四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1280

2.1280

釋第三中，初科，《四分》，初定色相。彼下辨犯，分二，初明不染。若重下，次明不作淨，上列餘衣。重謂被褥，輕即助身。下示非衣。其相可解。若未下，明寄俗舍。注有二意，初至染壞，明作淨之法必須通染。言成色者，即已染也。物貼點著，此二種淨，隨一即成。非下，例通餘衣。若下，準文決犯。以前文但云得衣不壞者墮，則知通該一切。若據列緣，唯約三衣；或可彼從緣制，或是此就急論，思之。然餘衣染壞，但據助身可染者為言；故《戒疏》云：非謂巾屣以三色染更成驚俗，可笑之甚。（故知巾襪但須點淨。）

In explaining the third: in the first heading, the *Dharmaguptaka-vinaya* first determines the appearance of the color. From 'That' onward, distinguishing the offense divides into two: first, explaining not dyeing. From 'If heavy' onward, next explaining not marking as purified; the above lists the remaining garments. 'Heavy' refers to quilts and mattresses; 'light' refers to body aids. Below, it indicates what is not a garment; its marks can be understood. From 'If not yet' onward, it explains depositing them in a lay household. The note has two meanings: first, up to 'destroying by dyeing,' it clarifies that the method of marking as purified must involve dyeing throughout. 'Forming color' means already dyed. Applying patches or marking with spots—with these two kinds of purification, whichever one is done completes it. From 'Not' onward, it extends by analogy to other garments. From 'If' onward, it determines the offense according to the text. Because the previous text merely says, 'If one obtains a robe and does not discolor it, it is a pāyattika,' one knows it broadly encompasses all. If based on the enumerated conditions, it only refers to the three robes; perhaps that was formulated following the circumstance, or perhaps this is discussed in terms of urgency—ponder this. However, destroying the color of other garments only refers to body aids that can be dyed; therefore the *Precept Commentary* says: 'It does not mean that dyeing towels and shoes with the three colors to further startle the laity would not be extremely laughable.' (Hence we know towels and socks only need to be purified by spotting.)