[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [釋門章服儀](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1894) › 1.34 # 釋門章服儀 1.34 釋門章服儀 1.34 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1894.1.34) 答：「論其本制，出自聖心，義不徒張，深有弘致。故《僧祇》云『三衣者，賢聖標幟，理越凡心』也。故《律》中沙門衣，有三種賤：初、體賤者，人世所棄之衣也；二、色賤，非是正上之色也；三、刀賤，割碎連之，斷貪賊之利也。又異於外道，故服此衣。且條堤之相，事等田疇，如畦貯水而養嘉苗，譬服此衣生功德也。佛令像此，義不徒然，故《律》云『五條十隔』者是也。至於條數多少，堤量短長，各有誠文，如別所引。昔江表《十誦》律師，臆斷彌勇，見於七條兩長一短，便謂九條三長為正，是不聞《薩婆多論》九品大衣明教也。彼論上品三種大衣，四長一短，下品三種，同於七條，不可乖也。比見條葉，不附正儀，三寸四寸，任情開闊，浸以成俗，彌開華蕩之源。故《僧祇律》廣齊四指，小如穬麥，得分畦畔，為世福田。今則過其正度，故非法服。所以衣服立量，減開過制者，俱同抑貪競之情也。比見梵僧，縫其條葉，問其本據，云彼皆然。今以律撿，都無縫者，故裁縫見葉，表其割相。今竝縫合，無相可分，如《律》道行，刺鉤葉破，當反披之。又衣葉宣脫，當馬齒、鳥足縫之。又《五分》云：『衣下數破，當倒披之，在雨中行，水入葉中，應順披之。』而今總縫，何勞若此？是知中國失禮，求之四夷，中濁邊清，於斯可驗。且印度部執，偏駮不倫，隨得一文，曾無考究。《律》中四說，不許輒行，但依誠教，自無尤執矣。」 > I answer: "Discussing the original regulation, it came from the holy mind; its principle was not established in vain, but has profound and far-reaching intent. Thus the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: 'The three robes are the emblems of the worthy and holy, whose principle transcends worldly minds.' Therefore, in the Vinaya, the śramaṇa's robe has three kinds of cheapness: first, cheapness of substance, being clothing discarded by the people of the world; second, cheapness of color, not being a proper, superior color; third, cheapness of the knife, being cut into pieces and joined together to cut off the profit of greedy thieves. Moreover, to distinguish oneself from tīrthikas, one wears this robe. Furthermore, the form of strips and borders is identical to fields and plots: just as dikes retain water to nourish fine sprouts, it exemplifies that wearing this robe engenders merit. The Buddha had it resemble this, and the principle was not without purpose; thus the Vinaya speaks of 'five strips and ten panels.' As for the number of strips being many or few, and the borders' measure being short or long, each has its true text, as cited elsewhere. Formerly, a Vinaya master of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya south of the Yangtze River made presumptuous judgments with great boldness: seeing that the seven-strip robe had two long and one short, he declared that the nine-strip robe with three long was the standard, which was because he had not heard the clear teaching of the nine grades of great robes in the Sarvāstivāda-śāstra. That treatise states that the three kinds of superior-grade great robes have four long and one short, while the three kinds of lower-grade are the same as the seven-strip robe; this cannot be violated. Recently I have seen that the strips and folds do not conform to the proper deportment, being three or four inches, made broad according to personal whim, gradually becoming a worldly custom and further opening the source of vanity and laxity. Thus the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says that the width is uniformly four finger-widths, and the small is like a grain of barley, so that the dikes and borders are distinguished to serve as a field of merit for the world. Nowadays they exceed its proper measure, and are therefore robes contrary to the Dharma. Thus, regarding the measures established for clothing, reducing what is permitted and prohibiting what is excessive both equally suppress the sentiments of greed and competition. Recently I have seen Indian monks sewing down their strips and folds; when asked about their original authority, they said it was done like that there. Now, inspecting by the Vinaya, none are sewn down; therefore, cutting and tailoring reveals the folds to manifest the mark of cutting. Now they are sewn together with no marks distinguishable, whereas the Vinaya says: 'When walking on the road, if a thorn catches and tears a fold, one should wear it reversed.' And: 'If the folds of the robe become loose and detached, one should sew them with horse-tooth or bird-foot stitches.' And the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya says: 'If the bottom of the robe is frequently torn, one should wear it upside down; when walking in the rain, if water enters into the folds, one should wear it right side up.' But nowadays they are sewn up completely; why would such \[instructions\] be troubled with? From this we know that when propriety is lost in the central realm, it must be sought in the four barbarian regions; that the center is turbid while the border is pure is verified by this. Moreover, sectarian attachments in India are partial, mixed, and inconsistent; whenever they obtain a single text, they never investigate it. The Vinaya's four authorities do not permit one to act arbitrarily; if one simply relies on the true teachings, one will naturally be free from fault and bias." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1894.1.33) - [Next: 1.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1894.1.35) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1894.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1894~en-mt.1.34) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [四分律行事鈔資持記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.3.37) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1894.1.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1894.1.34) · Pramāṇa