四分比丘戒本疏 2.11

2.11

第三、替故三衣續辦新財隨至一月戒，南山名為月望衣，戒舊名一月衣戒，義並微隱，故改之也。戒本五句：一、容犯人；二、除開緣，以作衣時無長過故；三、催令疾成。文言「得非時衣」者，謂出一月五月作衣時外待新裁者，名非時衣也。於此非時十日已還，以是常開不須疾成。至第十日，若得財足即日疾成；若其不足，開至十一，十一若足即日疾成。若其不足，開至十二日，展轉相望乃至二十九日，皆有即日疾成之義，故云疾疾成衣也。又云「若足者善」，謂有二十箇疾成之善也。四、正明續辦新財隨至一月也。文言「若不足者得畜經一月」者，從第十日至二十九日，凡有二十日續辦未足，許至三十日畜，未犯長罪，故云得畜一月也。文云「為滿足故」者，謂有二十箇續辦，為滿足故也。五、結過畜之罪。至三十日，無問新財足與不足，即須說淨、或遣與人、或作衣等。過三十日，一向犯罪，故云然也。古來相傳釋此戒意，上行之人但畜三衣，舊衣故壞，但堪受持不堪著用。今得新財不擬說淨，故聽待足極至一月。今詳，恐未必然。若上行人不欲說淨，至三十日如何忽然即遣說淨破上行志也？故知標心為替故衣，即得延畜，不簡上行也。

Third: the precept regarding seeking new material to replace old robes of the set of three up to one month. Nanshan named this the precept of robes awaited for a month; of old it was named the one-month robe precept. As both meanings are subtle and obscure, it is emended here. The prātimokṣa text has five clauses: first, allowing for the perpetrator; second, excluding exceptional conditions, because during the robe-making time there is no fault of extra robes; third, urging prompt completion. The text says "obtains an out-of-season robe": this means that outside the one-month or five-month robe-making period, when one awaits newly cut material, it is called an "out-of-season robe." For ten days within this out-of-season period, because this is an ordinary exemption, one does not need to complete it promptly. On the tenth day, if one has obtained sufficient material, it must be completed promptly on that day; if it is insufficient, an exemption is granted up to the eleventh day; if it is sufficient on the eleventh day, it must be completed promptly on that day. If it is insufficient, an exemption is granted up to the twelfth day, and applying this successively up to the twenty-ninth day, every day holds the sense of requiring prompt completion on that day; hence it says "promptly complete the robe." It also says "if it is sufficient, it is good," which means there are twenty instances of the goodness of prompt completion. Fourth: properly clarifying the continuing search for new material up to one month. The text says: "If it is insufficient, one is permitted to keep it for up to one month": from the tenth day to the twenty-ninth day, there are twenty days in all during which continuing to acquire material has not yet reached sufficiency, and one is permitted to keep it until the thirtieth day without committing the offence of keeping extra robes; hence it says "permitted to keep it for one month." The text says "in order to make it sufficient": this means there are twenty instances of continuing to acquire it in order to make it sufficient. Fifth: specifying the offence of keeping it beyond the limit. Upon reaching the thirtieth day, regardless of whether the new material is sufficient or insufficient, one must immediately perform vikalpana, send it to another person, make it into a robe, and so forth. If one exceeds thirty days, it is categorically an offence; hence it is stated thus. Ancient tradition explained the intention of this precept by saying that a practitioner of superior conduct keeps only the three robes, and when the old robes become worn and ruined, they are suitable only for formal keeping, not for wearing; now, having obtained new material, one does not intend to perform vikalpana, so one is permitted to wait for sufficiency up to a maximum of one month. In my present examination, I fear this may not be correct: if a practitioner of superior conduct did not wish to perform vikalpana, how could he suddenly be made to perform vikalpana on the thirtieth day, ruining the resolve of his superior conduct? Thus we know that as long as one has set one's intention on replacing the old robes, one may extend the period of keeping them, without distinguishing practitioners of superior conduct.