宗四分比丘隨門要略行儀 1.27

1.27

大德一心念。我比丘某甲。故畜眾多長衣（若知數必須依本數稱之）過十日。犯捨墮。我今持此衣物捨與大德（一說）彼答云。可爾（然為受取）如是離三衣宿（隨其一二三依名稱）犯捨墮販賣得財（若干眾多）犯捨墮。或從非親居士乞衣（若干眾多）犯捨墮（如是乃至迴僧物。並隨名稱之。應知）請懺悔主文（應對一清淨比丘輕。重無犯者故。律云。應至清淨境所。何以須爾。彼人有犯便成自縛自既有縛。何能濟他。文云）大德一心念。我比丘某甲。今請大德作波逸提懺悔主。願大德為我作波逸提懺悔主。慈愍故（三說答言可爾）。

"Bhadanta, preserve single-minded mindfulness. I, the bhikṣu named so-and-so, having intentionally kept many extra robes (if knowing the number, one must state it according to the original count) past ten days, have committed naiḥsargika-prāyaścittika. I now take this robe-cloth and forfeit it to the Bhadanta." (Said once.) The other answers: "It is well." (And then receives it.) Likewise, spending a night separated from the three robes (state according to the name, whether one, two, or three) is a naiḥsargika-prāyaścittika. Obtaining wealth through trading (such-and-such amount or many) is a naiḥsargika-prāyaścittika. Or begging robes from a householder who is not a relative (such-and-such amount or many) is a naiḥsargika-prāyaścittika. (And so on, up to diverting Saṅgha property, all should be stated according to their names, as should be understood.) Text for requesting a confessor (One should face a single pure bhikṣu who has committed no offense, whether minor or major. Therefore, the Vinaya states: "One should go to the presence of a pure person." Why must it be so? If that person has committed an offense, he is bound himself; being bound himself, how could he save another? The text says:) "Bhadanta, preserve single-minded mindfulness. I, the bhikṣu named so-and-so, now request the Bhadanta to act as the confessor for my prāyaścittika. May the Bhadanta act as the confessor for my prāyaścittika, out of compassion." (Spoken three times. The answer is: "It is well.")