梵網經古迹記 2.208

2.208

述曰：有堪受器不擇而捨，則成攝化漏失之過，所以制之。身所著衣皆使壞色者，別制出家袈裟，此云不正色。謂青等五成不正色，故名壞色。雖言青等，非正青等。如《文殊問經》：文殊白言：有幾色衣？佛告文殊：不太赤色、不太黃、不太黑、不太白，清淨如法。三法服及以餘衣皆如是色。若自染、若令他染，如法擣成、隨時浣濯，常使清潔。如是臣具得用青黃雜色。言「一切染衣」已下，制餘衣色。「與俗服有異」者，樣亦須別。所以然者，如《遺教》云：「汝等比丘當自摩頭，已捨飾妙著壞色衣，執持應器以乞自活。自見如是，若起憍慢當疾滅之。增長憍慢尚非世俗白衣所宜，何況出家入道之人。」言「不得與七逆人現身受戒」者，有說：未懺七逆猶罪現存，故言現身不得戒。若依教懺，罪滅應得。如《集法悅經》：辦誦陀羅尼滅五逆罪。有說不然，無文懺已得受破故。言「若具七遮」者，以一一罪具緣成故，非謂要具七數方爾。破法輪僧時不破羯磨僧，然謗羯磨法，是故唯言「破羯磨」不言「僧」也。唯破羯磨僧不為遮難，唯取破輪立為一逆。《善生經》云：殺發菩提心眾生不得受菩薩戒。此中何攝？謂即和上、闍梨類也，彼先入故。言「不向國王禮拜」等者，謂國王等有戒無戒一切不如出家功德，是即出家若禮在家，在家即得無量罪故。

The commentary states: If there is a capable vessel and one abandons them without discerning them, it constitutes the fault of failing to gather and convert them; hence this is prohibited. "The clothes worn on one's body must all be made in destroyed colors" separately regulates the kāṣāya of the renunciant, which is here called irregular colors. That is, the five colors such as blue-green are made into irregular colors, hence the name "destroyed colors." Although it says "blue-green and so forth," they are not pure blue-green and so forth. As the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra says: Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha, saying: "Of how many colors are the robes?" The Buddha told Mañjuśrī: "Not too red, not too yellow, not too black, and not too white—pure and in accordance with the Dharma. The three Dharma robes as well as other garments are all of such colors. Whether dyeing them oneself or having another dye them, they should be pounded in accordance with the Dharma, washed in due time, and kept constantly clean. As such, articles used by ministers may use mixed colors of blue-green and yellow." The phrase "all dyed robes" and what follows regulates the colors of other garments. "Must be different from secular dress" means that the style must also be distinct. Why is this so? As the Testament Sutra says: "You monks should rub your own heads: you have already discarded fine ornaments and put on clothes of destroyed colors, holding an alms bowl to sustain yourselves by begging. Seeing yourselves thus, if arrogance arises, you should swiftly extinguish it. Increasing arrogance is not even appropriate for secular white-robed laypeople, much less for those who have left home to enter the path." As for "must not transmit the precepts in this life to someone guilty of the seven rebellious acts," some say: before one has repented the seven rebellious acts, the offense still remains present, hence it is said that they cannot obtain the precepts in this life. If they repent according to the teaching and the offense is extinguished, they should obtain them. As the Jifayue jing says: reciting dhāraṇīs extinguishes the five rebellious offenses. Others say this is not so, because there is no text stating that having repented, those who committed them may receive the precepts. As for "possessing the seven obstacles," this is because each offense is constituted by its complete conditions, not meaning that all seven must be present. When schisming the Saṃgha of the wheel of the Dharma, one does not schism the Saṃgha of the karman, but one slanders the karman Dharma; therefore it only says "schisming the karman" without saying "Saṃgha." Merely schisming the Saṃgha of the karman does not constitute an obstacle; only schisming the wheel is posited as a rebellious act. The Upāsakaśīla-sūtra says: one who kills a sentient being who has resolved on bodhi may not receive the bodhisattva precepts. Where is this included here? It falls into the category of the preceptor (upādhyāya) and ācārya, because they entered [the path] prior. As for "not bowing down to kings," etc.: kings and others, whether possessing precepts or lacking precepts, are entirely inferior to the merit of renunciation; thus if a renunciant bows to a layperson, the layperson incurs immeasurable guilt.