観心覚夢鈔三巻ページ19/24 - 翻刻

ページ: 19

翻刻

【右頁】【枠外右上】 348 【枠外右横上】觀心覺夢鈔下【枠外右横下】三六【二段構成】【上段】攝＿二-在無量萬差法門＿一無＿レ不＿レ盡矣。四俗一眞本論所＿レ說。四重勝義唯識所＿レ明。具如＿二二諦義林中述＿一。　　　二重中道問。我宗之意以＿二何義門＿一名＿二中道＿一耶。　答。義林章中明＿二中道理＿一有＿二二重義＿一。一者言詮中道。謂緣生法體非＿二都無＿一。於＿二此緣生＿一妄計一切遍計所執體性都無。此緣生中唯有＿下遠＿二-離一切所執＿一空性眞如＿上。於＿二彼空性＿一亦得＿レ有＿二此因緣生法＿一故。一切法非＿二空不空＿一。如＿レ是三性相對詮＿二-顯中道義＿一也。二者離言中道。謂一切法體雖＿二如＿レ是或有或無＿一。眞勝義中心言絕故名爲＿二中道＿一。今此二重談＿二其法體＿一。更無＿二別異＿一。但是三性不卽不離之法門也。而對＿二他門＿一詮＿二其義＿一者。我法非＿レ有。空￣ト識￣トハ非＿レ無。離＿レ有離＿レ無。故名＿二中道＿一。是言詮門。若住＿二内證＿一止＿二思議＿一者。此卽一實離言中道。　問。夫中道者。一法體離＿二二邊＿一義也。今所＿レ成者。所執空與＿二依圓之有＿一。彼此相對名＿二中道＿一歟。若爾旣是各別法門。豈是一法非空非有。就＿レ中所執體都無故非＿二是法體＿一。其法體者但是存實依圓二性。故遂所＿レ歸一切法體留＿二有一邊＿一。豈是【下段】中道究竟理耶。　答。此疑皆以不＿レ可＿レ來也。誰言三性各別法體。是一法中非空非有中道義也。雖＿二是一法中道之義＿一。妄執￣ト緣起￣ト眞義￣トノ三重淺深條然不＿二相濫＿一故。開爲＿二三自性法門＿一也。故唯識論云。此三爲＿レ異爲＿二不異＿一耶。應＿レ說＿二俱非＿一。無＿二別體＿一故。妄執￣ト緣起#1眞義￣トノ別故。《割書：文》誰有智人乍＿レ見＿二無別體故之文＿一。猥爲＿二別體定離法門＿一。然者三性卽一性。一性卽三性。非＿レ三非＿レ一。亦三亦一。是其三性之義理也。已上且約＿下所執爲＿レ空。依圓爲＿上レ有。論＿二大都＿一也。若委談者。言＿レ空而空亦是卽有。實我實法當＿レ情現故。撥＿二無此分＿一。亦爲＿二損減＿一。然據＿レ理言。其體都無。不＿レ辨＿二此門＿一。亦爲＿二增益《返り点：一》。當＿レ知。遍計所執亦是非＿レ空非＿レ有。其依圓性言＿レ有而有亦可＿レ言＿レ空。所執眞俗體性空故。若夫依圓稱爲＿レ有故。便謂＿二依圓一向有＿一者。是妄執故卽是增益。然聖智境離言法體。其體非＿レ無。撥＿二-無此＿一者。亦爲＿二損減＿一。是故依圓二性。亦是非＿レ空非＿レ有。此猶大都。若更委細論＿二其實＿一者。其計所執理無之中。亦有＿二非空非有之義＿一。所謂增益損減之相。皆遣＿レ之故能遮＿二偏有＿一。亦遮＿二偏空＿一。豈是一向撥無空耶。如＿レ【左頁】【枠外左上】 349 【枠外左横上】觀心覺夢鈔下【枠外左横下】三七【二段構成】【上段】是卽其情有之中亦有＿二非空非有之義＿一。且如＿二一人＿一一分妄情執＿二偏有＿一時。其相雖＿下暫似＿二偏有＿一現＿上。從＿二悟證門＿一總見＿レ之者。當情之相。未＿二必如＿一レ是。或類亦執爲＿二偏空＿一故。明知此偏有相自性。本來不＿二決定＿一也。又如＿二一人＿一一分妄情執＿二偏空＿一時。從＿二悟證門＿一總見＿レ之者。當情之相。未＿二必如＿一レ是。或類亦執爲＿二偏有＿一故。明知此偏空相自性。亦本不＿二決定＿一也。是卽妄情思無＿二定相＿一故也。重意云。妄情執見增損隨＿レ時故。所執二相各非＿二決定相＿一。《割書：爲言》。如＿レ是論時。當情現相。非＿二定偏有＿一。非＿二定偏空＿一。此亦豈非＿二中道義＿一也。若其依圓非有門中。亦有＿二非空非有之義＿一。遠＿二-離一切妄執＿一義故。增損皆離。卽是中故。如＿レ是依圓非空門中。亦有＿二非空非有之義＿一。卽是離言。誰定＿二有無＿一。若一向非空豈是非＿二執法＿一。若是執法豈名＿二依圓＿一。道理甚明。何事如＿レ之。如＿レ是重重猶有＿レ不＿レ盡。所以者何。且如＿下所執理無之中遣＿二增益＿一門＿上。雖＿三遮＿レ有故名爲＿二非有＿一。旣遮＿二偏有＿一不＿レ遮＿二中有＿一。豈偏空耶。故亦非空非有義也。自餘重重一一義門。皆可＿レ准＿レ之。如＿レ是如＿レ是遂至＿二絕言＿一。然其重重非有之義。雖＿二是重重＿一。而束皆歸＿二所【下段】執空門＿一。又其重重非空之門。雖＿二是重重＿一。而束皆入＿二依圓有門＿一。是何故耶。但是三性不卽離故。所執之空依圓之有歸＿二-入一際＿一。有＿二如＿レ是等無盡義＿一也。若爾所執空爲＿二偏空＿一。及其依圓有爲＿二偏有＿一。偏有偏空兩門相對合爲＿二中道＿一。得＿レ意爲＿レ疑。豈非＿二不足言之疑＿一耶。遣＿二一切執＿一爲＿二遣虛＿一者是何義耶。豈非＿レ遮＿二於依圓之上偏有偏空諸僻執＿一耶。如＿レ是遮已顯＿二-得依圓＿一。豈是一向偏有法耶。非＿二偏有＿一者定是中道有。若是中道有豈可＿レ留＿レ有耶。已上且就＿二言詮中道＿一猶以如＿レ是。何況於＿二其勝義勝義廢詮談旨微妙究竟一實體＿一耶。問。今所＿レ論者。依圓爲＿レ一對＿二所執空＿一義門談也。若其依他與＿二圓成實＿一各別論時。亦得＿三各有＿二中道義＿一耶。　答。亦卽有＿レ之。所謂依他體虛假故非＿二是實有＿一。亦非＿二都無＿一。圓成妙理體無相故。無＿レ有＿二有相＿一。亦無＿二無相＿一。是故一一皆中道也。其一一門重重之義。乃至。事理不卽不離諸門摠束義皆如＿レ上。　問。慈尊所說二行偈頌。《割書：虛妄分別有於此｜二都無等頌也。》是明＿二何門之中道＿一耶。　若言詮門。慈尊何說＿二淺近之門＿一。若離言門。文旣三性相對而說＿二空有之義＿一豈非＿二言詮中道門＿一耶。　答。

現代語訳

【右頁】【枠外右上】 348 【枠外右横上】観心覚夢鈔下【枠外右横下】三六【二段構成】【上段】無量万差の法門に摂在して尽きることがない。四俗一真は本論の説く所であり、四重勝義は『唯識論』の明かす所である。具に『二諦義林』中の述の如くである。　　　二重中道問う。我が宗の意では何の義門を以て中道と名づけるのか。答える。『義林章』の中で中道の理を明かすに二重の義がある。一つには言詮中道である。いわゆる縁生の法体は都て無いのではない。この縁生について妄計する一切の遍計所執は体性が都て無い。この縁生の中にはただ一切の所執を遠く離れた空性真如のみがある。その空性についてもまたこの因縁生法があることを得るが故に、一切法は空でも不空でもない。このように三性が相対して中道の義を詮顕するのである。二つには離言中道である。いわゆる一切法の体がこのようにあるいは有であり、あるいは無であるといえども、真勝義の中では心も言葉も絶するが故に中道と名づける。今この二重はその法体を談ずるものであり、更に別異はない。ただこれ三性の不即不離の法門である。しかして他門に対してその義を詮するものは、我・法は有ではない、空・識は無ではない、有を離れ無を離れる、故に中道と名づける。これは言詮門である。もし内証に住して思議を止めるなら、これ即ち一実離言中道である。問う。そもそも中道とは、一法体が二辺を離れる義である。今成す所は、所執の空と依他・円成の有とが、彼此相対して中道と名づけるのか。もしそうなら既にこれは各別の法門である。どうして一法が非空非有であろうか。就中、所執は体が都て無いが故に法体ではない。その法体はただこれ存実の依他・円成二性である。故に帰する所は一切法体が有の一辺に留まる。どうして【下段】中道究竟の理であろうか。答える。この疑いは皆不可来のものである。誰が三性を各別の法体と言うのか。これは一法の中の非空非有の中道の義である。一法の中道の義であるといえども、妄執・縁起・真義の三重の浅深が条然として相濫しないが故に、開いて三自性の法門とするのである。故に『唯識論』に云く、「この三は異か不異か。応に俱非と説くべし。別体無きが故に、妄執・縁起・真義の別あるが故に。」《割書：文》誰の有智の人が「別体無きが故に」の文を見て、猥りに別体定離の法門とするのか。然らばすなわち三性は即ち一性、一性は即ち三性、三でも一でもなく、また三でもあり一でもある。これがその三性の義理である。已上は且く所執を空とし、依他・円成を有として、大都を論じたのである。もし委しく談ずるなら、空と言って空もまたこれ即有である。実我・実法が当情に現ずるが故に、この分を撥無するのも、また損減となる。然し理に拠って言うなら、その体は都て無い。この門を弁えないのも、また増益となる。知るべし、遍計所執もまたこれ非空非有である。その依他・円成性は有と言って、有もまた空と言うことができる。所執・真俗の体性が空であるが故に。もしそれ依他・円成を有と称するが故に、便ち依他・円成を一向有と謂うなら、これは妄執であるが故に即ちこれ増益である。然し聖智の境である離言の法体は、その体は無ではない。これを撥無するのも、また損減である。この故に依他・円成二性も、またこれ非空非有である。これは猶大都である。もし更に委細にその実を論ずるなら、その計所執の理無の中にも、また非空非有の義がある。いわゆる増益・損減の相を皆遣うが故に、よく偏有を遮し、また偏空をも遮す。どうして一向撥無の空であろうか。このように【左頁】【枠外左上】 349 【枠外左横上】観心覚夢鈔下【枠外左横下】三七【二段構成】【上段】即ちその情有の中にもまた非空非有の義がある。例えば一人が一分の妄情で偏有を執する時、その相は暫く偏有のように現ずるといえども、悟証門から総じてこれを見るなら、当情の相は必ずしもそのようではない。あるいは類によっては偏空と執ずることもあるが故に、明らかに知るべし、この偏有相の自性は、本来決定していないのである。また例えば一人が一分の妄情で偏空を執する時、悟証門から総じてこれを見るなら、当情の相は必ずしもそのようではない。あるいは類によっては偏有と執ずることもあるが故に、明らかに知るべし、この偏空相の自性も、また本来決定していないのである。これ即ち妄情の思いに定相が無いが故である。重ねて意を云うなら、妄情の執見は増損が時に随うが故に、所執の二相はそれぞれ決定相ではない。《割書：為言》。このように論ずる時、当情の現相は、定んで偏有ではなく、定んで偏空でもない。これもまた中道の義ではないか。もしその依他・円成の非有門の中にも、また非空非有の義がある。一切の妄執を遠く離れる義であるが故に、増損を皆離れる。即ちこれ中であるが故に。このように依他・円成の非空門の中にも、また非空非有の義がある。即ちこれ離言である。誰が有無を定めるのか。もし一向非空なら、どうして執法でないか。もし執法なら、どうして依他・円成と名づけるか。道理は甚だ明らかである。何事がこのようであろうか。このように重重、猶尽きないことがある。何故かというと、例えば所執の理無の中で増益を遣う門において、有を遮するが故に非有と名づけるといえども、既に偏有を遮して中有を遮さない。どうして偏空であろうか。故にまた非空非有の義である。その他重重の一一の義門は、皆これに準ずることができる。このようにしてついに絶言に至る。然しその重重の非有の義は、重重であるといえども、束ねると皆所執の【下段】空門に帰する。またその重重の非空の門は、重重であるといえども、束ねると皆依他・円成の有門に入る。これは何故か。ただこれ三性の不即離であるが故に、所執の空と依他・円成の有とが一際に帰入する。このような等の無尽の義があるのである。もしそうなら所執の空を偏空とし、及びその依他・円成の有を偏有として、偏有・偏空の両門が相対して合して中道となる。意を得て疑いとするのは、どうして不足言の疑いではないか。一切執を遣って虚を遣すというのは何の義か。どうして依他・円成の上の偏有・偏空の諸々の僻執を遮さないか。このように遮し已って依他・円成を顕得する。どうして一向偏有の法であろうか。偏有ではないというのは定んでこれ中道有である。もし中道有なら、どうして有に留まることができようか。已上は且く言詮中道について猶このようである。まして其の勝義勝義の詮を廃して談旨する微妙究竟の一実体についてはどうであろうか。問う。今論ずる所は、依他・円成を一として所執の空に対する義門として談じている。もしその依他と円成実とを各別に論ずる時も、またそれぞれ中道の義があることを得るか。答える。またすなわちこれがある。いわゆる依他は体が虚假であるが故に実有ではない。また都無でもない。円成の妙理は体が無相であるが故に、有相もなく、また無相もない。この故に一一皆中道である。その一一門の重重の義、乃至、事理の不即不離の諸門の総束の義は皆上の如くである。問う。慈尊の所説の二行偈頌《割書：虚妄分別有、於此｜二都無等の頌である。》は、これ何門の中道を明かすのか。もし言詮門なら、慈尊は何故浅近の門を説くのか。もし離言門なら、文が既に三性相対して空有の義を説くのは、どうして言詮中道門ではないか。答える。

英語訳

【Right Page】【Top right margin】 348 【Upper right margin horizontal】 Kanshin Kakumu-shō, Lower Volume 【Lower right margin horizontal】 Thirty-six 【Two-column format】【Upper section】 They are included within the immeasurable myriad different dharma-gates without exception. The four conventional truths and one ultimate truth are explained in the root treatise, and the four-fold ultimate truth is clarified in the *Consciousness-Only Treatise*. As detailed in the *Two Truths Meaning Forest*. 　　　Two-fold Middle Way Question: In the intention of our school, through what doctrinal gate is it called the "Middle Way"? Answer: In the *Meaning Forest Chapter*, clarifying the principle of the Middle Way has two-fold meaning. First is the expressible Middle Way. That is, the essence of dependently arisen dharmas is not completely non-existent. Regarding this dependent arising, all imaginatively constructed natures that are falsely conceived have completely non-existent essential nature. Within this dependent arising, there is only the empty nature suchness that is far removed from all imaginatively constructed natures. Regarding that empty nature, one can also have these causally conditioned dharmas, therefore all dharmas are neither empty nor non-empty. In this way, the three natures correlatively express and reveal the meaning of the Middle Way. Second is the beyond-expression Middle Way. That is, although the essence of all dharmas is thus sometimes existent and sometimes non-existent, within true ultimate truth, because mind and speech are cut off, it is called the "Middle Way." These present two levels discuss that dharma-essence and have no further differences. They are simply the dharma-gate of the three natures being neither identical nor separate. However, when expressing their meaning in contrast to other gates: self and dharmas are not existent; emptiness and consciousness are not non-existent; transcending existence and transcending non-existence, therefore called the "Middle Way." This is the expressible gate. If dwelling in inner realization and stopping conceptual thought, this is precisely the one reality beyond-expression Middle Way. Question: Now, the Middle Way is the meaning of one dharma-essence transcending the two extremes. What is now being established is that the emptiness of imaginatively constructed nature and the existence of other-dependent and consummate natures mutually oppose each other and are called the "Middle Way." If so, these are already separate dharma-gates. How could it be one dharma that is neither empty nor existent? Particularly, because imaginatively constructed nature has completely non-existent essence, it is not dharma-essence. That dharma-essence is simply the substantial other-dependent and consummate two natures. Therefore what is ultimately reached is that all dharma-essences remain on one side of existence. How could this be 【Lower section】 the ultimate principle of the Middle Way? Answer: These doubts are all inadmissible. Who says the three natures are separate dharma-essences? This is the meaning of neither empty nor existent Middle Way within one dharma. Although it is the meaning of Middle Way within one dharma, because the three levels of shallow and deep—false attachment, dependent arising, and true meaning—are distinctly non-confusing, they are opened into the dharma-gate of three self-natures. Therefore the *Consciousness-Only Treatise* says: "Are these three different or not different? One should say both are incorrect. Because there is no separate essence, because there are distinctions of false attachment, dependent arising, and true meaning." <<Marginal note: Text>> What wise person, upon seeing the text "because there is no separate essence," would carelessly make it a dharma-gate of separate essences and definite separation? Therefore, the three natures are precisely one nature, one nature is precisely three natures, neither three nor one, yet also three and also one. This is the principle of those three natures. The above provisionally takes imaginatively constructed nature as empty and other-dependent and consummate as existent, discussing the general outline. If discussing in detail, speaking of emptiness, that emptiness is also precisely existence. Because real self and real dharmas appear to consciousness, negating this aspect also becomes diminishment. However, according to principle, their essence is completely non-existent. Not understanding this gate also becomes augmentation. One should know that imaginatively constructed nature is also neither empty nor existent. Regarding other-dependent and consummate natures, speaking of existence, that existence can also be called emptiness. Because the essential nature of imaginatively constructed, conventional, and ultimate truths is empty. If, because other-dependent and consummate are called existent, one then considers other-dependent and consummate to be one-sidedly existent, this is false attachment and therefore augmentation. However, the beyond-expression dharma-essence that is the object of noble wisdom has essence that is not non-existent. Negating this is also diminishment. Therefore the two natures of other-dependent and consummate are also neither empty nor existent. This is still the general outline. If discussing their reality in further detail, within the principled non-existence of imaginatively constructed nature, there is also the meaning of neither empty nor existent. That is, because the characteristics of augmentation and diminishment are all eliminated, it can obstruct one-sided existence and also obstruct one-sided emptiness. How could this be one-sided negating emptiness? Thus 【Left Page】【Top left margin】 349 【Upper left margin horizontal】 Kanshin Kakumu-shō, Lower Volume 【Lower left margin horizontal】 Thirty-seven 【Two-column format】【Upper section】 precisely within that emotional existence there is also the meaning of neither empty nor existent. For example, when one person with partial false emotion grasps one-sided existence, although that characteristic temporarily appears like one-sided existence, when viewed comprehensively from the gate of awakened realization, the characteristic appearing to consciousness is not necessarily thus. Because some types also grasp it as one-sided emptiness, one clearly knows that the self-nature of this one-sided existence characteristic is originally not determinate. Also, for example, when one person with partial false emotion grasps one-sided emptiness, when viewed comprehensively from the gate of awakened realization, the characteristic appearing to consciousness is not necessarily thus. Because some types also grasp it as one-sided existence, one clearly knows that the self-nature of this one-sided emptiness characteristic is also originally not determinate. This is precisely because false emotional thinking has no fixed characteristics. To repeat the meaning: because the attachment views of false emotions follow time in augmentation and diminishment, the two characteristics that are grasped are each not determinate characteristics. <<Marginal note: So to speak>>. When discussing thus, the characteristics appearing to consciousness are definitely not one-sided existence and definitely not one-sided emptiness. Is this also not the meaning of Middle Way? If within the gate of non-existence of other-dependent and consummate, there is also the meaning of neither empty nor existent. Because of the meaning of being far removed from all false attachments, augmentation and diminishment are both transcended. This is precisely being middle. Thus within the gate of non-emptiness of other-dependent and consummate, there is also the meaning of neither empty nor existent. This is precisely beyond expression. Who determines existence and non-existence? If one-sidedly non-empty, how is it not attachment to dharmas? If it is attachment to dharmas, how could it be called other-dependent and consummate? The principle is extremely clear. What matter is like this? Thus layer upon layer, there is still more that is inexhaustible. Why? For example, within the gate of eliminating augmentation in the principled non-existence of imaginatively constructed nature, although obstructing existence and therefore called "non-existent," since it obstructs one-sided existence but does not obstruct middle existence, how could it be one-sided emptiness? Therefore it is also the meaning of neither empty nor existent. All other layer upon layer individual doctrinal gates can be modeled on this. Thus and thus, finally reaching beyond expression. However, the layer upon layer meanings of non-existence, although layer upon layer, when gathered all return to the 【Lower section】 gate of imaginatively constructed emptiness. Also, the layer upon layer gates of non-emptiness, although layer upon layer, when gathered all enter the gate of other-dependent and consummate existence. Why is this? Simply because the three natures are neither identical nor separate, the emptiness of imaginatively constructed nature and the existence of other-dependent and consummate natures return and enter into one realm. There are such inexhaustible meanings. If so, taking the emptiness of imaginatively constructed nature as one-sided emptiness, and the existence of other-dependent and consummate as one-sided existence, with the two gates of one-sided existence and one-sided emptiness mutually opposing and combining to form the Middle Way—gaining this understanding as doubt, is this not an insufficient doubt? What is the meaning of eliminating all attachments to eliminate the false? Is this not obstructing the various perverse attachments of one-sided existence and one-sided emptiness upon other-dependent and consummate? Having thus obstructed and revealed other-dependent and consummate, how could this be one-sidedly existent dharma? What is not one-sidedly existent is definitely middle-way existence. If it is middle-way existence, how could it remain in existence? The above is still thus regarding expressible Middle Way. How much more so regarding the subtle, wondrous, ultimate one reality essence that abandons expression and discusses the essential point of ultimate among ultimates? Question: What is now being discussed treats other-dependent and consummate as one in the doctrinal gate opposing the emptiness of imaginatively constructed nature. When discussing other-dependent and consummate reality separately, can each also have the meaning of Middle Way? Answer: There is also precisely this. That is, because other-dependent essence is provisional, it is not real existence, yet also not complete non-existence. Because the wondrous principle of consummate essence is without characteristics, it has no existent characteristics and also no non-existent characteristics. Therefore each and every one is Middle Way. The layer upon layer meanings of those individual gates, up to the comprehensive gathering meaning of the various gates of phenomena and principle being neither identical nor separate, are all as above. Question: The two-line verse spoken by Maitreya <<Marginal note: The verse "Imaginary discrimination exists; within this the two are completely non-existent," etc.>> clarifies the Middle Way of which gate? If it is the expressible gate, why would Maitreya explain the shallow and immediate gate? If it is the beyond-expression gate, since the text already explains the meaning of emptiness and existence through the mutual opposition of the three natures, how is it not the expressible Middle Way gate? Answer:

日本の仏典を翻刻

観心覚夢鈔三巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

現代語訳

英語訳