四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1280

2.1280

In explaining the third: in the first heading, the *Dharmaguptaka-vinaya* first determines the appearance of the color. From 'That' onward, distinguishing the offense divides into two: first, explaining not dyeing. From 'If heavy' onward, next explaining not marking as purified; the above lists the remaining garments. 'Heavy' refers to quilts and mattresses; 'light' refers to body aids. Below, it indicates what is not a garment; its marks can be understood. From 'If not yet' onward, it explains depositing them in a lay household. The note has two meanings: first, up to 'destroying by dyeing,' it clarifies that the method of marking as purified must involve dyeing throughout. 'Forming color' means already dyed. Applying patches or marking with spots—with these two kinds of purification, whichever one is done completes it. From 'Not' onward, it extends by analogy to other garments. From 'If' onward, it determines the offense according to the text. Because the previous text merely says, 'If one obtains a robe and does not discolor it, it is a pāyattika,' one knows it broadly encompasses all. If based on the enumerated conditions, it only refers to the three robes; perhaps that was formulated following the circumstance, or perhaps this is discussed in terms of urgency—ponder this. However, destroying the color of other garments only refers to body aids that can be dyed; therefore the *Precept Commentary* says: 'It does not mean that dyeing towels and shoes with the three colors to further startle the laity would not be extremely laughable.' (Hence we know towels and socks only need to be purified by spotting.)