佛制比丘六物圖 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.1

Published in the Tiangong Cloister by the śramaṇa Yuanzhao of Yuhang at the beginning of summer in the third year of the Yuanfeng reign of the Great Song.

1.2

First, explaining the three robes as three items.

1.3

(This robe has nine grades; here we show) the saṅghāṭī great robe (of the highest grade; the rest are to be reduced accordingly in making).

Lately I have seen those who take delight in studying the precepts wishing to provide themselves with the dharma robes, yet not knowing how to cut them; already blind to the vinaya deportment, they mostly follow erroneous customs. However, their regulations are found everywhere across the various texts; therefore I have gathered their main essentials, together with what I have seen and heard. Returning to the old regulations as our source, I provisionally divide them into ten sections. By citing the authentic teachings, I hope that matters will have an authoritative standard; by censuring errors and abuses, I truly show no personal favoritism.

1.7

First, the intention of the prescription.

1.8

The Shichao states: "What is meant by 'prescription'? It means the three robes and six requisites, which the Buddha prescribed to be kept, applicable across the whole dispensation; he likewise prescribed their wearing and use, and if there is a transgression it incurs an offense." The Sarvāstivāda states: "It is because he wished to manifest an unprecedented teaching. None of the ninety-six paths possesses these three names; it is in order to be distinct from the non-Buddhists." The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya states: "The Tathāgatas of the three times all wore robes such as these." The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: "The three robes are the insignia (read as 'zhi') of the noble and sagely śramaṇas." The Saṃyuktāgama states: "Cultivate the four immeasurables and wear the three dharma robes; this, then, is the clothing of the compassionate." The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya states: "Because it is cut with a knife, one knows it is the clothing of a person of shame and conscience." The Avataṃsaka states: "One who wears the kāṣāya renounces and abandons the three poisons." The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya states: "One who harbors the defilements should not don the kāṣāya." The Xianyu jing states: "One who wears the kāṣāya shall swiftly attain liberation from birth and death." The Zhangfu yi states: "Summing up their grand purpose, they are nothing other than a vessel to cross the ocean of suffering and steps to level the steep slopes of life." As for why three are needed, the Fenbie gongde lun states: "It is for the sake of the three seasons: in winter one wears heavy [clothing], in summer one wears light [clothing], and in spring one wears medium [clothing]." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "Disciples of the Buddha abide in the Middle Way, and therefore wear the three robes. Non-Buddhists go naked without shame (because they abide in the view of annihilationism), while laypeople, being full of greed, pile on layers of clothing (because they abide in the view of eternalism)." The Sarvāstivāda-vinayavibhāṣā states: "A single robe cannot ward off the cold, but three robes can ward it off," and so forth. The Jietan jing states: "The three robes sever the three poisons. The five-strip robe (lower robe) severs greed in the body; the seven-strip robe (middle robe) severs anger in the speech; the great robe (upper robe) severs delusion in the mind." (The worldly tradition that takes the seven-strip robe, the pian-shan vest, and the skirt as the three robes is erroneous.) The first clause of the rules established by Zhiyi of Tiantai states: "The three robes, six requisites, and implements must be complete. If any robe or requisite is lacking, one may not reside together with the community." The first of National Preceptor Qingliang's ten vows states: "Only three robes and one bowl; I will not keep any surplus items."

1.9

Looking through the sūtras and treatises, and surveying the histories of the Saṅgha, one realizes that the sages and worthies followed in one another's footsteps, and China and India shared the same style. Today, however, people competitively promote their own traditions and arbitrarily distinguish between self and other. Now, since shaving the head shows no difference in appearance, why bitterly divide traditions over dyeing the robes? May those of superior understanding closely examine this! Moreover, the teachings of both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna extensively clarify the virtues of the kāṣāya; I hope that disciples of the Buddha who believe in the teaching will follow and practice them accordingly.

1.10

Second, explaining the names.

1.11

There are two parts.

1.12

First, the general names. Summarizing the sūtras and vinayas, it is called either "kāṣāya" (named from its dyed color), or "robe of the Way," or "transmundane robe," or "dharma robe," or "robe of leaving dust," or "emaciating robe" (because it diminishes the afflictions), or "lotus robe" (because it is free from defilement and attachment), or "robe of intermediate colors" (because it is made of three colors), or "robe of loving-kindness and compassion," or "robe of the field of merit," or "niṣīdana" (bedding), also called "mat" (these both indicate that its appearance resembles a quilt or mattress).

1.13

Next, the specific names. First, in Sanskrit it is called saṅghāṭī, which here translates as "robe of many pieces" (because its strips and phases are numerous); according to its use it is called the "robe for entering royal palaces and villages" (worn at times of begging for food and preaching the Dharma). Second, the uttarāsaṅga is called the "robe of intermediate value" (meaning its material value falls between the other two robes); according to its use it is called the "robe for entering the assembly" (worn when worshipping, chanting, participating in vegetarian feasts, and attending lectures). Third, the antarvāsaka is called the "lower robe" (because it is positioned lowest, or worn underneath); according to its use it is called the "robe for walking the paths and doing various chores within the monastery" (one is not permitted to wear it when entering a village or joining the assembly). If considered according to form, they are five strips, seven strips, nine strips, up to twenty-five strips, and so forth. Their semantic translations are varied; here I have raised just one or two.

1.14

Third, explaining the seeking of material.

1.15

Divided into two parts.

1.16

First, explaining the avoidance of faults in seeking and begging. Because it is a dharma robe, its substance must be pure. Eminent monks of the Western regions mostly renounced [all else for] the pāṃśukūla robes. If one now wishes to conform to the Dharma, one must simply avoid improper seeking. The Shichao states: "Material obtained through pursuing profit and commercial trade does not make [a valid robe]." The Vinaya states: "One may not obtain it through wrong livelihood (explained below citing the Yeshu); through provocation (speaking of what another received to provoke this person to give); through displaying signs (feigning lack and insufficiency so that others take pity); or robes involving naiḥsargika-prāyaścittika offenses (the thirty robe precepts, etc.); none of these may be used to make [a robe]." The Yeshu states: "'Wrong livelihood' is a brief term that contains many matters. Broadly speaking, whenever one acts with an improper mind involving greed and attachment, selling the Dharma for profit, or receiving ill-gotten goods and bribes through bowing to the Buddha, chanting sūtras, fasting, or various such activities—all of these are called wrong livelihood." Nowadays, people accumulate a surplus in their bags and yet forcefully beg from others; using artful words to flatter and curry favor, they send gifts and defile families. All such kinds are termed improper gain.

1.17

Next, explaining the avoidance of faults in exchanging and trading. If it is traded for using originally pure wealth, that is best. If one has inevitably transgressed regarding surplus money and valuables, and uses them to trade for robe material: according to the Vinaya, "When trading for new cloth after an offense of forfeiture [of robes], provided one repents the previous offense, the substance of the robe is undefiled"; one can apply this analogously. If one trades for the goods oneself, one must not haggle over the price with laypeople as if practicing the ways of the marketplace. If one sends a kappiyakāraka, no harm is done either. Some say: "If pure wealth is touched by the hand, it becomes impure." This is not a vinaya prescription, but merely an erroneous rumor spread by people (it only incurs an offense of taking hold of treasure; it does not defile the substance of the wealth).

1.18

Fourth, explaining the material substance.

1.19

Divided into two parts.

1.20

First, explaining what conforms to the Dharma. In the Vinaya, both silk and cloth are still permitted; but according to various passages in the Yeshu, silk is not allowed either. The Yeshu states: "That the world often uses silk and pongee is because its substance derives from harming life; it is likewise covered by the general prohibition. Nowadays, among the monks of the Five Indias and various Central Asian regions, none use silk to make the kāṣāya." It also states: "Taking the robe as the clothing of pure conduct (brahmacaryā), one practices the four immeasurables. If one clearly knows that life was killed and yet intentionally wears it, that is not justifiable in principle." In the Gantong zhuan, a deva praised, saying: "Since the Buddhadharma was transmitted to the East, for six or seven hundred years, the vinaya masters of the North and South never had this intention: why use material derived from killing living beings to make a robe of loving-kindness and compassion?" This is extensively explained as in the Zhangfu yi. Yijing in his Jigui zhuan hastily criticized this as wrong, but the profound practice of great compassion was beyond his understanding, which is only natural.

1.21

Next, selecting out what is not in accordance with the Dharma. Now the substance of the robe must be sought to be thick and dense, free from all ornamentation and finery. The Vinaya states: "If it is fine and thin, loosely woven (neither banana-fiber cloth nor raw ramie may be used), damask, silk gauze, brocade, patterned silk, light silk gauze, thin pongee, or raw silk, all are invalid materials." Nowadays many do not believe the Buddha's words and greedily wear these kinds of robes. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "The Tathāgata wore a saṅghāṭī of coarse cloth." In this land, the community on Mount Nanyue and eminent monks of high virtue from ancient times used cotton patched robes and mugwort padding, not mingling a single strand of silk; Zhiyi of Tiantai wore only a single patched robe; Daoxuan of Nanshan did not combine silk and floss; Zhanran of Jingxi wore coarse cloth; and Xuanjue of Yongjia wore nothing from a silkworm's mouth. Are these not the depths of compassion and pity, truly worthy of esteem! Nowadays people are lax and indolent, and moreover ignorant; contrary [to the rules], they use the robe properly prescribed by the Tathāgata as mourning attire. Furthermore, monks have no system of mourning clothes; how can they arbitrarily practice this? The Shishi yaolan and the Fujiao xiaolun follow one another in erroneous claims; be careful not to rely on them! Recently I saw people using white cloth as head fillets for mourning; this is yet another strange thing. Signs of the decline of the Dharma have gradually multiplied over generations. Those of discernment should reform this, so that the Dharma may remain a little longer.

1.22

Fifth, explaining the colors and marks.

1.23

The Vinaya states: "One must not wear robes dyed with primary colors; one should spoil them to produce the kāṣāya color (translated here as 'dyeing with improper colors'), also called 'spoiled color' (durgandhi/kaṣāya)." These are the three kinds of spoiled dyeing in the Prātimokṣa, all of which conform to the Dharma: first, blue-green (the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya refers to copper verdigris; the blue-green coarse wool worn by modern nuns is quite close to this); second, black (referring to what is dyed with dark black mud; the dark grey-black and deep greenish-grey coarse wool worn by contemporary Chan monks are both equivalent to black); third, magnolia bark color (referring to the magnolia of Western Shu, whose bark can be dyed to make a reddish black; ancient eminent monks of the Jin dynasty often wore this robe; today's sea-yellow dyed silk slightly resembles it, whereas the light yellow of the northern regions is definitely not in accordance with the Dharma).

1.24

However, while the names of these three colors are ambiguous, their substances are distinct; one must avoid the five primary colors of secular custom (namely blue-green, yellow, red, white, and black) and the five intermediate colors (namely crimson, pink, purple, green, and azure, or sulfur yellow). None of these are the appearance of the Way; the Buddha prohibited all of them. The Yeshu states: "The dharma robes accord with the Way. Variegated patterns and fine brocades agitate the mind and spirit; blue, yellow, and the five colors, and true purple as a primary color, are what the worldly crave, and therefore all are excised alike."

1.25

In this degenerate age, students of the vinaya run completely counter to the holy words: in winter they wear damask and silk gauze, and in summer they rely on fine crêpe and light gauze. Regarding colors that confound genuine vermilion, they never tire of fresh brilliance; in illegal dimensions, their robes hang low past the thighs and knees. Moreover, delighting in colorful robes themselves, they falsely claim it is by imperial decree; although they claim to disguise their faults, it deeply constitutes slandering the Dharma. As the ancestral master said: 'How could they fear not having a share in the evil destinies? How lamentable!' (The statement in the Sarvāstivāda-vinayavibhāṣā that 'violating a king's order incurs a duṣkṛta' refers merely to violating state prohibitions.)

1.26

Sixth, explaining the measurements of the robes.

1.27

There are two parts.

1.28

First, relying on the general text, without fixed dimensions. The Vinaya states: "Measure the body to make the robe, taking only what suffices." In the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya the hasta measurement is not fixed; the Buddha ordered that it accord with the proportions of one's own body, not necessarily following the standard hasta. Nowadays, robes are twelve or thirteen Chinese feet in length, and people say they are relying on the general text—is that not being overly general? Furthermore, they say this is 'measuring the body,' but their bodies are very small while their robes are very long—is that not measuring it without care? However, as for the method of measuring the body, many people do not understand it. The Yeshu states: "First, using the robe cloth, measure from the shoulder down to the ground, and four finger-breadths above the ankle, taking this as the body of the robe; the remaining segments and strip designs will then be sufficient to match proportionately."

1.29

Second, explaining the specific measurements. After quoting the general texts, the Shichao continues: "Even so, there must also be a standard." Thus the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya and the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya each have three grades of measurements. Now, following the Sarvāstivāda: "The three robes are five hastas in length and three hastas in width. (Each hasta is one chi and eight cun. According to the Ji-Zhou chi, it is nine chi in length and five chi and four cun in width.) If the maximum size: six hastas in length and three and a half hastas in width. (One zhang and eight cun in length, and six chi and three cun in width. Some people obstinately cling to this maximum measure. Since they are divided into three grades, how can one cling to just one? Even supposing one follows this, it still does not reach twelve chi; consider this!) If the minimum size: four hastas in length and two and a half hastas in width. (Seven chi and two cun in length, and four chi and five cun in width.) If it exceeds the measurement, unless it is transferred through declaration of purification, one commits a naiḥsargika-prāyaścittika." The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya says: "The antarvāsaka is four hastas in length and two hastas in width (seven chi and two cun in length, and three chi and six cun in width). The uttarāsaṅga is five hastas in length and three hastas in width; the saṅghāṭī is likewise (nine chi in length and five chi and four cun in width)."

1.30

Above, the words of the Buddha were cited to indicate the measurements; below, the teachings of the patriarchs are cited to expose what is improper.

1.31

The Zhangfu yi says: "To make them under the measurement conforms to the deportment of frugality; to arbitrarily increase them beyond the limit is an act that constitutes an offense. The text says: 'Four hastas or two hastas are not uncanonical; but if they equal the Buddha's measurement, this immediately incurs a primary offense.' This is the proof of it." It also says: "In recent years, the inferior sort have become arrogant and extravagant in their measurements; when it comes to frugality and modesty, I have yet to see anyone." It also says: "Measurements are established for garments: permitting reductions and prohibiting excess are both ways to curb feelings of greed and contention." (May those who are fond of large sizes examine these passages thoroughly!)

1.32

The Shichao's text on the "precept on the Buddha's robe" says: "The Buddha's body was double that of a human. The Buddha was sixteen chi tall, while a human is eight chi." The Buddha's robe was eighteen chi in length by the Ji-Zhou chi, and twelve chi in width; an ordinary person's was nine chi by six chi. (Those who insist on the maximum measure claim that the Buddha's robe was double that of a human's six hastas, which would be twenty-one chi and six cun. This is because they have not read this text!) However, people in the Buddha's time were mostly grand and tall in body; following the previous measurements was sufficient to cover their bodily frames. Today, in the age of decline, a human body at its greatest does not exceed six chi. Yet robes are twelve chi in length, often exceeding it, while when considering their width, it does not reach five chi. With the front hanging down and dragging past the knees, every step incurs a duṣkṛta. Truly, the upside-down nature [of this] can be seen here!

1.33

Therefore the Yeshu says: "Letting one corner hang in front to make the appearance of an elephant's trunk, people do not think of it as an offense, but having practiced it for long, they call it canonical. Why must it be like this? Afflictions and self-grasping have been constantly practiced from beginningless time—could they be the noble Dharma? If one reforms upon hearing what is right and follows admonition like flowing water, such a person is superior." (Text of the commentary.) With compassionate instruction such as this, how could one not reflect on it?

1.34

Seven: Explaining the Number of Strips

1.35

The lower robe has five strips: one long and one short. The middle robe has seven strips: two long and one short. The great robe has three grades: The lower grade has three kinds—nine strips, eleven strips, and thirteen strips, all with two long and one short. The middle grade has three kinds—fifteen, seventeen, and nineteen strips, all with three long and one short. The upper grade has three kinds—twenty-one, twenty-three, and twenty-five strips, all with four long and one short. The Shichao says: "Follow this as the general standard, and make it according to one's ability." (Among the nine grades, depending on the quantity of cloth material, one may take and maintain any one.) The Jiemoshu says: "The reason it reaches a maximum of twenty-five is that it is intended to serve as a field of merit for the twenty-five realms of existence. The reason they are only odd and not even is that a śramaṇa's benevolent nurturing corresponds to the worldly yang transformation, hence they are not even numbers. The reason there are long and short strips is like the difference between high and low where rice paddies follow water in the world. Furthermore, to benefit all realms of existence, it represents the increase of the noble and the decrease of the ordinary, symbolizing that the long are many and the short are few." Nowadays, those in the Chan school mostly wear nine strips, or make them with three long or four long at their own whim; this is uncanonical. The commentary says: "Discrepancies in the long and short violate the compassionate Sanskrit [rules], and with every step deportment is transgressed, with an offense incurred for each." How much more so when ribbons hang down long, fine floral embroidery is arranged, and patchwork robes depict mountains and waters, spoiling one's karma and wasting one's effort! If one truly and sincerely studies the Way, not letting an inch of time slip by, unless one has nothing at all to apply the mind to, how could one have the leisure to dedicate effort to this?

1.36

Next, explaining the appearance of the strips and leaves. In the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya: "The width should be four finger-breadths (four cun), held close like barley grains." The commentary says: "Nowadays they are mostly made wide, fanned by the frivolous trends of the age." The Zhangfu yi says: "Observing these strips and leaves, they do not adhere to proper deportment: three or four cun wide, broadened according to personal inclination; gradually this has become custom, further opening the source of vanity and extravagance," and so forth. Furthermore, when sewing the strips and leaves, the lower edge must be left open. The Zhangfu yi says: "Sewing them to show leaves represents the appearance of cut cloth. Nowadays they are sewn shut entirely, leaving no appearance that can be distinguished." The Shichao says: "Stitch one side and leave one side open." "If both sides are sewn together, it is just like a plain robe." It is traditionally transmitted in the world as being called the "clear aperture," and also called the "sign of light" (daybreak in the Vinaya is called the sign of light), and also called "letting dust fall through," and so forth; all of these are erroneous.

1.37

Eight: Explaining the Number of Layers

1.38

The Vinaya says: "It must not be thin and fine. If new, the great robe has two layers. The other two robes each have one layer." In the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya: "If old, the great robe has four layers. The other two robes each have two layers." In the Sarvāstivāda: "The great robe has three layers: one layer new, two layers old."

1.39

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.)

1.40

Three: Explaining Validity. The Yeshu says: "The lower two [robes] depend on the season. If it is the great robe, it must be double-layered. Nowadays it is mostly made single-layered; this is an uncanonical robe, and to receive, maintain, wear, and use it incurs an offense."

1.41

Nine: Explaining the Method of Making Robes

1.42

All three robes must be cut and pieced together. If cloth is scarce and difficult to procure, then applying patch-leaves is permitted. For the five-strip robe alone, folded leaves are also permitted. In the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya: "If the great robe is not completed in five days, it constitutes a naisargika or saṅghāvaśeṣa." (According to the Vinaya: "Four days for the seven-strip robe, and two days for the five-strip robe.") The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya: "It must be back-stitched, not sewn straight." Four finger-breadths from the front border, attach the loop (pronounced xian, meaning hook). Eight finger-breadths from the rear border, attach the strap. Nowadays, when letting it hang on the arm, having eight in front and four in back is completely inverted.

1.43

Furthermore, where the hook and fastener are placed, square pieces of cloth are sewn as patches, originally intended to help reinforce them; yet to call them "altars" is incorrect. The Three Thousand Deports says: "Apply patches at the four corners." The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya says "pulling so that the corners are straight," and so forth. What people in the world call the "Four Heavenly Kings" is also incorrect. The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya: "Patches should be placed on the shoulders to guard against dirt and grease."

1.44

Next, explaining primary and secondary [robes]. The nine grades of the great robe originally had to be cut and pieced. If the robe cloth was insufficient, then patch-leaves were permitted. Twice nine makes eighteen kinds of robes. If it is still insufficient, the seven-strip robe is permitted as a secondary robe. In this sequential manner, permission is extended down to the plain robe (it is called "plain" because it lacks the appearance of strips). The primary and secondary forms of the three robes each have twenty-four kinds. For the great robe: there are eighteen primary kinds (cut and patched, nine each), and six secondary kinds (two seven-strip, three five-strip, and one plain robe). For the seven-strip robe: there are two primary robes (cut and patched), and twenty-two secondary robes (eighteen great robes, three five-strip, and one plain robe). For the five-strip robe: there are three primary robes (cut, patched, and folded), and twenty-one secondary robes (eighteen great robes, two seven-strip, and one plain robe). In total, there are seventy-two grades. The plain robe serves for all three uses, but it was originally the robe of a śrāmaṇera. The Vinaya prescribes: "A śrāmaṇera wears two plain robes: one to serve as a seven-strip robe when entering the assembly, and one to serve as a five-strip robe when doing chores." (Because the robe's form is not yet standard, it merely says "to serve as." The word "serve" is pronounced in the departing tone.)

1.45

Nowadays, upon shaving the head, one immediately wears a five-strip robe, usurping the position of fully ordained monks and deeply violating the original regulation. If teachers and elders have understanding, please follow the noble teachings. When it comes to receiving the precepts, most have no robes or bowl; although the Vinaya requires the master to procure them, who still puts this into practice? They merely wait until the occasion arrives and borrow earthenware bowls, greasy bowls, or old, dilapidated great robes from others. The śrāmaṇera does not know right from wrong, and when did the ācārya ever inspect them? The Vinaya says: 'If one has none or borrows them, it is not called receiving the full ordination.' How can one begrudge a small amount of wealth and material, causing someone to be without precepts for their entire life, eating the offerings of the faithful in vain, and sinking into rebirth for ten thousand kalpas? This is truly lamentable! Although what is past cannot be corrected, what is to come can still be pursued.

1.46

Ten: The Ritual of Consecration and Preservation

1.47

First, the ritual of consecration. One must follow the proper sequence, consecrating the five-strip robe first (according to the text of the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya): "Venerable One, with focused mind, be mindful! I, the bhikṣu so-and-so, receive this antarvāsaka, a five-strip robe, one long and one short, to maintain as a cut-and-pieced robe. (Spoken three times. Modify appropriately for patch-leaves or folded leaves.)" For the middle robe, one says: "...receive this uttarāsaṅga, a seven-strip robe, two long and one short, to maintain as a cut-and-pieced robe." For the great robe, one says: "...receive this saṅghāṭī, a twenty-five-strip robe, four long and one short, to maintain as a cut-and-pieced robe." The rest of the words are the same as above.

1.48

Next, explaining the method of relinquishment (according to the text of the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya): "Venerable One, with focused mind, be mindful! I, so-and-so, this antarvāsaka is among my three robes that I previously received and maintained, and now I relinquish it. (Spoken once. Modify appropriately for the other two. In all cases, one must seek someone who understands the Vinaya and perform it face-to-face.)"

1.49

Second, explaining bodily protection [of the robes]. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya states: "Guard the three robes as if they were your own skin, and the bowl as if it were your eyes. When wearing the great robe, one must not carry wood, stones, earth, or grass. Various chores such as sweeping the ground must not be done [while wearing it]." The Juezheng erbu lü lun states: "When wearing the great robe to enter a village, if one sees one's master-monk, a senior monk, or other distinct individuals, one must not make prostrations to them. (One may prostrate to the Buddha and to the saṅgha as a whole.)" The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya states: "Wherever you go, be accompanied by your robes and bowl, having no lingering attachments, just like a flying bird. If one enters a village without carrying the three robes, one commits an offense." The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: "One should regard [the robes] as if they were a stūpa." An ancestral master said: "All the Vinaya traditions uniformly prescribe keeping them on one's person. Those today who merely guard against spending the night [apart from them] do not conform to the teachings."

1.50

(Here, [the rules on] protective inclusion must be explained, briefly divided into four sections.)

1.51

First, explaining the robe-boundary. The Vinaya states: "If a person and his robes are in different places and spend the night apart, he incurs a naiḥsargika-prāyaścittika offense. This robe must be forfeited and confessed." (Speaking of a "falling" offense, one falls into the Saṃghāta hell for one day and night, which corresponds to 1,440,000,000 years in the human realm.) When the Vinaya explains separation and protection, they are all discussed in terms of boundaries. Boundaries have many distinctions, but are broadly divided into two:

1.52

First, ritual boundaries for retaining robes; (meaning that within a saṅghārāma, when the boundary is demarcated wider than the boundaries of the courtyard, one must additionally perform the karmavācanā for retaining robes. Once it is demarcated, with the exception of areas devoid of villages, the robes are protected throughout the boundary.)

1.53

Second, natural boundaries for protecting robes. Between our own tradition and other schools, there are fifteen kinds in total:

1.54

1. The saṅghārāma boundary; (referring to walls and fences encircling the four sides; even if it is a place where a boundary has been ritually demarcated, in comparison to not performing the ritual for retaining robes, it is also called a "natural robe-boundary.")

1.55

2. The village boundary; (a place where men and women reside is called a village, which refers to secular dwellings. The four marks are the same as above. According to the house boundary, there are further six distinct types:)

1.56

First, the settlement boundary; (referring to the delimited boundary of a village or town. First is a distinct boundary: for instance, if a settlement has only one household, up to the outside of the settlement, beyond where a flying chicken can reach is called a different boundary. Second is a common boundary: referring to multiple settlements adjoining one another. The Sarvāstivāda-vinayavibhāṣā states: "Between four settlements, where the ladders of carts from the four directions reach one another, if the robes are within the four settlements, they are not forfeited." The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: "If one sleeps across four settlements, with head, feet, and two hands each in a different boundary, and the robe is under the head, when dawn breaks and the head leaves, one incurs forfeiture. If the hands and feet reach each other, one does not commit an offense." The Sarvāstivāda-vinayavibhāṣā states: "If the robe is placed between two boundaries and the body sleeps across the two boundaries, it is not forfeited, because each has a part of the body [within it].")

1.57

Second, the household boundary; (referring to multiple households within one settlement, which also have shared and distinct forms. If parents and brothers share the same dwelling and the same livelihood, it is called a shared boundary. Separate meals and separate livelihoods are called distinct boundaries, which is the clan boundary below.)

1.58

Third, the clan boundary; (meaning that within one household there are separate meals and separate livelihoods, which also have shared and distinct forms. If each has their own living quarters, it is called a single boundary. If [the robes and body] are in two places, or in common places such as food preparation or latrines, they are forfeited in all such cases.)

1.59

Fourth, dwellings of non-Buddhists; (if they share the same views and treatises, it is the same boundary. If they have different views, and the body and robes are in two different places, or in the gateway building, central courtyard, and other common places, they are forfeited in all such cases.)

1.60

Fifth, traveling encampments; (places where performers and the like temporarily stay. If belonging to a single master, it is called a shared boundary. If belonging to different masters, then between the various common places, [the robes] are forfeited in all such cases.)

1.61

Sixth, multi-story dwellings; (that is, multi-story pavilions and the like. If under the same owner, whether the person and robe are mutually above or below, they are not forfeited; if under different owners, they are forfeited. If it is a single-story pavilion, the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: "Twenty-five hastas outside the stairway path." The Liaolun states: "If the robe is below and the body is above, it is forfeited; in the opposite case, it is not forfeited.")

1.62

3. The tree boundary; (at the very minimum, down to equal to a person's height, sufficient to shade someone sitting cross-legged; this has five distinctions:) First, a solitary tree; (taking the area covered by the shadow at midday, where rain does not reach.) Second, a contiguous large forest; (the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya states: "One krośa," which is two li, six hundred paces.) Third, a small grove of four trees; (the Samantapāsādikā states: "Fourteen hastas," calculated as two zhang, five chi, two cun.) Fourth, a vine trellis; (grapevines, gourds, melons, and the like. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: "Take twenty-five hastas on each of the four sides," calculated as four zhang, five chi, meaning measured outward from the person's body, not from outside the trellis.) Fifth, explaining above and below; (if the robe is beneath the tree and the body is above, the robe is forfeited. If the robe is above and the body is below, it is not forfeited, because there is the possibility of it falling down.)

1.63

4. The threshing-floor boundary; (a quiet, empty place outside a village where the five grains are processed; delimited according to the size of the threshing floor.)

1.64

5. The cart boundary; (for a stationary cart, take the turning radius. For moving carts, if the front and rear cart poles reach one another, it is not forfeited; if they do not reach, it is forfeited.)

1.65

6. The boat boundary; (for a stationary boat, take the turning radius. For moving boats, if there are multiple compartments without passage between them, there are distinct boundaries; in the opposite case, it provides common protection.)

1.66

7. The detached house boundary; (referring to a separate house outside a village or in the open wilderness. The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya gives no specific dimensions. If based on the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya, for a pavilion one takes twenty-five hastas. If based on the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, for a storehouse one takes the ground enclosed by the four walls. Either may be used according to circumstances.)

1.67

8. The hall boundary; (mostly open and exposed in front.)

1.68

9. The storehouse boundary; (where various goods are accumulated and stored.)

1.69

10. The granary boundary; (places where grain and rice are stored. The above three are all bounded by the interior ground.)

1.70

11. The āraṇyaka boundary; (that is, an open, remote place; between eight trees, calculated as fifty-eight paces, four chi, eight cun.)

1.71

12. The traveling-on-the-road boundary; (the Samantapāsādikā states: "Forty-nine fathoms front and back," calculating internally thirty-nine zhang, two chi.)

1.72

13. The islet boundary; (the Samantapāsādikā states: "Within fourteen hastas," calculated as two zhang, five chi, two cun.)

1.73

14. The water boundary; (the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: "Wading through water, twenty-five hastas," calculated as four zhang, five chi. If the robe is on a boat and one enters the water, it is forfeited immediately. If the robe is on the shore, when both feet enter the water it is forfeited immediately; with one foot, it is not forfeited.)

1.74

15. The well boundary. (The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: "Traveling on the road in the open, spending the night beside a well: twenty-five hastas," also taking within four zhang, five chi as the boundary. If the robe is inside the well, one should attach a rope and lower a hand into the well; it is not forfeited, because it is distinct from the boundary above. Other pits and cellars are likewise.)

1.75

Second, explaining the extended perimeter. Ritual robe-boundaries do not have one; one must enter the boundary itself before uniting with the robes. (This is because the extended perimeter is natural, and differs in nature from a ritual boundary.) For the fifteen kinds of natural boundaries, an additional thirteen paces—calculated as seven zhang, eight chi—is routinely added beyond their respective dimensions. (The Samantapāsādikā states: "The distance to which a person neither robust nor frail throws a stone with all his might." Ancient masters evaluated this: taking thirteen paces as the standard.) Merely entering the extended perimeter constitutes uniting with the robes; it is not necessary to enter the boundary proper. (If there are the three obstructions of defilement, physical barrier, or mental disquiet within the boundary, there is no extended perimeter.)

1.76

Third, explaining the four obstructions. (In all the boundaries above, wherever they occur, forfeiture of robes results.) First is the obstruction of defilement; (when women are within the boundary, fearing contamination of pure conduct, the robes must be kept on one's person.) Second is the obstruction of physical barriers; (blocked roads on water or land, obstructions by doors, walls, and the like.) Third is the obstruction of mental disquiet; (when kings, ministers, illusionists, or musicians enter the boundary, giving rise to thoughts of robbery, loss, etc., or when brothers in a household separate and each has their own delimited area.) Fourth is the obstruction of boundaries. (When they do not intercommunicate with one another, such as when the person is on the road while the robe is under a tree, then one forfeits the robes, and so forth.)

1.77

Fourth, explaining the conditions of whether forfeiture occurs or not. The Lüchao contains three determinations: "First, in the Vinaya, the five notions of being seized, lost, burned, swept away by water, or ruined (which are mental obstructions), roads on water or land being cut off, or calamities such as thieves, vicious beasts, life-threatening danger, or danger to chastity (these are physical barriers)—if these conditions definitely occur, one only loses the Dharma-transmission [of the robe] through attachment, but does not commit a naiḥsargika-prāyaścittika offense. Second, if one was previously negligent and did not guard them, and although calamity-conditions occur later, one loses the Dharma-transmission and commits an offense. Third, if one constantly maintains the mindful retention [of the robes], and various calamities suddenly arise so that one cannot reach them in time to unite with them, one neither loses the Dharma-transmission nor incurs an offense. (The matter must be genuine; one must not rely on pretenses)." Further: "Question: 'If one forgets and goes outside without taking the robe, only realizing it when night falls, and has no means to retrieve it and unite with it, is the robe forfeited or not?' Answer: 'If that person constantly keeps it on his person and suddenly forgets, by analogy with extra robes, an exception is granted.' (If one forgets to perform the purification by declaration for an extra robe, one does not commit an offense, and an additional ten days are granted.)"

1.78

Third, explaining the manner of wearing [the robes]. The Vinaya commands: "Wear the three robes neatly." The Sanqian weiyi states: "When wearing them, one must not face a stupa, a senior monk, or the three preceptors, nor should one turn one's back [to them]; one must not hold them with the mouth or shake them with both hands." The Vinaya states: "One should drape it over the shoulder; it must not hang down over the arm or elbow." This was an earlier regulation. As related by the deva in the Gantong zhuan, four regulations in all were instituted: "First, from the initial conversion of the five monks onwards, the kāṣāya was uniformly prescribed to be worn on the left arm, with the sitting mat under the kāṣāya. Next, because young and handsome [monks] entered the city to beg for food and were frequently loved by women, it was then prescribed that the corner of the robe should be over the left shoulder, weighed down with the sitting mat. Again, because a monk was challenged by non-Buddhists saying, 'How can the cloth one sits upon be placed on top of the dharma robe?', from then on the regulation was restored, ordering it to be worn over the left arm with the sitting mat beneath. Finally, because monks wore their robes untidily, non-Buddhists ridiculed them saying, 'Like courtesans, like elephant trunks!' Because of this, it was first prescribed to fix a hook and loop on top, so that the corner of the robe would pass over the left arm and be placed under the armpit, not allowing it to hang down, avoiding the faults mentioned above." Today, one should follow the later regulation; otherwise, draping it over the shoulder or letting it hang over the elbow or arm is strictly non-Dharmic, because offenses were established for this among the śaikṣa rules.

1.79

Fourth, explaining mending and washing. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya states: "Robes must always be clean and in accordance with the Dharma; otherwise, humans and non-humans will reprimand you." The Samantapāsādikā states: "For the great robe and seven-strip robe, if the tear on the wide side is within eight finger-breadths and on the long side within one span, one does not lose the receipt [of the robe]. For the five-strip robe, if the tear on the wide side is within four finger-breadths and on the long side within one span, one does not lose it; if it is torn elsewhere to the size of a little fingernail, one loses the receipt. After mending it, one undertakes it again." The Sarvāstivāda-vinayavibhāṣā states: "If the hem is severed, one loses the receipt." The Samantapāsādikā states: "If the kāṣāya is too large, reduce it; if it is too small, patch it with cloth; if it is washed, if the color is deepened, or if the color fades or is redyed, in all such cases one does not lose the receipt," and so forth.

1.80

The Fourth Requisite: The Pātra

1.81

First, explaining the intention behind its prescription. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: "The bowl is a vessel for renunciants, not an implement for householders." The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya states: "The bowl is the insignia of the Buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges; it must not be put to improper use." The Samantapāsādikā states: "The noble ones of the three vehicles all hold earthenware bowls and beg for food to support their lives, taking the four seas as their home; therefore, they are called bhikṣus." An ancient master said: "A bowl has no stand; it is not a vessel for royal courts."

1.82

Second, explaining the name. In Sanskrit, it is called pātra, which is here translated as "responsive vessel." Some say: "Because its substance, colour, and capacity all respond to the Dharma." If one follows the Zhangfu yi: "One who is worthy of receiving offerings uses it, hence it is called a 'responsive vessel.'" Thus we know that bō (鉢) is a Sanskrit term; the language of this land is concise, omitting the latter two characters.

1.83

Third, explaining its substance. The Vinaya says: "In general there are two kinds: clay and iron." In the Pañcavargika-vinaya: "Using a wooden bowl constitutes a sthūlātyaya offence." The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya says: "Because it is a mark of non-Buddhists, and also because it absorbs grime and grease." The Patriarch says: "In the world today there are bowls made of layered hemp, lacquer, and oil; these are all improper, and according to principle must be destroyed."

1.84

Fourth, explaining the colour. The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya: "It should be smoked to become black or red." The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya: "To smoke it to the colour of a peacock's throat or the colour of a dove is in accordance with the Dharma." The Samantapāsādikā: "An iron bowl is smoked five times; an earthen bowl is smoked twice." In the Vinaya: "One is permitted to make a bowl-smoking furnace," and so forth. (In this region bamboo smoke is mostly used, as the colour takes easily.)

1.85

Fifth, explaining the capacity. In the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya: "A large bowl holds three dǒu (three dǒu of the Ji-Zhou dynasty, which is one dǒu of the present Tang dynasty); a small one holds a dǒu and a half (which is five shēng of the present)." The medium grade can be known from this. (Between the large and the small, there are those who cling to the Vinaya phrase 'measuring one's belly' and do not rely on measurement by dǒu; they are mistaken. The Shichao says: "Since it is called improper, one should not covet it as pure.")

1.86

Sixth, explaining the procedure for assignment. (According to the text of the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya:) "Venerable One, attentively consider! I, named so-and-so, receive this pātra responding to the measure, because of constant use." (Three times spoken. For the procedure of relinquishment, one should say: "Previously received and retained, now relinquished." Once spoken.)

1.87

Seventh, practice and maintenance. The Wubai wen says: "If for an entire day one does not use the bowl to eat at all, one commits a prāyaścittika (in our school it should be a duṣkṛta), but it is permitted for those severely ill. If one goes outside the boundary and stays overnight, one does not lose the assignment (one only incurs a duṣkṛta offence)." The Samantapāsādikā: "If it is pierced to the size of a millet grain, one loses the assignment. If it has been repaired and plugged with iron filings, one must receive it again." If it is broken aslant, it does not constitute a valid assignment.

1.88

Niṣīdana, the Fifth Requisite

1.89

First, the intention of its prescription. In the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya: "In order to protect the body, protect the robes, and protect the bed and bedding of the saṅgha."

1.90

Second, explaining the name. In Sanskrit it is called niṣīdana, which here means "seat-following robe," and is also called "seat-mat," resembling the padded cushions of this land. Foolish people are confused by the name, claiming it was prescribed because of bhikṣuṇī masters (níshī). Moreover, not recognising the patch in the middle, they call it a "mat-altar" (tánzi). Consequently combining them to call it níshǐtán, they are ridiculed by contemporaries, all because they do not study.

1.91

Third, determining the measurements. The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya: "Two Buddha-spans in length, (According to the Pañcavargika-vinaya: 'One Buddha-span is two chi by the Zhou ruler; thus the length is four chi.' When measuring, the feet and inches must be fixed; if it slightly exceeds the measure, the Vinaya establishes a primary offence.) and one and a half spans in breadth (which is three chi)." The above is the original prescribed measure. The Vinaya says: "At that time Kālodāyin's body was large and his niṣīdana was small; he spoke of this to the Buddha, who thereupon permitted increasing the length and breadth by half a span each." (Each increased by one chi.) This is a later allowance. The Jieshu says: "To increase it further is an exceptional allowance. One still proceeds from the original prescription, making a separate increase beyond the limit." (Some who hold the increased measurement to be the regular rule are mistaken.) It also says: "Speaking of the present world, people all delight in vast and large clothing and seat-mats, and all delight in sumptuous and heavy food and drink and utensils." (And so on.) Although departing from the prescription to follow the allowance is theoretically tenable, yet Kālodāyin was exceptionally large and was only granted an addition of half a span; how could people nowadays, being lowly and small, find the initial measurement inadequate? If one says it is not so, please refer to authoritative proof. The Shichao says: "To make it according to the Dharma, after following the initial measure, one cuts it off and applies a border. If when sitting one's knees touch the ground, one relies on the increased measure and joins an addition along one end and one side. This is the definitive canonical text." (Thus we know that if one's knees do not touch the ground, one does not make the increase. Some say that 'the initial measure abolishes the earlier teaching,' which is mistaken.) However, past generations only increased one chi along the length end and one chi along the breadth side; later, a deva told the Patriarch: "Even if one patches all four sides, it does not violate the text of 'half a span.' It is only that the translation's wording was concise, saying merely 'half a span each'; considered as a cross-measurement, it precisely means all four sides." The four patches of the sitting mat began from this.

First 91 of 105 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

佛制比丘六物圖 — Classical Chinese