翻刻
【右頁】
【枠外右上】
四三四【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】
八六
【二段構成】
【上段】
【三字下げ】
若唯簡外《割書：乃至》過亦不盡者。雖＿レ不＿レ及＿二別釋＿一。若又
唯簡＿二非量＿一。不＿レ簡＿二比量＿一者。簡￣フコト又不＿レ盡《割書：爲言》。
故須離此等者。比量非量所有分別￣ヲ盡￣シテ離￣タルヲ方
爲＿二現量＿一《割書：爲言》。
【字下げ終わり】
二或三所有分別者。明燈抄云。二者自性分別。任運分
別也。三者自性等三《割書：云云》。此等分別中。有＿二現量＿一故也。
准七攝三《割書：乃至》恆有彼故者。明燈抄云。七中有＿二任運＿一。三
中有＿二自性＿一。意地￣ニハ唯除＿二無分別智＿一。餘￣ノ散￣ト定位及獨起
後得智位。隨＿レ應有＿二彼任運自性二分別＿一故等《割書：云云》。
文問理門義何妨別者。五識依＿二 五根＿一轉＿二 五境＿一。名＿二現現別
轉＿一。故云＿二義別＿一歟。
【二字下げ】
現現別轉故名現量下
【字下げ終わり】
此四類心或唯五識《割書：乃至》二種釋也者。四類心者。上所出
五識。五俱意。自證分。定心是也。於＿二此四心＿一。須＿二現現別
轉故名現量之釋名＿一事。此論與＿二理門＿一有＿二通局＿一。理門￣ト一
向於＿二 五識＿一稱＿二現現別轉＿一《割書：見タリ》。此論￣ノハ唯約＿二 五識＿一。或通＿二
四分＿一 二釋在＿レ疏《割書：見タリ》。所＿レ謂上釋＿二此論若有正智於色
【下段】
等義等文四心攝不＿一有＿二 二釋＿一。初釋於色等義文且明＿二 五
識＿一《割書：爲言》。此釋可＿レ云＿三現現別轉文￣モ限＿二 五識＿一也。後釋￣ハ於色
等義文。廣通＿二 四心＿一《割書：爲言》。此釋云＿三現々別轉文通＿二 四心＿一也
《割書：已上》。上文如＿レ此。
而見＿二今一假＿一。依＿二現現別轉義＿一。釋＿二現量名＿一。惣有＿二 三尺＿一。此
四類心等者。第一釋也。此釋意。現現言皆屬＿レ心。現量
心體非＿レ 一故云＿二現現＿一。別轉言￣ハ卽此心轉＿レ境相也。各附＿二
境體＿一。難＿二貫通＿一故。云＿二別轉＿一。此釋於＿二 上二釋＿一俱不＿レ違。俱
可＿レ攝＿レ之。故云＿二此四類心或唯五識等＿一也。此釋￣ハ現￣ノ言。
量￣ノ言。皆屬＿レ心。仍現卽量持業釋也。
依理門論云由不共緣等者。第二釋也。此釋准＿二理門論＿一。此
論現現別轉文￣ヲモ令＿レ限＿二 五識＿一也。卽當＿二 上二釋中初釋＿一。意
者初現言呼＿二 五根＿一。次現言擧＿二 五識＿一。卽依＿二 五根＿一 五識也。
可＿レ云＿二現之現＿一。別轉者。五識依＿二 五根＿一。五境各別轉故云＿二
別轉＿一《割書：爲言》。此釋￣ハ現量現言￣ニ攝＿二根識＿一存歟。仍以＿二量言＿一
望＿二根現＿一。現之量故。依主釋也。望＿二識現＿一。現卽量故。持業
釋也。量言決定可＿レ屬＿レ心故。
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
四三五【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】
八七
【二段構成】
【上段】
或現之量五根非一等者。第三釋也。此釋亦准＿二理門＿一。令＿レ
眼＿二 五識＿一。卽尚當＿二 上二釋中初釋＿一。意者。現現者。五根也。
五根非一故。名＿二現現＿一也。故現量￣ト者。現言唯屬＿レ根。量
言亦識也。故現之量。依主釋也。 抑附＿二第二釋＿一有＿レ妨。
所謂云＿下 五識依＿二 五根＿一各別轉＿二 五境＿一。名＿中現現別轉＿上故。此義
不＿レ遍＿二互用位五識現量義＿一。仍問＿二若爾互用是亦別緣＿一也。
答意爾也。互用位不＿レ可＿レ有＿二此義＿一。今且依＿二未自在五識現
量義＿一。作＿二現現別轉之說＿一《割書：爲言》。今此妨難￣ハ初釋￣ニモ無＿レ之。
故云＿二若依前解卽無此妨＿一也。第三釋￣ニモ無＿レ之。故云＿二理則
無違＿一也。附＿二初釋＿一無＿二此妨＿一之旨易＿レ知。附＿二第三釋＿一無＿二此妨＿一
云事。於＿レ文者未定也。無＿下釋＿二別轉言＿一之文＿上。故於＿レ理者必
然也。故云＿レ爾。其理者。若第三釋￣ニモ可＿レ有＿二此妨＿一者。述＿二後
二釋＿一了。方可＿レ有＿二此問難＿一。何獨第二釋之下￣ノミ有＿レ之哉。
隨￣テ第三釋中理則無違之文。若非＿二遣＿レ妨之言＿一者。由＿レ何
有＿二此言＿一哉。可＿レ非＿二理門。正理和會之言＿一。上旣和會了。何
繁重￣ニ有＿二此言＿一哉。又第二釋不＿レ違＿二理門＿一。豈第三釋￣ノミ有＿二
此言＿一哉。又初釋不＿レ違＿二理門＿一。自＿レ本不＿レ違＿二唯五識釋＿一故。豈
【下段】
又第三￣ノミ有＿二此言＿一哉。故理則無違文。無＿レ諍遣＿二互用￣ノ妨＿一
之言也。互用妨￣ハ偏第二釋￣ニノミ有＿レ之也。以＿レ之案＿レ之。第三
釋別轉言￣ヲハ不＿レ云＿二 五境各別義￣トハ＿一。如＿二初釋＿一。只可＿レ云＿二各
附己體之義＿一也。故無＿二互用之妨＿一也。
次若通明四等者。附＿二依主釋義＿一。四心中意識關自體分現
量之名。難＿レ有之旨￣ヲ顯也。所謂依主釋義現言￣ヲ偏屬＿レ
根。故意根《割書：第七識》非量也。如何指＿二意識＿一云＿二現之量＿一。又自
證分不＿三別依＿レ根緣＿二見分＿一。如何又云＿二現之量＿一《割書：爲言》。依主釋
之義。本限＿二 五識＿一故。雖＿レ似＿レ不＿レ可＿レ及＿二此釋成＿一。此義￣ノ至￣ル分
齊￣ヲ釋￣シ極￣ムル也。
但隨所應依之。《割書：考【四角で囲む】之大｜疏作主》持業等者。惣結＿二 三釋￣ノ二種釋＿一也。
初釋唯持業。第三釋￣ハ唯依主。第二釋通＿二依主。持業＿一。故
云＿二隨應＿一也。
【二字下げ】
了智有火或無常等下
【三字下げ】
從現量生或比量生事
【字下げ終わり】
因果次第生起。有＿二 三位＿一歟。《割書：依＿二疏文＿一推＿レ之。可＿レ尋＿レ之。》
【一字下げ】
先知＿レ因位通＿二現比＿一。 《割書：知＿レ煙者現量。｜知＿レ作者比量。》
現代語訳
【右頁】
434
因明大疏私抄巻第九
86
【上段】
【三字下げ】
「もし唯外道のみを簡【乃至】過ちもまた尽くさない」とは、別釈には及ばないとはいえ、もしまた唯非量のみを簡んで、比量を簡ばないなら、簡ぶことがまた尽きない【為言】。
「故にこれ等を離るべし」とは、比量・非量の所有する分別を尽く離れて、方に現量と為す【為言】。
【字下げ終わり】
「二或いは三の所有する分別」とは、明燈抄に云う。二とは自性分別・任運分別である。三とは自性等の三【云云】。これ等の分別中に、現量が有るからである。
「七を三に摂するに准ずれば【乃至】恒にそれが有るが故に」とは、明燈抄に云う。七中に任運が有る。三中に自性が有る。意地には唯無分別智のみを除き、その他の散心・定位及び独起の後得智位には、応じて彼の任運・自性の二分別が有るが故に等【云云】。
文「問う。理門の義は何ぞ別に妨げん」とは、五識は五根に依って五境に転ずる。「現現別転」と名づける。故に「義別」と云うのか。
【二字下げ】
現現別転するが故に現量と名づくより下
【字下げ終わり】
「この四類の心或いは唯五識【乃至】二種の釈なり」とは、四類の心とは、上に出した五識・五倶意・自証分・定心である。この四心について、「現現別転するが故に現量と名づく」という釈名の事を須くすべし。この論と理門とに通局が有る。理門は一向に五識において「現現別転」と称する【見たり】。この論は唯五識について、或いは四分に通ずる二釈が疏に在る【見たり】。所謂、上にこの論の「もし正智が色
【下段】
等の義等」の文で四心の摂不摂について二釈が有る。初釈は「色等の義」の文で且つ五識を明かす【為言】。この釈は「現現別転」の文も五識に限ると云うべきである。後釈は「色等の義」の文で、広く四心に通ずる【為言】。この釈は「現現別転」の文が四心に通ずると云う【已上】。上文はこの如し。
而して今の一仮を見るに、「現現別転」の義に依って、現量の名を釈するのに、惣じて三釈が有る。「この四類心等」とは、第一釈である。この釈の意は、現現の言は皆心に属する。現量心の体が一でないが故に「現現」と云う。別転の言は即ちこの心が境に転ずる相である。各々境体に附いて、貫通し難いが故に、「別転」と云う。この釈は上の二釈において俱に違わない。俱にこれを摂すべし。故に「この四類心或いは唯五識等」と云う。この釈は現の言、量の言、皆心に属する。よって現即量の持業釈である。
「理門論に依って『不共に縁ずるに由る等』と云う」とは、第二釈である。この釈は理門論に准じて、この論の「現現別転」の文をも五識に限らしめる。即ち上の二釈中の初釈に当たる。意は、初の現の言は五根を呼び、次の現の言は五識を挙げる。即ち五根に依る五識である。「現の現」と云うべし。別転とは、五識が五根に依って、五境に各別に転ずるが故に「別転」と云う【為言】。この釈は現量の現の言に根識を摂すると存ずるか。よって量の言を以て根現に望すれば、現の量だから、依主釈である。識現に望すれば、現即量だから、持業釈である。量の言は決定として心に属すべきだからである。
【左頁】
435
因明大疏私抄巻第九
87
【上段】
「或いは現の量で五根が一でない等」とは、第三釈である。この釈もまた理門に准じて、五識に限る。即ち尚上の二釈中の初釈に当たる。意は、現現とは、五根である。五根が一でないが故に、「現現」と名づける。故に現量とは、現の言は唯根に属し、量の言はまた識である。故に現の量で、依主釈である。そもそも第二釈に附いて妨げが有る。所謂「五識が五根に依って各別に五境に転ずるを、現現別転と名づく」と云うが故に、この義は互用位の五識現量の義に遍しない。よって問う「若し爾らば互用もまたこれ別縁である」と。答えの意は爾である。互用位にはこの義を有すべからず。今且つ未だ自在でない五識現量の義に依って、現現別転の説を作す【為言】。今この妨難は初釈にも之が無い。故に「もし前解に依れば即ちこの妨無し」と云う。第三釈にも之が無い。故に「理則ち違無し」と云う。初釈に附いてこの妨が無いという旨は知り易い。第三釈に附いてこの妨が無いということは、文においては未定である。別転の言を釈する文が無いからである。故に理においては必然である。故に爾と云う。その理とは、もし第三釈にもこの妨が有るべきなら、後の二釈を述べ了って、方にこの問難が有るべし。何ぞ独り第二釈の下のみに之が有るや。随って第三釈中の「理則ち違無し」の文は、もし妨げを遣る言でないなら、何によってこの言が有るや。理門・正理の和会の言であるべからず。上に既に和会し了んぬ。何ぞ繁重にこの言が有るや。また第二釈は理門に違わない。豈第三釈のみにこの言が有るや。また初釈は理門に違わない。本より唯五識釈に違わないからである。豈
【下段】
また第三のみにこの言が有るや。故に「理則ち違無し」の文は、諍い無く互用の妨げを遣る言である。互用の妨げは偏に第二釈のみに之が有る。これを以てこれを案ずるに、第三釈の別転の言は「五境各別の義」とは云わない。初釈の如く、只「各々己体に附く義」と云うべきである。故に互用の妨げが無い。
次に「もし通じて四を明かす等」とは、依主釈の義に附いて、四心中の意識・自証分の現量の名は、之が有り難いという旨を顕す。所謂依主釈の義は現の言を偏に根に属する。故に意根【第七識】は量でない。如何にして意識を指して「現の量」と云うや。また自証分は別に根に依って見分に縁ぜず。如何にしてまた「現の量」と云うや【為言】。依主釈の義は、本来五識に限るが故に、この釈成に及ぶべからずと似るといえども、この義の至る分際を釈して極める。
「但だ応に依るべき所に随って之【考察：之は大疏では主に作る】、持業等」とは、惣じて三釈の二種釈を結ぶ。初釈は唯持業、第三釈は唯依主、第二釈は依主・持業に通ずる。故に「随応」と云う。
【二字下げ】
智が火有り或いは無常等なることを了するより下
【三字下げ】
現量より生ずるか比量より生ずるかの事
【字下げ終わり】
因果の次第の生起に、三位が有るか【疏文に依ってこれを推すに、これを尋ねるべし】。
【一字下げ】
先ず因を知る位は現比に通ず。【煙を知るのは現量、作を知るのは比量】
英語訳
[Right Page]
434
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary on Hetuvidyā, Volume 9
86
[Upper Section]
[Indented three characters]
"If only eliminating non-theists [...] errors are also not exhausted" - though not reaching detailed explanation, if again only eliminating invalid cognition without eliminating inference, elimination is again not exhausted [meaning].
"Therefore these should be left" - exhaustively leaving all discriminations possessed by inference and invalid cognition, then becoming direct perception [meaning].
[End of indentation]
"Discriminations possessed by two or three" - the Mingdeng Commentary says: Two means self-nature discrimination and spontaneous discrimination. Three means the three of self-nature etc. [etc.]. Because there is direct perception among these discriminations.
"Following the inclusion of seven in three [...] because they constantly exist" - the Mingdeng Commentary says: Among the seven there is spontaneous. Among the three there is self-nature. In the mental ground, only excluding non-discriminative wisdom, in the remaining scattered mind, concentrated stages, and independently arising subsequent attainment wisdom stages, there are accordingly those two discriminations of spontaneous and self-nature etc. [etc.].
The text "Question: What hindrance is there in Nyāyamukha's meaning being different?" - the five consciousnesses depend on the five faculties and turn to the five objects. Called "manifest distinct turning." Therefore saying "meaning different"?
[Indented two characters]
From "because of manifest distinct turning, called direct perception" below
[End of indentation]
"These four types of mind, either only five consciousnesses [...] are two types of explanation" - the four types of mind are the five consciousnesses, five-accompanying mind, self-evidencing part, and concentrated mind mentioned above. Regarding these four minds, the matter of requiring the etymological explanation "called direct perception because of manifest distinct turning" should be addressed. This treatise and Nyāyamukha have comprehensive and specific aspects. Nyāyamukha consistently calls "manifest distinct turning" regarding the five consciousnesses [seen]. This treatise is either only about the five consciousnesses or comprehensively about the four parts - two explanations exist in the commentary [seen]. That is, above regarding this treatise's text "if correct cognition regarding meanings such as form
[Lower Section]
etc." there are two explanations about whether the four minds are included or not. The first explanation clarifies the five consciousnesses regarding the text "meanings such as form etc." [meaning]. This explanation should also say the text "manifest distinct turning" is limited to the five consciousnesses. The second explanation regarding the text "meanings such as form etc." broadly comprehends the four minds [meaning]. This explanation says the text "manifest distinct turning" comprehends the four minds [above]. The above text is like this.
However, seeing this one assumption, depending on the meaning of "manifest distinct turning" to explain the name "direct perception," there are altogether three explanations. "These four types of mind etc." is the first explanation. This explanation's meaning is: both "manifest" words belong to mind. Because direct perception mind's substance is not one, it says "manifest manifest." The words "distinct turning" are immediately this mind's aspect of turning to objects. Because each attaches to the object's substance and is difficult to penetrate through, it says "distinct turning." This explanation does not contradict either of the above two explanations. Both can include it. Therefore saying "these four types of mind, either only five consciousnesses etc." This explanation has both "manifest" and "measure" words belonging to mind. Therefore "manifest is immediately measure" - a karmadhāraya compound.
"Depending on Nyāyamukha saying 'because of not commonly relating etc.'" is the second explanation. This explanation, following Nyāyamukha, also limits this treatise's text "manifest distinct turning" to the five consciousnesses. It corresponds to the first explanation among the above two explanations. The meaning is: the first "manifest" calls the five faculties, the next "manifest" raises the five consciousnesses. That is, the five consciousnesses depending on the five faculties. Should say "manifest of manifest." Distinct turning means: the five consciousnesses depending on the five faculties distinctly turn to the five objects respectively, therefore saying "distinct turning" [meaning]. This explanation includes faculties and consciousnesses in the "manifest" of "direct perception"? Therefore taking the word "measure" in relation to "faculty-manifest," because it is "measure of manifest," it is tatpuruṣa compound. In relation to "consciousness-manifest," because "manifest is immediately measure," it is karmadhāraya compound. Because the word "measure" should definitely belong to mind.
[Left Page]
435
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary on Hetuvidyā, Volume 9
87
[Upper Section]
"Or measure of manifest, the five faculties not being one etc." is the third explanation. This explanation also follows Nyāyamukha, limiting to the five consciousnesses. It still corresponds to the first explanation among the above two explanations. The meaning is: "manifest manifest" refers to the five faculties. Because the five faculties are not one, called "manifest manifest." Therefore "direct perception" - the "manifest" word belongs only to faculties, the "measure" word is also consciousness. Therefore "measure of manifest" - tatpuruṣa compound. Now, attached to the second explanation there is an objection. That is, saying "the five consciousnesses depending on the five faculties distinctly turning to the five objects respectively is called manifest distinct turning," therefore this meaning does not pervade the meaning of five-consciousness direct perception in mutual functioning positions. Therefore questioning "if so, mutual functioning is also distinct relating." The answer's meaning is so. In mutual functioning positions this meaning should not exist. Now provisionally depending on the meaning of not-yet-accomplished five-consciousness direct perception, making the explanation of manifest distinct turning [meaning]. Now this objection does not exist for the first explanation. Therefore saying "if depending on the previous explanation, immediately no such objection." It also does not exist for the third explanation. Therefore saying "in principle there is no contradiction." That the first explanation has no such objection is easy to know. That the third explanation has no such objection - regarding the text this is undetermined. Because there is no text explaining the words "distinct turning." Therefore regarding principle it is necessary. Therefore saying so. That principle is: if the third explanation should also have this objection, after stating the latter two explanations, then there should be this questioning and objection. Why does only the second explanation's bottom have it? Following this, the text "in principle there is no contradiction" in the third explanation - if not words removing objections, by what means would there be these words? It should not be words harmonizing Nyāyamukha and Pramāṇasamuccaya. Having already harmonized above, why redundantly have these words? Also the second explanation does not contradict Nyāyamukha. How could only the third explanation have these words? Also the first explanation does not contradict Nyāyamukha. Originally not contradicting the explanation of only five consciousnesses. How could
[Lower Section]
again only the third have these words? Therefore the text "in principle there is no contradiction" indisputably removes the objection of mutual functioning. The objection of mutual functioning exists only particularly in the second explanation. Considering this, the third explanation's words "distinct turning" do not say "the meaning of five objects being respectively distinct." Like the first explanation, it should only say "the meaning of each attaching to its own substance." Therefore there is no objection of mutual functioning.
Next "if comprehensively clarifying four etc." - attached to the meaning of tatpuruṣa compound, it reveals that among the four minds, the names of mental consciousness and self-evidencing part as direct perception are difficult to have. That is, the meaning of tatpuruṣa compound makes the "manifest" word belong particularly to faculties. Therefore the mental faculty [seventh consciousness] is not measure. How can one point to mental consciousness saying "measure of manifest"? Also the self-evidencing part does not separately depend on faculties to relate to the seeing part. How can one again say "measure of manifest" [meaning]? Because the meaning of tatpuruṣa compound is originally limited to the five consciousnesses, though it seems this explanation cannot be reached, it explains and exhausts the extent this meaning reaches.
"But following what should be depended on [investigation: in the great commentary 'zhi' is written as 'zhu'], karmadhāraya etc." - this generally concludes the two types of explanations of the three explanations. The first explanation is only karmadhāraya, the third explanation is only tatpuruṣa, the second explanation comprehends both tatpuruṣa and karmadhāraya. Therefore saying "accordingly."
[Indented two characters]
From "understanding that there is fire or impermanence etc." below
[Indented three characters]
The matter of arising from direct perception or arising from inference
[End of indentation]
In the sequential arising of cause and effect, are there three stages? [Considering based on the commentary text, this should be investigated.]
[Indented one character]
First, the stage of knowing the cause comprehends both direct and inferential perception. [Knowing smoke is direct perception, knowing production is inference.]