翻刻
【右頁】
【枠外右上】
四三〇【但し算用数字】
【枠外右横上】
因明大疏私抄卷第九
【枠外右横下】
八二
【二段構成】
【上段】
燒＿レ心。心只覺＿二-知其熱觸＿一也。若爾心得＿二火自相＿一合￣ニシテ
取￣レトモ亦不＿レ被＿レ燒。何云＿二定心離￣テ取故不＿一レ被＿レ燒哉《割書：爲言》。
前救乃難二竝成非者。惣結也。軌師所＿レ述轉救及難破。皆
竝非也《割書：爲言》。凡五根￣ハ色法故。定離＿二合用＿一。心無在此在。彼
差別故。非＿レ離非＿レ合。然而隨＿二所依根作用＿一判時。或合或
離。或通＿二￣スト離合＿一云也。故依＿レ實談＿レ之。無＿二離合＿一故。不＿レ可＿レ云＿三
定心取＿二離境＿一。若又以＿レ義判＿レ之。取＿レ合￣ヲモ取＿レ離￣ヲモ故。又不＿レ
可＿レ云＿下取＿二離境＿一不＿上レ被＿レ燒。又心無＿二形質＿一。爲＿二 四大種＿一不＿レ被＿レ
損。設合得＿二自相＿一。設離得＿二自相＿一。非＿二火可＿一レ燒＿レ心。何別云＿二取＿レ
離故不＿一レ被＿レ燒哉。又心本無＿二方處＿一。非＿レ合非＿レ離。亦合亦離故。
火來合＿レ身時￣ニモ身識意識無＿レ被＿レ燒。火來不＿レ合時￣ニモ定心
能得＿二火自相＿一。此乃離合難＿レ定。作用不思議故也。若一向
定＿レ離了￣ナハ寧得＿二自相＿一哉。倩案＿二軌師說＿一。有＿二如＿レ此疑＿一。疏主
存＿二此旨＿一論故。種種￣ニ徴￣シテ破歟。 若如說火得火自相《割書：乃至》
心應覺熱者。是疏主釋＿下難＿二外道＿一之義＿上也。若如＿二今本疏
文＿一者。有＿二 二義＿一。初義可＿レ燒＿レ口￣ヲ難也。後義可＿レ燒＿レ口者非＿二
正難＿一。正可＿レ難＿下若名言得＿二自相＿一者。緣＿二火￣ノ名言＿一之時。其
【下段】
尋＿レ名取＿レ火之心。可＿上レ覺＿二熱觸＿一。名言旣得＿二火自相＿一。火自相￣ハ
熱觸故《割書：爲言》。此乃外道之名得＿二自相＿一故。緣＿二其名＿一心亦得＿二
自相＿一。仍有＿二此難＿一也。若如＿二續疏文＿一者。有＿二 三義＿一故。文云。
若如＿レ說＿レ火。得＿二火自相＿一。卽燒熱＿レ口。此據＿三言＿レ火。在＿二於口
中＿一。言＿レ得＿二自相＿一。自相亦不離＿二口中＿一。故應＿レ燒＿レ口。或可。抑￣ヘテ
難￣ナリ。非＿三正難＿レ彼合＿二《割書：ト云ニハ》口被＿一レ燒。口是發＿レ語之緣。非＿二正
語＿一故正難＿下於＿二彼聲＿一應＿上レ被＿レ燒。同＿二身㭑塵＿一。俱有＿レ礙故。或可。
難彼尋＿レ名取＿レ境之心。亦得＿二自相＿一。得＿二自相＿一者心應＿レ覺＿レ熱
《割書：云云》。初義可＿レ燒＿レ口難。次義可＿レ燒＿レ聲難。後義緣＿レ名心可＿レ覺＿レ
熱難也。
【二字下げ】
復次爲自開悟等下
【下から二字上げ】
寫本別帖之故題＿レ之歟如上
【字上げ終わり】
若他返難《割書：乃至》稱境知故者。若外道返＿二-難我大乘＿一。汝外道
自可＿レ屈。其難不＿レ關＿二我大乘宗＿一《割書：爲言》。此乃付＿二 上多難中終
難＿一。可＿二返難＿一也。外道難意云。汝大乘若難￣シテ＿レ我尋＿レ名緣＿レ
火之心。可＿レ覺＿二熱觸＿一云者。汝宗中尋＿レ名緣＿レ火之心。又可＿レ
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
四三一【但し算用数字】
【枠外左横上】
因明大疏私抄卷第九
【枠外左横下】
八三
【二段構成】
【上段】
覺＿レ熱《割書：爲言》。大乘意云。若如＿レ此返難者。此難非＿レ預＿二我宗＿一。
何者汝尋＿レ名緣＿レ火之心。得＿二自相＿一故。難＿レ可＿レ覺＿二熱觸＿一。我不＿レ
云＿三尋＿レ名假智得＿二自相＿一故。不＿レ可＿レ難＿レ可＿レ覺＿二熱觸＿一《割書：爲言》。若覺
熱觸等者。意云。我宗￣ニハ知＿二熱觸￣ノ自相＿一心。卽非＿二尋＿レ名假
智＿一。稱＿レ境知故《割書：爲言》。
設定心中《割書：乃至》所帶相分亦無熱等者。明燈抄云。上明＿二散
心尋＿レ名假智￣ノ不＿一レ得＿二自相＿一。今此文明＿二定心尋＿レ名假智亦
不＿一レ得＿二自相＿一。問。若定心中尋＿レ名緣＿二火等＿一。亦是假智￣ニシテ不＿レ
得＿二自相＿一者。何故諸處皆云＿二 一切定心皆是現量＿一。○答。無
漏之心。緣＿レ敎起。然離＿二分別＿一無＿二異行轉＿一。故無漏心皆名＿二
現量＿一。諸有相道有漏定心。對＿二無相智＿一。名＿二有分別＿一。然於＿二
所緣＿一。如＿レ境了別。無＿レ異行轉故。皆現量￣ナリ。○如假相定
反水火等者。二乘異生作＿二 十遍處觀等＿一。名＿二假想定＿一。○此
所作想。唯内心思￣シテ不＿レ能＿二實反＿一故。名＿二假想＿一。若入地菩
薩無漏心中。作＿二如＿レ是觀＿一。是實非＿レ假。○問。若菩薩反＿二水
火等＿一。是實非＿レ假。其身在＿レ 中有＿二燒溫等用＿一乎。 答。雖＿レ有＿二
益＿レ他用＿一。而無＿下損＿二自身＿一用＿上。心得＿二自在＿一故。如定心緣下界
【下段】
火等者。此唯約＿二定意識＿一。緣＿二 下界火＿一說。卽獨影境。無＿二實
用＿一故《割書：云云》。仍返＿二外道￣ノ返難＿一大意。設散心。設定心。尋＿レ名
取＿レ境心。皆假智也。假智故不＿レ得＿二眞自相＿一。不＿レ得＿二自相＿一故。
不＿レ云＿二返難＿一レ可＿レ覺＿レ熱《割書：爲言》。 如假想定者。出＿下定心中尋＿レ名
心不＿レ得＿二眞自相＿一之體＿上也。然此所得相。不＿レ如＿二比量心所
得＿一故。亦名￣クレトモ＿レ得＿二自相＿一。非＿二眞自相＿一《割書：爲言》。故雖＿二現量＿一。尋＿レ
名○猶不＿レ得＿二眞自相＿一也。故無＿二燒等實用＿一《割書：爲言》。如上定心
等者。出＿下雖＿二現量＿一所反相分。無＿二實用＿一之證＿上也。爲＿レ證＿下假想
定雖＿二理量＿一不＿レ得＿二眞自相＿一之義＿上也。
問若爾實反等者。擧＿二第八識所反及如來大菩薩所反等
實用所反水火等＿一。問＿二前義＿一也。意￣ハ若定散諸假智。不＿レ得＿二
眞自相＿一故。所反無＿二《割書：ヲ以》實用＿一不＿レ覺＿レ熱云者。如＿レ此心能得＿二自
相＿一。所反有＿二￣ルハ實用＿一。其心可＿レ覺＿二熱等＿一哉《割書：爲言》。雖＿レ似＿レ問＿二實
用￣ノ有無＿一。其心還如＿レ此。 答雖有用等者。第八所反雖＿レ
有＿二實用＿一。任運反中火體自相故。不＿レ燒＿レ心《割書：爲言》。不燒心者。
不＿レ覺＿レ熱《割書：爲言》。 定心亦爾者。如來大菩薩定心所反亦如＿レ
此《割書：爲言》。
現代語訳
【右頁】
430
因明大疏私抄巻第九
82
【上段】
心を焼かない。心はただその熱触を覚知するだけである。もしそうなら、心が火の自相を得て合して取るといえども、また焼かれることがない。何故「定心は離して取るが故に焼かれない」と云うのか【為言】。
「前の救も難も並んで非と成る」とは、総結である。軌師の述べる転救及び難破は、皆並んで非である【为言】。凡そ五根は色法であるが故に、定めて離合の用を離れる。心には此処在る彼処在るの差別がないが故に、離でも合でもない。然し乍ら所依の根の作用に随って判断する時には、或いは合、或いは離、或いは離合に通ずると云う。故に実に依って之を談ずるに、離合がないが故に、「定心は離境を取る」と云うべきでない。もし又義を以って之を判ずるに、合を取るも離を取るもであるが故に、また「離境を取るから焼かれない」と云うべきでない。また心には形質がなく、四大種ではないから損なわれない。設い合して自相を得ようとも、設い離して自相を得ようとも、火が心を焼くべきではない。何故特別に「離を取るが故に焼かれない」と云うのか。また心は本来方所がなく、合でも離でもなく、亦合でも亦離でもあるが故に、火が来て身に合する時にも身識・意識は焼かれることがなく、火が来て合しない時にも定心は能く火の自相を得る。これ乃ち離合は定め難く、作用が不思議だからである。もし一向に離と定めるなら、どうして自相を得ようか。つくづく軌師の説を案ずるに、このような疑いがある。疏主はこの旨を存じて論ずるが故に、種々に徴して破るのであろうか。
「もし火と説くが如く火の自相を得れば【乃至】心は熱を覚すべし」とは、これは疏主が外道を難ずる義を釈するのである。もし今の本疏の文の如くであれば、二義がある。初義は「口を焼くべし」を難ずる。後義は「口を焼くべし」というのは正難ではない。正しくは「もし名言が自相を得るならば、火の名言に縁ずる時に、その
【下段】
名を尋ねて火を取る心は、熱触を覚すべきである。名言が既に火の自相を得ており、火の自相は熱触だからである【为言】」と難ずべきである。これ乃ち外道の名が自相を得るが故に、その名に縁ずる心も亦自相を得る。よってこの難がある。もし続疏の文の如くであれば、三義があるが故に、文に云う。「もし火と説くが如く、火の自相を得れば、即ち口を焼き熱す。これは火と言うことが口中に在ることに拠る。自相を得ると言えば、自相も亦口中を離れない。故に口を焼くべきである。或いは可し。抑えて難ずる。彼が「口が焼かれる」と云うことを正難するのではない。口は語を発する縁であって正語ではないが故に、正しくは彼の声に於いて焼かれるべしと難ずる。身触塵と同じく、俱に礙があるが故に。或いは可し。彼の名を尋ねて境を取る心を難じて、亦自相を得る。自相を得る者は心が熱を覚すべし【云云】」。初義は「口を焼くべし」の難、次義は「声を焼くべし」の難、後義は「名に縁ずる心が熱を覚すべし」の難である。
【二字下げ】
復次自ら開悟の為等より下
【下から二字上げ】
写本別帖の故に之を題するか上の如し
【字上げ終わり】
「もし他が返難す【乃至】境に称って知るが故」とは、もし外道が我が大乗に返難するなら、汝外道は自ら屈すべきである。その難は我が大乗宗に関係しない【为言】。これ乃ち上の多難中の終難に付いて、返難すべきである。外道の難意に云う。汝大乗がもし我を難じて「名を尋ね火に縁ずる心は、熱触を覚すべし」と云うなら、汝宗中の名を尋ね火に縁ずる心も、また
【左頁】
431
因明大疏私抄巻第九
83
【上段】
熱を覚すべし【为言】。大乗の意に云う。もしこの如く返難するなら、この難は我宗に預からない。何故なら汝の名を尋ね火に縁ずる心は、自相を得るが故に、熱触を覚すべしと難ずる。我は「名を尋ねる仮智が自相を得る」と云わないが故に、「熱触を覚すべし」と難ずることができない【为言】。
「もし熱触を覚す等」とは、意に云う。我宗においては熱触の自相を知る心は、即ち名を尋ねる仮智ではない。境に称って知るが故に【为言】。
「設い定心中【乃至】所帯の相分も亦熱等なし」とは、明燈抄に云う。上は散心の名を尋ねる仮智が自相を得ないことを明かす。今この文は定心の名を尋ねる仮智も亦自相を得ないことを明かす。問う。もし定心中で名を尋ね火等に縁ずるのも、亦これ仮智であって自相を得ないなら、何故諸処皆「一切の定心は皆これ現量である」と云うのか。○答う。無漏の心は、教に縁じて起こる。然し分別を離れて異行の転がない。故に無漏心は皆現量と名づける。諸の有相道の有漏定心は、無相智に対して、有分別と名づける。然し所縁において、境の如く了別し、異行の転がないが故に、皆現量である。○「仮相定の如く水火等を変ずる」とは、二乗・異生が十遍処観等を作すのを、仮想定と名づける。○この所作の想は、唯内心で思うのみで実に変ずることができないが故に、仮想と名づける。もし入地の菩薩の無漏心中で、是の如き観を作すなら、これ実であって仮ではない。○問う。もし菩薩が水火等を変ずるのが、これ実であって仮でないなら、その身が中に在って焼温等の用があるのか。答う。他を益する用はあるといえども、自身を損なう用はない。心が自在を得るが故に。「定心が下界の
【下段】
火等に縁ずるが如し」とは、これ唯定意識が下界の火に縁ずることについて説く。即ち独影境で、実用がないが故に【云云】。よって外道の返難に返す大意は、設い散心、設い定心、名を尋ね境を取る心は、皆仮智である。仮智であるが故に真の自相を得ない。自相を得ないが故に、「熱を覚すべし」と返難することはない【为言】。
「仮想定の如し」とは、定心中の名を尋ねる心が真の自相を得ない体を出すのである。然しこの所得の相は、比量心の所得の如くではないが故に、亦「自相を得る」と名づけるといえども、真の自相ではない【为言】。故に現量であるといえども、名を尋ねる○なお真の自相を得ない。故に焼等の実用がない【为言】。
「上の定心の如し等」とは、現量であるといえども所変の相分に実用がない証を出すのである。仮想定は現量であるといえども真の自相を得ない義を証するためである。
「問う。もしそうなら実に変ずる等」とは、第八識の所変及び如来・大菩薩の所変等の実用の所変の水火等を挙げて、前義を問うのである。意は、もし定散の諸仮智が真の自相を得ないが故に、所変に実用がなくて熱を覚えないと云うなら、この如き心が能く自相を得て、所変に実用があるならば、その心は熱等を覚すべきか【为言】。実用の有無を問うに似ているが、その心もまたこの如くである。
「答う。用ありといえども等」とは、第八の所変は実用があるといえども、任運に変中の火体の自相であるが故に、心を焼かない【为言】。心を焼かないとは、熱を覚えない【为言】。
「定心も亦爾り」とは、如来・大菩薩の定心の所変も亦この如し【为言】。
英語訳
[Right Page]
430
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary on Hetuvidyā, Volume 9
82
[Upper Section]
It does not burn the mind. The mind only cognizes that tactile heat. If so, even though the mind obtains fire's self-characteristic and takes it through contact, it is also not burned. Why say "because concentrated mind takes through separation, it is not burned" [meaning]?
"The previous rescue and objection both become wrong" - this is the general conclusion. The successive rescue and refutation-breaking that Master Ki describes are all equally wrong [meaning]. Generally, because the five sense-faculties are material dharmas, they are definitely separate from the function of contact and separation. Because mind has no distinction of being here or there, it is neither separate nor in contact. However, when judging according to the functions of the supporting faculties, sometimes contact, sometimes separation, sometimes connected to both separation and contact. Therefore, speaking according to reality, because there is no separation or contact, one should not say "concentrated mind takes separate objects." If again judging by principle, because it takes both contact and separation, one also should not say "because it takes separate objects, it is not burned." Also, because mind has no form or substance and is not the four great elements, it is not damaged. Whether obtaining self-characteristics through contact or obtaining self-characteristics through separation, fire should not burn mind. Why specially say "because it takes separation, it is not burned"? Also, because mind originally has no location and is neither contact nor separation, yet both contact and separation, even when fire comes and contacts the body, body-consciousness and mental consciousness are not burned, and even when fire comes without contact, concentrated mind can obtain fire's self-characteristics. This is because separation and contact are difficult to determine, and the function is inconceivable. If determining it as uniformly separate, how could it obtain self-characteristics? Carefully considering Master Ki's explanation, there are such doubts. Because the commentary master maintains this point in his discussion, he probably investigates and refutes it in various ways.
"If like saying fire obtains fire's self-characteristics [...] mind should feel heat" - this is the commentary master explaining the doctrine of objecting to non-theists. If it were like today's main commentary text, there are two doctrines. The first doctrine objects to "should burn the mouth." The latter doctrine - "should burn the mouth" is not the correct objection. The correct objection should be: "If conventional language obtains self-characteristics, then when relating to fire's conventional language, that
[Lower Section]
mind that seeks the name and takes fire should feel tactile heat. Because conventional language already obtains fire's self-characteristics, and fire's self-characteristics are tactile heat [meaning]." This is because non-theists' names obtain self-characteristics, so the mind that relates to those names also obtains self-characteristics. Therefore this objection exists. If it were like the continued commentary text, because there are three doctrines, the text says: "If like saying fire obtains fire's self-characteristics, it immediately burns and heats the mouth. This is based on saying fire being in the mouth. If saying obtaining self-characteristics, self-characteristics also do not leave the mouth. Therefore it should burn the mouth. Or possibly, this is a suppressed objection. It does not correctly object to 'the mouth being burned.' Because the mouth is the condition for producing speech, not actual speech, the correct objection is that the sound should be burned. Same as body-tactile dust, both have obstruction. Or possibly, objecting to that mind that seeks names and takes objects, it also obtains self-characteristics. Those who obtain self-characteristics - their minds should feel heat [etc.]." The first doctrine is the objection "should burn the mouth," the next doctrine is the objection "should burn the sound," the latter doctrine is the objection "mind relating to names should feel heat."
[Indented two characters]
From "Furthermore, for self-enlightenment" etc. below
[Raised two characters from bottom]
Because it is a separate volume of manuscript, perhaps titled thus as above
[End of raised text]
"If others make counter-objections [...] because of knowing according to objects" - if non-theists make counter-objections to our Mahāyāna, you non-theists should submit yourselves. That objection does not concern our Mahāyāna school [meaning]. This is regarding the final objection among the many objections above, which should be counter-objected to. The non-theists' objection-intention says: If your Mahāyāna objects to us saying "minds that seek names and relate to fire should feel tactile heat," then minds in your school that seek names and relate to fire should also
[Left Page]
431
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary on Hetuvidyā, Volume 9
83
[Upper Section]
feel heat [meaning]. Mahāyāna's intention says: If making counter-objections like this, this objection does not involve our school. Why? Because your minds that seek names and relate to fire obtain self-characteristics, therefore one objects that they should feel tactile heat. I do not say "provisional cognition seeking names obtains self-characteristics," therefore one cannot object "should feel tactile heat" [meaning].
"If feeling tactile heat etc." - the intention says: In our school, minds that know the self-characteristics of tactile heat are immediately not provisional cognition seeking names. Because they know according to objects [meaning].
"Even in concentrated mind [...] the accompanied image-aspects also have no heat etc." - the Mingdeng Commentary says: Above clarifies that scattered mind's provisional cognition seeking names does not obtain self-characteristics. Now this text clarifies that concentrated mind's provisional cognition seeking names also does not obtain self-characteristics. Question: If seeking names and relating to fire etc. in concentrated mind is also provisional cognition not obtaining self-characteristics, why do all places say "all concentrated minds are direct perception"? ○ Answer: Pure minds arise relating to teachings. However, being free from discrimination, there is no different-activity transformation. Therefore pure minds are all called direct perception. All contaminated concentrated minds of conditioned-characteristic paths, compared to characteristic-less cognition, are called having discrimination. However, regarding objects, they distinguish like objects, without different-activity transformation, therefore all are direct perception. ○ "Like provisional-characteristic concentration transforming water, fire etc." - when two-vehicle practitioners and ordinary beings perform ten-totality contemplations etc., this is called provisional-imagination concentration. ○ These performed imaginations are only internal mental thinking, unable to actually transform, therefore called provisional imagination. If bodhisattvas who have entered the grounds perform such contemplations in pure mind, this is real, not provisional. ○ Question: If bodhisattvas transforming water, fire etc. is real, not provisional, when their bodies are in it, do they have burning, warming etc. functions? Answer: Though having the function of benefiting others, there is no function of harming oneself. Because mind attains mastery. "Like concentrated mind relating to lower-realm
[Lower Section]
fire etc." - this only speaks about concentration mental-consciousness relating to lower-realm fire. That is, sole-reflection objects having no real function [etc.]. Therefore the main intention of responding to non-theists' counter-objections is: whether scattered mind or concentrated mind, minds seeking names and taking objects are all provisional cognition. Because they are provisional cognition, they do not obtain true self-characteristics. Because they do not obtain self-characteristics, there is no counter-objection "should feel heat" [meaning].
"Like provisional-imagination concentration" - this presents the substance of mind seeking names in concentrated mind not obtaining true self-characteristics. However, because these obtained characteristics are not like what inferential mind obtains, though also called "obtaining self-characteristics," they are not true self-characteristics [meaning]. Therefore, though being direct perception, seeking names ○ still does not obtain true self-characteristics. Therefore there are no real functions like burning [meaning].
"Like the above concentrated mind etc." - this presents evidence that though being direct perception, the transformed image-aspects have no real function. This is to prove the doctrine that provisional-imagination concentration, though being direct perception, does not obtain true self-characteristics.
"Question: If so, actually transforming etc." - this raises the eighth consciousness's transformations and the Tathāgata's and great bodhisattvas' transformations etc. - real-function transformed water, fire etc. - to question the previous doctrine. The intention is: if various provisional cognitions of concentration and scattering do not obtain true self-characteristics, therefore transformations have no real function and do not feel heat, then if such minds can obtain self-characteristics and transformations have real function, should those minds feel heat etc. [meaning]? Though seeming to question the presence or absence of real function, those minds are also like this.
"Answer: Though having function etc." - though the eighth's transformations have real function, because they naturally transform fire-substance self-characteristics within, they do not burn mind [meaning]. Not burning mind means not feeling heat [meaning].
"Concentrated mind is also thus" - the Tathāgata's and great bodhisattvas' concentrated minds' transformations are also like this [meaning].