四分律行事鈔資持記 3.41

3.41

第七明多少中，初文。若據諸律重作，或以布通縵，或兩衣縫合；今準《感通傳》，天人示法，逐相填之。彼敘天人問云：大衣重作，師比行之。然於葉下乃有三重，豈得然耶？即問其所作。便執余衣以示之。此葉相者，表於稻田之塍壃也。以割截衣段，就裏刺之，去葉[麩-夫+廣]麥已後。此則條內表田，葉上表渠相，豈不然耶！今則通以布縵，一非割截，二又多重。既非本制，非無著著之失。問：下引《多論》，摘分持行，豈非多衣重沓邪？答：祖師爾前並依論作，垂終感聖，方復改之。故此傳文，決了三藏不明之事；如坐具四增安左臂等，世並行之，何獨疑此。縱欲通縵，準論應得，但非截多重之難，無以通之。問：大衣單作，加受成否？疏云：得成受持，著用得罪。

In the seventh, explaining the number of layers, in the first passage: Relying on the various Vinayas, making it layered is either done by backing it entirely with cloth, or by sewing two robes together. Now, relying on the Gantong zhuan (Account of Spiritual Resonance), a celestial being revealed the method of filling them sequentially according to their markings. That text recounts the celestial asking: 'Regarding making the great robe double-layered, you have recently practiced this. Yet beneath the borders there are actually three layers; how could that be permissible?' He then asked about how it was made, whereupon [the Patriarch] took his robe and showed it to him. 'These marks of borders represent the balks and borders of paddy fields. By taking cut pieces of robe cloth and stitching them on the inside, keeping them away from the borders by the width of a barleycorn, the inside of the strips represents fields and above the borders represents irrigation ditches; how could it be otherwise!' Now, however, people line it throughout with cloth: first, it is not cut and severed; second, it has multiple layers. Since it is not the original regulation, it is not without the fault of wearing it. Question: Below, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā is cited as allowing tearing it into parts to carry it on the road; is that not multiple robes folded over one another? Answer: Prior to that, the Patriarchal Master followed the treatises entirely; only near the end of his life, when moved by the holy manifestation, did he revise it. Therefore, the text of this account resolves matters that were not clear in the Tripiṭaka. Just as with adding four borders to the nisīdana or placing it on the left arm, etc., which are practiced generally in the world, why doubt this alone? Even if one wishes to line it throughout with cloth, relying on the treatises it should be permissible, but the objection that it is not cut and has multiple layers cannot be resolved. Question: If the great robe is made single-layered, is the formal reception valid? The Commentary states: 'The formal reception and retention are achieved, but wearing it incurs an offense.'