一　左府抄三巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

【本文二段構成】
【右頁】
【枠外右上】
三二八【但し算用数字】
【枠外右横上】
左府抄中
【枠外右横下】
一〇

【上段】
申＿一。道理尚不＿レ明。先以＿レ何知。言陳有性下。更帶＿二意許加
言量＿一。凡存＿二本作法義＿一之人。於＿二有法有性之下＿一。有＿二￣テ作
大有有緣性作非大有有緣性意許＿一。云＿二非實等＿一。偏成＿二￣ズ作
大有緣性之義＿一。末＿レ謂＿レ有＿二意許加言量＿一也。次仙人所＿レ立三
比量。汎爾言＿レ有。雖＿レ寄＿二詞於共許＿一。能別云＿二非實＿一時。偏
成＿二大有性＿一。只限＿二作有緣性一義＿一。不＿レ帶＿二作非有緣性意許＿一。
有＿二何替處＿一。許而勘＿レ過哉。次會＿二論文＿一。更不＿二疏意＿一。釋＿二
俱決定之文＿一云＿二遮非實等而作有緣性＿一。以＿二有一實等因＿一。
竝成＿二￣ズト有性非實有性作有緣性二宗＿一云也。共是言陳。
更不＿二意許＿一。由＿レ此疏云＿二而作有緣性＿一者。卽今量能別也。亦
能成立之文。猶可＿レ亦＿二￣スルナル作有緣性之言陳￣ニ＿一也。但＿二【二点衍ヵ】於＿二如
遮實等文＿一者。存＿二別作法義＿一之人。更有＿二會釋＿一。所＿レ謂前有
法自相。所違能違俱用＿二遮言＿一。今有法差別相違。所違立＿二有
性作有緣性＿一。旣無＿二遮言＿一。能違云＿レ非＿二作大有有緣性＿一。有＿二
遮言＿一。所以爲＿レ成＿二遮義＿一。可＿レ例＿二前量＿一。非＿三是爲＿二今作法＿一也。
次會＿二此言有者之文＿一。其理不＿レ詳。凡師主立＿二 三量＿一之時。
於＿二有性言陳＿一。更帶＿二作有緣性意許＿一。今爲＿レ顯＿二此樂爲＿一。別

【下段】
立＿二有性作有緣性之量＿一。所以就＿レ本談＿レ之。云＿二卽於前宗有
法差別＿一。此量￣ノ言陳￣ナリ。故煩避＿レ過。若意許者。何强用＿二共
許言＿一哉。例如＿三法差別相違等意＿二【「-」脱ヵ】許不積聚他用＿一也。爾者
此度詳答申哉。　答。先有性言陳之下。帶＿二意許加言量＿一
者。非＿二立者私胸臆＿一。古來先德皆所＿レ談也。凡後三相違。
立者樂爲。言陳不＿レ顯。皆有＿二意許加言量＿一。所＿レ謂法差別相
違不積聚他用。有法自相離實等有性。有法差別作有緣
性也。於＿レ 中有法差別相違者。斷云。若據＿二意許＿一立云＿二有
作有緣性＿一。明燈抄中云。卽是寄＿二於言顯比量一類宗中＿一
矯立＿二意許第二類宗＿一於＿二 一量中＿一雙＿二-成如＿レ是兩類宗＿一故云＿レ
犯＿二相違＿一《割書：云云》。言顯比量者。卽有性非實等宗。第二類宗
者有性作有緣性量也。所以有＿二意許量＿一其義決然。今此
有性作有緣性量。更不＿二有法差別相違作法＿一。所＿二以然＿一者。
作有緣性能別之下。有＿二作大有有緣性。作非大有有緣性
之二意許＿一。以＿二有一實等因＿一。成＿二相違義＿一。是名＿二法差別相違＿一
也。故斷破＿二璧公＿一云。作有緣性中意作大有有緣性作非
大有有緣性是其差別《割書：云云》。是以望＿二言顯不加言量＿一。云＿二有

【左頁】
【枠外左上】
三二九【但し算用数字】
【枠外左横上】
左府抄中
【枠外左横下】
一一

【上段】
性非實＿一之時。於＿二有法有性＿一。有＿二 二意許＿一。作有緣性者。卽
意許量之能別也。横就＿二意許＿一。是云＿二法差別＿一。竪望＿二言顯＿一。
是云＿二有法差別＿一。所以今就＿二不加言言顯量＿一。爲＿二有法差別
相違作法＿一也。故又斷云。望＿二不加言＿一名＿二有法差別＿一若加言
已卽名＿レ法故《割書：云云》。諸文相違。准＿レ此可＿レ會。然則。此言有者
有無之有疏文。留＿レ文《割書：考【四角囲み文字】文曆本｜作＿レ意好》　可＿レ思。如＿二彼法差別相
違＿一。是一因違一作法也。立＿二必爲他用言陳＿一之時。以＿二能別
他言＿一表＿二樂爲宗＿一故。不￣シテ＿レ遮＿レ過意＿二【「-」脱ヵ】許￣セリ不積聚他用￣ヲ＿一也。
今此有性非實量。是一因違二作法。其中先有法自相。
言陳立＿二有性非實等＿一時。亦表＿二樂爲宗＿一。故於＿二意許＿一亦不＿レ￣シテ
遮＿レ過。意＿二-許離實等大有＿一。次此有法差別。言顯未＿レ表＿二樂爲＿一。
不＿レ及＿レ諍＿二差別義＿一故。所以先立＿二有性作有緣性＿一。次可＿レ成＿二
樂爲作大有緣性＿一。是故兼避＿二￣テ能別不成等過＿一。意＿二-許￣セリ作
有緣性＿一。必對＿二敵論者＿一。可＿レ立＿二此量＿一故也。由＿レ此雖＿二意許量＿一。
尚用＿二共許言＿一。勿＿レ例＿二法差別等＿一。其義深奧。能可＿レ思＿二-准之＿一。
　重尋云。若然者。兩重意許歟。立＿二有性非實＿一時。意＿二-許
　作有緣性＿一。又作有緣性之下。意＿二-許作大有緣性＿一故也。

【下段】
　答。道理所＿レ指。是兩重意許也。故斷云。作有緣性中意
　作大有有緣性《割書：云云》。雖＿レ然。師主意許。更不＿二兩重＿一。作
　有緣性卽作大有緣性。例如＿下法差別相違。立＿二必爲他
　用＿一之時。他言卽不積聚他＿上也。
　又尋云。斷云然成此法意成有法等者。以＿二有性作有
　緣性量＿一。尚爲＿二有法差別相違作法＿一言意歟。　答。不＿レ然。
　雖＿二加言量＿一。尚成＿二有法＿一。不＿レ同＿三聲無常量但成＿二法自相＿一
　云也。不＿レ言＿レ爲＿二有法差別相違作＿一【一点は「法」の下ヵ】法也。《割書：考【四角囲み文字】建曆本脫＿二｜此一問答＿一》又
　尋云。周記正義。別立＿二有性作有緣性量＿一。云＿レ可＿レ爲＿二有
　法差別相違作法＿一歟。　答。不＿レ爾。別立＿二意許加言量＿一。
　可＿レ顯＿二差別義＿一。卽如＿三作有緣性言陳之下有＿二 二意許＿一云
　也。是法差別也。不＿レ云＿レ爲＿二有法差別相違作法＿一。以＿レ此可＿レ
　得＿二文意＿一也。
　　依＿二知己勸＿一。聊貽＿二愚案＿一
　　　　　　　　　權律師　　慧曉
問。斷云。今據＿二意許＿一難令＿レ成＿レ過故非＿二言顯＿一《割書：云云》。其意許
者。作有緣性意許歟。作大有緣性意許歟。　答。作有緣

現代語訳

【右頁】

【上段】
申すところは、道理がなお明らかでない。先ずどうして知るのか、言陳の有性の下に、更に意許加言量を帯びるということを。凡そ本作法の義を存じる人は、有法有性の下において、作大有有縁性・作非大有有縁性の意許があって、「非実等」と云うことで、偏に作大有縁性の義を成さずして、意許加言量があるとは謂わないのである。次に仙人の立てる所の三比量は、汎爾に「有」と言って、詞を共許に寄せるとはいえ、能別で「非実」と云う時は、偏に大有性を成して、ただ作有縁性の一義に限り、作非有縁性の意許を帯びない。何の替わる処があって、許してそれで過を勘考するのか。次に論文を会するが、更に疏意ではない。俱決定の文を釈して「非実等を遮して作有縁性」と云うのは、「一実等有る」の因を以て、並びに「有性非実」「有性作有縁性」の二宗を成すと云うのである。共にこれは言陳であって、更に意許ではない。これによって疏が「而して作有縁性」と云うのは、即ち今の量の能別である。「また能く成立する」の文も、なお「作有縁性の言陳」に対してであるべきである。但し「実等を遮するが如き」の文については、別作法の義を存じる人は、更に会釈がある。所謂前の有法自相は、所違・能違俱に遮言を用いる。今の有法差別相違は、所違が「有性作有縁性」を立てて、既に遮言が無く、能違が「作大有有縁性に非ず」と云って、遮言がある。所以に遮義を成すために、前量に例すべきで、これが今の作法のためではない。次に「この有と言う者」の文を会するが、その理は詳らかでない。凡そ師主が三量を立てる時、有性の言陳において、更に作有縁性の意許を帯びる。今この楽為を顕すために、別に

【下段】
「有性作有縁性」の量を立てる。所以に本に就いてこれを談じて、「即ち前宗において有法差別」と云う。この量の言陳である。故に煩わしく過を避ける。もし意許なら、何故強いて共許の言を用いるのか。例えば法差別相違等の意許不積聚他用の如くである。それならこの度詳しく答え申そうか。答。先ず有性言陳の下に、意許加言量を帯びるということは、立者の私的な胸臆ではない。古来の先徳が皆談じる所である。凡そ後三相違は、立者の楽為は、言陳に顕れず、皆意許加言量がある。所謂法差別相違の不積聚他用、有法自相の離実等有性、有法差別の作有縁性である。その中で有法差別相違については、断に「もし意許に拠れば『有作有縁性』を立てる」と云い、明燈抄の中に「即ちこれは言顕比量一類宗の中に寄せて、意許第二類宗を矯立し、一量の中において是の如き両類宗を双成する故に相違を犯すと云う」と云う。言顕比量とは、即ち有性非実等の宗である。第二類宗とは有性作有縁性の量である。所以に意許量があることは、その義は決然である。今この有性作有縁性の量は、更に有法差別相違の作法ではない。所以に然るは、作有縁性能別の下に、作大有有縁性・作非大有有縁性の二意許があって、「一実等有る」の因を以て、相違の義を成す。これを法差別相違と名づけるのである。故に断が璧公を破して「作有縁性の中で意は作大有有縁性・作非大有有縁性、これがその差別である」と云う。これを以て言顕不加言量に望んで、「有

【左頁】

【上段】
性非実」と云う時、有法有性において、二意許がある。作有縁性とは、即ち意許量の能別である。横に意許に就けば、これを法差別と云い、竪に言顕に望めば、これを有法差別と云う。所以に今不加言言顕量に就いて、有法差別相違の作法とするのである。故にまた断に「不加言に望んで有法差別と名づけ、もし加言すれば即ち法と名づける故」と云う。諸文の相違は、これに准じて会すべきである。然らば、「この有と言うは有無の有」の疏文は、文を留めて考えるべきである。彼の法差別相違の如く、これは一因違一作法である。「必ず他のために用いる」の言陳を立てる時、能別の「他」の言を以て楽為宗を表す故に、過を遮さずして意許不積聚他用をするのである。今この有性非実の量は、これは一因違二作法である。その中で先ず有法自相は、言陳で「有性非実等」を立てる時、また楽為宗を表す。故に意許においても過を遮さずして、意許離実等大有とする。次にこの有法差別は、言顕がまだ楽為を表さず、差別義を諍うに及ばない故である。所以に先ず「有性作有縁性」を立て、次に楽為作大有縁性を成すべきである。これ故に兼ねて能別不成等の過を避けて、意許作有縁性とする。必ず敵論者に対して、この量を立てるべき故である。これによって意許量といえども、なお共許の言を用いる。法差別等に例してはならない。その義は深奧で、よく思い准ずべきである。

重ねて尋ねて云う。もしそうなら、両重の意許か。「有性非実」を立てる時、意許作有縁性とし、また作有縁性の下に、意許作大有縁性とする故である。

【下段】
答。道理の指す所は、これは両重の意許である。故に断に「作有縁性の中で意は作大有有縁性」と云う。然りといえども、師主の意許は、更に両重ではない。作有縁性は即ち作大有縁性である。例えば法差別相違で、「必ず他のために用いる」を立てる時、「他」の言は即ち不積聚他の如くである。

また尋ねて云う。断に「然してこの法を成すは意は有法を成す等」と云うのは、有性作有縁性の量を以て、なお有法差別相違の作法とすると言う意か。答。然らず。加言量といえども、なお有法を成して、声無常の量がただ法自相を成すのと同じでないと云うのである。有法差別相違の作法となると言うのではない。

また尋ねて云う。周記の正義は、別に有性作有縁性の量を立てて、有法差別相違の作法とすべきと云うか。答。爾らず。別に意許加言量を立てて、差別義を顕すべきである。即ち作有縁性言陳の下に二意許があると云うが如くである。これは法差別である。有法差別相違の作法となるとは云わない。これを以て文意を得るべきである。

知己の勧めに依って、聊か愚案を貽す
権律師　慧曉

問。断に「今意許に拠って難じて過を成さしめる故に言顕に非ず」と云う。その意許とは、作有縁性の意許か。作大有縁性の意許か。答。作有縁

英語訳

【Right Page】

【Upper Section】
What is stated is that the reasoning is still not clear. First, how do we know that under the explicit statement of "existence" there is additionally an intended meaning additional-word inference? Generally, those who maintain the original method doctrine say that under the subject "existence," there are intended meanings of "creating universal existence perceiving nature" and "creating non-universal existence perceiving nature," and by saying "non-substantial, etc.," they do not exclusively establish the doctrine of creating universal existence perceiving nature, and do not claim there is an intended meaning additional-word inference. Next, regarding the three inferences established by the sage, although he says "existence" generally and places his words in mutual acceptance, when the predicate says "non-substantial," he exclusively establishes universal existence nature, limiting it only to the single doctrine of having object-perceiving nature, not carrying the intended meaning of having non-object-perceiving nature. What replacement is there to accept and examine faults? Next, reconciling the treatise text is not the commentary's intention. Explaining the text of "both equally determined" as "blocking non-substantiality, etc., and having object-perceiving nature" means that using the reason "having one substance, etc.," one establishes both theses "existence is non-substantial" and "existence has object-perceiving nature." Both are explicit statements, not intended meanings. Therefore, when the commentary says "and has object-perceiving nature," it is the predicate of the present inference. The text "also can establish" should still be in relation to "the explicit statement of having object-perceiving nature." However, regarding the text "like blocking substance, etc.," those who maintain separate method doctrine have further reconciliation. Namely, the previous subject-svarūpa uses negation words for both contradicted and contradicting. The present subject-differentia contradiction has the contradicted establish "existence has object-perceiving nature," already without negation words, and the contradicting says "not creating universal existence perceiving nature," having negation words. Therefore, to establish the meaning of negation, one should follow the previous inference, not for the present method. Next, reconciling the text "this word 'existence'" - that reasoning is not detailed. Generally, when the master establishes three inferences, in the explicit statement of existence, he additionally carries the intended meaning of having object-perceiving nature. Now, to reveal this desired position, he separately

【Lower Section】
establishes the inference "existence has object-perceiving nature." Therefore, discussing it in relation to the original, he says "immediately in the previous thesis, subject-differentia." This is the explicit statement of this inference. Therefore, he troublesomely avoids faults. If it were intended meaning, why would he forcefully use mutually accepted words? For example, like the intended meaning "non-aggregated other-use" in dharma-differentia contradiction, etc. Then shall I answer in detail this time? Answer: First, that the explicit statement of existence carries intended meaning additional-word inferences is not the establisher's private opinion. Previous masters from ancient times have all discussed this. Generally, in the latter three contradictions, the establisher's desired position is not revealed in explicit statement; all have intended meaning additional-word inferences. Namely, dharma-differentia contradiction's "non-aggregated other-use," subject-svarūpa's "existence apart from substance, etc.," and subject-differentia's "having object-perceiving nature." Among these, regarding subject-differentia contradiction, the Duan states: "If based on intended meaning, establish 'existence has object-perceiving nature,'" and in the Mingdeng Commentary it says: "This is placing within one type of explicit statement inference thesis and deceptively establishing an intended meaning second type thesis, accomplishing both such types of theses within one inference, therefore called committing contradiction." The explicit statement inference is the thesis "existence is non-substantial, etc." The second type thesis is the inference "existence has object-perceiving nature." Therefore, having intended meaning inference is definitively established. Now this inference "existence has object-perceiving nature" is not the method for subject-differentia contradiction. The reason is that under the predicate "having object-perceiving nature," there are two intended meanings: "creating universal existence perceiving nature" and "creating non-universal existence perceiving nature," and using the reason "having one substance, etc.," one establishes contradictory doctrines. This is called dharma-differentia contradiction. Therefore, the Duan refutes Master Pi: "Within having object-perceiving nature, the intention is creating universal existence perceiving nature and creating non-universal existence perceiving nature - these are the differentia." Therefore, in relation to the explicit statement non-additional-word inference, when saying "existence

【Left Page】

【Upper Section】
is non-substantial," in the subject "existence" there are two intended meanings. "Having object-perceiving nature" is the predicate of intended meaning inference. Horizontally relating to intended meaning, this is called dharma-differentia. Vertically in relation to explicit statement, this is called subject-differentia. Therefore, now relating to non-additional-word explicit statement inference, it becomes the method for subject-differentia contradiction. Therefore, the Duan also states: "In relation to non-additional-word it is called subject-differentia; if additional words are added, it is immediately called dharma." Contradictions in various texts should be reconciled according to this. Then, the commentary text "this word 'existence' is existence of existence-nonexistence" should be considered by retaining the text. Like that dharma-differentia contradiction, this is one reason violating one method. When establishing the explicit statement "necessarily for other-use," because the word "other" in the predicate expresses the desired thesis, without blocking faults, the intended meaning is "non-aggregated other-use." Now this inference "existence is non-substantial" is one reason violating two methods. Among these, first the subject-svarūpa: when establishing the explicit statement "existence is non-substantial, etc.," it also expresses the desired thesis. Therefore, in intended meaning also without blocking faults, the intended meaning is "existence apart from substance, etc., universal existence." Next, this subject-differentia: the explicit statement has not yet expressed the desired position and does not reach disputing the differentia doctrine. Therefore, first establish "existence has object-perceiving nature," then should accomplish the desired "creating universal existence perceiving nature." Therefore, simultaneously avoiding faults like predicate non-establishment, etc., the intended meaning is "having object-perceiving nature." Because this inference must necessarily be established against opponent debaters. Therefore, although an intended meaning inference, it still uses mutually accepted words. Do not compare it to dharma-differentia, etc. Its doctrine is profound and should be well considered.

Repeatedly asking: If so, is it double intended meaning? When establishing "existence is non-substantial," the intended meaning is "having object-perceiving nature," and also under "having object-perceiving nature," the intended meaning is "creating universal existence perceiving nature."

【Lower Section】
Answer: What reasoning indicates is indeed double intended meaning. Therefore, the Duan states: "Within having object-perceiving nature, the intention is creating universal existence perceiving nature." However, the master's intended meaning is not double. "Having object-perceiving nature" is immediately "creating universal existence perceiving nature." For example, in dharma-differentia contradiction, when establishing "necessarily for other-use," the word "other" is immediately "non-aggregated other."

Also asking: The Duan states "However, establishing this dharma, the intention establishes the subject, etc." - does this mean using the inference "existence has object-perceiving nature" as the method for subject-differentia contradiction? Answer: No. Although it is an additional-word inference, it still establishes the subject, not the same as the sound-impermanence inference only establishing dharma-svarūpa. It does not say it becomes a subject-differentia contradiction method.

Also asking: Does Zhou's Commentary's correct doctrine separately establish the inference "existence has object-perceiving nature" and say it should be the subject-differentia contradiction method? Answer: No. Separately establishing intended meaning additional-word inference should reveal the differentia doctrine. It is like saying there are two intended meanings under the explicit statement of "having object-perceiving nature." This is dharma-differentia. It does not say it becomes a subject-differentia contradiction method. By this one can grasp the text's meaning.

Following the recommendation of a knowing friend, I humbly leave this foolish proposal.
Acting Vinaya Master Ekyō

Question: The Duan states: "Now based on intended meaning, challenging to establish faults, therefore not explicit statement." Is that intended meaning the intended meaning of "having object-perceiving nature" or the intended meaning of "creating universal existence perceiving nature"? Answer: Having object-perceiving