釋門章服儀 1.34

1.34

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."