四分律行事鈔資持記 3.65

3.65

尼法，初科又二，初總示。十下，列法。厥修羅，即《四分》僧祇支，故云國語不同。《經音義》翻為掩腋衣，謂覆左腋著帶繫右腋下，長七尺二，廣四尺五。次加覆肩，文略初二句，例上加之。注中以上二法，並牒肘量，當時製造多乖本式，故須改張，則事法相稱；故《業疏》云：尼受二衣，覆肩肘量，薄有所承；祇支全改，文雖約量，漸訛變也。準《羯磨》改云：大姉一心念！我比丘尼某甲，此僧祇支如法作，我受持。（覆肩同此。）問：此是尼衣，僧開畜不？答：準尼戒中，尼離五衣俱提。僧離二衣犯吉，明知得作百一受持。但尼是制物，僧入聽衣。問：僧得著否？答：準《住法圖贊》，阿難容質姝好，女見生愛，故獨聽之。古來僧徒，亦多著者，故《圖贊》斥云：今時僥倖而妄服者濫矣，是也。問：今僧為可著不？答：雖有此斥，而不全廢。然西土袒露為禮，此方服飾成儀。若據方土所尚，不可不著。問：若爾，今學律者，何以不著？答：是人皆著，敦云不著。但世人不識褊衫，即是祇支覆肩二物，故復於其上重更覆耳；當知褊衫右邊，即是覆肩；但順此方，縫合兩袖，截領開裾，猶存本相，豈不然耶。今有堅執重著者。應須問曰：覆肩本為露膞，故令覆之；子今內有衫襖，上有褊衫，有何露處，苦欲更覆。有云著之生善者。若爾，是僧須著，何獨新戒！聽律之人，則須生善。餘宗不著，應生不善。況輕紗紫染，儀相囂浮；人興流俗之譏，教有婬女之責；塵翳釋門，何善之有！又云：律學須著，要分宗途者。且同稱釋氏，稟佛為師；三學齊修，威儀一制。機緣徵薄，不可通弘；是故三藏分宗，三師競化。而云服飾標異，未之前聞。但由不學愚癡，任情妄述。聞義不徙，斯妄何窮。

Regarding the rules for nuns, the first section has two parts: first, a general indication. "Ten... below" lists the rules. The juexiuluo (厥修羅, kusūlaka) is the saṃkakṣikā of the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya; hence it says "the languages of the regions differ." The Sounds and Meanings of the Scriptures translates it as "armpit-covering robe," meaning that it covers the left armpit and has ties fastened under the right armpit; it is seven feet two inches long and four feet five inches wide. Next, the shoulder-covering robe is ritually added; the text omits the first two phrases, which should be added following the analogy above. In the note, because the above two procedures both recite the cubit measurement, and robes made at that time often diverged from the original pattern, it is necessary to revise them so that the physical item matches the rule. Hence the Karma Commentary states: "When nuns receive the two robes, the cubit measurement of the shoulder-covering robe still faintly preserves the lineage, but the saṃkakṣikā has been completely altered; though the text stipulates the measurement, it has gradually become corrupted and changed." According to the Karmavācanā, it is emended to say: "Elder Sister, pay single-minded attention! I, the bhikṣuṇī named so-and-so, receive and maintain this saṃkakṣikā, which has been made in accordance with the Dharma." (The shoulder-covering robe is the same as this.) Question: "These are robes for nuns; are monks permitted to keep them?" Answer: "According to the nuns' precepts, if a nun is separated from any of the five robes, it is a pāyattika in all cases. If a monk is separated from these two robes, it is a duṣkṛta; this clearly shows that he may keep and maintain them as part of the hundred-and-one items. However, for nuns they are mandatory articles, while for monks they fall under permitted robes." Question: "May monks wear them?" Answer: "According to the Illustrated Praise of the Residence of the Dharma, Ānanda's countenance was beautiful and graceful, and women gave rise to lust upon seeing him; hence he alone was permitted it. Ancient monks also frequently wore it; therefore the Illustrated Praise criticizes them, saying: 'Nowadays, those who opportunistically and improperly wear it are confused and disorderly'—this is what it means." Question: "May contemporary monks wear it?" Answer: "Although there is this criticism, it is not completely discarded. However, baring the shoulder is an etiquette in the Western Regions, whereas [full] vestments constitute proper demeanour in this land. Judged by what is valued in this land, one cannot fail to wear it." Question: "If so, why do those who study the Vinaya nowadays not wear it?" Answer: "Everyone wears it; who says they do not? It is just that people of the world do not realize that the bian-robe (褊衫) is itself these two items, the saṃkakṣikā and the shoulder-covering robe, and therefore drape another layer over it. One should know that the right side of the bian-robe is precisely the shoulder-covering robe; merely in accordance with this land, the two sleeves were sewn together, the collar cut, and the hem split, while still preserving the original form—how could it be otherwise? Nowadays there are those who stubbornly insist on wearing it as an extra layer. One should ask them: 'The shoulder-covering robe was originally intended for a bare shoulder, which is why it was ordered to be covered. You now have an undershirt and an unlined garment inside, and a bian-robe on top; what is exposed that you so desperately wish to cover it again?' Some say that wearing it generates wholesome roots. If so, then every monk should wear it; why only the newly ordained? Must only those who listen to the Vinaya generate wholesome roots, while other schools that do not wear it generate unwholesomeness? Moreover, light gauze dyed purple creates a haughty and superficial demeanor; people raise worldly ridicule, and the scriptures contain the rebuke of courtesans. Defiling the gate of Śākya, what wholesome root could there be! Furthermore, they say: 'Those who study the Vinaya must wear it to distinguish the paths of the schools.' Yet all are called Śākya's descendants, taking the Buddha as teacher; the three trainings are cultivated together, and the deportment is unified by one regulation. Because capacities and conditions were shallow and slight, they could not be comprehensively disseminated; therefore the Tripiṭaka divided into schools, and the three masters vied in teaching. But to say that robes and vestments should mark differences—this has never been heard of before! It is merely because the ignorant do not study and give free rein to their sentiments to fabricate falsehoods. Hearing righteousness without changing, when will such delusions ever end?"