四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.120

2.120

初長衣過限戒。《多論》三意：一因開畜長，貪於俗利，壞道功德財；二比丘積貯，與俗無別，失信敬心；三違佛四依，非節儉行故。具六緣犯。一是已長衣，謂三衣之外財也。《四分》云：長衣者，長如來八指，廣四指是也。《多論》云：佛指面廣二寸。準前姬周尺，長一尺六寸，廣八寸也。若長廣互過減，皆不結犯，要二俱過。《多論》云：餘不應量者，過限捨，作吉羅懺。故須俱說。《十誦》七種衣不作淨施：三衣、坐具、雨衣、覆瘡衣，第七及百一供身具。《多論》：三衣雖不受，日過無犯，但有缺衣、壞威儀二罪。若本說淨，今作三衣；即失本淨，以三衣無長可防故。又捨此衣，更受餘衣；前衣說淨，不者犯長。又比丘有緣得褻，指作三衣，則不犯長。若一衣三肘五肘外，有長說淨。問：月望衣不割簪縫，過日犯者？答：彼中先有故者堪受持故；須作衣相，方免長過。上論文指，先無三衣者耳。已上諸文，故須第一是己長衣。《鼻奈耶》云：以一日所成故。二雖知是長，若忘等緣，則無有罪，故二明屬己定；三應量之財（綿毛之類，體非衣攝，不合）；四不說淨；五無因緣，謂迦提一月、五月等；六過十日，便犯。

First is the rule on keeping an extra robe past the limit. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā gives three purposes: first, because allowing the keeping of extras leads to greed for worldly gain and destroys the spiritual wealth of path merits; second, if bhikṣus hoard goods, they do not differ from the laity and lose people's faith and respect; third, it violates the Buddha's four reliances and is not a frugal practice. Incurred through six conditions: First, it must be an extra robe belonging to oneself, meaning property beyond the three robes. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: 'An extra robe is eight Sugata-fingerbreadths in length and four fingerbreadths in width.' The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: 'The face of the Buddha's finger is two inches wide.' Following the former standard of the Ji Zhou ruler, this is one foot six inches in length and eight inches in width. If it exceeds in length but falls short in width, or vice versa, an offense is not established in either case; both must be exceeded. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: 'Other cloth not meeting the measure should be forfeited when the limit is exceeded, and confessed as a duṣkṛta.' Therefore both must be stated. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya lists seven types of robes not subject to formal assignment: the three robes, the sitting mat, the rain-cloak, the bandage robe, and the seventh, the hundred and one personal requisites. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: 'Although the three robes are not formally accepted, when the day passes there is no offense, but there are two offenses of lacking a robe and marring deportment. If a cloth was originally assigned, and is now made into one of the three robes, it immediately loses its original assignment, because the three robes cannot be kept as extras against which one must guard. Furthermore, if one relinquishes this robe and accepts another, the previous robe must be assigned; otherwise one incurs an offense of keeping an extra. Moreover, if a bhikṣu due to circumstances acquires an undergarment and designates it as one of the three robes, he does not incur an offense of keeping an extra. If beyond three or five cubits of a robe there is excess cloth, it must be assigned.' Question: 'If the robe received on the full moon is not cut, basted, and sewn, and the day passes, is an offense incurred?' Answer: 'There, because an old robe already existed and was capable of being maintained, one must fashion the robe's form before one can avoid the fault of keeping an extra robe. What the treatise text refers to above applies only to one who previously lacked the three robes.' Because of all the texts above, the first condition must be that it is an extra robe belonging to oneself. The Vinaya [Vibhāṣā] says: 'Because it is made in a single day.' Second, although knowing it is an extra, if through forgetting or other circumstances [it is kept], there is no fault; hence the second clarifies that it definitively belongs to oneself. Third, it is material meeting the measure (materials like cotton and wool, whose substance is not classified as a robe, do not qualify). Fourth, it has not been assigned. Fifth, there are no special circumstances, namely the one month or five months of kaṭhina. Sixth, ten days elapse, whereupon the offense is incurred.