翻刻
【本文二段構成】
【右頁】
【枠外右上】
三四六【但し算用数字】
【枠外右横上】
左府抄下
【枠外右横下】
二八
【上段】
有非有等且隨＿二所立＿一當＿二如＿レ是說＿一《割書：云云》。是其證文也。
○若有＿二兩俱不成＿一必無＿二不定及與相違＿一《割書：云云》
問。兩俱不成。不定相違。必不＿二相竝＿一。道理不＿レ明。先商羯
羅主菩薩。於＿二 六不定中＿一。同分異全不定作法云。聲生論師
對＿二於聲顯＿一。立＿下聲非＿二勤勇無間所發＿一無常性故同喩如＿二虛
空＿一異喩如＿中瓶等＿上。立敵共不＿レ許＿三無常性因有＿二聲有法＿一故。疏
主自判＿レ有＿二兩俱不成＿一。是豈非＿下兩俱不成與＿二不定＿一相竝＿上耶。
何況。明＿二闕減過性＿一之中。於＿二因三相＿一。闕＿レ 二有＿レ 三。闕＿レ 三有＿レ
一。其中闕＿二初相第三相＿一。兩俱不成不定可＿レ竝。闕＿二初相後
二相＿一。可＿レ有＿二兩俱不成相違因過＿一。次聲論師。立＿下聲常眼所
見性故同喩如＿二虛空＿一異喩如＿中瓶等＿上時。眼所見性故因。立
敵何不＿レ許＿レ轉＿二有性聲＿一。有＿二兩俱不成＿一此因。同喩虛空非有。
異喩瓶等上有。故同無異有。犯＿二法自相相違過＿一。豈非＿下有＿二
兩俱不成＿一量有＿中相違因＿上耶。加＿レ之。一切聲常勤勇無間所
發性故如＿二聲性等＿一時。此因不＿レ轉＿二外聲一分＿一。所以可＿レ有＿二
兩俱不成＿一。望＿二内聲＿一論之時。若對＿レ許＿二同喩聲性＿一者。以＿二瓶
等＿一可＿レ付＿二不定過＿一。若對＿レ不＿レ許＿二同喩＿一者。此因同無異有。可＿レ
【下段】
有＿二相違因過＿一。此等疑難。何可＿レ會哉。以是見＿二疏上文＿一云。此
上所說但是立敵兩俱不成四相違因《割書：云云》。旣以＿二論所說四
相違因＿一。卽名＿二兩俱不成＿一。何云＿二兩俱不成＿一。《割書：考【四角囲み文字】何已下｜六字恐衍》何云＿三兩
俱不成相違因不＿二相竝＿一乎。答。所＿二出難＿一立量作法。或莊嚴
寺邑法師問難。或明燈抄所＿レ述也。以＿二彼等立量＿一。邑法師
意。許＿二相竝＿一。所謂今疏意。且於＿二因三相＿一。唯闕＿二初相＿一。名爲＿二
不成＿一。後二相中闕＿二隨一＿一名＿二不定＿一。二相俱闕具＿二初相＿一名＿二
相違＿一義￣ヲ《割書：以》。一相判＿レ之。於＿二理盡義＿一。兩俱不成不定相違。
可＿レ云＿二相竝＿一也。
已上書＿二-寫僧都抄出＿一。
二卷私記淸水律師裏書云。今案四相違之本意。專不＿レ
然。不＿レ妨＿下有＿二兩俱不成＿一之量同無異有＿上。但尤可＿レ云＿二 四相
違必初相不＿一＿レ闕也。
問。不定與＿二兩俱不成＿一可＿レ竝耶。
答。《割書：僧｜都》未＿二審定＿一。
問。相違與＿二兩俱不成＿一可竝耶。
答。《割書：僧都》不＿レ可＿レ竝也。世親以後皆除第七之故也。已
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
三四七【但し算用数字】
【枠外左横上】
左府抄下
【枠外左横下】
二九
【上段】
上。自＿二 二月卅日＿一。至＿二 三月八日＿一習＿レ之。八日與＿二念珠
僧都＿一。
久壽元年冬十二月。同二年春二月。兩度參＿二-會因明
御談義＿一。先師所習。愚意所存。不＿レ殘＿二 一義＿一。悉申上
了。不＿レ顧＿二後昆之反脣＿一。只從＿二當時之嚴旨＿一許也。
興福寺權少僧都慧曉《割書：于時七｜十有一》
寬喜三年六月四日申時。於＿二興福寺一乘院＿一馳筆訖。
老眼之間。不＿レ知＿二筆之所＿一＿レ著。其上寺務忩忩。仍雖＿レ難＿二
見解＿一。爲＿レ休＿二徒然＿一。染＿二老筆＿一而已。
興福寺別當權僧正法印大和尚位實信
此書ハ正本之外更無＿二餘本＿一者也
手自一交了
《割書：考【四角囲み文字】原本奧裏書加書云》
此御抄。數遍拜見了。凡建曆以來因明師。偏信＿二末
【下段】
學之浮華＿一。不＿レ知＿二義道之眞實＿一。誠知。海鳥之性不＿レ
樂＿二綵桐之曲＿一。野人之口唯甘＿二藜藿之味＿一。甚可＿レ悲矣
時也。貞和四年九月十八日。雨中記之而已。
末學覺信
【下段枠内左上】
左府抄下《割書：終》
現代語訳
【右頁】
有非有等、しばらく所立に随って、当にこの如く説くべし《云云》。これはその証文である。
○若し両俱不成有れば、必ず不定及び相違無し《云云》
問う。両俱不成と、不定・相違とが、必ず相並ばないという道理が明らかでない。先ず商羯羅主菩薩が、六不定の中で、同分異全不定の作法に云く。声生論師が声顕に対して、「声は勤勇無間所発に非ず、無常性の故に、同喩は虚空の如く、異喩は瓶等の如し」と立てる。立者・敵者共に、無常性の因が声という有法に有ることを許さない故に、疏主は自ら両俱不成有りと判ずる。これはどうして両俱不成と不定とが相並ぶことでないだろうか。いわんや、闕減過性を明かす中で、因の三相について、二を闕いて三を有し、三を闕いて一を有する。その中で初相・第三相を闕けば、両俱不成と不定が並ぶべきである。初相・後二相を闕けば、両俱不成と相違因の過とが有るべきである。次に声論師が「声は常なり、眼所見性の故に、同喩は虚空の如く、異喩は瓶等の如し」と立てる時、眼所見性の故という因を、立者・敵者がなぜ声有性に転することを許さないのか。両俱不成が有る。この因は、同喩虚空には非有、異喩瓶等の上には有る。故に同無異有で、法自相相違の過を犯す。どうして両俱不成有る量に相違因有ることでないだろうか。これに加えて、一切の声は常なり、勤勇無間所発性の故に、声性等の如しという時、この因は外声の一分に転ぜず。所以に両俱不成有るべし。内声に望んで論ずる時、若し同喩声性を許す者に対すれば、瓶等を以て不定の過を付すべし。若し同喩を許さない者に対すれば、この因は同無異有で、相違因の過有るべし。これらの疑難を何と会すべきか。これを以て疏の上文を見れば云く。「此の上に所説するは但だこれ立敵両俱不成の四相違因」《云云》と。既に論の所説の四相違因を以て、即ち両俱不成と名づく。何ぞ両俱不成《何已下六字恐らく衍》何ぞ両俱不成と相違因とが相並ばずと云うか。
答う。出難の立量作法は、或いは荘厳寺邑法師の問難、或いは明燈抄の所述である。彼等の立量を以て、邑法師の意では、相並ぶことを許す。謂わく、今の疏の意では、しばらく因の三相について、ただ初相のみを闕くのを名づけて不成と為し、後二相の中で随一を闕くのを名づけて不定と為し、二相俱に闕いて初相を具するのを名づけて相違と為すという義を《以て》、一相もてこれを判ずる。理を尽くした義において、両俱不成・不定・相違は、相並ぶと云うべきである。
已上僧都の抄出を書写す。
二巻私記清水律師の裏書に云く。今案ずるに四相違の本意、専ら然らず。両俱不成有る量の同無異有を妨げず。但だ尤も四相違は必ず初相不闕と云うべきなり。
問う。不定と両俱不成とは並ぶべきか。
答う。《僧都》未だ審定せず。
問う。相違と両俱不成とは並ぶべきか。
答う。《僧都》並ぶべからず。世親以後、皆第七を除く故なり。已
【左頁】
上。二月三十日より、三月八日に至るまでこれを習う。八日に念珠僧都と。
久寿元年冬十二月、同二年春二月、両度因明御談義に参会す。先師の所習、愚意の所存、一義をも残さず、悉く申し上げ了んぬ。後昆の反唇を顧みず、ただ当時の厳旨に従う許りなり。
興福寺権少僧都慧暁《于時七十有一》
寛喜三年六月四日申時、興福寺一乗院において筆を馳せ訄んぬ。老眼の間、筆の著く所を知らず。その上寺務忩忩たり。仍って見解し難しと雖も、徒然を休めんが為に、老筆を染むるのみ。
興福寺別当権僧正法印大和尚位実信
この書は正本の外更に余本無き者なり
手自ら一交し了んぬ
《考 原本奥裏書加書に云う》
この御抄、数遍拝見し了んぬ。凡そ建暦以来の因明師、偏に末
【下段】
学の浮華を信じて、義道の真実を知らず。誠に知る。海鳥の性は綵桐の曲を楽しまず。野人の口はただ藜藿の味を甘しとす。甚だ悲しむべき時なり。貞和四年九月十八日、雨中にこれを記すのみ。
末学覚信
左府抄下《終》
英語訳
【Right Page】
"Existence, non-existence, etc., should temporarily follow what is established and be explained as such" 《etc.》. This is the evidential passage.
○ If there is bilateral non-establishment, there is necessarily no indeterminacy or contradiction《etc.》
Question: The principle that bilateral non-establishment and indeterminacy-contradiction necessarily do not co-occur is unclear. First, Bodhisattva Śaṅkarasvāmin, in the six indeterminacies, regarding the method of same-part different-whole indeterminacy, says: The sound-production theorist, opposing the sound-manifestation [school], establishes "sound is not produced by effort-immediate causation, because of impermanence-nature, similar example like space, dissimilar example like pot etc." Because both proponent and opponent do not permit the impermanence-nature reason to exist in the subject sound, the commentary master himself judges there is bilateral non-establishment. How is this not bilateral non-establishment co-occurring with indeterminacy? Moreover, in clarifying the nature of deficiency faults, regarding the three characteristics of reasons: lacking two while having three, lacking three while having one. Among these, lacking the first and third characteristics, bilateral non-establishment and indeterminacy should co-occur. Lacking the first and latter two characteristics, there should be bilateral non-establishment and contradictory reason faults. Next, when the sound theorist establishes "sound is permanent, because of visible-nature, similar example like space, dissimilar example like pot etc.," why don't proponent and opponent permit the reason "because of visible-nature" to apply to sound-existence? There is bilateral non-establishment. This reason is absent in the similar example space, present in the dissimilar example pot etc. Therefore, absent in similar, present in dissimilar, committing the fault of dharma-svabhāva contradiction. How is this not a bilateral non-establishment inference having contradictory reasons? Additionally, when [saying] "all sounds are permanent, because of effort-immediate production nature, like sound-nature etc.," this reason does not apply to one part of external sounds. Therefore there should be bilateral non-establishment. When discussing in relation to internal sounds, if opposing those who permit the similar example sound-nature, pot etc. should be attached with indeterminacy fault. If opposing those who don't permit similar examples, this reason has similar-absent dissimilar-present, should have contradictory reason fault. How can these doubts and difficulties be resolved? Seeing the commentary's above text says: "What is explained above is merely the four contradictory reason [faults] of bilateral non-establishment between proponent and opponent"《etc.》. Since the four contradictory reasons explained in the treatise are immediately named bilateral non-establishment, why say bilateral non-establishment 《The six characters from "why" onward are probably superfluous》 why say bilateral non-establishment and contradictory reasons do not co-occur?
Answer: The inference methods presented in the difficulties are either questions from Dharma Master Yū of Shōgon Temple or what is述 in the Myōtō-shō. Using those inferences, according to Dharma Master Yū's intention, co-occurrence is permitted. That is, according to the present commentary's intention, regarding the three characteristics of reasons: only lacking the first characteristic is called non-establishment; lacking either one of the latter two characteristics is called indeterminacy; lacking both characteristics while possessing the first characteristic is called contradiction. Using this principle 《with》 to judge by one characteristic. In thoroughly reasoned doctrine, bilateral non-establishment, indeterminacy, and contradiction should be said to co-occur.
Above copied and written from the Monastic Director's excerpts.
The reverse writing of Dharma Master Shimizu in the two-volume private record says: Presently considering the fundamental intention of the four contradictions is decidedly not so. It does not prevent inferences with bilateral non-establishment from having similar-absent dissimilar-present. However, one should especially say that the four contradictions necessarily do not lack the first characteristic.
Question: Can indeterminacy and bilateral non-establishment co-occur?
Answer: 《Monastic Director》 Not yet definitively determined.
Question: Can contradiction and bilateral non-establishment co-occur?
Answer: 《Monastic Director》 Cannot co-occur. Because since Vasubandhu, all exclude the seventh. Above
【Left Page】
From the 30th of the second month to the 8th of the third month, studied this. On the 8th with Monastic Director Nenju.
In the winter 12th month of Kyūju first year, spring 2nd month of the same second year, participated twice in the Logic discussions. What the former master studied, what my foolish mind maintains, not leaving out a single doctrine, all has been presented completely. Not heeding future generations' criticism, only following the strict instructions of the time.
Assistant Monastic Director Ekyō of Kōfuku Temple 《At the time seventy-one years old》
Kanki 3rd year, 6th month, 4th day, monkey hour, finished writing at Ichijō-in of Kōfuku Temple. With aged eyes, I do not know where the brush touches. Moreover, temple duties are hurried. Therefore, although difficult to see and understand, only to rest from idleness, I wet this old brush.
Assistant Head Priest, Provisional Archbishop, Dharma Seal Great Priest Jisshin of Kōfuku Temple
This book has no other copies besides the original
Personally collated once, finished
《Investigation: The original's back additional writing says》
This honored excerpt, I have respectfully viewed many times. Generally, logic masters since Kenryaku, partial in believing the superficial elegance of latter
【Lower Section】
learning, do not know the truth of the doctrinal way. I truly know: the nature of sea birds does not enjoy the melodies of decorated paulownia; the mouths of rustic people only find sweet the taste of goosefoot and beans. This is truly a lamentable time. Jōwa 4th year, 9th month, 18th day, recorded this during rain.
Latter student Kakushin
Safu-shō Lower Volume 《End》