[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [佛制比丘六物圖](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1900) › 1.39 # 佛制比丘六物圖 1.39 佛制比丘六物圖 1.39 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1900.1.39) 次、明重法。然重複之相，諸出不同。若準《多論》：「重縫三衣，有緣，摘分持行。」據此但是全衣合綴，祖師所著亦不殊此。至《感通傳》天人方示別製，人多疑之，今為具引：「彼云『大衣重作，師比行之。然於葉下乃三重也，豈得然耶？』即問其所作，便執余衣以示之。『此葉相者，表稻田之塍疆也。以割截衣段，就裏刺之，去葉\[麩-夫+廣\]麥許。此則條內表田、葉上表渠相，豈不然耶？今則通以布縵，一非割截，二又多重，既非本制，非無著著之失。』」（已上《傳》文。然《多論》異此者，但是聞見不等。然天人示法，並謂親承佛世。此方教文不決之事，如諸經律「座具著肩」，唯此《傳》文令安左臂。又如後引「增座具法」，今皆準用，何獨疑此？況非割、多重二難，理自顯然。） > Next, explaining the method of layering. The appearance of doubling, however, is presented differently in various texts. If according to the Sarvāstivāda-vinayavibhāṣā: "Sewing the three robes in layers, if there is a cause, one separates them and carries them on the move." According to this, it is merely sewing whole robes together, and what the ancestral masters wore did not differ from this. It was only when a deva appeared in the Gantong zhuan to demonstrate a different construction that people had many doubts about it; I will now quote it fully: "He said, 'The teacher has recently been practicing making the great robe double-layered. However, under the leaves there are three layers—how could that be right?' He then asked about how it was made, and took my robe to show him: 'These leaf markings represent the dykes and boundaries of rice fields. By cutting the cloth segments and stitching them on the inside, a barley-grain's distance from the leaf, the strips represent the fields and the leaves represent the canals. How could it be otherwise? Nowadays, cloth is used continuously all over: firstly, it is not cut into segments; secondly, it is multiple layers. Since this is not the original regulation, it is not without the fault of improper wear.'" (The above is the text from the Gantong zhuan. However, that the Sarvāstivāda-vinayavibhāṣā differs from this is merely due to differences in what was heard and seen. Yet the methods shown by devas are all said to have been personally received in the Buddha's time. Matters not settled in the texts of this land—such as various sūtras and vinayas stating that the mat should be placed on the shoulder, whereas only this Gantong zhuan directs that it be placed on the left arm; or as cited later in the 'Method of Adding to the Mat,' which are now all applied as standards—why should one doubt this alone? Moreover, the two difficulties of not being cut and having multiple layers are self-evident in principle.) > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1900.1.38) - [Next: 1.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1900.1.40) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1900.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1900~en-mt.1.39) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [四分律行事鈔資持記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.3.41) — Classical Chinese - [律相感通傳](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1898.1.106) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1900.1.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1900.1.39) · Pramāṇa