四分律行事鈔資持記 3.41

3.41

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.'