屬、不清凈、蘭若（指遠離村落的清凈處）、清凈與污穢，這條戒律只針對清凈的房舍，不排除親屬的情況嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: 1. Monastic dwellings for monks from the four directions during spring and winter. 2. Those who arrive first and have already settled in. 3. Actions that disturb their peace of mind. 4. Being driven by anger to pull or drive someone out. 5. If there is no reason to accuse someone, etc., it is not a violation. 6. As soon as the act of driving out begins, it constitutes a violation. The following formally clarifies the content of the Pratimoksha (book of monastic rules). The cause of this incident was that the Six Group Bhikkhus (a group of monks with misconduct) and another seventeen groups of Bhikkhus were on their way to a small dwelling place. The seventeen groups of Bhikkhus first entered the temple to sweep the rooms and make them clean. The Six Group Bhikkhus learned that they had obtained good dwellings, so they pulled them out of the rooms. Other Bhikkhus accused them of their faults, and the Buddha therefore established the precepts.
'If a Bhikkhu is angry with another Bhikkhu and dislikes him residing in the Sangha (monastic community) dwelling, whether he pulls him out himself or instigates others to pull him out, he commits a Pacittiya (a type of offense).' This precept contains four key points: 1. The offender. 2. Harboring anger and resentment in the heart. 3. If it is the Sangha's public property or one's own private property, it does not constitute a violation. 4. If one personally pulls someone out, it constitutes an offense. The first three points are easy to understand. The fourth point, from 'personally pulling out' to 'Pacittiya,' all constitute criminal behavior. Therefore, the Vinaya (monastic code) says that no matter how much is pulled out, each instance constitutes a violation. If multiple people are pulled out of the same dwelling, the offense is committed multiple times. If one person is pulled out of multiple dwellings, the offense is committed multiple times. If one person is sent to pull someone out of one dwelling, the offense is committed once. If multiple people are pulled out of multiple dwellings, the offense is committed multiple times. The Five-Part Vinaya says that if pulled from the back room to the front room, from the front room to the outside, from the outside to the courtyard, from the courtyard to outside the courtyard, each instance is an offense. It is permissible to throw other people's belongings outside or close their doors. The Ghi Vinaya says that when pulling others out, if the person holds onto a pillar, grabs the door frame, or leans against the wall, each instance is an offense. If scolding the person, with each word and each departure, the offense is committed. If driving out snakes and rats out of anger, it is not a violation. If saying that these are useless things and driving them out, there is no offense. The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says that if one likes to snore while sleeping, one should go for walking meditation (a type of practice). If one cannot do walking meditation, one should get up and go to a secluded place and should not disturb others. The Five-Part Vinaya says that if subduing a disciple and pulling him out, it does not constitute a violation. If bringing someone who is disliked and intentionally causing them to leave on their own, whether they leave or not, it is a Dukkhata (a lighter offense). Pulling out the four assemblies (Bhikkhus, Bhikkhunis, Upasakas, Upasikas) also constitutes a Dukkhata. The Vinaya says that the following situations do not constitute a violation: asking someone to leave without anger, asking someone to leave after the agreed time limit for staying together has passed, asking someone who has not received full ordination to leave, if a person who has broken the precepts has decorum, accusing them for others and administering punishment, therefore there is the Brahma penalty (a type of precept), driving them out, all do not constitute a violation. Question: The previous dwellings distinguish between relatives, uncleanness, Aranya (referring to a pure place away from villages), purity, and impurity. Does this precept only apply to pure dwellings and not exclude relatives?
答。前是他物屬先借者。親則無強非僧住處故不蘭凈。此是僧房凈有共住不凈無共驅出無犯。
重屋上坐脫腳床戒第十八 制意者。凡事宜審。危險須慎。重屋薄覆脫腳之床。放身坐臥。容有墜傷。于下人惱處不輕。是故聖制 別緣有四。一重屋。二薄屋。三脫腳床。四放身坐臥。已下正明戒本。此戒因同房重屋比丘起過。制此戒。
若比丘若房若重閣上脫腳繩床木床若坐若臥波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二重屋。三脫腳床。四坐臥結犯。初句可知。二若房者。謂僧私兩種房。重閣者。謂立頭不至上。三言脫腳床者。律云。脫腳者謂腳入[打-丁+坒]。四言若坐若臥。律云。隨脅著床隨轉側。言波逸提者。是違犯。故律云。比丘如上坐臥者。隨轉側一一犯提。除脫腳床外坐獨坐床。或一板床洛床一切吉羅。不犯者。律云。若重屋板覆克木作花覆。若厚覆。若板床坐。若脫床腳坐若腳安細要。並不犯。
用蟲水戒第十九 制意者。慈濟物命道之正要知水有蟲。而故受用將損物命違其慈道茍存自營所為無理。事是非輕。故所以制 別緣有四。一是蟲水。二知有蟲水。三不作漉法。四隨所用犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因闡陀比丘起過。造屋蟲水和泥。居士譏嫌。佛便制戒。
若比丘知水
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 答：之前是屬於先借用的人的物品。如果是親屬，則沒有強行（要回），因為不是僧侶居住的地方，所以不是蘭若（aranya，寂靜處）。這是僧房，是清凈的，有共同居住的人，不清凈，沒有共同居住的人，驅逐出去沒有罪過。
重屋上坐脫腳床戒第十八：制定此戒的用意是，凡事應該審慎，危險必須謹慎。在重疊的房屋上，用簡陋的覆蓋物，沒有床腳的床上，隨意坐臥，容易有墜落受傷的危險，對下面的人也是一種困擾，所以佛制定此戒。
別緣有四種：一是重屋，二是簡陋的屋頂，三是沒有床腳的床，四是隨意坐臥。以下正式說明戒條的根本。此戒是因為住在同一間重屋的比丘犯錯而制定。
『若比丘若房若重閣上脫腳繩床木床若坐若臥波逸提』：這句完整地包含了戒條的根本，有四個部分：一是犯戒的人，二是重屋，三是沒有床腳的床，四是坐臥而犯戒。第一句容易理解。第二句『若房者』，指的是僧眾的或私人的兩種房屋。『重閣者』，指的是立柱沒有到達頂部的閣樓。第三句說『脫腳床者』，律中說，『脫腳』指的是腳陷入[打-丁+坒]（坑洼）。第四句說『若坐若臥』，律中說，隨著身體側臥在床上，隨著翻身，都會犯戒。『波逸提』，是違犯的意思。所以律中說，比丘像上面那樣坐臥，隨著翻身，每一次都會犯提。除了沒有床腳的床外，坐獨坐的床，或者單板床、洛床，一切都是吉羅（dukkhata，惡作）。不犯戒的情況，律中說，如果是重屋，用木板覆蓋，用木頭雕刻花紋覆蓋，或者厚厚的覆蓋物，或者坐在木板床上，或者坐在沒有床腳的床的床腳上，或者床腳安在細小的支撐物上，都不犯戒。
用蟲水戒第十九：制定此戒的用意是，慈悲救濟眾生的生命是正道的重要之處，明知水中有蟲，卻故意使用，將損害眾生的生命，違背慈悲之道，只顧自己，所作所為沒有道理。事情的是非輕重，所以制定此戒。
別緣有四種：一是含有蟲的水，二是明知有蟲的水，三是不做過濾的方法，四是隨著使用而犯戒。以下正式說明戒條的根本。此戒是因為闡陀（Chanda）比丘犯錯。建造房屋時，用含有蟲的水和泥，居士譏諷嫌棄，佛便制定此戒。
『若比丘知水
【English Translation】 English version: Answer: Previously, it belonged to the person who borrowed it first. If it's a relative, there's no forceful taking back, because it's not a place where monks reside, so it's not an aranya (quiet place). This is a Sangha's dwelling, it's pure, with people living together, it's impure, without people living together, expelling them is not an offense.
The Eighteenth Precept Regarding Sitting on a Footless Bed in a Multi-Story Building: The intention behind this precept is that all matters should be carefully considered, and danger must be approached with caution. Sitting or lying down carelessly on a footless bed with a flimsy covering in a multi-story building can easily lead to falls and injuries, and it also causes trouble for the people below. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept.
There are four separate conditions: first, a multi-story building; second, a flimsy roof; third, a footless bed; and fourth, carelessly sitting or lying down. The following formally explains the root of the precept. This precept was established because a bhikkhu (monk) living in the same multi-story building committed an offense.
'If a bhikkhu, in a dwelling or on a multi-story building, sits or lies down on a footless rope bed or wooden bed, it is a Pacittiya.' This complete sentence contains the root of the precept, with four parts: first, the offender; second, a multi-story building; third, a footless bed; and fourth, the act of sitting or lying down leading to an offense. The first sentence is easy to understand. The second sentence, 'in a dwelling,' refers to both Sangha's and private dwellings. 'Multi-story building' refers to a building where the pillars do not reach the top. The third sentence, 'footless bed,' the Vinaya (monastic code) says, 'footless' means the feet sink into [打-丁+坒] (a pit). The fourth sentence, 'sits or lies down,' the Vinaya says, with each time the body reclines on the bed, with each turn, an offense is committed. 'Pacittiya' means transgression. Therefore, the Vinaya says, if a bhikkhu sits or lies down as described above, with each turn, a Pacittiya offense is committed. Apart from a footless bed, sitting on a single-seated bed, or a single-board bed, or a 'Lo' bed, all are Dukkata (wrongdoing). Situations where there is no offense, the Vinaya says, if it is a multi-story building, covered with wooden boards, covered with carved wooden flowers, or a thick covering, or sitting on a wooden board bed, or sitting on the legs of a footless bed, or the legs are placed on small supports, there is no offense.
The Nineteenth Precept Regarding Using Water with Insects: The intention behind this precept is that compassionately saving the lives of beings is an essential aspect of the right path. Knowingly using water with insects will harm the lives of beings, violating the path of compassion, only caring for oneself, and acting without reason. The right and wrong of the matter are not trivial, therefore this precept is established.
There are four separate conditions: first, water containing insects; second, knowing there is water with insects; third, not using a filtering method; and fourth, committing an offense with each use. The following formally explains the root of the precept. This precept was established because Bhikkhu Chanda committed an offense. When building a house, he used water with insects to mix mud, and laypeople ridiculed and disliked it, so the Buddha established this precept.
'If a bhikkhu, knowing there is water
有蟲若澆泥若澆草若教人澆者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二犯業。三犯罪。比丘者義如上釋。已下二句可知。故律云。若不知水有蟲無罪知即犯提。言蟲水者。漉囊所遮肉眼所見。十云。眼所見漉囊所遮。若用此水隨蟲多少一一犯提。祇云。用蟲水一息一提。隨息多少一一得提。四分云。若以草土擲蟲水中。若蟲酪漿清酪漿。若漬麥漿。若酢有蟲。以繞沒草。若以草土擲蟲水中。一切皆墮。教人亦同。五分云。隨用蟲一一墮。律云。若以草土擲蟲水中。隨河池中魚蟲一一提。大集云。畜生身細猶如微塵十分之一。及至大者百千萬由旬。祇云。細故應作三重漉猶有者捨去故多雲。若作住處先應看水。用已漉羅著器中向日細意諦看。若故意有蟲者應二三重作漉羅。若故有蟲。此處不應住。四分雜法犍度中雲。無囊不得半由旬行。若無漉囊應用衣角漉水。律云。不犯者。若不知有蟲。若作無蟲想。若大以手動水令蟲去。若漉水用。若教人漉用。不犯。
覆屋過三節戒第二十 制意者。凡物有限事成為要。貪不知量重覆不已。令屋崩倒。損喪功業。譏過不輕。是以聖制 別緣有四。一自為己作屋。二使人覆。三至三節未竟不離見聞處。四第三節竟即犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因闡陀比丘起房重覆不止便摧。居
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有蟲若澆泥若澆草若教人澆者，波逸提（一種戒律名稱）。此滿足戒本文有三句：一、犯人；二、犯業；三、犯罪。比丘（佛教僧侶）的含義如上文解釋。以下兩句可以理解。所以律典說：『如果不知道水中有蟲，沒有罪；知道就有罪。』所說的蟲水，是漉水囊所能過濾，肉眼所能看見的。十誦律說：『眼睛所能看見，漉水囊所能過濾的。』如果用這種水，隨著蟲的多少，一一觸犯波逸提。僧祇律說：『用蟲水一口，就觸犯一次波逸提，隨著呼吸多少，一一觸犯。』四分律說：『如果用草土扔蟲到水中，如果蟲在酪漿、清酪漿中，如果浸泡麥子的漿中有蟲，用草纏繞沒入水中，如果用草土扔蟲到水中，一切都觸犯。教別人也一樣。』五分律說：『隨著用的蟲的數量，一一觸犯。』律典說：『如果用草土扔蟲到水中，隨著河池中的魚蟲，一一觸犯波逸提。』大集經說：『畜生的身體細小猶如微塵的十分之一，乃至大的有百千萬由旬（長度單位）。』僧祇律說：『因為蟲細小，應該做三重過濾，還有蟲就捨棄不用，所以多說。如果建造住所，應該先看水。用過濾過的水放在器皿中，向著太陽仔細觀看。如果故意有蟲，應該做二重三重過濾。如果故意有蟲，此處不應該住。』四分律雜法犍度中說：『沒有漉水囊，不得行走半由旬。如果沒有漉水囊，可以用衣角過濾水。』律典說：『不犯的情況：如果不知道有蟲，如果認為是無蟲，如果用手大力攪動水讓蟲離開，如果過濾水使用，如果教別人過濾水使用，不犯。』
覆屋過三節戒第二十：制定的意思是，凡事都有個限度，事情成功最為重要。貪婪不知節制，重複覆蓋不停，導致房屋崩塌，損失功業，招致的譏諷過失不輕。因此聖人制定此戒。別緣有四：一、自己為自己蓋房子；二、使喚別人覆蓋屋頂；三、到三節（屋頂的三個階段）未完成時，不離開見聞處；四、第三節完成時，立即觸犯。以下正式說明戒本。此戒因闡陀比丘建造房屋，重複覆蓋不停，導致房屋倒塌而起。
【English Translation】 English version If one waters mud, waters grass, or instructs others to water [with water containing insects], it is a pāyantika (a type of offense). This complete precept text has three aspects: 1. The offender; 2. The offense committed; 3. The transgression. The meaning of Bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) is as explained above. The following two sentences are understandable. Therefore, the Vinaya (monastic code) says: 'If one does not know that there are insects in the water, there is no offense; knowing it constitutes an offense.' The 'insect water' refers to water that can be filtered by a water strainer and is visible to the naked eye. The Daśabhāṇavāra Vinaya says: 'What the eye can see and the water strainer can filter.' If one uses this water, one commits a pāyantika for each insect. The Saṃghika Vinaya says: 'Using insect water once constitutes one pāyantika; according to the number of breaths, one commits offenses accordingly.' The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says: 'If one throws grass or soil into water containing insects, if the insects are in curds, clear curds, or if there are insects in the liquid used to soak barley, wrapping grass around and submerging it in the water, or throwing grass or soil into water containing insects, all constitute offenses. Instructing others is the same.' The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya says: 'According to the number of insects used, one commits offenses accordingly.' The Vinaya says: 'If one throws grass or soil into water containing insects, one commits a pāyantika for each fish or insect in the river or pond.' The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra says: 'The bodies of animals are as small as one-tenth of a speck of dust, and the largest can be hundreds of thousands of yojanas (a unit of distance).' The Saṃghika Vinaya says: 'Because the insects are small, one should filter the water three times; if there are still insects, discard the water. Therefore, it is often said that if one is building a dwelling, one should first inspect the water. After using the filtered water, place it in a container and carefully observe it in the sunlight. If there are insects intentionally, one should filter the water two or three times. If there are insects intentionally, one should not live here.' The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya's Miscellaneous Dharma Skandhaka says: 'Without a water strainer, one should not travel half a yojana. If there is no water strainer, one can use the corner of one's robe to filter water.' The Vinaya says: 'Non-offenses include: if one does not know there are insects, if one thinks there are no insects, if one vigorously stirs the water with one's hand to make the insects leave, if one filters the water for use, or if one instructs others to filter the water for use, there is no offense.'
The Twentieth Precept: Covering a Roof Exceeding Three Layers: The reason for establishing this precept is that everything has a limit, and the success of a matter is paramount. Greedily and endlessly covering the roof without measure leads to the collapse of the house, loss of merit, and severe criticism. Therefore, the Sage established this precept. There are four separate conditions: 1. Building a house for oneself; 2. Having others cover the roof; 3. Not leaving the sight and hearing range until the three layers (of the roof) are completed; 4. Committing an offense immediately upon completion of the third layer. The following formally explains the precept text. This precept arose because the Bhikkhu Chanda built a house and repeatedly covered the roof without stopping, causing the house to collapse.
士嫌言。施者雖無厭受者應知足。佛隨應制戒。
若比丘作大房舍戶扉窗牖及余莊飾具指授覆苫齊二三節若過者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二作房法戒。三指授已下開限。四過限結罪。言比丘義如上辨。二言作大房者。多用財物。及余莊飾者刻鏤彩畫。三言指授覆苫者有二種。一者縱覆。二者橫覆。言齊二三節者。是開限。律云。齊三節未竟指受無犯。四言若過波逸提者。是過限之罪。故律云。若比丘指受三節未竟自至不見聞處。若不至不見聞處者即犯提罪。若互離見聞處犯吉。見云。若過三節竟無邊看隨用草犯一一犯提。律云。不犯者。如上指授避覆第三節 若水陸道斷。賊難惡戰難命梵難故不避第三節。無犯。
輒教受教尼戒第二十一 制意者有三。一尼須教授意者。尼是女弱。闕于遊方。咨稟未聞。迷於理行。二教宣若夜遊故須教授曲示行儀。大僧丈夫形無障礙。處處咨承故不別教授。二須差意者。教授事難須備德行。故委任眾量簡。遣有德慈心訓誨。開曉心懷令生解行。終登道益。故須差遣。三結罪意者。今不被僧差輒往教授。濫行風教。乖于軌道之方。失於風靡之化。輕法自尊。損處不輕。故得提罪 次釋名專任自由不蒙僧命。稱之為輒。宣傳行德開曉未閑。名為教授。故曰輒教
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 士人會嫌棄，佈施的人即使不感到厭倦，接受佈施的人也應該知道滿足。佛陀隨順情況制定戒律。 如果比丘建造大型房舍，對於門窗以及其他裝飾，指示如何覆蓋屋頂，限定在兩三節以內。如果超過這個限度，就犯波逸提罪。這條滿足戒的本文有四個要點：一是犯戒的人；二是關於建造房舍的戒律；三是指示覆蓋屋頂的開許範圍；四是超過限定範圍的結罪。前面已經解釋過『比丘』的含義。第二點，『建造大型房舍』，是指耗費大量財物。『以及其他裝飾』，是指雕刻和彩繪。第三點，『指示如何覆蓋屋頂』，有兩種方式：一是縱向覆蓋，二是橫向覆蓋。『限定在兩三節以內』，是開許的範圍。律典中說，在三節未完成之前進行指示，沒有犯戒。第四點，『如果超過波逸提』，是指超過限定範圍的罪過。所以律典中說，如果比丘指示覆蓋三節未完成，自己離開到看不見聽不見的地方，或者沒有離開到看不見聽不見的地方，就犯提罪。如果互相離開見聞處，則犯吉罪。見解認為，如果超過三節，沒有邊看邊用草，那麼每用一根草就犯一個提罪。律典中說，不犯戒的情況是：如上所述，指示覆蓋屋頂，在第三節時避開。如果遇到水陸道路斷絕、盜賊之難、惡戰之難、性命之難、梵行之難，因此沒有避開第三節，就沒有犯戒。 擅自教導比丘尼戒第二十一條。制定此戒的原因有三點：一是比丘尼需要教授，因為比丘尼是女性，體質柔弱，缺乏遊方參學的機會，對於佛理和修行不甚瞭解，容易迷惑。二是教導的內容，如果比丘尼夜晚出行，就需要教授儀軌。大僧（比丘）是大丈夫，形體上沒有障礙，可以到處請教，所以不需要特別教授。二是需要僧團委派，因為教授是一件困難的事情，需要具備德行。所以委任僧團衡量簡選，派遣有德行、有慈悲心的人去訓導開解，使她們心懷解悟，最終登上解脫之道，所以需要委派。三是結罪的原因，現在沒有被僧團委派就擅自前往教授，濫用風教，違背了應有的軌道，失去了應有的教化作用，輕視佛法，抬高自己，損害之處不輕微，所以會得到提罪。接下來解釋名稱，專斷任性，沒有得到僧團的命令，稱之為『擅自』。宣傳德行，開解還不熟悉佛法的人，名為『教授』，所以叫做『擅自教』。
【English Translation】 English version: Scholars will be disgusted. Even if the giver is not tired of giving, the receiver should know contentment. The Buddha established precepts according to circumstances. If a Bhikshu constructs a large dwelling, regarding the doors, windows, and other decorations, instructs on how to cover the roof, limiting it to two or three sections. If this limit is exceeded, a Patayantika offense is committed. This precept of contentment has four key points: first, the offender; second, the precept regarding the construction of dwellings; third, the permitted scope of instructing on roof covering; fourth, the consequences of exceeding the limit. The meaning of 'Bhikshu' has been explained earlier. The second point, 'constructing a large dwelling,' refers to expending a large amount of wealth. 'And other decorations' refers to carving and painting. The third point, 'instructs on how to cover the roof,' has two methods: one is vertical covering, and the other is horizontal covering. 'Limiting it to two or three sections' is the permitted scope. The Vinaya states that instructing before the three sections are completed is not an offense. The fourth point, 'if exceeding Patayantika,' refers to the offense of exceeding the limit. Therefore, the Vinaya states that if a Bhikshu instructs on covering three sections and then leaves to a place out of sight and hearing, or does not leave to a place out of sight and hearing, a Thullaccaya offense is committed. If they mutually leave the sight and hearing range, a Dukkata offense is committed. A view holds that if more than three sections are covered without watching and using grass, then each blade of grass used constitutes a Thullaccaya offense. The Vinaya states that there is no offense in the following situations: as mentioned above, instructing on roof covering and avoiding the third section. If encountering the difficulty of blocked land and water routes, the difficulty of thieves, the difficulty of evil battles, the difficulty of life, the difficulty of Brahma conduct, and therefore not avoiding the third section, there is no offense. Precept 21: Teaching Bhikshunis without authorization. There are three reasons for establishing this precept: first, Bhikshunis need instruction because they are women, physically weak, lacking opportunities for traveling and learning, and are not well-versed in Buddhist principles and practice, making them prone to confusion. Second, the content of the teachings, if Bhikshunis travel at night, they need to be taught the proper conduct. Mahasangha (Bhikshus) are great men, physically unhindered, and can seek advice everywhere, so they do not need special instruction. Second, the need for Sangha delegation, because teaching is a difficult task that requires virtue. Therefore, the Sangha appoints and selects those with virtue and compassion to guide and enlighten them, so that they may have understanding and ultimately attain the path of liberation, so delegation is necessary. Third, the reason for the offense, now going to teach without being delegated by the Sangha, abusing the teachings, violating the proper path, losing the proper educational effect, belittling the Dharma, exalting oneself, and the harm is not minor, so a Thullaccaya offense is incurred. Next, explaining the name, acting arbitrarily and willfully, without receiving the Sangha's command, is called 'without authorization.' Propagating virtue and enlightening those who are not yet familiar with the Dharma is called 'teaching,' so it is called 'teaching without authorization.'
授尼 又明具緣。通緣如上。別緣有五。一有少德行為簡。全無德者永無教授之義。理不合差故無輒教尼罪。少謂極五如增五說。有五法得教誡尼。謂十德中初二八九十等是。雖備上德。若彼僧差本自無過故。次第二僧不差。雖不被差不作眾法。雖教誡離已亦自無犯故。次第三集尼眾眾集。若說八敬生過義微。但得小罪故須第四說法除八敬。第五隨所說法言了便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因愛尼來請教授。佛令差往僧。槃陀往彼說法。六群次往為說世論。愛道白佛。佛令羯磨而差因制戒。
若比丘僧不差教授比丘尼者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二僧不差。三輒往教授。四結僧不差說法之罪。言比丘義如上。一若僧不差者。律云。僧中白二羯磨不差。要具十德方始成差。少謂極五如增五中說。三言輒往教授者。律云。說八不可違法。如律廣說。四言波逸提者。是僧不差說法之罪。若說余法即得提罪。若說八敬尼常聞故但得吉罪。律云。若於說戒時。上坐問答已若僧差。若隨尼請彼比丘克時到。尼亦克時迎。若違俱犯吉羅。若聞來者當出半由旬迎供給所須。不者吉羅。若僧不差。非教授日與說八敬法。若不差與說法者墮。若僧病不和合眾不滿。應遣人禮拜問訊。尼眾病等亦遣禮拜問訊。若不吉羅。律云。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 授尼：又說明具緣（具備因緣）。通緣如上所述。別緣有五種：一、有少量德行才可被簡選，完全沒有德行的人永遠沒有教授的資格。理應如此，否則沒有經過僧團委派就教導比丘尼，會犯戒。少量德行指的是至少具備五種德行，如增五中所說。有五種法才能教誡比丘尼，即十種德行中的初二、八、九、十等。即使具備上述德行，如果僧團委派本身沒有過失，那麼第二次僧團就不會再次委派。即使沒有被委派，也不參與僧團的事務。即使教誡偏離了正道，自身也不會犯戒。第三，聚集比丘尼眾，如果宣說八敬法而產生過失，罪過較輕微，只會得到小罪，因此需要第四步說法來去除八敬法的影響。第五，隨所說法，言語清晰明瞭，否則便會犯戒。以下正式說明戒本。此戒的起因是愛尼（Mahapajapati Gotami）前來請求教授，佛陀命令僧團委派比丘前往。槃陀（Pantha）前往說法，六群比丘隨後前往，為她們宣說世俗之論。愛道（Mahapajapati Gotami）稟告佛陀，佛陀命令通過羯磨（Karma）來委派，因此制定了此戒。 若比丘僧不差教授比丘尼者，波逸提（Pacittiya）：這句戒文完整包含了四個方面：一、犯戒者；二、僧團沒有委派；三、擅自前往教授；四、觸犯了僧團沒有委派說法之罪。比丘的含義如上所述。一、如果僧團沒有委派，律中說，僧團通過白二羯磨（ñatti-dukkamma）進行委派，必須具備十種德行才能完成委派。少量德行指的是至少具備五種德行，如增五中所說。三、擅自前往教授，律中說，宣說八敬法不可違背戒律，如律中廣說。四、波逸提（Pacittiya），這是僧團沒有委派說法之罪。如果宣說其他法，就會得到提罪（Thullaccaya）。如果宣說八敬法，因為比丘尼經常聽聞，所以只會得到吉罪（Dukkata）。律中說，如果在說戒時，上座進行問答后，如果僧團委派，或者根據比丘尼的請求，比丘按時到達，比丘尼也按時迎接，如果違反，雙方都犯吉羅（Dukkata）。如果聽到來者，應當出半由旬（Yojana）迎接，供給所需，否則犯吉羅（Dukkata）。如果僧團沒有委派，在非教授日宣說八敬法，如果沒有委派而說法者，會墮落。如果僧團生病，不和合，人數不足，應當派人禮拜問訊。比丘尼眾生病等，也派人禮拜問訊，否則犯吉羅（Dukkata）。律中說。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the granting of instruction to nuns: Furthermore, it clarifies the conditions for eligibility. The general conditions are as previously stated. There are five specific conditions: Firstly, only those with some virtuous conduct are to be selected; those with no virtue at all are never eligible for instruction. It is reasonable that there should be no discrepancy, otherwise, teaching a nun without proper authorization from the Sangha would constitute an offense. 'Some' virtue refers to possessing at least five qualities, as mentioned in the 'Increase of Five'. There are five conditions under which a nun may be instructed, namely, the first two, eighth, ninth, and tenth of the ten virtues. Even if one possesses the aforementioned virtues, if the Sangha's appointment itself is without fault, then the second Sangha will not appoint again. Even if not appointed, one does not participate in the affairs of the Sangha. Even if the instruction deviates from the correct path, one does not commit an offense oneself. Thirdly, gather the assembly of nuns; if reciting the Eight Garudhammas (Eight weighty rules) causes an offense, the transgression is minor, resulting only in a slight offense; therefore, a fourth step of teaching the Dhamma is needed to remove the influence of the Eight Garudhammas. Fifthly, according to what is taught, the words should be clear and understandable, otherwise, one commits an offense. The following formally explains the Patimokkha (monastic rules). The origin of this rule is that Ayya Mahapajapati Gotami came to request instruction, and the Buddha ordered the Sangha to send a bhikkhu. Pantha went to teach, and the Group of Six bhikkhus subsequently went and taught them worldly matters. Ayya Mahapajapati Gotami reported this to the Buddha, who ordered that the appointment be made through a Karma (formal act of the Sangha), hence this rule was established. If a bhikkhu Sangha does not appoint a bhikkhu to instruct the bhikkhunis, it is a Pacittiya (an offense entailing confession): This complete precept contains four aspects: Firstly, the offender; secondly, the Sangha did not appoint; thirdly, going to instruct without authorization; fourthly, committing the offense of the Sangha not appointing to teach the Dhamma. The meaning of bhikkhu is as stated above. Firstly, if the Sangha does not appoint, the Vinaya (monastic rules) states that the Sangha appoints through a ñatti-dukkamma (formal act of the Sangha), and one must possess ten virtues to complete the appointment. 'Some' virtue refers to possessing at least five qualities, as mentioned in the 'Increase of Five'. Thirdly, going to instruct without authorization, the Vinaya states that reciting the Eight Garudhammas must not violate the rules, as extensively explained in the Vinaya. Fourthly, Pacittiya, this is the offense of the Sangha not appointing to teach the Dhamma. If other Dhamma is taught, one incurs a Thullaccaya (grave offense). If the Eight Garudhammas are taught, because the bhikkhunis hear them frequently, only a Dukkata (wrongdoing) is incurred. The Vinaya states that if, during the recitation of the Patimokkha, after the senior monk has asked and answered, if the Sangha appoints, or according to the request of the bhikkhunis, the bhikkhu arrives on time, and the bhikkhunis also greet him on time, if violated, both parties commit a Dukkata. If one hears of the arrival, one should go out half a Yojana (distance) to greet and provide necessities, otherwise, a Dukkata is incurred. If the Sangha does not appoint, and the Eight Garudhammas are taught on a non-instruction day, those who teach without appointment will fall. If the Sangha is sick, not in harmony, and the number is insufficient, one should send someone to pay respects and inquire. If the bhikkhuni Sangha is sick, etc., one should also send someone to pay respects and inquire, otherwise, a Dukkata is incurred. The Vinaya states.
非日者前三后二不應往也。前三者說戒后三日。后二者去後說戒二日。雖復僧差。此五日中不應往也。此謂往尼寺教誡。不犯者。若僧差。若時往。若尼為水陸道斷諸難緣不迎禮拜問訊者。並不犯。
說法至日暮戒第二十二 制意者。凡男女有別。居不同處。僧眾舉動須避識涉。生人信敬。日沒群聚致外情疑。容自壞行。過損不輕。故聖以制 別緣有六。一是僧甄去不差。二集尼眾。三教授說法。四日暮。五日暮想。六說法不止便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因差難陀教授尼。至日暮不蘭本寺。為俗所譏。佛便制戒。
若比丘為僧差教授比丘尼乃至暮者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二為僧所差。三教授下說法過時結罪。言若比丘者如上。二言僧差者。白二羯磨差令教授。三言教授至日暮提者。是結罪句。輕重文四。一若至日暮教授提。五分云。日沒語語提。二若余教授外授經。若誦經等犯吉。三若為余女授經等至暮一切吉羅。四境想亦吉。律云。不犯者若教授至日未暮便休。除婦女已為餘人。若船濟處說法。尼自聽。若與估價夜說法。若尼寺中。若因人請值說便聽者。一切不犯。此戒就大僧寺教授有日暮罪。尼寺不犯。準此就僧尼二寺俱得教尼。
譏訶教授師戒第二十三 制意者。然備德之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 非指定之日，前三天和后兩天不應該前往。前三天是指說戒的前三天，后兩天是指離開后說戒的后兩天。即使是僧團派遣，這五天中也不應該前往。這是指去尼寺教誡的情況。不犯戒的情況包括：如果是僧團派遣，或者適時前往，或者尼寺因為水陸道路阻斷等困難原因沒有迎接禮拜問訊，都不算犯戒。
說法至日暮戒第二十二。制定此戒的用意是：凡男女有別，居住在不同的地方。僧眾的舉動需要避嫌，以生起人們的信心和尊敬。日落後聚集在一起會導致外界的猜疑，容易敗壞自身的行為，過失不小，所以佛陀制定此戒。違犯此戒有六種情況：一是僧團沒有派遣就去；二是聚集尼眾；三是教授說法；四是到了日暮；五是心想已經日暮；六是說法不止。以下正式說明戒本。此戒的起因是難陀被僧團派遣去教授尼眾，直到日暮才離開尼寺，被世俗之人譏諷，佛陀因此制定此戒。
如果比丘被僧團派遣去教授比丘尼，乃至到日暮，就犯波逸提罪。這條戒文完整，有三個要點：一是犯戒的人；二是被僧團派遣；三是教授說法超過時間而結罪。『若比丘者』如前所述。『僧差者』是指通過白二羯磨派遣去教授。『教授至日暮提者』是結罪的語句。輕重情況有四種：一是如果到日暮才停止教授，犯波逸提罪。《五分律》說，日落後每說一句話都犯波逸提罪。二是如果在其他地方教授，例如教授經文或誦經等，犯吉羅罪。三是如果為其他女人教授經文等直到日暮，一切都犯吉羅罪。四是境界上的想像也犯吉羅罪。律中說，不犯戒的情況包括：如果教授到日未落就停止，或者避開婦女為其他人說法，或者在渡船的地方說法，尼眾自己來聽，或者與估價人一起在夜晚說法，或者在尼寺中，或者因為有人請求而順便說法，一切都不犯戒。這條戒律是指在大僧寺教授尼眾，到日暮才犯戒，在尼寺則不犯戒。根據這一點，在僧寺和尼寺都可以教誡尼眾。
譏訶教授師戒第二十三。制定此戒的用意是：具備德行的...
【English Translation】 English version: One should not go on non-designated days, three days before and two days after. The three days before refer to the three days before the recitation of the precepts, and the two days after refer to the two days after the recitation of the precepts after leaving. Even if dispatched by the Sangha, one should not go during these five days. This refers to the situation of going to a nunnery for instruction. Non-offenses include: if dispatched by the Sangha, or going at the appropriate time, or if the nunnery does not greet, bow, or inquire due to difficulties such as blocked land and water routes, it is not considered an offense.
The twenty-second precept: Speaking Dharma until sunset. The intention behind establishing this precept is: Generally, there is a distinction between men and women, and they reside in different places. The actions of the Sangha must avoid suspicion in order to generate people's faith and respect. Gathering together after sunset can lead to external suspicion, easily corrupting one's own conduct, and the fault is not small, so the Buddha established this precept. There are six situations that violate this precept: first, going without being dispatched by the Sangha; second, gathering the nuns; third, teaching and speaking Dharma; fourth, reaching sunset; fifth, thinking it is already sunset; sixth, not stopping the Dharma talk. The following formally explains the precept itself. The origin of this precept is that Nanda (name of a monk) was dispatched by the Sangha to teach the nuns and did not leave the nunnery until sunset, which was criticized by the laity, so the Buddha established this precept.
If a Bhikshu (monk) is dispatched by the Sangha to teach Bhikshunis (nuns), and it continues until sunset, he commits a Payantika (a type of offense) offense. This precept is complete and has three key points: first, the person who commits the offense; second, being dispatched by the Sangha; third, being convicted for teaching and speaking Dharma beyond the time limit. 'If a Bhikshu' is as mentioned before. 'Dispatched by the Sangha' refers to being dispatched through a white second Karma (formal procedure) to teach. 'Teaching until sunset, Payantika' is the sentence for conviction. There are four situations of varying severity: first, if teaching stops at sunset, it is a Payantika offense. The Five-Part Vinaya says that every word spoken after sunset is a Payantika offense. Second, if teaching elsewhere, such as teaching scriptures or reciting scriptures, it is a Dukkhata (a type of offense) offense. Third, if teaching scriptures to other women until sunset, everything is a Dukkhata offense. Fourth, imagining the boundary is also a Dukkhata offense. The Vinaya says that non-offenses include: if teaching stops before sunset, or avoiding women and speaking Dharma to others, or speaking Dharma at a ferry crossing, with the nuns listening on their own, or speaking Dharma at night with appraisers, or in a nunnery, or speaking Dharma incidentally because someone requested it, everything is not an offense. This precept refers to teaching nuns in a large Sangha monastery, and it is an offense to continue until sunset; it is not an offense in a nunnery. According to this, one can teach nuns in both Sangha monasteries and nunneries.
The twenty-third precept: Criticizing the teaching master. The intention behind establishing this precept is: A virtuous...
人蒙僧差。遣慈心教授情存為法。不悕飲食。而見他得利。內生嫉妒。發言譏呵。惱亂賢善。事絕兼益損處不輕。是故聖制 別緣有六。一是僧差。二情存為法不悕飲食。三生嫉妒心。四發譏呵。五言辭了了。六前人聞知犯。已下正明戒。此戒因尼迎教授師供給。六群生嫉妒意言。彼無實但為飲食故教授尼。比丘白佛。佛便制戒。
若比丘語諸比丘作如是語諸比丘為飲食故教授比丘尼波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二譏呵。三結犯。初句可知。二言譏訶者。見他得利心生熱惱故起譏訶。三言波逸提者。是犯句。律云。若如上譏訶說了了提罪。不了吉羅不犯者。其事實爾。為飲食供養故教授。若戲若錯說。並皆不犯。
與非親尼衣戒第二十四 制意者。凡男女形殊。理無交雜。無緣取與事招外譏。因交致染容。壞梵行。損敗不輕。是故聖制 別緣有四。一是比丘尼。二非親里。三虛心與衣。四彼尼領授便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因乞食比丘與尼衣。后因慊責數向人說。比丘白佛。佛呵便制。
若比丘與非親里比丘尼衣除貿易波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二非親尼。三所與衣。四除貿易。五結罪。上二可知。第三言衣者。有十種如上。多論應量衣提。不應量吉。缽亦犯提。非應量缽
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有人受到僧團的委派（僧差，指僧團的指派），懷著慈悲心去教授佛法（情存為法），不貪圖飲食供養（不悕飲食），但看到他人獲得利益，內心卻產生嫉妒（生嫉妒）。於是出言譏諷呵斥（發言譏呵），擾亂賢良之人（惱亂賢善）。這件事的過失極大，造成的損害也不輕（事絕兼益損處不輕）。因此，佛制定了戒律。構成此罪的特殊因緣有六個：一是受到僧團的委派；二是真心爲了弘揚佛法而不貪圖飲食；三是產生嫉妒心；四是出言譏諷呵斥；五是言辭清晰明確；六是對方聽懂了所說的話。以下正式闡明戒律。這條戒律的起因是比丘尼迎接教授師並供養食物，六群比丘因此產生嫉妒，說那些比丘尼實際上只是爲了獲得飲食才去教授比丘尼。比丘將此事稟告佛陀，佛陀因此制定了戒律。
『如果比丘對比丘們說這樣的話：『這些比丘爲了獲得飲食的緣故而去教授比丘尼』，犯波逸提罪（波逸提，一種罪名）。』這條完整的戒律正文有三句話：一是犯戒的人；二是譏諷呵斥的行為；三是判定的罪名。第一句很容易理解。第二句『譏諷呵斥』是指看到他人獲得利益，內心感到煩惱而產生的譏諷呵斥。第三句『波逸提』是判定的罪名。律典中說：如果像上面那樣譏諷呵斥，並且說得清清楚楚，就犯波逸提罪；如果說得不清楚，就犯吉羅罪（吉羅，一種較輕的罪名）；如果沒有犯以上情況，就不算犯戒。如果事實確實如此，即爲了獲得飲食供養而去教授，或者只是開玩笑或說錯了，都不算犯戒。
與非親屬比丘尼衣戒第二十四：制定這條戒律的原因是，男女形體不同，理應避免交往混雜。無緣無故地給予衣物，會招致外人的譏諷。因為交往而產生染污，會毀壞清凈的修行（梵行），造成的損害不輕。因此，佛制定了戒律。構成此罪的特殊因緣有四個：一是對象是比丘尼；二是非親屬關係；三是真心給予衣物；四是比丘尼接受了衣物。以下正式闡明戒律。這條戒律的起因是乞食的比丘給予比丘尼衣物，後來因為心懷不滿而多次向人說起此事。比丘將此事稟告佛陀，佛陀呵斥並制定了戒律。
『如果比丘給予非親屬的比丘尼衣物，除非是進行貿易交換，否則犯波逸提罪。』這條完整的戒律正文有五句話：一是犯戒的人；二是非親屬的比丘尼；三是所給予的衣物；四是排除貿易交換的情況；五是判定的罪名。以上兩點很容易理解。第三句『衣物』指的是有十種衣物，如上文所述。根據《多論》（多論，即《薩婆多毗尼毗婆沙》）的說法，給予符合規定的衣物犯提罪（提，即提舍尼罪），給予不符合規定的衣物犯吉羅罪。給予缽盂也同樣，給予符合規定的缽盂犯提罪，給予不符合規定的缽盂犯吉羅罪。
【English Translation】 English version: Someone is dispatched by the Sangha (僧差, sēng chāi, referring to the Sangha's dispatch), teaching the Dharma with a compassionate heart (情存為法, qíng cún wèi fǎ), not coveting food and offerings (不悕飲食, bù xī yǐnshí), but becomes jealous (生嫉妒, shēng jídù) upon seeing others gain benefits. Consequently, they speak with sarcasm and rebuke (發言譏呵, fāyán jī hē), disturbing the virtuous (惱亂賢善, nǎo luàn xiánshàn). The fault of this matter is extremely great, and the damage caused is not light (事絕兼益損處不輕, shì jué jiān yì sǔn chù bù qīng). Therefore, the Buddha established the precepts. There are six special conditions that constitute this offense: first, being dispatched by the Sangha; second, sincerely promoting the Dharma without coveting food and offerings; third, generating jealousy; fourth, speaking with sarcasm and rebuke; fifth, the words are clear and distinct; sixth, the other person understands what is said. The following formally clarifies the precepts. This precept originated from the Bhikkhunis welcoming the teaching master and offering food, causing the group of six Bhikkhus to become jealous, saying that those Bhikkhunis were actually teaching Bhikkhunis only to obtain food. The Bhikkhu reported this matter to the Buddha, and the Buddha therefore established the precept.
'If a Bhikkhu says such words to the Bhikkhus: 'These Bhikkhus are teaching Bhikkhunis for the sake of obtaining food,' it is an offense of Payantika (波逸提, bō yì tí, a type of offense).' This complete precept text has three sentences: first, the offender; second, the act of sarcasm and rebuke; third, the determined offense. The first sentence is easy to understand. The second sentence, 'sarcasm and rebuke,' refers to the sarcasm and rebuke generated from feeling annoyed in the heart upon seeing others gain benefits. The third sentence, 'Payantika,' is the determined offense. The Vinaya says: If one speaks with sarcasm and rebuke as above, and speaks clearly, it is an offense of Payantika; if one does not speak clearly, it is an offense of Thullaccaya (吉羅, jí luō, a lighter offense); if one has not committed the above, it is not an offense. If the fact is indeed so, that one teaches for the sake of obtaining food offerings, or if it is just a joke or a mistake, it is not an offense.
The twenty-fourth precept regarding giving robes to non-relatives Bhikkhunis: The reason for establishing this precept is that men and women have different forms, and should avoid mixing and mingling. Giving clothes for no reason will invite ridicule from outsiders. Because of interaction, defilement may arise, which will destroy pure practice (梵行, fàn xíng), and the damage caused is not light. Therefore, the Buddha established the precepts. There are four special conditions that constitute this offense: first, the object is a Bhikkhuni; second, there is no kinship; third, the robe is given sincerely; fourth, the Bhikkhuni receives the robe. The following formally clarifies the precepts. This precept originated from a Bhikkhu who begged for food giving a robe to a Bhikkhuni, and later repeatedly spoke about this matter to others because of dissatisfaction. The Bhikkhu reported this matter to the Buddha, and the Buddha rebuked and established the precept.
'If a Bhikkhu gives a robe to a Bhikkhuni who is not a relative, except for trade or exchange, it is an offense of Payantika.' This complete precept text has five sentences: first, the offender; second, the Bhikkhuni who is not a relative; third, the robe given; fourth, excluding the case of trade or exchange; fifth, the determined offense. The above two points are easy to understand. The third sentence, 'robe,' refers to the ten kinds of robes, as mentioned above. According to the Śarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā (多論, Duō lùn), giving a robe that meets the prescribed measure is an offense of Nissaggiya Pacittiya (提, tí, i.e., Nissaggiya Pacittiya offense), giving a robe that does not meet the prescribed measure is an offense of Thullaccaya. Giving a bowl is the same; giving a bowl that meets the prescribed measure is an offense of Nissaggiya Pacittiya, giving a bowl that does not meet the prescribed measure is an offense of Thullaccaya.
揵𨩲等吉。四言貿易者。義如上。下至藥草一斤相易得。五言波逸提者。結犯。律云。若二比丘共與一尼衣。或一衣與二尼。並犯提。多論言犯吉。此律但言與尼提與下眾吉。若依多論與尼三眾俱犯提。義亦應然。不同浣衣。廢業多少中制。又有希數。又律云。尼與大僧吉羅。若就希數大僧與希應犯輕。尼與義數尼是下眾。奉于上尊生譏義微。故所以輕。不犯者。五分律云。若為料理功業事。若為說法。若為多誦經戒與衣作衣。並不犯。此律與親尼衣共相貿易。若與塔與僧無犯。
與非親尼作衣戒第二十五 制意同前。但作衣為異 別緣有五。一是比丘尼。二非親里。三自送衣遣比丘作。四無因緣。律云。若藉著浣染持還主無犯。五隨所作便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因迦留陀夷為尼作衣。裁作淫像。成已付尼命在眾著。居士譏笑。佛便制戒。
若比丘與非親里比丘尼作衣者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二非親尼。三作衣。四結犯。上三句可知。言波逸提者。是違犯罪故。律云。彼比丘隨刀截多少隨一縫一針皆墮 問。所以不待作成而隨針針得罪者何 答。是中多過故爾。大僧上尊為下人作衣。多生染患。又招外譏。發修正業。容作非法之衣。具斯諸過。故隨縫隨針得罪。如尼造塔。磚磚得罪。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 揵𨩲（數量單位）等同於吉。四言貿易的情況，意義如上所述。下至用一斤藥草交換所得，屬於五言波逸提（一種罪名）的情況，構成犯罪。律中說，如果兩個比丘共同給一個比丘尼一件衣服，或者一件衣服給兩個比丘尼，都犯提（指波逸提）。《多論》中說犯吉（指突吉羅，較輕的罪）。此律只說給比丘尼提（指波逸提），給下眾吉（指突吉羅）。如果按照《多論》的說法，給比丘尼三眾都犯提（指波逸提），道理也應該是這樣。這不同於浣洗衣物，因為制定戒律時考慮了廢棄功業的多少。還有希望得到報酬的考慮。律中又說，比丘尼給大僧吉羅（指突吉羅）。如果就希望得到報酬的情況來說，大僧給希望得到報酬的人，應該犯輕罪。比丘尼給義數尼（指有一定數量的比丘尼團體），比丘尼是下眾，奉獻給上尊，容易引起譏諷，所以罪過較輕。不犯的情況，五分律中說，如果是爲了料理功業的事情，或者爲了說法，或者爲了多多誦經持戒而給衣服做衣服，都不犯。此律中，與親近的比丘尼用衣服互相貿易，或者給塔、給僧眾，都沒有罪。
與非親近的比丘尼做衣服戒第二十五，制定的意義與前面相同，只是做衣服的行為不同。別緣有五種：一是比丘尼，二是非親近的人，三是自己送衣服請比丘做，四是沒有因緣，律中說，如果借來穿著、浣洗、染色后還給主人，沒有罪。五是隨著所做的行為便構成犯罪。下面正式說明戒本。此戒的起因是迦留陀夷為比丘尼做衣服，裁剪製作淫穢的影象，完成後交給比丘尼，命令她在眾人面前穿。居士們譏笑，佛便制定了此戒。
『若比丘與非親里比丘尼作衣者波逸提（如果比丘給非親屬的比丘尼做衣服，就犯波逸提罪）』，這句完整戒本有四句：一是犯戒的人，二是非親近的比丘尼，三是做衣服，四是構成犯罪。上面三句可以理解。說波逸提（一種罪名）的原因，是因為違犯了罪過。律中說，那個比丘隨著刀裁剪的多少，隨著每一縫每一針，都墮落（指犯波逸提罪）。問：為什麼不等到做成衣服才定罪，而是隨著每一針就得罪呢？答：因為這裡有過失。大僧是上尊，為下人做衣服，容易產生染污的念頭，又招致外人的譏諷，妨礙修正業，容易製作非法的衣服。具備這些過失，所以隨著每一縫每一針都得罪。如同比丘尼建造佛塔，每一塊磚都得罪。
【English Translation】 English version Giving robes, etc., is equivalent to 'ji'. In the case of four-word transactions, the meaning is as above. Down to exchanging one 'jin' (a unit of weight) of medicinal herbs, it constitutes a five-word 'bo yi ti' (a type of offense), which is an offense. The Vinaya states that if two Bhikshus jointly give a Bhikshuni a robe, or give one robe to two Bhikshunis, both commit 'ti' (referring to 'bo yi ti'). The 'Da Lun' (Mahavibhasa) says it is 'ji' (referring to 'tu ji luo', a lighter offense). This Vinaya only states that giving a Bhikshuni 'ti' (referring to 'bo yi ti'), and giving to the lower assembly 'ji' (referring to 'tu ji luo'). If according to the 'Da Lun', giving to the three assemblies of Bhikshunis all constitutes 'ti' (referring to 'bo yi ti'), the principle should be the same. This is different from washing clothes, because the establishment of the precepts considered the amount of abandoned merit. There is also the consideration of hoping for rewards. The Vinaya also says that a Bhikshuni giving to a senior monk is 'ji luo' (referring to 'tu ji luo'). If considering the situation of hoping for rewards, a senior monk giving to someone hoping for rewards should commit a minor offense. A Bhikshuni giving to a 'yi shu ni' (referring to a Bhikshuni group with a certain number), the Bhikshuni is the lower assembly, offering to the honored one, it is easy to cause ridicule, so the offense is lighter. In the case of not committing an offense, the Five-Part Vinaya says that if it is for managing meritorious deeds, or for expounding the Dharma, or for reciting scriptures and precepts to give robes to make robes, it is not an offense. In this Vinaya, mutually trading robes with close Bhikshunis, or giving to pagodas, or giving to the Sangha, there is no offense.
The twenty-fifth precept regarding making robes for non-relatives Bhikshunis, the meaning of the establishment is the same as before, but the act of making robes is different. There are five separate causes: one is a Bhikshuni, two is a non-relative, three is personally sending robes to request a Bhikshu to make them, four is without a cause, the Vinaya says that if borrowing to wear, wash, dye, and return to the owner, there is no offense. Five is that the act constitutes an offense. The following formally explains the precept. The origin of this precept is that Kalodayin made robes for a Bhikshuni, cutting and making obscene images, after completion, giving them to the Bhikshuni, ordering her to wear them in front of the assembly. Laypeople ridiculed, and the Buddha established this precept.
'If a Bhikshu makes robes for a non-relative Bhikshuni, it is 'bo yi ti' (If a Bhikshu makes robes for a non-relative Bhikshuni, he commits the offense of 'bo yi ti')', this complete precept has four sentences: one is the offender, two is the non-relative Bhikshuni, three is making robes, four is constituting an offense. The above three sentences can be understood. The reason for saying 'bo yi ti' (a type of offense) is because of violating the offense. The Vinaya says that the Bhikshu, according to the amount of cutting with a knife, with each stitch and each needle, falls (referring to committing the offense of 'bo yi ti'). Question: Why not wait until the robes are made to determine the offense, but instead be guilty with each needle? Answer: Because there are many faults here. The senior monk is the honored one, making robes for the lower person, it is easy to generate defiled thoughts, and also invite external ridicule, hindering the correction of karma, and easily making illegal robes. Possessing these faults, therefore, with each stitch and each needle, one is guilty. Like a Bhikshuni building a pagoda, each brick is an offense.
此並過多故爾。若復披看牽挽熨治。以手摩捫若捉角頭挽。方正若安緣。索殘一切吉羅。不犯者。與親尼作若與僧作。為塔。若藉著浣治染還主。並開不犯。
獨與尼屏露主戒二十六 此戒過與女人同室宿無異。屏坐為別 別緣有四。一是尼。二無第三人。三在屏露二處。四共坐便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因迦留陀夷與偷蘭難陀尼軀藐端正。互有欲意在門外坐。居士共嫌。鴛鴦為譬。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘與比丘尼在屏處坐者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二尼。三處。四罪。初二兩句可知。三言屏處坐者。律云。屏有二種。一見屏。若塵若霧煙雲黑闇不明見。二聞屏處。乃至不聞常語聲。言坐者。一尼一僧無餘人。故名屏處坐。四言波逸提者。是違犯句。律云。比丘與尼屏露坐。無第三人為證故犯提。多論或比丘坐住尼起已便坐。隨坐多少一一得提。比丘起而更坐一一得罪。若二人俱坐一一正犯一罪。十云。屏坐相去一丈提。丈五吉。二丈不犯。祇云。共一尼屏坐。或尼請食已尼益食。益食去時一一提。比丘應起。不得默起。便尼疑應語言。我欲起。不爾尼起。若尼去者不犯。多論屏處者。無慚愧處。可作淫處。是名屏處。律云。證人若聾若盲不成證亦提。盲而不聾聾而不盲吉羅。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這些都不算違犯戒律。如果再次披看、牽挽、熨燙，用手摩挲，像抓住角頭拉扯，方正得像安上了邊沿。索要剩餘的一切財物，不違犯戒律的情況有：給親近的比丘尼做，或者給僧團做，爲了建造佛塔，或者借來穿著后清洗乾淨再歸還給物主，這些都開許不違犯。
獨與比丘尼在隱蔽處或暴露處同坐的主戒二十六：此戒與和女人同室而宿沒有區別，隱蔽處同坐是另一種情況。分別的因緣有四種：一是比丘尼，二是無第三人在場，三是在隱蔽處或暴露處，四是共同坐下就違犯。以下正式闡明戒本。此戒的起因是迦留陀夷和偷蘭難陀尼身材美好端正，互相產生愛慾，在門外坐著。居士們共同嫌棄他們，用鴛鴦來比喻。比丘們舉發他們的過失，佛陀因此制定戒律。
『若比丘與比丘尼在屏處坐者，波逸提（piyatti）』（如果比丘與比丘尼在隱蔽的地方同坐，犯波逸提罪）。這條戒律的完整戒本有四句：一是犯戒的人，二是比丘尼，三是地點，四是罪名。前兩句容易理解。三是說『在屏處坐』，律中說，隱蔽有兩種：一是視覺上的隱蔽，如塵土、霧氣、煙雲、黑暗，看不清楚；二是聽覺上的隱蔽，甚至聽不到平常說話的聲音。『坐』是指一個比丘和一個比丘尼，沒有其他人在場，所以稱為在隱蔽處坐。四是說『波逸提』，是違犯的罪名。律中說，比丘與比丘尼在隱蔽處或暴露處同坐，沒有第三者可以作證，所以犯波逸提罪。《多論》中說，或者比丘坐著，比丘尼站起來后也坐下，隨著坐下的次數多少，每一次都犯波逸提罪。比丘站起來又坐下，每一次都犯戒。如果兩人都坐著，每一次都正式犯一條罪。《十誦律》說，隱蔽處同坐相距一丈犯波逸提罪，一丈五尺吉，兩丈不犯。《祇律》說，與一個比丘尼在隱蔽處同坐，或者比丘尼請求食物后又增加食物，增加食物離開時每一次都犯波逸提罪。比丘應該站起來，不得默默站起，以免比丘尼懷疑，應該說：『我想要站起來。』否則比丘尼站起來，如果比丘尼離開就不犯戒。《多論》中說，隱蔽處是指沒有慚愧心的地方，可以做淫事的地方，這叫做隱蔽處。律中說，證人如果是聾子或瞎子，不能成為證人，也犯波逸提罪。如果是瞎子但不聾，或者聾子但不瞎，犯吉羅罪。如果 English version: These are not considered violations of the precepts. If one repeatedly unfolds, pulls, irons, and strokes with the hands, as if grabbing and pulling at the corners, making them square as if fitting edges. Demanding all remaining possessions, the following are not violations: doing it for a close Bhikkhuni (nun), or doing it for the Sangha (monastic community), for building a stupa (Buddhist monument), or borrowing and wearing it, then washing it clean and returning it to the owner; all these are permitted.
The twenty-sixth main precept of sitting alone with a Bhikkhuni in a secluded or exposed place: This precept is no different from sleeping in the same room with a woman; sitting together in a secluded place is another situation. There are four conditions for distinction: first, a Bhikkhuni; second, no third person present; third, being in a secluded or exposed place; fourth, sitting together constitutes a violation. The following formally clarifies the precept itself. The cause of this precept is that Kaludayi and Thullananda Bhikkhuni had beautiful and upright figures, and they developed mutual desire, sitting outside the door. Laypeople commonly disliked them, using mandarin ducks as a metaphor. Bhikkhus reported their faults, and the Buddha therefore established the precept.
『If a Bhikkhu sits with a Bhikkhuni in a secluded place, it is a Payattika (an offense requiring confession)』 (If a Bhikkhu sits with a Bhikkhuni in a hidden place, he commits a Payattika offense). The complete precept of this rule has four parts: first, the offender; second, the Bhikkhuni; third, the location; fourth, the offense. The first two parts are easy to understand. The third is 『sitting in a secluded place.』 The Vinaya (monastic code) says that there are two kinds of seclusion: first, visual seclusion, such as dust, fog, smoke, clouds, darkness, where one cannot see clearly; second, auditory seclusion, where one cannot even hear ordinary speech. 『Sitting』 refers to one Bhikkhu and one Bhikkhuni, with no other people present, so it is called sitting in a secluded place. The fourth is 『Payattika,』 which is the name of the offense. The Vinaya says that if a Bhikkhu sits with a Bhikkhuni in a secluded or exposed place, without a third person to witness, he commits a Payattika offense. The Tuo Lun says that if a Bhikkhu is sitting and the Bhikkhuni stands up and then sits down, each time she sits down, she commits a Payattika offense. If the Bhikkhu stands up and sits down again, each time he commits an offense. If both are sitting, each time they formally commit one offense. The Shi Song Lu says that sitting together in a secluded place one zhang (approximately 10 feet) apart constitutes a Payattika offense, one zhang and five chi (approximately 15 feet) is auspicious, and two zhang does not violate the precept. The Qi Lu says that sitting with one Bhikkhuni in a secluded place, or if the Bhikkhuni requests food and then adds more food, each time she adds food and leaves, it is a Payattika offense. The Bhikkhu should stand up and not stand up silently, lest the Bhikkhuni suspects, he should say, 『I want to stand up.』 Otherwise, the Bhikkhuni stands up, and if the Bhikkhuni leaves, there is no violation. The Tuo Lun says that a secluded place refers to a place without shame, a place where sexual acts can be committed, this is called a secluded place. The Vinaya says that if a witness is deaf or blind, they cannot be a witness, and it is also a Payattika offense. If one is blind but not deaf, or deaf but not blind, it is a Dukkhata (an offense of wrong-doing).
【English Translation】 These are not considered violations of the precepts. If one repeatedly unfolds, pulls, irons, and strokes with the hands, as if grabbing and pulling at the corners, making them square as if fitting edges. Demanding all remaining possessions, the following are not violations: doing it for a close Bhikkhuni (nun), or doing it for the Sangha (monastic community), for building a stupa (Buddhist monument), or borrowing and wearing it, then washing it clean and returning it to the owner; all these are permitted. The twenty-sixth main precept of sitting alone with a Bhikkhuni in a secluded or exposed place: This precept is no different from sleeping in the same room with a woman; sitting together in a secluded place is another situation. There are four conditions for distinction: first, a Bhikkhuni; second, no third person present; third, being in a secluded or exposed place; fourth, sitting together constitutes a violation. The following formally clarifies the precept itself. The cause of this precept is that Kaludayi and Thullananda Bhikkhuni had beautiful and upright figures, and they developed mutual desire, sitting outside the door. Laypeople commonly disliked them, using mandarin ducks as a metaphor. Bhikkhus reported their faults, and the Buddha therefore established the precept. 『If a Bhikkhu sits with a Bhikkhuni in a secluded place, it is a Payattika (an offense requiring confession)』 (If a Bhikkhu sits with a Bhikkhuni in a hidden place, he commits a Payattika offense). The complete precept of this rule has four parts: first, the offender; second, the Bhikkhuni; third, the location; fourth, the offense. The first two parts are easy to understand. The third is 『sitting in a secluded place.』 The Vinaya (monastic code) says that there are two kinds of seclusion: first, visual seclusion, such as dust, fog, smoke, clouds, darkness, where one cannot see clearly; second, auditory seclusion, where one cannot even hear ordinary speech. 『Sitting』 refers to one Bhikkhu and one Bhikkhuni, with no other people present, so it is called sitting in a secluded place. The fourth is 『Payattika,』 which is the name of the offense. The Vinaya says that if a Bhikkhu sits with a Bhikkhuni in a secluded or exposed place, without a third person to witness, he commits a Payattika offense. The Tuo Lun says that if a Bhikkhu is sitting and the Bhikkhuni stands up and then sits down, each time she sits down, she commits a Payattika offense. If the Bhikkhu stands up and sits down again, each time he commits an offense. If both are sitting, each time they formally commit one offense. The Shi Song Lu says that sitting together in a secluded place one zhang (approximately 10 feet) apart constitutes a Payattika offense, one zhang and five chi (approximately 15 feet) is auspicious, and two zhang does not violate the precept. The Qi Lu says that sitting with one Bhikkhuni in a secluded place, or if the Bhikkhuni requests food and then adds more food, each time she adds food and leaves, it is a Payattika offense. The Bhikkhu should stand up and not stand up silently, lest the Bhikkhuni suspects, he should say, 『I want to stand up.』 Otherwise, the Bhikkhuni stands up, and if the Bhikkhuni leaves, there is no violation. The Tuo Lun says that a secluded place refers to a place without shame, a place where sexual acts can be committed, this is called a secluded place. The Vinaya says that if a witness is deaf or blind, they cannot be a witness, and it is also a Payattika offense. If one is blind but not deaf, or deaf but not blind, it is a Dukkhata (an offense of wrong-doing).
俱立住者吉羅。尼犯吉羅 問。尼所以輕者 答。上尊共坐。盡容教授去不自由情過是微故。所以輕。律云。不犯者。若比丘有伴。若有知人有二不盲不聾。若行過倒地。若病苦力勢所持。命梵等難。並開不犯。
與尼同道行戒第二十七 此過不異前。以行為別 別緣有六。一是尼二眾五分三眾俱犯。理亦應然。譏染不殊故爾。前戒亦同此例。二共期除遇相。逢者不離見聞處行。多論小罪故須除之。三同一道行。甄去異路為無其愆。四不離見聞處行。多論俱離無過。互離吉羅。俱不離犯提。五無因緣。除白衣大伴行有悕因緣等不犯故爾。六隨所度界一一提罪。多論水陸二路同行悉屬此戒。故比丘與尼各別乘船。同水路行越界得罪亦屬此戒。同乘一船落在後戒。已下正明此戒。此因六群比丘與六群尼人間遊行。居士譏弄。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘與比丘尼期同一道行從一村除異時波逸提異時者與估客行若疑畏怖是謂異時 此滿足戒本。此文有五句。一犯人。二共期。三同行。四除緣。五結犯。初二兩句可知。言期共至某處。三言同一道行至一村者。是同道者村間有分齊行處是。四言除異時者。開緣不犯。五言波逸提者。越界結犯句。律云。隨村分齊眾多界多少一一犯提。言眾多界者。謂眾多村界非村
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『俱立住者吉羅』（兩人都站立停留，犯吉羅罪）。『尼犯吉羅』（比丘尼犯吉羅罪）。 問：尼（比丘尼）的罪為什麼較輕？ 答：因為上座比丘與比丘尼一同坐著，允許給予教授，但比丘尼離開不自由，情過的程度較輕微，所以罪較輕。律中說：以下情況不犯戒：如果有比丘有同伴，或者有知情者，且兩人都不盲不聾；如果行走時跌倒在地；如果因疾病痛苦或體力不支所迫；或者面臨生命危險或清凈行（梵行）的威脅等情況，都允許不犯戒。
與尼同道行戒第二十七：此戒的過失與前戒相似，只是以『行』為區別。分別的因緣有六種：一是比丘尼，二是僧眾五分（指五種不同的僧團成員），三是僧眾都犯戒。道理也應該是這樣，因為譏嫌和染污沒有區別。前一戒也與此例相同。二是共同約定，除非遇到特殊情況。相遇時，在能見能聞的範圍內行走，多論中認為這是小罪，所以需要避免。三是同一條道路行走，如果改變道路，就不會有過失。四是不離開能見能聞的範圍行走，多論中認為如果完全離開就沒有過失，互相離開則犯吉羅罪，都不離開則犯提罪。五是沒有因緣，除非有白衣（在家居士）大伴同行，或者有希望得到幫助的因緣等情況，否則會犯戒。六是隨著所經過的區域，每一處都犯提罪。多論中認為水路和陸路同行都屬於此戒。所以，比丘與比丘尼各自乘坐船隻，在同一水路行走，越過界限而犯罪也屬於此戒。如果同乘一條船，則屬於後面的戒律。以下正式說明此戒。此戒的起因是六群比丘與六群比丘尼在人間**，居士譏諷嘲弄，比丘舉發其過失，佛陀因此制定此戒。
『若比丘與比丘尼期同一道行從一村除異時波逸提異時者與估客行若疑畏怖是謂異時』（如果比丘與比丘尼約定在同一條道路上行走，從一個村莊到另一個村莊，除非是不同時，否則犯波逸提罪。不同時是指與商人同行，或者因為懷疑或恐懼，這被稱為不同時）。這是完整的戒本。此文有五句話：一是犯戒的人，二是共同約定，三是同行，四是排除因緣，五是結論犯戒。前兩句可以理解。『期』是指共同到達某個地方。三，『同一道行至一村者』，是指在同一條道路上行走，村莊之間有分界線和行走之處。四，『除異時者』，是指開緣不犯戒。五，『波逸提者』，是指越過界限而犯戒的結論。律中說：隨著村莊分界線的眾多，界限的多少，每一處都犯提罪。『眾多界者』，是指眾多的村莊界限，而不是村莊。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Kuhitatthāne gilā』 (Standing together, both commit a gilana offense). 『Bhikkhunī gilā』 (The bhikkhuni commits a gilana offense). Question: Why is the offense of the bhikkhuni lighter? Answer: Because the senior bhikkhu sits with the bhikkhuni, allowing instruction, but the bhikkhuni is not free to leave, and the degree of transgression is slight, so the offense is lighter. The Vinaya says: There is no offense if the bhikkhu has a companion, or if there are two people who know what is happening, and neither is blind nor deaf; if one falls while walking; if one is compelled by illness, suffering, or lack of strength; or if there is a threat to life or the pure life (brahmacarya), these are all exceptions.
The Twenty-seventh Precept: Traveling on the Same Road with a Bhikkhuni: This offense is similar to the previous one, but distinguished by the act of 『traveling.』 There are six separate conditions: first, a bhikkhuni; second, a quorum of five monastics; third, all monastics commit the offense. The principle should be the same, because the censure and defilement are no different. The previous precept is also the same in this regard. Second, a mutual agreement, unless encountering a special circumstance. When meeting, traveling within sight and hearing range; the Multitude Vinaya considers this a minor offense, so it must be avoided. Third, traveling on the same road; changing the road avoids the transgression. Fourth, not traveling outside of sight and hearing range; the Multitude Vinaya considers that if completely out of range, there is no offense; mutually out of range is a gilana offense; not out of range is a thullaccaya offense. Fifth, without a reason; unless accompanied by a layperson or with the hope of assistance, there is an offense. Sixth, with each boundary crossed, a thullaccaya offense is committed. The Multitude Vinaya considers that traveling together by water or land both fall under this precept. Therefore, if a bhikkhu and bhikkhuni travel separately by boat, traveling on the same waterway and crossing a boundary, the offense also falls under this precept. If traveling on the same boat, it falls under a later precept. The following formally explains this precept. The origin of this precept is that the Group-of-Six bhikkhus and the Group-of-Six bhikkhunis engaged in ** among people, and laypeople ridiculed them. The bhikkhus reported the transgression, and the Buddha then established this precept.
『Yo bhikkhu bhikkhuniyā saddhiṃ ekaddhānamaggaṃ paṭipajjeyya antamaso gāmantarampi pācittiyaṃ aññatra samayā samayo nāma sakkārikā vā bhayaṃ vā』 (If a bhikkhu travels on the same road with a bhikkhuni, even to another village, it is a pācittiya offense, except in certain circumstances. The circumstances are when traveling with merchants, or because of doubt or fear, this is called 『different times』). This is the complete precept. This text has five clauses: first, the offender; second, mutual agreement; third, traveling together; fourth, excluding conditions; fifth, concluding the offense. The first two clauses are understandable. 『Agreement』 refers to jointly arriving at a certain place. Third, 『traveling on the same road to another village』 refers to traveling on the same road, with boundaries and places to travel between villages. Fourth, 『excluding different times』 refers to exceptions where there is no offense. Fifth, 『pācittiya』 refers to the conclusion of committing an offense by crossing a boundary. The Vinaya says: With the multitude of village boundaries, the number of boundaries, each one is a thullaccaya offense. 『The multitude of boundaries』 refers to the boundaries of many villages, not the villages themselves.
落空處行。乃至十里提。若減一村若減十里得吉。若多村間同一界行亦吉。方便共期。不行亦吉。尼亦吉羅。尼是女人弱。要馮丈夫以為伴。援情過是微。五分云。從此聚落到彼眾落。及無聚落處半由旬犯提。律云。不犯者。若不共期 一大估客伴行。二疑處。疑有賊盜。三恐怖處。怖有賊盜。四若往彼得安隱。五若勢力所持。命梵等難。並開不犯。十誦開為尼過險路。
與尼期同乘船戒第二十八 譏過同前。正以船為異 別緣有六。一是尼三眾。二共期。三同乘一船。除異船不犯此戒。四作順流上下之意。除為直渡船失濟不犯。五無因緣。甄去命難力勢所持。或彼岸不得安隱。六雙腳入船便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒緣如前。
若比丘與比丘尼共期同乘一船上水下水除直渡者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二與尼共期。三言同乘一船上水下水者。舉乘船之意。以其相隨欲得久住故。四言除直渡者。是開限。以其直渡非久故無過。五言波逸提者。是達犯結罪。律云。共期已雙腳入船提。一腳入吉。多論若船有多白衣期無罪。或船有一比丘多尼。或多比丘一尼。隨境業多少犯爾所提。縱有俗人為第二亦犯。以其將同久處。譏損非輕故前同坐。行是暫開有邊人不犯。若期俗女人同乘船亦是犯限。此略不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
在空曠的地方行走。甚至十里路。如果少於一個村莊或少於十里路，則吉祥。如果多個村莊之間在同一區域行走，也吉祥。方便時共同約定。不一起走也吉祥。尼（Nī，比丘尼）也吉祥。尼是女人，體弱，需要依靠丈夫作為伴侶。援引情況稍微超過這個範圍。五分律說：『從這個村落到那個村落，以及沒有村落的地方，半由旬（約7公里）就犯提（波逸提）。』律中說：『不犯的情況有：如果沒有共同約定；一是與大商人結伴而行；二是懷疑的地方，懷疑有賊盜；三是恐怖的地方，害怕有賊盜；四是如果前往那裡可以得到安穩；五是被勢力所控制，面臨生命危險或梵行等困難。』這些情況都可以開許不犯。十誦律開許比丘尼通過危險的道路。 與尼（Nī，比丘尼）約定一同乘船戒第二十八：譏嫌和過失與之前相同。主要以船為不同之處。別緣有六種：一是尼三眾（三種比丘尼團體）；二是共同約定；三是同乘一條船，除了乘坐不同的船不犯此戒；四是作出順流而上或順流而下的意圖，除了爲了直接橫渡，船隻失去渡河能力的情況不犯；五是沒有因緣，甄別去除生命危險或被勢力所控制，或者在彼岸無法得到安穩；六是雙腳踏入船中便犯戒。以下正式闡明戒本。此戒的因緣如前所述。 『如果比丘與比丘尼共同約定一同乘坐一條船，無論是上水還是下水，除了直接橫渡的情況，都犯波逸提（Pāyantika）。』這條戒的完整戒文有五句：一是犯戒的人；二是與尼（Nī，比丘尼）共同約定；三是說『一同乘坐一條船，上水下水』，這是舉出乘船的意圖，因為他們相互跟隨，想要長久相處；四是說『除了直接橫渡』，這是開許的限制，因為直接橫渡不是長久的，所以沒有過失；五是說『波逸提（Pāyantika）』，這是說明觸犯戒律，構成罪過。律中說：『共同約定后，雙腳踏入船中就犯提（波逸提），一隻腳踏入則吉祥。』多論說如果船上有許多白衣，則約定沒有罪。或者船上有一位比丘和多位比丘尼，或者多位比丘和一位比丘尼，根據具體情況和行為的多少，犯相應的提（波逸提）罪。即使有俗人作為第二者，也犯戒，因為他們將一同長久相處，譏嫌和損害非同小可，所以之前如同坐在一起。行走是暫時開許的，有邊界的人不犯戒。如果與俗家女人約定一同乘船，也是觸犯戒律的範圍。這裡省略了。
【English Translation】 English version:
Walking in empty places, even for ten li (approximately 5 kilometers). If it's less than one village or less than ten li, it's auspicious. If walking between multiple villages within the same area, it's also auspicious. It's auspicious to agree to meet conveniently. It's also auspicious not to travel together. Nī (Bhikkhunī, a female monastic) is also auspicious. Nī are women and weak, needing to rely on a husband as a companion. Invoking circumstances slightly beyond this is a minor offense. The Five-Part Vinaya says: 'From this village to that village, and in places without villages, half a yojana (approximately 7 kilometers) constitutes an offense of ti (Pāyantika).' The Vinaya says: 'One does not offend if there is no prior agreement; one, traveling with a large merchant caravan; two, in suspicious places, suspecting thieves; three, in terrifying places, fearing thieves; four, if going there brings safety; five, if held by force, facing life-threatening situations or difficulties with brahmacarya (celibacy), etc.' These situations are permitted without offense. The Ten Recitation Vinaya allows bhikkhunīs to pass through dangerous roads. The Twenty-Eighth Precept: Agreeing to Travel on a Boat with a Nī (Bhikkhunī, a female monastic): The censure and faults are the same as before. The main difference is the boat. There are six separate conditions: one, the three groups of Nī (three groups of female monastics); two, mutual agreement; three, traveling on the same boat, except for traveling on different boats, one does not violate this precept; four, intending to go upstream or downstream, except for directly crossing, if the boat loses its ability to cross, one does not offend; five, without a cause, discerning and removing life-threatening situations or being held by force, or not being able to obtain safety on the other shore; six, one offends as soon as both feet are on the boat. The following formally clarifies the precept itself. The circumstances of this precept are as mentioned before. 'If a bhikkhu agrees with a bhikkhunī to travel together on a boat, whether upstream or downstream, except for directly crossing, it constitutes a Pāyantika offense.' This complete precept text has five clauses: one, the offender; two, agreeing with a Nī (Bhikkhunī, a female monastic); three, saying 'traveling together on a boat, upstream or downstream,' this is to illustrate the intention of traveling by boat, because they follow each other, wanting to stay together for a long time; four, saying 'except for directly crossing,' this is a permitted limitation, because directly crossing is not for a long time, so there is no fault; five, saying 'Pāyantika,' this is to explain that violating the precept constitutes a transgression. The Vinaya says: 'After agreeing, putting both feet on the boat constitutes a ti (Pāyantika) offense; putting one foot on is auspicious.' The Mahāvyutpatti says that if there are many laypeople on the boat, there is no offense in agreeing. Or if there is one bhikkhu and many bhikkhunīs on the boat, or many bhikkhus and one bhikkhunī, depending on the specific situation and the amount of action, the corresponding ti (Pāyantika) offense is committed. Even if there is a layperson as a second party, it is still an offense, because they will be together for a long time, and the censure and harm are not minor, so it is like sitting together before. Walking is temporarily permitted, and people with boundaries do not offend. If agreeing with a laywoman to travel on a boat, it is also within the scope of violating the precept. This is abbreviated here.
彰下房舍文。失女人上船疑。佛言聽直渡。故知上下明亦同犯。祇十多三文並言越界言犯。不同此律。不犯者。除期直渡彼岸。若入船已船師失濟上下。彼岸不得安隱。乃至難緣如上所說。並皆不犯。
食尼嘆食戒第二十九 有四種過故制。一者遣尼嘆己諸行相美求利長己貪結。壞於正命知足心故。二偏心曲嘆現情親厚。好招致外譏。損處不輕。三令施主隨言供養。無德之人即是損惱。施主闕奉福田。獲反報之益。四毀呰好人令他施主于勝福不生敬重。又是惱亂賢善。具斯多過。是故聖制 別緣有四。一是尼嘆德教化食。二知嘆。三受得。四食已咽咽犯提。已下正明戒本。此戒因居士請舍利弗等。偷蘭難陀尼言。所請並是下賊。若請者應請調達等。龍中之龍。食還具說。佛便制戒。
若比丘知比丘尼讚歎教化因緣得食食除檀越光有意者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有六句。一犯人。二知。三讚歎。四得食。五開緣。六結罪。初句可知。二言知者。律云。若不知食無犯。三言尼讚歎教化者。律云。贊言謂阿練若乞食人。乃至持三衣嘆多聞法師律師坐禪。四言得食者。從旦至中將食。五言除檀越先有意者。律云。彼有施心故開不犯。六言波逸提者。是犯句。律云。若食所嘆食者咽咽犯提。除飲食得余襯衣燈油犯吉。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
彰下房舍文。失女人上船疑。佛言聽直渡。故知上下明亦同犯。祇十多三文並言越界言犯。不同此律。不犯者。除期直渡彼岸。若入船已船師失濟上下。彼岸不得安隱。乃至難緣如上所說。並皆不犯。
食尼嘆食戒第二十九 有四種過故制。一者遣尼嘆己諸行相美求利長己貪結。壞於正命知足心故。二偏心曲嘆現情親厚。好招致外譏。損處不輕。三令施主隨言供養。無德之人即是損惱。施主闕奉福田。獲反報之益。四毀呰好人令他施主于勝福不生敬重。又是惱亂賢善。具斯多過。是故聖制 別緣有四。一是尼嘆德教化食。二知嘆。三受得。四食已咽咽犯提。已下正明戒本。此戒因居士請舍利弗（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一）等。偷蘭難陀尼言。所請並是下賊。若請者應請調達（Devadatta，釋迦牟尼佛的堂兄弟）等。龍中之龍。食還具說。佛便制戒。
若比丘（bhikkhu，男性出家人）知比丘尼（bhikkhunī，女性出家人）讚歎教化因緣得食食除檀越（dānavati，施主）光有意者波逸提（pāyantika，一種罪名） 此滿足戒本文有六句。一犯人。二知。三讚歎。四得食。五開緣。六結罪。初句可知。二言知者。律云。若不知食無犯。三言尼讚歎教化者。律云。贊言謂阿練若（āraṇya，寂靜處）乞食人。乃至持三衣嘆多聞法師律師坐禪。四言得食者。從旦至中將食。五言除檀越先有意者。律云。彼有施心故開不犯。六言波逸提者。是犯句。律云。若食所嘆食者咽咽犯提。除飲食得余襯衣燈油犯吉。
【English Translation】 English version
Regarding the matter of leaving a house and suspecting a woman of boarding a boat improperly, the Buddha said to allow direct crossing. Therefore, it is known that going up or down with clear intent is also a violation. The texts of '祇十多三文' all mention transgression and violation, which are different from this rule. Non-violations include direct crossing to the other shore as scheduled. If, after entering the boat, the boatman fails to provide passage up or down, and the other shore is not secure, or in difficult circumstances as described above, all are not violations.
The 29th precept regarding eating food obtained through praise by nuns: There are four faults for which this precept is established. First, nuns praising their own practices to seek gain, increasing their own greed, and destroying the right livelihood and contentment. Second, biased and flattering praise shows affection and closeness, easily inviting external criticism and causing significant harm. Third, causing donors to offer according to their words; those without virtue are harmed, and donors lack offerings to the field of merit, receiving adverse results. Fourth, disparaging good people, causing other donors to not respect superior blessings, and also disturbing the virtuous. Possessing these many faults, therefore the Holy One established this precept. There are four separate conditions: first, a nun praises virtue to teach and obtain food; second, knowing the praise; third, receiving the food; fourth, eating it, with each mouthful being a pāyantika offense. The following clarifies the essence of the precept. This precept arose because laypeople invited Śāriputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) and others. The nun Thullananda said that those invited were inferior thieves and that if one were to invite, they should invite Devadatta (Śākyamuni Buddha's cousin), the dragon among dragons. The details of the food were then discussed, and the Buddha established the precept.
If a bhikkhu (male monastic) knows that a bhikkhunī (female monastic) obtained food through praise and teaching, and eats that food, except if the dānavati (donor) initially intended to offer it, it is a pāyantika (an offense). This complete precept text has six clauses: first, the offender; second, knowing; third, praise; fourth, obtaining food; fifth, exceptions; sixth, the conclusion of the offense. The first clause is self-explanatory. The second clause, 'knowing,' means that according to the Vinaya, if one does not know about the food, there is no offense. The third clause, 'nun praising and teaching,' means that according to the Vinaya, praise refers to those who beg for food in the āraṇya (secluded place), or praise those who uphold the three robes, are learned Dharma masters, Vinaya masters, or practice meditation. The fourth clause, 'obtaining food,' means receiving food from dawn until noon. The fifth clause, 'except if the donor initially intended to offer it,' means that according to the Vinaya, because they have the intention to give, it is opened as a non-offense. The sixth clause, 'pāyantika,' is the offense clause. According to the Vinaya, if one eats food obtained through praise, each mouthful is a pāyantika offense, except for items other than food, such as undergarments, lamp oil, which are gilts.
祇云。除舊檀越乃至下食已唱等供食時。更有餘比丘來尼言。更有比丘施主。言善哉者不犯。若尼言此下二頭陀者墮。若言多與好食平等與不犯。若通贊一舉眾一切不犯提。若某甲眾生精進為是比丘故。通請二十一人名讚歎。餘者不犯。若有嘆食不得捨去。當展轉貿食。若比丘垢穢不凈不喜。與貿者當念此缽中食。是某比丘許我當食不犯。五分若先不知臨時言。好與比丘食者不犯 問。所以得儭衣燈油犯吉者 答。財物利重情著難捨。又是別囑理無通用。勸舍義希致受不數。是以犯輕。食無獨食勸辨義易致受義數。是故制重。燈油外用嘆勸亦希。是以制輕。又大僧嘆尼義希致受不數。故尼犯輕。律云。不犯者。若不知若先有意。若無教化想。若尼自作。若檀越令尼經營。若不教化。而乞食與者並開不犯。
與女人期同道行戒第三十 制意同前。準以俗女為異 別緣有六。一是人女。二共期。三同一道行。四不離見聞處行。五無難等緣。六隨所越界分齊便犯。但使共期不問第三人多少皆犯。以非同法不類于尼。開多伴行。已下正明戒本。此戒因那律被打為緣起。
若比丘與女人共期同一道行乃至村間波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二同行境三共期。四同道行。五結犯。初句可知。二言婦。女者如上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：祇云：如果除了舊施主，乃至下食完畢唱誦等供食時，有其他比丘或比丘尼說，或者有其他比丘施主說『善哉』，這不構成違犯。如果比丘尼說『給這位苦行僧兩份』，則構成違犯。如果說『多給些好食物』，或者『平等地給』，則不構成違犯。如果通盤讚歎，舉眾一起，都不構成違犯。如果說『某甲眾生精進，爲了這位比丘的緣故』，通盤邀請二十一人並讚歎，其餘的人不構成違犯。如果有人讚嘆食物，不得捨棄離去，應當輾轉交換食物。如果比丘的食物污穢不凈，不令人喜歡，與他交換食物的人應當想：『這缽中的食物是某比丘允許我食用的』，這樣不構成違犯。《五分律》說，如果事先不知道，臨時說『好好地給比丘食物』，不構成違犯。問：為什麼得到儭衣（僧人使用的墊子），燈油反而犯輕罪？答：因為財物利益重大，情執難以捨棄，而且是特別囑託，道理上不能通用。勸人佈施，希望得到，接受時不計數，因此犯輕罪。食物不是獨自食用，勸人分食，道理容易理解，接受時計數，因此制定重罪。燈油用於外部，讚歎勸說也少，因此制定輕罪。又，大僧讚歎比丘尼，希望得到的機會少，接受時不計數，所以比丘尼犯輕罪。《律》中說，不構成違犯的情況有：如果不知道，如果事先有意，如果沒有教化的想法，如果比丘尼自己做，如果施主讓比丘尼經營，如果不教化而乞食給與，都開許不構成違犯。 與女人約定一同行走戒第三十：制定的用意與之前相同，以世俗女子作為不同之處。別緣有六：一是人是女子，二是共同約定，三是同一條道路行走，四是不離開能見能聞的地方行走，五是沒有困難等因緣，六是隨著超越界限的程度而犯戒。只要共同約定，不問第三人有多少，都構成違犯，因為不是同法者，不類似於比丘尼。開許多人同行。以下正式說明戒本。此戒的緣起是因為那律被打。 『若比丘與女人共期同一道行乃至村間波逸提』：此滿足戒文有五句。一、犯戒的人。二、同行的對象。三、共同約定。四、同一條道路行走。五、結論犯戒。第一句可知。二、『婦』，『女』的含義如上所述。
【English Translation】 English version: The 祇云 (祇云, unclear meaning) states: If, besides the old donors, even after the meal is finished and the chanting is done during the offering of food, other Bhikkhus (monks) or Bhikkhunis (nuns) speak, or if other Bhikkhu donors say 'Sadhu' (well done), this does not constitute an offense. If a Bhikkhuni says, 'Give this ascetic two portions,' it constitutes an offense. If she says, 'Give more good food,' or 'Give equally,' it does not constitute an offense. If there is general praise, with the assembly together, none of it constitutes a 提 (提, unclear meaning). If it is said, 'So-and-so sentient being is diligent, for the sake of this Bhikkhu,' generally inviting twenty-one people and praising, the rest do not constitute an offense. If someone praises the food, one must not abandon it and leave; one should exchange food. If a Bhikkhu's food is filthy and impure, and not pleasing, the one who exchanges food with him should think, 'This food in this bowl is permitted to me by so-and-so Bhikkhu to eat,' this does not constitute an offense. The 《Five-Part Vinaya》 states that if one does not know beforehand, and temporarily says, 'Give the Bhikkhu food well,' it does not constitute an offense. Question: Why is obtaining a 儭衣 (cushion used by monks) and lamp oil a minor offense? Answer: Because material possessions are of great benefit, attachment is difficult to relinquish, and it is a special entrustment, so it cannot be used generally in principle. Encouraging people to donate, hoping to receive, and not counting when receiving, therefore it is a minor offense. Food is not eaten alone, encouraging people to share, the principle is easy to understand, and counting when receiving, therefore a major offense is established. Lamp oil is used externally, and praise and encouragement are also rare, therefore a minor offense is established. Also, a senior monk praising a Bhikkhuni has fewer opportunities to receive and does not count when receiving, so the Bhikkhuni commits a minor offense. The 《Vinaya》 states that the following do not constitute an offense: if one does not know, if one intends beforehand, if there is no intention to teach, if the Bhikkhuni does it herself, if the donor asks the Bhikkhuni to manage it, if one does not teach but begs for food and gives it, all are permitted and do not constitute an offense. The Thirtieth Precept: The precept against agreeing to travel together with a woman: The intention of the rule is the same as before, with a secular woman as the difference. There are six separate conditions: first, the person is a woman; second, there is a mutual agreement; third, traveling on the same road; fourth, traveling within sight and hearing; fifth, there are no difficulties or other reasons; sixth, the offense is committed according to the extent of crossing the boundary. As long as there is a mutual agreement, it does not matter how many third parties there are, it constitutes an offense because they are not of the same Dharma and are not similar to Bhikkhunis. Allowing many companions to travel together. The following formally explains the precepts. The origin of this precept is due to 那律 (Nalut, name of a person) being beaten. 'If a Bhikkhu agrees to travel on the same road with a woman, even to a village, it is a 波逸提 (Payantika, an offense)': This complete precept has five clauses. First, the offender. Second, the object of the travel. Third, the mutual agreement. Fourth, traveling on the same road. Fifth, the conclusion of the offense. The first clause is understandable. Second, 'wife,' the meaning of 'woman' is as described above.
。三言共期者。律云。言共至某村城國土。四同一道行至村間者。律云。有分齊行處是五言波逸提者。律云。若村內一界行一墮多村。內多累行多墮。余文如前。與尼同行說戒。不犯者。先不知若不共期。須往彼得安。若力勢諸難等皆開不犯。
施一食處過受戒第三十一 制意者。篤信居士割捨家珍造立住處標心一食。俟施僧眾。宜量其分稱施而受。即彰內有廉節之心。外不惱施主。今久近不去過受他食。長貪惱物。敗善增惡。過損不輕。是故聖制 別緣有五。一非親居士限施一食。二知限一食。三三十里病及不請作因緣。四過受食。五食則便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群比丘起過故制。
若比丘施一食處無病比丘應一食若過受者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一食處。二無病者及舉開緣。三比丘者犯。四應一食者食之分齊。五若過下結犯。言施一食處者。律云。在中一宿也食者謂時食。除缽三藥故輕。二言無病者及舉開緣。律云。病者離彼村增劇者是。三言比丘應一食犯人。四言應食者明食之分齊。五言若過受波逸提者。律云。無病比丘一宿處過食咽咽結墮。若受余儭身衣及燈油犯吉 問。所以食重衣輕 答。食資最急。人喜過受。又復受用體壞損施主故。所以重。施主造立福舍安儭身衣聽一夜受用
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "三言共期者。《律藏》中說：『約定一同前往某個村莊、城市或國家。』四同一道行至村間者。《律藏》中說：『有一定界限的行走之處。』是五言波逸提者。《律藏》中說：『如果在村內一個界限行走一次就犯一次墮罪，多個村內多次行走就多次犯墮罪。』其餘文字如前所述。與比丘尼一同前往說戒，不犯戒的情況有：事先不知道，或者沒有共同約定，必須前往那裡才能得到安寧，或者因為體力、形勢等困難，都可以開許不犯戒。", "", "施一食處過受戒第三十一。制定此戒的用意是：虔誠的居士拿出家中的珍貴物品，建造住所，並立下心願只供一餐食物，等待佈施給僧眾。僧眾應該衡量自己的需求，適量接受佈施，這樣既能彰顯內心的廉潔節制，又能避免給施主帶來困擾。現在如果僧人長時間不去，或者過度接受他人的食物，就會增長貪慾，惱亂施主，敗壞善行，增加惡業，過失不輕。因此佛陀制定此戒。", "", "別的原因有五種：一、非親屬的居士限定只佈施一餐食物；二、知道限定只佈施一餐食物；三、三十里路程，或者生病，或者沒有請求而作因緣；四、過度接受食物；五、吃了就犯戒。以下正式說明戒本。此戒是因為六群比丘犯過而制定的。", "", "若比丘在施一食之處，無病的比丘應該只接受一餐食物，如果過度接受，就犯波逸提罪。』這條戒的完整戒本有五句：一、一食之處；二、無病者以及列舉開緣的情況；三、比丘是犯戒的主體；四、應該只接受一餐食物，說明食物的限度；五、如果過度接受，就犯波逸提罪。所謂『施一食之處』，《律藏》中說：『指在一個地方住一晚。』『食物』指的是時食，因為不包括缽、三種藥物，所以罪較輕。二、所謂『無病者以及列舉開緣的情況』，《律藏》中說：『指生病的人離開那個村莊病情會加重。』三、所謂『比丘應該只接受一餐食物』，說明犯戒的主體。四、所謂『應該只接受一餐食物』，說明食物的限度。五、所謂『如果過度接受，就犯波逸提罪』，《律藏》中說：『無病的比丘在一個地方住一晚，過度食用，每嚥一口就犯一次墮罪。如果接受多餘的貼身衣服和燈油，就犯吉羅罪。』問：為什麼食物的罪重，衣服的罪輕？答：食物是最急需的資生之物，人們容易過度接受。而且接受使用后，物品會損壞，損害施主，所以罪重。施主建造福舍，安放貼身衣服，允許一夜的受用。", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", ] }
。不聽將去。過受義希。雖過受用衣體不壞。猶囑施主。損惱義微故。所以輕。燈油涂足。雖體盡壞身。外受用過受義希。是故犯輕 問。別食七緣。此獨開病者 答。然病人苦惱吉即成損。住則有益施主體知不生譏惱。是故聖開。別眾食中施主請與開。六無損此戒。一食后無施心。若六緣開便成損惱。故無餘六。律云。不犯者。一宿受食。若病過受。若居士請住與食。若次第請食。若水陸道斷等緣。並開不犯。
展轉食戒第三 二 制意者。然篤信居士供辨美食。延請眾僧。怖存受用。而今許而後違。使他飲食徒設而已無供僧之益。損惱施主。其過非輕。所以聖制 釋名者。受前請已復受后請。互背彼此。稱為展轉。故曰展食戒 具緣通緣如上。別緣有五。一先受前家五正食請。二食體清凈堪飽足。三更異處受五正食請。四無因緣。謂除有病及施衣時舍請因緣不犯。五隨食即犯。以初二緣前請對第三。后請可為三對四句。一前後俱正提。中二差互。次一俱不正。下三皆吉羅。須足不足。四初前後俱足皆犯提罪。須三差互等並得吉羅。須凈為四俱前後俱□皆犯堤罪。須三凈前凈。此二皆提。餘二皆吉。已下正明戒本。此戒因食粥后受正食。檀越譏嫌。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘展轉食除余時波逸提余
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不聽從勸告將要離去。接受供養的意義很小。即使接受供養的衣服身體沒有損壞，仍然要囑咐施主，因為損害和惱怒的意義很小，所以罪過輕微。用燈油塗抹腳，即使身體完全損壞，對外接受供養的意義也很小，因此犯輕罪。問：別食的七種因緣，這裡只允許病人？答：是的，病人痛苦惱怒，接受供養就成了損害。如果住在寺院裡，對施主有益，施主知道后不會產生譏諷惱怒，所以佛允許。在別眾食中，施主請求給予，六種情況沒有損害此戒。一種是食后沒有施捨的心。如果六種因緣允許，就會造成損害惱怒，所以沒有其餘六種情況。律中說：不犯的情況有：一是接受一宿的食物，二是生病接受供養，三是居士請求住在寺院裡給予食物，四是依次請求食物，五是水陸道路斷絕等因緣，都允許不犯。 輾轉食戒第三。制定此戒的用意是：虔誠的居士準備了美食，邀請眾僧，希望他們接受享用。如果先答應后又違背，使他人的飲食白白準備，沒有供僧的益處，損害惱怒了施主，這個過失不輕，所以佛制定此戒。解釋名稱：接受了之前的邀請，又接受了之後的邀請，互相違背，稱為輾轉，所以叫做輾轉食戒。共同的因緣如上所述。特別的因緣有五種：一是先接受了前一家五種正食的邀請，二是食物清凈可以吃飽，三是在不同的地方接受五種正食的邀請，四是沒有因緣，即除了生病以及施捨衣服時，捨棄邀請的因緣不犯戒，五是隨著食物就犯戒。以最初兩種因緣，前請對第三種情況，后請可以分為三對四句。一是前後都正確，犯提舍尼罪。中間兩種情況互相差別。下一種情況都不正確。下面三種情況都是吉羅罪。需要充足與不足。四是最初前後都充足，都犯提罪。需要三種情況互相差別等，都得到吉羅罪。需要清凈分為四種情況，前後都清凈，都犯提罪。需要三種清凈，前清凈。這兩種情況都犯提罪。其餘兩種情況都是吉羅罪。以下正式說明戒本。此戒是因為吃粥後接受正食，檀越譏諷嫌棄，比丘舉出過失，佛就制定了此戒。 『若比丘輾轉食，除余時，波逸提。』其餘
【English Translation】 English version: Not listening to advice and about to leave. The meaning of receiving offerings is very small. Even if the clothes and body received as offerings are not damaged, the donor should still be instructed, because the meaning of damage and annoyance is very small, so the offense is minor. Applying lamp oil to the feet, even if the body is completely damaged, the meaning of externally receiving offerings is very small, therefore committing a minor offense. Question: The seven conditions for separate meals, why is only the sick person allowed here? Answer: Yes, the sick person is in pain and annoyance, and receiving offerings becomes harmful. If staying in the monastery is beneficial to the donor, and the donor knows this and does not generate ridicule or annoyance, then the Buddha allows it. In separate group meals, if the donor requests to give, six situations do not harm this precept. One is not having the intention of giving after the meal. If six conditions are allowed, it will cause harm and annoyance, so there are no other six situations. The Vinaya says: Those who do not violate are: one, receiving food for one night; two, receiving offerings when sick; three, a layperson requests to stay in the monastery and give food; four, requesting food in order; five, water and land routes are cut off, etc., all are allowed without violation. The Third Precept on Eating Successively. The intention of establishing this precept is: devout laypeople prepare delicious food and invite monks, hoping they will accept and enjoy it. If one agrees first and then goes back on their word, it makes others' food prepared in vain, without the benefit of offering to the Sangha, harming and annoying the donor. This fault is not minor, so the Buddha established this precept. Explanation of the name: Accepting a previous invitation and then accepting a later invitation, contradicting each other, is called 'zhǎn zhuǎn' (輾轉, successively). Therefore, it is called the Precept on Eating Successively. Common conditions are as mentioned above. Special conditions are five: one, having first accepted an invitation for the five proper meals from the previous family; two, the food is pure and can be filling; three, accepting an invitation for the five proper meals in a different place; four, there is no reason, that is, except for being sick or when giving clothes, abandoning the reason for the invitation does not violate the precept; five, violating the precept as soon as one eats the food. With the first two conditions, the previous invitation is compared to the third situation, and the later invitation can be divided into three pairs of four sentences. One is that both before and after are correct, committing a Tissani offense. The middle two situations differ from each other. The next situation is that neither is correct. The following three situations are all Dukkaṭa offenses. Needing sufficient or insufficient. Four is that initially both before and after are sufficient, both committing a Tissani offense. Needing three situations to differ from each other, etc., all receive Dukkaṭa offenses. Needing purity is divided into four situations, both before and after are pure, both committing a Tissani offense. Needing three purities, the previous is pure. These two situations both commit a Tissani offense. The remaining two situations are both Dukkaṭa offenses. The following formally explains the precept text. This precept is because after eating porridge, one accepts proper meals, causing donors to ridicule and dislike, and monks point out the fault, so the Buddha established this precept. 『If a bhikkhu eats successively, except at other times, it is a pācittiya.』 The rest
時者病時施衣時是謂時 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二所犯事。三開緣。四結罪。時者已下誦前第三。初句可知。二言展轉食者。律云。背請食也。請有二種。一僧次。二者別請。食謂五正食。飯麨乾飯等。三言除余時者。是開緣。緣如下說。四言波逸提者犯句。言開緣中病時者。為病比丘不能一坐。好食令足故聽無犯。言施衣時者有二。一一月衣時為迦提月。二五月衣為功德衣月。故律云。自恣竟無功德衣。一月若有衣五月。更復有餘施食及衣。聽受背請。問。所以開病者。病人苦惱若不開所宜形命難立。又施主體知不生譏嫌。故背無罪。非情所欣十二月常開不局時限。施衣開者有二義故。一為益比丘有待之形假衣資養。若施時不受后須難得。恐無理求多生患累。二者為利家。施主使衣食二施獲得兩種反報之福。為斯二益聖制許。衣利既重。或長貪結故。以時開之。非一切時故。文言一月五月。者律有餘施食及衣聽受者。前言一月是時提。時望衣食。衣食是時家之餘。單時無開。要假施食及衣。故言有請。后衣請取衣無犯。還前家食。不食違信故吉。三前家食請后亦食請背犯提罪。衣住頭亦有三句。一前衣食請后亦衣食請聽背無罪。以衣后或多及勝。二前家食請后單衣請如前。三前家衣食后唯食請犯提。祇律云
。若到俗家言。今我家食即名請處作食。未熟欲往他家。應白而起。不白去者至彼得正食犯二提罪。一不自故。二背前請故。四分律云。若得多請應舍前請。而受一請。不爾者咽咽犯墮。若不捨后請食前請。咽咽吉。若一日受十請食。最後犯一提八吉。以其初一是前。餘八是后。若背後九得九吉羅。若食中間比說可知。伽論云 若受前請往至請家。坐上未食。若更有異家送食。若食后家食犯背請。食前請已即坐食。后家食無犯。律云。不犯者。若病時施衣時。一日得多請。自受一請。餘者回施與人。若請非正食。或不足食。或無請處。隨食不犯。或一處再設。五正施主一故亦無背請。一切開不犯。
別眾食第三十三 制意有二。一慈愍白衣故。然揣食有限事難普周人少易。供多則傾竭。生惱損重故制別食。二為攝難調人故。恐自結別眾羯磨。以惱眾僧故制不聽別眾 次釋名者。能別之人食處成眾。以眾別他不共同味故曰別眾食戒 次解具緣。通緣知上。別緣有七。一有施主。二別請別乞。三五正食體清凈在時中。四食處成眾。五知界內不盡集。六無因緣。七食便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因提婆達與五比丘家家乞食。故佛制此戒。
若比丘別眾食除余時波逸提余時者病時作衣時施衣時道行時乘船時大眾集時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果（比丘）去俗家，（俗家）說『現在我家吃飯』，這就叫做在被邀請的地方吃飯。如果（食物）還沒熟，想要去其他家，應該稟告之後再走。不稟告就走，到了（其他）家吃到正食，就犯兩個提舍尼罪：一是不自覺的緣故，二是違背之前邀請的緣故。《四分律》說，如果得到多個邀請，應該捨棄之前的邀請，而接受一個邀請，不然的話，每嚥一口就犯墮罪。如果不捨棄後面的邀請而吃前面的邀請，每嚥一口都是吉羅罪。如果一天接受十個邀請並都吃了，最後犯一個提舍尼罪，八個吉羅罪，因為最初一個是之前的邀請，其餘八個是之後的邀請。如果在背後得到九個（邀請），得九個吉羅罪。如果在吃飯中間（的情況），可以類比推知。《伽論》說，如果接受了之前的邀請，前往邀請的家，坐在座位上還沒吃，如果又有其他家送食物來，如果吃了后一家的食物，就犯違背邀請罪。如果吃了前一家的食物，已經坐在座位上，（再吃）后一家的食物，就不犯（戒）。律中說，不犯（戒）的情況有：生病時，做衣服時，佈施衣服時，一天得到多個邀請，自己接受一個邀請，其餘的轉施給別人。如果邀請的不是正食，或者食物不足，或者沒有邀請的地方，隨便吃不犯（戒）。或者一個地方再次設宴，五個正施主是一個人，也沒有違背邀請（的問題）。一切開緣不犯（戒）。 別眾食第三十三：制定此戒的原因有兩個：一是慈悲憐憫白衣（在家信徒）的緣故。因為缽里的食物有限，難以普遍賙濟，人少容易供養，人多則會傾家蕩產，使（白衣）產生惱怒，損害很大，所以制定別眾食戒。二是為攝伏難以調伏的人的緣故，恐怕（他們）私自結成別眾羯磨（僧團會議），以此來惱亂大眾僧，所以制定不聽許別眾（食）。接下來解釋名稱：能別（食）的人，吃飯的地方形成（一個）眾，因為（這個）眾與其他的（眾）不同味，所以叫做別眾食戒。接下來解釋具緣：共同的緣由如上所述。特別的緣由有七個：一是有施主，二是分別邀請，分別乞食，三是五種正食，身體清凈，在（合適的）時間中，四是吃飯的地方形成（一個）眾，五是知道（寺院）界限內沒有全部聚集，六是沒有（正當）因緣，七是吃了就犯（戒）。以下正式說明戒本。此戒的因緣是提婆達多（Devadatta）與五位比丘家家乞食，所以佛陀制定此戒。 如果比丘別眾食，除了特殊情況，犯波逸提罪。特殊情況包括：生病時，做衣服時，佈施衣服時，道路行走時，乘坐船隻時，大眾集會時。
【English Translation】 English version: If a Bhikshu goes to a layperson's house and the layperson says, 'Eat at my house now,' this is called eating at the place of invitation. If the food is not yet cooked and he wants to go to another house, he should inform (the host) before leaving. If he leaves without informing and eats proper food at the other house, he commits two Tishani offenses: one is due to not being aware, and the other is due to violating the previous invitation. The 'Sarvastivada Vinaya' says that if one receives multiple invitations, one should abandon the previous invitation and accept one invitation; otherwise, one commits a 'dukkhata' offense with each swallow. If one does not abandon the later invitation but eats the earlier invitation, each swallow is a 'sthulatyaya' offense. If one receives and eats ten invitations in a day, the last one is a Tishani offense, and the other eight are 'sthulatyaya' offenses, because the first one is the previous invitation, and the other eight are later invitations. If one receives nine (invitations) behind (the host's back), one incurs nine 'sthulatyaya' offenses. The situation in the middle of the meal can be inferred analogously. The 'Gama-shastra' says that if one accepts a previous invitation and goes to the inviting house, and is sitting but has not yet eaten, if another house sends food, eating the food from the later house is an offense of violating the invitation. If one has eaten the food from the previous house and is already sitting, (eating) the food from the later house is not an offense. The Vinaya says that there is no offense in the following situations: when one is sick, when making clothes, when giving clothes, when one receives multiple invitations in a day, one accepts one invitation and gives the rest to others. If the invitation is not for proper food, or if the food is insufficient, or if there is no place of invitation, eating casually is not an offense. Or if a place sets up a feast again, and the five proper donors are the same person, there is no issue of violating the invitation. All exceptions are not offenses. Separate Group Eating, the Thirty-third: There are two reasons for establishing this precept: first, out of compassion for the white-clothed (lay followers). Because the food in the alms bowl is limited, it is difficult to provide universally; it is easy to provide for few people, but providing for many would bankrupt (the laypeople), causing (them) annoyance and great harm, so the precept of separate group eating is established. Second, to subdue those who are difficult to tame, lest (they) privately form a separate group Karma (sangha meeting), thereby disturbing the monastic community, so it is established that separate group (eating) is not permitted. Next, explaining the name: the person who can separate (food), the place where they eat forms a group, because (this) group has a different taste from other (groups), so it is called the precept of separate group eating. Next, explaining the conditions: the common conditions are as mentioned above. The special conditions are seven: first, there is a donor; second, there are separate invitations and separate begging; third, there are five proper foods, the body is pure, and it is within (the appropriate) time; fourth, the place of eating forms a group; fifth, it is known that not everyone within the (monastery) boundary has gathered; sixth, there is no (legitimate) reason; seventh, eating constitutes an offense. The following formally explains the precept. The cause of this precept is that Devadatta (提婆達多) and five Bhikshus begged for food from house to house, so the Buddha established this precept. If a Bhikshu engages in separate group eating, except for special circumstances, he commits a 'pacittiya' offense. Special circumstances include: when sick, when making clothes, when giving clothes, when traveling on the road, when traveling by boat, when a large gathering is held.
沙門施食時此是時 此滿足戒本文有四句。一者犯人。二別眾食。三除開緣。四結犯罪。下言余時誦前第三句。一言若比丘者義如上釋。二言別眾食。律云。若四人若過四人名眾。食者飯麨乾飯等。三四兩句可知。言余時者誦前第三開緣。言病時作衣時施衣時。此三緣如前戒說。第四言道行時者。律云。下至半由旬內有來去者。佛聽別食。第五言乘船時者。下至半由旬乘上下者是。第六言大眾集時者。八人已上名為大眾。食無信供。又是八難得者。開使不犯。已下小眾食雖難得容有兼濟故亦不開。又言大眾者。四人已上名為大眾。故律云。食足四人長一人為患。乃至百人長一人為患。此是兩家聚落。東家限與四人。西家局與一人。彼此二家施心限局各不相融。余處乞食復是難得。若不開者。西家一人與東家四人作患。由是患故開使不犯。此謂舉患以開不患。如是乃至百人長一人為患者。但使食食難得悉皆不犯。故云大眾集時。第七言沙門施食時者。律云。諸外道中出家者是名沙門。施食緣如律中廣說。準此而言。比丘施食不開別眾。祇律云。比丘無別眾食緣。當言我於此別眾食無緣應求出。若二三人隨意食。若四人應作二部。更互入食。律云。為攝難調人故制不聖別眾食。若依多論。界內不集亦名別眾。若作四相。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 沙門（shā mén，指佛教出家人）施食時，這是允許的。滿足戒律的條文有四句：一是犯人，二是別眾食（bié zhòng shí，指僧團分別接受供養的食物），三是除開緣（chú kāi yuán，指特殊情況下允許的例外），四是結犯罪（jié fàn zuì，指構成犯罪）。下面說其餘時間誦讀前面的第三句，『開緣』。『若比丘者』的含義如前解釋。『別眾食』，律中說，四人或超過四人稱為『眾』。『食』指飯、炒麵、乾飯等。第三、四句容易理解。『其餘時間』指誦讀前面的第三句，『開緣』，即生病時、做衣服時、施捨衣服時。這三種情況如前面的戒律所說。第四，『道行時』，律中說，即使在半由旬（bàn yóu xún，古代印度長度單位）內有來回的人，佛也允許分別接受供養。第五，『乘船時』，即使在半由旬內上下船也是允許的。第六，『大眾集時』，八人以上稱為『大眾』，食物難以獲得，又是八難（bā nán，指難以修行佛法的八種障礙）的情況，允許不犯戒。以下小眾的食物即使難以獲得，也可能兼顧到，因此不允許。又說，『大眾』指四人以上。所以律中說，食物足夠四人，多一人就會造成問題，乃至足夠百人，多一人也會造成問題。這是兩家聚落（jù luò，指村落），東家限定給四人，西家限定給一人，兩家的施捨心意和限制不同，其他地方乞食又很困難。如果不允許，西家的一人就會給東家的四人造成困擾。因為這個原因，允許不犯戒。這是爲了避免出現問題而允許不犯戒。像這樣，即使足夠百人，多一人會造成問題，只要食物難以獲得，都不算犯戒。所以說『大眾集時』。第七，『沙門施食時』，律中說，在外道（wài dào，指佛教以外的宗教）中出家的人稱為『沙門』。施食的緣由在律中有詳細說明。按照這個說法，比丘（bǐ qiū，指男性出家人）施食不允許別眾。祇律（Qí lǜ）中說，比丘沒有別眾食的理由，應該說『我沒有別眾食的緣分，應該出去乞食』。如果兩三人可以隨意食用，如果四人應該分成兩部分，輪流進去食用。律中說，爲了約束難以調伏的人，所以制定了不聖別眾食的規定。如果按照多論（duō lùn），界內不聚集也稱為別眾。如果做出四相（sì xiàng），就...
【English Translation】 English version When a 'Shramana' (shā mén, meaning a Buddhist renunciate) offers food, this is permissible. The article that fulfills the precepts has four sentences: first, the offender; second, separate communal meals ('bié zhòng shí', referring to the practice of a monastic community receiving offerings separately); third, exceptions ('chú kāi yuán', referring to exceptions allowed under special circumstances); and fourth, concluding the offense ('jié fàn zuì', referring to constituting an offense). The following says that at other times, the third sentence, 'exceptions,' should be recited. The meaning of 'if a Bhikshu' is as explained above. 'Separate communal meals,' the Vinaya (Buddhist monastic code) says, four or more people are called a 'community.' 'Food' refers to rice, roasted flour, dried rice, etc. The third and fourth sentences are easy to understand. 'Other times' refers to reciting the third sentence, 'exceptions,' such as when sick, when making clothes, or when giving clothes. These three situations are as described in the previous precepts. Fourth, 'when traveling on the road,' the Vinaya says that even if there are people coming and going within half a 'Yojana' ('bàn yóu xún', an ancient Indian unit of distance), the Buddha allows separate acceptance of offerings. Fifth, 'when traveling by boat,' it is permissible even when embarking and disembarking within half a Yojana. Sixth, 'when a large gathering occurs,' eight or more people are called a 'large gathering,' and when food is difficult to obtain and it is one of the eight difficulties ('bā nán', referring to the eight obstacles to practicing the Dharma), it is permissible not to violate the precepts. The food for smaller gatherings below this, even if difficult to obtain, may be taken care of, so it is not allowed. Furthermore, it is said that a 'large gathering' refers to four or more people. Therefore, the Vinaya says that if there is enough food for four people, one extra person will cause a problem, and even if there is enough for a hundred people, one extra person will cause a problem. This refers to two 'settlements' ('jù luò', referring to villages), where the eastern family limits it to four people and the western family limits it to one person. The intention and limitations of the two families' offerings are different, and it is difficult to beg for food elsewhere. If it is not allowed, the one person from the western family will cause trouble for the four people from the eastern family. For this reason, it is permissible not to violate the precepts. This is allowing not to violate the precepts in order to avoid problems. In this way, even if there are enough for a hundred people, one extra person will cause a problem, as long as food is difficult to obtain, it is not considered a violation. Therefore, it is said 'when a large gathering occurs.' Seventh, 'when a Shramana offers food,' the Vinaya says that those who have renounced the world in non-Buddhist religions ('wài dào', referring to religions other than Buddhism) are called 'Shramanas.' The reasons for offering food are explained in detail in the Vinaya. According to this, a 'Bhikshu' ('bǐ qiū', referring to a male monastic) offering food is not allowed to have separate communal meals. The 'Sarvastivada Vinaya' (Qí lǜ) says that a Bhikshu has no reason for separate communal meals and should say, 'I have no緣分 (yuán fèn, predestined affinity) for separate communal meals and should go out to beg for food.' If there are two or three people, they can eat as they please. If there are four people, they should be divided into two groups and take turns eating. The Vinaya says that in order to restrain those who are difficult to tame, the rule of not having separate communal meals for the unholy is established. If according to the 'Mahavibhasa' (duō lùn), not gathering within the boundary is also called separate communal meals. If the four characteristics (sì xiàng) are made, then...
客比丘來遮不聽入亦是別眾。若不依僧次差往者名別眾。若先別請后不遮入轉別名。次余義廣大疏說。律云。不犯者。如上七緣開食無罪。多論若四人各自乞食共一處亦無有過。以非一家故。善見云。人各別乞至同一處。一時受皆犯。二各各去一時受各處食犯小罪。三各去各受各食不犯。四若一人覆缽不食。待餘三食竟。后一人食不犯。多論三比丘一狂心。三人在內一在界外。三是大僧一是沙彌。悉皆不犯。不成別眾。不相足數故。又有四句。一食主是一盡集無過。二食一處二彼此乃異故不犯。三食別處一前後食故不犯。四食別處別彼此二眾互請一人不犯。善見五種足四不犯。一不請足四。施主別請四人。一人不去檀越見少。臨中見一比丘。即喚與食。請無簡別故名僧次。二乞食足四。亦以別請一人不去。臨中乞食比丘至彼依次與食。三沙彌足四。四缽孟足四。別請四人三人身至一人缽請。五病人足四。狂等之病並非別眾食。皆不犯。
取歸婦價客道糧過三缽戒第三十四 制意者。然歸婦價客舍已涂糧施請比丘。理宜將護依限而取。今乃過取三缽令食磬竭。長貪違教。損惱不輕。故所以制 別緣具五。一歸婦食價客道糧。二知是。三無因緣。除有病緣不犯。四取過三缽。五出門便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因乞比
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 客比丘來遮止不聽進入，這也是別眾（pravāraṇā，僧團的邀請）。如果不按照僧團的順序差遣前往，就叫做別眾。如果先個別邀請，後來又不遮止進入，就轉變為別名。其次，其餘的意義在廣大的疏文中有所說明。《律》中說：『不犯戒的情況是，如上面七種因緣開許食用，沒有罪過。』《多論》說，如果四個人各自乞食，在同一個地方一起食用，也沒有過失，因為不是一家人。《善見律毗婆沙》說：『人們各自去乞食，到同一個地方，同時食用，都犯戒。』第二種情況，各自去，同時在不同的地方食用，犯小罪。第三種情況，各自去，各自接受，各自食用，不犯戒。第四種情況，如果一個人覆缽不吃，等待其餘三人吃完，之後這個人再吃，不犯戒。《多論》說，三個比丘有一個是狂心病。三個人在寺內，一個人在寺界外。三個是大僧（bhikṣu，比丘），一個是沙彌（śrāmaṇera，出家男子），全部都不犯戒，不能構成別眾，因為人數不足。又有四句：第一，施食者是一個，全部聚集在一起食用，沒有過失。第二，在一個地方食用，但彼此的食物不同，所以不犯戒。第三，在不同的地方食用，一個是先食用，一個是后食用，所以不犯戒。第四，在不同的地方食用，彼此兩方僧團互相邀請一個人，不犯戒。《善見律毗婆沙》說，五種情況滿足四個人，不犯戒。第一，不邀請，滿足四個人。施主個別邀請四個人，一個人不去，施主覺得人數太少，臨近中午時看到一個比丘，就叫他來一起食用，因為邀請沒有簡別，所以叫做僧次。第二，乞食滿足四個人，也是因為個別邀請，一個人不去，臨近中午時乞食的比丘來到那裡，按照順序給予食物。第三，沙彌滿足四個人。第四，缽盂滿足四個人，個別邀請四個人，三個人身到，一個人只送缽來。第五，病人滿足四個人，狂心病等疾病，並非別眾食，全部都不犯戒。 取回給媳婦的財物、招待客人的路費、超過三個缽的戒律，第三十四條。制定這條戒律的用意是：本來給媳婦的財物、招待客人的客棧、已經塗抹過的糧食、施捨給比丘的請求，理應愛惜，按照限度取用。現在卻超過三個缽，使得食物耗盡，增長貪婪，違背教導，損害不輕，所以制定這條戒律。別緣具備五點：第一，是給媳婦的食物財物、招待客人的路費糧食。第二，知道是這些東西。第三，沒有因緣，除非有生病等因緣，否則就犯戒。第四，拿超過三個缽。第五，出門就犯戒。以下正式說明戒本。這條戒律是因為乞食而起。
【English Translation】 English version If a guest Bhikṣu (monk) comes and is prevented from entering, it is also a separate assembly (Pravāraṇā, invitation of the Sangha). If one is not sent according to the order of the Sangha, it is called a separate assembly. If one is invited separately first, and then not prevented from entering, it changes to a different name. Furthermore, the remaining meanings are explained in the extensive commentaries. The Vinaya (monastic code) says: 'Not an offense in the following seven conditions where eating is permitted, there is no transgression.' The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that if four people beg for food separately and eat together in one place, there is no fault, because they are not one family. The Samantapāsādikā says: 'People go to beg for food separately, and come to the same place, and eat at the same time, all commit an offense.' The second case is, they go separately, and eat at different places at the same time, they commit a minor offense. The third case is, they go separately, receive separately, and eat separately, they do not commit an offense. The fourth case is, if one person covers their bowl and does not eat, waiting for the other three to finish eating, and then this person eats, they do not commit an offense. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that of three Bhikṣus, one has a deranged mind. Three people are inside the monastery, and one is outside the boundary. Three are senior monks (Bhikṣu), and one is a Śrāmaṇera (novice monk), all do not commit an offense, and cannot form a separate assembly, because the number is insufficient. There are also four sentences: First, the food donor is one, and all gather together to eat, there is no fault. Second, they eat in one place, but each other's food is different, so they do not commit an offense. Third, they eat in different places, one eats first, and one eats later, so they do not commit an offense. Fourth, they eat in different places, and both Sanghas mutually invite one person, they do not commit an offense. The Samantapāsādikā says that five conditions fulfill four people, and they do not commit an offense. First, without invitation, fulfilling four people. The donor individually invites four people, one person does not go, the donor feels that the number is too small, and near noon sees a Bhikṣu, and calls him to eat together, because the invitation is not selective, it is called Sangha order. Second, begging for food fulfills four people, also because of individual invitation, one person does not go, and near noon the Bhikṣu who begs for food comes there, and gives food in order. Third, Śrāmaṇeras fulfill four people. Fourth, bowls fulfill four people, individually inviting four people, three people arrive, and one person only sends a bowl. Fifth, sick people fulfill four people, diseases such as deranged mind are not separate assembly food, all do not commit an offense. The thirty-fourth precept: Taking back the bride's price, guest's travel expenses, exceeding three bowls. The intention of establishing this precept is: originally the bride's price, the guest's inn, the already smeared grain, the request to donate to the Bhikṣu, should be cherished and taken according to the limit. Now, however, taking more than three bowls, causing the food to be exhausted, increasing greed, violating the teachings, and the harm is not light, so this precept is established. The separate conditions are five points: First, it is the food and property for the bride, the travel expenses for the guest. Second, knowing that it is these things. Third, there is no reason, unless there is a reason such as illness, otherwise it is an offense. Fourth, taking more than three bowls. Fifth, committing an offense upon leaving the door. The following formally explains the precept. This precept arises because of begging for food.
丘。從彼歸婦取涂糧。又從高客數乞因起過失。佛便制戒。
若比丘至白衣家請與比丘餅麨飯若比丘須者當二三缽受還至僧伽藍中應分與比丘食若比丘無病過兩三缽受持還僧伽藍中不分與比丘食波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二開受分齊食之方軌。三若無病已下過取違教結罪。初句可知。第二句中文有三節。一施涂糧。二若比丘下教受分齊。所以開齊。三者為令施主獲反報之福。亦令比丘資身長道。三還僧伽藍下教食方法。第三句反上。第二開受等文。辨相中。初句可知。如上。二句中言白衣家者。律云。有男有女。故曰言與餅麨飯者。是五正食。言二三缽受者。是教受分齊。多論云。若上缽取一缽無罪。取兩缽犯。中缽取二不犯。三乃便犯。下缽取二不犯。四缽方犯。文云。過三缽者。就下缽為言。第二言無病者。是開緣。律云。為不能一坐好食飽足。故聽不犯。言過受犯提者。是第三結犯句。律云。若一人取過三缽。前三人不犯。以不過限故。后一人犯。以前三人語莫持來。而往取過。在後人出彼門限即犯提罪。若方便悔者吉羅。五分云。過受不分比丘食俱犯提罪。四分過受犯提。不分故吉。祇云。女及價客去後不犯。律云。不犯者。若兩三缽受。若病過受。若問已共分。若彼自送僧寺。若送尼寺
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 丘。從（某）處歸來的婦女提供路上的食物。又因為向富有的客人多次乞討而引起過失。佛因此制定戒律。
如果比丘去在家信徒（白衣）家請求給予比丘餅、炒麵或米飯，如果比丘需要，應當接受兩三個缽的量，然後返回僧伽藍（僧院），應當分給其他比丘食用。如果比丘沒有生病，接受超過兩三個缽的量，帶回僧伽藍后不分給其他比丘食用，則犯波逸提（一種戒律）。
這條戒律的完整文字有三部分。一是犯戒之人。二是允許接受食物的限度和分配食物的方法。三是沒有生病卻過量接受食物，違反教導而構成罪過。第一部分容易理解。第二部分，文中有三個小節。一是施捨路上的食物。二是『如果比丘』以下，教導接受食物的限度，說明允許接受的範圍。三是爲了讓施主獲得回報的福報，也讓比丘能夠資養身體，增長修行。三是『返回僧伽藍』以下，教導分配食物的方法。第三部分與上述相反。第二部分說明允許接受等的條文。辨析方面，第一部分容易理解，如上所述。第二部分中，『在家信徒家』，律中說，有男有女。所以說『給予餅、炒麵或米飯』，指的是五種正食。『接受兩三個缽的量』，是教導接受的限度。《多論》說，如果用上等缽接受一缽沒有罪，接受兩缽則犯戒。用中等缽接受兩缽不犯戒，接受三缽就犯戒。用下等缽接受兩缽不犯戒，接受四缽才犯戒。文中說『超過三缽』，是以下等缽來說的。第二部分說『沒有生病』，是開許的因緣。律中說，因為不能一次坐好，吃飽，所以允許不犯戒。說『過量接受犯提』，是第三部分判決犯戒。律中說，如果一個人接受超過三個缽，前三個人不犯戒，因為沒有超過限度。后一個人犯戒，因為之前的三個人說不要拿來，卻還是去拿了，在後一個人走出那個門檻就犯波逸提罪。如果方便懺悔，則犯吉羅（較輕的罪）。《五分律》說，過量接受不分給比丘食用，都犯波逸提罪。《四分律》過量接受犯提，不分給所以犯吉羅。《祇律》說，婦女和富有的客人離開后不犯戒。律中說，不犯戒的情況有：接受兩三個缽，生病過量接受，詢問后共同分配，他們自己送到僧寺，或者送到尼寺。
【English Translation】 English version: Bhikkhus (monks). A woman returning from somewhere provided food for the journey. Also, due to repeatedly begging from wealthy patrons, faults arose. The Buddha then established a precept.
If a bhikkhu goes to the home of a layperson (white-clad) and requests cakes, parched grain, or rice for the bhikkhus, if the bhikkhu needs it, he should accept two or three bowls' worth and return to the sangharama (monastery), where he should distribute it to the other bhikkhus for consumption. If a bhikkhu is not ill and accepts more than two or three bowls' worth, and upon returning to the sangharama does not distribute it to the other bhikkhus for consumption, he commits a pācittiya (an offense requiring confession).
This complete precept has three parts. First, the offender. Second, the permissible limit for receiving food and the method for distributing it. Third, being not ill yet accepting an excessive amount of food, violating the teaching and incurring a transgression. The first part is easy to understand. In the second part, there are three sections. First, the offering of food for the journey. Second, 'If a bhikkhu' and following, teaching the limit for receiving food, explaining the permissible scope. Third, it is to allow the donor to obtain the merit of reciprocation, and also to allow the bhikkhu to nourish his body and increase his practice. Third, 'Returning to the sangharama' and following, teaching the method for distributing the food. The third part is the opposite of the above. The second part explains the clauses for permissible acceptance, etc. In terms of analysis, the first part is easy to understand, as mentioned above. In the second part, 'the home of a layperson,' the Vinaya (monastic rules) says, there are men and women. Therefore, 'giving cakes, parched grain, or rice' refers to the five staple foods. 'Accepting two or three bowls' worth' is teaching the limit for acceptance. The Mulā Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says, if one accepts one bowl with a superior bowl, there is no offense; accepting two bowls is an offense. Accepting two bowls with a medium bowl is not an offense; accepting three is an offense. Accepting two bowls with an inferior bowl is not an offense; accepting four bowls is an offense. The text says 'exceeding three bowls' refers to using an inferior bowl. The second part says 'not being ill' is a permitted condition. The Vinaya says, because one cannot sit well and eat to satisfaction in one sitting, it is permitted not to commit an offense. Saying 'excessively accepting commits a pācittiya' is the third part judging the offense. The Vinaya says, if one person accepts more than three bowls, the first three people do not commit an offense because they did not exceed the limit. The last person commits an offense because the previous three people said not to bring it, but they still went to get it; the moment the last person steps out of that threshold, they commit a pācittiya offense. If it is convenient to repent, then one commits a dukkaṭa (a minor offense). The Five-Part Vinaya says, excessively accepting and not distributing the food to the bhikkhus both constitute a pācittiya offense. The Four-Part Vinaya excessively accepting constitutes a pācittiya; not distributing constitutes a dukkaṭa. The Gīta Vinaya says that after the women and wealthy patrons leave, there is no offense. The Vinaya says that the situations in which there is no offense are: accepting two or three bowls, excessively accepting due to illness, distributing together after asking, they themselves sending it to the sangha monastery, or sending it to the nunnery.
俱受。不犯。
足食戒第三十五 制意者。凡食以充飢軀為用。過則長貪。少復不足。事須節量。但四大身力報有強弱。致聖將補有四種之差。始於一揣終至作餘食法減。是節量隨根之法。今第四人不作殘法。再食五正。長貪妨道。違教愆深故。所以制 別緣有五。一是足食。二足食想。三舍威儀。四無因緣。除有病及作殘法因緣不犯。五更食隨犯。已下正明戒本。此因貧餐不知足食比丘起。故制斯戒。
若比丘食竟或時受請不作余法而食者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二食足。三違犯結罪。初句可知。二足食中文二。初食竟者。律云。謂足緣有五。一知是飯善知五正食。犯足非正。不犯足。二知持來知彼為我持來境多足。三知遮五正食。聖制不聽一日兩持飽。故曰知遮。即知前坐食多堪飽障。于日少食不障。故曰知者遮。四知威儀。知行住坐臥四儀隨壞一一犯足故。五知舍威儀。若坐床而食前堪足忽低頭。取與後分離床之例故曰舍威儀。具此五緣即名食竟。言戒時受請者。五謂受檀越食五處成足故。第三句言不作餘食法者。此違開緣。律云。若比丘食未足應持食對前比丘言。我足食己食大德知。是看是我作殘食法。彼應取少食已當語彼言。我止取食之。言而食者波逸提。是違犯結罪。故律云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 俱受，不犯。
足食戒第三十五：制定此戒的目的是，凡是飲食都應以充飢為目的。過度飲食會增長貪慾，不足則無法維持身體所需。因此，必須節制食量。但由於四大假合之身的力量有強弱之別，聖人因此制定了四種不同的補給方式。從最初的一小團食物開始，直到最後通過作餘食法來減少食量，這都是根據不同根器的節量方法。現在，第四種人（指已經滿足食量的人）不應該再作殘食法，再次食用五種正食，這樣會增長貪慾，妨礙修行。違背教誨的罪過很深，所以要禁止。
別緣有五種情況不犯戒：一是已經足食，二是認為已經足食，三是捨棄威儀，四是沒有特殊因緣，除非有疾病或者作殘食法的因緣，否則會犯戒。五是再次食用就會犯戒。下面正式說明戒本。這條戒律是由於一些貧困的僧人不知道足食而制定的。
若比丘食竟，或時受請，不作余法而食者，波逸提（Pācittiya，一種罪名）。這條滿足戒的戒文有三句話：一是犯戒的人，二是已經足食，三是違犯戒律而結罪。第一句很容易理解。第二句『足食』包含兩層意思。首先，『食竟』，律中說，滿足的因緣有五種：一是知道這是飯，並且清楚地知道五種正食。如果吃的不是正食，即使滿足了也不算犯戒。二是知道食物是別人為自己拿來的，境界上已經滿足。三是知道要遮止五種正食。聖人制定不允許一天兩次吃飽，所以說『知遮』，也就是知道之前已經吃了很多，足以飽腹，妨礙了修行。如果當天少吃，不構成妨礙，所以說『知者遮』。四是知道威儀，知道行、住、坐、臥四種威儀都會因為吃得太飽而受到影響，每一種都會構成犯戒。五是知道捨棄威儀。比如坐在床上吃飯，之前已經吃飽了，忽然低頭去拿食物，或者離開床等等，這些都叫做捨棄威儀。具備這五種因緣，就叫做『食竟』。『戒時受請』指的是，接受施主的食物，在五個地方都滿足了。第三句說『不作餘食法』，這是違背了開緣。律中說，如果比丘還沒有吃飽，應該拿著食物對面前的比丘說：『我已經吃飽了，請大德知道，這是我作的殘食法。』對方應該取少量食物，然後告訴他說：『我只取這些食物。』如果吃了這些食物，就會犯波逸提罪。這就是違犯戒律而結罪。所以律中說。
【English Translation】 English version Having received all, no offense.
The Thirty-fifth Training Rule on Eating Sufficiently: The purpose of establishing this rule is that all eating should be for the purpose of satisfying hunger. Excessive eating increases greed, while insufficient eating fails to sustain the body. Therefore, one must regulate the amount of food. However, because the strength of the four elements that make up the body varies, the Buddha established four different ways to supplement it. Starting with a small morsel of food, and ending with reducing the amount of food by making it 'leftover food,' these are all methods of regulation according to different capacities. Now, the fourth type of person (referring to someone who is already satisfied) should not make 'leftover food' and eat the five staple foods again, as this increases greed and hinders practice. Violating the teachings is a serious offense, so it is prohibited.
There are five exceptional circumstances where there is no offense: first, having eaten sufficiently; second, thinking one has eaten sufficiently; third, abandoning proper deportment; fourth, having no specific reason, unless there is illness or the reason of making 'leftover food,' otherwise it is an offense. Fifth, eating again constitutes an offense. The following formally explains the precepts. This precept was established because some impoverished monks did not know when they had eaten enough.
If a bhikkhu (monk) has finished eating, or at a time when he has received an invitation, and eats without making 'leftover food,' it is a Pācittiya (an offense requiring confession). This training rule on sufficiency has three clauses: first, the offender; second, having eaten sufficiently; and third, violating the rule and incurring an offense. The first clause is easy to understand. The second clause, 'having eaten sufficiently,' contains two layers of meaning. First, 'finished eating,' the Vinaya (monastic code) says that the conditions for sufficiency are five: first, knowing that it is rice and clearly knowing the five staple foods. If what is eaten is not a staple food, even if one is satisfied, it does not constitute an offense. Second, knowing that the food was brought for oneself, the state of mind is already satisfied. Third, knowing to restrain the five staple foods. The Buddha established that one should not eat to fullness twice a day, so it is said 'knowing to restrain,' which means knowing that one has already eaten a lot and is full enough to hinder practice. If one eats less that day, it does not constitute a hindrance, so it is said 'knowing to restrain.' Fourth, knowing proper deportment, knowing that the four postures of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down will be affected by eating too much, each of which constitutes an offense. Fifth, knowing to abandon proper deportment. For example, sitting on a bed to eat, having already eaten enough, suddenly lowering one's head to take food, or leaving the bed, these are all called abandoning proper deportment. Having these five conditions is called 'finished eating.' 'At a time when he has received an invitation' refers to accepting food from a donor, being satisfied in five places. The third clause says 'without making 'leftover food',' which violates the exception. The Vinaya says that if a bhikkhu has not eaten enough, he should take the food and say to the bhikkhu in front of him: 'I have eaten enough, please know, venerable one, that this is the 'leftover food' I am making.' The other person should take a small amount of food and then tell him: 'I will only take this much food.' If one eats this food, one commits a Pācittiya offense. This is violating the rule and incurring an offense. Therefore, the Vinaya says.
。足食已舍威儀不作餘食法。后若食正不正咽咽犯墮。五分云。不作殘食法□□犯提。律云。不犯者。食作非食想。不受作餘食法。非食不作。若病人殘不作法。若已作餘食法。一切不犯。
勸足食戒第三十六 制意者。然出家之人理須益物。遞相近導。勸修眾善。今乃噁心勸彼令他得罪。己自招愆。人我俱損。理所不應。是故聖制 別緣有五。一他足食竟。二知他足食。三噁心勸彼欲令他犯。四不作餘食法。五前人食便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因兄弟同作比丘。一者貪餐嗜食。不知足食余非不餘食。得而食之。以彼呵責。此心懷恚。見彼食已噁心強勸食。佛便制戒。
若比丘知他比丘足食已若請不作餘食法慇勤請與食長老取是食以是因緣非余欲令他犯者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一能勸犯人。二知。三他二種食竟。四不作餘食法下勸足結罪。以是因緣者。明能勸之意。辨相中初句可知。四釋勸意者。欲使他犯故勸令食。言非餘者。謂非不犯及供養意等。律云。彼若食者二俱犯提。前人不食。若作法而食者勸人皆吉羅。若持病兒殘食慾令他犯勸者犯吉。此由噁心故制同罪。律云。不犯者。勸令作法。謂不犯故。及供養意故。勸食者悉皆不犯。
非時食戒第三十七 凡食無時節數則致患。事須限
約軌克令定。是以始從平旦寅絡至日午。事順應法。名之為時。過則非宜。長貪妨道。招世譏過。事不應法。廣生罪累。名為非時。故毗羅三昧經云。平旦諸天食。日中應法食。日西畜生食。日暮鬼神食。出家應佛法故制。同天法二種食名時。多論云。四義故佛制。中前食。一始從日出乃至日中。其明轉盛名之為時。聽食無過。從中后乃至后夜。其明轉設故曰非時。而不聽食。二從旦至中。是作食時節。乞不生惱故聽而食。從中后乃至后夜。俗人宴會遊戲。若乞生惱故制不聽。三從旦至中。俗人事務淫惱未發。乞不生謗故聽乞食。從中已後事務休息。淫喜言笑。入村乞食多被譏謗。受諸惱辱故不聽食。四從旦至中。正是乞時。為濟身命故聽乞食。從中已后宜應靜緣。修道端坐。唸誦持禪。非是往來時節。是故聖制不聽入乞。犯緣有四。一非時。二非時想。三時食。四食咽咽犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因難陀跋難陀及迦留陀夷起過。故制斯戒。
若比丘非時受食食者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二非時。三食。四結罪。初句可知。二言非時者。從日中乃至明相未出。三言食者。律云。食有二種。佉阇尼食及蒲阇尼食。僧祇云。一五正食。二離正食。枝葉花果細未磨等名佉阇尼。善見云。佉阇尼食者。米麥
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：約軌克令定（Yuegui Kelingding，時間的確定）。因此，從平旦（黎明）寅絡（寅時）至日午（中午），做事順應佛法，這叫做『時』（正時）。過了這個時間就不適宜了，過分貪求飲食會妨礙修行，招致世人的譏諷和過失，做事不符合佛法，會廣泛地產生罪業和牽累，這叫做『非時』（不正時）。所以《毗羅三昧經》（Pi Luosanmei Jing）中說：『平旦是諸天（Deva）的食物時間，日中是應法（符合佛法）的食物時間，日西是畜生（animals）的食物時間，日暮是鬼神（ghosts and spirits）的食物時間。』出家人應當遵循佛法，所以制定了（出家人）應當傚法諸天在正時食用兩種食物的規定，這叫做『時』。多論（指《薩婆多毗尼毗婆沙》）中說，因為有四種原因，佛陀制定了（比丘）應當在中午之前食用食物：第一，從日出到日中，光明逐漸增強，這叫做『時』，允許食用，沒有過失；從中午之後到後半夜，光明逐漸減弱，所以叫做『非時』，不允許食用。第二，從早晨到中午，是製作食物的時間，乞食不會產生困擾，所以允許食用；從中午之後到後半夜，俗人宴會遊戲，如果乞食會產生困擾，所以制定不允許食用。第三，從早晨到中午，俗人的事務和淫慾煩惱還沒有發生，乞食不會產生誹謗，所以允許乞食；從中午以後，事務休息，人們沉溺於淫樂和嬉笑，進入村莊乞食容易被譏諷和誹謗，遭受各種惱辱，所以不允許食用。第四，從早晨到中午，正是乞食的時間，爲了維持生命，所以允許乞食；從中午以後，應該安靜地修習，端坐修道，唸誦持咒和禪定，不是往來乞食的時間，因此聖人制定不允許入村乞食。違犯（此戒）的因緣有四種：一、非時；二、非時想（明知非時而作時想）；三、時食（食用正時食物）；四、食咽咽犯（每嚥一口都犯戒）。以下正式闡明戒本（根本戒）。這條戒是因為難陀（Nanda）、跋難陀（Upananda）和迦留陀夷（Kaludayi）犯了過失，所以制定了這條戒律。 若比丘非時受食食者波逸提（若有比丘在非時接受食物並食用，則犯波逸提罪）。這條完整的戒本有四個部分：一、犯人；二、非時；三、食；四、結罪。第一句（犯人）是容易理解的。第二句『非時』是指從日中到明相（黎明之相）未出現的時間。第三句『食』，律中說，食物有兩種：佉阇尼食（Khajjaniya，硬性食物）和蒲阇尼食（Bhojaniya，軟性食物）。《僧祇律》（僧祇律）中說：一、五正食（五種正當的食物）；二、離正食（離開正當的食物）。枝葉、花果、細末磨成的食物等叫做佉阇尼食。《善見律毗婆沙》（善見律毗婆沙）中說，佉阇尼食是指米麥（大米和小麥）。
【English Translation】 English version: Yuegui Kelingding (The determination of time). Therefore, from Pingdan (dawn) Yinluo (Yin time) to Riwu (noon), doing things in accordance with the Dharma is called 'Shi' (proper time). After this time, it is not appropriate. Excessive greed for food will hinder practice, invite ridicule and faults from the world. Doing things that do not conform to the Dharma will broadly produce sins and entanglements. This is called 'Feishi' (improper time). Therefore, the Pi Luosanmei Jing says: 'Pingdan is the time for Devas (gods) to eat, Riwu is the time for eating in accordance with the Dharma, Rixi (sunset) is the time for animals to eat, and Rimu (dusk) is the time for ghosts and spirits to eat.' Monks should follow the Buddha's Dharma, so it is stipulated that (monks) should follow the Devas in eating two kinds of food at the proper time, which is called 'Shi'. The Da Lun (referring to the Sarvastivada Vinaya Vibhasha) says that because of four reasons, the Buddha stipulated that (bhikkhus) should eat food before noon: First, from sunrise to noon, the light gradually increases, which is called 'Shi', allowing eating without fault; from noon to late night, the light gradually weakens, so it is called 'Feishi', not allowed to eat. Second, from morning to noon, it is the time to make food, and begging for food will not cause trouble, so it is allowed to eat; from noon to late night, laypeople have banquets and games, and if begging for food will cause trouble, so it is stipulated that it is not allowed to eat. Third, from morning to noon, laypeople's affairs and lustful troubles have not yet occurred, and begging for food will not cause slander, so it is allowed to beg for food; after noon, affairs rest, people indulge in lust and laughter, and entering villages to beg for food is easily ridiculed and slandered, suffering various annoyances, so it is not allowed to eat. Fourth, from morning to noon, it is the time to beg for food, and in order to maintain life, it is allowed to beg for food; after noon, one should quietly practice, sit upright and cultivate the Way, recite mantras and practice meditation, it is not the time to go back and forth to beg for food, therefore the sage stipulated that it is not allowed to enter the village to beg for food. There are four conditions for violating (this precept): one, Feishi (improper time); two, Feishi Xiang (thinking of improper time as proper time); three, Shishi (eating proper time food); four, Shi Yan Yan Fan (committing an offense with each swallow of food). The following formally clarifies the precepts (fundamental precepts). This precept was formulated because Nanda, Upananda, and Kaludayi committed offenses, so this precept was formulated. If a bhikkhu receives and eats food at an improper time, he commits a Pacittiya offense. This complete precept has four parts: one, the offender; two, the improper time; three, the food; four, the conclusion of the offense. The first sentence (the offender) is easy to understand. The second sentence 'improper time' refers to the time from noon to the time when the sign of dawn (the appearance of dawn) has not yet appeared. The third sentence 'food', the Vinaya says, there are two kinds of food: Khajjaniya (hard food) and Bhojaniya (soft food). The Samghika Vinaya says: one, five proper foods; two, foods apart from the proper foods. Branches, leaves, flowers, fruits, finely ground foods, etc. are called Khajjaniya food. The Samanta-pāsādikā says that Khajjaniya food refers to rice and wheat.
作飯麨等是。蒲阇尼者一切果是。四言波逸提者。是違犯結罪句。故律云。若非時食咽咽墮。若非時漿明相出。若七日藥過七日皆犯。已食過時故。藥過限失受故。若盡形藥無緣限故犯吉羅。律云。不犯者。作黑石蜜和米作法。若有病限藥。時過煮麥令皮不破漉汁飲。若喉中現出還咽不犯。五六病人不及食。腹中空悶聽。以蘇涂身故不差。面涂身猶故不差。蘇和麨涂又不差。以湯洗若不差。甕盛肉汁。坐中如是等足以。至曉一切不得過食。
食殘宿食戒第三十八 制意者。凡飲食繁穢。近則長貪令人不節。又體現變盡義無貯畜。故宜別處。理無共宿。是故聖制 別緣有三。一是殘宿食。二知是殘。三食即犯 釋名者。今日所食。是時日之餘殘。經夜日宿故。名殘宿食戒。已下正明戒本。此戒因迦羅比丘坐禪思惟。疲苦苦食先得者。佛因制戒。
若比丘殘宿食食者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二殘宿食。三食便結犯。初句可知。二言殘宿食者。律云。今日受已至明日。於一切沙門釋子受大戒者皆不清凈。食有二種。一正食。二非正食。正食飯等五正是。非正食者根果食乃至細未食等。三言食波逸提者。律云。若食宿食咽咽犯墮 問。殘之焉宿為一為異 答。有四不同。一殘而非宿。具受四藥。不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 作飯麨（fàn chǎo，炒麵）等是可以的。蒲阇尼（pú shé ní，供養物）是指一切水果。四言波逸提（sì yán bō yì tí，四句波逸提）是指違犯結罪的語句。所以律中說：『如果非時食用，每嚥一口就犯墮罪；如果非時飲用漿水，天亮時也犯；如果七日藥過了七日，都犯戒，因為已經食用了過時的食物，藥也過了期限而失效。』如果盡形藥（jìn xíng yào，終身可服用的藥）沒有特殊原因而超過期限，則犯吉羅（jí luó，輕罪）。律中說：『不犯戒的情況有：用黑石蜜和米制作食物，或者因為生病而限制用藥，時間過了就煮麥子，讓皮不破，濾汁飲用。如果喉嚨里已經出現食物，再嚥下去也不犯戒。』五六個病人來不及吃飯，腹中空悶，允許用酥油塗抹身體，如果這樣還不見好，面部塗抹身體還是不見好，用酥油和炒麵塗抹還是不見好，用熱水洗浴如果不見好，用甕盛肉汁，坐在其中，像這樣等等就足夠了，到天亮一切都不能再食用。
食殘宿食戒第三十八：制定此戒的用意是，凡是飲食繁雜污穢，近則增長貪慾，使人不能節制。而且體現了變盡的意義，不應貯藏積蓄，所以應該分別放置，道理上不應該共同過夜。因此聖人制定此戒。 違犯此戒的因緣有三：一是殘宿食（cán sù shí，剩餘過夜的食物），二是知道是殘宿食，三是食用就犯戒。 解釋名稱：今天所食用的，是當日剩餘的殘食，經過一夜就成了宿食，所以稱為殘宿食戒。下面正式說明戒本。此戒的起因是迦羅（jiā luó）比丘坐禪思惟，疲憊辛苦，食用先得到的食物，佛因此制定此戒。
『若比丘殘宿食食者波逸提』：這句完整地包含了戒條的本文，有三句：一是犯戒的人，二是殘宿食，三是食用就結犯。第一句可以理解。第二句『殘宿食』，律中說：『今天接受的食物到了明天，對於一切沙門釋子（shā mén shì zǐ，佛教出家弟子）受過大戒的人來說，都是不清凈的。』食物有兩種：一是正食，二是非正食。正食是飯等五種正食，非正食是根、果等食物，乃至細末食物等。第三句『食波逸提』，律中說：『如果食用宿食，每嚥一口就犯墮罪。』 問：殘和宿是一回事還是兩回事？ 答：有四種不同。一是殘而非宿，具備接受四種藥的條件，不
【English Translation】 English version It is permissible to make rice flour cakes and the like. 'Pūjanī' (offerings) refers to all fruits. 'Four-word Pāyantika' (four-sentence Pāyantika) refers to the sentence of violating and incurring a sin. Therefore, the Vinaya says: 'If one eats at an improper time, one commits a sin with each swallow; if one drinks juice at an improper time, one commits a sin when the dawn breaks; if a seven-day medicine is taken beyond seven days, one commits a sin, because one has eaten food that is past its time, and the medicine has lost its effect because it has exceeded its limit.' If a lifetime medicine (jìn xíng yào, medicine that can be taken for life) is taken beyond its limit without a special reason, one commits a Dukkaṭa (jí luó, minor offense). The Vinaya says: 'One does not commit an offense if one makes a preparation of black sugar and rice, or if one is restricted to medicine due to illness, and after the time has passed, one boils barley, making sure the skin does not break, and drinks the strained juice. If food has already appeared in the throat, swallowing it again does not constitute an offense.' If five or six sick people do not have time to eat, and their stomachs are empty and distressed, it is permissible to apply ghee to the body. If this does not help, applying it to the face and body still does not help, and applying ghee mixed with rice flour still does not help, washing with hot water does not help, and storing meat juice in a jar and sitting in it is sufficient. By dawn, one must not eat anything further.
The Thirty-eighth Precept: Eating Leftover Food from the Previous Day: The intention behind establishing this precept is that all food and drink that is complex and impure, in the near term, increases greed and causes people to be unrestrained. Moreover, it embodies the meaning of exhaustion and change, and should not be stored and accumulated. Therefore, it should be placed separately, and it is unreasonable to share it overnight. Therefore, the Sage established this precept. There are three conditions for violating this precept: first, leftover food from the previous day (cán sù shí, leftover food from the previous day); second, knowing that it is leftover food; and third, eating it constitutes an offense. Explanation of the name: What is eaten today is the remainder of the day's food, which becomes leftover food after a night, hence the name 'Precept Against Eating Leftover Food from the Previous Day.' The following is a formal explanation of the precept itself. The origin of this precept is that the Bhikkhu Kāla (jiā luó) was meditating and contemplating, and was tired and exhausted, so he ate the food he received first. The Buddha therefore established this precept.
'If a bhikkhu eats leftover food from the previous day, he commits a Pāyantika.' This sentence completely contains the text of the precept, and has three parts: first, the person who commits the offense; second, leftover food from the previous day; and third, eating it constitutes an offense. The first part is understandable. The second part, 'leftover food from the previous day,' the Vinaya says: 'Food received today, by tomorrow, is impure for all Śramaṇa Śākyaputrīyas (śā mén shì zǐ, Buddhist renunciates) who have received the Great Precepts.' There are two types of food: first, proper food; and second, improper food. Proper food is rice and the five proper foods, while improper food is roots, fruits, and even finely ground foods. The third part, 'eating it constitutes a Pāyantika,' the Vinaya says: 'If one eats leftover food from the previous day, one commits a sin with each swallow.' Question: Are 'leftover' and 'overnight' the same thing or two different things? Answer: There are four differences. First, it is leftover but not overnight, possessing the conditions for receiving the four medicines, not
加口法過中。若食犯吉。二宿而非殘。謂未受食。或共同宿食犯吉。不宿無犯。三亦殘亦宿。若食犯提。四非殘非宿。食無罪。殘食內宿亦作四句。一是殘宿非內宿。今日受食安界外。不共宿非內宿。若食得提。二是內宿非殘。三四俱句類知。善見云。多比丘一沙彌共行比丘。各自擔食。至時各各自分已。沙彌語比丘云。我持己分。與大德易之。易得已復與第二比丘易。乃至下座。若沙彌不解者。比丘自持食與教共易得無犯。以無殘宿惡觸等過。乃至持米行沙彌小比丘得作飯。唯不得然火。若佛不得吹撓吉羅。熟已如上分展轉易者得。五分比丘殘果與凈人已不作還意。后凈人還與比丘。佛言。離手已名汝食無犯。祇云。莫問時非時受。若過非時如發煦。若食得提。停過須臾復得停食。食亦提。謂旦起受食至中。過中已去限一須臾。若過二時名曰非時。十云。沙彌持不凈缽與師。佛言。若無急事不應使持缽。若使持應從受。若洗缽已不得磨拭。食時當護凈手。若摩頭口手相楷者。即須卻洗。若捉袈裟亦應須洗。律云。不犯者。若宿受食與父母。若塔作人計價與。后乞食無犯。若缽盆有孔。𨄔食入中。如法洗余不出者得食。故律云。若缽缺余著器。極用意三洗。以膩用食不犯。若宿食蘇油灌鼻。若隨唾出棄余不犯。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 加口法中說，如果食用觸犯了『吉』（指食物），有兩種情況：一是『殘』（指剩餘的食物）而非『宿』（指隔夜的食物），這是指未受食的情況；或者共同住宿食用觸犯了『吉』，不共同住宿則沒有觸犯。二是既是『殘』又是『宿』，如果食用觸犯了『提』（指戒律）。三是非『殘』非『宿』，食用沒有罪過。『殘食』和『內宿』也可以做成四句：一是『殘』和『宿』但非『內宿』，今日受食在安界外，不共同住宿就不是『內宿』，如果食用可以得到『提』。二是『內宿』而非『殘』。三和四句可以類推得知。《善見律毗婆沙》中說，多個比丘和一個沙彌共同行走，比丘各自攜帶食物，到時各自將食物分好。沙彌對比丘說：『我拿自己的那份，和大德您交換。』交換得到后又和第二個比丘交換，乃至和下座的比丘交換。如果沙彌不明白，比丘自己拿著食物教沙彌共同交換，這樣沒有觸犯，因為沒有『殘』、『宿』、『惡觸』等過失。乃至拿著米行走的沙彌或小比丘可以做飯，只是不能點火。如果佛不允許吹動或攪動，就會犯『吉羅』（一種罪名）。煮熟后如上文所說分發輾轉交換，是可以的。《五分律》中說，比丘將剩餘的果實給凈人後，沒有想拿回來的意思，後來凈人又還給比丘，佛說：『離手后已經算是你的食物，沒有觸犯。』《祇洹律》中說，不要問是否是正時，如果過了正時就像發黴一樣。如果食用觸犯了『提』，停止一會兒后又可以停止食用，食用也是『提』。所謂早上起來受食到中午，過了中午就限制在一須臾（很短的時間）。如果超過兩個時辰就叫做非時。《十誦律》中說，沙彌拿著不乾淨的缽給師父，佛說：『如果沒有急事，不應該讓沙彌拿缽。如果讓他拿，應該接受過來。』如果洗完缽后，不能摩擦擦拭。吃飯時應當保護乾淨的手，如果摩擦頭、口、手互相接觸，就必須重新洗。如果觸控袈裟也應當重新洗。律中說，不觸犯的情況有：如果隔夜受食給父母，如果是塔的建造者，計算價格給他們，之後乞食沒有觸犯。如果缽或盆有孔，食物進入其中，如法清洗后剩餘的食物出不來，可以食用。所以律中說，如果缽有缺口，剩餘的食物放在器皿中，非常用心地清洗三次，因為油膩而食用沒有觸犯。如果隔夜的食物是酥油，用來灌鼻，如果隨著唾液吐出，丟棄剩餘的沒有觸犯。
【English Translation】 English version: It is said in Jiakou Fa Guo Zhong (a commentary), if eating violates 'Ji' (referring to food), there are two situations: one is 'Can' (referring to leftover food) but not 'Su' (referring to overnight food), which means not having received food; or co-residing and eating violates 'Ji', not co-residing does not violate. The second is both 'Can' and 'Su', if eating violates 'Ti' (referring to precepts). The third is neither 'Can' nor 'Su', eating is not a sin. 'Can Shi' (leftover food) and 'Nei Su' (overnight stay) can also be made into four sentences: one is 'Can' and 'Su' but not 'Nei Su', receiving food today outside the boundary of safety, not co-residing is not 'Nei Su', if eating can obtain 'Ti'. The second is 'Nei Su' but not 'Can'. The third and fourth sentences can be inferred. The 'Samantapasadika' says that several Bhikkhus and one Shramanera walk together, the Bhikkhus each carry food, and when the time comes, they each divide the food. The Shramanera says to the Bhikkhu: 'I will take my share and exchange it with you, Great Virtue.' After the exchange, he exchanges it with the second Bhikkhu, and even with the Bhikkhu in the lower seat. If the Shramanera does not understand, the Bhikkhu himself takes the food and teaches the Shramanera to exchange it together, so there is no violation, because there are no faults such as 'Can', 'Su', 'evil touch', etc. Even the Shramanera or young Bhikkhu walking with rice can cook, but they cannot light a fire. If the Buddha does not allow blowing or stirring, he will commit 'Kila' (a kind of crime). After cooking, as mentioned above, distributing and exchanging it is allowed. The 'Sarvastivada Vinaya' says that if a Bhikkhu gives the remaining fruit to a layman and does not intend to take it back, and later the layman returns it to the Bhikkhu, the Buddha said: 'After leaving the hand, it is considered your food, and there is no violation.' The 'Jetavana Vinaya' says, do not ask whether it is the right time, if it is past the right time, it is like mildew. If eating violates 'Ti', stopping for a while and then stopping eating is also allowed, and eating is also 'Ti'. The so-called receiving food in the morning until noon, after noon it is limited to one kshana (a very short time). If it exceeds two hours, it is called non-time. The 'Dasabhumi Sutra' says that the Shramanera gives the unclean bowl to the teacher, and the Buddha said: 'If there is no urgent matter, the Shramanera should not be allowed to hold the bowl. If he is allowed to hold it, it should be accepted.' If the bowl is washed, it should not be rubbed. When eating, clean hands should be protected. If rubbing the head, mouth, and hands come into contact with each other, they must be washed again. If touching the Kasaya, it should also be washed again. The Vinaya says that there is no violation in the following situations: if overnight food is given to parents, if it is the builder of the pagoda, calculate the price and give it to them, and there is no violation in begging for food afterwards. If the bowl or basin has holes, and food enters it, and after washing it according to the law, the remaining food does not come out, it can be eaten. Therefore, the Vinaya says that if the bowl has a gap, the remaining food is placed in a container, and it is washed three times with great care, and there is no violation in eating because of the greasiness. If the overnight food is ghee, it is used to irrigate the nose, and if it is spit out with saliva, discarding the rest is not a violation.
不受食戒第三十九 多論云。五義故制。不聽自取食。一為斷盜竊因緣故。二為作證明故。從非人受食得成受不成證明。謂在曠野非人之所為是開聽。若在人中非畜無知小兒悉不成受。三為正誹謗故。四為成少欲知足故。五為生他信敬心故。為令外道得益故爾 別緣具四。一是食。二不受。三知不受四食即犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因頭陀乞食比丘冢間自取食之。居士共嫌。比丘舉過。佛便制戒。
若比丘不受食若藥著口中除水及楊枝波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一犯人。二不受。三食體。四開緣。五結犯。辨相者初句可知。二言不受者。律云。他不與未受者是。受有五種。一手與手受。二手與持物受。三持物與手受四持與持物受。五若遙過物與者受者俱知中間無所觸礙得墮手中是。復有五種。一身與身受二衣與衣受。三曲肘與曲肘受。四器與器受。五若有因緣置地與。是為五。三言食者。明所食體。律云。佉阇尼食根細未摩。及五正食等是為食體。四言除水及楊枝者。此明開緣。祇云。若楊枝咽汁者。須受水。濁者須受雪雹亦受。五分若水性咸不著鹽聽不受飲。又水性黃者自飲無罪。五言波逸提者。是結犯句。律云。若不受如上等。食隨咽隨犯。了論云。若破戒被殯別住十三難。三舉滅殯應滅殯學悔等人。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不受食戒第三十九 多論說，制定此戒有五個原因：一是爲了斷絕盜竊的因緣；二是爲了作為證明，從非人（指天、龍、鬼、神等）處接受食物，可以成就受食，否則不能作為受食的證明。在曠野等非人之處可以開許接受食物。如果在人群中，從非畜生或無知小兒處接受食物，都不能算作受食。三是爲了糾正誹謗；四是爲了成就少欲知足；五是爲了使他人產生信心和尊敬心，爲了使外道（佛教以外的宗教）得到利益。別緣具備四點：一是食物，二是不接受，三是知道不接受，四是食物入口即犯戒。以下正式闡明戒本。此戒的起因是頭陀（苦行僧）乞食的比丘在墳墓間自己取食，居士們共同嫌棄，比丘們舉出他的過失，佛陀因此制定此戒。
若比丘不接受食物或藥物進入口中，除了水和楊枝（一種用來清潔牙齒的樹枝），犯波逸提（一種罪名）。這條戒的完整戒文有五句：一是犯戒人，二是不接受，三是食物的本體，四是開緣，五是結罪。辨別相狀，第一句可知。第二句說『不接受』，律中說，他人不給予，自己未接受就是不接受。接受有五種方式：一是手與手接受，二是手與持物接受，三是持物與手接受，四是持物與持物接受，五是如果遙遠傳遞物品，給予者和接受者都知道，中間沒有觸碰阻礙，物品落入手中。又有五種方式：一是身體與身體接受，二是衣服與衣服接受，三是曲肘與曲肘接受，四是器皿與器皿接受，五是如果有因緣放置在地上給予。這便是五種接受方式。第三句說『食物』，說明所食的本體。律中說，『佉阇尼食』（指硬的、可咀嚼的食物），根、莖、細末（指磨成粉末的食物），以及五種正食等，都是食物的本體。第四句說『除了水和楊枝』，這是說明開緣。祇園寺的律典說，如果楊枝的汁液嚥下，需要接受水。渾濁的水需要接受，雪雹也需要接受。《五分律》說，如果水的性質是鹹的，沒有加鹽，可以不接受而飲用。又如果水的顏色是黃色的，自己飲用沒有罪過。第五句說『波逸提』，是結罪句。律中說，如果不接受如上所述的食物，隨著吞嚥，隨著犯戒。《了論》說，如果破戒、被擯出僧團、別住（一種懲罰方式）、十三難（指出家受戒的十三種障礙）、三舉（三種僧團的懲罰方式）、滅擯（最嚴重的懲罰方式）、應滅擯（應該被滅擯）、學悔（正在學習懺悔的人）等人，都不能接受食物。
【English Translation】 English version The Thirty-ninth precept on not accepting food: The Duolun says that there are five reasons for establishing this precept: first, to cut off the causes and conditions for theft; second, to serve as proof, accepting food from non-humans (referring to gods, dragons, ghosts, spirits, etc.) can constitute acceptance, otherwise it cannot serve as proof of acceptance. It is permissible to accept food in wildernesses and other places inhabited by non-humans. If in a human community, accepting food from non-animals or ignorant children does not constitute acceptance. Third, to correct slander; fourth, to achieve few desires and contentment; fifth, to generate faith and respect in others, and for the benefit of non-Buddhists. The specific conditions are four: first, food; second, not accepting; third, knowing that one is not accepting; fourth, the offense is committed as soon as the food enters the mouth. The following formally clarifies the precept itself. The origin of this precept is that bhikshus (monks) practicing dhuta (ascetic practices) were taking food themselves in graveyards, which was disliked by the laypeople, and the bhikshus pointed out his faults, so the Buddha established this precept.
If a bhikshu does not accept food or medicine into his mouth, except for water and yangzhi (a twig used for cleaning teeth), he commits a payantika (a type of offense). The complete text of this precept has five clauses: first, the offender; second, not accepting; third, the substance of the food; fourth, exceptions; fifth, the conclusion of the offense. The first clause is self-explanatory. The second clause says 'not accepting,' the Vinaya says, 'if another does not give it, and one has not accepted it, that is not accepting.' There are five ways of accepting: first, hand to hand; second, hand to object; third, object to hand; fourth, object to object; fifth, if an object is passed from afar, and both the giver and receiver know that there is no obstruction in between, and the object falls into the hand. There are also five ways: first, body to body; second, clothing to clothing; third, bent elbow to bent elbow; fourth, vessel to vessel; fifth, if there is a reason to place it on the ground to give. These are the five ways of accepting. The third clause says 'food,' clarifying the substance of what is eaten. The Vinaya says, 'khajaniya food' (referring to hard, chewable food), roots, stems, fine powder (referring to food ground into powder), and the five staple foods, etc., are the substance of food. The fourth clause says 'except for water and yangzhi,' this clarifies the exceptions. The Jetavana Vinaya says, if the juice of the yangzhi is swallowed, one needs to accept water. Murky water needs to be accepted, and snow and hail also need to be accepted. The Five-Part Vinaya says, if the nature of the water is salty, and no salt has been added, one may drink it without accepting it. Also, if the color of the water is yellow, one may drink it without offense. The fifth clause says 'payantika,' which is the concluding offense. The Vinaya says, if one does not accept food as described above, one commits an offense with each swallow. The Liaolun says, if one has broken the precepts, has been expelled from the sangha (monastic community), is living separately (a form of punishment), has the thirteen difficulties (referring to the thirteen obstacles to ordination), has the three censures (three forms of punishment by the sangha), has been excommunicated (the most severe form of punishment), should be excommunicated, or is learning repentance, these people cannot accept food.
所受食清凈者。若取食不成受。五分云。從人受成。若從非人畜生受悉不成。若在壙野無凈人處。聽自洗燒器安水凈人安米自煮。若熟從他受。祇云。曠野中行牛上受食。長袋連紐一日一系置牛上。人不得觸之。至時一比丘引繩。一比丘受取口云受受等。十云。飛鳥來啄一口去。但棄啄受余殘得食。見云。天人鬼神畜生飛鳥皆成。又若塵土落缽中。可除者去之餘者不犯。細者更受。若病急緣大小便灰土得自取。十云。聽擔食。行不使人見。若食當下道取一搦不受而食。此是無人處。若有人處自擔糧。從他是凈食。又山野處無人者。日中不得往返。應七日自作先凈米取。祇云。口中有熱氣生瘡。須咽楊枝汁應受。若誤咽不犯。若凈人行果鹽菜應語懸放果墮草上即去者。不名受。小停者名受。若凈人難得自至食處總受而行。若凈人舉不離地亦名受。而非威儀。律云。若正不正食不與自取著口中。咽咽墮。非時七日限過亦墮。盡形無緣不受食犯吉。不犯者。取凈水楊枝。若不受蘇油灌鼻與唾俱出余不犯吉。乞食時鳥銜食。若風吹墮缽中除去此食。乃至一指爪可除者不犯。
索美食戒第四十 制意者。出家之事特宜廉潔。今耽著美味求索好食。長己貪結惱亂施主。招世譏過。是故聖制 別緣有五。一是美食乳酪魚肉等。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於接受清凈食物的規定：如果接受食物的方式不正確，則不算接受。根據《五分律》的說法，從人那裡接受食物才算接受，如果從非人或畜生那裡接受食物，則不算接受。如果在空曠的田野，沒有清凈之人的地方，允許自己清洗炊具，放入水，讓清凈之人放入米，自己煮飯。如果煮熟的食物是從他人那裡接受的，《祇園律》說，在曠野中行走時，可以從牛背上接受食物。用長袋子連線起來，每天系一個結放在牛背上，人不得觸控它。到吃飯的時候，一個比丘拉繩子，一個比丘接受食物，口中唸誦『接受、接受』等。《十誦律》說，如果有飛鳥來啄食一口，就丟棄被啄食的部分，剩下的可以食用。《見律》說，天人、鬼神、畜生、飛鳥都可以成為施食者。此外，如果有塵土落入缽中，可以去除那些可以去除的，剩下的不犯戒。如果塵土很細，可以重新接受食物。如果因為生病緊急，需要大小便或灰土，可以自己取用。《十誦律》說，允許自己挑著食物行走，但不要讓人看見。如果吃飯的地方在路邊，可以拿一小把食物，不經過接受的儀式就吃掉，這是在沒有人的地方。如果有人，就自己帶著糧食，從他人那裡接受清凈的食物。又如果在山野等沒有人的地方，中午不得往返，應該提前七天自己準備好清凈的米。《祇園律》說，如果口中有熱氣，生了瘡，需要嚥下楊枝汁，應該接受。如果誤咽，不犯戒。如果清凈之人拿著水果、鹽、蔬菜等，應該說『懸掛著』，如果水果掉在草上立刻拿走，這不叫接受。如果停留一會兒，就叫接受。如果清凈之人難以找到，自己走到食物的地方，全部接受然後行走。如果清凈之人舉起食物沒有離開地面，也叫接受，但這不合威儀。律中說，如果不是以正確的方式接受食物，自己取食物放入口中，嚥下去，就犯戒。過了非時食的七日期限，也犯戒。如果終身沒有任何因緣而不接受食物，就犯吉羅罪。不犯戒的情況有：取凈水、楊枝，或者不接受酥油灌鼻，與唾液一起出來，其餘的不犯吉羅罪。乞食的時候，鳥銜走了食物，或者風吹食物掉入缽中，去除這些食物，乃至一指甲大小的可去除的食物，都不犯戒。
索取美食戒第四十：制定此戒的原因是，出家修行之人特別應該廉潔。現在貪戀美味，索取好的食物，增長自己的貪慾，結下煩惱，擾亂施主，招致世人的譏諷和過失。因此，佛制定此戒律。違犯此戒的因緣有五種：一是美食，如乳酪、魚肉等。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the precepts on receiving pure food: If the manner of receiving food is incorrect, it does not count as receiving. According to the Sarvastivada Vinaya, receiving from a person counts as receiving; if receiving from a non-human or animal, it does not count as receiving. If in a desolate field where there is no pure person, one is allowed to wash the cooking utensils oneself, put in water, have a pure person put in rice, and cook it oneself. If the cooked food is received from another, the Givana Vinaya says that when walking in the wilderness, one can receive food from the back of a cow. Use long bags connected together, tying a knot each day and placing it on the cow's back; people must not touch it. When it is time to eat, one bhiksu (monk) pulls the rope, and another bhiksu receives the food, reciting 'Receive, receive,' etc. The Dasabhumi Sutra says that if a bird comes and pecks off a mouthful, discard the pecked portion; the remainder can be eaten. The Vinaya-matrka says that devas (gods), yakshas (demons), animals, and birds can all be donors. Furthermore, if dust falls into the bowl, remove what can be removed; the remainder does not violate the precept. If the dust is fine, receive the food again. If due to illness, there is an urgent need for urination, defecation, or ash, one can take it oneself. The Dasabhumi Sutra says that one is allowed to carry food oneself, but do not let people see it. If the place for eating is by the roadside, one can take a handful of food and eat it without going through the ritual of receiving; this is in a place where there is no one. If there are people, carry one's own provisions and receive pure food from others. Also, if in the mountains or fields where there is no one, one must not go back and forth at noon; one should prepare pure rice oneself seven days in advance. The Givana Vinaya says that if there is heat in the mouth, causing sores, one needs to swallow a twig juice, one should receive it. If one swallows it by mistake, it does not violate the precept. If a pure person is holding fruit, salt, vegetables, etc., one should say 'Suspend it'; if the fruit falls on the grass and is taken away immediately, this is not called receiving. If it stays for a while, it is called receiving. If a pure person is difficult to find, go to the place where the food is, receive it all, and then walk away. If a pure person lifts the food without it leaving the ground, it is also called receiving, but this is not in accordance with the proper demeanor. The Vinaya says that if one does not receive food in the correct way, and takes the food oneself and puts it in the mouth, swallowing it, one violates the precept. If the seven-day limit for non-meal times has passed, one also violates the precept. If one does not receive food for one's entire life without any reason, one commits a dukkhata (wrongdoing). Situations where one does not violate the precept include: taking pure water, a twig, or not receiving ghee (clarified butter) for nasal irrigation, which comes out with saliva; the rest does not violate the dukkhata (wrongdoing). When begging for food, if a bird carries away the food, or if the wind blows food into the bowl, remove this food; even food the size of a fingernail that can be removed does not violate the precept.
The fortieth precept against soliciting delicious food: The reason for establishing this precept is that those who have left home to practice should be especially honest and pure. Now, being greedy for delicious flavors and soliciting good food increases one's greed, creates afflictions, disturbs donors, and invites ridicule and faults from the world. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept. There are five conditions for violating this precept: First, delicious food, such as milk, cheese, fish, and meat.
二隨非親乞。三為己乞。四無因緣。為病一坐間不堪食飽者。五食即便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因跋難陀從檀越索雜食。被譏訶嘖。比丘舉過。因制此戒。
若比丘得好美食蘇酪魚肉若比丘知此美食無病為身索者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二食體。三無緣。四為己結犯罪。辨相者可知。祇云。不得從屠家乳酪家乞。恐招譏過。蠶家乞綿亦同此例 問。律結尼吉者何 答。尼是女弱。求索美食。女人所諱為之義希故。故犯吉。大僧丈夫身報力強。夫乞美食資身數故。是以犯提。律云。不犯者。病人自乞。為病人乞。或自他交乞。不求自得。並皆不犯。
與外道食戒第四十一 制意者。三種過故制不與食。一異學情及恒懷悚。外難與理親。雖傷惠施不荷其恩。反生譏謗。二邪見乖宗非真福田。令以施主之食授與外道。損他施主不得勝田。獲反報之福。三躬自持食授與外道。容生惑倒。謂外道是勝。比丘不如。以斯過故不許自手與食 別緣有六。一是出家外道甄去在家外道白衣犯輕故爾。二知是出家外道不知犯輕。三非親若與父母外道。恩重故聽。四是食與衣義希故犯小罪。五自手與除置地遣人與不犯。六彼手受即犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因阿難分殘食與乞人故。又外道得食反謗。故佛制斯戒。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二、隨非親乞：指跟隨沒有親屬關係的人乞討。 三、為己乞：指爲了自己乞討。 四、無因緣：指沒有因緣，因為生病而只能坐著，無法吃飽飯的人。 五、食即便犯：指吃了就算犯戒。以下正式說明戒本。這條戒律是因為跋難陀向檀越（dànyuè，施主）索要雜食，被譏諷責備，比丘們舉出他的過失，因此制定了這條戒律。
若比丘得好美食蘇酪魚肉若比丘知此美食無病為身索者波逸提（bō yì tí）：如果比丘得到好的美食，如酥油、乳酪、魚肉，如果比丘明知這些美食並非爲了生病而為自己索取，則犯波逸提（bō yì tí，一種罪名）。這條戒律的本文有四句：一是犯戒的人，二是食物的種類，三是沒有緣由，四是爲了自己而犯戒。辨別相狀是可以知道的。只說，不得從屠夫家、乳酪家乞討，恐怕招致譏諷。向養蠶人家乞討棉花也與此相同。問：律中判尼吉（ní jí）罪的原因是什麼？答：尼是女子，體弱，求索美食，是女人所忌諱的行為，因為這種行為很少見，所以犯尼吉（ní jí，一種罪名）。大僧是丈夫，身體強壯，乞討美食來資養身體是常有的事，所以犯波逸提（bō yì tí，一種罪名）。律中說，不犯戒的情況有：病人自己乞討，為病人乞討，或者自己與他人交換乞討，不求自得，這些都不犯戒。
與外道食戒第四十一：給予外道食物的戒律，第四十一條。制定這條戒律的原因是三種過失：一是異學情及恒懷悚：因為外道的情感和我們不同，常常懷有恐懼，對外道難以講通道理，即使施予恩惠，他們也不會感恩，反而會產生譏諷和誹謗。二是邪見乖宗非真福田：因為外道的邪見與佛教的宗旨相悖，不是真正的福田，如果將施主供養的食物給予外道，會損害施主的利益，使他們無法獲得殊勝的福報。三是躬自持食授與外道容生惑倒：親自拿著食物給予外道，容易產生迷惑顛倒，認為外道比比丘更殊勝。因為這些過失，所以不允許親自將食物給予外道。特別的因緣有六種：一是出家外道甄去在家外道白衣犯輕故爾：出家的外道與在家的外道不同，在家外道和白衣犯戒較輕。二是知是出家外道不知犯輕：知道是出家的外道，但不知道犯戒較輕。三是非親若與父母外道恩重故聽：如果不是親屬，但給予父母外道食物，因為恩情深重，所以允許。四是食與衣義希故犯小罪：食物與衣服相比，食物更為重要，所以犯較輕的罪。五是自手與除置地遣人與不犯：親自給予，除非是放在地上或派人送去，否則就犯戒。六是彼手受即犯：外道親手接受就犯戒。以下正式說明戒本。這條戒律是因為阿難（Ā nán，佛陀的十大弟子之一）分發剩餘的食物給乞丐，又因為外道得到食物后反而誹謗，所以佛制定了這條戒律。
【English Translation】 English version Two, begging following non-relatives: Refers to begging while following people who are not relatives. Three, begging for oneself: Refers to begging for oneself. Four, without cause: Refers to those who, due to illness, can only sit and are unable to eat their fill. Five, eating immediately constitutes an offense: Refers to the act of eating immediately being a violation of the precept. The following formally explains the precepts. This precept was established because Bānántuó (跋難陀) requested miscellaneous food from Dānyuè (檀越, patrons), was ridiculed and blamed, and the Bhikkhus pointed out his faults, hence this precept was established.
If a Bhikkhu obtains good and delicious food such as ghee, cheese, fish, or meat, and if the Bhikkhu knows that this delicious food is not requested for the sake of illness, then it is a Pāyattika (波逸提): If a Bhikkhu obtains good and delicious food such as ghee, cheese, fish, or meat, and if the Bhikkhu knows that this delicious food is not requested for the sake of illness, then it is a Pāyattika (波逸提, a type of offense). This precept has four sentences: one is the offender, two is the type of food, three is without cause, and four is committing the offense for oneself. Discriminating the characteristics is knowable. It only says that one should not beg from butchers or cheese makers, lest it invites ridicule. Begging for cotton from silkworm farmers is the same. Question: What is the reason for the Vinaya (律) judging it as a Nīkī (尼吉) offense? Answer: Nī (尼) refers to women, who are weak. Seeking delicious food is something women avoid, because such behavior is rare, hence it is a Nīkī (尼吉, a type of offense). A great monk is a man, with a strong body, and begging for delicious food to nourish the body is common, therefore it is a Pāyattika (波逸提, a type of offense). The Vinaya (律) says that there is no offense in the following situations: a sick person begs for themselves, begging for a sick person, or exchanging begging with others, obtaining without seeking, all these are not offenses.
The Forty-first Precept: Giving Food to Outsiders: The forty-first precept regarding giving food to outsiders. The reason for establishing this precept is due to three faults: One is different learning and constant fear: Because the feelings of outsiders are different from ours, they often harbor fear. It is difficult to reason with outsiders, and even if kindness is bestowed, they will not be grateful, but instead will generate ridicule and slander. Two is heretical views contrary to the doctrine, not a true field of merit: Because the heretical views of outsiders are contrary to the tenets of Buddhism, they are not a true field of merit. If the food offered by patrons is given to outsiders, it will harm the interests of the patrons and prevent them from obtaining superior blessings. Three is personally holding food and giving it to outsiders, which may cause confusion and inversion: Personally holding food and giving it to outsiders can easily lead to confusion and inversion, thinking that outsiders are superior to Bhikkhus. Because of these faults, it is not allowed to personally give food to outsiders. There are six special circumstances: One is that ordained outsiders are distinguished from lay outsiders and white-clothed individuals, and the offense is lighter: Ordained outsiders are different from lay outsiders, and the offense for lay outsiders and white-clothed individuals is lighter. Two is knowing that they are ordained outsiders but not knowing that the offense is lighter: Knowing that they are ordained outsiders but not knowing that the offense is lighter. Three is if they are not relatives, but giving food to parents who are outsiders, it is allowed because of the deep affection: If they are not relatives, but giving food to parents who are outsiders, it is allowed because of the deep affection. Four is that food is more important than clothing, so the offense is minor: Compared to clothing, food is more important, so the offense is lighter. Five is giving with one's own hand, unless it is placed on the ground or sent by someone else, there is no offense: Giving with one's own hand, unless it is placed on the ground or sent by someone else, there is no offense. Six is that if the outsider receives it with their own hand, it is an offense: If the outsider receives it with their own hand, it is an offense. The following formally explains the precepts. This precept was established because Ānán (阿難, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) distributed leftover food to beggars, and because outsiders slandered after receiving food, so the Buddha established this precept.
若比丘外道男外道女自手與食波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二所與處。三與葉。四結罪。言比丘者義如上釋。言外道男女者。裸形異學人。此眾外出家者是。言自手與食者。若正非正食。乃至蘇油等不置地。不使人與者名自手與。言波逸提者。是違句。律云。彼若受與者提。若不受吉。五分云。持己食分一揣彆著。使自取不得持僧食。若與乞兒狗鳥等。應量己食分多少。然後減不得持分外與。十云。外道伺求長短與食不名污家。多雲。與時人見者自與不犯。若僧共與僧食無過。唯不得自手與。律云。不犯者。若置地。若使人與。若與父母外道。若作佛塔僧房人計價與。若勢力強奪。並皆不犯。
先受前請后食至他家不囑戒第四十二 三過故制。一者凡俗里多務為善事難。惙其家業專崇福。會已許受請行。詣他家脫若事差。惱處不輕。二既有食處。宜息緣修道。無事游散妨廢所習。三共眾受請皆入聚落。令他施主見僧不集。竟不設供。稽留大眾。使不得飽滿。惱眾殊深。故聖禁制 別緣有五。一先受他請以不受。故佛開不囑入村。二食前後。三不囑授。四向白衣家。除詣伽藍。又除病作衣等緣。五入門犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因跋難陀故令僧食時不得食好果。故制斯戒。
若比丘先受請已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 若比丘親自將食物給予外道男子或外道女子，則犯波逸提罪（一種輕罪）。此戒條的完整內容包含四個方面：一是犯戒者，二是給予食物的場所，三是給予的食物，四是判罪。『比丘』的含義如前文解釋。『外道男女』指的是裸形或持有其他學說的修行人，他們是在佛教僧團之外出家的人。『自手與食』指的是，無論是正食還是非正食，乃至酥油等物，不經過放置於地面，也不通過他人傳遞，而是親自給予。『波逸提』是違犯的意思。律典中說：『如果他接受並給予食物，則犯提罪；如果不接受，則無罪。』《五分律》中說：『將自己的一份食物單獨放置，讓他們自己取用，不得拿僧團的食物給予。如果要給予乞丐、狗、鳥等，應衡量自己食物的多少，然後減少，不得拿自己份額之外的食物給予。』《十誦律》中說：『外道伺機尋找過失，給予食物不算是玷污施主家。』還有一種說法是：『給予食物時，如果有人看見是自己給予的，則不犯戒。如果僧團共同給予僧團食物，則沒有過錯，只是不得親自給予。』律典中說，以下情況不犯戒：如果將食物放置於地面，或者通過他人給予，或者給予父母或外道，或者爲了建造佛塔、僧房而與人議價給予，或者被強力奪取，這些都不算犯戒。 先接受邀請，之後未經告知就到他家食用，犯戒第四十二條。制定此戒的原因有三點：一是世俗之人事務繁忙，難以行善，耗盡家業專注于追求福報。已經答應接受邀請出行，卻又到他家，如果事情有差錯，會造成困擾。二是既然已經有吃飯的地方，就應該停止攀緣，專心修道，無事遊蕩會妨礙所學。三是共同接受邀請的僧人一起進入村落，會讓施主看到僧團不整齊，最終不設供養，耽誤大眾，使大家不能吃飽，造成很大的困擾。因此佛陀禁止這種行為。有五種特殊情況：一是先接受了他人的邀請，因為不接受邀請，所以佛陀開許不告知就進入村落。二是食用前後。三是不告知。四是前往白衣（在家信徒）家，除了前往伽藍（寺院），或者因為生病、製作衣服等原因。五是入門時犯戒。以下正式說明戒本。這條戒律是因為跋難陀的緣故，讓他僧團吃飯時不能吃好的水果，所以制定此戒。 若比丘先接受邀請之後
【English Translation】 English version: If a Bhikkhu personally gives food to a male or female follower of other religions, he commits a Pacittiya (a minor offense). This complete precept contains four aspects: 1. The offender; 2. The place where the food is given; 3. The food given; 4. The judgment of the offense. The meaning of 'Bhikkhu' is as explained above. 'Male or female followers of other religions' refers to those who are naked or hold different doctrines, and who have left home outside the Buddhist Sangha. 'Personally giving food' refers to giving food, whether it is proper or improper food, even ghee (clarified butter) and the like, without placing it on the ground or having someone else give it. 'Pacittiya' means transgression. The Vinaya (monastic code) says: 'If he accepts and gives the food, he commits a Thullácchaya; if he does not accept, he is blameless.' The 'Five-Part Vinaya' says: 'Place one's own portion of food separately, let them take it themselves, and do not give them food from the Sangha. If you want to give to beggars, dogs, birds, etc., you should measure the amount of your own food, and then reduce it, and do not give them food beyond your own share.' The 'Ten Recitation Vinaya' says: 'If followers of other religions are looking for faults and give food, it is not considered defiling the donor's house.' Another saying is: 'If people see that you are giving the food yourself, you are not committing an offense. If the Sangha gives food to the Sangha together, there is no fault, but you must not give it yourself.' The Vinaya says that the following situations are not offenses: if the food is placed on the ground, or given through someone else, or given to parents or followers of other religions, or given in exchange for an agreed price for building pagodas or Sangha residences, or if it is forcibly taken away, these are not considered offenses. The forty-second precept: Having accepted a prior invitation, one should not go to another's house to eat without informing the original host. This precept was established for three reasons: First, laypeople are busy with worldly affairs and find it difficult to do good deeds, exhausting their family fortunes to pursue blessings. Having already agreed to accept an invitation and go, if they then go to another's house, it may cause trouble if things go wrong. Second, since there is already a place to eat, one should cease wandering and focus on cultivating the Way. Aimless wandering hinders one's practice. Third, if monks who have jointly accepted an invitation all enter the village, it will cause the donors to see that the Sangha is not orderly, and they may ultimately not provide offerings, delaying the assembly and preventing everyone from eating their fill, causing great trouble. Therefore, the Buddha forbade this behavior. There are five special circumstances: First, having accepted another's invitation, because one does not accept the invitation, the Buddha allows one to enter the village without informing the original host. Second, before or after eating. Third, without informing. Fourth, going to the house of a layperson, except for going to a monastery, or for reasons such as illness or making clothes. Fifth, committing an offense upon entering the door. The following formally explains the precepts. This precept was established because of Bhánadanda, to prevent him from eating good fruit when the Sangha was eating. If a Bhikkhu has previously accepted an invitation
前食后食詣余家不囑受余比丘除余時波逸提時者病時作衣時施衣時是謂余時 此滿戒文有三段。初略制。次隨制。后廣制。為前食故初略結。為后食故隨結。為請喚故廣制。就廣戒本句有其五。一正明是比丘先受他請。二食前食后至他家。三不囑受。四除開緣。五結犯。除時者已下誦前第四句。辨相具釋。初句可知。言前食后食者。從明相出至食時。名前食。后食時至日中。名后食。三言不囑余比丘者。律云。若同房同住同界者。應令知受請處。四言除余時者。是開緣。于中有三。一病。二作衣。三施衣。義如別眾食戒說。五言波逸者。是違犯結罪句。律云。若受請已欲至余家。不囑同戒同受請者。若去入門便犯。不同展轉食戒。囑異為囑異。為囑同界者容有覓義。故律云。若囑授詣村而中道還。若至余家。或至寺內庫藏處及聚落邊房。若尼寺。若至彼白衣家還出。並失前囑受。更當囑他。若不爾者入門即犯。律云。不犯者。如戒本開緣及無比丘可囑。至余庫藏及尼者。若家家多敷坐具請比丘成一會。隨至皆是請處。是故不犯。十云。若食不足。若不至余處求。不犯。多雲。檀越明日設供。比丘今日往犯提。除喚不犯。
食家強坐戒第四十三 制意者。凡在家俗人婚會。無時久坐不去。放妨彼邪心遞相逼斥。理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『前食后食詣余家不囑受余比丘除余時波逸提時者病時作衣時施衣時是謂余時』：如果在飯前或飯後前往其他人家裡，沒有告知其他比丘，除非有特殊情況，否則觸犯波逸提（一種戒律）。特殊情況包括生病、製作衣服、或佈施衣服。這些情況被稱為『余時』。
這段完整的戒文分為三個部分：首先是簡略的制定，其次是隨後的制定，最後是詳細的制定。爲了飯前的緣故，最初簡略地結罪；爲了飯後的緣故，隨後結罪；爲了接受邀請的緣故，詳細地制定。就廣戒的根本語句而言，有五個方面：一是明確說明是比丘事先接受了他人的邀請；二是在飯前或飯後到他人家裡；三是沒有告知其他比丘；四是排除開緣的情況；五是總結犯戒的情況。『除時者』以下的內容，是誦讀前面第四句，詳細解釋各種情況。第一句容易理解。『前食后食』指的是，從天亮到吃飯的時間，稱為『前食』；從吃飯時間到中午，稱為『后食』。『不囑余比丘』指的是，按照戒律的規定，如果（比丘）與（受邀的比丘）同房、同住、在同一區域內，應該讓（同房、同住、在同一區域內的比丘）知道接受邀請的地點。『除余時』指的是開緣的情況，其中有三種：一是生病，二是製作衣服，三是佈施衣服。這些情況的含義如同《別眾食戒》中所說。『波逸提』指的是違犯戒律而結罪的語句。戒律規定，如果接受邀請后想去其他人家裡，沒有告知同樣接受邀請的同戒比丘，那麼只要一進入（其他人家）的門，就觸犯戒律，這與展轉食戒不同。告知不同的人，就是『囑異』。告知同一區域的人，或許還有尋找（受邀比丘）的意義。因此，戒律規定，如果告知（其他比丘）后前往村莊，但在中途返回，或者到達其他人家裡，或者到達寺廟內的庫藏處以及聚落旁邊的房屋，或者到達尼姑庵，或者到達那裡的白衣（在家信徒）家又出來，都喪失了之前的告知（的效力），需要重新告知他人，否則一進入（其他人家）的門就觸犯戒律。戒律規定，以下情況不觸犯戒律：如戒本中開緣的情況，以及沒有其他比丘可以告知的情況；到達其他的庫藏處以及尼姑庵的情況；如果施主在家中擺設許多座位，邀請比丘們聚會，那麼無論到達哪裡都是接受邀請的地方，因此不觸犯戒律。《十誦律》說，如果食物不足，如果不去其他地方尋求（食物），就不算犯戒。《摩訶僧祇律》說，施主明天設供，比丘今天前往（施主家），就犯波逸提，除非是（施主）邀請（比丘前往），否則就犯戒。
『食家強坐戒第四十三』：制定這條戒律的目的是，凡是在家俗人舉行婚禮聚會時，（人們）常常長時間坐著不離開，從而妨礙了他們（指在場的男女）產生邪念，互相逼迫，這是不合道理的。
【English Translation】 English version 『If, having eaten or not eaten, one goes to another's house without informing another Bhikkhu, except at the proper time, it is to be confessed. The proper times are when one is sick, when one is making robes, when one is giving robes. These are called the proper times.』
This complete precept has three parts: first, the brief formulation; second, the subsequent formulation; and third, the detailed formulation. For the sake of eating before noon, the initial brief formulation is made. For the sake of eating after noon, the subsequent formulation is made. For the sake of accepting invitations, the detailed formulation is made. Regarding the fundamental sentence of the detailed precept, there are five aspects: first, it clearly states that the Bhikkhu has previously accepted an invitation from another; second, whether before or after eating, he goes to another's house; third, he does not inform another Bhikkhu; fourth, it excludes permissible exceptions; fifth, it concludes with the offense. The content from 『except at the proper time』 onwards is the recitation of the fourth sentence above, explaining the various situations in detail. The first sentence is easy to understand. 『Having eaten or not eaten』 refers to the time from dawn until the time for eating, which is called 『before eating』; from the time for eating until noon, which is called 『after eating.』 『Without informing another Bhikkhu』 refers to the rule that, according to the Vinaya, if (the Bhikkhu) shares a room, lives together, and is within the same boundary as (the invited Bhikkhu), he should let (the Bhikkhu who shares a room, lives together, and is within the same boundary) know the location where the invitation is accepted. 『Except at the proper time』 refers to the permissible exceptions, of which there are three: first, being sick; second, making robes; and third, giving robes. The meanings of these situations are as described in the 『Separate Group Meal Precept.』 『To be confessed』 refers to the sentence that concludes with the offense of violating the precept. The Vinaya stipulates that if, after accepting an invitation, one wants to go to another's house without informing the co-invited Bhikkhu of the same precepts, then as soon as one enters the door (of the other's house), one violates the precept, which is different from the revolving meal precept. Informing a different person is 『informing differently.』 Informing someone within the same boundary may still have the meaning of seeking (the invited Bhikkhu). Therefore, the Vinaya stipulates that if, after informing (another Bhikkhu), one goes to a village but returns midway, or arrives at another's house, or arrives at the treasury within the temple or the houses next to the settlement, or arrives at a nunnery, or arrives at the house of a white-clad (lay devotee) and then comes out, one loses the effect of the previous informing and needs to inform another again; otherwise, entering the door (of the other's house) immediately violates the precept. The Vinaya stipulates that the following situations do not violate the precept: such as the situations of permissible exceptions in the precept text, and the situation where there is no other Bhikkhu to inform; the situation of arriving at other treasuries and nunneries; if the donor sets up many seats in the house and invites Bhikkhus to gather, then wherever one arrives is a place to accept the invitation, therefore one does not violate the precept. The Ten Recitation Vinaya says that if there is not enough food, if one does not go to other places to seek (food), one does not violate the precept. The Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya says that if the donor is setting up a meal tomorrow, and the Bhikkhu goes to (the donor's house) today, he commits an offense to be confessed, unless (the donor) invites (the Bhikkhu to go), otherwise he commits an offense.
『The Forty-Third Precept: Forcibly Sitting in a House.』 The purpose of establishing this precept is that, generally, when laypeople hold wedding gatherings, (people) often sit for a long time without leaving, thereby hindering them (referring to the men and women present) from generating impure thoughts and forcing each other, which is unreasonable.
非所宜。又復出家離穢受染之所。事須防遠。容自壞心行。外涉譏丑。故所以制 別緣有四。一是食家甄去斷淫慾家及二俱受齋不犯。二夫婦常所居屏處。三無第四人。四申手不及戶處坐便犯。此戒因迦陀夷起過。佛便制戒。
若比丘在食家中有寶強安坐者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二食家有寶。三強坐結犯。辨相中初句可知。二言食家有寶者。律云。男以女為食。女以男為食。故名食家。寶者七寶。夫妻相重如寶。故名中有寶。五分云。男女情相共食名食家。十云。斷淫慾家及俱受齋戒名非食家。三言強安坐者。律云。若當舒手不及戶處坐。防其事故名強安坐。言波逸提者。律云。若比丘在食家。夫婦俱不受齋強坐犯提。若互二句犯吉。若俱受齋不犯。祇云。見色愛者故名食也。此食為四食之中是觸食。以眼根對色故名觸食。五分云。若知妨其事者犯。十云。此舍多人出入不犯。多雲。言有寶者。以著寶衣輕明發欲故。四分云。第四人若盲聾俱有亦提。互有吉羅。一盲一聾共成一人不犯。比丘立而不坐吉羅。不犯者。若食家有寶。舒手及戶處坐。若有二比丘為伴。有識別人。若作人在一處。或從前逕過不住。若病發倒地。若力勢所持。或被繫縛。或命梵難不犯。
屏與女人坐戒第四十四
制意同前。唯無第三人為異 別緣有四。一是俗女。二是屏處。三無第三人 四申手不及戶處坐犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因同前戒。
若比丘食家中有寶在屏處坐者波逸提 文有四句。一者犯人。二食家有寶。三屏處。四結犯。辨相文中前二后一可知。三言屏處者。若樹墻壁籬柵。若衣及余物障。故名屏處。此中犯者。謂夫主不在。獨與其妻屏坐故犯提。多論云。閉戶無凈人提。開戶外有凈人吉。戶內有凈人不犯。祇云。若母姊妹。若大小凈人。睡眠癡狂嬰兒雖有。是人名獨不堪為證故同犯位。若凈人作務來注不斷。若閣上閣下凈人看見者不犯開緣如前戒。
獨與俗女露坐戒第四十五 制意同前 別緣有四。一是俗人女。二是露處。三無第三人。此是離見聞屏而非重物障故稱露。故與前戒並開第三人。四在申手內坐犯。若申手外吉。已下正明戒本。此戒犯緣與前戒同。
若比丘獨與女人露地坐者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二犯境。三犯處。四結罪。初句可知。言獨者。一女人一比丘。第二言女人者。是犯境。律云。人女有知命根不斷。第三言露地者。是犯處。謂在見聞屏處。相去申手內坐。故十律云。相去一文犯。第四言波逸提者。是謂違犯句。故律云。獨與女坐無第三人為證。隨起
還坐隨爾數墮。相去一尋內犯提。一尋半犯吉。二尋已外無犯。十云。相去一文提。丈五吉。二丈不犯。辨相開緣並同前戒不犯。
驅他出聚落戒四十六 制意者。凡出家之人理壞貞實忠信自居。先許他家食。而竟不與噁心驅出。時限已過。使他一日不得食。以充驅處。至重故所以制 別緣有六。一是大比丘。二先許。三不與食。四無因緣。謂有舉殯命梵等難。不犯故爾。五噁心驅出。六相離見聞。或彼去已去故。已下正明戒本。此戒因跋難陀令余比丘至食時驅不得食。佛便制戒。
若比丘語余比丘如是言大德共至聚落當與汝等食彼比丘竟不教與是比丘食語言汝一處若坐若語不樂我獨坐獨語以此因緣非余方便遣他去波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二語餘下至與汝食。正明將至聚落許與彼食。三彼比丘竟不。已下不與彼食遣去結罪。以此因緣者。謂是惱亂因緣。非餘者。非余不犯等緣如上無威儀等。辨相者初句可知。言聚落者。有四種村如上。言與食者。謂是五正明。律云。若方便舍見處至聞處犯吉。互作亦吉。見聞俱離犯提。律云。不犯者。與食遣去。若病若無威儀人見不喜自送食與。若破戒破見等故。若命梵等難。若無瞋恨亦無慊心。悉皆不犯。
過受四月藥請戒第四十七 制意者。然
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：還坐著，就隨著你墮落的次數而定罪。相距一尋（古代長度單位，約八尺）之內，犯提舍尼罪（一種輕罪）。相距一尋半，犯吉羅罪（一種更輕的罪）。相距二尋以外，沒有罪。十誦律說：相距一文（小錢），犯提舍尼罪。相距一丈五尺，犯吉羅罪。相距二丈，不犯。辨別罪相和開脫因緣，都與前面的戒律相同，不犯。
驅趕他人離開村落戒（第四十六條）制定此戒的用意是：凡是出家之人，理應以貞潔、誠實、忠信自居。先是答應給別人食物，最終卻不給，還惡狠狠地把人趕走。時間已經過了，使他人一天都得不到食物，這種情況非常嚴重，所以制定此戒。違犯此戒的條件有六個：一是大比丘（受過具足戒的男性僧人）；二是事先答應；三是不給食物；四是沒有正當理由（如有舉殯、性命攸關、或有違梵行等困難，不犯此戒）；五是噁心驅趕；六是（被驅趕者）相離（到）見聞範圍之外，或者（被驅趕者）已經離開。下面正式說明戒本。這條戒律的起因是跋難陀（一位比丘的名字）讓其他比丘在吃飯的時候把人趕走，使人得不到食物，佛陀因此制定此戒。
『如果比丘對其他比丘這樣說：『大德，我們一起去村落，我應當給你們食物。』那比丘最終不教人給這些比丘食物，（反而）說：『你一處坐著，或者說話，我不喜歡，我獨自坐著，獨自說話。』因為這個因緣，不用其他方法，遣走他，犯波逸提罪（一種較輕的罪）。』這條戒律的完整戒本有三句。一是犯戒之人。二是『語餘下至與汝食』，正式說明將（他人）帶到村落，答應給他們食物。三是『彼比丘竟不』以下，不給他們食物，遣走他們，因此結罪。『以此因緣』，指的是惱亂的因緣。『非餘者』，指的不是其他不犯戒的因緣，如上面所說的沒有威儀等。（如何）辨別罪相？第一句可知。『聚落』，有四種村落，如上所述。『與食』，指的是五種正命（如法謀生的方式）。律中說：如果（比丘）用方便（法門）捨棄（被驅趕者的）見處，到達聞處，犯吉羅罪。互相這樣做，也犯吉羅罪。見處和聞處都離開了，犯提舍尼罪。律中說：不犯戒的情況有：給了食物再遣走。（或者）有病人，或者沒有威儀，（或者）有人看見（被驅趕者）不高興，自己送食物給（被驅趕者）。（或者）因為（被驅趕者）破戒、邪見等原因。（或者）有性命攸關、有違梵行等困難。（或者）沒有嗔恨心，也沒有不滿的心，這些情況都不犯戒。
過分接受四個月的藥請戒（第四十七條）制定此戒的用意是：然而
【English Translation】 English version: If still sitting, one is judged according to the number of times they fall. Within one 'xun' (ancient unit of length, approximately eight feet), one commits a 'tissaniya' (a minor offense). Within one and a half 'xun', one commits a 'kila' (an even lighter offense). Beyond two 'xun', there is no offense. The Tenfold Vinaya says: Within one 'wen' (small coin), one commits a 'tissaniya'. Within one 'zhang' and five 'chi' (ancient units of length), one commits a 'kila'. Beyond two 'zhang', there is no offense. Distinguishing the characteristics of the offense and the reasons for exemption are the same as the previous precepts; there is no offense.
The forty-sixth precept: Expelling others from the village. The intention behind this precept is: All who have left home should conduct themselves with chastity, honesty, and trustworthiness. First, they promise food to others, but ultimately do not give it, and even evict them with malice. The time has passed, causing others to be without food for a day. This situation is very serious, so this precept is established. There are six conditions for violating this precept: First, a 'bhikkhu' (fully ordained male monk); second, a prior promise; third, no food is given; fourth, there is no legitimate reason (such as a funeral, a matter of life and death, or difficulties violating 'brahmacharya' (celibacy), in which case there is no offense); fifth, eviction with malice; sixth, (the evicted person) is beyond the range of sight and hearing, or (the evicted person) has already left. The following formally explains the precept itself. The origin of this precept is that 'Bhallika' (name of a bhikkhu) had other bhikkhus evict people at mealtime, preventing them from getting food. The Buddha therefore established this precept.
'If a bhikkhu says to other bhikkhus, 'Venerable ones, let us go together to the village, and I shall give you food.' That bhikkhu ultimately does not instruct anyone to give these bhikkhus food, (but instead) says, 'You sit or speak in one place; I do not like it; I sit alone, I speak alone.' Because of this reason, without other means, he sends them away, he commits a 'payantika' (a lighter offense).' The complete precept has three sentences. First, the offender. Second, 'speaking to others down to giving you food,' formally explaining taking (others) to the village and promising them food. Third, 'that bhikkhu ultimately does not' below, not giving them food, sending them away, and therefore incurring the offense. 'Because of this reason' refers to the reason for annoyance. 'Without other means' refers to reasons other than those that do not constitute an offense, such as the lack of decorum mentioned above. (How to) distinguish the characteristics of the offense? The first sentence is understandable. 'Village' refers to the four types of villages, as mentioned above. 'Giving food' refers to the five right livelihoods (ways of earning a living in accordance with the Dharma). The Vinaya says: If (the bhikkhu) uses expedient (means) to abandon (the evicted person's) sight, reaching the range of hearing, he commits a 'kila'. Doing this to each other also constitutes a 'kila'. If both the range of sight and hearing are left, one commits a 'tissaniya'. The Vinaya says: Situations in which there is no offense include: giving food and then sending them away. (Or) there is a sick person, or there is no decorum, (or) someone sees (the evicted person) and is unhappy, personally sending food to (the evicted person). (Or) because of (the evicted person) breaking the precepts, having wrong views, etc. (Or) there are matters of life and death, difficulties violating 'brahmacharya', etc. (Or) there is no anger, nor dissatisfaction; these situations do not constitute an offense.
The forty-seventh precept: Accepting medicine requests beyond four months. The intention behind this precept is: However,
篤信士供辦美藥。延請僧眾虔心供養。施主有限。宜應將護稱施而受。今過受他藥。長貪惱物。敗善增惡。損處不輕。故今聖制 別緣具六。一是藥請。二施心限定。三知期限定。四過限而受。五無因緣。六食咽咽犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群比丘起過。故制戒。
請比丘四月與藥無病比丘應受若過受除常請更請分請盡壽請波逸提 此滿足戒本文有六句。一犯人。二藥請。三無病下教齊。四四月受。五闕緣。六過受結犯。辨相中比丘者如上釋。二四月請與藥者。律云。四月者夏四月也。祇云。春夏冬三時俱犯。三言無病比丘應受者。教齊四月受也。此是受藥方法。四言若過受者。此明過四月受。律云。若夜藥有分齊。夏四月應受。若夜無分齊。隨施時應受。不論藥分齊。五言除常請者。明開受緣。律云。常請者施主作如是言。我常與藥。更請者斷已后復更請與藥。分請者持藥至伽藍中分與。盡形受請者。施主言。我常盡形與藥。次前四句通達開緣藥。第六言波逸提者。是違犯句。律云。四藥之中過受三藥俱犯提罪。故伽論過時藥亦犯提罪。七日盡形如律下文。醫所教服藥故知是犯。如施一食過受尚犯。豈況過四月受寧不犯提。故十律云。過四月已復索蘇等七日藥。及終身中椒姜缽畢鹽等犯提。若索毗醯勒等三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 篤信的居士準備了上好的藥品，延請僧眾虔誠地供養。因為施主的財力有限，所以應該小心謹慎，按照施主的意願接受供養。如果過量接受他人的藥品，就會增長貪慾，擾亂身心，敗壞善行，增加惡業，造成的損害不可輕視。因此，佛陀制定了戒律，特別規定了六種情況：一是接受藥品的邀請（藥請），二是施主限定了供養的心意（施心限定），三是限定了供養的期限（知期限定），四是超過期限接受供養（過限而受），五是沒有生病等正當理由（無因緣），六是吞嚥藥品（食咽咽犯）。以下正式闡明戒本的內容。這條戒律是因為六群比丘犯了過失而制定的。
如果比丘接受了四個月的藥品供養，沒有生病的比丘也應該接受。如果超過期限接受，除非是常請（changqing，長期邀請），更請（gengqing，再次邀請），分請（fenqing，分發邀請），盡壽請（jinshouqing，終身邀請），否則就犯波逸提（bo yi ti，一種戒律名稱）。這條戒律的完整內容有六句：一是犯戒的人，二是藥請，三是『無病下教齊』（wubing xia jiao qi，沒有生病也教導要接受），四是四個月內接受，五是缺少開緣的情況，六是超過期限接受就構成違犯。辨相中，『比丘』的解釋如前所述。二是『四月請與藥者』（siyue qing yu yao zhe，四個月的邀請和給予藥品），律中說：『四個月』指的是夏季的四個月。祇（qi，可能是指某個律宗派別）說：『春夏冬三個季節都犯戒』。三是『言無病比丘應受者』（yan wubing biqiu ying shou zhe，說沒有生病的比丘也應該接受），這是教導在四個月內接受。這是接受藥品的方法。四是『若過受者』（ruo guo shou zhe，如果超過期限接受），這說明超過四個月接受的情況。律中說：『如果夜藥（yeyao，可能指某種藥品）有分齊（fenqi，限制），那麼夏季四個月內應該接受。如果夜藥沒有分齊，那麼應該在施主給予的時候接受。不論藥品是否有分齊。』五是『除常請者』（chu changqing zhe，除非是長期邀請），說明了開緣的情況。律中說：『常請』是指施主這樣說：『我長期供養藥品。』『更請』是指斷絕供養后又再次邀請供養藥品。『分請』是指拿著藥品到僧伽藍（qié lán，寺院）中分發。『盡形受請』是指施主說：『我終身供養藥品。』前面四句都說明了開緣的情況。第六句『波逸提者』（bo yi ti zhe，犯波逸提），是違犯的語句。律中說：『四種藥品中，超過期限接受三種藥品都犯提罪。』因此，《伽論》（qielun，可能是指某種律典）說，超過期限的藥品也犯提罪。七日盡形（qiri jin xing，七天或終身）的情況如下文所述。醫生教導服藥，因此知道這是犯戒。如果施捨一份食物，超過量接受尚且犯戒，何況超過四個月接受，難道不犯提罪嗎？因此，《十律》（shilu，可能是指《十誦律》）說：『超過四個月后又索取酥（su，奶油）等七日藥，以及終身索取椒（jiao，花椒）、姜（jiang）、缽畢（bo bi，一種香料）、鹽（yan）等，都犯提罪。』如果索取毗醯勒（pi xi le，一種藥材）等三種藥品，
【English Translation】 English version A devout believer prepares excellent medicine and invites monks to make offerings with sincere hearts. Because the donor's resources are limited, they should be cautious and accept offerings according to the donor's wishes. If one excessively accepts medicine from others, it will increase greed, disturb the mind, ruin good deeds, and increase evil karma, causing significant harm. Therefore, the Buddha established precepts, specifically outlining six situations: first, the invitation to receive medicine (yaoqing); second, the donor's limited intention in offering (shixin xianding); third, the limited period of offering (zhiqi xianding); fourth, accepting offerings beyond the limited period (guo xian er shou); fifth, the absence of a valid reason such as illness (wu yinyuan); sixth, swallowing the medicine (shiyan yan fan). The following formally clarifies the content of the precepts. This precept was established because the Six Group Bhikkhus (liuqin biqiu) committed offenses.
If a Bhikkhu receives medicine offerings for four months, even a Bhikkhu who is not ill should accept it. If one accepts beyond the limited period, unless it is a standing invitation (changqing, long-term invitation), a renewed invitation (gengqing, re-invitation), a distributed invitation (fenqing, distributed invitation), or a lifetime invitation (jinshouqing, lifetime invitation), one commits a Payantika (bo yi ti, a type of precept violation). The complete content of this precept has six clauses: first, the offender; second, the medicine invitation; third, 'wubing xia jiao qi' (wubing xia jiao qi, even if not ill, one is taught to accept); fourth, accepting within four months; fifth, the absence of opening circumstances; sixth, accepting beyond the limit constitutes a violation. In the analysis, the explanation of 'Bhikkhu' is as previously stated. Second, 'siyue qing yu yao zhe' (siyue qing yu yao zhe, the four-month invitation and giving of medicine), the Vinaya states: 'Four months' refers to the four months of summer. Qi (qi, possibly referring to a certain Vinaya school) says: 'Offenses are committed in all three seasons of spring, summer, and winter.' Third, 'yan wubing biqiu ying shou zhe' (yan wubing biqiu ying shou zhe, saying that even a Bhikkhu who is not ill should accept), this teaches acceptance within four months. This is the method of receiving medicine. Fourth, 'ruo guo shou zhe' (ruo guo shou zhe, if accepting beyond the limit), this explains the situation of accepting beyond four months. The Vinaya states: 'If yeyao (yeyao, possibly referring to a certain medicine) has fenqi (fenqi, limitations), then it should be accepted within the four months of summer. If yeyao has no fenqi, then it should be accepted when the donor gives it. Regardless of whether the medicine has fenqi.' Fifth, 'chu changqing zhe' (chu changqing zhe, unless it is a standing invitation), this explains the opening circumstances. The Vinaya states: 'Changqing' refers to the donor saying: 'I offer medicine on a long-term basis.' 'Gengqing' refers to inviting to offer medicine again after the offering has been discontinued. 'Fenqing' refers to taking medicine to the Sangharama (qié lán, monastery) and distributing it. 'Jinshouqing' refers to the donor saying: 'I offer medicine for life.' The previous four clauses all explain the opening circumstances. The sixth clause, 'bo yi ti zhe' (bo yi ti zhe, committing a Payantika), is the violating statement. The Vinaya states: 'Among the four types of medicine, accepting three types of medicine beyond the limit constitutes a Payantika offense.' Therefore, the Qielun (qielun, possibly referring to a certain Vinaya text) says that medicine beyond the time limit also constitutes a Payantika offense. The circumstances of qiri jin xing (qiri jin xing, seven days or lifetime) are as described below. The doctor instructs to take medicine, therefore it is known that this is a violation. If one gives a portion of food, accepting beyond the amount is still a violation, how much more so if one accepts beyond four months, wouldn't it be a Payantika offense? Therefore, the Shilu (shilu, possibly referring to the Daśabhāṇavāra Vinaya) says: 'After four months, again requesting seven-day medicine such as ghee (su, clarified butter), and requesting pepper (jiao, peppercorns), ginger (jiang), pippali (bo bi, a spice), salt (yan) etc. for life, all constitute Payantika offenses.' If one requests three types of medicine such as haritaki (pi xi le, a medicinal herb),
吉羅。非時藥賤。又療患義微。受義希故犯小罪 問。施一食中過受蘇油犯輕。此受蘇油何以便重 答。彼據身外塗足。燃燈既是外用。過義受希故彼犯輕。此施內資過受義數故得提罪。又善論若檀越四月與油索蘇吉羅。故知索藥罪輕。過受便重。所以爾者。解言。施主先有好心。四月與藥期限已滿。供養心息。過受致惱。損敗處深。又復乘前供養人喜過受。故過受重。若索藥者。以其居士先無施心。乞任彼量。損惱義微。又以施主先無心故。乞希故輕。與衣不同衣資義寬。與乞過受二俱是數故希犯提罪。律云。不犯者。如戒本四緣是。
觀軍陣戒第四十八 制意者。凡軍陣兇險丘又交競。實則傾敗。俄爾戲便令心蕩逸招譏損道。愆深過極。交違慈愍。故不聽觀 別緣有四。一是軍陣。二故往觀。三無因緣。謂被請及軍陣。復至水睦險難等不犯故。四往見便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群觀陣。波斯遙見心甚不悅。佛便制戒。
若比丘往觀軍陣除時因緣波逸提 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二觀陣。三開緣。四結罪。辨相中初句可知。二言軍陣者。于中有三。一釋名。車幕毛聚稱軍。行列相對名陣。二舉數者。律云。軍有四種。謂象馬車步等。純雜二種如律廣說。都有二十六軍。三辨相者。祇云。像力
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 吉羅（Ghee，澄清的奶油）。非時藥賤，而且治療疾病的意義也微小。因為接受的意義稀少，所以犯小罪。問：接受一份食物中額外接受酥油，犯的罪過較輕。為什麼接受酥油反而更重呢？答：前者是用於身體外部塗抹足部，或者用於燃燈，都是外用。因為額外的意義接受的少，所以犯的罪過輕。而後者是施捨的內部資用，額外接受的意義重大，所以會構成提罪（較重的罪）。而且善論中說，如果檀越（Dān yuè，施主）在四月提供油，索要酥油吉羅（Ghee，澄清的奶油）。因此可知索要藥物罪輕，額外接受便重。為什麼這樣說呢？解釋說，施主先有好心，四月提供藥物的期限已滿，供養的心意已經停止。額外接受會導致惱怒，損害和敗壞的程度很深。而且是趁著之前供養人的歡喜而額外接受，所以額外接受罪重。如果是索要藥物，因為居士（Jūshì，在家修行的佛教徒）先前沒有施捨的心意，乞求取決於他的意願，損害和惱怒的意義微小。而且因為施主先前沒有心意，乞求是希望得到，所以罪輕。這和給予衣服不同，衣服的資用意義寬泛。給予和乞求額外接受都是數量，所以稀少而犯提罪。律中說，不犯的情況，如同戒本中的四種因緣。
觀軍陣戒第四十八。制定的意義是，凡是軍陣兇險，而且互相競爭，實際上會導致傾覆和失敗。突然的嬉戲便會使人心神盪漾，招致譏諷和損害道業。罪過深重而過分，違背了慈悲之心。所以不允許觀看。別緣有四種：一是軍陣，二是故意前往觀看，三是沒有因緣，比如被邀請以及軍陣，或者到達水邊險要的地方等，不犯戒。四是前往觀看便犯戒。以下正式說明戒本。這條戒律是因為六群比丘（Liù qún bǐqiū，佛教僧團中的一個群體）觀看軍陣。波斯匿王（Bōsìnì wáng，古印度拘薩羅國國王）遠遠看見，心中很不悅。佛陀便制定了這條戒律。
若比丘前往觀看軍陣，除了特殊因緣，犯波逸提（bōyìtí，一種罪名）。這條滿足戒本的文字有四句：一是犯戒的人，二是觀看軍陣，三是開脫的因緣，四是判決罪行。辨別相狀中，第一句可知。第二句說軍陣，其中有三種含義：一是解釋名稱，車幕和毛聚稱為軍，行列相對稱為陣。二是列舉種類，律中說，軍有四種，即像、馬、車、步等。純粹和混合兩種，如律中廣泛說明。總共有二十六軍。三是辨別相狀，祇園寺（Qíyuán sì）說，像的力量。
【English Translation】 English version: Ghee (clarified butter). Medicine that is not needed at the time is cheap, and the meaning of treating illness is also small. Because the meaning of receiving is rare, a minor offense is committed. Question: Receiving extra ghee in a meal incurs a lighter offense. Why is receiving ghee heavier? Answer: The former is used externally to apply to the feet or for lighting lamps, which are external uses. Because the extra meaning received is small, the offense is light. The latter is an internal resource for alms, and the extra meaning received is significant, so it constitutes a 'Tiya' offense (a heavier offense). Moreover, the 'Good Treatise' says that if a 'Danapati' (Dān yuè, donor) provides oil in the fourth month and asks for ghee. Therefore, it is known that asking for medicine is a lighter offense, while receiving extra is heavier. Why is this so? The explanation is that the donor initially had good intentions, but the deadline for providing medicine in the fourth month has passed, and the intention of offering has ceased. Receiving extra can cause annoyance, and the degree of damage and ruin is deep. Moreover, it is taking advantage of the donor's previous joy to receive extra, so receiving extra is a heavy offense. If it is asking for medicine, because the 'Upasaka' (Jūshì, a lay Buddhist practitioner) did not initially have the intention of giving, the request depends on his willingness, and the meaning of damage and annoyance is small. Moreover, because the donor initially had no intention, the request is a hope to receive, so the offense is light. This is different from giving clothes, where the meaning of clothing resources is broad. Giving and asking for extra are both quantities, so it is rare and constitutes a 'Tiya' offense. The Vinaya says that there is no offense in cases such as the four conditions in the Pratimoksha (戒本).
The Forty-eighth Precept on Viewing Military Formations. The meaning of the prohibition is that all military formations are dangerous and involve competition, which in reality leads to collapse and failure. Sudden playfulness can cause the mind to wander, inviting ridicule and harming the path. The offense is deep and excessive, violating compassion. Therefore, it is not allowed to watch. There are four separate conditions: first, a military formation; second, intentionally going to watch; third, no cause, such as being invited or a military formation, or arriving at a dangerous place by the water, etc., which does not constitute an offense. Fourth, going to watch constitutes an offense. The following formally explains the Pratimoksha. This precept is because the Six Group Bhikkhus (Liù qún bǐqiū, a group in the Buddhist Sangha) watched a military formation. King Pasenadi (Bōsìnì wáng, King of Kosala in ancient India) saw it from afar and was very displeased. The Buddha then established this precept.
If a Bhikkhu goes to watch a military formation, except for special circumstances, he commits a 'Payantika' (bōyìtí, a type of offense). This complete precept has four sentences: first, the person who commits the offense; second, watching the military formation; third, the excusing circumstances; fourth, the judgment of the offense. In distinguishing the characteristics, the first sentence is knowable. The second sentence says military formation, which has three meanings: first, explaining the name, chariots, tents, and gatherings of hair are called 'Jun' (army), and rows facing each other are called 'Zhen' (formation). Second, listing the types, the Vinaya says that there are four types of armies, namely elephants, horses, chariots, and infantry, etc. Pure and mixed types, as widely explained in the Vinaya. There are a total of twenty-six armies. Third, distinguishing the characteristics, Jetavana Monastery (Qíyuán sì) says that the strength of an elephant.
最大。四人從之成一象軍。馬力次弱。八人從之成馬軍。車軍次弱。十六人從成一車軍。三十二人帶伎成一步軍。所言陣者。行列相對。或方。或圓。或半形。或張甄。或咸陣等。若戲。若闕戰。三言除是因緣者。律云。若自有事須往。若彼請喚。乃至勢力將去。及餘種種不自在緣。四言波逸提者。是違犯結罪句。律云。彼比丘往觀軍陣。從道至道。從道至非道。乃至從下至高去。若見者犯提。不見吉羅。若方便莊嚴。欲觀而不去者吉。若比丘先在道行軍陣。后至應避下道。若不避者吉。乃至下戒亦爾。若見犯提。不見吉羅。祇云。若逢軍不作意見者無犯。若作意舉頭窺望見提。若天王出作意看者越。乃至看畜生鬥。乃看人諍口皆越。十誦為作無常觀故。雖觀不犯。如前所說。
有緣至軍過限宿戒第四十九 別緣有五。一有因緣。至軍中宿。二曾逕二宿。三第三宿不離見聞處。四無因緣。謂二道斷命梵難不去無罪。五過三夜明相出犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群有緣至軍中宿。居士譏嫌。比丘舉過。佛制戒。
若比丘有因緣聽至軍中二宿三宿過者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二開緣。三違犯罪。初句可知。二言有因緣者。律云。有喚及自事等緣。多論開往者為沙門果故。長養佛法故。長信敬心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 最大編製的四人組成一個象軍（以象為主要作戰單位的軍隊）。馬軍的戰鬥力稍弱，由八人組成。車軍的戰鬥力再次減弱，由十六人組成。三十二人帶著各種武器組成一個步軍。這裡所說的『陣』，指的是行列相對，可以是方形、圓形、半圓形，也可以是張甄陣或咸陣等。用於演習、或進行戰鬥。『三言除是因緣者』，根據戒律所說，如果自己有事必須前往，或者被他人邀請，甚至因為某種勢力不得不去，以及其他種種身不由己的原因。『四言波逸提者』，是指違犯戒律而結罪的語句。戒律中說，如果比丘前往觀看軍隊陣列，從這條路走到那條路，從道路走到非道路，甚至從低處走到高處觀看，如果看到了，就犯波逸提罪；如果沒看到，則犯吉羅罪。如果只是準備好，想要去看但最終沒去，則犯吉羅罪。如果比丘原本就在道路上行走，後來軍隊陣列到了，應該避讓到次要的道路上，如果不避讓，則犯吉羅罪。甚至更低的戒條也是如此，如果看到了就犯波逸提罪，沒看到就犯吉羅罪。《祇》中說，如果遇到軍隊而不加以注意，則不犯戒。如果刻意抬頭窺視，看到了就犯提罪。如果是天王出行，刻意觀看，則犯越罪。甚至觀看畜生打鬥，或者觀看人們爭吵，都犯越罪。《十誦律》中說，爲了進行無常觀，即使觀看也不犯戒，如前面所說。
有因緣到軍隊中超過限定住宿時間的戒條，是第四十九條。別緣有五種：一是有因緣，到軍隊中住宿；二是已經住了兩宿；三是第三宿沒有離開能看到或聽到的地方；四是沒有因緣，比如遇到兩條道路斷絕、有性命危險、或者犯了梵行罪難以離開，這些情況沒有罪；五是超過三夜，天亮時分就犯戒。以下正式闡明戒本。這條戒條的起因是六群比丘有因緣到軍隊中住宿，居士們譏諷，比丘們指責，佛陀因此制定了這條戒律。
『若比丘有因緣聽至軍中二宿三宿過者波逸提』，這條完整的戒條本文有三句話：一是犯戒的人；二是開許的因緣；三是違犯的罪行。第一句容易理解。二言『有因緣者』，戒律中說，有被邀請以及自己有事等因緣。《多論》中開許前往的原因是爲了沙門的果位，爲了增長佛法，爲了增長信徒的恭敬心。
【English Translation】 English version: The largest unit consists of four individuals, forming an elephant corps (an army unit primarily using elephants). The cavalry is slightly weaker in combat strength, composed of eight individuals. The chariot corps is weaker again, consisting of sixteen individuals. Thirty-two individuals, equipped with various weapons, form an infantry unit. The term 'array' refers to formations where ranks face each other, arranged in squares, circles, semicircles, or formations like the Zhang Zhen or Xian formations. These are used for drills or combat. 'Three statements except for causes' refers to situations where, according to the Vinaya (rules of monastic discipline), one must go due to personal matters, or is invited by others, or is compelled by some force, or other unavoidable reasons. 'Four statements of Payantika' refers to phrases indicating the offense of violating a precept and incurring a penalty. The Vinaya states that if a Bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) goes to observe military formations, traveling from one road to another, from a road to a non-road, or even viewing from low to high ground, if he sees, he commits the Payantika offense; if he does not see, he commits the Dukkrata offense. If he merely prepares, intending to watch but ultimately does not go, he commits the Dukkrata offense. If a Bhikkhu is already walking on a road and later a military formation arrives, he should yield to a secondary road; if he does not yield, he commits the Dukkrata offense. Even lower precepts are similar; if he sees, he commits the Payantika offense, if he does not see, he commits the Dukkrata offense. The Qi states that if one encounters an army and does not pay attention, there is no offense. If one intentionally looks up and peeps, seeing it incurs the Payantika offense. If a Deva King (celestial king) is traveling and one intentionally watches, it incurs the Uttari offense. Even watching animals fight or people arguing incurs the Uttari offense. The Ten Recitations Vinaya states that for the purpose of contemplating impermanence, even watching is not an offense, as mentioned earlier.
The precept regarding staying in a military camp beyond the permitted time due to circumstances is the forty-ninth precept. There are five separate circumstances: first, there is a reason to stay in the military camp; second, one has already stayed for two nights; third, on the third night, one does not leave the area within sight or hearing; fourth, there is no reason, such as encountering two blocked roads, facing a life-threatening situation, or having committed a Brahmacharya (celibacy) offense making it difficult to leave, in which cases there is no offense; fifth, exceeding three nights, with the dawn breaking, constitutes an offense. The following formally clarifies the precept's basis. This precept originated because the Six Group Bhikkhus stayed in a military camp due to circumstances, laypeople criticized, Bhikkhus pointed out the transgression, and the Buddha established this precept.
'If a Bhikkhu, due to circumstances, stays in a military camp for two or three nights beyond the permitted time, it is a Payantika offense.' This complete precept text has three sentences: first, the offender; second, the permitted circumstances; third, the offense committed. The first sentence is easily understood. The second statement, 'due to circumstances,' the Vinaya states that there are reasons such as being invited or having personal matters. The Mahavibhasa permits going for the sake of the Shramana (ascetic) fruit, for the growth of the Dharma (Buddhist teachings), and for increasing the faith and respect of believers.
故。又道俗相須成就佛法故。聽往有益至三宿。三言過者波逸提。是違犯結罪。律云。若至第三宿明相未出應離見聞處。若不離明相出犯提。見聞互不離犯吉。若第四夜往處初夜即犯。不待明相。律云。不犯者。得二宿至第三宿。明相未出離見聞處。若水陸道斷惡戰等難。並不犯。
有緣至軍二宿往觀軍陣合戰戒第五十 過不異前既有因緣聽至軍中。宜應坐住。複方便往觀。過同於初。故所以制 別緣有五。一先有緣在軍中宿。二軍陣合戰。三方便往觀。四見便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因六群有緣在軍觀諸鬥力。中有一人為箭所射。居士怪情。比丘白佛。因斯制戒。
若比丘二宿三宿軍中住或觀軍陣鬥戰若遊軍象馬力勢者波逸提 此滿足戒本文有五句。一者犯人。二有緣先在軍中。三或觀者一心明觀業。四軍陣已下所觀之境。于中有四。一軍。二陣。三斗戰。四勢力。五者結罪。辨相中初句可知。第二句如前戒所開。第三言觀軍陣者。是觀業。四言軍陣等者。軍陣如前所明。鬥戰相狀。若戲鬥。若真實鬥。言勢力者。第一象力馬力車力步力等。五言波逸提者。是違犯句。輕重不同。若比丘往觀見者犯提。不見犯吉。余如前戒。不犯者。若有請喚及勢力等難。命梵之難。雖不離不犯。
飲酒戒第五十
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，又因為僧俗互相幫助才能成就佛法，所以允許前往（道俗處）最多停留三夜。如果超過三天，就犯波逸提罪，這是違犯戒律而結罪。《律藏》中說，如果到了第三夜，天亮之前沒有離開能看到和聽到的地方，如果沒離開，天亮了就犯波逸提罪；如果能看到和聽到的雙方都不離開，就犯吉羅罪。如果第四夜才到，在當晚的初夜時分就犯戒，不必等到天亮。《律藏》中說，不犯戒的情況是：允許住兩夜，到了第三夜，天亮之前離開了能看到和聽到的地方；或者遇到水路阻斷、發生惡戰等災難，都不算犯戒。
有因緣去軍隊中住兩夜，觀看軍隊佈陣交戰戒第五十：超過（兩夜）的情況與之前相同，既然有因緣，允許去軍隊中，應該安穩坐住，又方便前往觀看，超過（兩夜）的情況與之前相同，所以制定此戒。特別的因緣有五種：一是先前有因緣在軍隊中住宿；二是軍隊佈陣交戰；三是方便前往觀看；四是看見就犯戒。以下是正式說明戒本。此戒的起因是六群比丘有因緣在軍隊中觀看各種比武，其中一人被箭射中，居士感到奇怪，比丘稟告佛陀，因此制定此戒。
如果比丘在軍隊中住兩夜或三夜，或者觀看軍隊佈陣交戰，或者遊觀軍隊的象、馬等力量，就犯波逸提罪。這是完整的戒本，有五句話：一是犯戒的人；二是有因緣先前在軍隊中；三是『或觀』，一心明確地觀察業；四是『軍陣』以下所觀察的境界，其中有四種：一是軍隊（jun），二是陣勢（zhen），三是交戰（dou zhan），四是力量（shi li）。五是結罪。辨別相狀中，第一句可以知道。第二句如前戒所開許。第三句說『觀軍陣』，是觀察業。第四句說『軍陣等』，軍隊和陣勢如前所說。交戰的相狀，無論是嬉戲的打鬥，還是真實的戰鬥。說『力量』，第一是象的力量，馬的力量，車的力量，步兵的力量等。第五句說『波逸提』，是違犯句。輕重不同，如果比丘前往觀看，看見了就犯波逸提罪，沒看見就犯吉羅罪。其餘的與之前的戒相同。不犯戒的情況是：如果有請喚，以及勢力等災難，性命或清凈行的災難，即使不離開也不犯戒。
飲酒戒第五十
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, also because the Sangha and laity need each other to accomplish the Buddha-dharma, it is permitted to go (to the place of Sangha and laity) for a maximum stay of three nights. If it exceeds three days, one commits a Payantika offense, which is a violation of the precepts and incurs guilt. The Vinaya states, 'If one reaches the third night and has not left the place of sight and sound before dawn, if one does not leave, one commits a Payantika offense at dawn; if both those who can see and hear do not leave each other, one commits a Dukkata offense. If one arrives on the fourth night, one commits the offense at the first watch of that night, without waiting for dawn.' The Vinaya states, 'One does not commit an offense if one is allowed to stay for two nights, and on the third night, one leaves the place of sight and sound before dawn; or if one encounters obstacles such as blocked waterways or fierce battles, one does not commit an offense.'
The fiftieth precept regarding going to the army for two nights with a cause, and watching the army's formation and battle: Exceeding (two nights) is the same as before. Since there is a cause, it is permitted to go to the army. One should sit and stay peacefully, and then conveniently go to watch. Exceeding (two nights) is the same as before, so this precept is established. There are five special causes: first, there was a cause to stay in the army; second, the army is forming and battling; third, it is convenient to go and watch; fourth, seeing it constitutes an offense. The following is a formal explanation of the precept. The origin of this precept is that the Six Group Bhikkhus had a cause to watch various martial arts in the army. One of them was shot by an arrow. A layman felt strange, and the Bhikkhus reported it to the Buddha, so this precept was established.
If a Bhikkhu stays in the army for two or three nights, or watches the army's formation and battle, or tours and observes the strength of the army's elephants and horses, he commits a Payantika offense. This is the complete precept, with five sentences: first, the offender; second, there is a cause to be in the army; third, 'or watches', single-mindedly and clearly observing the karma; fourth, the realm observed from 'army formation' onwards, which includes four aspects: first, the army (jun); second, the formation (zhen); third, the battle (dou zhan); fourth, the strength (shi li). Fifth, the conclusion of the offense. In distinguishing the characteristics, the first sentence is understandable. The second sentence is as permitted by the previous precept. The third sentence says 'watches the army formation', which is observing karma. The fourth sentence says 'army formation, etc.', the army and formation are as previously explained. The state of battle, whether it is playful fighting or real combat. Saying 'strength' refers to the strength of elephants, the strength of horses, the strength of chariots, the strength of infantry, etc. The fifth sentence says 'Payantika', which is the sentence of violation. The severity is different. If a Bhikkhu goes to watch and sees it, he commits a Payantika offense; if he does not see it, he commits a Dukkata offense. The rest is the same as the previous precept. The circumstances under which one does not commit an offense are: if there is an invitation, or difficulties such as power, difficulties of life or pure conduct, even if one does not leave, one does not commit an offense.
The fiftieth precept regarding drinking alcohol.
一 制意者。酒為毒水。飲則成患。令人志性猖狂廣興諸惡。妨修廢業。損道招譏。生患之本。寧容不禁。是故聖判 別緣有三。一是酒。二無重病。三飲即犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因婆伽陀比丘起過。故制斯戒 若比丘飲酒者波逸提 滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二所飲之酒。三飲而結罪。辨相中初句可知。二言飲酒者。于中有二。初列五種酒。如律所明。一木酒。二粳米酒。三餘米酒。四大麥酒。五有餘法作酒者。二就木酒偏舉料簡。律云。木酒者有六。一梨汁酒。二閻浮果酒。三甘蔗酒。四舍樓伽果酒。五麹汁酒。六蒲桃酒。梨酒者若以蜜石蜜雜作。乃至蒲桃酒亦如是。三言波逸提者。是結罪。律云。但使是酒。乃至草木作者。無酒色香味。若非酒而有酒色香味。並不合飲。若酒初和和飲皆犯提。甜酢酒食麹酒糟一切吉羅。十云。若飲似酒酢酒糟醫。若麹能醉人。咽咽皆墮。多雲。酒酒相酒疑酒無酒想一切墮罪。無酒有酒想疑皆吉。莫非取境犯。謂前有方便。又不得強勸飲酒前人。若飲勸者犯提。不飲吉羅。祇云。一切果漿令人醉越。若麹飯相和食者提。善見云。若酒煮藥故有酒香味犯吉。無者得飲。四分云。以我為師者。不得以草木內酒中渧口。五分以降龍故得酒醉。衣缽蹤橫。乃至佛說偈。昔日敬佛。今不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一、關於禁止飲酒的規定：酒是一種有毒的液體，飲用會導致災禍。它會使人意志瘋狂，廣泛地產生各種罪惡，妨礙修行，荒廢事業，損害道德並招致譏諷，是產生禍患的根源，怎麼能允許不禁絕呢？因此，佛陀做出了明確的判決。關於飲酒的例外情況有三種：一是確實是酒；二是並非身患重病；三是飲用后確實會犯戒。以下正式闡明戒律的根本。這條戒律是由於婆伽陀比丘（Bhikkhu Bhagadatta）犯錯而制定的。
『若比丘飲酒者，波逸提（Pācittiya，一種罪名）。』
完整的戒條包含三個要素：一是犯戒的人；二是所飲用的酒；三是飲用后構成犯罪。在辨析中，第一點是顯而易見的。關於『飲酒者』，其中包含兩層含義：首先列出五種酒，如戒律中所明確規定的：一是木酒，二是粳米酒，三是其他米酒，四大麥酒，五是用其他方法釀造的酒。其次，以木酒為例進行簡要說明。戒律中說：木酒有六種，一是梨汁酒，二是閻浮果酒（Jambufructus fruit wine），三是甘蔗酒，四是舍樓伽果酒（Śālukā fruit wine），五是酒麴汁酒，六是蒲桃酒（Vitis vinifera wine）。梨汁酒如果用蜂蜜或石蜜混合製成，乃至蒲桃酒也是如此。
『波逸提』是指構成犯罪。戒律中說：只要是酒，乃至用草木釀造的，即使沒有酒的顏色、香味，也不得飲用。如果不是酒，但有酒的顏色、香味，也不可以飲用。如果酒剛混合好就飲用，都會犯波逸提罪。甜醋酒、食用酒麴、酒糟等都屬於吉羅罪（Dukkata，一種較輕的罪名）。《十誦律》中說：如果飲用類似酒的醋酒、酒糟，或者酒麴能使人醉，每嚥一口都會犯墮罪。大眾部律中說：認為是酒、像酒、懷疑是酒，但心裡認為是酒，都會犯墮罪。不是酒但認為是酒或懷疑是酒，都犯吉羅罪。不要錯誤地認為只是針對外境而犯戒，指的是事先有準備的行為。此外，不得強迫他人飲酒，如果他人飲用，勸酒者犯波逸提罪，不飲用則犯吉羅罪。《祇洹律》中說：一切能使人醉的水果汁都不能飲用。如果酒麴和米飯混合食用，則犯波逸提罪。《善見律毗婆沙》中說：如果用酒煮藥，因此帶有酒的香味，則犯吉羅罪，如果沒有酒味，則可以飲用。《四分律》中說：以我為師的人，不得將草木放入酒中，然後滴入口中。《五分律》中記載，爲了降龍而飲酒，導致醉酒，衣服和缽都散亂，乃至佛陀說了偈語：昔日敬佛，如今卻不敬了。
【English Translation】 English version I. On the Prohibition of Intoxicants: Alcohol is a poisonous liquid, and drinking it leads to misfortune. It causes one's will to become deranged, broadly generating all kinds of evils, hindering practice, wasting endeavors, harming morality, and inviting ridicule. It is the root of all troubles, so how can it be allowed to go unprohibited? Therefore, the Buddha made a clear judgment. There are three exceptions regarding the consumption of alcohol: first, it must truly be alcohol; second, one must not be suffering from a serious illness; and third, drinking it must actually lead to a transgression. The following formally clarifies the fundamental precepts.
'If a Bhikkhu drinks alcohol, it is a Pācittiya (a type of offense).'
The complete precept contains three elements: first, the person committing the offense; second, the alcohol consumed; and third, the act of drinking constituting the offense. In the analysis, the first point is self-evident. Regarding 'one who drinks alcohol,' there are two layers of meaning: first, listing the five types of alcohol, as clearly stipulated in the precepts: one is tree wine, two is glutinous rice wine, three is other rice wine, four is barley wine, and five is wine made by other methods. Second, taking tree wine as an example for a brief explanation. The precepts state: there are six types of tree wine: one is pear juice wine, two is Jambufructus fruit wine, three is sugarcane wine, four is Śālukā fruit wine, five is yeast juice wine, and six is Vitis vinifera wine. If pear juice wine is made by mixing it with honey or rock sugar, the same applies to Vitis vinifera wine.
'Pācittiya' refers to constituting an offense. The precepts state: as long as it is alcohol, even if it is made from grass or trees, it must not be consumed even if it does not have the color or smell of alcohol. If it is not alcohol but has the color or smell of alcohol, it must not be consumed. If alcohol is consumed as soon as it is mixed, it constitutes a Pācittiya offense. Sweet vinegar wine, edible yeast, and lees all belong to Dukkata (a lighter offense). The Daśabhāṇavāra states: if one drinks vinegar wine or lees that resemble alcohol, or if the yeast can cause intoxication, each swallow constitutes a downfall offense. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states: thinking it is alcohol, resembling alcohol, suspecting it is alcohol, but thinking it is alcohol in one's mind, all constitute a downfall offense. If it is not alcohol but one thinks it is alcohol or suspects it is alcohol, it constitutes a Dukkata offense. Do not mistakenly think that the offense is only directed at the external object; it refers to actions that are prepared beforehand. Furthermore, one must not force others to drink alcohol; if others drink, the one who encourages the drinking commits a Pācittiya offense, and if they do not drink, it is a Dukkata offense. The Gītaṃ Vinaya states: all fruit juices that can cause intoxication must not be consumed. If yeast and rice are mixed and eaten, it constitutes a Pācittiya offense. The Samantapāsādikā states: if medicine is cooked with alcohol, and therefore has the smell of alcohol, it constitutes a Dukkata offense; if it does not have the smell of alcohol, it can be consumed. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: those who take me as their teacher must not put grass or trees into alcohol and then drip it into their mouths. The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya records that in order to subdue a dragon, alcohol was consumed, leading to intoxication, and clothes and bowls were scattered, to the point that the Buddha spoke a verse: In the past, one revered the Buddha, but now one does not.
能敬。昔伏毒龍。今不能降蝦䗫。多雲。此戒極重。能作四逆。除一破僧。又亦能破諸戒律行。而及能作眾作差。故律重製。律云。不犯者。若有病餘藥持不善。以酒為藥。若以酒涂瘡。一切不犯。五分云。若先習酒人不酒者氣絕欲死。飲食不消。聽嗅酒器。若不差者以酒著䴵粥中合食。不差者以酒與。飲漸漸斷之。
水中嬉戲戒第五十二 多論四義故制。一佛法尊重。理宜表敬。今入水遊戲。損壞匪輕。二理宜威儀庠序。外長信敬。入水遊戲。動越威儀。招世譏過。三宜息修道入水遊戲。妨廢正業。四宜修正念。入水戲謔。令心散亂。失正念故。是以聖制 別緣有三。一是水。二無緣。三戲即犯。此戒因十七群河中游戲。波斯匿王遙見譏嫌。佛便制。
若比丘水中嬉戲者波逸提 戒本有三句。一犯。二水戲。三結罪。辨相中初句可知二言水中戲者律云。放意自恣從此至彼。逆流順流。此沒彼出。手畫水相濽。乃至以缽盛水戲弄者提。三言波逸提者。違犯名。律云。比丘水中如上所戲悉犯提罪。除水已若酪漿若酒麥汁器中弄戲皆犯吉羅。祇云。水陸互澆濽越。俱水中者提。五分搏雪及草頭露弄者吉。伽云。乃至水滴地亦吉。大云經說王見遊戲說偈。夫人言。吾聞諸比丘。久已離塵羈。戲慕泥水中。云何為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 能敬：過去能降伏毒龍，現在卻不能降伏小蝦。多數觀點認為，此戒律極其重要，能犯下四逆重罪（指殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、破和合僧），除了破壞僧團之外，還能破壞其他戒律修行，並且能夠製造各種事端。因此，戒律對此有嚴格規定。戒律上說，不犯戒的情況包括：如果生病，沒有其他藥物，可以用酒作為藥物；或者用酒塗抹瘡口，這些都不算犯戒。《五分律》中說，如果先前習慣飲酒的人突然不飲酒，可能會氣絕身亡，或者飲食不消化，可以允許聞一下酒的味道。如果情況沒有好轉，可以將酒混在米粥中一起食用。如果仍然沒有好轉，可以給少量酒飲用，然後逐漸戒斷。
水中嬉戲戒第五十二：多數論典認為，制定此戒律有四個原因：一是佛法莊嚴，理應表示尊敬，現在入水嬉戲，損害不小；二是理應保持威儀，舉止安詳，對外贏得信賴和尊敬，入水嬉戲，舉動超越了威儀，招致世人的譏諷；三是應該停止嬉戲，專心修道，入水嬉戲，妨礙了正常的修行；四是應該修正念，入水嬉戲，使心散亂，失去正念。因此，佛陀制定此戒律。構成此戒有三個條件：一是水，二是沒有正當理由，三是嬉戲的行為。此戒律的起因是十七群比丘在河中嬉戲，波斯匿王遠遠看見，心生厭惡，佛陀因此制定此戒。
若比丘在水中嬉戲，犯波逸提罪：戒本有三句話：一、犯戒，二、水中嬉戲，三、判決罪行。辨相中，第一句容易理解。第二句『水中戲』，律中說：『放縱心意，隨心所欲，從這邊到那邊，逆流而上，順流而下，一會兒沉入水中，一會兒浮出水面，用手在水中劃來劃去，互相潑水』，甚至用缽盛水嬉戲，都犯波逸提罪。第三句『波逸提』，是指違犯的罪名。律中說：比丘在水中如上述那樣嬉戲，都犯波逸提罪。如果不是在水中，而是在乳酪、米酒、麥芽汁等容器中嬉戲，都犯吉羅罪。《祇》中說：水上和陸地互相潑水，都犯波逸提罪。五分律中說，如果用雪或草頭上的露水嬉戲，犯吉羅罪。《伽》中說，即使是水滴到地上，也犯吉羅罪。《大云經》中說，國王看見比丘嬉戲，說了偈語，夫人說：『我聽說這些比丘，早就已經脫離了塵世的束縛，怎麼還喜歡在泥水中嬉戲呢？這算什麼呢？』 English version: Able to Respect: In the past, [one] could subdue poisonous dragons, but now [one] cannot subdue small shrimp. Many say that this precept is extremely important, capable of committing the four parajikas (killing father, killing mother, killing an Arhat, disrupting the Sangha), and besides disrupting the Sangha, it can also break other precepts and practices, and is capable of creating various troubles. Therefore, the Vinaya has strict regulations on this. The Vinaya says that not violating the precept includes: if one is sick and has no other medicine, one can use alcohol as medicine; or if one uses alcohol to apply to sores, these are not considered violations. The Five-Part Vinaya says that if someone who is accustomed to drinking alcohol suddenly stops drinking, they may die of suffocation, or their digestion may be impaired. They may be allowed to smell the alcohol. If the condition does not improve, alcohol can be mixed with rice porridge and eaten together. If it still does not improve, a small amount of alcohol can be given to drink, and then gradually weaned off.
Precept 52 on Playing in Water: Most commentaries believe that there are four reasons for establishing this precept: first, the Dharma is solemn and should be respected. Now, playing in the water causes no small amount of damage; second, one should maintain dignified conduct and be respectful, earning trust and respect from others. Playing in the water exceeds proper conduct and invites ridicule from the world; third, one should stop playing and concentrate on cultivating the Way. Playing in the water hinders proper practice; fourth, one should correct mindfulness. Playing in the water scatters the mind and loses right mindfulness. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept. There are three conditions that constitute this precept: first, water; second, no legitimate reason; and third, the act of playing. The origin of this precept is that seventeen groups of monks were playing in the river, and King Pasenadi saw them from afar and felt disgusted. The Buddha therefore established this precept.
If a Bhikkhu plays in the water, he commits a Pacittiya offense: The precept has three sentences: first, violating the precept; second, playing in the water; and third, judging the offense. In the Distinguishing Characteristics, the first sentence is easy to understand. The second sentence, 'playing in the water,' the Vinaya says: 'Indulging the mind, doing as one pleases, from here to there, going upstream, going downstream, sometimes sinking into the water, sometimes floating to the surface, drawing in the water with hands, splashing each other,' even using a bowl to hold water and play, all commit a Pacittiya offense. The third sentence, 'Pacittiya,' refers to the name of the offense. The Vinaya says: Bhikkhus playing in the water as described above all commit a Pacittiya offense. If it is not in the water, but playing in containers of yogurt, rice wine, malt juice, etc., all commit a Dukkata offense. The Ghi says: Splashing each other between water and land all commit a Pacittiya offense. The Five-Part Vinaya says that if one plays with snow or dew on the grass, one commits a Dukkata offense. The Ga says that even if a drop of water falls on the ground, it is a Dukkata offense. The Great Cloud Sutra says that the king saw the monks playing and spoke a verse, and the queen said: 'I heard that these Bhikkhus have long since escaped the bonds of the world, how can they still like to play in the mud and water? What is this?'
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese Translation: Able to Respect: In the past, [one] could subdue poisonous dragons, but now [one] cannot subdue small shrimp. Many say that this precept is extremely important, capable of committing the four parajikas (killing father, killing mother, killing an Arhat, disrupting the Sangha), and besides disrupting the Sangha, it can also break other precepts and practices, and is capable of creating various troubles. Therefore, the Vinaya has strict regulations on this. The Vinaya says that not violating the precept includes: if one is sick and has no other medicine, one can use alcohol as medicine; or if one uses alcohol to apply to sores, these are not considered violations. The Five-Part Vinaya says that if someone who is accustomed to drinking alcohol suddenly stops drinking, they may die of suffocation, or their digestion may be impaired. They may be allowed to smell the alcohol. If the condition does not improve, alcohol can be mixed with rice porridge and eaten together. If it still does not improve, a small amount of alcohol can be given to drink, and then gradually weaned off.
Precept 52 on Playing in Water: Most commentaries believe that there are four reasons for establishing this precept: first, the Dharma is solemn and should be respected. Now, playing in the water causes no small amount of damage; second, one should maintain dignified conduct and be respectful, earning trust and respect from others. Playing in the water exceeds proper conduct and invites ridicule from the world; third, one should stop playing and concentrate on cultivating the Way. Playing in the water hinders proper practice; fourth, one should correct mindfulness. Playing in the water scatters the mind and loses right mindfulness. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept. There are three conditions that constitute this precept: first, water; second, no legitimate reason; and third, the act of playing. The origin of this precept is that seventeen groups of monks were playing in the river, and King Pasenadi saw them from afar and felt disgusted. The Buddha therefore established this precept.
If a Bhikkhu plays in the water, he commits a Pacittiya offense: The precept has three sentences: first, violating the precept; second, playing in the water; and third, judging the offense. In the Distinguishing Characteristics, the first sentence is easy to understand. The second sentence, 'playing in the water,' the Vinaya says: 'Indulging the mind, doing as one pleases, from here to there, going upstream, going downstream, sometimes sinking into the water, sometimes floating to the surface, drawing in the water with hands, splashing each other,' even using a bowl to hold water and play, all commit a Pacittiya offense. The third sentence, 'Pacittiya,' refers to the name of the offense. The Vinaya says: Bhikkhus playing in the water as described above all commit a Pacittiya offense. If it is not in the water, but playing in containers of yogurt, rice wine, malt juice, etc., all commit a Dukkata offense. The Ghi says: Splashing each other between water and land all commit a Pacittiya offense. The Five-Part Vinaya says that if one plays with snow or dew on the grass, one commits a Dukkata offense. The Ga says that even if a drop of water falls on the ground, it is a Dukkata offense. The Great Cloud Sutra says that the king saw the monks playing and spoke a verse, and the queen said: 'I heard that these Bhikkhus have long since escaped the bonds of the world, how can they still like to play in the mud and water? What is this?'
人師。諸比丘遊戲已足入定知心。遂以神力雁行而去夫人見而向王說偈。吾家諸比丘久以離塵羈。沙彌尚如是。何況釋迦師。王因生信。律云。不犯者。若道行渡水。或水中牽竹木捭順流上下。若失物沉入水底此沒彼出。或從此岸渡至彼岸。或學知浮法而擢臂水中濽水者。一切不犯。
擊攊比丘戒第五十三 事雖是輕過容至重。人之喜為特。宜須禁故所以制 別緣有五。一是比丘。二作惱亂意。三手腳十指。四無緣。若眠觸令覺行來誤觸等不犯故。五觸著即犯 此戒因六群中一人擊攊十七群中一人。乃至令命終。比丘舉過。佛便呵制戒。
若比丘以指相擊攊者波逸提 戒本三句。一犯人。二擊攊。三結罪。辨相中初句可知。二言以指擊攊者。律云。指者手腳二十指。三言波逸提者。違犯罪名。四分以手腳相擊攊一切提罪。祇云。以指除手腳已若杖若拂秉及戶籥餘一切物擊攊者吉。指比丘亦提。五指指五提。乃至善會以指某甲去。去者亦提。五分云。若擊攊沙彌乃至畜生亦吉。律云。不犯者。若不故作。若睡觸令覺。若出入行來。若掃地誤觸。並不犯。
不授諫戒第五十四 制意者。凡出家之人理宜離惡為宗。然已迷情將欲作過。他以理諫。復不從順。茍且為非違。損處重故。須聖制 別緣有五。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：人師（指佛陀）。眾比丘遊戲完畢，入定后以神通力像雁一樣排列飛行離去。王妃見到後向國王說了偈語：『我家的眾比丘早已遠離塵世的束縛，小沙彌尚且如此，更何況是釋迦牟尼佛呢？』國王因此生起了信心。律中說，以下情況不構成違犯：在道路上行走、渡水，或者在水中牽引竹木，順流而上或順流而下；如果物品掉落沉入水底，在此處沒入，在彼處浮出；或者從這岸渡到彼岸；或者學習游泳的方法，將手臂伸入水中潛水的人，一切都不算違犯。
擊攊比丘戒第五十三：事情雖然是輕微的過失，但容忍下去會發展成嚴重的後果。因為人喜歡這樣做，所以必須禁止，因此制定此戒。構成此戒的要素有五個：一是比丘；二是具有惱亂對方的意圖；三是用手腳的十個手指；四是無緣無故。如果是睡眠中觸碰使人覺醒，或者行走時不小心觸碰等情況，則不構成違犯。五是觸碰到了就構成違犯。此戒的起因是六群比丘中的一人擊攊十七群比丘中的一人，甚至導致其死亡。其他比丘指責此事，佛陀因此呵斥並制定了此戒。
若比丘用手指互相擊攊，則犯波逸提（一種罪名）。戒本包含三個方面：一是犯戒者；二是擊攊的行為；三是所犯的罪名。辨相中，第一句容易理解。第二句『用手指擊攊』，律中說，『手指』指的是手腳的二十個手指。第三句『波逸提』，是違犯戒律的罪名。四分律認為，用手腳互相擊攊，都犯提罪。祇律認為，用手指以外的，如果用手腳以外的，如果用棍杖、拂塵、門閂以及其他任何物品擊攊，則犯吉罪。用手指指比丘也犯提罪。五指指人，犯五提罪。乃至在聚會中用手指指著某甲說『走開』，『走開』的人也犯提罪。五分律說，如果擊攊沙彌乃至畜生，也犯吉罪。律中說，以下情況不構成違犯：如果不是故意做的；如果是睡眠中觸碰使人覺醒；如果是出入行走；如果是掃地時不小心觸碰，都不構成違犯。
不授諫戒第五十四：制定此戒的目的是，凡是出家之人，理應以遠離惡行為宗旨。然而如果已經迷惑于情慾，將要犯錯，他人以道理勸諫，卻不聽從，茍且為非作歹，損害嚴重，因此需要聖人制定戒律。構成此戒的要素有五個：一
【English Translation】 English version: The Teacher of Men (referring to the Buddha). The Bhikkhus, having finished their games, entered into Samadhi and departed in a formation like geese through their supernatural powers. The Queen Consort, seeing this, spoke a verse to the King: 'The Bhikkhus of my household have long been detached from the bonds of the world. Even the Shramaneras are like this, what more the Teacher Shakyamuni?' The King, as a result, developed faith. The Vinaya states that the following do not constitute an offense: walking on a road, crossing water, or pulling bamboo and wood in the water, going upstream or downstream; if an object falls and sinks to the bottom of the water, submerging here and emerging there; or crossing from this shore to the other shore; or learning the method of swimming, extending an arm into the water and diving, all these do not constitute an offense.
The Fifty-Third Precept Regarding Striking and Snapping Fingers: Although the matter is a minor transgression, tolerating it may lead to serious consequences. Because people enjoy doing it, it must be prohibited, hence this precept is established. There are five factors that constitute this precept: first, a Bhikkhu; second, the intention to annoy the other person; third, using the ten fingers of the hands and feet; fourth, without any reason. If it is touching someone to wake them up from sleep, or accidentally touching them while walking, etc., it does not constitute an offense. Fifth, touching constitutes an offense. The origin of this precept is that one of the Six Group Bhikkhus struck and snapped fingers at one of the Seventeen Group Bhikkhus, even causing his death. The other Bhikkhus criticized this, and the Buddha therefore rebuked and established this precept.
If a Bhikkhu strikes and snaps fingers at each other, he commits a Payattika (a type of offense). The precept contains three aspects: first, the offender; second, the act of striking and snapping fingers; third, the offense committed. In the explanation of characteristics, the first sentence is easy to understand. The second sentence 'striking and snapping fingers', the Vinaya states that 'fingers' refers to the twenty fingers of the hands and feet. The third sentence 'Payattika', is the name of the offense for violating the precept. The Sarvastivada Vinaya considers that striking and snapping fingers with hands and feet both constitute a Thullaccaya offense. The Sarvastivada Vinaya states that using anything other than fingers, such as sticks, dusters, door bolts, and any other objects to strike and snap fingers, constitutes a Dukkrta offense. Pointing at a Bhikkhu with a finger also constitutes a Thullaccaya offense. Pointing at a person with five fingers constitutes five Thullaccaya offenses. Even pointing at someone in a gathering and saying 'go away', the person who 'goes away' also commits a Thullaccaya offense. The Mahisasaka Vinaya states that if one strikes and snaps fingers at a Shramanera or even an animal, it also constitutes a Dukkrta offense. The Vinaya states that the following do not constitute an offense: if it is not done intentionally; if it is touching someone to wake them up from sleep; if it is entering and exiting or walking; if it is accidentally touching while sweeping the floor, all these do not constitute an offense.
The Fifty-Fourth Precept Regarding Not Giving Admonition: The purpose of establishing this precept is that all who have left home should take the abandonment of evil deeds as their principle. However, if one is already deluded by desires and is about to commit a mistake, and others admonish with reason, but one does not listen and recklessly does wrong, causing serious harm, therefore the Sage needs to establish precepts. There are five factors that constitute this precept: one
己所作非法事。二他如法設諫。三知己所作非前人諫者是。四拒諫不受。五隨所作犯根本。不從語波逸提。已下正明戒本。此戒因闡陀比丘犯戒。余比丘諫言。莫作此意不應爾。不從他諫。即犯諸罪。比丘白佛。佛呵制戒。
若比丘不受諫者波逸提 此戒文有三句。一犯人。二不受諫。三結罪。辨相中初句可知。二言不受諫者。自知作非他勸莫作拒而不從故曰不受諫。三言波逸提者。是違犯罪名。釋云。但使知己為非前諫者。是故違情重。是以得提。若謂己所作是前諫者非過輕微故得吉羅。隨所作事邊以識事故作。以不知得脫猶犯根本罪。此違一人諫不隨前事結罪輕重。但就心辨虛故罪重。心實故輕。文中先結心實之吉。次結心虛提。是以律云。若他諫言莫作此事。然故犯根本。不從語吉。若自知所作非然故作犯根本。不從語提。多雲。欲作前不受諫犯吉。後作以根本外別得提罪問。違僧諫中諫竟即犯。不待作事。此中所以諫竟未犯。要待作事。此戒既是一人設諫。無有僧命眾法可違。是以諫竟未犯。要待作事違諫義成。是以不類。若爾下拒勸學戒亦是一人所諫。而無眾命可違。何以諫竟即犯。與此相違答。彼諫止犯先。是不學止犯之人。發言拒諫道已。不學即是止犯。表違已成故。所以犯。此諫作犯。雖言拒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 自己做了不合佛法的事情；二，其他人如法地勸諫；三，明知自己所做的事情是之前別人勸諫過的；四，拒絕接受勸諫；五，隨著所做的事情觸犯了根本戒，不聽勸告則犯波逸提（Payattika，一種輕罪）。以下正式說明戒本。這條戒律的起因是闡陀比丘（Chanda Bhikkhu）犯戒，其他比丘勸諫說：『不要這樣做，不應該這樣。』不聽從別人的勸諫，就觸犯各種罪過。比丘稟告佛陀，佛陀呵斥並制定戒律。
『如果比丘不接受勸諫，就犯波逸提。』這條戒律的條文有三句話：一，犯戒的人；二，不接受勸諫；三，判決罪行。辨別相狀中第一句可以理解。第二句說『不接受勸諫』，是說自己明知所做的事情不合佛法，別人勸告不要做，卻拒絕不聽從，所以說不接受勸諫。第三句說『波逸提』，是違犯戒律的罪名。解釋說：『只要知道自己所做的事情不合佛法，而且是之前別人勸諫過的，這就是違背情理的重罪，因此判為波逸提。』如果認為自己所做的事情是之前勸諫過的，那麼過失輕微，判為吉羅（Dukkata，一種輕罪）。隨著所做的事情的邊緣來識別事情，因為做了而不知道，得以脫罪，但仍然觸犯根本罪。這違背了一個人的勸諫，不隨著之前的事情來判決罪行的輕重，只是就心來辨別，虛假的心罪就重，真實的心罪就輕。條文中先判決心是真實的吉羅罪，然後判決心是虛假的波逸提罪。因此律中說：『如果別人勸諫說不要做這件事，然而還是觸犯了根本戒，不聽勸告判吉羅。』如果自己明知所做的事情不合佛法，然而還是做了，觸犯根本戒，不聽勸告判波逸提。』
多數人說：『想要做之前不接受勸諫，犯吉羅，之後做了在根本戒之外另外判波逸提罪。』問：違背僧團的勸諫，勸諫完畢就犯戒，不必等待做事。這裡為什麼勸諫完畢還沒有犯戒，要等待做事？這條戒律既然是一個人提出的勸諫，沒有僧團的命令和大眾的佛法可以違背，因此勸諫完畢還沒有犯戒，要等待做事，違背勸諫的意義才成立，因此不類似。如果這樣，下面拒絕勸學的戒律也是一個人所勸諫，而沒有大眾的命令可以違背，為什麼勸諫完畢就犯戒，與此相違？答：那個勸諫是阻止犯戒在先，是不學習阻止犯戒的人，發言拒絕勸諫說道已經，不學習就是阻止犯戒，表明違背已經成立，所以犯戒。這個勸諫是做了才犯戒，雖然說拒絕
【English Translation】 English version If one commits an unlawful act; two, another person righteously advises; three, knowing that what one is doing is what others have advised against before; four, refusing to accept the advice; five, as the act committed violates the fundamental precepts, not heeding the advice results in a Payattika (a minor offense). The following formally explains the precepts. The origin of this precept is that Chanda Bhikkhu committed an offense, and other bhikkhus advised, 'Do not do this, it should not be so.' Not listening to the advice of others constitutes various offenses. The bhikkhu reported to the Buddha, who rebuked and established the precept.
'If a bhikkhu does not accept advice, he commits a Payattika.' This precept has three clauses: one, the offender; two, not accepting advice; three, judging the offense. The first clause in the distinction of characteristics is understandable. The second clause, 'not accepting advice,' means that one knows that what one is doing is not in accordance with the Dharma, and others advise not to do it, but one refuses to listen, hence 'not accepting advice.' The third clause, 'Payattika,' is the name of the offense of violating the precepts. The explanation says: 'As long as one knows that what one is doing is not in accordance with the Dharma, and it is what others have advised against before, this is a serious offense against reason, therefore it is judged as Payattika.' If one thinks that what one is doing is what was advised against before, then the fault is minor, and it is judged as Dukkata (a minor offense). Depending on the edge of the act committed to identify the matter, because one did it without knowing, one can escape the offense, but still violates the fundamental precept. This violates the advice of one person, and the severity of the offense is not judged according to the previous matter, but only according to the mind. A false mind makes the offense serious, and a true mind makes the offense light. The text first judges the Dukkata offense of a true mind, and then judges the Payattika offense of a false mind. Therefore, the Vinaya says: 'If others advise not to do this, but one still violates the fundamental precept, not listening to the advice is judged as Dukkata.' If one knows that what one is doing is not in accordance with the Dharma, but still does it, violating the fundamental precept, not listening to the advice is judged as Payattika.'
Most say: 'Wanting to do it before not accepting advice, commits Dukkata, after doing it, in addition to the fundamental precept, another Payattika offense is judged.' Question: Violating the Sangha's advice, one commits the offense as soon as the advice is finished, without having to wait for the act to be done. Why is it that here, one has not committed the offense after the advice is finished, and one has to wait for the act to be done? Since this precept is an advice proposed by one person, there is no Sangha's command or Dharma of the masses that can be violated, therefore one has not committed the offense after the advice is finished, and one has to wait for the act to be done for the meaning of violating the advice to be established, therefore it is not similar. If so, the precept below of refusing to learn is also advised by one person, and there is no command of the masses that can be violated, why is it that one commits the offense as soon as the advice is finished, which contradicts this? Answer: That advice is to prevent the offense in advance, it is a person who does not learn to prevent the offense, speaking to reject the advice, saying it is already done, not learning is to prevent the offense, indicating that the violation has been established, therefore one commits the offense. This advice is to commit the offense after doing it, although it says to refuse
諫道我作者仍猶未作違未就。要待作事違陳義成亦非一類。律云。不犯者。前人無智報言。可問汝師乃至知諫法者。若諫當用。若戲語獨語夢語錯說等。一切不犯。
恐怖比丘戒第五十五 制意者。凡出家人宜須持護。不相惱觸。今以六塵等事遞相。恐怖令彼惶悸。廢修正業。事惱殊深。故須制斷 別緣有五。一大比丘。二作恐怖意。三以六塵等事。一一說示。四言辭了了。五前人見聞觸知便犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因那迦波羅反被拘執衣。欲怖佛令還入房。佛便呵責。制斯戒本。
若比丘恐怖他比丘者波逸提 此滿足本文有三句。一犯人。二恐怖。三結罪。辨相中初句可知。二言恐怖者。律明恐業。先列名。后隨釋。言列名者。彼以色聲香味觸法六事。一一示之。言色恐怖者。或作鳥形乃至鬼及獸形。如是以色恐怖前人。言聲恐怖者。或貝聲象聲等以如是聲恐怖前人。乃至以法恐怖。語前人我見如是相汝當死。若失衣缽及汝和上亦爾。汝父母得病。若死等以此法恐怖者。三言波逸提者。是違犯句。律云。若以六事。隨一一提。令彼見聞等若恐怖若不恐怖。一一皆得提罪。若不了前人不知等。一一吉羅。律云。不犯者。或闇地坐無燈火。或大小便處遙見謂言惡獸。乃至行聲咳聲觸聲而恐怖者。或以色等示
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 進諫我的人，所做的事情仍然是違背正義，沒有成就。想要等待事情做成，違背陳述的意義，也不是一類事情。律中說：不犯戒的情況是，之前的人沒有智慧，回報說：『可以問你的老師，乃至知道進諫方法的人。』如果進諫應當被採納。如果是戲語、自言自語、夢語、說錯話等等，一切都不犯戒。
恐怖比丘戒第五十五：制定此戒的用意是，凡是出家人都應當守護，不互相惱害觸犯。現在用色、聲、香、味、觸、法等六塵的事情，互相恐怖，使他們驚慌恐懼，荒廢修正的行業，這種事情惱害太深。所以需要制定戒律來禁止。 構成此戒的要素有五個：一是大比丘，二是具有恐怖的意圖，三是用色、聲、香、味、觸、法等六塵的事情，一一展示給對方，四是言辭清晰明瞭，五是對方見聞觸知，就犯戒。以下正式說明戒本。此戒的起因是那迦波羅（Nāgapāla，人名）反被拘禁衣服，想要以此來恐嚇佛陀，讓佛陀回到房間里，佛陀便呵斥了他，制定了這條戒本。
『若比丘恐怖他比丘者，波逸提（Pācittiya，一種罪名）。』 這句話完整地包含了三個方面：一是犯戒的人，二是恐怖的行為，三是判定的罪名。辨別相狀中，第一句是顯而易見的。第二句說『恐怖』，律中說明了恐怖的行為。先列出名稱，然後隨著解釋。所說的列出名稱，就是用色、聲、香、味、觸、法這六種事物，一一展示給對方。所說的用『色』來恐怖，或者做成鳥的形狀，乃至鬼或野獸的形狀，像這樣用『色』來恐怖對方。所說的用『聲』來恐怖，或者用貝殼的聲音、大象的聲音等等，用這樣的聲音來恐怖對方。乃至用『法』來恐怖，告訴對方『我看到你會有這樣的相，你將會死去，或者失去衣缽，或者你的和尚（Upādhyāya，親教師）也會這樣，你的父母會得病，或者死去』等等，用這樣的『法』來恐怖對方。第三句說『波逸提』，是違犯的罪名。律中說：如果用六種事物，隨便哪一種，使對方見聞等等，無論是恐怖還是不恐怖，一一都得到波逸提罪。如果不瞭解對方，對方不知道等等，一一都得到突吉羅（Duṣkṛta，一種輕罪）。律中說：不犯戒的情況是，或者在黑暗的地方坐著，沒有燈火，或者在大小便的地方，遠遠地看見，以為是惡獸，乃至行走的聲音、咳嗽的聲音、觸控的聲音而使對方恐怖，或者用顏色等等來展示。
【English Translation】 English version: Those who advise me, what they do is still against righteousness and has not been accomplished. Wanting to wait for things to be done, going against the meaning of the statement, is not the same kind of thing. The Vinaya says: One does not commit an offense if the person before was not wise and replied, 'You can ask your teacher, or even those who know the method of advising.' If the advice should be adopted. If it is a joke, talking to oneself, a dream, a mistake in speech, etc., none of these are offenses.
The Fifty-fifth Pācittiya (Atonement) Rule Concerning Frightening a Bhikkhu: The intention of establishing this rule is that all monks should protect each other and not annoy or offend each other. Now, using the six sense objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma), they frighten each other, causing them to panic and abandon their cultivation. This matter is deeply disturbing. Therefore, it is necessary to establish precepts to prohibit it. The conditions for this offense are five: first, a great bhikkhu; second, having the intention to frighten; third, using the six sense objects, one by one, to show them to the other person; fourth, the words are clear and distinct; fifth, the other person sees, hears, touches, and knows, then the offense is committed. The following formally explains the precept. The origin of this precept is that Nāgapāla was restrained from his robes and wanted to frighten the Buddha to make him return to his room. The Buddha scolded him and established this precept.
'If a bhikkhu frightens another bhikkhu, it is a Pācittiya.' This complete statement contains three aspects: first, the offender; second, the act of frightening; and third, the judgment of the offense. In distinguishing the characteristics, the first sentence is obvious. The second sentence says 'frightening,' and the Vinaya explains the act of frightening. First, list the names, and then explain them accordingly. What is meant by listing the names is using the six things: form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma, one by one, to show them to the other person. What is meant by using 'form' to frighten is making the shape of a bird, or even the shape of a ghost or beast, and using 'form' to frighten the other person in this way. What is meant by using 'sound' to frighten is using the sound of a conch shell, the sound of an elephant, etc., and using such sounds to frighten the other person. Even using 'dharma' to frighten, telling the other person, 'I see that you will have such a sign, you will die, or lose your robe and bowl, or your Upādhyāya (preceptor) will also be like this, your parents will get sick, or die,' etc., using this 'dharma' to frighten the other person. The third sentence says 'Pācittiya,' which is the name of the offense. The Vinaya says: If using any one of the six things, causing the other person to see, hear, etc., whether frightening or not frightening, each one incurs a Pācittiya offense. If one does not understand the other person, the other person does not know, etc., each one incurs a Duṣkṛta (misdeed) offense. The Vinaya says: One does not commit an offense if sitting in a dark place without lights, or in a place for urination or defecation, seeing from afar and thinking it is a fierce beast, or the sound of walking, the sound of coughing, the sound of touching that frightens the other person, or using colors, etc., to show.
人不作恐怖意。或若實有是。見夢當死失衣。乃至父母重病若死。語彼令知及誤。一切不犯。
過半月洗浴戒第五十六 十律云。洗浴有五利。一除垢穢。二身清凈。三除身中寒冷病。四除風。五得安隱。故溫室經云。浴除七病故。凡身多不凈事須澡除。但皎潔過常令身光澤。玩著色身無心厭背 正違出離。故須限約半月一洗。若過即犯 別緣有五。一曾前洗浴。二未滿半月。三更洗浴。四無因緣。五洗身半犯。已下正明戒本。此戒因瓶沙王聽諸比丘于竹園池中常浴。六群浴次。王與婇女詣池。相值王竟不浴。大臣嫌悉。比丘白佛。佛呵制戒。
若比丘半月洗浴無病比丘應受不得過除余時波逸提余時者熱時病時作時風雨時道行時此是時 此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二明半月一洗不得過。三除開緣。四結罪。余時者下誦前第三句。辨相中初句可知。二言半月洗浴者。明半月一浴不得過。半月洗誦於半月內不得再洗。故曰不得過。祇云。應隨浴日數。要滿十五日乃應更洗。三先言除余時者。明開緣。言除熱時。律云。春后四十五日。夏初一月。是熱時。天竺熱早故。從三月初至五月十五日。此兩月半聽洗無罪。隨國土早晚熱用此限洗。又此兩月半時日滿便足。是名熱時。言病時者。四分云。下至身體臭穢
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
人不應心懷恐怖之意。如果確實有這種情況，夢見自己死亡或丟失衣物，甚至父母重病或去世，告知他們實情或誤傳，都不算違犯戒律。 過半月洗浴戒第五十六：十律中說，洗浴有五種好處：一是去除污垢，二是使身體清凈，三是去除身體中的寒冷病癥，四是驅除風邪，五是獲得安穩。所以《溫室經》中說，洗浴可以去除七種疾病。一般來說，身體上有很多不乾淨的事情需要洗滌清除。但是，如果過於追求潔白光鮮，讓身體光澤照人，貪戀執著於美好的色身，沒有厭離背棄之心，就恰恰違背了出離的本意。因此，需要限定大約半個月洗一次。如果超過這個期限，就構成違犯。開緣有五種情況：一是之前已經洗過澡，二是未滿半個月，三是再次洗澡，四是沒有正當理由，五是洗了部分身體。以下正式說明戒本。這條戒律的起因是瓶沙王允許眾比丘在竹園的池塘中經常洗浴。六群比丘依次洗浴。一次，國王帶著婇女來到池塘，正好相遇，國王最終沒有洗浴。大臣對此不滿。比丘將此事稟告佛陀。佛陀呵斥並制定了戒律。 如果比丘每半個月洗一次澡，沒有疾病的比丘應該遵守，不得超過這個期限，除非有特殊情況，否則就構成波逸提罪。特殊情況包括熱天、生病、工作、颳風下雨、趕路等。這些都是允許的情況。這條戒律的完整戒本有四句話：一是違犯者，二是說明半個月洗一次澡不得超過，三是說明開緣，四是結罪。『余時者』一句與前面第三句相呼應。辨相中的第一句容易理解。第二句說『半月洗浴者』，說明半個月洗一次澡不得超過。『半月洗誦』是指在半個月內不得再次洗澡，所以說『不得過』。《祇云》中說，應該按照洗浴的天數計算，必須滿十五天才能再次洗澡。第三句先說『除余時者』，說明開緣。『除熱時』，律中說，春季後的四十五天，夏季初的一個月，是熱天。因為天竺炎熱來得早，所以從三月初到五月十五日，這兩個半月允許洗澡而沒有罪過。根據各地的炎熱早晚情況，用這個期限來洗澡。而且，在這兩個半月的時間裡，只要時間滿了就可以。這就叫做熱天。『病時者』，《四分律》中說，下至身體臭穢。
【English Translation】 English version:
One should not harbor thoughts of terror. If such a thing truly exists, and one dreams of death or losing clothes, or even of parents being seriously ill or dying, informing them of the truth or a misrepresentation is not a violation. The Fifty-Sixth Precept: Bathing After Half a Month: The Ten Vinayas state that bathing has five benefits: first, it removes dirt and grime; second, it purifies the body; third, it removes cold diseases from the body; fourth, it dispels wind; and fifth, it brings peace and comfort. Therefore, the Vimoksha Sutra says that bathing removes seven diseases. Generally, the body has many impure things that need to be washed away. However, if one excessively pursues cleanliness and radiance, making the body shine, and is attached to the beautiful physical form without any sense of aversion or renunciation, then one is directly violating the intention of detachment. Therefore, it is necessary to limit bathing to about once every half month. If one exceeds this limit, it constitutes a violation. There are five exceptions: first, one has already bathed before; second, half a month has not yet passed; third, one bathes again; fourth, there is no proper reason; and fifth, one washes only part of the body. The following formally explains the precept itself. This precept originated when King Bimbisara (瓶沙王) [King Bimbisara] allowed the monks to bathe frequently in the pond of the Bamboo Grove. The Six Group monks bathed in turn. Once, the king came to the pond with his consorts and happened to meet them, and the king ultimately did not bathe. The ministers were displeased with this. The monks reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha rebuked them and established the precept. If a monk bathes once every half month, a monk without illness should abide by this and not exceed this limit, otherwise it constitutes a Payattika (波逸提) [expiation] offense, except for special circumstances. Special circumstances include hot weather, illness, work, wind and rain, and traveling. These are permissible situations. The complete precept has four sentences: first, the offender; second, stating that bathing once every half month should not be exceeded; third, stating the exceptions; and fourth, the conclusion of the offense. The phrase 'special circumstances' corresponds to the third sentence mentioned earlier. The first sentence in the analysis is easy to understand. The second sentence, 'bathing every half month,' states that bathing once every half month should not be exceeded. 'Half-month recitation' means that one should not bathe again within half a month, so it says 'should not exceed.' The Ghi-yun says that one should calculate according to the number of days of bathing, and one should not bathe again until fifteen days have passed. The third sentence, first saying 'except for special circumstances,' explains the exceptions. 'Except for hot weather,' the Vinaya says that forty-five days after spring and one month at the beginning of summer are hot weather. Because India has early heat, from the beginning of March to May 15th, these two and a half months are allowed to bathe without offense. According to the early or late heat in various regions, use this limit to bathe. Moreover, during these two and a half months, as long as the time is full, it is sufficient. This is called hot weather. 'Illness,' the Four-Part Vinaya says, even to the point of body odor.
是謂病時。言作時者。下至掃屋前地。十云。乃至掃僧房內地五尺。多雲。五六尺。五分乃至掃屋內地。言風雨時者。下至一旋風一渧雨著身。言道行者。下至半由旬若來若往者是。四言波逸提。是過洗結罪句。律云。若過限洗一遍洗身一波逸提。若洗半身亦犯提。若方便欲洗不者吉羅。五分云。若共白衣同室浴身偷蘭。多雲。露地不應共浴。若在室中知白衣。而無口過者聽。共浴比丘揩白衣吉。若自揩不用他揩者善。要著僧祇支。一當有慚愧。二不生他欲。因洗羅漢身軟有。凡見便起染失根。乃至還悔得本男身。律云。不犯者。如上六緣開數洗不犯。及被力勢所轉強令者。
無事露地然火戒五十七 制意者。凡火性炎熾事變無恒。容有燒壞不可禁。又復然火群聚多著俗話。廢修正業。是以聖制 別緣有四。一是無因緣。甄去因緣不犯。二雖無因緣若在覆障處。生患義微亦是不犯。故須第二是露地。三然草木等甄去然炭。生過義微。但犯小罪。四燒便犯。此中但制無事。然火罪不言壞地傷。五生種罪。上已制竟故爾。此戒因六群露地火枯枝。內有蛇得火氣出。遂驚擲火燒佛講堂。比丘舉過。佛制斯戒。
若比丘無病自為炙故在露地然火若教人然除時因緣波逸提 戒本三句。一犯人。二除病。二為已然火結
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所謂『病時』，是指生病的時候。所謂『作時』，是指做工的時候，小到打掃屋前的地面。十誦律中說，甚至打掃僧房內的地面五尺。多數律典中說是五六尺。五分律中說是打掃屋內的地面。所謂『風雨時』，是指颳風下雨的時候，小到一陣旋風或一滴雨落在身上。所謂『道行』，是指在路上行走的時候，小到半由旬（約7公里）的距離，無論是來還是往。以上四種情況可以洗浴。『波逸提』是一種罪名，是可以通過懺悔來消除的罪過。律典中說，如果超過規定的次數洗浴，每洗一次身體就犯一次波逸提罪。如果只洗半身，也犯波逸提罪。如果只是準備洗浴但沒有實際洗，則犯吉羅罪。五分律中說，如果和在家居士在同一個房間里洗浴身體，則犯偷蘭罪。多數律典中說，不應該在露天的地方一起洗浴。如果在房間里，知道對方是在家居士，但沒有言語上的過失，則可以一起洗浴。比丘給在家居士擦拭身體犯吉羅罪。如果自己擦拭身體，不用別人擦拭，則是好的。一定要穿僧祇支（內衣），一是爲了有慚愧心，二是爲了不引起他人的慾望。因為洗浴，羅漢的身體變得柔軟，凡夫見到后便會生起染污之心，失去根本，甚至後悔自己恢復了男身。律典中說，以下情況不犯戒：如上面所說的六種因緣，允許洗浴的次數不犯戒，以及被強力脅迫的情況。
無事在露天點火戒第五十七：制定此戒的目的是因為火的性質是向上燃燒，事態變化無常，容易造成燒燬，難以禁止。而且點火容易聚集人群，多說世俗話，荒廢修行。因此佛陀制定此戒。別的原因有四種：一是沒有因緣，去除因緣則不犯戒。二是即使沒有因緣，如果在有遮蔽的地方，產生禍患的可能性小，也不犯戒。所以第二點必須是在露天的地方。三是燃燒草木等，去除燃燒木炭，產生過失的可能性小，只犯小罪。四是燒燬東西就犯戒。此戒只是禁止無事點火的罪過，沒有說燒壞土地或傷害生物的罪過。傷害生物的罪過已經在前面禁止過了。此戒的起因是六群比丘在露天點火燒枯枝，裡面有蛇被火氣驚擾出來，於是驚慌地把火扔掉，燒燬了佛陀的講堂。其他比丘指責他們的過失，佛陀因此制定此戒。
如果比丘沒有生病，爲了取暖自己在露天點火，或者教別人點火，除了有正當理由，就犯波逸提罪。戒本分為三句：一是犯戒的人，二是排除生病的情況，三是為自己點火而結罪。
【English Translation】 English version 『The time of illness』 refers to when one is sick. 『The time of work』 refers to when one is working, down to sweeping the ground in front of the house. The Tenfold Vinaya says, even sweeping five feet inside the Sangha's room. Most Vinayas say five or six feet. The Fivefold Vinaya says sweeping inside the house. 『The time of wind and rain』 refers to when there is wind and rain, down to a whirlwind or a drop of rain landing on the body. 『Traveling on the road』 refers to when traveling on the road, down to half a yojana (about 7 kilometers), whether coming or going. The above four situations allow bathing. 『Payattika』 is a type of offense, a transgression that can be expiated through confession. The Vinaya says that if one bathes more than the prescribed number of times, each time one washes the body, one commits a Payattika offense. If one only washes half the body, one also commits a Payattika offense. If one intends to bathe but does not actually bathe, one commits a Dukkata offense. The Fivefold Vinaya says that if one bathes in the same room with a layperson, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. Most Vinayas say that one should not bathe together in an open area. If one is in a room, knows the other person is a layperson, but there is no verbal misconduct, then it is permissible to bathe together. A Bhikkhu who rubs the body of a layperson commits a Dukkata offense. If one rubs one's own body without being rubbed by another, that is good. One must wear a Sanghati (inner garment), first, to have a sense of shame, and second, not to arouse the desires of others. Because of bathing, the body of an Arhat becomes soft, and ordinary people, upon seeing it, will give rise to defilement, lose their root, and even regret returning to the male body. The Vinaya says that one does not violate the precept in the following situations: as mentioned above, the six conditions allow bathing without violating the precept, and when one is forced by coercion.
The Fifty-seventh Precept: No Unnecessary Fire in the Open: The reason for establishing this precept is that the nature of fire is to burn upwards, and events are impermanent. It is easy to cause destruction and difficult to prevent. Moreover, lighting a fire easily gathers people, who talk about worldly matters and neglect their practice. Therefore, the Buddha established this precept. There are four separate reasons: first, there is no cause or reason; removing the cause or reason does not violate the precept. Second, even if there is no cause or reason, if it is in a sheltered place, the possibility of harm is small, and it does not violate the precept. Therefore, the second point must be in an open area. Third, burning grass, wood, etc., removing the burning of charcoal, the possibility of harm is small, and one only commits a minor offense. Fourth, burning something violates the precept. This precept only prohibits the offense of lighting a fire without a reason; it does not mention the offense of burning the land or harming living beings. The offense of harming living beings has already been prohibited above. The origin of this precept is that the Group of Six Bhikkhus lit a fire in the open to burn dry branches. There was a snake inside that was startled by the heat and threw the fire in panic, burning down the Buddha's lecture hall. The other Bhikkhus criticized their offense, and the Buddha therefore established this precept.
If a Bhikkhu, without being ill, lights a fire in the open for warmth, or instructs another to light a fire, except for a legitimate reason, he commits a Payattika offense. The precept is divided into three sentences: first, the person who commits the offense; second, excluding the situation of illness; and third, incurring the offense for lighting a fire for oneself.
犯。辨相中初句可知。二言自為已除病不開。三言波逸提者。是違犯結罪。故律云。彼于露地若然草木枝葉牛糞糠等。一切然者皆犯提罪。若以火置草木乃至糠越中亦犯提罪。五分為炙然火炎高四指者墮。多論若他已然後隨作何事皆墮。祇云。旋火作輪。或火中有草木。撥聚一切墮。若壞生二罪。一壞生。二然火。若在生地理有一墮。被燒半爝擲火中者吉。然炭火吉。不語前人知是看是吉。律云。不犯者。語前人知是看是。若病人自然教人然有緣。看病人為病者煮糜粥美飲等。在死土及石並余物上作火。開不犯。若在廚屋中浴室中。若熏缽煮染然燈。一切無犯。
藏他衣缽戒五十八 制意者三。一調戲譃煩。因事相惱。藏他衣缽覓時不得。令彼惶恐怖。惱處匪輕。二容生盜心。臨色事險可懼之甚。三假無盜心。致彼言謗清白難分。莫能自拔。以斯諸過故。須聖制 別緣有四。一是大比丘衣缽事等。二作驚動彼意。三無因緣。或物主慢藏及二難等不犯。四取藏舉便犯。此戒因六群十七群衣缽等。諸比丘白佛。佛制斯戒。
若比丘藏他比丘衣缽坐具針筒若自藏若教人藏下至戲笑者波逸提 此滿足戒本文。文有三句。一犯人。二所藏物。三自他藏而結罪。辨相中三句可知。律云。上至惱他下至笑戲皆犯提罪。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
犯。辨相中初句可知。二言自為已除病不開。三言波逸提（Pāyantika，一種戒律名稱）者。是違犯結罪。故律云。彼于露地若然草木枝葉牛糞糠等。一切然者皆犯提罪。若以火置草木乃至糠越中亦犯提罪。五分為炙然火炎高四指者墮（Pātayantikā，一種戒律名稱）。多論若他已然後隨作何事皆墮。祇云。旋火作輪。或火中有草木。撥聚一切墮。若壞生二罪。一壞生。二然火。若在生地理有一墮。被燒半爝擲火中者吉。然炭火吉。不語前人知是看是吉。律云。不犯者。語前人知是看是。若病人自然教人然有緣。看病人為病者煮糜粥美飲等。在死土及石並余物上作火。開不犯。若在廚屋中浴室中。若熏缽煮染然燈。一切無犯。
藏他衣缽戒五十八 制意者三。一調戲譃煩。因事相惱。藏他衣缽覓時不得。令彼惶恐怖。惱處匪輕。二容生盜心。臨色事險可懼之甚。三假無盜心。致彼言謗清白難分。莫能自拔。以斯諸過故。須聖制 別緣有四。一是大比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教僧侶）衣缽事等。二作驚動彼意。三無因緣。或物主慢藏及二難等不犯。四取藏舉便犯。此戒因六群十七群衣缽等。諸比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教僧侶）白佛。佛制斯戒。
若比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教僧侶）藏他比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教僧侶）衣缽坐具針筒若自藏若教人藏下至戲笑者波逸提（Pāyantika，一種戒律名稱） 此滿足戒本文。文有三句。一犯人。二所藏物。三自他藏而結罪。辨相中三句可知。律云。上至惱他下至笑戲皆犯提罪。故
【English Translation】 English version:
Offense. The first sentence in the analysis of characteristics reveals this. The two words 'self-caused' indicate that illness is an exception. The three words 'Pāyantika' (a type of precept) mean violating and incurring a sin. Therefore, the Vinaya says: 'If one burns grass, trees, branches, leaves, cow dung, chaff, etc., in an open space, all burning constitutes a Pāyantika offense. If one places fire on grass, trees, or even chaff, it also constitutes a Pāyantika offense.' The Five Divisions state that burning a flame four fingers high constitutes a Pātayantikā (a type of precept) offense. The Mahāyāna-vinaya-sūtra states that if someone else has already started a fire, then whatever one does afterward constitutes a Pātayantikā offense. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya states: 'Spinning fire to make a wheel, or if there is grass or wood in the fire, scattering and gathering it all constitutes a Pātayantikā offense. If one destroys living things, there are two offenses: one for destroying living things and one for burning fire. If it is on living ground, there is one Pātayantikā offense. It is auspicious to throw half-burnt embers into the fire. Burning charcoal is auspicious. It is auspicious not to tell the person in front that one is watching. The Vinaya says: 'One does not commit an offense if one tells the person in front that one is watching. If a sick person naturally instructs someone to burn something for a reason, or if someone caring for a sick person cooks porridge or delicious drinks for the sick person, or if one makes a fire on dead earth, stone, or other objects, it is not an offense. If it is in the kitchen or bathroom, or if one smokes a bowl, cooks dye, or lights a lamp, there is no offense at all.'
The 58th precept regarding hiding another's robes and bowl: There are three intentions to prevent: 1. Teasing and annoying, causing trouble through incidents, hiding another's robes and bowl so they cannot find them, causing them to be frightened and anxious. The annoyance is not minor. 2. Allowing the arising of thieving thoughts, facing the danger of sexual matters, which is very frightening. 3. Falsely claiming no thieving intent, leading to slander and making it difficult to distinguish innocence. One cannot extricate oneself. Because of these faults, a holy precept is needed. There are four separate conditions: 1. Matters concerning the robes and bowl of a great Bhikkhu (Buddhist monk), etc. 2. Causing disturbance to their mind. 3. Without cause, or if the owner slowly hides it, or in the case of two difficulties, there is no offense. 4. Taking and hiding it constitutes an offense. This precept arose because of the robes and bowls of the group of six and the group of seventeen. The Bhikkhus (Buddhist monks) reported to the Buddha, and the Buddha established this precept.
If a Bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) hides another Bhikkhu's (Buddhist monk) robes, bowl, sitting cloth, or needle case, whether he hides it himself or instructs others to hide it, even as a joke, it is a Pāyantika (a type of precept) offense. This is the complete text of the precept. The text has three sentences: 1. The offender. 2. The hidden object. 3. Hiding it oneself or instructing others to hide it constitutes an offense. The three sentences in the analysis of characteristics reveal this. The Vinaya says: 'Even annoying or joking constitutes a Pāyantika offense.'
云戲笑尚犯。況為故惱。多雲。若五大色衣及不凈衣吉羅。未熏缽鍵𨩲衣缽不作凈畜者皆墮。律云。不犯者。若實知彼人物體而舉。若在露地風雨漂漬舉之。若物主為性慢藏衣物狼藉為誡敕之。若借他衣而彼不收舉。若因此衣缽有命梵等緣故藏。一切不犯。
真實凈施不問主取戒五十九 制意者。凡凈施之法為去存著之。情遠同大行。事既付彼。取用之時一須咨問。輒取理違聖教。又復前人既不見物。謂成失奪。惱他不輕。是故聖制 釋名者。舍與前人不虛稱為真實。此物不傷染心名為凈施。故曰真實凈施輒取戒。
別緣有四。一是己物。二作真施凈施法。三不語主令知。四取用便犯。此戒因六群真施親厚衣。比丘已后輒著。比丘白佛。呵制戒。
若比丘與比丘比丘尼式叉摩那沙彌沙彌尼衣還取著者波逸提 滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二作凈施法。三輒取結罪。辨相中初句可知。二言與衣者。律云。凈施有二。一真實。二展轉。展轉者長衣戒說。三言波逸提者。是輒取違犯句。故律云。若作真實凈實凈施應問。主然。后取著。不爾者犯提。然此凈主文通五眾。人解不定。有說此是用戒通僧尼二眾合說。豈有比丘從尼取衣也。各對同類僧二尼三作法。又說依文通五眾為主。任心所樂 問。沙彌邊作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 云戲笑尚且構成違犯，更何況是故意惱亂他人。多雲：如果五大色衣以及不凈衣吉羅（指破舊的、有補丁的衣服），未經熏缽鍵（一種儀式）的衣缽，不作為清凈之物畜養，都會墮落（指犯戒）。律中說：以下情況不構成違犯：如果確實知道彼人物體的所有者而拿取；如果在露天地裡被風雨浸泡而拿取；如果物主生性懶惰，衣物雜亂堆放，爲了告誡他而拿取；如果借給他人衣物而對方不收回而拿取；如果因為這衣缽關係到性命、梵行等原因而藏匿。所有這些情況都不構成違犯。
真實凈施不問主取戒第五十九：制定此戒的用意是，凡是清凈佈施之法，是爲了去除人們的執著之情，使之與偉大的修行相合。既然事物已經交付給他人，取用的時候必須詢問。擅自取用，在道理上違背聖教。而且，前人既然沒有看見此物，會認為是丟失或被搶奪，惱亂他人罪過不輕。因此聖制定此戒。
解釋名稱：捨棄給予前人，不虛假稱為真實。此物不使人產生染污之心，稱為清凈佈施。所以說真實凈施擅自取戒。
別緣有四：一是自己的物品；二是做了真實的佈施、清凈佈施之法；三是不告訴物主，不讓他知道；四是取用就構成違犯。此戒的起因是六群比丘真施親厚的衣服，之後擅自穿著。比丘稟告佛陀，佛陀呵斥並制定此戒。
如果比丘將衣服給予比丘、比丘尼、式叉摩那（沙彌尼的預備階段）、沙彌、沙彌尼，又取回穿著，則犯波逸提（一種輕罪）。滿足戒條本文有三句：一是犯戒之人；二是做了清凈佈施之法；三是擅自取用而結罪。辨相中，第一句可知。二，說到給予衣服，律中說：清凈佈施有兩種，一是真實佈施，二是輾轉佈施。輾轉佈施在長衣戒中說明。三，說到波逸提，是擅自取用違犯句。所以律中說：如果做了真實的清凈佈施，應該詢問物主，然後取用穿著，否則就犯波逸提。然而，此清凈之主，文義上通於五眾（比丘、比丘尼、式叉摩那、沙彌、沙彌尼），人們的理解不確定。有人說這是用戒條貫通僧尼二眾合說。難道會有比丘從尼姑那裡取衣服嗎？各自針對同類僧二尼三作法。又有人說，依據文義貫通五眾為主，隨心所樂。問：沙彌邊作（如何作法）？
【English Translation】 English version Even joking and teasing are offenses, let alone deliberately annoying others. It is often said that if the five major colored robes and impure robes 'jiluo' (referring to old, patched clothes), and the alms bowls that have not been 'xunbojian' (a ritual), and robes and bowls that are not kept as pure possessions, will all fall (meaning to violate the precepts). The Vinaya says: The following situations do not constitute an offense: if one truly knows the owner of the person's object and takes it; if it is taken after being soaked by wind and rain in the open; if the owner is naturally lazy and the clothes are piled up in a mess, and it is taken to warn him; if the clothes are lent to others and they do not take them back; if it is hidden because the robes and bowls are related to life, Brahma conduct, etc. All these situations do not constitute an offense.
The 59th precept: 'Taking back a genuinely given item without asking the owner'. The intention of establishing this precept is that all methods of pure giving are to remove people's attachment and to align with great practice. Since things have been handed over to others, one must ask when taking them back. Taking them without permission violates the holy teachings in principle. Moreover, since the previous person has not seen the item, they will think it is lost or stolen, and annoying others is not a light offense. Therefore, the Holy One established this precept.
Explanation of the name: Giving up and giving to the previous person is truthfully called 'genuine'. This thing does not cause defilement of the mind is called 'pure giving'. Therefore, it is called 'taking back a genuinely given item without asking'.
There are four separate conditions: one is one's own item; two is performing the method of genuine giving and pure giving; three is not telling the owner, not letting him know; four is that taking it constitutes an offense. The cause of this precept is that the six groups of monks genuinely gave clothes to close friends, and then wore them without permission. The monks reported to the Buddha, and the Buddha scolded and established this precept.
If a Bhikkhu gives clothes to a Bhikkhuni, a Sikkhamana (the preparatory stage of a Samaneri), a Samanera, or a Samaneri, and then takes them back and wears them, he commits a Pacittiya (a minor offense). The text of the precept has three sentences: one is the offender; two is performing the method of pure giving; three is incurring guilt by taking it without permission. In the analysis of characteristics, the first sentence is known. Two, speaking of giving clothes, the Vinaya says: There are two types of pure giving, one is genuine giving, and the other is transferred giving. Transferred giving is explained in the long robe precept. Three, speaking of Pacittiya, it is the sentence of violating by taking it without permission. Therefore, the Vinaya says: If a genuine pure giving is made, one should ask the owner, and then take it and wear it, otherwise one commits a Pacittiya. However, the meaning of this pure owner is common to the five assemblies (Bhikkhus, Bhikkhunis, Sikkhamanas, Samaneras, Samaneris), and people's understanding is uncertain. Some say that this is using the precepts to connect the two assemblies of monks and nuns together. How can a Bhikkhu take clothes from a nun? Each performs the method for the two monks and three nuns of the same kind. Others say that according to the meaning of the text, it is mainly connected to the five assemblies, as one pleases. Question: How to perform the method on the side of the Samanera?
凈受已云何 答。稱無歲比丘 問。幾物應說凈 答。謂衣藥缽寶等 問。衣物尺量如何 答。衣尺六八寸。故律云。長如來八指。廣四指是。若互及全咸並悉不說無罪。缽量可知。藥無其量。謂取七日加口法者余悉非也。寶無多少。但金銀錢 問。幾種人開心念說凈 答。十律開五種人。作七種心念法。律云。不犯者。若真實施語主取。展轉者隨意取。
白色三衣戒六十 制意者。凡壞色染衣道服標戒。內遣著情。外長信敬。今不染畜著。非是沙門道眼之幖。內長貪著。外招譏損。過是不輕。故須聖制 別緣有四。一是三衣。二是己物。三不染壞。四著便犯。此戒因六群著白色衣。居士譏嫌。比丘白佛。佛呵制戒。
若比丘得新衣應三種壞色一一色中隨意壞若青若黑若木蘭若比丘不以三種壞色若青若黑若木蘭著余新衣者波逸提 滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二得新衣已下教染壞方法。三若比丘以下不壞故違返聖教畜著結罪。辨相中初句可知。二言得新衣應三種壞者。律云。新衣者。若新若初從人得俱名新衣。十誦云。得他故者初得亦名新衣。言三種壞色者。青黑木蘭。三言不以三色壞著新衣波逸提者。是違返聖教結罪句。律云。彼得衣不作三種壞色著者墮。若重衣若輕衣。不作凈而畜者吉羅。若非衣缽
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：如何進行凈施（凈受）？答：稱呼無歲（沒有戒臘）的比丘。問：應該說明凈施的物品有哪些？答：包括衣服、藥物、缽、寶物等。問：衣服的尺寸如何規定？答：衣服的尺寸是六尺八寸。所以律中說：『長度如如來的八指，寬度為四指。』如果互相借用、全部一起，都一概不說，就沒有罪過。缽的容量可以知道。藥物沒有固定的量，只有取七日加口法（指七日藥）才是，其餘都不是。寶物沒有多少的限制，但指金銀錢。問：有幾種人可以開心念說凈（以清凈心念誦凈施之語）？答：十律中開了五種人，作七種心念法。律中說：『不犯戒的情況有：如果是真實施捨，由施主取回；輾轉借用，可以隨意取用。
白色三衣戒（第六十條戒）的制定意義在於：凡是壞色染衣（指經過染色處理的袈裟）是道服的標誌和戒律的象徵，內在可以遣除貪著，外在可以增長信敬。現在如果不染色而穿著，就不是沙門（出家人）的道眼之標誌，內在增長貪著，外在招致譏諷毀損。過失不輕，所以需要聖制（佛陀的制定）。別緣有四種：一是三衣，二是自己的物品，三是不染色破壞，四是穿著就犯戒。這條戒的起因是六群比丘穿著白色衣服，居士譏嫌，比丘稟告佛陀，佛陀呵斥並制定此戒。
『若比丘得新衣，應三種壞色，一一色中隨意壞，若青若黑若木蘭。若比丘不以三種壞色，若青若黑若木蘭，著余新衣者，波逸提（一種罪名）。』滿足戒本文有三句。一是犯戒的人。二是『得新衣』以下，教導染色破壞的方法。三是『若比丘』以下，因為不破壞而違背聖教，畜養穿著而結罪。辨相中，第一句可知。第二句說『得新衣應三種壞』，律中說：『新衣』，無論是新的還是初次從別人那裡得到的，都叫做新衣。《十誦律》說：『得到他人的舊衣，初次得到也叫做新衣。』所說的三種壞色，是青、黑、木蘭。第三句說『不以三色壞著新衣波逸提』，是違背聖教而結罪的句子。律中說：『他得到衣服，不作三種壞色而穿著，就犯墮罪。』無論是重衣還是輕衣，不作凈施而畜養，就犯吉羅罪。如果不是衣服或缽。
【English Translation】 English version Question: How is the 'netti' (purification/dedication) performed? Answer: By addressing a monk who is 'anuvassa' (without seniority in ordination). Question: What items should be declared as 'netti'? Answer: Items such as robes, medicine, bowls, and valuables. Question: What are the measurements for robes? Answer: Robes are six feet eight inches in length. Therefore, the Vinaya states: 'The length is like the Buddha's eight finger-widths, and the width is four finger-widths.' If they are borrowed mutually, or all together, and it is not declared, there is no offense. The bowl's capacity is known. There is no fixed amount for medicine, only the 'seven-day medicine' (referring to medicine allowed to be kept for seven days) is valid, the rest are not. There is no limit to the amount of valuables, but it refers to gold, silver, and money. Question: How many types of people can perform the 'open mind' declaration of 'netti'? Answer: The Ten Vinayas allow five types of people to perform the seven types of 'open mind' declarations. The Vinaya states: 'There is no offense if it is a genuine offering and the donor takes it back, or if it is borrowed and taken at will.'
The sixtieth precept regarding white triple robes is established with the intention that: All robes dyed in broken colors (referring to robes that have undergone dyeing) are symbols of the monastic life and the precepts, internally eliminating attachment and externally increasing faith and respect. Now, if one does not dye and wear them, it is not a mark of a 'shramana's' (monk's) 'eye of the path', internally increasing attachment and externally inviting criticism and harm. The fault is not light, so it requires the 'holy establishment' (Buddha's establishment). There are four separate conditions: first, the triple robes; second, one's own property; third, not dyeing and spoiling; fourth, offense upon wearing. This precept arose because the 'Group of Six' monks wore white robes, which the laypeople criticized. The monks reported to the Buddha, who rebuked them and established this precept.
'If a monk obtains a new robe, he should spoil it with three colors, spoiling it at will with any one of the colors, whether blue, black, or 'mulan' (reddish-brown). If a monk does not spoil the remaining new robe with three colors, whether blue, black, or 'mulan', it is a 'pacittiya' (an offense requiring confession).' The complete precept text has three sentences. The first is the offender. The second, from 'obtains a new robe' onwards, teaches the method of dyeing and spoiling. The third, from 'if a monk' onwards, is because of not spoiling and violating the holy teaching, accumulating and wearing it, resulting in an offense. In the explanation of characteristics, the first sentence is known. The second sentence says 'obtains a new robe, should spoil it with three colors', the Vinaya states: 'New robe', whether it is new or initially obtained from someone, is called a new robe. The 'Ten Recitation Vinaya' says: 'Obtaining someone else's old robe, the initial obtaining is also called a new robe.' The three colors mentioned are blue, black, and 'mulan'. The third sentence says 'not spoiling the new robe with three colors, it is a 'pacittiya'', which is a sentence for violating the holy teaching and incurring an offense. The Vinaya states: 'If he obtains a robe and does not make the three spoilings and wears it, he commits a 'thullaccaya' (grave offense).' Whether it is a heavy robe or a light robe, if it is not dedicated and accumulated, he commits a 'dukkhata' (minor offense). If it is not a robe or a bowl.
囊及諸巾。不作凈畜者吉羅。謂點色作凈。一切緣身所受用物。皆須作凈而畜。若未染衣寄白衣家者吉羅。準此言凈者。謂以成色衣。或余物以點著名凈。而並須染壞非謂。二衣須染。餘者但凈而已。若準律文。一切不染皆提。一切不凈皆吉。五分所以作凈者。異外道故。令與俗別作三種記。故失則易覓。多論云。五大色衣不成受。若應量不應量一切不得著。若點著者吉羅。此律犯墮。要三色相現成壞色衣畜者無罪。純色悉犯。祇云。純色不點壞提。著白色衣輕。點凈者不得。並作或一三五七九為點。極大齊四指。極小如豌豆。善見如麻子大。若約四分著白色衣提。不點犯輕。三色之中以一一色壞則成沙門衣。重衣不作凈吉。不得如花形作。浣褺有泥污。鳥足污即名為凈。若新大衣趣一角作。乃至一切衣新細揲亦爾。若眾多碎衣一處合補者。一處作。別者一一作凈。律云。不犯者。若得白衣染作三種色。余輕重乃至內作凈者不犯。
戒疏卷第三
沙門 福慧勘記
寅年十月十一日
比丘 福漸詳閱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『囊及諸巾』（裝東西的袋子和各種手巾），如果不做『凈畜』（通過染色等方式使之成為允許僧侶使用的物品），則犯『吉羅』（一種較輕的罪過）。所謂『作凈』，是指用顏色點染使其成為『凈物』。一切與身體相關的受用之物，都必須『作凈』后才能持有。如果未染色的衣服寄放在俗家，則犯『吉羅』。由此推斷，所謂『凈』，是指用已經染色的衣服，或者其他物品用點染的方式做上標記，使其成為『凈物』，並且必須染壞其原色，並非說兩件衣服需要染色，其餘的只要『作凈』即可。如果按照律文，一切不染色的都犯『提』（一種罪過），一切不『凈』的都犯『吉』（一種罪過）。《五分律》之所以要『作凈』，是爲了區別于外道，使僧侶與世俗有所區別，做三種記號，丟失后容易尋找。《多論》說，五種大色（青、黃、赤、白、黑）的衣服不能接受，無論是否符合尺寸都不能穿。如果點染了，則犯『吉羅』。此律犯『墮』（一種罪過），需要三種顏色相雜，呈現出壞色的衣服才能持有，純色的都犯戒。『祇』（可能是指《祇園律》）說，純色的不點染就犯『提』，穿白色衣服犯輕罪，點『凈』的不得使用，可以用一、三、五、七、九來點染。最大的點染面積齊四指寬，最小的像豌豆那麼大。《善見律》說像麻子那麼大。如果按照《四分律》，穿白色衣服犯『提』，不點染犯輕罪。三種顏色中，用其中一種顏色破壞原色，就成為沙門（出家人）的衣服。貴重的衣服不做『凈』犯『吉』。不得做成花形。洗過的衣服有泥污，或者鳥糞污漬，就可以稱為『凈』。如果是新的大衣，只需在一個角上『作凈』。乃至一切新的細小的衣服也是如此。如果很多碎布縫在一起，只需在一處『作凈』，如果是分開的，則每一處都要『作凈』。律中說，不犯戒的情況是，如果從白衣那裡得到白色的衣服，染成三種顏色，其餘輕重的情況，乃至在裡面『作凈』的，都不犯戒。
《戒疏》卷第三
沙門（出家人） 福慧 勘記
寅年十月十一日
比丘（出家人） 福漸 詳閱
【English Translation】 English version: 『Nang and all cloths』 (bags and various towels), if not 『made pure』 (made into items permissible for monks to use through dyeing, etc.), then commit 『Jiluo』 (a minor offense). 『Making pure』 means using color to dye and make it a 『pure item.』 All items for personal use related to the body must be 『made pure』 before being possessed. If undyed clothes are left at a layperson's home, then commit 『Jiluo.』 From this, 『pure』 means using already dyed clothes, or marking other items with dye to make them 『pure items,』 and the original color must be spoiled. It doesn't mean that two pieces of clothing need to be dyed, and the rest only need to be 『made pure.』 According to the Vinaya text, everything undyed commits 『Ti』 (an offense), and everything not 『pure』 commits 『Ji』 (an offense). The reason why the 『Five-Part Vinaya』 requires 『making pure』 is to distinguish it from other religions, to differentiate monks from the laity, and to make three marks so that they are easy to find if lost. The 『Many Treatises』 say that clothes of the five great colors (blue, yellow, red, white, black) cannot be accepted, and cannot be worn regardless of whether they fit the size. If dyed, then commit 『Jiluo.』 This rule commits 『Duoluo』 (an offense), requiring clothes mixed with three colors, presenting a spoiled color, to be possessed; pure colors are all violations. 『Qi』 (possibly referring to the 『Jetavana Vinaya』) says that pure colors without dyeing commit 『Ti,』 wearing white clothes is a minor offense, and those 『made pure』 cannot be used. One, three, five, seven, or nine can be used for dyeing. The largest dyed area is four fingers wide, and the smallest is the size of a pea. The 『Good View Vinaya』 says it is the size of a sesame seed. According to the 『Four-Part Vinaya,』 wearing white clothes commits 『Ti,』 and not dyeing commits a minor offense. Among the three colors, spoiling the original color with one of them makes it a Shramana (monk's) garment. Expensive clothes not 『made pure』 commit 『Ji.』 It must not be made into a flower shape. Washed clothes with mud stains or bird droppings are called 『pure.』 If it is a new large garment, it only needs to be 『made pure』 on one corner. The same applies to all new small clothes. If many scraps of cloth are sewn together, only one place needs to be 『made pure』; if they are separated, each place must be 『made pure.』 The Vinaya says that there is no offense if white clothes are obtained from a layperson and dyed into three colors, and there is no offense for other minor or major situations, or even 『making pure』 inside.
『Precept Commentary』 Volume 3
Shramana (monk) Fuhui, Examined and Recorded
Eleventh day of the tenth month of the Yin year
Bhikkhu (monk) Fujian, Reviewed in Detail