四分律行事鈔資持記 3.28

3.28

In refuting improper appropriations: first, it refutes the use of spurious sūtras. That sūtra divides the robe colors of the five schools, stating that the Mahāsāṃghikas wear yellow, the Mahīśāsakas wear red, the Dharmaguptakas wear black, the Kāśyapīyas wear mangosteen, and the Sarvāstivādins wear deep crimson. (Because it places the Mahāsāṃghika among the five schools, root and branches are not distinguished; furthermore, the Vātsīputrīya school is missing among the five schools.) Although this was refuted, the Meaning Commentary quotes it again; its intention is not clear. Furthermore, the Śāriputra-paripṛcchā-sūtra states that the Mahāsāṃghika and Kāśyapīya are the same as above, the Dharmaguptaka wears red, the Sarvāstivāda wears black, and the Mahīśāsaka wears blue. However, clothing adapts to the times and is not necessarily fixed; that the two sūtras give differing accounts is not enough to raise doubts. Even if one relies on their texts, it is merely a confusion of names; as with the dark blue and black of the various schools, how could they be primary colors! Next, beginning from "the Four-Part", the Vinaya and treatises are cited to verify that it is improper. The Four-Part states that one is defiled according to any of the three colors; the Sudarśana says that this was on account of being robbed, from which one clearly knows that the five great [colors] are inherently not in accordance with the Dharma. The text of the commentary has two sections: the former determines the color characteristics, because the names are confused; the latter makes a determination based on the text, for fear of erroneous attachments.