一　顕揚正法復古集二巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

【六十四頁上段】
故。以＿二毘尼＿一爲＿上レ宗。可＿レ謂是廣弘＿二諸敎＿一。普攝＿二群機＿一之妙宗
也。如＿二彼天台賢首善無畏等諸德＿一。依＿二其理致圓極者＿一而
立＿レ宗。以開＿二顯一切乘敎＿一。南山依＿二其學本通軌者＿一而立＿レ宗。
以申＿二通一代法蘊＿一。施設雖＿レ殊。理歸＿二 一揆＿一。然四家所立宗
義。淳源中正。但爲＿下後之執＿二自法＿一者＿上之所＿レ蔽。其眞漸隱。
於＿レ 中南山之裔。其弊特甚。或濫＿二說開會＿一。抗＿二妙於諸宗＿一。
或偏讚＿二毘尼＿一。斷＿二學般若＿一。或執＿二瑣瑣戒威儀＿一。而不＿レ修＿二禪
慧＿一等。是乃由＿レ不＿レ領＿下今家以＿二毘尼＿一立＿レ宗之原旨＿上。又係＿レ不＿レ
悉＿丁南山讚＿二述毘尼＿一者。斯由＿丙戒法有＿乙能生＿二定慧＿一之功＿甲也。
應＿レ知第二相承者。謂如來在世法道一昧。滅後分部如＿二
上已明＿一。律藏傳譯已後。歷＿二於九代＿一諸德相承。普寧師始
立＿二 五祖＿一。一波離。二法正。三覺明。四智首。五南山。次霅溪
師乃立＿二 十祖＿一。靈源法師乃立＿二 六祖＿一。允堪律師乃立＿二 七祖＿一。
靈芝一一彈＿二破諸師所立＿一。自立＿二 九祖＿一。一曇無德。二法時。
三法聰。四道覆。五慧光。六道雲。七道洪。八種首。九南山。
具如＿二芝苑遺篇明＿一。寂曰。靈芝所＿レ列九祖者。但是四分律
傳持之祖承耳。非＿二是南山所立之宗承＿一也。所以者何。謂

【六十四頁下段】
南山所立之正宗者。■【則ヵ】將＿下挽＿二回乎三學均修之淳源。於
像末之世＿一。遠紹＿中繼於異世五師。及法正尊者之宗緒＿上。豈
可＿下以＿二法時乃至智首＿一。次＿中列於宗租＿上乎。問。南山所製鈔
疏。何處有＿二其說＿一耶。答。事鈔十門。戒疏上卷。及淨心誡觀
頻見＿二其旨＿一。事鈔明＿二傳律次第＿一。則列＿二前代二十六家＿一。即言。學
有＿二所承＿一。承必知＿レ本。而此但示＿下傳＿二 四分律＿一之祖承＿上而已。
至＿二其之自立＿レ宗垂＿一＿レ統。則遠承＿二於法正尊者＿一。其餘則竝非＿レ
所＿レ系也。戒疏云。同世五師。時既澆漓。情見互起。雖＿レ通＿二
小聖＿一。不＿レ無＿二利鈍＿一。毱多受法。漸劣＿二於師＿一。和修舉＿レ手莫＿レ委＿二
定相＿一。致＿レ使＿三此五皆資＿二心見＿一。何得＿二開通＿一。縱而不＿レ問。遂分＿二
五部＿一。又事鈔言。五師捃拾情見不＿レ同。又言。逮＿二于像季＿一。
時轉澆訛。。爭＿二鋒於唇舌之間＿一。鼓＿二論不形之事＿一。所以震嶺
傳敎九代。聞＿レ之拔萃出類之智術而已。又言。顧＿二眄群篇＿一。
通非＿レ屬＿レ意。又云。自＿二佛法東流＿一。幾六百歲。諸師穿鑿。判＿二
割是非＿一。競＿二封同異＿一。不＿レ可＿二稱說＿一。良由＿下尋討者不＿レ識＿二宗旨＿一。
行事者昏＿中於本趣＿上。故須＿下學＿レ師必約＿二經遠＿一。執＿レ敎必佩＿中眞
文＿上等。云云。準＿二此文旨＿一。法正已來諸師。竝皆非＿三今師所＿二

【六十五頁上段】
祖承＿一也可＿レ知。問。南山於＿二印度六師＿一。隔世渺邈。系＿二之祖
承＿一。將有＿二其例＿一耶。答。其例已多。如＿三北齊文禪師。唐杜順
和上。遠稟＿二承於龍樹大士＿一。如＿三古塔主遠嗣＿二於雲門＿一。法道
契投如＿二水合＿一＿レ水。可＿レ謂＿二之師資相承＿一而已。安得＿下必待＿三癡
肉團撞＿二著癡肉團＿一。以爲＿中嗣法＿上乎。問。鈔疏之文。似＿レ不＿三全
肯＿二同世五師＿一。今何繼＿二於法正尊者＿一。答。實如＿二所問＿一。然同世
五師竝得＿二聖果＿一。道會＿二眞源＿一。且法正師。妙達＿二權實＿一。統＿二收
名理＿一。道契＿二先聖＿一。所以依＿二 四分＿一。楷＿二定止作＿一。理應＿三以爲＿二祖
承＿一矣應＿レ思。
　寂曰。南山鈔疏之文。乍視焉則。似＿下但就＿二毘尼行護＿一。而
　有＿中抑揚取捨＿上。熟思焉則。意在＿下排＿二斥乎時世之情見＿一。以
　將＿上レ興＿二復乎異世五師三學均修之正宗＿一耳。
三宗趣者。謂三學均修之大道爲＿レ宗。以＿下調＿二伏三毒＿一。證＿二得
四果＿一。進＿中趣於大乘大菩提道＿上爲＿レ趣。南山所＿レ宗。如＿二 上所＿一＿レ
述。而以＿二毘尼＿一爲＿レ宗者。謂毘尼是佛法大地。萬善由＿レ是
生長故。又毘尼乃滅後大師。而一切佛弟子所＿二依住＿一故。
又毘尼乃沙門之通軌故。又毘尼乃三乘通學之法故。又

【六十五頁下段】
爲＿レ矯＿下時世濫＿二大乘＿一之輩。抹＿二殺毘尼＿一之弊＿上故。有＿二如＿レ是種
種道理＿一。故以＿二毘尼＿一爲＿レ宗。決非＿下偏執＿二毘尼＿一。以是立＿上レ宗也。
問。三學均修。是正法之淳化。今家以＿レ是爲＿レ宗。理固可＿レ
尚。幸出＿二文證＿一焉。答。文證頗多。今舉＿二 三兩＿一焉。戒疏一
云。大聖降臨創開＿二化本＿一。將＿下拯＿二拔諸有＿一。一同登＿中彼岸＿上。爲＿レ道
制＿レ戒。本非＿二世福＿一。然煩惑難＿レ淸。要由＿二方便＿一致＿下設＿二 三學＿一用
爲＿中治元＿上。故成論云。戒如＿レ捉賊。定縳。慧殺。三行相因斯
須＿二攝濟＿一。故身口事業。動與＿レ理違。若不＿二先防＿一。妄隨＿二塵欲＿一。
則心路躁擾。靜定何因。定若不＿レ修則。於＿二諸我倒＿一。無＿レ心＿二
思擇＿一。明慧自隠。無＿レ由＿レ會＿レ正。故初行者務先學＿レ戒。檢＿二策
非遠＿一。三業淸淨。正定正慧自然而立。故經云。依＿二因此戒＿一
得＿レ生＿二後二＿一。若無＿二此戒＿一諸善不＿レ生。問。以＿レ理推。戒是靜＿二 三
塗＿一。定除＿二欲有＿一。慧非＿二界繫＿一如何上言＿二爲＿レ道非＿一＿レ福。 答。須＿レ
知＿二遠意＿一。原＿二佛降世＿一。豈爲＿レ增＿レ生。乃至伽論云。戒是有爲有
漏世間法也。若元制意。爲＿二道方便＿一。三乘聖人必由＿二此迹＿一。
故律云。爲＿下調＿二 三毒＿一令＿上レ盡故。制＿二增戒學＿一。又多論云。爲＿レ開＿二
泥洹門＿一故制＿レ戒。下文云。戒淨有＿二智慧＿一。便得＿二第一道＿一。云

現代語訳

【六十四頁上段】
故に毘尼を宗とする。これは諸教を広く弘め、群機を普く摂する妙宗と言えるであろう。かの天台・賢首・善無畏等の諸徳が、その理致の円極なるものに依って宗を立て、一切乗教を開顕するのと同様に、南山はその学本通軌なるものに依って宗を立て、一代の法蘊を通じて申べる。施設は殊なるも、理は一揆に帰する。しかし四家の所立の宗義は、淳源中正であるが、後の自法を執する者たちによって蔽われ、その真は漸く隠れた。その中でも南山の裔は、その弊害が特に甚だしい。或いは開会を濫りに説いて諸宗に抗妙し、或いは偏えに毘尼を讚して般若の学を断ち、或いは瑣々たる戒威儀を執して禅慧を修めない等である。これは今家が毘尼を以て宗を立てる原旨を領解しないことによる。また南山が毘尼を讚述するのは、戒法に定慧を生ずる能力があることによるということを悉らないことに係る。応に知るべし。第二相承とは、如来在世には法道一昧であり、滅後に分部したことは上に既に明らかにした通りである。律蔵伝訳以後、九代を歴て諸徳が相承した。普寧師が始めて五祖を立てた。一に波離、二に法正、三に覚明、四に智首、五に南山。次に霅溪師が十祖を立て、霊源法師が六祖を立て、允堪律師が七祖を立てた。霊芝は一一に諸師の所立を弾破し、自ら九祖を立てた。一に曇無徳、二に法時、三に法聡、四に道覆、五に慧光、六に道雲、七に道洪、八に智首、九に南山。具さには芝苑遺篇に明らかである。寂曰く、霊芝の列する九祖は、ただこれ四分律伝持の祖承のみであって、南山所立の宗承ではない。所以は何故かというと、

【六十四頁下段】
南山所立の正宗とは、三学均修の淳源を像末の世に挽回し、遠く異世五師及び法正尊者の宗緒を紹継することを将とするものである。どうして法時乃至智首を宗祖に次列することができようか。問う。南山所製の鈔疏の何処にその説があるのか。答える。事鈔十門、戒疏上巻、及び浄心誡観に頻りにその旨が見える。事鈔が伝律次第を明かすには、前代二十六家を列し、即ち言う、「学に承ずる所あり、承は必ず本を知る」と。而してこれはただ四分律を伝える祖承を示すのみである。その自立の宗を垂統するに至っては、遠く法正尊者に承け、その余は並びに係る所ではない。戒疏に云う、「同世五師は、時既に澆漓で、情見が互起した。小聖に通ずと雖も、利鈍なきことなし。毱多は法を受けて、漸く師に劣り、和修は手を挙げて定相を委ねること莫し。これをして此の五が皆心見に資せしめ、何ぞ開通を得んや。縦にして問わず、遂に五部に分かれた」と。また事鈔に言う、「五師は捃拾して情見同じからず」と。また言う、「像季に逮んで、時転じて澆訛となり、唇舌の間に鋒を争い、形なき事を鼓論す。所以に震嶺伝教九代は、これを聞いて抜萃出類の智術のみ」と。また言う、「群篇を顧眄するに、通じて意に属さず」と。また云う、「仏法東流自り、幾んど六百歳、諸師穿鑿し、是非を判割し、同異を競封して、称説すべからず。良に尋討する者が宗旨を識らず、行事する者が本趣に昏きによる。故に学師は必ず経遠に約し、執教は必ず真文を佩くべし」等、云々と。この文旨に準ずれば、法正已来の諸師は、並び皆今師の

【六十五頁上段】
祖承ではないことが知られる。問う。南山は印度六師に於いて、隔世渺邈なるに、これを祖承に系す。将に其の例ありや。答える。其の例は已に多い。北齊の文禅師、唐の杜順和上の如きは、遠く龍樹大士に稟承する。古塔主が遠く雲門に嗣ぐが如し。法道の契投は水の水に合するが如く、これを師資相承と謂うべきのみ。安んぞ必ず癡肉団が癡肉団に撞著するを待って、嗣法とするを得んや。問う。鈔疏の文は、全く同世五師を肯んじざるに似る。今何ぞ法正尊者に継ぐや。答える。実に所問の如し。然るに同世五師は並びに聖果を得、道は真源に会す。且つ法正師は、権実に妙達し、名理を統収し、道は先聖に契す。所以に四分に依って、止作を楷定す。理として以て祖承とすべし。応に思うべし。

寂曰く、南山鈔疏の文は、乍ち視れば、ただ毘尼行護に就いて、抑揚取捨ありと似るが、熟思すれば、意は時世の情見を排斥し、以て異世五師三学均修の正宗を興復せんとするにある。

三宗趣とは、三学均修の大道を宗とし、三毒を調伏し、四果を証得し、進んで大乗大菩提道に趣くことを趣とする。南山の所宗は、上に述べた如くであるが、毘尼を宗とするのは、毘尼は仏法の大地であり、万善はこれによって生長するからである。また毘尼は滅後の大師であり、一切の仏弟子の依住する所だからである。また毘尼は沙門の通軌だからである。また毘尼は三乗通学の法だからである。また

【六十五頁下段】
時世に大乗を濫りにする輩が毘尼を抹殺する弊を矯めるためである。かくの如き種種の道理があるため、毘尼を宗とする。決して偏えに毘尼を執して宗を立てるのではない。問う。三学均修は、正法の淳化である。今家がこれを宗とするのは、理として固より尚ぶべし。幸いに文証を出だせ。答える。文証は頗る多い。今三両を挙げよう。戒疏一に云う、「大聖降臨して創めて化本を開く。諸有を拯拔して、一同に彼岸に登らしめんとす。道のために戒を制するは、本より世福に非ず。然るに煩惑は清め難く、要ず方便により、三学を致設して治元に用いる。故に成論に云う、戒は賊を捉うるが如く、定は縛り、慧は殺す。三行相因してこれ須く摂済すべし。故に身口の事業は、動もすれば理に違う。もし先ず防がずんば、妄りに塵欲に随い、則ち心路躁擾して、静定何に因らん。定もし修めざれば、諸の我倒に於いて、思択の心なく、明慧自ら隠れ、正に会する由なし。故に初行者は務めて先ず戒を学び、非遠を検策し、三業清浄にして、正定正慧自然に立つ。故に経に云う、此の戒に依因して後二を得生す。もしこの戒なくば諸善生ぜず」と。問う。理を以て推せば、戒は三途を静め、定は欲有を除き、慧は界繋に非ず。如何に上に道のためで福でないと言うや。答える。須く遠意を知るべし。仏の降世を原ねば、豈に生を増すためならんや。乃至伽論に云う、戒は有為有漏の世間法なりと。もし元制の意は、道の方便のためで、三乗の聖人は必ずこの迹に由る。故に律に云う、三毒を調して尽きしめんがために、増戒学を制すと。また多論に云う、泥洹門を開かんがために戒を制すと。下文に云う、戒浄にして智慧あれば、便ち第一道を得と。云

英語訳

【Sixty-fourth Page Upper Section】
Therefore, taking vinaya as the foundation, this can be called the wondrous school that extensively propagates all teachings and universally embraces all capacities. Just as those virtuous masters like Tiantai, Xianshou, and Shanwuwei established their schools based on the most perfect principles to reveal all vehicle teachings, Nanshan established his school based on the fundamental common track to expound the dharma treasury of one lifetime. Though their methods differ, their principles converge to one path. However, the doctrinal principles established by the four schools were pure in source and balanced, but were later obscured by those who grasped their own dharmas, and their truth gradually became hidden. Among them, Nanshan's descendants suffered particularly severe problems: some recklessly explained "opening and merging," competing in subtlety with other schools; some one-sidedly praised vinaya while cutting off prajñā study; some grasped trivial precepts and deportment without cultivating meditation and wisdom, etc. This stems from not understanding the original intention of our school's establishment of vinaya as foundation. It also relates to not fully knowing that Nanshan's praise of vinaya is because the precept-dharma has the capacity to generate concentration and wisdom. One should understand. Second, regarding lineage transmission: when the Tathāgata was in the world, the dharma-path was unified; after his passing it divided into schools as already clarified above. After the vinaya collection was transmitted and translated, various masters transmitted it through nine generations. Master Puning first established five patriarchs: first Upāli, second Fazhen, third Jueming, fourth Zhishou, fifth Nanshan. Next, Master Zhaoxi established ten patriarchs, Dharma Master Lingyuan established six patriarchs, Vinaya Master Yunkan established seven patriarchs. Lingzhi refuted each master's establishment and himself established nine patriarchs: first Dharmagupta, second Fashi, third Facong, fourth Daofu, fifth Huiguang, sixth Daoyun, seventh Daohong, eighth Zhishou, ninth Nanshan. This is detailed in the Remaining Chapters of Zhiyuan. Ji said: Lingzhi's listed nine patriarchs are merely the patriarchal succession of Dharmaguptaka vinaya transmission, not the sectarian succession established by Nanshan. Why is this? Because

【Sixty-fourth Page Lower Section】
Nanshan's established orthodox school intended to restore the pure source of balanced cultivation of the three studies to the semblance and final dharma age, distantly inheriting the sectarian lineage of the five masters of different periods and Venerable Fazhen. How could one list Fashi through Zhishou among the sectarian patriarchs? Question: Where in Nanshan's commentaries is there such explanation? Answer: In the ten sections of the Shijiao Commentary, the upper volume of the Precept Commentary, and the Pure Mind Admonishing Contemplation, this principle appears frequently. When the Shijiao Commentary clarifies the sequence of vinaya transmission, it lists twenty-six previous schools, immediately saying: "Study has its inheritance; inheritance must know its source." But this merely shows the patriarchal succession of Dharmaguptaka transmission. As for establishing his own sectarian tradition, he distantly inherited from Venerable Fazhen; the rest were not his concern. The Precept Commentary says: "The five masters of the same period - the times being shallow and corrupt, emotional views arose mutually. Though they penetrated the small sage path, they were not without sharp and dull differences. Mādhyantika received the dharma but gradually became inferior to his teacher. Yaśa raised his hand but could not determine the characteristics. This caused all five to rely on mental views - how could they achieve opening and penetration? Being lax and not questioning, they finally divided into five schools." The Shijiao Commentary also says: "The five masters gathered and selected but their emotional views were not the same." It also says: "Reaching the semblance period, times became increasingly shallow and false, competing in argument through words, drumming up discussions of formless matters. Therefore, the nine generations of Zhènlǐng transmission only heard techniques of exceptional distinction." It also says: "Looking at the various treatises, none accord with intention." It also says: "Since Buddhism flowed east, nearly six hundred years have passed. Various masters have speculated and fabricated, judging right and wrong, competitively sealing off similarities and differences - this cannot be adequately described. This is because those who investigate do not recognize the doctrinal purport, and those who practice are unclear about the fundamental aim. Therefore, those who study must base themselves on the eternal classics, and those who grasp teachings must wear the true texts," etc. Based on this textual meaning, all masters from Fazhen onward were not those whom our current master

【Sixty-fifth Page Upper Section】
inherited as patriarchs, as can be known. Question: Regarding the six Indian masters, Nanshan was separated by generations and vast distances, yet connected them as patriarchal inheritance - are there examples of this? Answer: Such examples are already numerous. Like the meditation master Wen of Northern Qi and Master Dushun of Tang, who distantly received inheritance from Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva. Like the ancient stupa master who distantly succeeded Yunmen. The dharma-path's harmonious meeting is like water joining water - this can be called master-disciple mutual inheritance. How could one necessarily wait for one foolish flesh-body to bump into another foolish flesh-body to constitute dharma succession? Question: The text of the commentaries seems not to fully approve of the five masters of the same period. Why now inherit from Venerable Fazhen? Answer: Indeed as you ask. However, the five masters of the same period all attained sage fruits and their path met the true source. Moreover, Master Fazhen wonderfully understood expedient and ultimate, comprehensively gathered name and principle, and his path accorded with previous sages. Therefore, relying on the Dharmaguptaka, he established the standards for restraint and performance. Logically he should be taken as patriarchal inheritance. One should contemplate this.

Ji said: The text of Nanshan's commentaries, at first glance, seems to merely have praise and criticism, acceptance and rejection regarding vinaya practice and protection. Upon careful consideration, the intention lies in rejecting the emotional views of the contemporary world in order to revive the orthodox school of the five masters of different periods who equally cultivated the three studies.

Third, regarding doctrinal purport: taking the great path of equally cultivating the three studies as the foundation, with the aim of subduing the three poisons, realizing the four fruits, and advancing toward the Mahāyāna great bodhi path. Nanshan's foundation is as described above. Taking vinaya as foundation means that vinaya is the great earth of Buddha-dharma, from which myriad virtues grow. Also, vinaya is the great teacher after the Buddha's passing, what all Buddha-disciples depend upon for dwelling. Also, vinaya is the common track of śramaṇas. Also, vinaya is the dharma commonly studied by the three vehicles. Also,

【Sixty-fifth Page Lower Section】
it corrects the harm of those in the contemporary world who recklessly claim Mahāyāna while obliterating vinaya. Having such various reasons, vinaya is taken as foundation. This is definitely not one-sidedly grasping vinaya to establish the school. Question: Equal cultivation of the three studies is the pure transformation of true dharma. Our school taking this as foundation is logically admirable. Please provide textual proof. Answer: Textual proofs are quite numerous. Now I'll present a couple. The first volume of the Precept Commentary says: "The great sage descended and initially opened the foundation of transformation. Intending to rescue and deliver all existence, causing them equally to reach the other shore. Establishing precepts for the path was originally not for worldly merit. However, afflictions and delusions are difficult to purify, necessarily requiring expedient means, establishing the three studies as treatment for the root cause. Therefore the Satyasiddhi says: precepts are like catching thieves, concentration binds them, wisdom kills them. The three practices are mutually dependent and must be integrated. Therefore, bodily and verbal actions constantly violate principle. If not first prevented, one falsely follows dust and desires, then the mind-path becomes agitated and disturbed - how could still concentration arise? If concentration is not cultivated, then regarding the various self-inversions, there is no mind for discernment and selection, clear wisdom naturally hides, and there is no way to meet correctness. Therefore, beginning practitioners must first diligently study precepts, examining and restraining what is wrong and distant. With the three actions purified, right concentration and right wisdom naturally establish. Therefore the sutra says: 'Depending and relying on these precepts, the latter two are generated. Without these precepts, various virtues do not arise.'" Question: Reasoning through principle, precepts calm the three evil destinies, concentration eliminates desire-realm existence, wisdom is not bound by the realms - how can you say above that they are for the path and not merit? Answer: One must understand the distant intention. Investigating the Buddha's descent to the world, how could it be to increase birth? The Yogācāra treatise says: "Precepts are conditioned, contaminated, worldly dharmas." If the original intention of establishment was as expedient for the path, the sages of three vehicles necessarily follow this track. Therefore the vinaya says: "To subdue the three poisons and cause their exhaustion, the increased precept-study is established." The Mahāvibhāṣā also says: "To open the nirvana gate, precepts are established." The text below says: "With pure precepts and wisdom, one attains the first path."