一　明要鈔五巻ページ10/29 - 翻刻

ページ: 10

翻刻

【本文二段構成】【右頁】【枠外右上】２１２【枠外右横上】明要鈔第二【枠外右横下】一八【上段】有性也。定離眼識色。心外所執色也。與＿二不樂爲＿一其體實異也。不樂爲共許者。言分也。假我用劣。劣字本言陳加故。改＿レ之無＿レ過也。　問何有＿二同異二類＿一。　答有法上義。爲＿二不樂爲＿一之時。與＿二能違宗＿一同體也。假用差別卽其類也。若不＿レ爾者。必以＿二前物＿一爲＿二片差別＿一。能違宗法。有法上￣ノ義￣トシテ立＿レ之。故改＿二不樂體＿一也。　得＿二此旨＿一者。以＿二敵者宗＿一。爲＿二不樂爲＿一者。決定謬也。　○積聚性因違法自相事子島疏記云。眼等必不＿下爲＿二神我＿一受用＿上《割書：文》。周記云。非＿二我用＿一。平備云。必不＿二我所用＿一。道詮云。不＿二眞他用＿一。明詮云。眼等必爲＿二神我＿一非＿レ用。此等作法詞。雖＿二小異＿一其意大同。我者神我也。用者用勝也。具可＿レ見＿二記文＿一。問能別不成失難＿レ遮。　答子島釋云。爲＿レ破＿二於他＿一。就＿二他宗＿一立故。無＿二不成失＿一也《割書：云云》。准＿二纂要云＿一。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。可＿レ得＿二釋意＿一。法自相者。是自￣ノ法自相也。故記云。此望＿二立者＿一。自法自相相【下段】違故。能違就＿二他宗＿一作＿レ之《割書：云云》。望＿二數論自宗＿一犯＿レ過。名＿二自法自相＿一也。准＿二向三四因皆自比違自之釋＿一。以＿二本立者＿一爲＿レ自也。　疏云。若言＿二眼等必爲＿レ我用＿一。能別不成。闕無＿二同喩＿一。積　聚性因。違＿二法自相＿一。臥具喩有＿二所立不成＿一《割書：文》。我若非＿二　神我＿一者。何付＿二能別不成＿一哉。用若非＿二用勝＿一者。豈有＿二所　立不成＿一哉。旣望＿二本量宗＿一。有＿二所立不成＿一。准知爲＿二能違　宗＿一。能同品也。仍不＿レ犯＿二所立不成過＿一也。　　明本所記。聊似＿レ有＿レ煩。今直得＿二疏旨＿一歟。子島御傳。　　全無＿二風情＿一此趣也。　尋云。臥具上有＿二神我用義＿一。設立＿二必爲神我用＿一。何有＿二所　立不成＿一。　此有＿二多義＿一。今成＿二一義＿一云。立＿レ量之習。共比因喩。必須＿二　極成＿一。臥具上有＿二神我用義＿一者。立者宗計也。旣非＿二共許＿一。　何爲＿レ喩哉。假用義立敵同許故。爲＿二共同喩＿一也。違他順　己之故。能別雖＿レ立＿二我用＿一。同喩須＿レ共。故不＿レ取＿二臥具上　神我用勝義＿一也。共許假用。望＿二神我用宗＿一。非＿二同品＿一故。【左頁】【枠外左上】２１３【枠外左横上】明要鈔第二【枠外左横下】一九【上段】　有＿二所立不成＿一也。　　可＿レ勘＿二見明燈抄＿一。　○神我用勝意許宗。義准不顧諍。相傳云。不顧論宗傳爲＿レ佳。《割書：如＿二本｜抄＿一》先案云。偏傍義准宗也。《割書：如＿二明｜本＿一》更云。意許宗者。四宗相攝。頗不定也。若樂爲不樂爲相對。不顧論宗也。立者正欲＿二成立＿一之宗故。言陳意許相對。傍義准宗也。言陳法自相。爲＿二正所諍＿一。意許後三宗。名＿二傍所諍＿一此意也。一切比量。對＿レ敵正所＿レ諍者。言陳法宗也。以＿レ之爲＿二不顧論宗＿一。意所＿レ諍者。非＿二言所陳＿一故。名＿二傍義准＿一也。重言＿レ之者。決定￣ノ不顧論宗￣ハ。能別言陳也。決定￣ノ義准宗￣ハ。無常宗傍成無我宗等也。無我宗非＿二言陳＿一。又非＿二正樂爲＿一故也。意許宗樂爲故。不＿レ顧論宗所＿レ攝。非＿二言所陳＿一故。亦義准攝也。　問疏云。旣於＿二因過＿一說＿二法差別＿一等者。偏攝＿二義准＿一。不＿レ見＿レ攝＿二不顧論宗＿一。　答欲＿レ釋＿二義准名＿レ宗之義＿一。擧＿二法差別所違宗＿一也。雖＿二意許宗二宗不定＿一。今論＿下攝＿二義准＿一之門＿上也。無我宗義准雖＿レ顯。名＿レ宗之義隱。故今不＿レ【下段】擧＿レ之。下文云＿下故於＿二宗中＿一傍有＿二義准＿一卽四相違所違差別＿上者。言陳意許相對論＿二傍正＿一也。　　度度愚案中。今得＿二實義＿一歟。　可＿レ祕可＿レ祕。　《割書：考【※】一乘院相傳本奥書云》　　貞和五年五月八日。以＿二正本＿一書寫交合畢。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　法印　範緣　《割書：考【※】大乘院相傳本奥書云》　　元德二年十一月十日子夜雨中馳筆畢　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　僧正覺丨《割書：春　秋｜廿五歲》　　　正慶元年無射下旬以＿二良筭自筆之本＿一校合了　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　覺丨《割書：行　年｜廿七歲》　　觀應二年三月九日夜於＿二花林院御所＿一書寫之畢　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　擬講　顯意　　同十九日夜於＿二寶積院御所＿一一交了明要鈔卷第二《割書：終》【※　「考」は四角囲み文字】

現代語訳

【本文二段構成】【右頁】【枠外右上】 212 【枠外右横上】明要鈔第二【枠外右横下】一八【上段】有性である。「眼識色を定離する」は、心外の所執色である。不楽為とその体は実に異なる。不楽為は共許であるが、言分である。仮我用劣は、「劣」字を本来言陳に加えるので、これを改めても過失はない。問う：何故同異の二類があるのか。答える：有法上の義を不楽為とする時は、能違宗と同体である。仮用差別がすなわちその類である。もしそうでなければ、必ず前物を片差別として、能違宗法を有法上の義として立てるので、不楽の体を改めるのである。この旨を得る者は、敵者宗を不楽為とすることは、決定的に誤りである。 ○積聚性因が法自相に違う事子島疏記に云う：「眼等は必ず神我に受用されない」（文）。周記に云う：「我用でない」。平備に云う：「必ず我の所用でない」。道詮に云う：「真他用でない」。明詮に云う：「眼等は必ず神我に対して非用である」。これらの作法の詞は、少し異なるといえども、その意味は大同である。我とは神我である。用とは用勝である。詳しくは記文を見るべきである。問う：能別不成の失を遮ることは難しい。答える：子島の釈に云う：「他を破るために、他宗に就いて立てるので、不成の失はない」（云々）。纂要に云うことに准ずれば、「他を破るために、他宗に就いて立てる。所別所依不成があるといえども、而して過とならない」と、釈意を得ることができる。法自相とは、これ自の法自相である。故に記に云う：「これは立者に望んで、自法自相に相【下段】違するので、能違は他宗に就いてこれを作る」（云々）。数論の自宗に望んで過を犯すことを、自法自相と名づける。先の三・四因が皆自比が自に違うという釈に准ずれば、本立者を自とする。疏に云う：「もし『眼等は必ず我用である』と言えば、能別不成である。同喩を闕無し、積聚性因は法自相に違い、臥具喩は所立不成がある」（文）。我が神我でないなら、何故能別不成を付けるか。用が用勝でないなら、どうして所立不成があるか。既に本量の宗に望んで、所立不成がある。准じて知るに、能違宗のために、よく同品である。仍って所立不成過を犯さない。明本の所記は、聊か煩わしさがあるようだ。今直接疏の旨を得たか。子島御伝は、全くこの趣に風情がない。尋ねて云う：臥具の上に神我用の義がある。たとえ「必ず神我用である」と立てても、何故所立不成があるか。これには多義がある。今一義を成じて云う：量を立てる習いでは、共比因喩は必ず極成を須つ。臥具の上に神我用義があるというのは、立者の宗計である。既に共許でないのに、何を喩とするか。仮用義は立敵同許するので、共同喩となる。他に違い己に順うので、能別は我用を立てるといえども、同喩は共でなければならない。故に臥具上の神我用勝義を取らない。共許の仮用は、神我用宗に望んで、同品でないので、【左頁】【枠外左上】 213 【枠外左横上】明要鈔第二【枠外左横下】一九【上段】所立不成がある。明燈抄を勘見すべきである。 ○神我用勝意許宗、義准と不顧諍相伝に云う：不顧論宗の伝を佳とする。（本抄の如し）先案に云う：偏に傍義准宗である。（明本の如し）更に云う：意許宗は、四宗相摂で、頗る不定である。もし楽為・不楽為が相対すれば、不顧論宗である。立者が正に成立を欲する宗であるからである。言陳・意許が相対すれば、傍義准宗である。言陳の法自相を正所諍として、意許の後三宗を傍所諍と名づける、この意味である。一切比量において、敵に対して正に諍う所は、言陳法宗である。これを不顧論宗とする。意の諍う所は、言の陳ずる所でないので、傍義准と名づける。重ねて言えば、決定の不顧論宗は、能別言陳である。決定の義准宗は、無常宗が傍に無我宗等を成ずることである。無我宗は言陳でなく、また正楽為でもないからである。意許宗は楽為であるので、不顧論宗の摂する所でない。言の陳ずる所でないので、また義准に摂される。問う：疏に云う「既に因過において法差別等を説く」とは、偏に義准を摂し、不顾論宗を摂するのを見ない。答える：義准が宗と名づけられる義を釈そうと欲して、法差別の所違宗を挙げる。意許宗の二宗は不定であるといえども、今義准を摂する門を論ずる。無我宗の義准は顕れるといえども、宗と名づける義は隠れる。故に今これを【下段】挙げない。下文に云う「故に宗中において傍に義准があり、即ち四相違の所違差別である」とは、言陳・意許が相対して傍正を論ずるのである。度々の愚案の中で、今実義を得たか。秘すべし、秘すべし。（考※一乗院相伝本奥書に云う）貞和五年五月八日。正本を以って書写交合し畢る。法印　範縁（考※大乗院相伝本奥書に云う）元德二年十一月十日子夜雨中に筆を馳せ畢る僧正覚丨（春秋二十五歳）正慶元年無射下旬に良算自筆の本を以って校合し了る覚丨（行年二十七歳）観応二年三月九日夜、花林院御所において之を書写し畢る擬講　顕意同十九日夜、宝積院御所において一交し了る明要鈔巻第二（終）

英語訳

【Two-column text structure】【Right page】【Outside frame, upper right】 212 【Outside frame, right side upper】 Myōyōshō Volume 2 【Outside frame, right side lower】 18 【Upper section】 It is existing-nature. "Definitely separate from eye-consciousness form" refers to form grasped external to mind. Its substance truly differs from unwilling-to-establish. Unwilling-to-establish is commonly accepted, but it is a verbal portion. Hypothetical self-use inferior adds the character "inferior" to the original verbal expression, so changing it incurs no fault. Question: Why are there two categories of same and different? Answer: When making meaning upon qualified-subjects into unwilling-to-establish, it has the same substance as contradicting theses. Hypothetical-use particulars are precisely that category. If not so, necessarily taking prior objects as single particulars, establishing contradicting thesis-dharmas as meanings upon qualified-subjects, therefore changing the substance of unwillingness. One who grasps this point [knows that] taking opponent's thesis as unwilling-to-establish is definitely erroneous. ○ The Matter of Aggregation-Nature Cause Contradicting Dharma-Specific-Characteristics Kojima Commentary states: "Eyes etc. are definitely not received and used by divine self" (text). Shū Commentary states: "Not self-use." Hebi states: "Definitely not used by self." Dōsen states: "Not true other-use." Myōsen states: "Eyes etc. are definitely non-use regarding divine self." Though these procedural words differ slightly, their meanings are largely the same. "Self" means divine self. "Use" means use-superior. The commentary texts should be examined in detail. Question: The fault of predicand-non-establishment is difficult to block. Answer: Kojima's explanation states: "To refute others, established according to other schools, therefore there is no fault of non-establishment" (etc.). According to the Compilation Essentials' statement, "To refute others, established according to other schools. Though there is qualified-subject foundation non-establishment, it does not constitute a fault," the explanatory meaning can be grasped. Dharma-specific-characteristics means one's own dharma-specific-characteristics. Therefore the commentary states: "This, looking toward the establisher, contradicts self-dharma-specific-characteristics, 【Lower section】 therefore the contradictor is made according to other schools" (etc.). Committing faults looking toward Sāṃkhya's own school is called self-dharma-specific-characteristics. According to the previous explanation that the third and fourth causes all involve self-comparison contradicting self, the original establisher is taken as self. The Commentary states: "If saying 'eyes etc. are definitely for self-use,' there is predicand-non-establishment. Lacking same-examples, aggregation-nature cause contradicts dharma-specific-characteristics, bedding-example has establishment-non-accomplishment" (text). If "self" were not divine self, why attach predicand-non-establishment? If "use" were not use-superior, how could there be establishment-non-accomplishment? Already looking toward the original syllogism's thesis, there is establishment-non-accomplishment. By analogy we know that for the contradicting thesis, it can be a positive example. Therefore it does not commit the fault of establishment-non-accomplishment. Myōhon's record seems somewhat troublesome. Has [this commentary] now directly grasped the Commentary's purport? Kojima's imperial transmission completely lacks sophistication in this matter. Inquiry: There is divine self-use meaning upon bedding implements. Even establishing "definitely for divine self-use," why is there establishment-non-accomplishment? There are many meanings here. Now accomplishing one meaning: In the practice of establishing syllogisms, shared comparison-cause-examples must be extremely well-established. That there is divine self-use meaning upon bedding implements is the establisher's thesis-calculation. Since it is not commonly accepted, how can it serve as example? Because hypothetical-use meaning is accepted by both establisher and opponent, it becomes a shared positive example. Because it contradicts others and accords with oneself, though the predicand establishes self-use, same-examples must be shared. Therefore it does not take the meaning of divine self-use superior upon bedding implements. Commonly accepted hypothetical use, looking toward divine self-use thesis, is not a positive example, therefore 【Left page】【Outside frame, upper left】 213 【Outside frame, left side upper】 Myōyōshō Volume 2 【Outside frame, left side lower】 19 【Upper section】 there is establishment-non-accomplishment. The Bright Lamp Commentary should be examined. ○ Divine Self-Use Superior Mental Acceptance Thesis, Analogical Reasoning and Non-Dispute-Regarding Transmission states: The tradition of non-dispute-regarding treatise-thesis is excellent. (As in the original commentary) Previous opinion states: It is exclusively auxiliary analogical-reasoning thesis. (As in the Clear Text) Further stating: Mental acceptance thesis, in the inclusion of four theses, is quite indefinite. If willing-to-establish and unwilling-to-establish are opposed, it is non-dispute-regarding treatise-thesis. Because it is the thesis the establisher genuinely desires to establish. If verbal expression and mental acceptance are opposed, it is auxiliary analogical-reasoning thesis. Making verbal expression's dharma-specific-characteristics the primary dispute, naming mental acceptance's latter three theses auxiliary disputes - this is the meaning. In all comparative syllogisms, what is primarily disputed against opponents is verbal expression dharma-thesis. Taking this as non-dispute-regarding treatise-thesis. What is disputed mentally, because it is not what words express, is called auxiliary analogical-reasoning. Stating it again: definite non-dispute-regarding treatise-thesis is predicand verbal expression. Definite analogical-reasoning thesis is impermanence-thesis auxiliarily accomplishing no-self thesis etc. Because no-self thesis is not verbal expression and also not primary willing-to-establish. Because mental acceptance thesis is willing-to-establish, it is not included in non-dispute-regarding treatise-thesis. Because it is not what words express, it is also included in analogical reasoning. Question: The Commentary states "Already in cause-faults explaining dharma-particulars etc." exclusively includes analogical reasoning, but does not show inclusion of non-dispute-regarding treatise-thesis. Answer: Wanting to explain the meaning of analogical reasoning being called thesis, it raises dharma-particular contradicted theses. Though mental acceptance thesis's two theses are indefinite, now discussing the gate of including analogical reasoning. Though no-self thesis's analogical reasoning is manifest, the meaning of being called thesis is hidden. Therefore now it is not 【Lower section】 raised. The later text states "Therefore in theses there is auxiliary analogical reasoning, which is precisely the contradicted particulars of four contradictions" - this discusses auxiliary-primary through verbal expression and mental acceptance opposition. Among repeated foolish opinions, has [this] now obtained true meaning? It should be kept secret, should be kept secret. (Note: Ichijō-in transmission text postscript states) Jōwa 5th year, 5th month, 8th day. Completed copying and collation using the original text. Dharma Seal Han'en (Note: Daijō-in transmission text postscript states) Gentoku 2nd year, 11th month, 10th day, rushed writing completed in midnight rain Monk Administrator Kaku-○ (Spring-Autumn 25 years old) Shōkei 1st year, late Mushashi month, completed collation using Ryōsan's personal manuscript Kaku-○ (Life-years 27 years old) Kan'ō 2nd year, 3rd month, 9th day night, completed copying at Karin-in Imperial Residence Proposed Lecturer Kenni Same 19th day night, completed one collation at Hōshaku-in Imperial Residence Myōyōshō Volume Two (End)

日本の仏典を翻刻

一　明要鈔五巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

現代語訳

英語訳