一　因明大疏私抄三巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

【右頁】
【枠外右上】
三五六【但し算用数字】
【枠外右横上】
因明大疏私抄卷第一
【枠外右横下】
八
【二段構成】
【上段】
《割書：於＿二 三相＿一｜闕＿レ 二也。》闕＿レ 三有＿レ 一。《割書：於＿二 三相＿一｜皆闕因也》故是七句也。此第七句。三相
雖＿レ闕。言必定可＿レ有＿レ之。仍足＿レ爲＿二句數＿一。陳那等可＿レ許＿二此第
七句＿一也。是以。今疏云＿二離七等故＿一者。本於＿二因喩＿一論＿レ之。故
付＿二義三相＿一。云＿二離七等＿一也。今此有體闕。第七句有無。猶
未定也。如＿レ 下。今且依＿二 一義＿一記＿レ之耳。
離十四等故者。因十四喩十也。能依所依皆滿足故者。集
記云。周云法爲＿二能依＿一有法爲＿二所依＿一《割書：云云》。
明燈抄云。能依者不相離性宗。所依者自性差別也。由此
論顯眞而無妄等者。備云。今此論文。唯顯＿二具過＿一。不＿レ顯＿二
闕過＿一。據＿レ實亦可＿レ顯＿二闕過＿一也。論文所說世三過。唯是具
過。不＿二闕過＿一也《割書：等云云》。
善斥其非。《割書：顯過破》。或妙徴宗。《割書：立量破》。
諸論唯彰顯他過破等者。問諸論唯證＿二《割書：考【四角で囲む】證恐｜彰歟》顯過破＿一者。
何論文耶。四相違等文。皆非＿レ明＿二立量破＿一耶。　答。明燈
抄牒＿二此文＿一。引＿二沼法師＿一。似＿レ疑＿レ之。其疑趣如＿二今尋＿一。雖＿レ擧＿レ
疑無＿二釋成之旨＿一歟。集記云。文無＿二分明事＿一歟。可＿レ尋＿レ之。
【二字下げ】
十四過類者
【下段】
【字下げ終わり】
一。同法相似過類。二。異法異法異法。三。分別分別分
別。四。無異無異無異。五。可得可得可得。六。猶預猶
預猶預。七。義准義准義准。八。至不至至不至至不至。
九。無因無因無因。十。無說無說無說。十一。無生無生
無生。十二。所作所作所作。十三。生滅生滅生滅。十四【。：脱落？】
常住常住常住。此十四種。皆於＿二眞能立＿一。非理言破
故。皆似能破也。　故從多分皆悟他也者。問多分悟他
者。少分通＿二自悟＿一歟。答爾也。謂能立能破。唯悟他也。
似立似破通＿二自悟＿一。本意雖＿二悟他＿一。他斥＿二自非＿一時。自卽
開悟之分也。故云＿レ從＿二多分＿一也。　此論下文○不能悟他
等者。明燈抄云。取＿二前後文＿一合￣シテ言￣ヘリ。下文非＿二 一處文＿一。
能立悟他者。論前文云。已說宗等如是多言開悟他時說
名能立《割書：已上》。能破悟他者。論後文云。若正顯示能立過失
說名能破《割書：已上》。似立不悟他者。論前文云。如是等似宗因
喩言非正能立《割書：已上》。○似破不悟他者。論後文云。若不實
顯能立過言名似能破《割書：已上》。○此四處文。在＿二於宗等三支
文下＿一。故云＿二 下文＿一《割書：云云》。
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
三五七【但し算用数字】
【枠外左横上】
因明大疏私抄卷第一
【枠外左横下】
九
【二段構成】
【上段】
集記云。有抄云。此意旣不＿レ《割書：考【四角で囲む】文｜難讀》長行中於＿二似立下＿一。不＿レ
能＿二悟他＿一。明知通＿二自悟＿一。此論正與＿二彼理門＿一同等《割書：云云》。
尋云。付＿二今疏文＿一有＿レ疑。先似立似破悟他之條。必然事也。
及似唯悟他之頌文分明故。所以設有＿二自悟之分＿一。是悟他
爲本通＿二自悟＿一也。而混云＿二似言《割書：考【四角で囲む】疏本｜作＿レ立》似破不能悟他＿一。最不
□【□：底本中の記号】也。次下文爲＿レ證。定＿レ通＿二自悟＿一。望＿二理門＿一云＿二正與＿レ彼同＿一
事如何。見＿二明燈抄所引下文＿一。於＿二似立似破＿一。不＿レ云＿二自悟＿一。
不＿レ云＿二他悟＿一。豈爲＿二誠證＿一耶。若以＿レ不＿レ云＿二悟他＿一。證＿レ通＿二自
悟＿一者。又豈以＿レ不＿レ云＿二自悟＿一。不＿レ證＿レ限＿二悟他＿一耶。　答。似立
似破悟他之條。實必然也。頌文分明故。又通＿二自悟＿一云事
必然也。道理可＿レ然之上。理門隨應之言。疏釋之旨最有＿レ
謂。爰勘＿二論下文＿一。於＿二似立似破＿一。無＿二悟他之言＿一。最可＿レ爲＿二潤
色＿一。理門隨應之言。今下文合見＿レ之。其意正同《割書：爲言》。只彼
此合￣シテ其意￣ヲ推合也。忽不＿レ及＿レ爲＿二決定誠證＿一歟。不能悟
他者。不＿レ云＿二悟他＿一之意也。下文不＿レ云＿二悟他＿一《割書：爲言》。仍所詮
案＿二今論上下文＿一。初頌云＿二唯悟他＿一。下文省＿二悟他言＿一。明知。似
立似破。悟他爲＿レ本。通＿二自悟＿一也。但付＿レ之。可＿レ會＿二唯言＿一。限＿二
【下段】
悟他＿一見￣タルガ故。故此頌中據其多分等已下。會＿二唯言＿一令＿レ
通＿二自悟＿一也。
尋云。似現量者。比量歟。將非量歟。　答。非量也。云妄謂＿レ
得＿レ體。名＿二似現量＿一故。　尋云。無分別似現量者。其體如何。
答。明燈抄云。無分別者。昏昧心等。無＿二所覺＿一也《割書：文》。集記
云。邑云。謂非＿二任運＿一見＿二空花第二月等＿一雖＿二無分別＿一非＿二現
量＿一《割書：文》。又云。穎云癡猶及觸等人雖＿二是散心＿一於＿レ境不＿レ能＿二分
明解了＿一名＿二無分別＿一《割書：等云云》。　尋云。似比量者。其心何法耶【。：脱落？】
答。又非量也。　相違智起等者。申＿二邪妄三支＿一之時。所對
敵證。不＿レ令＿二順智＿一。起＿二違智＿一也。
所立設成彼此乖角等者。集記云。周云卽決定相違等《割書：云云》。
若現量境理幽事顯者。集記云。周云色聲等之上苦空
等理名＿レ之爲＿レ幽色等卽事名爲＿レ顯也《割書：等云云》。又云。後記云
○此據＿二因位＿一若果位者空無我等亦名爲＿レ顯見道已前加
行菩薩於＿二定位中＿一亦緣＿二空無我等道理＿一亦合＿レ名＿レ顯今據＿二
因位中泛散心＿一說云云。故此二刊定者。指＿二現比二＿一。爲＿二 二
刊定＿一也。現比因果者。二量各有＿二因果＿一也。謂了＿二烟自相＿一。現

現代語訳

【右頁】
356
因明大疏私抄巻第一
8

【上段】
【三相について二を闕く】、三を闕いて一有り【三相について皆因を闕く】。故にこれ七句である。この第七句は、三相を闕くといえども、言は必ず定めてこれ有るべし。よってよく句数と為すに足る。陳那等はこの第七句を許すべきである。これを以て、今の疏に「七等を離るる故」と云うのは、本来因喩について論じるものである。故に義の三相に付けて、「七等を離る」と云うのである。今この有体闕において、第七句の有無は、なお未だ定まらない。以下の如し。今はしばらく一義に依ってこれを記すのみである。

「十四等を離るる故」とは、因の十四、喩の十である。「能依所依皆満足する故」とは、集記に云う。周に云う、法を能依とし、有法を所依とする【云々】。

明灯抄に云う。能依とは不相離性の宗、所依とは自性差別である。「この論によって真を顕して妄無き」等とは、備に云う。今この論文は、ただ具過を顕すのみで、闕過を顕さず。実を拠るにまた闕過を顕すべきである。論文の説く世の三過は、ただこれ具過であって、闕過ではない【等云々】。

「善くその非を斥く」【過を顕して破す】。「或いは妙に宗を徴す」【量を立てて破す】。

「諸論はただ他の過を彰顕して破す」等とは、問う、諸論はただ顕過破を証彰するとは、何の論文か。四相違等の文は、皆立量破を明かすに非ざるか。答える。明灯抄はこの文を牒して、沼法師を引き、これを疑うに似る。その疑いの趣は今の尋ねの如し。疑いを挙ぐといえども釈成の旨無きか。集記に云う。文に分明の事無きか。これを尋ぬべし。

【二字下げ】
十四過類とは

【下段】
【字下げ終わり】
一、同法相似過類。二、異法異法異法。三、分別分別分別。四、無異無異無異。五、可得可得可得。六、猶予猶予猶予。七、義准義准義准。八、至不至至不至至不至。九、無因無因無因。十、無説無説無説。十一、無生無生無生。十二、所作所作所作。十三、生滅生滅生滅。十四、常住常住常住。この十四種は、皆真の能立に於いて、非理に言って破する故に、皆似能破である。「故に多分に従って皆他を悟る」とは、問う、多分他を悟るとは、少分は自悟に通ずるか。答える。その通りである。謂わば能立能破は、ただ他を悟るのみである。似立似破は自悟に通ず。本意は他を悟るといえども、他が自らの非を斥く時、自ら即ち開悟する分である。故に「多分に従う」と云うのである。「この論の下文○他を悟ること能わず」等とは、明灯抄に云う。前後の文を取って合して言えり。下文は一処の文に非ず。能立他を悟るとは、論の前文に云う。「已に宗等を説けり、是の如き多言他を開悟する時、説いて能立と名づく【已上】」。能破他を悟るとは、論の後文に云う。「もし正しく能立の過失を顕示すれば、説いて能破と名づく【已上】」。似立他を悟らずとは、論の前文に云う。「是の如き等の似宗因喩の言は正しき能立に非ず【已上】」。○似破他を悟らずとは、論の後文に云う。「もし実に能立の過を顕さざる言を似能破と名づく【已上】」。○この四処の文は、宗等三支の文の下に在る。故に「下文」と云う【云々】。

【左頁】
357
因明大疏私抄巻第一
9

【上段】
集記に云う。ある抄に云う。この意は既に【文読み難し】長行中の似立の下に於いて、他を悟ること能わず。明らかに知る、自悟に通ずることを。この論は正しく彼の理門と同じ等【云々】。

尋ねて云う。今の疏文に付いて疑い有り。先ず似立似破の他を悟る条は、必然の事である。及び「似はただ他を悟る」の頌文分明なる故に。所以に設い自悟の分有りとも、これは他を悟るを本として自悟に通ずるのである。而るに混じて「似言似破は他を悟ること能わず」と云うのは、最も不審である。次に下文を証として、定めて自悟に通ず、理門を望んで「正しく彼と同じ」と云う事は如何。明灯抄の所引の下文を見るに、似立似破に於いて、自悟と云わず、他悟と云わず。豈誠証と為すか。もし他を悟ると云わざるを以て、自悟に通ずることを証するなら、また豈自悟と云わざるを以て、他を悟るに限ることを証せざるか。答える。似立似破の他を悟る条は、実に必然である。頌文分明なる故に。また自悟に通ずと云う事は必然である。道理然るべきの上に、理門の随応の言、疏の釈の旨最も謂れ有り。ここに論の下文を勘するに、似立似破に於いて、他を悟るの言無し。最も潤色と為すべし。理門の随応の言、今の下文合してこれを見る。その意正に同じ【為言】。ただ彼此合してその意を推し合するのみ。たちまちに決定の誠証と為すに及ばざるか。「他を悟ること能わず」とは、他を悟ると云わざるの意である。下文に他を悟ると云わず【為言】。よって所詮今の論の上下文を案ずるに、初の頌に「ただ他を悟る」と云い、下文に「他を悟る言」を省く。明らかに知る、似立似破は、他を悟るを本として、自悟に通ずることを。ただこれに付いて、「ただ」の言を会すべし。他を悟るに限ると見えた故に。故にこの頌中「その多分に拠る」等以下は、「ただ」の言を会して自悟に通ぜしめるのである。

【下段】
尋ねて云う。似現量とは、比量か。将た非量か。答える。非量である。「妄りに体を得たりと謂う、似現量と名づく」と云う故に。尋ねて云う。無分別の似現量とは、その体如何。答える。明灯抄に云う。無分別とは、昏昧の心等である。所覚無し【文】。集記に云う。邑に云う。謂わば任運に非ずして空花第二月等を見る、無分別なりといえども現量に非ず【文】。また云う。穎に云う、痴猶及び触等の人は散心なりといえども、境に於いて分明に解了すること能わず、無分別と名づく【等云々】。尋ねて云う。似比量とは、その心は何の法か。答える。また非量である。「相違の智起こる」等とは、邪妄の三支を申す時に、所対の敵証をして、順智をもたらさしめず、違智を起こすのである。

「所立設い成ずとも彼此乖角」等とは、集記に云う。周に云う、即ち決定相違等【云々】。

「もし現量の境にして理幽く事顕わる」とは、集記に云う。周に云う、色声等の上の苦空等の理をこれを名づけて幽とし、色等即ち事を名づけて顕とする【等云々】。また云う。後記に云う。○これは因位に拠る、もし果位なら空無我等もまた名づけて顕とする。見道已前の加行菩薩は定位中に於いて、また空無我等の道理を縁ずるも、また合して顕と名づくべし。今は因位中の泛散心に拠って説く云々。「故にこの二つを刊定する」とは、現比の二つを指して、二つの刊定と為すのである。「現比の因果」とは、二量各々に因果有るのである。謂わば煙の自相を了するは、現

英語訳

[Page 356]
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary of Hetuvidyā, Volume 1
8

[Upper Section]
[lacking two among the three characteristics], lacking three and having one [lacking causes entirely among the three characteristics]. Therefore there are seven sentences. Although this seventh sentence lacks the three characteristics, there must definitely be words. Therefore it suffices to constitute a numbered sentence. Chen-na and others should permit this seventh sentence. Therefore, when this commentary says "because it is free from seven, etc.," it originally discusses causes and examples. Hence, in relation to the three characteristics of meaning, it says "free from seven, etc." Now regarding this "substantial incompleteness," whether the seventh sentence exists or not is still undetermined. As follows below. For now I record this according to one interpretation only.

"Because it is free from fourteen, etc." refers to fourteen for causes and ten for examples. "Because both dependent and support are completely fulfilled" - according to the Collected Records: Zhou says that dharma is the dependent and dharma-possessor is the support.

According to Myōtō-shō: The dependent refers to the thesis of inseparable nature, and the support refers to self-nature and particularities. "Through this treatise revealing the true without falsehood, etc." - according to Bei: This treatise text only reveals faults of commission, not faults of omission. Actually it could also reveal faults of omission. The three faults described in the treatise text are only faults of commission, not faults of omission.

"Skillfully refuting their errors" [revealing faults to refute]. "Or skillfully examining the thesis" [establishing syllogisms to refute].

"Various treatises only manifest and reveal others' faults for refutation, etc." - Question: When various treatises only attest to revealing faults for refutation, what treatise text is this? Are not texts like the four contradictions all explaining syllogistic refutation? Answer: Myōtō-shō cites this text and quotes Master Zhao, seeming to doubt this. The tendency of that doubt is like the present inquiry. Although raising doubts, is there no clarifying explanation? Collected Records says: Is there nothing clear in the text? This should be investigated.

[Indented two characters]
The fourteen fallacious types are:

[Lower Section]
[End indentation]
1. Similar dharma resemblance fallacy. 2. Different dharma different dharma different dharma. 3. Discrimination discrimination discrimination. 4. No difference no difference no difference. 5. Obtainable obtainable obtainable. 6. Doubt doubt doubt. 7. Analogical inference analogical inference analogical inference. 8. Reaching non-reaching reaching non-reaching reaching non-reaching. 9. No cause no cause no cause. 10. No statement no statement no statement. 11. No arising no arising no arising. 12. Constructed constructed constructed. 13. Arising-ceasing arising-ceasing arising-ceasing. 14. Permanent permanent permanent. These fourteen types all involve unreasonable verbal refutation of genuine means of proof, therefore they are all pseudo-refutations. "Therefore mostly they all awaken others" - Question: When it says "mostly awaken others," does a small part extend to self-awakening? Answer: Yes. That is, means of proof and refutation only awaken others. Pseudo-proof and pseudo-refutation extend to self-awakening. Although the original intention is to awaken others, when others refute one's own errors, one immediately gains the portion of self-awakening. Therefore it says "mostly." "In the later text of this treatise... cannot awaken others, etc." - according to Myōtō-shō: Taking preceding and following texts together to speak. The later text is not from one place. "Means of proof awaken others" - the treatise's earlier text says: "Having explained thesis, etc., when such various words awaken others, they are called means of proof." "Means of refutation awaken others" - the treatise's later text says: "If correctly revealing faults of means of proof, this is called means of refutation." "Pseudo-proof does not awaken others" - the treatise's earlier text says: "Such pseudo-thesis, pseudo-cause, pseudo-example words are not correct means of proof." Pseudo-refutation does not awaken others - the treatise's later text says: "If not genuinely revealing faults of means of proof, such words are called pseudo-refutation." These four passages are located below the text on thesis and other three members. Therefore it says "later text."

[Page 357]
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary of Hetuvidyā, Volume 1
9

[Upper Section]
Collected Records says: A certain commentary says: This meaning, since [text difficult to read] in the prose commentary under pseudo-proof, "cannot awaken others." This clearly shows it extends to self-awakening. This treatise is exactly the same as that Nyāyamukha, etc.

Investigation: Regarding the current commentary text, there are doubts. First, the matter of pseudo-proof and pseudo-refutation awakening others is inevitable. And because the verse text "pseudo only awakens others" is clear. Therefore even if there were a portion of self-awakening, this would be based on awakening others extending to self-awakening. But to confusedly say "pseudo-words and pseudo-refutation cannot awaken others" is most questionable. Next, using later text as evidence to definitely show it extends to self-awakening, saying it "exactly matches that [Nyāyamukha]" in comparison - how is this? Looking at the later text quoted in Myōtō-shō, regarding pseudo-proof and pseudo-refutation, it neither mentions self-awakening nor other-awakening. How can this serve as reliable evidence? If taking "not mentioning awakening others" to prove extension to self-awakening, then why not also take "not mentioning self-awakening" to prove limitation to awakening others?

Answer: The matter of pseudo-proof and pseudo-refutation awakening others is indeed inevitable, because the verse text is clear. Also, extending to self-awakening is inevitable. Beyond reasonable principle, the "as appropriate" language of Nyāyamukha and the commentary's explanation are most meaningful. Here examining the treatise's later text, regarding pseudo-proof and pseudo-refutation there are no words about awakening others. This could most serve as supporting evidence. The "as appropriate" language of Nyāyamukha, viewing it together with the current later text, the meaning is exactly the same. Just combining both sides to infer the meaning together. Perhaps not sufficient to serve as definitive reliable evidence? "Cannot awaken others" means the meaning of not saying "awaken others." The later text does not say "awaken others." Therefore, investigating the upper and lower texts of this treatise, the initial verse says "only awaken others," the later text omits "awaken others language." This clearly shows that pseudo-proof and pseudo-refutation are based on awakening others but extend to self-awakening. Just regarding this, the word "only" should be interpreted, because it appeared to limit to awakening others. Therefore in this verse "according to the majority" and following interpret the word "only" to make it extend to self-awakening.

[Lower Section]
Investigation: Is pseudo-perception inference or non-cognition? Answer: Non-cognition. Because it says "falsely claiming to apprehend essence is called pseudo-perception." Investigation: What is the essence of non-discriminative pseudo-perception? Answer: According to Myōtō-shō: Non-discriminative refers to confused mind, etc. There is no object of awareness. Collected Records says: Yup says: Not being spontaneous yet seeing sky flowers, second moons, etc. - although non-discriminative, it is not perception. Also says: Ying says those who are stupid, slow and dull, although having scattered mind, cannot clearly understand objects, called non-discriminative.

Investigation: What kind of mental state is pseudo-inference? Answer: Also non-cognition. "Contradictory cognition arises, etc." - when presenting erroneous three members, the opposing witnesses do not generate concordant cognition but generate contradictory cognition.

"Even if what is to be established succeeds, both sides diverge, etc." - Collected Records says: Zhou says this is definite contradiction, etc.

"If perception's objects have hidden principles and manifest phenomena" - Collected Records says: Zhou says principles like suffering and emptiness in form, sound, etc. are called hidden, while form, etc. as phenomena are called manifest. Also says: Later records say... This refers to the stage of cause; if the stage of effect, emptiness and non-self would also be called manifest. Pre-path preparatory bodhisattvas in meditative states also cognize principles like emptiness and non-self, which should also be called manifest. Now it speaks according to ordinary scattered mind in the stage of cause.

"Therefore determining these two" refers to perception and inference as the two determinations. "Perception-inference cause and effect" means each of the two valid cognitions has cause and effect. That is, understanding the self-characteristics of smoke is perception