四分律行事鈔資持記 2.613

2.613

次科，初二句出古解。彼謂貿得新衣，為前衣染犯，故尼薩耆。不合箸用，故突吉羅。論下，引斥；文有二段，初明捨懺。後雖更改，皆從本犯。應及不應，二種相別。（上是因引，下文正用。）二衣即應量不應量，下同。二若下，正明貿易。文明後衣不懺不捨，頗見昔非。已入淨者，新衣無染，應淨法故。

In the next section, the first two sentences present the ancient interpretation. They held that the newly obtained bartered robe was contaminated by the preceding robe and became a violation, hence a niḥsargika-pācattika. Because it is not permissible to wear and use, it is a duṣkṛta. From "The treatise" down, it cites and refutes it; the text has two parts. First, it clarifies forfeiture and deśanā. Even if subsequently altered, all follow the original violation. Being of standard measurement and not of standard measurement are two distinct types. (The above is an incidental citation; the text below is its proper application.) The "two robes" are those of standard measurement and not of standard measurement, and the same applies below. Second, from "If" down, it directly clarifies bartering. The text clarifies that for the subsequent robe one does not perform deśanā and does not forfeit it, which considerably exposes the ancient error. As for what has already entered purificatory transfer, the new robe is free from contamination because it complies with the purificatory dharma.