四分比丘戒本疏 2.15

2.15

第七、過知足受衣戒。文有五句：一容犯人；二遇失衣緣；三、「非親俗人為失衣故自心施衣恣比丘足」，謂恣至三，便知為足也。親即不犯，故言非親。四、「是比丘當知足受衣」者，裁量而受。故律云「若失一衣不應受。若失二衣者，餘有一衣，若二重三重四重，應擿取作僧伽梨、欝多安多。若三衣都失，應知足受。」《述》曰「謂失一衣，決不聽受，以有二衣足得出入兩處用故。若失二衣，准律文意亦不聽受。以餘一衣，若有二重，擿作二衣，但闕一衣，義同失一，明不聽受。若有三重，擿作三衣，灼然不受。唯三都失，稱施受三，長信敬故。」若准《善見》三衣都失，但許受二，餘一外求。今《四分律》意不同彼。五、結過受罪。

Seventh: the precept against accepting robes beyond knowing contentment. The text has five clauses: first, allowing for the perpetrator; second, encountering the condition of having lost robes; third, "an unrelated layperson, because of the loss of robes, spontaneously offers robes and bids the monk to take as many as are sufficient"—meaning that when invited up to three times, one should know it to be sufficient. If they are related, there is no offence, hence it says "unrelated." Fourth, "that monk should accept robes knowing contentment": this means accepting after measuring. Thus the Vinaya says: "If one has lost one robe, one should not accept. If one has lost two robes, and of the remaining one robe it is double, triple, or quadruple-layered, one should pluck it apart to make a saṃghāṭī, uttarāsaṅga, and antarvāsaka. If all three robes are lost, one should accept knowing contentment." The Commentary states: "This means that if one robe is lost, one is definitely not permitted to accept, because the two robes are sufficient for use when going out and remaining in. If two robes are lost, according to the Vinaya's intention, one is likewise not permitted to accept: if the remaining one robe is double-layered, plucking it apart makes two robes, so one is lacking only one robe, the sense of which is identical to losing one; clearly one is not permitted to accept. If it is triple-layered, plucking it apart makes three robes, and plainly one does not accept. Only when all three are lost may one accept three according to the offering, so as to nurture faith and respect." If judged according to the Samantapāsādikā, when all three robes are lost, one is only permitted to accept two, and the remaining one must be sought elsewhere. The intention of the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya here is not the same as that. Fifth: specifying the offence of accepting in excess.