四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.120

2.120

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.