翻刻
【右頁】
【枠外右上】
四〇八【但し算用数字】
【枠外右横上】
因明大疏私抄卷第八
【枠外右横下】
六〇
【二段構成】
【上段】
隨一不成《割書：乃至》如業佛法不許等者。今此勝論所立￣ノ量￣ノ同
喩￣ニ如＿レ業者。是當＿二佛法￣ノ前￣ノ假業￣ニ＿一。勝論￣ハ不＿レ立＿二實￣ノ思業＿一
故也。而假業￣ハ色法故。是有質礙也。仍無質礙￣ノ因。有＿二￣リト
同喩￣ノ業￣ノ上￣ニ＿一云事。敵者佛法不＿レ許＿レ之。故成＿二隨一￣ノ能立
不成￣ニ＿一也。若實業者。是思故。佛法￣ノ前￣ニ又無礙也。 猶
預不成《割書：乃至》或俱不猶預￣ト者。今此四句￣ハ因￣ノ猶預不成￣ハ
與＿二喩￣ノ能立不成＿一。相對￣シテ作＿二 四句￣ヲ＿一也。此乃前所明￣ノ因猶
預不成之中。具￣サニ宗￣ノ猶預。因￣ノ猶預￣ヲ分別了。准￣ヘテ＿レ之今
明＿二喩猶預不成￣ハ＿一。又具￣サニ分＿二-別因￣ノ猶預不成。喩猶預不
成＿一也。然此文解＿二能立不成￣ヲ＿一故。喩中￣ニハ取＿二￣テ能立不成￣ノ
猶預＿一。對＿二￣シテ因￣ノ猶預＿一。分＿二-別四句＿一也。卽具￣サニシテ＿レ言￣ヲ云。或￣ハ
因￣ノ猶預不成￣ニシテ非＿二喩￣ノ能立￣ノ猶預不成＿一。或￣ハ喩￣ノ能立￣ノ猶
預不成￣ニシテ非＿二因￣ノ猶預不成＿一。《割書：後二句｜易＿レ知。》仍今四￣ノ句￣ノ中￣ニ。前三￣ハ
是過。第四￣ハ非＿レ過。前三￣ノ中￣ニ第二第三。正是￣レ今￣ノ猶預￣ノ
能立不成也。第一但是因￣ノミニシテ無＿二喩￣ノ能立不成＿一。相對￣シテ
盡＿二句數＿一故。雖＿レ非＿二今￣ノ過＿一。擧＿二第一￣ノ句￣ヲ＿一也。例如＿レ擧＿二￣タルカ
第四￣ノ句￣ノ全￣ニ非￣ルヲモ＿一レ 過。准可＿レ知＿レ之。 且因猶預非喩能
【下段】
立者《割書：乃至》如厨舍等處者。是￣ハ且擧＿二第一句￣ノ作法￣ヲ＿一也。見＿二
此量￣ヲ＿一因￣ニハ有＿二￣テ猶預不成＿一。喩￣ニハ無＿二猶預￣ノ能立不成＿一。何者
山處￣ノ烟￣ハ本有＿二疑惑＿一。所以因￣ヲ向￣ヘテ＿レ 上￣ニ自＿二有法＿一見下￣タセハ。
因￣ニ有＿二猶預不成＿一。厨舍￣ノ烟￣ハ本無＿二疑惑＿一。所以因￣ヲ向￣ヘテ＿レ 下￣ニ
自＿二同喩＿一見上￣クレハ喩￣ニ無＿二猶預￣ノ立不成＿一。仍以＿二此量＿一。爲＿二
第一￣ノ句作法￣ト＿一也。 擧一例餘卽可思惟者。以＿レ擧＿二￣クルヲ第一
句￣ノ一￣ノ作法＿一。例＿二￣シテ餘￣ノ後三￣ノ句￣ノ作法￣ヲモ＿一可＿二思惟＿一《割書：爲言》。今
且思＿二惟第句￣ノ作法￣ヲ＿一云。或人至＿二 一￣ノ山處＿一。觀＿二見￣ヲ烟￣ナリト＿一
更無＿二霧等疑惑＿一。於＿二餘￣ノ山處者＿一。猶有＿二烟霧等疑＿一。此人立＿レ
量云。彼￣ノ一處￣ノ山處￣ニハ定可＿レ有＿二事火＿一。以＿レ有＿レ烟故。如＿二餘￣ノ
山處＿一。此量￣ハ喩￣ニモ有＿二￣テ猶預能立不成＿一。因￣ニハ無＿二猶預不成＿一。
後二句作法。准＿レ之易＿レ知。 或可因是宗法《割書：乃至》何成猶預
又解因具三相《割書：乃至》何非猶預￣ト＿レ者。是￣ハ汎爾￣ニ論＿二￣スルニ喩￣ノ猶
預有無￣ヲ＿一有＿二 二釋＿一也。不＿レ關＿二 上￣ノ四句門￣ニハ＿一。初釋￣ノ心￣ハ凡￣ヘテ
難＿レ有＿二喩猶預＿一《割書：爲言》。仍依＿二此釋＿一者。喩￣ニハ唯有＿二￣テ三不成＿一。猶
預不成￣ハ不＿レ可＿レ有也。後釋意￣ハ何無＿二喩￣ノ猶預不成＿一《割書：爲言》。依＿二
此釋＿一者。四不成俱可＿レ有也。
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
四〇九【但し算用数字】
【枠外右横上】
因明大疏私抄卷第八
【枠外左横下】
六一
【二段構成】
【上段】
尋云。上￣ノ四句￣ハ卽是許＿二喩￣ノ猶預不成￣ヲ＿一之釋也。若不＿レ爾
者。不＿レ可＿レ有＿二 四句＿一故。而今後釋又述＿二￣ハ此義￣ヲ＿一與＿レ前何別
哉。 答。不＿レ遮＿二前後＿一。其意是同￣ナル事￣ヲハ。但今其差別￣ハ前￣ニハ
於＿二 四句＿一令＿レ思＿二-准之＿一了。今￣ハ不￣ハ＿レ入＿二￣レ四句＿一。汎爾論＿レ之故別
也。《割書：此事不＿二｜分明＿一。》仍惣有＿二 三說＿一。四句文。或可因是。又解因具是也。
【七字下げ】
已上裏書等之趣如＿レ此歟。
【字下げ終わり】
私云。或可因是等者。釋＿下-成￣スル以＿二現烟故如厨舍等￣ノ量＿一。爲＿二
第一句￣ノ作法￣ト＿一事＿上￣ヲ也。與＿レ 上其意非＿レ別￣ナルニハ。置＿二或言￣ヲ＿一
事￣ハ爲＿レ對＿二 下￣ノ又解￣ニ＿一也。又解因具三相等者。別釋也。今
此如厨舍等￣ノ喩￣ニ可＿レ有＿二猶預能立不成＿一。喩￣ハ卽是因也。因￣ニ
旣有＿二猶預＿一故。同喩￣モ又可＿レ有《割書：爲言》。仍此釋意。以＿二今量＿一者。
不＿レ可＿レ爲＿二第一句￣ノ作法￣ト＿一存歟。所＿レ當＿二第三￣ノ俱猶預￣ノ句￣ノ
作法＿一又是以或可《割書：乃至》又解￣ト者。付＿二￣テ今所＿レ出以現烟故
如厨舍等￣ノ量￣ニ＿一。云￣ヒ＿二第一句作法＿一。或￣ハ云￣フ＿レ不＿レ爾二釋也。
凡￣ヘテ不￣サル＿レ許＿二喩￣ノ猶預不成￣ヲ＿一之釋￣ハ無＿レ之歟。
然有說言《割書：乃至》今謂不爾等者。今此有說以爲￣ラク能立不
成￣ノ作法所立￣ハ必成￣セリ【「￣ゼリ」ヵ】。其喩以＿二此所立＿一可＿レ爲＿レ依。所依旣依
【下段】
有故。不＿レ可＿レ有＿二喩【「￣ノ」有ヵ】所依不成＿一。所以能立不成￣ハ定￣テ不＿レ可＿レ
帶＿二所依不成＿一。今卽能立不成作法￣ニ聲常無＿二質礙＿一故如＿二極
微＿一者。所立定成￣セ□【「￣ゼリ」ヵ】。《割書：爲言》。《割書：以＿二能破之趣＿一難＿二所｜破￣ノ義＿一如＿レ此歟。》今破＿レ之意云。汝
所＿レ言爲＿二￣ナル喩之所依￣ト＿一所立￣ト者。其體何物哉。若是宗￣ノ能
別￣ノ常所立歟。若是同喩￣ノ極微之上￣ノ常爲＿二所立￣ト＿一歟。若
同喩￣ハ宗￣ノ所立￣ヲ爲＿二所依￣ト＿一者￣イハヽ相例￣シテ思＿レ之。因￣モ又宗￣ノ能
別￣ヲ可＿レ爲＿二所依＿一。因喩其義相似故。彼旣不＿レ然。喩￣モ又不＿レ
可＿レ爲＿レ體。若同喩￣ハ同喩之上￣ノ常所立￣ヲ爲＿二所依￣ト＿一者￣イハヽ。其
常￣ノ義￣ハ正是喩體也。非＿二喩依￣ニハ＿一喩依￣ハ極微故。仍以＿二所立＿一
爲＿二喩￣ノ所依＿一云事。尤不可也《割書：爲言》。又縱有所立等者。付￣テ＿下
宗￣ノ所立￣ヲ爲＿二所依＿一之量＿上。猶加＿レ難。難意云。若能立不成￣ノ
作法￣ニハ有＿二所立￣ノ能別＿一故。喩￣イ必有＿レ依者￣イハヽ無＿二￣クシテ所立不
成＿一。有＿二￣テ能立￣ノ不成￣ノミ＿一。而所立￣ノ能別￣ニ有＿二不極成￣ノ過＿一之量
可＿レ有＿レ之。彼能立不成￣ハ旣無＿二所立￣ノ所依＿一。豈不＿レ立＿二所依不
成￣ノ能立不成￣ヲ＿一乎。《割書：爲言》。 設雙依有法及法等者。令轉救
難＿二救￣ノ上￣ヲ＿一也。救￣ノ意￣ハ我所立￣ヲ爲＿二喩￣ノ依＿一者￣イハ。法有法￣ノ
惣宗￣ノ所立￣ヲ爲＿二喩依＿一也《割書：爲言》。難￣ノ意￣ハ若爾有＿二￣テ能立不成＿一。
【二十八行十二字目「且」の上、中央に「。」有り。誤植ヵ。】
現代語訳
【右頁】
408
因明大疏私抄巻第八
60
【上段】
「随一不成【乃至】業の如し。仏法これを許さず等」とは、今この勝論所立の量の同喩に「業の如し」とあるのは、これは仏法の前の仮業に当たる。勝論は実の思業を立てないからである。而して仮業は色法であるから、これは有質礙である。仍って無質礙の因が、同喩の業の上にあるということを、敵者である仏法は許さない。故に随一の能立不成となるのである。もし実業であれば、これは思であるから、仏法の前でもまた無礙である。
「猶予不成【乃至】或は俱に猶予せず」とは、今この四句は因の猶予不成と喩の能立不成とを相対して四句を作るのである。これは乃ち前に明かした因猶予不成の中で、具さに宗の猶予、因の猶予を分別し了った。これに准えて今は喩猶予不成を明かし、また具さに因の猶予不成、喩猶予不成を分別するのである。然してこの文は能立不成を解するが故に、喩中には能立不成の猶予を取って、因の猶予に対して、四句を分別するのである。即ち具さに言葉を云えば、或いは因の猶予不成にして喩の能立の猶予不成に非ず、或いは喩の能立の猶予不成にして因の猶予不成に非ず【後の二句は知り易し】。仍って今の四句の中で、前三は是れ過、第四は過に非ず。前三の中で第二・第三は、正に是れ今の猶予の能立不成である。第一はただ是れ因のみにして喩の能立不成が無い。相対して句数を尽くすが故に、今の過に非ずといえども、第一の句を挙げるのである。例えば第四の句の全く過に非ざるをも挙げたるが如し。准えて知るべし。
「且つ因猶予にして喩能
【下段】
立に非ず【乃至】厨舎等の処の如し」とは、これは且つ第一句の作法を挙げるのである。この量を見るに因には猶予不成があって、喩には猶予の能立不成が無い。何となれば山処の煙は本より疑惑があり、所以に因を上の有法に向けて見下せば、因に猶予不成がある。厨舎の煙は本より疑惑が無く、所以に因を下の同喩に向けて見上ぐれば喩に猶予の立不成が無い。仍ってこの量を以て、第一の句作法とするのである。
「一つを挙げて余を例とし即ち思惟すべし」とは、第一句の一つの作法を挙げることを以て、余の後三句の作法をも例として思惟すべきである【為言】。今且つ第二句の作法を思惟して云う。或る人が一つの山処に至り、煙なりということを観見して更に霧等の疑惑が無い。余の山処においては、猶お煙霧等の疑いがある。この人が量を立てて云う。彼の一処の山処には定んで火があるべきである。煙があるが故に。余の山処の如し。この量は喩にも猶予能立不成があって、因には猶予不成が無い。後の二句の作法は、これに准えて知り易し。
「或いは因は是れ宗法【乃至】何ぞ猶予を成さん。又解く。因は三相を具す【乃至】何ぞ猶予に非ざらん」とは、これは汎爾に喩の猶予の有無を論ずるに二釈があるのである。上の四句門には関しない。初釈の心は凡て喩に猶予があることは難しい【為言】。仍ってこの釈に依れば、喩には唯だ三不成があって、猶予不成はあるべからず。後釈の意は何ぞ喩の猶予不成が無からんや【為言】。この釈に依れば、四不成俱にあるべきである。
【左頁】
409
因明大疏私抄巻第八
61
【上段】
尋ね云う。上の四句は即ち是れ喩の猶予不成を許す釈である。若し爾らずば、四句があるべからざるが故に。而して今の後釈はまたこの義を述ぶ。前と何の別がある哉。
答う。前後を遮せず、その意は同じということをば。ただ今その差別は前には四句において思准せしめ了んぬ。今は四句に入れず、汎爾に論ずるが故に別なのである【この事分明ならず】。仍って総じて三説がある。四句の文、或可因是、又解因具、これである。
【七字下げ】
已上裏書等の趣このようである歟。
【字下げ終わり】
私に云う。「或いは因は是れ等」とは、「現煙の故を以て厨舎等の如し」の量を以て、第一句の作法と成すことを釈するのである。上とその意は別でないのに、「或」の言を置くことは下の「又解」に対するためである。「又解く。因は三相を具す等」とは、別釈である。今この「厨舎等の如し」の喩に猶予能立不成があるべきである。喩は即ち是れ因である。因に既に猶予があるが故に、同喩もまたあるべきである【為言】。仍ってこの釈の意では、今の量を以ては、第一句の作法とすべからずと存ずる歟。第三の俱猶予の句の作法に所当する。またこれ以て「或可【乃至】又解」とは、今出す所の「現煙の故を以て厨舎等の如し」の量について、第一句作法と云うか、或いは爾らずと云うか、二釈である。凡そて喩の猶予不成を許さざる釈は之れ無き歟。
「然るに説あり【乃至】今謂らく爾らず等」とは、今この有説は能立不成の作法の所立は必ず成ぜりと以為らく。その喩はこの所立を以て依と為すべし。所依既に依
【下段】
があるが故に、喩の所依不成があるべからず。所以に能立不成は定んで所依不成を帯すべからず。今即ち能立不成の作法に「声は常にして質礙無きが故に極微の如し」とは、所立定んで成ぜり【為言】【能破の趣を以て所破の義を難ずること此の如き歟】。今これを破る意に云う。汝が喩の所依と為すと所言の所立とは、その体何物ぞや。若し是れ宗の能別の常の所立なる歟。若し是れ同喩の極微の上の常を所立と為すか歟。若し同喩は宗の所立を所依と為すといわば、相例して思え。因もまた宗の能別を所依と為すべし。因喩その義相似するが故に。彼既に然らず。喩もまた体と為すべからず。若し同喩は同喩の上の常所立を所依と為すといわば、その常の義は正に是れ喩体である。喩依には非ず。喩依は極微であるが故に。仍って所立を以て喩の所依と為すということは、尤も不可である【為言】。
「又縦い所立ありとも等」とは、宗の所立を所依と為すの量について、猶お難を加う。難の意に云う。若し能立不成の作法には所立の能別があるが故に、喩に必ず依がありといわば、所立不成が無くて、能立の不成のみがある。而して所立の能別に不極成の過がある量があるべし。彼の能立不成は既に所立の所依が無い。豈に所依不成の能立不成を立てざらんや【為言】。
「設い双びに有法及び法に依すとも等」とは、転救をして救の上を難ずるのである。救の意は我が所立を喩の依と為すとは、法・有法の総宗の所立を喩依と為すのである【為言】。難の意は若し爾らば能立不成があって、
【二十八行十二字目「且」の上、中央に「。」あり。誤植か】
英語訳
[Right Page]
408
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary of Hetuvidyā, Volume 8
60
[Upper Section]
"One-sided non-establishment [through] like action (karma). The Buddhist teaching does not permit this, etc.": In the homologous example "like action" in this inference established by the Vaiśeṣika school, this corresponds to provisional action in front of Buddhist teaching. This is because the Vaiśeṣika school does not establish real mental action. Since provisional action is material dharma, it has obstruction. Therefore, the opponent Buddhist teaching does not permit that the reason "non-obstruction" exists upon the action in the homologous example. Hence it becomes one-sided probans non-establishment. If it were real action, since this is mental activity, it would also be non-obstructed in front of Buddhist teaching.
"Hesitant non-establishment [through] or both are not hesitant": These four sentences create four alternatives by contrasting reason's hesitant non-establishment with example's probans non-establishment. This follows from the previously explained reason's hesitant non-establishment, where thesis hesitation and reason hesitation were distinguished in detail. Following this precedent, now explaining example hesitant non-establishment, again distinguishing in detail reason's hesitant non-establishment and example hesitant non-establishment. However, since this text explains probans non-establishment, within examples it takes the hesitation of probans non-establishment and contrasts it with reason's hesitation to distinguish four sentences. That is, speaking in full: either reason's hesitant non-establishment but not example's probans hesitant non-establishment, or example's probans hesitant non-establishment but not reason's hesitant non-establishment [the latter two sentences are easy to understand]. Therefore, among these four sentences, the first three are faults, the fourth is not a fault. Among the first three, the second and third are precisely the current hesitant probans non-establishment. The first is merely reason without example's probans non-establishment. Since they contrast to exhaust the sentence patterns, although it is not the current fault, the first sentence is mentioned. This is like mentioning the fourth sentence which is entirely not a fault. One should understand by analogy.
"Provisionally, reason is hesitant but not example probans
[Lower Section]
establishment [through] like places such as kitchens": This provisionally presents the method of the first sentence. Looking at this inference, the reason has hesitant non-establishment, while the example lacks hesitant probans non-establishment. This is because smoke at mountain places originally involves doubt, so when directing the reason upward to the subject-predicate and looking down, the reason has hesitant non-establishment. Smoke at kitchens originally involves no doubt, so when directing the reason downward to the homologous example and looking up, the example lacks hesitant establishment non-establishment. Therefore this inference is taken as the method of the first sentence.
"Raising one to exemplify the rest, one should immediately contemplate": By raising one method of the first sentence, one should contemplate the methods of the remaining three sentences by analogy [so to speak]. Now provisionally contemplating the method of the second sentence: A certain person arrives at one mountain place, observes and sees it is smoke with no further doubt about mist, etc. At other mountain places, there is still doubt about smoke, mist, etc. This person establishes an inference saying: "That one mountain place definitely should have fire. Because there is smoke. Like other mountain places." In this inference, the example also has hesitant probans non-establishment, while the reason lacks hesitant non-establishment. The methods of the latter two sentences are easy to understand by analogy.
"Or the reason is a thesis-property [through] how does it constitute hesitation? Another explanation: the reason possesses the three characteristics [through] how is it not hesitant?": This generally discusses the presence or absence of example hesitation, having two explanations. It does not relate to the above four-sentence framework. The first explanation's intention is that it is generally difficult for examples to have hesitation [so to speak]. Therefore, according to this explanation, examples only have three non-establishments, and hesitant non-establishment should not exist. The latter explanation's meaning is: why would there be no example hesitant non-establishment? [so to speak]. According to this explanation, all four non-establishments should exist.
[Left Page]
409
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary of Hetuvidyā, Volume 8
61
[Upper Section]
Question: The above four sentences are precisely explanations that permit example hesitant non-establishment. If not so, there could not be four sentences. But now the latter explanation also states this meaning. What difference is there from the former?
Answer: Not blocking the former and latter, that their intention is the same. But now their difference is that formerly it made one contemplate and analogize regarding the four sentences. Now it does not enter the four sentences but discusses generally, so it is different [this matter is not clear]. Therefore there are three explanations in total. The four-sentence text, "or the reason is," and "another explanation: the reason possesses" - these are it.
[Seven character indent]
The above back-writing, etc. has this general meaning.
[End character indent]
I say: "Or the reason is, etc." explains establishing the inference "because of present smoke, like kitchens, etc." as the method of the first sentence. Though its meaning is not different from the above, placing the word "or" is to contrast with the "another explanation" below. "Another explanation: the reason possesses three characteristics, etc." is a separate explanation. Now in this example "like kitchens, etc." there should be hesitant probans non-establishment. The example is precisely the reason. Since the reason already has hesitation, the homologous example should also have it [so to speak]. Therefore, according to this explanation's intention, using this current inference, one probably should not consider it as the method of the first sentence. It corresponds to the method of the third sentence of mutual hesitation. Also, therefore "or possibly [through] another explanation" - regarding the currently presented inference "because of present smoke, like kitchens, etc.," there are two explanations: either calling it the first sentence method, or saying it is not so. Generally, there probably are no explanations that do not permit example hesitant non-establishment.
"However there is a theory [through] now I consider this incorrect, etc.": This theory holds that in probans non-establishment methods, the thesis-predicate is necessarily established. The example should use this thesis-predicate as its basis. Since the basis already
[Lower Section]
exists, there cannot be example basis non-establishment. Therefore probans non-establishment definitely cannot carry basis non-establishment. Now in the probans non-establishment method "sound is permanent, because it lacks obstruction, like atoms," the thesis-predicate is definitely established [so to speak] [Using the refuting position to challenge the refuted meaning is like this]. Now the intention of refuting this says: What is the essence of what you call the thesis-predicate that serves as the example's basis? Is it the permanent thesis-predicate of the thesis's predicate? Or is it taking the permanence upon the atoms of the homologous example as the thesis-predicate? If the homologous example uses the thesis's thesis-predicate as its basis, then thinking by analogy, the reason should also use the thesis's predicate as its basis. Since reason and example have similar meanings. Since that is already not so, the example also cannot serve as the essence. If the homologous example uses the permanent thesis-predicate upon the homologous example as its basis, then that permanent meaning is precisely the example's essence. It is not the example's basis. The example's basis is atoms. Therefore, using the thesis-predicate as the example's basis is most improper [so to speak].
"Even if there were a thesis-predicate, etc.": Regarding the inference that uses the thesis's thesis-predicate as the basis, still adding difficulty. The difficulty's meaning says: If probans non-establishment methods have the thesis-predicate's predicate, and therefore examples necessarily have a basis, then there would be no thesis-predicate non-establishment, only probans non-establishment. But there should be inferences where the thesis-predicate's predicate has the fault of non-extreme-establishment. That probans non-establishment already lacks the thesis-predicate's basis. How would one not establish basis non-establishment probans non-establishment? [so to speak].
"Even if it depends on both subject-predicate and predicate, etc.": Making a counter-rescue to challenge what is above the rescue. The rescue's intention is: when I say using the thesis-predicate as the example's basis, I mean using the general thesis's thesis-predicate of dharma and subject-predicate as the example's basis [so to speak]. The challenge's intention is: if so, having probans non-establishment,
[Note at bottom: In the 28th line, 12th character, there is a "." above "moreover" in the center. Possibly a typographical error.]