一　因明大疏私抄三巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

【右頁】
【枠外右上】
四一八【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】
七〇
【二段構成】
【上段】
無空論＿一。立＿二此比量＿一。全￣ク無＿二俱不成￣ノ過＿一。其故者如＿二疏￣ノ文＿一。
文￣ノ意￣ハ裏書云。邑云。此舊疏￣ニ假敍＿二聲論救＿一云。聲宗之
上￣ノ常與＿二無礙＿一。皆具＿二遮表＿一。空虛無體￣ニシテ亦但有＿レ遮。言＿二￣イト
別旣兩俱成非惣能立闕￣ト＿一者。聲上常與＿二無礙＿一。能所立
異￣ナリ。稱《割書：考【四角で囲む】原字｜不明》之爲＿レ別￣ト。各具＿二￣スルヲ遮表＿一名＿二兩俱成＿一。喩上
二立名＿二惣能立＿一。虛空旣許＿レ有＿レ遮。卽非＿二喩中令＿一レ闕＿二 二立＿一。
如何說＿二是俱不成＿一乎《割書：云云》。　重意云。喩之上￣ニ旣有＿二遮￣ノ
所立￣ト遮￣ノ能立￣ト＿一。二立更不＿レ闕。何爲＿二俱不成＿一乎《割書：爲言》。答
若聲論《割書：乃至》不成過￣ト者。文軌自答＿二聲論￣ノ救問￣ヲ＿一也。意者。
裏書云。邑云○古師答＿二前救￣ヲ＿一云。無礙￣ノ之因￣ハ遮＿レ礙￣ヲ。表＿二
於非礙￣ヲ＿一。虛空無體￣ニシテ雖＿レ無＿二所表￣ノ非礙＿一。而亦能遮＿二《割書：スルヲ以》
於礙＿一不￣ルコトハ＿レ闕＿二能立＿一可＿レ如＿二￣ナル所說＿一。其立常宗￣ハ正￣クハ立＿二
所表之常＿一。不＿レ立＿二所遮￣ノ無常￣ヲハ＿一虛空旣無。所表寧非＿二￣ヤ所
立不成￣ニ＿一等《割書：云云》。　可＿レ見＿二彼抄＿一《割書：云云》。此答￣ノ意￣ハ文軌於＿二
聲論￣ノ救＿一。有＿二許不許＿一云＿レ無￣シト＿二能立不成＿一之邊￣ヲハ 許＿レ之。無
礙￣ノ因￣ハ正￣ク立＿レ遮故遮￣ノ喩￣ノ上￣ニ有＿二￣スルカ能立＿一故。云＿レ無＿二所立
不成＿一之邊￣ヲハ不＿レ許＿レ之。常住￣ノ宗￣ハ正￣クハ不＿レ立＿レ遮故。遮喩￣ノ
【下段】
上￣ニ無＿二￣スルカ所立＿一故《割書：爲言》。仍所＿レ詮￣マル文軌之意。聲論￣ニ令￣メテ＿レ
救。改＿二￣メテ俱不成＿一。爲＿二所立不成＿一《割書：ト見タリ》。論￣ニ爲俱不成￣ノ
作法￣ト者。聲論不＿レ致＿二此救￣ヲ＿一之時。俱不成故擧＿レ之。若作＿二
此救立＿一者。遂￣ニハ成＿二￣レト所立不成￣ニ＿一得＿レ意歟。此亦不然《割書：乃至》
何非能立闕￣ト者。疏主破＿三￣スル文軌￣ノ遂爲＿二￣ルヲ所立不成＿一也。
意者。虛空之上￣ニハ非＿三唯闕＿二￣タルノミニ所表￣ノ常＿一。亦關＿二￣タリ所表￣ノ
無礙￣モ＿一。旣無＿二 二立＿一。遂￣ニ猶可＿レ令＿レ墮＿二俱不成￣ニ＿一《割書：爲言》。　又
破他救《割書：乃至》亦得成喩￣ト者。文軌破＿二￣シテ經部￣ノ救￣ヲ＿一成＿下虛空￣ノ
喩￣ニ猶無＿二￣キ能立不成＿一之旨￣ヲ＿上也。先經部轉救意￣ハ者。裏書
云。邑云。此￣ハ先疏￣ニ牒＿二￣スルナリ他￣ノ救￣ノ詞＿一。同此誰救乎。　答
前￣ニ旣聲論對＿二無空論者＿一。此卽經部￣ノ救也。彼云。因￣ハ具＿二
遮表￣ヲ＿一。虛空￣ハ無體￣ニシテ可＿二唯有＿一レ遮。喩￣ハ不＿レ似＿レ因故。聲論立＿レ
聲爲＿レ常。量不＿レ成也《割書：云云》。此救猶爲＿二俱不成＿一也。大旨如＿二
疏主能破＿一。能立不成￣モ猶可＿レ有《割書：爲言》。次軌師能破￣ノ意者。裏
書云○咽￣ト杖￣ト雖＿レ別。所作同故。其喩得＿レ成￣スルコトヲ。表￣ト非
表￣ト殊￣トモ。遮￣ノ義旣￣ニ 齊￣シ。何不＿レ成＿レ喩￣ト《割書：云云》。此難￣ハ猶爲＿二所
立不成￣ノミト＿一也。如＿二前￣ノ文軌￣ノ答＿一。　此亦不爾《割書：乃至》不與此
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
四一九【但し算用数字】
【枠外左横上】
因明大疏私抄卷第八
【枠外左横下】
七一
【二段構成】
【上段】
例￣ト者。疏主破＿二文軌￣ヲ＿一也。意者。所作因與＿二￣トハ瓶等喩＿一同
有＿二所作＿一。卽遮表￣モ又同￣ナリ。故喩之上￣ニ得＿レ爲＿二能立￣ノ因￣ト＿一。虛
空￣ノ喩￣ハ但遮￣ノミニシテ無＿レ表。全￣ク不＿レ似＿レ因￣ニ。故喩之上￣ニ無＿二能
立＿一。彼￣ハ因喩能￣ノ相似。此￣ハ因喩更不＿二相似＿一。不＿レ可＿二相例＿一
《割書：爲言》。　又云若唯遮《割書：乃至》不約具遮表￣ト者。文軌師牒＿二空￣ノ
喩但遮＿一故。有＿二能立不成＿一云義。引＿レ例￣ヲ破＿レ之也。意云。小乘
對＿二大乘＿一立＿レ量￣ヲ云。虛空￣ハ是常。以＿レ非＿レ作故。如＿二擇滅＿一。此
量因￣ハ立者￣ノ前￣ニハ具＿二遮表＿一。小乘許＿三￣ノ虛空￣ハ非作￣ニシテ而有＿二￣リト
非作體＿一故。敵者￣ノ前￣ニハ但遮￣ノミナリ。大乘￣ハ虛空￣ハ雖＿二非作＿一。不＿レ
許＿レ有＿二￣トハ非作￣ノ體性＿一故。若如＿二汝義＿一。立對￣ルニ＿レ敵。敵但
許￣スニ＿レ有￣リト＿レ遮￣ノミ卽可￣ク＿レ有＿レ過者。此量￣ニ可＿レ有＿二他隨一不
成￣ノ過＿一。《割書：文云＿二望自＿一者。望＿二立者￣ノ自宗＿一。｜可＿レ蒙＿二他隨一￣ノ過￣ヲ＿一故云＿レ爾。》觀（ミレハ）＿二敵者￣ニ＿一。非作￣ノ因但
遮￣ノミナルガ故。而旣此量￣ニ無＿二此過＿一。例￣シテ思＿レ之。今￣ノ聲論￣ノ量￣モ
敵者￣ノ前￣ニハ空￣ノ喩仍遮￣ノミナリトモ＿レ更￣ニ不＿レ可＿レ有＿二能立不成＿一。故
知。能立不成。約￣シテ＿下因具＿二￣シ遮表＿一。喩但遮￣ノミナルニ＿上非＿レ有￣ニハ＿レ之
《割書：爲言》。重￣テ相例￣ノ意云。彼部宗所立￣ノ量￣ノ宗￣ハ具遮＿レ￣ノミナルニ表￣ヲ
因￣ハ敵者￣ノ前￣ニ但遮￣ノミナルニ旣無＿二他隨一不成￣ノ失＿一。此聲論
【下段】
所立量￣ノ因￣ハ具＿二遮表￣ヲ＿一。喩￣ハ敵者前￣ニ但遮￣ノミナルニ何有＿二能
立不成失＿一《割書：爲言》。　此意以立對敵《割書：乃至》爲不定過￣ト者。疏主
欲￣トハ＿レ破＿二文軌￣ヲ＿一。先申＿二彼義￣ノ意￣ヲ＿一也。其旨如＿レ 上。　全不許
者方是喩￣ノ過￣ト者。敵者￣イ喩￣ノ上￣ニ表￣ト遮￣トヲ全￣ニ不＿レ許者。實￣ニ
可＿レ成＿二能立不成＿一。旣不＿レ爾。遮￣フハ許＿レ之。何成＿二￣ラム能立不成￣ト＿一
《割書：爲言》。故將此量異不定過￣ト者。故彼￣ノ小乘所立￣ノ量￣ニハ無＿二《割書：ヲ以》
隨一不成￣ハ＿一。但是可＿レ爲＿レ有＿二￣リト不定￣ノ過＿一《割書：爲言》。以＿二龜毛＿一
爲＿二￣シテ異品＿一。可＿レ付＿二不定￣ノ過￣ヲ＿一也。小乘對＿二￣シテ大乘＿一。爲＿三虛空
有＿二￣リト常住￣ノ體＿一量無￣クシテ＿レ過不＿レ可＿レ止。故將＿二此量＿一可＿レ爲＿二不
定￣ノ過＿一云也。重意云。此量￣ハ俱是可＿レ＿二不定￣ノ過￣ト＿一。不＿レ可
爲＿二隨一不成￣トハ＿一《割書：爲言》。無＿レ諍犯＿二不定￣ヲハ＿一之量故也。是惣文
軌之意也。
【一字下げ】
尋云。續疏云故將＿二此量＿一爲＿二不定相違過＿一者《割書：云云》。
加＿二相違￣ノ言＿一。以＿二續疏＿一思＿二本疏＿一。非＿下￣サル以＿二龜毛＿一爲＿レ敵￣ト共
不定＿上￣ニハ歟。
答。此量亦非等￣ノ下￣ノ續疏￣ニ本疏￣ニ所￣ノ＿レ 擧不定等過之
外。加＿二有法自相相違￣ノ過￣ヲ＿一。以＿レ之思＿レ之。今云＿二不定相

【六十八行十三字目「遮」の送り仮名「ニ」は「一」になっている】

現代語訳

【右頁】
418
因明大疏私抄巻第八
70

【上段】

無空論に対して、この比量を立てる。全く俱不成の過がない。その理由は疏の文の通りである。文の意は裏書に云う。邑云う。この旧疏に仮りに声論の救いを叙して云う。「声宗の上の常と無礙は、皆遮表を具備している。空虚は無体にして亦た但だ遮のみがある。言うに、別は既に両俱成であって、総能立を闾くのではない」とは、声上の常と無礙は、能所立が異なる。これを称して別という。各々遮表を具えることを両俱成と名づける。喩上の二立を総能立と名づける。虚空が既に遮があることを許すならば、即ち喩中に二立を闕かせるものではない。どうして俱不成と説くのか【云云】。重ねて意に云う。喩の上に既に遮の所立と遮の能立とがある。二立は更に闕けない。何故俱不成とするのか【為言】。

「答う。若し声論【乃至】不成過」とは、文軌が自ら声論の救問に答えるのである。意は、裏書に云う。邑云う。古師が前の救いに答えて云う。「無礙の因は礙を遮し、非礙を表す。虚空は無体にして所表の非礙がないといえども、而して亦た能く礙を遮することを以て、能立を闕くことがないのは所説の如くである。其の常宗を立てるのは正しくは所表の常を立て、所遮の無常を立てるのではない。虚空は既に無である。所表は寧ろ所立不成ではないか」等【云云】。彼の抄を見るべし【云云】。この答えの意は、文軌が声論の救いについて、許可と不許可があり、能立不成がないという辺は許可する。無礙の因は正しく遮を立てるが故に、遮の喩の上に能立があるが故に。所立不成がないという辺は許可しない。常住の宗は正しくは遮を立てないが故に、遮喩の

【下段】

上に所立がないが故に【為言】。よって文軌の意を詮ずるところ、声論に救わせて、俱不成を改めて所立不成と為す【と見たり】。論に俱不成の作法と為すとは、声論がこの救いを致さない時は、俱不成故にこれを挙げる。若しこの救立を作せば、遂には所立不成と成ると得意か。

「此れも亦た然らず【乃至】何故能立を闕くに非ざるや」とは、疏主が文軌の遂に所立不成と為すを破するのである。意は、虚空の上には唯だ所表の常を闕くのみに非ず、亦た所表の無礙も闕いている。既に二立を無くし、遂に猶お俱不成に堕ちさせるべきである【為言】。

「又た他の救いを破す【乃至】亦た喩を成すを得」とは、文軌が経部の救いを破して、虚空の喩に猶お能立不成がないという旨を成すのである。先ず経部の転救の意とは、裏書に云う。邑云う。これは先の疏に他の救いの詞を牒するのである。これと同じく誰の救いか。答う。前に既に声論が無空論者に対する。これ即ち経部の救いである。彼れ云う。「因は遮表を具え、虚空は無体にして唯だ遮のみがあるべし。喩は因に似ていないが故に、声論が声を常と立てる量は成らない」【云云】。この救いも猶お俱不成と為すのである。大旨は疏主の能破の如し。能立不成も猶おあるべき【為言】。次に軌師の能破の意とは、裏書に云う。咽と杖とは別といえども、所作同じが故に、その喩は成ずることを得る。表と非表とは殊なりといえども、遮の義既に斉し。何故喩を成ぜざるや【云云】。この難は猶お所立不成のみと為すのである。前の文軌の答えの如し。

「此れも亦た爾らず【乃至】この例と与らず」とは、疏主が文軌を破するのである。意は、所作因と瓶等の喩とは同じく所作を有す。即ち遮表も又同じなり。故に喩の上に能立の因と為ることを得る。虚空の喩は但だ遮のみにして表無し。全く因に似ず。故に喩の上に能立無し。彼は因喩能く相似し、此は因喩更に相似せず。相例すべからず【為言】。

【左頁】
419
因明大疏私抄巻第八
71

【上段】

「又云う。若し唯だ遮【乃至】遮表を具するに約せず」とは、文軌師が空の喩は但だ遮なるが故に、能立不成があるという義を牒し、例を引いてこれを破するのである。意に云う。小乗が大乗に対して量を立てて云う。「虚空は是れ常なり。作られざるを以ての故に。択滅の如し」。この量の因は立者の前には遮表を具え、小乗の許す虚空は非作にして而も非作の体があるが故に。敵者の前には但だ遮のみなり。大乗は虚空は非作といえども、非作の体性があるとは許さないが故に。若し汝の義の如く、敵に対して立つるに、敵が但だ遮のみがあると許すに即ち過があるべくんば、この量に他随一不成の過があるべし。【文に望自と云うは、立者の自宗を望むなり。他随一の過を蒙るべきが故に爾く云う。】敵者に観れば、非作の因は但だ遮のみなるが故に。而して既にこの量にこの過無し。例して之を思え。今の声論の量も敵者の前には空の喩は仍お遮のみなりとも更に能立不成があるべからず。故に知る。能立不成は、因が遮表を具し、喩が但だ遮のみなるに約して有るにあらず【為言】。重ねて相例の意に云う。彼の部宗所立の量の宗は遮表を具し、因は敵者の前に但だ遮のみなるに既に他随一不成の失無し。この声論

【下段】

所立量の因は遮表を具え、喩は敵者前に但だ遮のみなるに何ぞ能立不成の失あらんや【为言】。

「此の意は敵に対して立つるを以て【乃至】不定過と為す」とは、疏主が文軌を破らんと欲して、先ず彼の義の意を申すのである。その旨は上の如し。

「全く許さざる者方に是れ喩の過」とは、敵者が喩の上の表と遮とを全く許さない者は、実に能立不成と成るべし。既に爾らず、遮は之を許す。何ぞ能立不成と成らんや【为言】。

「故に此の量を将て異なり不定過」とは、故に彼の小乗所立の量には随一不成がないことを以て、但だ是れ不定の過があるべき【为言】。亀毛を以て異品と為して、不定の過を付けるべきなり。小乗が大乗に対して、虚空に常住の体があることの為の量は過無くして止むべからず。故に此の量を将て不定の過と為すべしと云うなり。重ねて意に云う。この量は倶に是れ不定の過とすべし。随一不成とすべからず【为言】。諍い無く不定を犯すの量なるが故になり。是れ総じて文軌の意なり。

【一字下げ】
尋ね云う。続疏に云う「故に此の量を将て不定相違過と為す」者【云云】。相違の言を加える。続疏を以て本疏を思うに、亀毛を以て敵と共に不定にあらざるに非ずや。

答う。「此の量も亦た等しからず」等の下の続疏に本疏に挙げる所の不定等過の外に、有法自相相違の過を加える。之を以てこれを思え。今「不定相」と云う

英語訳

[Right Page]
418
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary on Hetuvidyā, Volume 8
70

[Upper Section]

Against the no-space theory, establishing this inference has absolutely no fault of both non-establishment. The reason is as stated in the commentary text. The meaning of the text is stated in the marginal notes: Yi says: "This old commentary provisionally narrates the Sound school's defense, saying: 'The permanence and non-obstruction on the sound thesis both possess negation-affirmation. Empty space is without substance and also has only negation. Speaking of particulars, since both are already established, it is not that the general probans is lacking.'" This means: permanence and non-obstruction on sound have different probans and thesis-predicate. This is called "particular." Each possessing negation-affirmation is called "both established." The two establishments on the example are called "general probans." Since empty space already permits negation, it does not make the two establishments lacking in the example. How can this be called both non-establishment? [etc.] The repeated meaning says: Since there are already negating thesis-predicate and negating probans on the example, the two establishments are not lacking. Why make it both non-establishment? [so to speak]

"Answer: If the Sound school [...] non-establishment fault" - this is Wengui answering the Sound school's defensive question himself. The meaning is stated in the marginal notes: Yi says: "The ancient master answered the previous defense saying: 'The non-obstruction reason negates obstruction and affirms non-obstruction. Though empty space is without substance and lacks the affirmed non-obstruction, it can also negate obstruction, so not lacking the probans is as stated. Establishing the permanence thesis correctly establishes the affirmed permanence, not the negated impermanence. Since empty space is already non-existent, how is the affirmation not thesis-predicate non-establishment?'" etc. [etc.] One should see that commentary [etc.] The meaning of this answer is that Wengui, regarding the Sound school's defense, has permission and non-permission - he permits the aspect of there being no probans non-establishment. Since the non-obstruction reason correctly establishes negation, there is a probans on the negating example. He does not permit the aspect of there being no thesis-predicate non-establishment. Since the permanence thesis does not correctly establish negation, there is no thesis-predicate on the negating example [so to speak]. Therefore, what Wengui's meaning conveys is having the Sound school make a defense, changing both non-establishment to thesis-predicate non-establishment [as seen]. What the treatise calls the methodology of both non-establishment means: when the Sound school does not make this defense, it is both non-establishment, so this is raised. If this defensive establishment is made, does it finally become thesis-predicate non-establishment?

"This also is not so [...] why is it not lacking the probans?" - the commentary master refutes Wengui's finally making it thesis-predicate non-establishment. The meaning is: on empty space, it is not only lacking the affirmed permanence, but also lacking the affirmed non-obstruction. Having already lost both establishments, it should still fall into both non-establishment [so to speak].

"Also refuting another's defense [...] can also establish the example" - this is Wengui refuting the Sautrāntika defense and establishing that the empty space example still has no probans non-establishment. First, regarding the Sautrāntika's counter-defense meaning, the marginal notes say: Yi says: "This cites another's defensive words from the previous commentary. Who makes the same defense? Answer: Previously the Sound school was already against the no-space theorists. This is precisely the Sautrāntika defense. They say: 'The reason possesses negation-affirmation; empty space is without substance and should have only negation. The example does not resemble the reason, therefore the Sound school's inference establishing sound as permanent does not succeed'" [etc.] This defense also still constitutes both non-establishment. The general approach is like the commentary master's refutation. There should still be probans non-establishment [so to speak]. Next, Master Gui's refutation meaning is stated in the marginal notes: Though throat and staff differ, their function is the same, therefore the example succeeds. Though affirmation and non-affirmation differ, the meaning of negation is already equal. Why does the example not succeed? [etc.] This criticism still only constitutes thesis-predicate non-establishment, like Wengui's previous answer.

"This also is not so [...] does not participate in this example" - the commentary master refutes Wengui. The meaning is: the made-ness reason and pot example both have made-ness. Namely, negation-affirmation are also the same. Therefore on the example it can serve as the probans reason. The empty space example has only negation without affirmation, completely unlike the reason. Therefore there is no probans on the example. In that case reason and example resemble each other; in this case reason and example do not resemble each other at all. They cannot be compared [so to speak].

[Left Page]
419
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary on Hetuvidyā, Volume 8
71

[Upper Section]

"Also saying: If only negation [...] not according to possessing negation-affirmation" - Master Wengui cites the doctrine that because the empty space example has only negation, there is probans non-establishment, and refutes this by drawing an analogy. The meaning says: Hīnayāna establishes an inference against Mahāyāna saying: "Empty space is permanent because it is unmade, like cessation through discrimination." The reason of this inference possesses negation-affirmation before the establisher - the empty space that Hīnayāna permits is unmade and has the substance of unmade-ness. Before the opponent it has only negation. Though Mahāyāna [admits] empty space is unmade, it does not permit there to be the substantial nature of unmade-ness. If according to your doctrine, when establishing against an opponent, if the opponent only permits negation and there should be a fault, this inference should have the fault of other one-sided non-establishment. [The text saying "regarding self" means regarding the establisher's own school. Because it should incur the fault of other one-sided, it says so.] Observing the opponent, because the unmade-ness reason has only negation, yet this inference already has no such fault. Think analogically: the current Sound school inference also, before the opponent the empty space example is still only negation, yet there should not be probans non-establishment. Therefore know: probans non-establishment does not exist according to the reason possessing negation-affirmation while the example has only negation [so to speak]. The repeated analogical meaning says: that sectarian school's established inference's thesis possesses negation-affirmation, the reason before the opponent has only negation, yet there is already no fault of other one-sided non-establishment. This Sound school's

[Lower Section]

established inference's reason possesses negation-affirmation, the example before the opponent has only negation - why would there be the fault of probans non-establishment? [so to speak]

"This meaning takes establishing against opponent [...] makes it an uncertainty fault" - the commentary master, wanting to refute Wengui, first states his doctrinal meaning. The point is as above.

"Only those who completely do not permit are example faults" - if opponents completely do not permit affirmation and negation on the example, this truly should become probans non-establishment. Since this is not so, they permit negation. How would it become probans non-establishment? [so to speak]

"Therefore taking this inference as different, an uncertainty fault" - therefore, because that Hīnayāna established inference has no one-sided non-establishment, it should only have the fault of uncertainty [so to speak]. Using rabbit horns as the dissimilar class, the fault of uncertainty should be attached. When Hīnayāna opposes Mahāyāna, the inference for empty space having permanent substance cannot be stopped without fault. Therefore this inference should be made an uncertainty fault. The repeated meaning says: this inference should all be an uncertainty fault, not a one-sided non-establishment [so to speak]. Because it is an inference that uncontroversially commits uncertainty. This is generally Wengui's meaning.

[One character indent]
Question: The Continued Commentary says "therefore taking this inference as uncertainty and contradiction fault" [etc.] Adding the word "contradiction." Thinking of the main commentary through the continued commentary, is it not that using rabbit horns with the opponent is not uncertainty?

Answer: In the continued commentary under "this inference is also not equal" etc., beyond the uncertainty and other faults raised in the main commentary, it adds the fault of contradicting the particular characteristics of the subject. Think of this. Now saying "uncertainty and contra-"