観心覚夢鈔三巻ページ6/24 - 翻刻

ページ: 6

翻刻

【右頁】【枠外右上】 322 【枠外右横上】觀心覺夢鈔上【枠外右横下】一〇【二段構成】【上段】耳鼻等皆應＿二准知＿一。若長短等以爲＿レ體者。長短卽是色塵分位。無＿二別體性＿一。餘滑澀等觸塵等分亦應＿二准知＿一。若言＿二以＿レ心爲＿一レ體。心何是無常。亦何有＿二其苦＿一。八識心王。五十一心所。一一如＿レ是。若爾我言所＿レ目之體是何物耶。從＿レ頭至＿レ跌。從＿レ皮至＿レ髓。六腑五臟骨肉脈等一切諸物。乃至所有種種心識念念等中。一一推求￣スルニ。我人名言所＿レ目實體終不可得。畢竟都無。但是無常苦不自在色聲香等。故云＿二無我＿一。　問。若爾何故世間￣ト聖敎￣トニ說＿レ有＿二我人＿一。世間我者。謂有情命者等。聖敎我者。謂預流一來等。若都無＿二其體＿一。如＿レ是所＿二施設＿一。從＿レ何而起耶。世間所說設雖＿二迷謬#1其聖敎所＿レ呼豈都無耶。何況於＿二其世間迷情＿一。若無＿二所由＿一不＿レ可＿レ起耶。　答。世間聖敎所＿二施設＿一者。但由＿レ假立。非＿二實有性＿一。其假立者。卽識所變五蘊諸法。聚集和合所＿レ作功能。假似＿レ有＿二常一主宰物＿一。此相似分說名＿二假我＿一。若撥＿二-無此分＿一。還是損減執。若增＿二於此分＿一。卽是增益執。當＿レ知我人假有實無。觀＿二假有＿一故。大悲救＿レ之令＿レ到＿二覺岸＿一。悟＿二實無＿一故。大智泯＿レ之能顯＿二眞理＿一。然諸愚夫。無始以來。迷＿二此相似＿一。定謂＿二眞實＿一。呼＿二【下段】此情解＿一。卽說＿二有情命者等言＿一。是卽世間所執我也。而諸聖者。悟＿二此相似＿一。不＿レ謂＿二堅實＿一。呼＿二此假我＿一。卽說＿二預流一來等言＿一。是爲＿二聖敎所說我＿一也。　問。若爾何故前言＿三都無＿二人我體＿一耶。　答。前遮＿二堅實＿一不＿レ遮＿二假似＿一。何況此假猶是法用。實屬＿二於法＿一。法外都無。故云＿二無我＿一。　問。五蘊和合似＿二常一等＿一。其義猶闇。乞也詳明。　答。五根五塵心心所等。若不＿二和合＿一。寧有＿二人等相狀功能＿一。以＿二和合＿一故有＿二此相用＿一。然此相用法外無＿レ體。但是色心一一功能。由＿二和合＿一故。似＿レ有＿二如＿レ是常一主宰自在之相＿一。所以聖敎呼＿二此似分＿一卽名＿レ假也。重意云。有＿レ人以＿レ斧伐＿二其樹等＿一。形貌身體威勢動作。似＿レ越＿二泛爾色香等分＿一。而實不＿レ越。所以者何。振＿レ斧動作是四大用。卽在＿二觸塵＿一。欲＿レ動加行卽欲思等。是心心所。手足等形卽是形色。色塵分位。總體卽是五蘊諸法。其外無＿レ物。方知但是五蘊和合。假似＿三如＿レ是有＿二一物＿一耳。若不＿レ合者難＿レ有＿二此分＿一。合故如＿レ是。《割書：爲言》深思＿二-惟之＿一不＿レ可＿二增損＿一。若得＿レ中者。還泯＿二有無＿一。四句斯絕。百非悉亡。今此眞理是名＿二生空廢詮勝義＿一。其能顯門卽是補特伽羅無我。　問。若爾雖＿二無【左頁】【枠外左上】 323 【枠外左横上】觀心覺夢鈔上【枠外左横下】一一【二段構成】【上段】我＿一。而法體實有。更有＿二何道理＿一。亦立＿二法無我＿一。又於＿二法無＿一猶云＿二無我＿一。其意如何。　答。法體稱＿レ有且對＿二人我＿一。爲＿レ入＿二￣シメンカ我空＿一說＿二六二法＿一者是義歟。卽是法中世俗施設。若入＿二眞門＿一。五根五塵心王心所一切如＿レ夢非有似有。都無＿二堅實自性勝用＿一。但是依他衆緣所成虛假事相。如＿レ是色心緣生道理。眞實如常不生□#2滅卽名＿二無爲＿一。更無＿二堅實別體無爲＿一。旣無＿二堅實有爲無爲＿一故名＿二法空＿一。但無我者遮＿二自然＿一也。自然卽是我義故也。　問。人我體性求不可得其理可＿レ然。五蘊法體其事顯然。可見可聞乃至識知體性作用一一皆存。今說爲＿レ空。豈得＿レ信耶。　答。法體雖＿二無量＿一皆是四緣作。心法具＿レ四生。色法由＿レ二起。緣起之道理。亦是事家理。旣無＿二自然性＿一。誰言＿レ有＿二自性＿一。　問。若爾今所＿二見聞覺知＿一諸色聲等。其體是何。　答。是他所作。無＿二自體性＿一。他者卽是因緣等也。爲＿二此諸緣＿一所＿二生起＿一事四緣具足者。卽緣慮事成。二緣和合者卽質礙事成。其緣慮中八識差別。其質礙中五塵等不＿レ同各各一一皆應＿レ分緣具足之時。彼事相差別而生。故見聞等境不同也。今言＿レ空者。指＿二無自性＿一。寧不＿レ信【下段】耶。　問。薩婆多等皆立＿二四緣六因等法＿一。雖＿レ然三世諸法恆有全非＿二如幻空不可得＿一。今言＿二四緣所成故空＿一。其義未＿レ明。答。餘乘所執不＿レ知＿二唯識＿一不＿レ立＿二四分＿一。不＿レ信＿二賴耶＿一。無＿二賴耶＿一故無＿二親因緣＿一。無＿二親因緣＿一故疎緣亦不＿レ成。緣旣不＿レ成故緣生無＿二實義＿一。旣無＿二實義＿一故。雖＿レ云＿二四緣生＿一。還墮＿二自然生＿一。故法體恆有。當＿レ知法空由＿二唯識＿一成。爲＿レ入＿二法空＿一復說＿二唯識＿一者此意也。　問。法從＿レ緣生故名＿二無自性＿一者。其能生緣者。爲＿二是自然有＿一。若爾其法非＿二無我＿一耶。　答。緣亦從＿レ緣生。其緣亦如＿レ是。是故一切法一切皆無我。展轉皆從＿二因緣＿一生故。因緣所生法我說卽是空￣トハ其理誠哉。　問。若爾諸法一切虛假。可＿レ無＿二假實種種差別＿一。何故前言＿三色心等中有＿二假實＿一耶。　答。此問非也。今言＿二虛假如幻如夢＿一。推＿二-入眞門＿一空理談也。若依＿二世諦道理門＿一者。自有＿二種子＿一所＿レ生諸法。多分名爲＿二有爲實法＿一。今此之位￣ニハ等￣ク皆名＿二假法＿一。全不＿二相違＿一。問。推＿二-入眞門＿一皆無我者。何故世間及聖敎中說＿レ有＿二法體＿一耶。世間法者實德業等。聖敎法者蘊處界等。若都無＿二自性＿一豈如＿レ此說耶。　答。世間聖敎所說法者。但由＿レ假

現代語訳

【右頁】【枠外右上】 322 【枠外右横上】観心覚夢鈔上【枠外右横下】一〇【二段構成】【上段】耳・鼻等も皆准じて知るべきである。もし長・短等を体とするなら、長・短は即ち色塵の分位であり、別の体性はない。余の滑・澀等の触塵等の分もまた准じて知るべきである。もし心を以て体とするというなら、心はなぜ無常なのか。またなぜその苦があるのか。八識心王、五十一心所、一一がこのようである。そうであるなら、我という言葉の目指す体は何物であろうか。頭から足まで、皮から髄まで、六腑五臓骨肉脈等の一切諸物、乃至あらゆる種々の心識念念等の中において、一一に推求するに、我・人という名言の目指す実体は終に得ることができない。畢竟して都て無である。ただこれは無常・苦・不自在なる色・声・香等である。ゆえに無我という。問う。そうであるなら、なぜ世間と聖教とにおいて我・人が有ると説くのか。世間の我とは、有情・命者等をいう。聖教の我とは、預流・一来等をいう。もし都てその体が無いなら、このような施設は何から起こるのか。世間の所説は迷謬であるとしても、その聖教の所呼がどうして都て無であろうか。まして、その世間の迷情について、もし所由が無ければ起こることができないのではないか。答える。世間・聖教の施設するところは、ただ仮立によるのみで、実有の性ではない。その仮立とは、即ち識の所変である五蘊諸法が、聚集和合して作る所の功能である。仮に常一主宰物有るに似る。この相似の分を仮我と説名する。もしこの分を撥無すれば、還ってこれは損減執である。もしこの分を増せば、即ちこれは増益執である。当に知るべし、我・人は仮有実無である。仮有を観ずるゆえに、大悲これを救って覚岸に到らしめる。実無を悟るゆえに、大智これを泯して能く真理を顕す。しかし諸愚夫は、無始以来、この相似に迷い、定めて真実と謂う。この【下段】情解を呼び、即ち有情・命者等の言を説く。これが即ち世間の所執の我である。而して諸聖者は、この相似を悟り、堅実と謂わず、この仮我を呼び、即ち預流・一来等の言を説く。これを聖教の所説の我とする。問う。そうであるなら、なぜ前に都て人我の体無しと言ったのか。答える。前は堅実を遮して仮似を遮さない。まして、この仮はなお法の用である。実に法に属する。法外には都て無い。ゆえに無我という。問う。五蘊和合して常一等に似るとは、その義がなお闇い。乞うまた詳明せよ。答える。五根・五塵・心・心所等が、もし和合しなければ、どうして人等の相状・功能があろうか。和合を以てするゆえにこの相用がある。しかしこの相用は法外に体無し。ただこれは色心一一の功能である。和合によるゆえに、このような常一主宰自在の相有るに似る。ゆえに聖教はこの似分を呼んで即ち仮と名づけるのである。重ねて意を云う。人有りて斧を以てその樹等を伐つ。形貌・身体・威勢・動作は、泛爾の色・香等の分を越えるに似るが、実際は越えない。なぜかというと、斧を振り動作するのは四大の用で、即ち触塵にある。動こうと欲する加行は即ち欲・思等で、これは心・心所である。手足等の形は即ち形色で、色塵の分位である。総体は即ち五蘊諸法である。その外に物無し。よって知る、ただこれは五蘊和合して、仮にこのように一物有るに似るのみである。もし合わなければこの分を有し難い。合するゆえにこのようである。《いわんとすることは》深く思惟すれば、増損すべきでない。もし中を得れば、還って有無を泯す。四句これ絶え、百非悉く亡ぶ。今この真理を生空廃詮勝義と名づける。その能顕の門は即ちこれ補特伽羅無我である。問う。そうであるなら、我は無いけれども【左頁】【枠外左上】 323 【枠外左横上】観心覚夢鈔上【枠外左横下】一一【二段構成】【上段】、法体は実有である。更にいかなる道理があって、また法無我を立てるのか。また法において無なのに、なお無我というのは、その意はいかん。答える。法体を有と称するのは、まず人我に対してである。我空に入らしめんとして六二法を説くのはこの義である。即ちこれは法中の世俗施設である。もし真門に入れば、五根・五塵・心王・心所一切は夢の如く、有に非ず似有である。都て堅実自性勝用無し。ただこれは依他の衆縁所成の虚仮事相である。このような色心縁生の道理、真実如常不生不滅を即ち無為と名づける。更に堅実別体の無為は無い。既に堅実有為無為無きゆえに法空と名づける。ただし無我とは自然を遮するのである。自然は即ちこれ我の義だからである。問う。人我の体性は求めて得ることができないという理は然るべきである。五蘊の法体はその事顕然である。見ることができ聞くことができ乃至識知でき、体性・作用が一一皆存する。今これを空と説く。どうして信じることができようか。答える。法体は無量であるけれども、皆これ四縁の作である。心法は四つを具えて生じ、色法は二つによって起こる。縁起の道理もまたこれ事家の理である。既に自然性無し。誰が自性有りと言うか。問う。そうであるなら、今見聞覚知する所の諸色声等は、その体は何か。答える。これは他の所作で、自体性無し。他とは即ちこれ因縁等である。この諸縁のために生起される事で、四縁具足すれば、即ち縁慮事が成る。二縁和合すれば即ち質礙事が成る。その縁慮中には八識の差別があり、その質礙中には五塵等の不同がある。各各一一皆縁具足の時に分かれるべきで、彼の事相が差別して生ずる。ゆえに見聞等の境が同じでないのである。今空と言うのは、自性無きを指す。どうして信じないことがあろうか【下段】。問う。薩婆多等は皆四縁・六因等の法を立てる。しかりといえども、三世諸法は恒有で全く如幻空不可得ではない。今四縁所成ゆえに空と言うが、その義は未だ明らかでない。答える。余乗の所執は唯識を知らず、四分を立てず、頼耶を信じない。頼耶無きゆえに親因縁無し。親因縁無きゆえに疎縁もまた成らない。縁が既に成らないゆえに縁生に実義無し。既に実義無きゆえに、四縁生と云うといえども、還って自然生に墮する。ゆえに法体恒有である。当に知るべし、法空は唯識によって成る。法空に入らしめんとして復た唯識を説くのはこの意である。問う。法は縁から生ずるゆえに無自性と名づけるというが、その能生の縁は、自然有なのか。そうであるならその法は無我ではないのか。答える。縁もまた縁から生ずる。その縁もまたこのようである。ゆえに一切法は一切皆無我である。展転して皆因縁から生ずるからである。因縁所生の法、我はこれ即ち空なりと説く、その理誠に然りである。問う。そうであるなら諸法は一切虚仮で、仮実種々の差別が無いはずである。なぜ前に色心等中に仮実有りと言ったのか。答える。この問いは正しくない。今虚仮如幻如夢と言うのは、真門に推入する空理の談である。もし世諦道理門に依れば、自ら種子の所生である諸法があり、多分は有為実法と名づける。今この位には等しく皆仮法と名づける。全く相違しない。問う。真門に推入すれば皆無我であるのに、なぜ世間及び聖教中において法体有りと説くのか。世間の法は実・徳・業等、聖教の法は蘊・処・界等である。もし都て自性無きなら、どうしてこのように説くのか。答える。世間・聖教の所説の法は、ただ仮に

英語訳

【Right Page】【Top right margin】 322 【Upper right margin horizontal】 Kanshin Kakumu-shō, Volume 1 【Lower right margin horizontal】 Ten 【Two-column format】【Upper section】 The ears, nose, etc. should all be understood accordingly. If length, shortness, etc. are taken as the substance, then length and shortness are precisely states of form-dust and have no separate substantial nature. The remaining [tactile qualities like] smoothness, roughness, etc., which are divisions of tactile dust, should also be understood accordingly. If you say mind is the substance, why is mind impermanent? And why does it have suffering? The eight consciousness-kings and fifty-one mental factors are each like this. If so, what is the substance that the word "self" refers to? From head to feet, from skin to marrow, the six bowels, five organs, bones, flesh, vessels, etc.—all various things, and even within all kinds of mental consciousness moment by moment—when investigating each one by one, the real substance that the terms "self" and "person" refer to ultimately cannot be obtained. It is completely and utterly nonexistent. These are merely impermanent, suffering, non-autonomous form, sound, smell, etc. Hence it is called "selfless." Question: If so, why do the world and the sacred teachings speak of the existence of self and person? The worldly self refers to sentient beings, living beings, etc. The self in sacred teachings refers to stream-enterers, once-returners, etc. If their substance is completely nonexistent, from what do such designations arise? Even if worldly explanations are deluded and false, how could what the sacred teachings refer to be completely nonexistent? Moreover, regarding worldly delusion, if there were no basis, couldn't it arise? Answer: What the world and sacred teachings establish is only through conventional designation, not real existing nature. This conventional designation is precisely the functions created by the accumulation and combination of the five aggregates and various dharmas transformed by consciousness. It conventionally resembles having a permanent, unitary, autonomous thing. This similar aspect is called the conventional self. If one rejects this aspect, it becomes the attachment of diminishment. If one augments this aspect, it becomes the attachment of reification. One should know that self and person are conventionally existent but really nonexistent. Observing conventional existence, great compassion rescues them and causes them to reach the shore of awakening. Realizing real nonexistence, great wisdom extinguishes this and can reveal true principle. However, all foolish beings, from beginningless time, have been deluded by this similarity and definitely consider it real. Calling this 【Lower section】 emotional understanding, they speak of sentient beings, living beings, etc. This is precisely the self grasped by the world. But all noble ones realize this similarity and do not consider it solid and real. Calling this conventional self, they speak of stream-enterers, once-returners, etc. This is what the sacred teachings call self. Question: If so, why did you previously say that there is completely no substance of personal self? Answer: Previously I blocked the solid and real, not the conventionally similar. Moreover, this conventional [self] is still the function of dharmas. It truly belongs to dharmas. Outside of dharmas there is nothing at all. Hence it is called selfless. Question: That the five aggregates combine to resemble permanence, unity, etc.—this meaning is still unclear. Please explain in detail. Answer: If the five faculties, five sense-objects, mind, mental factors, etc. do not combine, how could there be the characteristics and functions of persons, etc.? Because of combination, these characteristics and functions exist. However, these characteristics and functions have no substance outside of dharmas. They are merely the individual functions of form and mind. Because of combination, they seem to have such characteristics of permanence, unity, autonomy, and sovereignty. Therefore, the sacred teachings call this similar aspect precisely "conventional." Explaining the meaning further: there is a person who uses an axe to cut trees, etc. Appearance, body, power, and movement seem to transcend ordinary divisions of form, smell, etc., but actually do not transcend them. Why? Wielding the axe and moving are functions of the four great elements, which exist in tactile dust. The intention to move and preparatory actions are desire, volition, etc., which are mind and mental factors. The form of hands and feet is precisely visible form, which is a state of form-dust. The totality is precisely the various dharmas of the five aggregates. There is nothing outside of this. Thus one knows that this is merely the combination of the five aggregates, conventionally resembling the existence of one thing. If they did not combine, it would be difficult to have this aspect. Because they combine, it is like this. {What this means is} if one deeply contemplates this, one should not reify or diminish. If one attains the middle [way], one extinguishes both existence and nonexistence. The four propositions are all cut off, and the hundred negations all perish. This true principle is now called the ultimate meaning of personal emptiness that transcends verbal designation. Its revealing gate is precisely the selflessness of pudgala. Question: If so, although there is no 【Left Page】【Top left margin】 323 【Upper left margin horizontal】 Kanshin Kakumu-shō, Volume 1 【Lower left margin horizontal】 Eleven 【Two-column format】【Upper section】 self, dharma-substance truly exists. What further reasoning also establishes dharma-selflessness? Also, regarding dharmas being nonexistent, why still call it selflessness? What is the meaning? Answer: Calling dharma-substance existent is first in opposition to personal self. To cause entry into personal emptiness, explaining the sixty-two dharmas is this meaning. This is precisely conventional designation within dharmas. If one enters the gate of truth, the five faculties, five sense-objects, mind-kings, mental factors—all are like dreams, not existing yet似ly existing. They completely lack solid intrinsic nature and supreme function. They are merely dependent-on-others' illusory phenomena constituted by multiple conditions. Such principle of form and mind arising through conditions—truly suchness-like, constantly neither arising nor ceasing—is called unconditioned. There are no further solid, separate substantial unconditioned [dharmas]. Since there are no solid conditioned and unconditioned [dharmas], it is called dharma-emptiness. However, selflessness blocks naturalness. Naturalness is precisely the meaning of self. Question: The principle that personal self's substantial nature cannot be found when sought is reasonable. The dharma-substance of the five aggregates—this matter is evident. [They] can be seen, heard, and even cognized; substantial nature and functions all exist one by one. Now you explain them as empty. How can this be believed? Answer: Though dharma-substances are countless, they are all created by the four conditions. Mental dharmas arise with all four present; material dharmas arise through two. The principle of dependent origination is also the principle within phenomena. Since there is no natural nature, who says there is intrinsic nature? Question: If so, the various forms, sounds, etc. that we now see, hear, perceive, and cognize—what is their substance? Answer: They are created by others and have no self-substance. "Others" means precisely causes and conditions, etc. As phenomena generated by these various conditions: when the four conditions are complete, then perceptual phenomena arise; when two conditions combine, then resistant phenomena arise. Within perception there are distinctions of the eight consciousnesses; within resistance there are differences among the five sense-objects, etc. Each should be distinguished when conditions are complete, and those phenomenal characteristics arise differently. Therefore the objects of seeing, hearing, etc. are not the same. Now speaking of emptiness points to the absence of intrinsic nature. How could this not be believed 【Lower section】 ? Question: The Sarvāstivādins, etc. all establish dharmas like the four conditions, six causes, etc. Nevertheless, the dharmas of the three times permanently exist and are completely not like illusory emptiness that cannot be obtained. Now you say they are empty because they are constituted by the four conditions. This meaning is not yet clear. Answer: What other vehicles grasp—they do not understand consciousness-only, do not establish the four aspects, do not believe in the ālaya[-vijñāna]. Without ālaya, there are no proximate causes. Without proximate causes, remote conditions also do not succeed. Since conditions do not succeed, dependent origination has no real meaning. Since there is no real meaning, although they speak of arising from four conditions, they still fall into natural arising. Therefore dharma-substances permanently exist. One should know that dharma-emptiness is accomplished through consciousness-only. To cause entry into dharma-emptiness, again explaining consciousness-only—this is the meaning. Question: If dharmas arise from conditions and are therefore called without intrinsic nature, are those generating conditions naturally existent? If so, are those dharmas not selfless? Answer: Conditions also arise from conditions. Those conditions are also like this. Therefore all dharmas are completely selfless. Because they all arise from causes and conditions in succession. "Dharmas arising from causes and conditions—I say these are precisely empty"—this principle is truly so. Question: If so, all dharmas are illusory, so there should be no various distinctions between conventional and real. Why did you previously say there are conventional and real among form, mind, etc.? Answer: This question is incorrect. Now speaking of "illusory like illusions and dreams" is discussing the principle of emptiness by investigating entry into the gate of truth. If one follows the gate of worldly conventional principle, there naturally are various dharmas generated by seeds, which are mostly called conditioned real dharmas. At this present level, they are equally all called conventional dharmas. There is no contradiction at all. Question: When investigating entry into the gate of truth, all are selfless, so why do the world and sacred teachings speak of the existence of dharma-substance? Worldly dharmas are substance, qualities, activities, etc. Sacred teaching dharmas are aggregates, sense-bases, elements, etc. If they completely lack intrinsic nature, how could they be explained this way? Answer: The dharmas spoken of by the world and sacred teachings are only through conventional

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