釋門章服儀 1.37

1.37

答：「諸律明量，多依身肘，然其身肘，兩有乖張，隨報定儀，可以成准。故文云：度身而衣故也。通而大約，三肘五肘以為本宗，臨事制宜，不局名教。然減量而作，同儉約之儀；過限妄增，有成犯之法。故文云：『四肘二肘，不為非法，與佛等量，便結正篇。』即其證也。頃載下流，驕奢其度，至論儉狹，不見其人。而大聖本制三衣，西方但有此衣，餘無別服，故文云『但三衣』也。後有覆肩、裿支之服，相亦畟方，故《僧祇》云『長四肘，廣二肘』是也。元制所興，本唯尼眾，今僧服著，僣通下位，而裿支上狹下廣，壞絕淳源，即《僧傳》云『不意方袍，復有平叔』者是也。又曰：『袈裟無領，標解脫之衣；鉢盂無底，表難量之器。』皆謂被服足以遮形，解釋索然無繫，成本志也。今時三衣，如本未改，亦有生情，妄施綱紐，兩覆肩上，左右掩之，大繩結束，以為頭陀者，未之前聞。然律有泥洹內衣，還如方服繞腰而掩，以繩三圍兩跨，正後分為三襵，抽拔令齊，不許其皺，如菩薩象所著之裙。此土餘衣，隨俗裁製，江淮則襦襖正背，關河則褊袒裿支，裁剪尖斜，同諸俗服，雖云取異，終乖本儀。因言傍及，善無取矣，竝如《亡物儀》中廣之。」

Answer: "The various Vinayas explain the measurements mostly based on the cubit of one's body. However, as the cubits of bodies differ from one another, fixing the standard according to one's karmic retribution can establish the norm. Thus the text states: '[The robe is made] by measuring the body.' Generally speaking, three cubits by five cubits is taken as the basic standard, adapting to the circumstances at hand without being rigidly confined to literal prescriptions. Making it below the standard accords with the etiquette of frugality; exceeding the limit and arbitrarily enlarging it constitutes a transgression according to the Dharma. Thus the text states: 'Four cubits by two cubits is not contrary to the Dharma; if it equals the Buddha's measure, a pārājika is incurred.' This is the proof. In recent years, inferior monks have been arrogant and extravagant in their measurements, and when it comes to discussing frugality and modesty, none such people are seen. Now, when the Great Sage originally instituted the three robes, the Western Regions had only these robes and no other clothing. Thus the text states, 'Only the three robes.' Later there were the saṃkakṣikā and the shoulder-covering garments, whose forms were also square; thus the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states: 'Four cubits in length and two cubits in width.' These were originally instituted solely for the bhikṣuṇī Saṃgha, yet nowadays monks wear them, arrogantly usurping what is common to lower ranks. Moreover, the saṃkakṣikā is narrow at the top and wide at the bottom, destroying and severing the pure source—just as the Biographies of Eminent Monks states: 'Who would have expected that among square robes there would again be a He Pingshu?' Furthermore, it is said: 'The kāṣāya has no collar, signifying the robe of liberation; the alms bowl has no base, symbolizing the vessel of immeasurable capacity.' Both mean that the clothing is sufficient merely to cover the body, leaving one unbound and free from ties, thereby fulfilling one's original aspiration. Nowadays, although the three robes remain unchanged from the original, there are also those who generate personal whims, improperly attaching cords and loops, covering both shoulders, overlapping left and right, and tying them tightly with large cords, taking this to be dhūta—something never heard of before. However, the Vinaya has the nirvāṇa inner garment (antarvāsas), which also, like a square robe, wraps around the waist and overlaps, tied with a cord thrice around both hips, divided directly at the back into three pleats, drawn out evenly without permitting wrinkles, like the skirts worn by bodhisattva images. Other clothing in this land is tailored according to secular customs: along the Yangtze and Huai rivers there are lined jackets, padded coats, and straight-backed vests; along the passes and Yellow River there are narrow-sleeved garments and saṃkakṣikā. Cut with sharp angles and slants, they are identical to secular clothes; though claimed to be distinct, they ultimately go against the original decorum. Mentioned here in passing, there is nothing commendable in them, and all of this is elaborated in the Regulations on Deceased Monks' Property."