量處輕重儀 2.14

2.14

已前義判，須分二途，謂今昔兩判也。準昔解云，亡五眾生常服，用同世軌儀者，入重。故佛言，一切白衣服不得畜，為斷惡法次第，理從重收。今不同之，雖文令不服，此非斷重也。犯捨財食，生過極多，死尚開分，故非重攝。如後義判。若俗人奉施，僧得而未暇改正為法衣者，準斷入輕。有多義故，一、佛開受施；二、聽說淨；三、聽改變如法受用。若色未改相狀俗衣，並入重收，為絕懷俗之心也。廣如鈔中。不同錦綺，以體相同俗，必壞色相者，聽分。此但相乖而堪附道服，故開改用。若有長髮沙門，心希名貫，衫袴隨俗，都絕三衣。道在虛通，俗存我固，既思名繫，將何為道，無問死活，俱不可分。余聞，戲女暫披法衣，生生常在僧位，今則貪名樂於俗服，義必劫劫恒居背真，理路顯然。豈在輕限。又諸律無斷重者，必緣障不許披法服者，縱著俗衣，不須入輕。雖佛開著，非久用故。如賊奪恐難之類。自餘巾帶等服，定非道用，例準重收。氈蓐二件，同上所判故也。

Regarding the doctrinal judgment for the above items, it must be divided into two approaches, namely the past and present rulings. According to the past interpretation, if they were regular garments worn by deceased members of the fivefold assembly while alive, matching worldly conventions, they were classified as heavy property. Thus the Buddha said that all white garments must not be kept; in order to cut off worldly, unwholesome ways step by step, they reasonably belonged to heavy property. At present, we do not agree with this: although the text forbids wearing them, this does not designate them as heavy property. Transgressions regarding relinquished property and food generate an extreme amount of guilt during life, yet upon death their distribution is still permitted; hence they are not subsumed under heavy property. It is just as judged by principle below. If laypeople respectfully offer them, and monastics acquire them without having had the leisure to alter them into Dharma robes, by standard judgment they are classified as light property. This is because there are multiple justifications: first, the Buddha permitted accepting them as gifts; second, he allowed vikalpanā; third, he permitted altering them for proper use in accordance with the Dharma. If their color has not been altered and their appearance remains that of lay clothing, they are all classified as heavy property, in order to sever any lingering attachment to secular ways. This is set out in detail in the [Xingshi] chao. This is not like brocades and patterned silks: since their substance and appearance match worldly style, their color and appearance must be altered before they are allowed to be distributed. In the present case, though the appearance diverges [from the Vinaya], it can be adapted into a robe for the Way, and thus alteration for use is permitted. If there are long-haired śramaṇas whose minds yearn for fame and registration, who wear shirts and trousers in accordance with the secular, and entirely abandon the three robes—the Way resides in empty detachment, while the secular clings to a fixed self; since their thoughts are bound to fame, how could they practice the Way?—whether alive or dead, none of it may be distributed. I have heard that if an actress temporarily puts on a Dharma robe, lifetime after lifetime she will always remain in the monastic ranks; yet now, craving fame, they delight in lay clothes, which by principle means that for eons they will continually turn their backs on the truth. The path of reason is manifest: how could this fall within the category of light property? Furthermore, where the various Vinayas contain no ruling designating them as heavy, if due to obstructions one is not permitted to wear Dharma robes, even if one wears lay clothing, it need not be classified as light property. Although the Buddha permitted wearing them, it was not for lasting use, as in cases of robbery, terror, and hardship. Other garments such as kerchiefs and belts are definitively not for use in the Way, and by analogy are classified as heavy property. The two items of felt and rugs are also judged in the same manner as above.