四分律行事鈔資持記 3.26

3.26

《婆論》三節，初明點淨；袈裟下，次示翻名；真紫下，三簡非色。初中又二，初明五正開作餘衣。三點謂三色點。紺謂青赤色，即木蘭異名。得皂下，二別簡正間得不之相。皂即黑色（準應非正）。及木蘭皆應法。赤白黃亦得者，謂同青碧，作衣裏用。翻名，云染即是正翻；但語通如非，故前注中加不正色三字助之，名義方顯。如結愛者，舉例顯義；結愛煩惱，染污淨心；以色染物，義亦同此。（如墨子見染絲而悲之類。）簡非中。真紫即紫草染者。蘇方，木名，今時蘇木是也。地黃，謂土黃。柰黃，用柰皮染者。花黃，謂紅花槐花等染。甞考大藏，但有青黑木蘭三色如法。今時沙門，多尚紫服。按唐紀，則天朝，薛懷義亂於宮庭；則天寵用，令參朝議；以僧衣色異，因令服紫袈裟，帶金龜袋；後偽撰《大雲經》，結十僧作疏進上，復賜十僧紫衣龜袋。由此弊源一洩，于今不返。無知俗子，濫跡釋門，不務內修，唯誇外飾。矧乃輒預耆年之上，僣稱大聖之名，國家之所未詳，僧門之所不舉。致使貪婪嗇悋之輩，各逞奢華；少欲清淨之風，於茲墜滅。且儒宗人倫之教，則五正為衣；釋門出世之儀，則正間俱離。故《論語》云：紅紫不以為褻服。（褻服，私服也；決云：不為褻服，則公服可知矣。）文中子云：君子非黃白不衣，尚非俗禮所許，豈是出世正儀。況律論明文，判為非法。苟不信受，安則為之；又學律者，畜不淨財，買非法服；及講至此，目矚相違，遂飾己過以誑後生；便云：律中違王制犯吉，我依王制耳。且《多論》明違王制，乃謂比丘不遵國禁。如今國家束約僧徒，二十出家，係名簿藉；出外執憑帶持禁物，似此等事，有違結犯。何甞禁僧不聽著褐。如此說者，豈唯誹謗正法，抑亦不識王制。《涅槃》所謂，如何此人舌不卷縮；諒有生報，故未彰現相耳。

The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā text has three sections: first, it explains marking for purification; next, beginning from "kaṣāya", it presents the translation of the name; and third, beginning from "genuine purple", it distinguishes improper colors. Within the first, there are also two parts: first, it explains that the five primary colors are permitted to be made into other garments. The "three spots" refer to spots of three colors. "Dark cyan" refers to a bluish-red color, which is another name for mangosteen. Next, beginning from "black is permissible", the second part separately distinguishes whether primary and secondary colors are permissible or not. "Black" is sable (by rule, it should not be a primary color). It and mangosteen both accord with the Dharma. That "red, white, and yellow are also permissible" means that, like green and turquoise, they may be used for robe linings. As for translating the name, to say "dyed" is indeed the correct translation; however, the term applies to both proper and improper colors, so in the earlier note, three characters—"improper color"—were added to assist it, whereupon both the name and its meaning became distinct. As in the case of "fetters of craving", an analogy is raised to make the meaning plain: the afflictions of fettering craving defile the pure mind; dyeing an object with color is of the same meaning as this. (Such as Mozi weeping upon seeing dyed silk.) In distinguishing improper colors: "Genuine purple" means dyed with gromwell root. "Sappan" is the name of a tree, which is the sappanwood of today. "Earth yellow" means loam yellow. "Crabapple yellow" is that dyed with crabapple bark. "Flower yellow" means dyed with safflower, pagoda-tree flowers, and so forth. Having examined the Great Canon, only the three colors—cyan, black, and mangosteen—accord with the Dharma. Nowadays, śramaṇas mostly favor purple robes. According to the Tang records, during the reign of Zetian, Xue Huaiyi threw the imperial palace into turmoil; Zetian favored and employed him, ordering him to participate in court deliberations. Because the colors of monastic robes were distinctive, she thereby ordered him to wear a purple kaṣāya and carry a golden tortoise pouch. Later, having spuriously composed the Great Cloud Sūtra, he assembled ten monks to write a commentary and present it to the throne, whereupon the ten monks were likewise bestowed purple robes and tortoise pouches. Because this source of corruption once burst forth, down to the present day there has been no return. Ignorant worldly fellows have deceitfully slipped into the Śākya gate; not attending to inner cultivation, they boast only of outer adornments. How much worse that they rashly place themselves above venerable elders and presumptuously claim the titles of Great Sages—something not closely investigated by the state, nor denounced by the monastic community. This has led greedy and miserly sorts each to vie in luxury and extravagance, while the pure traditions of few desires have thereby perished. Furthermore, according to the teachings on human relations of the Confucian school, one wears the five primary colors; according to the world-transcending deportment of the Śākya gate, one abandons both primary and secondary colors. Thus the Analects state: "Red and purple are not used for informal wear." (Informal wear is private dress; if it explicitly says not to use them for informal wear, then the rule for public dress is obvious.) Wenzhongzi says: "Unless a gentleman wears yellow or white, he does not dress." If it is not even permitted by secular propriety, how could it be the proper deportment for transcending the world? Moreover, the explicit texts of the Vinaya and treatises judge it to be against the Dharma. If one does not accept this with faith, how can one practice it at ease? Furthermore, students of the Vinaya store up impure wealth to purchase unlawful robes; when lecturing comes to this point, their eyes behold the contradiction, so they gloss over their own faults to deceive the younger generation, immediately saying: "In the Vinaya, violating the royal ordinances incurs a duṣkṛta; I am simply following the royal ordinances." But when the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā explains violating royal ordinances, it means a bhikṣu disobeying state prohibitions. As nowadays when the state binds and regulates monastics: leaving household life at twenty, having one's name registered in the registers; having verification documents and carrying prohibited items when traveling abroad—in matters such as these, violations constitute an offense. When did the state ever prohibit monks, disallowing them from wearing coarse brown? Those who speak thus not only slander the true Dharma, but also fail to understand royal ordinances. As the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: how is it that this person's tongue does not shrivel up? Surely their retribution belongs to a future life, which is why the physical signs have not yet become manifest.