四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.121

2.121

《多論》：得應量、不應量衣，即說淨者益善；若不說，至十日無咎。若不作淨、不受持，至十一日地了時，應量者，捨作提懺；不應量者，同前。《善見》：若一處縛束，一罪；若不縛束，計衣段段，明相出，隨處得罪。問：能染應量，所染云何？答：通應不應。如足食竟，正不正俱犯足。若能染是不應量財，而染應量不？答大小雖殊，捨懺義一；律結大提，論結小吉，故皆一染。《僧祇》云：若二人共物未分，若施僧物分未入手，病人囑授物未與，若聞受戒弟子知識送衣未入手，若貿衣決價未入手，若織衣未入手；雖過十日，皆不犯捨。若施僧衣，未分者，雖久不犯。若已分、多人共分，中有善毘尼人，為眾人作淨，無犯；不作，過十日犯捨（此是共活人，前句不共活也）。律中，邊方開五事，長衣入手十日方犯；準此，餘方未必手捉始犯。《伽論》云：十日衣云何為犯？謂入手、若膝上、肩上，作想是我物，從是數過十日。《明了論》：有物眼所至得，非身至得，入算數者；如人施衣穌等，但作屬己意，過日犯。有身至得，非眼至得；有眼身至得。非算數者，若人不許自受，擬施三寶。有非二至得，亦入算數。《四分》中：若初日得衣，二日不得，乃至十一日，通皆不犯。如是等類，具有八門，通不相染；餘無法緣是犯。二者中間淨施，三遣與人，四者失衣，五者故壞（謂風火水濕，隨緣灼爛），六作非衣（謂非服用，㡌襪之屬），七親厚意（以非己物故），八若忘去（以心迷故。或忘財體，若忘加法，並開十日）。律又云：若捨墮衣，不捨，更貿餘衣；一尼薩耆，一突吉羅。昔以財去，畜心染犯。論中不爾。《多》云：若先應量捨墮物，即作應量不應量衣，此衣盡捨作提懺；若先不應量捨墮物，作前二衣，並捨作吉羅懺。二若先應量捨墮物，更貿得衣財，即作二衣；此衣不懺，懺先提罪（準此，後衣無染）。若不應量，貿得二衣，不捨；已入淨故，懺先突吉羅。上律結一尼薩耆者，謂前衣墮罪；一吉羅者，謂不懺輒貿，違佛語故。律云：尼薩耆衣不捨，不應與人，乃至作三衣等。

The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: "When one obtains cloth that meets or does not meet the standard measure, it is best to perform the formal assignment immediately; if one does not perform it, there is no fault up to ten days. If one neither performs the formal assignment nor formally receives and maintains it, then on the eleventh day when the ground is distinguishable, if it meets the standard measure, one relinquishes it and confesses with a pāyattika; if it does not meet the standard measure, it is treated as above." The Samantapāsādikā states: "If bundled in one place, it is a single offense; if not bundled, counting piece by piece of cloth, as the appearance of dawn arises, one incurs offenses according to their locations." Question: "When an active defiler [robe] meets the standard measure, what about the passive defiler [robe]?" Answer: "It applies whether it meets or does not meet the standard measure. Just as with finishing a sufficient meal, whether lawful or unlawful food, both incur an offense of eating beyond sufficiency. If the active defiler is material that does not meet the standard measure, does it defile that which meets the standard measure?" Answer: "Although large and small differ, the principle of relinquishment and confession is one; the Vinaya establishes the major pāyattika, while the Vibhāṣā establishes the minor duṣkṛta, and thus all constitute a single defilement." The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: "If it is property shared between two persons and not yet divided; if it is property donated to the saṃgha whose allotted share has not yet reached one's hands; if it is property entrusted by a sick person that has not yet been handed over; if one hears that an upasampadā disciple or friend has sent cloth, but it has not reached one's hands; if one trades for cloth and settles the price, but it has not reached one's hands; if cloth is being woven, but has not reached one's hands—in all these cases, even if ten days have passed, none incur an offense of relinquishment. If it is cloth donated to the saṃgha that is undivided, even after a long time there is no offense. If it has already been divided and shared among many people, and among them is someone skilled in the Vinaya who performs the formal assignment on behalf of the multitude, there is no offense; if he does not perform it, passing ten days incurs an offense of relinquishment (this refers to those living communally; the preceding clause refers to those not living communally)." In the Vinaya, five allowances are granted in border regions, where an extra robe must be in one's hands for ten days before an offense is incurred; based on this, in other regions it is not necessarily that one must physically hold it before committing an offense. The Saṃghabhedavastu states: "How is the ten-day robe an offense? It means that when it reaches one's hands, or on one's knees, or on one's shoulders, and one conceives the thought, 'This is my property,' counting from that point, ten days elapse." The Vinayavibhāṣā states: "There is property acquired where the eyes reach, not where the body reaches, which enters into the count: for instance, when someone donates cloth, clarified butter, and so on, if one merely forms the intention that it belongs to oneself, passing the days constitutes an offense. There is that acquired where the body reaches, not where the eyes reach; and that acquired where both eyes and body reach. That which does not enter into the count is when a person does not permit oneself to receive it, intending to donate it to the Three Jewels. There is also that which is acquired where neither reaches, which also enters into the count." In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya: "If on the first day one obtains cloth, but on the second day one does not, up to the eleventh day, throughout there is no offense." Such categories fully possess eight doors, none of which defile each other; in the remaining cases without a valid circumstance, it is an offense. The second is an intervening formal assignment; the third is sending it to give to another person; the fourth is losing the cloth; the fifth is intentional destruction (meaning by wind, fire, water, or dampness, being burnt or rotten according to circumstances); the sixth is making it into non-clothing (meaning not for wearing, belonging to the class of caps and socks); the seventh is the intention of intimate friendship (because it is not one's own property); the eighth is forgetting it (because the mind is confused; whether one forgets the substance of the property or forgets the formal rite, both allow ten days). The Vinaya also states: "If cloth subject to relinquishing pāyattika is not relinquished, and one trades it for other cloth, there is one niḥsargika and one duṣkṛta." In the past, this was because the property was gone, but the intent to store defiled and incurred an offense. In the treatises it is not so. The Vibhāṣā states: "If it was previously material of standard measure subject to relinquishing pāyattika, and one makes it into cloth of standard or non-standard measure, this cloth must be relinquished entirely and confessed with a pāyattika; if it was previously material of non-standard measure subject to relinquishing pāyattika, and one makes the aforementioned two kinds of cloth, both are relinquished and confessed with a duṣkṛta. Second, if it was previously material of standard measure subject to relinquishing pāyattika, and one trades it to obtain cloth material, and then makes the two kinds of cloth, this cloth is not confessed, but one confesses the previous pāyattika offense (based on this, the later cloth has no defilement). If it was of non-standard measure, and one trades to obtain the two kinds of cloth, one does not relinquish them; because it has already entered into formal purification, one confesses the previous duṣkṛta." The Vinaya's establishment above of one niḥsargika refers to the previous cloth's pāyattika offense; the one duṣkṛta refers to trading without confessing, because of disobeying the Buddha's words. The Vinaya states: "If a niḥsargika robe is not relinquished, it should not be given to others, nor even made into the three robes, and so forth."