一　左府抄三巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

【本文二段構成】
【右頁】
【枠外右上】
三四四【但し算用数字】
【枠外右横上】
左府抄下
【枠外右横下】
二六

【上段】
爲。能有實德業離實等有性之宗也。而離實等言。若包＿二
同異和合＿一者。何物殘留。爲＿二不能有實德業離實等有性
之片差別＿一。爾者。此度可＿レ出＿二-申其體＿一也。
　　已上書＿二【-】寫僧都抄出＿一。
所離之外。
　僧都云。可＿レ依＿二 二卷私記今案義＿一。
付＿二法差別不能有實德業離實等有性＿一。體何物耶。
二卷私記今案云。可＿レ云＿二和合句＿一也。
問【。】勘＿二法差別＿一之時。以＿二同異和合＿一。入＿二等言＿一。云何勘＿二法差
別＿一之時。殘＿二和合句＿一。爲＿二意許片差別＿一乎。
答。爲＿レ示＿二違四作法＿一。任＿二師主矯立＿一。以＿二和合＿一。爲＿二所離之外＿一。
爲＿二意許片方＿一也《割書：二卷私記｜意如＿レ此》
○論文所說皆共比違共《割書：等云云》
問。後二相違。能違作法。判＿二共比量＿一。其理不＿レ然。先付＿二有
法自相能違作法＿一。今勝論立＿二有性非實＿一。敵者五頂。以＿二非
實言＿一。勘＿二-成有法有性是離實有性＿一。直非＿二此有＿一。卽立＿三有性
非＿二有性＿一。是以。於＿二能違量＿一。有法有性。是應＿二離實有性＿一。今

【下段】
牒＿二他有＿一。以作＿二能違＿一。豈非＿二他比量＿一乎。由＿レ此疏云。彼先已
成＿二非實之有＿一今卽難＿レ彼破＿レ他違＿レ他非＿レ成＿二諸違＿一《割書：云云》。加＿レ之
纂要云。今破＿二他有＿一卽自所別所依不成若共自量此卽是
過爲＿レ破＿二於他＿一就＿二他宗＿一立雖＿レ有＿二所別所依不成＿一而不＿レ爲＿レ
過。《割書：云云》。准＿二此等文＿一。明是他比量￣ナリト《割書：云》￣フコトヲ次付＿二有法差別
能違作法＿一。旣破＿二樂爲作大有有緣性之宗＿一。卽立＿三有性非＿二
作大有有緣性＿一。故疏云。不＿レ遮＿二作有緣性＿一但遮＿二作大有有
緣性＿一故成＿二意許別義相違＿一不＿レ爾違＿レ宗有性可＿二作有緣性＿一
故《割書：云云》。而弟子五頂。未＿レ許＿二有法＿一。而立＿レ非＿二作大有有緣
性＿一。豈非＿二他比量＿一耶。
答。汎後二相違能違作法。是共比量。所＿二-以然＿一者。後二
相違所違量者。今立論者。卽以＿二極成有法極成能別＿一。初
立＿二樂爲所立宗＿一時。亦擧＿二共許因幷共同喩＿一。成＿二所立宗＿一。而
因闕後二相故。卽令＿レ相＿二-違所立宗＿一。云＿二共比違＿一＿レ共也。是
以。敵者見＿二因闕後二相＿一。卽牒＿二有法＿一。以作＿二能違＿一。然則。所
違若共比。能違亦共比。但作＿二共比量＿一。若有＿二其過＿一時。亦
用＿二他比＿一。於＿レ理無＿レ妨。共比違＿レ自。此則過。故疏云。若他

【左頁】
【枠外左上】
三四五【但し算用数字】
【枠外左横上】
左府抄下
【枠外左横下】
二七

【上段】
比量一切無＿レ遮。其意在＿レ此。但於＿二有法自相能違量＿一者。
今立＿二有性非有性＿一。實知＿レ難＿二彼離實有性＿一。猶云＿二有性＿一未＿レ
言＿二大有＿一。汎爾言＿レ有。彼此俱成。是以意許。難＿二大有＿一故。雖＿レ
非＿二樂爲宗＿一。言陳猶言＿レ有故。卽云＿二共比量＿一。故疏云。彼先
惣說今亦惣難彼旣成＿二-立離實之有＿一故今難令＿レ非＿二此有＿一
言同異別故無＿二諸過＿一《割書：云云》。但於＿下破＿レ他違＿レ他非＿レ成＿二諸過＿一之
文＿上者。專不＿二相違＿一。所＿二以然＿一者。汎問難意。若立＿二有性非
有性＿一。卽犯＿二自語相違＿一。而今立意。卽立＿二有性非實＿一。卽是
離實有性。今破＿二此有＿一。不＿レ犯＿二自語相違等過＿一。未＿三文分明
云＿二他比量＿一。故不＿二相違＿一。次於＿二纂文＿一者。是有＿二別心＿一。所＿レ謂
若望＿二彼意許＿一。卽離實有性。是以。若以＿二意許＿一卽＿二彼言陳＿一。
亦有＿二所別所依不成等過＿一。若付＿二言陳＿一不＿レ云＿二大有＿一故。猶是
共比量。然則。疏主付＿二言陳＿一。纂師付＿二意許＿一。所＿レ望有＿レ別。不＿レ
致＿二違背＿一。次於＿二有法差別能違作法＿一者。若如＿二所難＿一。今立＿レ
非＿二作大有有緣性＿一。實是他比量。但是一傳。未＿レ詳＿二其旨＿一。是
以或一傳心《割書：考【四角囲み文字】原本傍｜云永超傳》亦立＿三有性非＿二作有性有緣性＿一。今所存
卽是此傳。是則猶言＿二有性＿一。亦是共比。但至＿二疏文＿一者。是述＿下

【下段】
作＿二能違量＿一意＿上。未＿レ及＿二 三支作法＿一。若正立＿二比量＿一時。猶言陳
避＿レ過。可＿レ立＿レ非＿二作有性有緣性＿一也。
　　已上。書＿二-寫僧都抄出＿一。
尋云。皆共比違共者。所違共比量。違＿二能違共比量＿一言歟。
答。《割書：僧都》。不＿レ然。所違比量宗。違＿二所違共許因喩＿一言也。故
疏中卷云。如＿下以＿二佛法＿一破＿二數論＿一。云＿中汝我無常許＿二諦攝＿一故
如＿中【中点重複】許大等＿上。此他比量￣ナリ。無常之宗￣ハ廿三諦爲＿二同品＿一。以＿二自
性＿一爲＿二異品＿一。許＿二諦攝＿一因。於＿二同異品＿一。皆悉遍有。故是他共
《割書：云云》。明詮噵云。此他比量中他共不定《割書：云云》。《割書：考【四角囲み文字】本裏云。論文｜所說皆共比違共》
《割書：文￣ヲ共中共｜ト云フ事。》准＿レ此知。他比量中自他共。自比量中自他共。
共比量中自他共。皆限＿二所違＿一。不＿レ通＿二能違＿一也。論文所說
皆共比違共向三四因皆自比違＿レ自者。共比之中共。自比
之中自￣ト言￣フナリ也。他比違他。亦如＿レ此。
○今觀後三皆第四
　僧都云。無＿二指事＿一。
○此上所說《割書：等云云》。
　僧都云。望＿二喩兩俱不成＿一也。故理門論云。於＿二其同品＿一

現代語訳

【右頁】

能有実徳業離実等有性の宗を為す意である。而して実等を離れるという言葉が、若し同異和合を包むなら、何物が残留して、不能有実徳業離実等有性の片方の差別と為るのか。爾れば、この度はその体を出し申すべきである。

已上僧都の抄出を書写す。

所離の外。

僧都云く。二巻私記の今案義に依るべし。

法差別の不能有実徳業離実等有性について、体は何物か。

二巻私記の今案に云く。和合句と云うべきである。

問う。法差別を勘ずる時、同異和合を以て等言に入れる。如何なれば法差別を勘ずる時、和合句を残して意許の片差別と為すのか。

答う。違四の作法を示すために、師主の矯立に任せて、和合を以て所離の外と為し、意許の片方と為すのである《二巻私記の意はこの如し》

○論文に所説皆共比違共《等云云》

問う。後二相違の能違作法を共比量と判ずるのは、その理が然らず。先ず有法自相能違作法について、今勝論が有性非実を立てる。敵者五頂が非実の言を以て、有法有性はこれ離実有性なりと勘成し、直ちにこの有を非とし、即ち有性非有性を立てる。是を以て、能違量において、有法有性はこれ離実有性に応ずるべし。今

【下段】

他の有を牒して以て能違を作す。どうして他比量でないことがあろうか。これに由って疏に云く。彼は先に已に非実の有を成し今即ち彼を難じて他を破り他に違い諸違を成すにあらずと《云云》。これに加えて纂要に云く。今他有を破すは即ち自の所別所依不成なり若し共自の量ならばこれ即ち是れ過なり他を破るが為に他宗に就いて立つは所別所依不成有りと雖も而も過と為さずと《云云》。この等の文に准ずれば、明らかにこれ他比量なりということ。次に有法差別能違作法について、既に樂為作大有有縁性の宗を破し、即ち有性非作大有有縁性を立てる。故に疏に云く。作有縁性を遮せず但だ作大有有縁性を遮する故に意許別義相違を成す爾らずんば宗に違す有性は作有縁性すべき故にと《云云》。而して弟子五頂は、未だ有法を許さずして、非作大有有縁性を立てる。どうして他比量でないことがあろうか。

答う。汎く後二相違能違作法は、これ共比量である。然る所以は、後二相違の所違量とは、今の立論者が、即ち極成有法極成能別を以て、初めて樂為所立宗を立てる時、亦た共許因並びに共同喩を挙げて、所立宗を成ず。而して因が後二相を闕く故に、即ち所立宗に相違せしむ。共比が共に違うと云うのである。是を以て、敵者が因の後二相を闕くを見て、即ち有法を牒して以て能違を作す。然れば、所違が若し共比なら、能違も亦た共比である。但だ共比量を作すに、若しその過有る時は、亦た他比を用いる。理に於いて妨げ無し。共比が自に違うは、これ則ち過である。故に疏に云く。若し他

【左頁】

比量一切遮無し。その意これに在り。但だ有法自相能違量については、今有性非有性を立てるのは、実に彼の離実有性を難ずるを知る。猶お有性と云うも未だ大有と言わず。汎爾として有と言う。彼此俱に成ず。是を以て意許にて大有を難ずる故に、樂為の宗に非ずと雖も、言陳は猶お有と言う故に、即ち共比量と云う。故に疏に云く。彼は先に総じて説き今も亦た総じて難ず彼は既に離実の有を成立する故に今難じて此の有に非ざらしむ言は同異別なる故に諸過無しと《云云》。但だ他を破り他に違い諸過を成さずの文については、専ら相違せず。然る所以は、汎く問難の意は、若し有性非有性を立てれば、即ち自語相違を犯す。而して今の立意は、即ち有性非実を立てる。即ちこれ離実有性である。今この有を破すに、自語相違等の過を犯さず。未だ文分明に他比量と云わず。故に相違せず。次に纂文については、これ別心有り。謂わく若し彼の意許に望めば、即ち離実有性である。是を以て、若し意許を以て彼の言陳に即けば、亦た所別所依不成等の過有り。若し言陳について大有と云わざる故に、猶おこれ共比量である。然れば、疏主は言陳について、纂師は意許について、望む所に別有り。違背を致さず。次に有法差別能違作法については、若し所難の如くば、今非作大有有縁性を立てるのは、実にこれ他比量である。但だこれ一伝なり。未だその旨を詳らかにせず。是を以て或る一伝の心《考 原本傍に云く永超伝》も亦た有性非作有性有縁性を立てる。今の所存は即ちこの伝である。これ則ち猶お有性と言い、亦たこれ共比である。但だ疏文に至っては、これ

【下段】

能違量を作する意を述べ、未だ三支作法に及ばず。若し正しく比量を立てる時は、猶お言陳にて過を避けて、非作有性有縁性を立つべきである。

已上、僧都の抄出を書写す。

尋ねて云く。皆共比違共とは、所違共比量が能違共比量に違うという言か。

答う。《僧都》然らず。所違比量の宗が、所違の共許因喩に違うという言である。故に疏の中巻に云く。仏法を以て数論を破するが如し。汝我無常許諦摂故許大等の如しと云う。これ他比量なり。無常の宗は廿三諦を同品と為す。自性を以て異品と為す。許諦摂の因は、同異品において、皆悉く遍有す。故にこれ他共《云云》。明詮導に云く。この他比量中他共不定《云云》。《考 本裏に云う。論文所説皆共比違共》《文を共中共と云う事。》これに准じて知る。他比量中の自他共、自比量中の自他共、共比量中の自他共は、皆所違に限り、能違に通ぜずなり。論文所説皆共比違共向三四因皆自比違自とは、共比の中の共、自比の中の自と言うなり。他比違他も亦たこの如し。

○今観後三皆第四

僧都云く。指事無し。

○此上所説《等云云》。

僧都云く。喩両俱不成に望むなり。故に理門論に云く。その同品において

英語訳

【Right Page】

This is the intention of establishing the thesis "capable-having substance-quality-action separate from substance etc. existence-nature." However, if the words "separate from substance etc." include similarity-difference and conjunction, what remains to serve as the one-sided distinction of "not capable-having substance-quality-action separate from substance etc. existence-nature"? Then, this time the substance should be brought forth and explained.

Above copied and written from the Monastic Director's excerpts.

Apart from what is separated.

The Monastic Director says: One should rely on the present interpretation in the two-volume private record.

Regarding the dharma-distinction "not capable-having substance-quality-action separate from substance etc. existence-nature," what is its substance?

The present interpretation in the two-volume private record says: It should be called the conjunction sentence.

Question: When examining dharma-distinction, similarity-difference and conjunction are included in the "etc." word. How is it that when examining dharma-distinction, the conjunction sentence remains as an implied one-sided distinction?

Answer: To demonstrate the method of violating four, following the teacher's artificial establishment, conjunction is made what is "apart from what is separated," becoming an implied one side. 《The intention of the two-volume private record is like this》

○ The treatise text says "all are shared inference violating shared"《etc.》

Question: Judging the counter-argument methods of the latter two contradictions as shared inferences is unreasonable. First, regarding the counter-argument method for subject-svabhāva: Now Vaiśeṣika establishes "existence-nature is non-substantial." The opponent Five Peaks, using the word "non-substantial," establishes that "the subject existence-nature is separate-from-substance existence-nature," directly negating this existence, immediately establishing "existence-nature is non-existence-nature." Therefore, in the counter-inference, the subject existence-nature should correspond to "separate-from-substance existence-nature." Now

【Lower Section】

taking others' existence to make counter-arguments. How is this not others' inference? Due to this, the commentary says: "They first already established non-substantial existence, now immediately challenging them, breaking others, contradicting others, not establishing various contradictions"《etc.》. Adding to this, the Essential Compilation says: "Now breaking others' existence is immediately one's own subject-basis non-establishment. If it were a shared-self inference, this would be a fault. For breaking others, establishing according to others' doctrine, although there is subject-basis non-establishment, it does not become a fault"《etc.》. According to these texts, it is clearly others' inference. Next, regarding the subject-distinction counter-argument method: Already breaking the thesis "enjoying creating great-existence capable-cognizing nature," immediately establishing "existence-nature is not creating great-existence capable-cognizing nature." Therefore the commentary says: "Not preventing creating capable-cognizing nature but only preventing creating great-existence capable-cognizing nature, therefore establishing implied separate meaning contradiction. Otherwise it contradicts the thesis that existence-nature should create capable-cognizing nature"《etc.》. However, the student Five Peaks, not yet permitting the subject, establish "not creating great-existence capable-cognizing nature." How is this not others' inference?

Answer: Generally, the counter-argument methods of the latter two contradictions are shared inferences. The reason is that the contradicted inferences of the latter two contradictions are when the present proponent, using mutually established subjects and mutually established predicates, initially establishes the desired thesis, also raising mutually permitted reasons and shared similar examples to establish the thesis. However, because the reason lacks the latter two characteristics, it immediately causes contradiction with the established thesis. This is called "shared inference violating shared." Therefore, when opponents see the reason lacking the latter two characteristics, they immediately take the subject to make counter-arguments. Then, if the contradicted is shared inference, the counter-argument is also shared inference. However, when making shared inferences, if there are faults, one also uses others' inferences. There is no impediment in principle. Shared inference contradicting self is a fault. Therefore the commentary says: "If others'

【Left Page】

inference, there is no prevention at all." The intention is here. However, regarding the subject-svabhāva counter-inference: Now establishing "existence-nature is non-existence-nature" actually knows it challenges their "separate-from-substance existence-nature." Still saying "existence-nature" without yet saying "great existence." Generally saying "existence," both sides establish it. Therefore, in implied meaning, challenging great existence, so although not the desired thesis, the verbal expression still says "existence," therefore it is called shared inference. Therefore the commentary says: "They first spoke generally, now also generally challenging. Since they already established separate-from-substance existence, now challenging to make it not this existence. Words are same but meanings different, therefore no various faults"《etc.》. However, regarding the text "breaking others, contradicting others, not establishing various faults," there is no contradiction. The reason is that the general challenging intention: if establishing "existence-nature is non-existence-nature," it immediately commits self-contradictory speech fault. However, the present establishing intention immediately establishes "existence-nature is non-substantial." This is separate-from-substance existence-nature. Now breaking this existence does not commit self-contradictory speech and other faults. The text does not clearly say "others' inference." Therefore there is no contradiction. Next, regarding the Compilation text: this has separate intention. Namely, if looking toward their implied meaning, it is immediately separate-from-substance existence-nature. Therefore, if taking the implied meaning as their verbal expression, there are also faults like subject-basis non-establishment. If regarding verbal expression, not saying "great existence," it is still shared inference. Then, the commentary master focuses on verbal expression, the compilation master focuses on implied meaning. What they look toward differs. There is no contradiction. Next, regarding the subject-distinction counter-argument method: If as challenged, now establishing "not creating great-existence capable-cognizing nature" is indeed others' inference. However, this is one transmission. Its purport is not yet detailed. Therefore, one transmission's intention 《Investigation: the original margin says Eichō's transmission》 also establishes "existence-nature is not creating existence-nature capable-cognizing nature." The present position is precisely this transmission. This still says "existence-nature," also being shared inference. However, reaching the commentary text, this describes

【Lower Section】

the intention of making counter-inferences, not yet reaching the three-part method. When properly establishing inferences, still avoiding faults in verbal expression, one should establish "not creating existence-nature capable-cognizing nature."

Above, copied and written from the Monastic Director's excerpts.

Inquiring: Does "all are shared inference violating shared" mean the contradicted shared inference violates the counter-argument shared inference?

Answer: 《Monastic Director》 No. It means the contradicted inference's thesis violates the contradicted's mutually permitted reason and example. Therefore the commentary's middle volume says: Like using Buddhist doctrine to break Sāṃkhya, saying "your self is impermanent, because it is included in principles, like the permitted great ones etc." This is others' inference. The impermanence thesis takes the twenty-three principles as similar instances. Taking self-nature as dissimilar instances. The reason "included in principles" is pervasively present in both similar and dissimilar instances. Therefore this is others' shared《etc.》. The Myōsen-dō says: "In this others' inference, others' shared indeterminate"《etc.》. 《Investigation: the original back says: the treatise text "all said are shared inference violating shared"》《The matter of calling the text "shared within shared."》 According to this, we know: others' shared in others' inference, self-others' shared in self-inference, self-others' shared in shared inference are all limited to what is contradicted, not extending to counter-arguments. The treatise text "all said are shared inference violating shared, the previous three-four reasons are all self-inference violating self" means shared within shared inference, self within self-inference. Others' inference violating others is also like this.

○ Now observing the latter three are all fourth

The Monastic Director says: There are no specific references.

○ What is explained above《etc.》.

The Monastic Director says: This looks toward example mutual non-establishment. Therefore the Logic Gate treatise says: "In those similar instances