量處輕重儀 2.86

2.86

右準斷入輕，由體現交須，即堪裁服，無問多少厚薄，若色非色，若正不正，並入分之。有人云，真緋正紫既大色上染，佛斷不服著，得墮罪，故須入重。今不同之，由體是應法，即堪改轉，還類法衣，如律受淨。若以不許，便入重者，五大上色之衣，佛並通制，何為獨在緋紫？一開一制，但出意言耶？若必擅遏不通者，如生財絹匹綿屯，及餘雜段財帛，皆未染成，亦不許服，如何入輕？故知並由改轉可成壞色，同布絹之白色也。又不同錦繡𣰅𣰆，染則可得如法，未染體是斑文綺錯，外相五彩分炳，又佛正斷在重，無宜抑例通分。

According to the above determination, they are classified as light property. Since in substance they are needed in practical use and are ready to be cut into robes, regardless of quantity, thickness, whether dyed or undyed, correct color or incorrect color, they are all included in the division. Some say that since genuine scarlet and true purple are major primary colors of superior dye, and the Buddha determined that one must not wear them on pain of a falling offense (pātayantikā), they must therefore be classified as heavy property. We do not agree now. Because their substance conforms to the Dharma, they are ready to be altered and transformed to resemble Dharma robes again, as vikalpanā is undergone according to the Vinaya. If, because of being disallowed, they are immediately classified as heavy property, then as robes of the five major superior colors were all prohibited across the board by the Buddha, why should this apply solely to scarlet and purple? Permitting one and prohibiting another—does this not stem merely from subjective opinions? If one must arbitrarily block them without passage, then raw cloth, bolts of silk, bundles of silk floss, and other assorted scraps of fabric and silk have not yet been dyed and are likewise not permitted to be worn; how then could they be included under light property? Therefore we know that this is entirely because through alteration they can become ruined colors, identical to the white color of cloth and silk. Moreover, they are unlike brocades, embroideries, and fine carpets: while dyeing could make the latter accord with the Dharma, before being dyed their substance consists of variegated patterns and intertwined silks whose outer appearance exhibits brilliant differentiation of the five colors; furthermore, the Buddha explicitly determined them to be heavy property, so it is improper to force them into an analogy for universal division.