量處輕重儀 2.14

2.14

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.