佛制比丘六物圖 1.98

1.98

Fourth, explaining their wearing and use. In the world there are many disputes; now I shall clarify it. In this land in ancient times, all wore the saṅkakṣikā. In the Later Wei dynasty, they first added a right sleeve and stitched the two sides together, calling it the piānshān (half-jacket); cutting the collar and opening the hem, it still preserved the original form. Thus we know that the left shoulder of the piānshān is the original saṅkakṣikā, and the right side is the shoulder-covering robe. People today are confused about this, and over the piānshān they further add a shoulder-covering robe, claiming that those who study the Vinaya must wear it. However, people in the Western lands mostly bared their shoulders, and fearing this might incur ridicule and fault, it had to be veiled. In this land padded jackets are worn in multiple layers, and with the half-sleeve added besides, what purpose is served by covering it again? Even though various reasons are given, they remain entirely groundless. (If one claims it engenders goodness, then all monks ought to wear it; why only the Vinaya school? Do other schools not engender goodness by not wearing it? Moreover, light gauze dyed purple is improper in both substance and colour; the Buddha designated it as lay clothing, entirely contradicting the monastic appearance, so what goodness is there in it? Or if one says it 'distinguishes the lineages of the schools,' the Buddhist teaching distinguishes schools solely by the three trainings; that one would distinguish them by physical clothing is something unheard of.) Furthermore, the three robes were strictly prescribed by the Great Sage, yet they have scarcely touched their bodies; the shoulder-covering robe was repeatedly denounced by the Patriarch, yet they stubbornly retain it and do not let it go. This is truly because once a corrupt custom stirs, successive generations share in the delusion. Moreover, because they are ignorant of the teaching, they fail to change upon hearing what is right. Adducing further clear evidence, let us examine it closely. The Zhangfu yi says: "The original prescription arose solely for the assembly of nuns. For monks to wear it today is an usurpation extending to a lower status." Also the Zhufa tuzan says: "Ānanda's retributive strength was magnificent, complete, and fully endowed. Men and women all gave rise to attachment and love, to the extent that when their eyes delighted in his pure appearance, their minds became enraptured and bewildered, even tying their children by the neck and drowning them; on account of this, an exceptional prescription was made ordering him to wear the shoulder-covering robe. Today, those who presumptuously wear it by mere chance are acting inappropriately!" (According to this, it denounces wearing the single shoulder-covering robe without a piānshān underneath. As for the modern double covering, since it did not exist at that time, it was not within the scope of those words. If single covering is already considered presumptuous, how much more is modern double covering undoubtedly contrary to the Dharma? It is explained extensively elsewhere.)