緇門警訓 5.24

5.24

佛制法衣但三。一曰。安陀會。二曰。欝多羅僧。三曰。僧伽梨。此三法衣定是出家之服。非在家者所披。僧祇云。三衣者賢聖沙門標識。非俗人所為。智論云。佛聖弟子住於中道故。著三衣。外道裸形無恥。白衣多貪重著。雜阿含云。修四無量者。並剃髮服三法衣。而出家也。據斯以知定非俗服。世云。梵網經有通俗著者。人見彼經廣列王臣道俗。盡得受戒。應教身所著袈裟等言。便令士女受菩薩戒者著七條衣。觀彼經文。未必全爾。袈裟正翻為染。或翻臥具。據翻染者秖是通制。道俗受戒須服壞色。恐其染同特艶。乖於法制。乃云。應教身所著染。皆使壞色。或有風俗不可盡制。而出家菩薩必須染壞故。復文云。比丘應與俗服有異。何曾通俗著七條衣。或翻臥具者。南山云。三衣總名。梵網經云。披九條七條五條袈裟。即其文也。若爾者。又何妨袈裟之語別在出家。亦即文云。比丘皆應與俗服有異。尋天台及藏法師章疏。俱作染壞義釋。並無通俗三衣之說。雖方等經中通俗脩懺入道場時許著三衣。但是單縫不許却刺。佛言。此三衣者一名單縫。二名俗服。荊溪師云。若却刺者即是大僧受持之衣。是故此衣應須別造。世有借出家人衣。深為未可。故知雖三衣非出家服（出輔行記）信其梵網若已許著。方等何故要須單縫。乃至阿含佛令取阿難欝多羅僧。與婆四吒女著等。此出自聖意暫爾赴機。滅後下凡須依定制。一切戒律涅槃重宣最後之言。方為揩定。三衣許俗彼經無文餘。或云。攘災免厄許與小片。至如戲女暫挂獵師假披。或云。得四寸而飲食斯充。挂一片而羅剎不噉。蓋顯三衣之功用。非許四民之受持。出家閑邪之人尚昧持衣之軌。在塵煩雜之眾。寧知奉法之儀。南山云。若受用有方則不生罪戾。必領納乖式。便自陷深愆。一生無衣覆身一死。自負聖責何慮無惡道分。觀斯之言自坐深過。忍將非法誤累在家。更有愆妄不能緘默。多見道俗競挂絡子。濫觴久矣。滋彰近矣。且三衣五納制聽二典。絡子名狀出自何文。誤以三衣破片而迴作者。比丘衣損秖合補治。令不失受持。豈容披其破片。更立異名。何殊遭賊失衣比丘乎。或云。院內執作暫挂無妨者。安陀會。正是院內之衣。何不著耶。至於俗家弟子。若免災厄不應常挂袈裟之片。若許常挂。何不全許三衣。而但許一片耶。南山引僧祇龍著袈裟免金翅難。乃云。必不順教則所被無力。袈裟違教尚云無力。況今絡子特新裁染。公然製造。若名若體。全是非法。驗知披挂得罪無福。今略書三種違教之咎。庶幾讀之。宥過無大必改為善。一者絡子名體都無所載。制聽二教一切所無。既乏五功濫參三賤。違教之責冥報非虛。二者制聽二教。唯佛一人。自菩薩聲聞述而不作。今既自制絡子。仁者便是佛耶。三者隋外道輩非佛者流。南山云。以雜色線縫於衣上作條幅者。是外道法。結偷蘭遮。況乎造非法衣。殊乖先制。非外道輩斯何人哉。幸願四方道人行大乘者。讀文尋竟莫守己情。擔麻棄金殊非智者。革弊從正斯則達人。應知無上佛乘解無道俗。傳持之軌誠在律儀。涅槃扶律談常。正在於此。律範若壞。法假誰傳。豈生為人不護眼目。斷常住命。非旃陀羅耶。昔靜靄法師值周武行虐。自恨不能護法出家奚為。乃坐石奮刀遍身剖肉引腸挂樹。以手捧心而卒。嗚呼古賢護法其若是乎。我等既學未能。宜法制莫致毀損。殃墜自他矣。

The Dharma robes instituted by the Buddha are only three: first, the antarvāsa; second, the uttarāsaṅga; and third, the saṃghāṭī. These three Dharma robes are definitively the garments of those who have left home (pravrajyā), not to be worn by householders. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: 'The three robes are the insignia of the noble and sagely śramaṇas; they are not intended for layfolk.' The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'Because the Buddha’s holy disciples abide in the Middle Way, they wear the three robes. The non-Buddhists go naked without shame, while the white-robed [laity] are laden with greed and wear heavy garments.' The Saṃyuktāgama states: 'Those who cultivate the four immeasurables shave their hair, wear the three Dharma robes, and leave home.' Based on this, we know they are definitively not lay garments. People of the world say that the Brahmajāla Sūtra permits the laity to wear them. Seeing that this sūtra widely lists kings, ministers, clerics, and layfolk as all eligible to receive the precepts, and speaks of 'one should instruct concerning the kāṣāya and other robes worn upon the body,' people then have men and women who receive the bodhisattva precepts wear the seven-strip robe. Examining the text of that sūtra, it is not necessarily entirely so. Kāṣāya is properly translated as 'dyed' [in improper colors], or translated as 'sleeping mat'. Relying on the translation as 'dyed', this was merely a general regulation: when clerics and layfolk receive the precepts, they must wear ruined colors (kaṣāya), fearing that if they dyed them identically in bright, alluring shades, it would violate the Dharma's regulations; thus it says, 'One should instruct that the dyed robes worn upon the body all be of ruined colors.' Perhaps because local customs could not be completely regulated, yet home-leaving bodhisattvas must have them dyed in ruined colors, the text further says, 'A bhikṣu must differ from lay dress.' How could it ever permit layfolk to wear the seven-strip robe? As for translating it as 'sleeping mat', [Daoxuan of] Nanshan says: 'It is a general name for the three robes.' The Brahmajāla Sūtra says: 'Doffing the nine-strip, seven-strip, or five-strip kāṣāya'—this is its text. If so, what is to prevent the term kāṣāya from specifically applying to those who have left home? It also accords with the text: 'Bhikṣus must all differ from lay dress.' Investigating the commentaries and sub-commentaries of Tiantai [Zhiyi] and Dharma Master [Fazang], both explain it in the sense of 'dyed and ruined colors', and neither contains any statement permitting the three robes to the laity. Although the Vaipulya sūtras permit layfolk cultivating repentance to wear the three robes upon entering the bodhimaṇḍa, they must only be single-stitched and are not allowed to be double-hemmed (cut and pieced). The Buddha said: 'These three robes are called, first, single-stitched, and second, lay dress.' Master Jingxi [Zhanran] said: 'If they are double-hemmed, they are the robes received and held by fully ordained monks (upasampanna). Therefore, this [lay] robe must be specially made. People of the world borrow the robes of those who have left home, which is utterly impermissible.' Thus we know that although they are 'three robes', they are not the home-leaving robes (from the Fuxing ji). Believing this, if the Brahmajāla had already permitted wearing them, why would the Vaipulya sūtras strictly require single stitching? Furthermore, as for the Āgama where the Buddha ordered taking Ānanda's uttarāsaṅga and having the woman Vāsiṣṭhī wear it, and so forth, this stemmed from the Sage’s personal intention, temporarily adapting to circumstances. After his parinirvāṇa, ordinary mortals must rely on the established regulations. All the vinaya codes and the final words reiterated by the Nirvāṇa Sūtra are the definitive standard; that the three robes are permitted to the laity is nowhere found in those texts. Others say: to avert disasters and escape calamities, a small strip was permitted to be given—such as an actress temporarily draping it, or a hunter deceptively wearing it; or they say that obtaining four inches affords ample food and drink, and draping a single scrap prevents rākṣasas from devouring one. These merely reveal the efficacy and power of the three robes, not that the four classes of commoners are permitted to receive and uphold them. Even those who have left home to ward off evil are still ignorant of the protocols for keeping the robes; how could the crowds entangled in worldly dust know the etiquette of revering the Dharma? Nanshan said: 'If received and used according to proper rule, no transgression arises; if one receives them contrary to form, one plunges oneself into deep guilt. In life, one will lack robes to cover the body; in death, one will bear the sage's reprimand—how can one avoid having a share in the evil destinies?' Considering these words, one incurs deep blame upon oneself; how can one bear to take what is contrary to Dharma and wrongly implicate householders? There is an even further error that I cannot keep silent about: I frequently see clerics and layfolk vying to drape the luozi (vestment sash). Its small beginning was long ago, but its rampant spread is recent. Now, the three robes and the five-piece patchwork are set forth in the two canons of prohibitions and permissions; from what text do the name and form of the luozi derive? For those who mistakenly take scraps of the three robes to fashion it, when a bhikṣu's robe is damaged, he is only supposed to patch and repair it so that it is not lost to his practice; how can he be permitted to wear its torn pieces and further establish a disparate name? How does this differ from a bhikṣu who lost his robes to thieves? Or if it is said: 'Temporarily draping it while working in the monastery courtyard does no harm,' the antarvāsa is precisely the robe for within the monastery courtyard—why not wear that? As for lay disciples, if it is to avoid disasters and calamities, they should not constantly drape a scrap of the kāṣāya. If they are permitted to constantly drape it, why not permit the entire three robes, rather than only a single scrap? Nanshan cited the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya, where a nāga wore a kāṣāya to escape the distress of the garuḍa, and then stated: 'If one does not comply with the teachings, then what is worn has no power.' If a kāṣāya that defies the teachings is already said to be powerless, how much more so for the luozi of today, which is specially cut and dyed anew and openly manufactured! In both name and substance, it is entirely non-Dharma. This proves that draping it brings guilt and no merit. Now I briefly set down three faults of defying the teachings, hoping that those who read this will see that no fault is too great to pardon if one resolves to reform for the good: First, neither the name nor the substance of the luozi is recorded anywhere; it is entirely absent from the two teachings of prohibitions and permissions. Lacking the five merits and illicitly mingling with the three lowly items, the retribution in the unseen realm for defying the teachings will not be empty. Second, the two teachings of prohibitions and permissions were laid down by the Buddha alone; from bodhisattvas to śrāvakas, they transmitted but did not create. Now that you create the luozi on your own, kind sirs, are you the Buddha? Third, this follows the lot of non-Buddhists, not the lineage of the Buddha. Nanshan said: 'Sewing variegated threads onto a robe to make stripes is a non-Buddhist practice, incurring a sthūlāccaya.' How much worse is it to make an illegitimate robe that completely violates the ancient regulations? If not non-Buddhists, what kind of people are they? I sincerely hope that practitioners of the four quarters who practice the Mahāyāna will ponder the text to the end and not cling to their own prejudices. Carrying hemp while throwing away gold is by no means the mark of a wise person; reforming abuses and following the correct path is what the perceptive do. You should know that in the supreme Buddha Vehicle, understanding admits of no distinction between monastic and lay, but the protocol of transmission and maintenance truly resides in the vinaya and deportment. When the Nirvāṇa Sūtra upholds the vinaya to discuss the eternal, it refers precisely to this. If the standards of the vinaya are destroyed, through whom can the Dharma be transmitted? How could a human being not protect his eyes? Severing the life of the permanent [Dharma]—is that not being a caṇḍāla? Anciently, Dharma Master Jing'ai, encountering the atrocities committed by Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou, lamented that he could not protect the Dharma and asked what was the use of having left home; he sat upon a rock, wielded a knife, sliced the flesh from his entire body, pulled out his intestines to hang them on a tree, and clasping his heart with his hands, he died. Alas! Is this how ancient sages protected the Dharma? Since we are unable to emulate that, we should at least ensure that the regulations of the Dharma do not suffer ruin, bringing calamity upon ourselves and others.