四分律行事鈔資持記 3.242

3.242

三中，三段，初正判。儀云：由體是應法，即堪改轉還類法衣，如律受淨。若爾，錦衣亦聽壞色而畜，理應入輕。答：儀云：不同錦繡㲩𣰆，染則可得如法；未染體是班文綺錯，外相五彩分炳；又佛正斷在重，無宜抑例通分是也。若下，二斥非。儀云：有人云：真緋正紫大色上染，佛斷不服；著得墮罪，故須入重。今不具引，直牒彼計，引類難破。絹布不出黃白二色，同是五大，亦不許著，而判在輕。故知不可但據佛制不著，便謂入重。若爾下，例難。𣰽毹前有兩斷，彼謂入輕，乃是約量；入重正是約色，故有此難。答中。初明入輕，但離綺錯；縱純上色，亦判入輕。故知但分文之純雜，不論色之如非。故引《五分》為證，彼云：錦綺毛𣯊等不應分，若純色者應分。

In the third, there are three sections: first, the principal determination. The Ceremonial Standard states: "Because their substance complies with the Dharma, they can be altered to resemble Dharma robes again, and received and purified as in the Vinaya." If so, brocade robes are also permitted to be kept after corrupting the colour, so in principle they should be reckoned as light. Answer: The Ceremonial Standard states: "Unlike brocade, embroidery, and rugs, which when dyed can be made compliant with the Dharma, before being dyed their substance is variegated with intricate patterns, their external marks of five colours distinct and bright; furthermore, the Buddha specifically decreed they are heavy, so it is improper to force the precedent to allow distribution across the board." Below "if", second, it refutes the error. The Ceremonial Standard states: "Someone said: 'Pure crimson, pure purple, and superior dyeings of the great colours were decreed by the Buddha not to be worn; wearing them incurs a pāyattika offense, therefore they must be reckoned as heavy.'" Here it is not cited in full, but merely notes their position and cites analogous categories to refute it: Silk and cloth do not exceed the two colours of yellow and white, which are also among the five great colours, and are also not permitted to be worn, yet they are judged to be light. Thus one knows that one cannot merely rely on the Buddha prohibiting them from being worn to claim they are reckoned as heavy. Below "if so", it raises an objection by analogy. Previously there were two determinations regarding woollen rugs; the other claimed that being light was based on measurement, whereas being heavy was precisely based on colour, hence this objection. In the answer: first it clarifies that to be light, it merely needs to be free of intricate patterns; even if of a pure, superior colour, it is still judged to be light. Thus one knows it only distinguishes between plain and variegated patterns, regardless of whether the colour conforms to the rules or not. Therefore it cites the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya as proof, which says: "Brocade, intricate patterns, and woollen rugs are not to be distributed; if of a solid colour, they should be distributed."