一　一乗義私記三巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

【右頁】
【枠外右上】
一五二 【但し算用数字】
【枠外右横上】
一乘義私記卷第二
【枠外右横下】
六〇
【本文二段構成】
【上段】
水抄云。未＿レ有＿下捨＿二-却四乘外一乘＿一。取＿中餘四乘中定性果＿上
《割書：云云》。《割書：此抄說不＿レ可＿レ然之。｜義是轉展末義也。》　問。章云。亦非＿レ破＿レ 五。執＿二￣セシム不
定乘＿一。同執＿レ 三故《割書：云云》意何。　答。是第二展轉破也。古師
有義中。亦可＿レ有＿乙爲＿レ破＿下執＿二 五乘＿一爲＿上レ極說＿レ 一之義＿甲。故亦展
轉破云也。《割書：未＿レ詳＿二誰有義＿一｜後可＿レ尋＿レ之。》　問。爾此破意何。　答。此經說＿二
一乘＿一之意。亦非＿下【レ点ヵ】爲＿レ破＿下執＿三楞伽等經說＿二 五乘＿一爲＿上レ極說＿二 一
乘＿一。所以者何。五乘中有＿二不定乘性者＿一。謂三乘性不定者。
此人身中有＿二 三乘種性＿一。若執＿二 二乘＿一爲＿レ極。破＿レ之如＿レ前。若
執＿二大乘＿一爲＿レ極。非＿二是所破＿一。故云＿下執＿二不定乘＿一同＿レ執＿レ 三故也＿上。
約＿二 人天乘＿一如＿二前破中說＿一也。故不＿レ可＿レ云＿下爲＿レ破＿二執＿レ 五爲＿一レ極
說＿上レ 一也。《割書：爲言》水抄云。若執＿二 五中二乘＿一爲＿レ極。不＿レ異＿二破＿レ 二
歸＿一レ 一。若執＿二大乘＿一者。卽不＿レ異＿二破＿レ 三之過＿一。若執＿二 人天乘＿一。亦
同＿二前破意＿一也。又若發＿二聲聞緣覺心＿一。修＿二聲聞緣覺行＿一。卽是
破＿二前二乘執＿一故。若發＿二大乘心＿一。不違＿二-越大＿一。何須＿レ破＿レ之。據＿レ
實而言。倶破＿レ執＿二 二乘＿一。不＿レ破＿レ大也《割書：云云》。　問。且其五乘者
何。　答。約＿二 五乘＿一有＿二 二說＿一。一云。聲聞緣覺佛乘爲＿レ 三。第
四人乘。第五天乘《割書：是善戒經｜之意也。》二云。三乘如＿レ前。第四不定
【下段】
乘《割書：亦名＿二種｜々乘＿一。》第五人天乘《割書：是稱讚大乘功德經｜及楞伽經之意也。》　今章所＿レ引是
後說也。　問。章云。由＿レ此勝鬘。唯云＿下阿羅漢辟支佛有＿二
恐怖＿一。言＿レ得＿二 四智及𣵀槃＿一者。是佛方便＿上《割書：云云》意何。　答。上
破＿二他師＿一了。今爲＿レ成＿二自義＿一引＿二證文＿一。故云＿二由此＿一也。引證
有＿レ 五。是第一證也。　問。以＿二此文＿一如何成＿二自義＿一。　答。旣唯
云＿下羅漢支佛有＿二恐怖＿一等＿上。不＿レ加＿二菩薩＿一。明知。破＿レ 二非＿レ破＿レ 三
也。《割書：爲言》《割書：經文義如＿二｜上說了＿一。》　問。章云。此經亦云。唯此一事實。餘二
卽非＿レ眞《割書：云云》意何。　答。是第二證也。　問。何證耶。答。
旣云＿二餘二非＿一レ 眞。不＿レ云＿二餘三＿一。明知。唯破＿レ 二不＿レ破＿レ 三也。
《割書：爲言》《割書：文義如＿二｜上記了＿一》　問。章云。密遣＿二 二人＿一《割書：云云》意何。　答。第三
證也。　問。如何證耶。　答。此文信解品窮子喩中。父欲＿レ
誘＿二-引子＿一之詞也。具文云。爾時長者。將＿レ欲＿レ誘＿二-引其子＿一。而
設＿二方便＿一。密遣＿下 二人形色憔悴無＿二威德＿一者＿上《割書：云云》。玄贊云。實
無＿二 二體＿一。設有＿二 二乘之敎＿一。故言＿二密遣＿一。方便之敎。但化＿二 二
乘＿一。故言＿二 二人＿一。智惠狹劣。名＿二色憔悴＿一。神通不＿レ大。名＿二無威
德＿一《割書：云云》。旣二乘敎名＿二 二人＿一。若加＿二菩薩＿一可＿レ云＿二 三人＿一。故知。
破＿レ 二不＿レ破＿レ 三也。《割書：爲言》　問。章云。息處說＿レ 二《割書：云云》意何。
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
一五三【但し算用数字】
【枠外左横上】
一乘義私記卷第二
【枠外左横下】
六一
【本文二段構成】
【上段】
答。是第四證也。　問。如何證＿レ之。　答。是化城喩品末
頌文也。具文云。諸佛方便力。分別說＿二 三乘＿一。唯有＿二 一佛
乘＿一。息處故說＿レ 二《割書：云云》。卽與＿乙長行云＿下爲＿二止息＿一故說＿中 二𣵀槃＿上
文＿甲同也。玄贊云。二機所學。二智所＿レ證。名＿二 二𣵀槃＿一《割書：云云》。
旣二乘所證。名＿二 二𣵀槃＿一喩＿二化城＿一。明知。破＿レ 二不＿レ破＿レ 三也。
《割書：爲言》　問。古師會云。有餘無餘二𣵀槃。名＿二 二𣵀槃＿一。非＿三 二
乘所證故名＿二 二𣵀槃＿一。是如何可＿レ破耶。　答。玄贊云。非＿下
說＿二有餘無餘＿一爲＿上レ 二《割書：云云》。意云。二乘入＿二無餘𣵀槃＿一。灰身滅
智。身智都盡。心想永不＿二生起＿一。何云＿下廻心向大。捨＿二化城＿一至＿中
寶所＿上。故古師義。有＿下違＿二聖敎＿一之失＿上。《割書：爲言》　問。古師難云。若
爾何楞伽經。云＿下大惠菩薩白＿レ佛言。世尊云何聲聞。佛說＿レ
得＿レ成＿三阿耨菩提。佛告＿二大惠＿一。爲＿二無餘𣵀槃者＿一說＿上《割書：云云》。又智
度論云。斷＿二 三界業煩惱＿一。入＿二無餘𣵀槃＿一。而生＿二淨土＿一。聞＿二法華
經＿一《割書：云云》以＿レ此見無＿レ有＿二 二乘終不＿一レ成＿レ佛。雖＿レ住＿二無餘𣵀槃＿一。
亦遂廻心向大成＿レ佛者也。瑜伽等說＿三唯住＿二有餘𣵀槃＿一者。
約＿二近易＿一レ知說也。而何說＿下入＿二無餘＿一者都不＿中廻心＿上 耶。此如
何可＿レ通。　答。如＿二瑜伽說＿一。楞伽經文。方便示＿三-現入＿二無餘
【下段】
依＿一。假說＿二此人＿一爲＿下入＿二無餘＿一者＿上。實是廻向菩提聲聞。住＿二有
餘𣵀槃＿一。三昧酒醉。是不定性人。住＿二於寂定＿一。後出＿レ定已。趣＿二-
向大乘＿一。爲＿二變易身＿一也。智度論文。受＿二變易報＿一。往＿二返化土＿一。
聞＿二法華經＿一。以＿レ往爲＿レ生。非＿二是受生＿一。故不＿二相違＿一也。《割書：可＿レ見＿二｜伽抄第》
《割書：十二｜文＿一。》　問。章云。羊鹿非＿レ眞。不＿レ說＿二 三言＿一《割書：云云》意何。　答。是
第五證也。　問。以＿二此文＿一如何證耶。　答。譬喩品中所＿レ說
羊鹿二車。論中釋云。第一人者。示＿二現世間中種々善根
三昧功德＿一。方便令＿レ喜。然後令＿レ入＿二大𣵀槃＿一故《割書：云云》。其方便
令喜者。釋＿二羊鹿二車有＿レ名無＿レ體之所以＿一。故云＿二羊鹿非＿一レ眞
也。若破＿レ 三者。可＿レ言＿三牛車亦非＿二實車＿一。而只言＿二 二車＿一不＿レ言＿二
三車＿一。明知。破＿レ 二不＿レ破＿レ 三也。《割書：爲言》故能成＿レ證也。然不說三
言之句。貫＿二-通上餘四證文＿一。今結處故。在＿二第五證下＿一。學者
可＿レ察＿レ之。　問。章云。從＿レ勝至＿レ劣數。佛乘第一。獨覺第
二。聲聞第三。無＿二第二獨覺＿一。無＿二第三聲聞＿一。非＿レ無＿二 三乘之
中大乘體￣ノ 極＿一￣モ。勘＿二梵本＿一云＿三無第二第三。今翻＿レ之略故。
云＿二無二亦無三＿一也《割書：云云》意何。　答。是上引＿レ證成＿二自義＿一了。
還撃＿二古師之朦＿一。令＿二彼信知＿一也。古師不＿レ知＿二 三乘從＿レ勝至＿レ

現代語訳

【右頁】

水抄に云う「未だ四乗の外の一乗を捨却して、余の四乗中の定性果を取ることは有らず」と。

問：章に云う「亦た五を破するに非ず。不定乗を執せしむこと、三を執するに同じき故なり」とあるが、意は何か。

答：是れ第二展転破である。古師の義の中に、亦た五乗を執して極と為すことを破するために一を説くの義有るべし。故に亦た展転して破すと云うなり。

問：そうするとこの破の意は何か。

答：この経が一乗を説く意は、亦た楞伽等の経の説く五乗を執して極と為すことを破するために一乗を説くのではない。所以は何ぞ。五乗中に不定乗性の者有り。謂く三乗性の不定なる者である。この人の身中に三乗の種性有り。若し二乗を執して極と為せば、これを破すること前の如し。若し大乗を執して極と為せば、是れ所破に非ず。故に「不定乗を執することは三を執するに同じ」と云うなり。人天乗については前破中に説くが如しである。故に五を執して極と為すことを破するために一を説くと云うべからず。

水抄に云う「若し五中の二乗を執して極と為せば、二を破して一に帰するに異ならず。若し大乗を執すれば、即ち三を破するの過に異ならず。若し人天乗を執すれば、亦た前破の意に同じである。また若し声聞縁覚の心を発して、声聞縁覚の行を修すれば、即ち是れ前の二乗執を破する故なり。若し大乗心を発すれば、大を違越せず。何ぞ須らくこれを破すべけんや。実に據って言えば、倶に二乗を執することを破して、大を破せざるなり」と。

問：その五乗とは何か。

答：五乗について二説有り。一に云う、声聞縁覚仏乗を三と為し、第四は人乗、第五は天乗である。二に云う、三乗は前の如く、第四は不定

【下段】

乗（亦た種々乗と名づく）、第五は人天乗である。今章の引く所は是れ後説である。

問：章に云う「此に由って勝鬘は、唯だ『阿羅漢辟支仏に恐怖有り。四智及び涅槃を得ると言うは、是れ仏の方便なり』と云う」とあるが、意は何か。

答：上で他師を破し了わって、今自義を成さんが為に証文を引く。故に「此に由って」と云うなり。引証に五有り。是れ第一証である。

問：この文を以って如何に自義を成すか。

答：既に唯だ「羅漢支仏に恐怖有り」等と云って、菩薩を加えず。明らかに知る、二を破して三を破するに非ざることを。

問：章に云う「此の経亦た云う『唯だ此の一事実のみ。余の二は即ち真に非ず』」とあるが、意は何か。

答：是れ第二証である。

問：何を証するか。

答：既に「余の二は真に非ず」と云って、「余の三」と云わず。明らかに知る、唯だ二を破して三を破せざることを。

問：章に云う「密かに二人を遣わす」とあるが、意は何か。

答：第三証である。

問：如何に証するか。

答：この文は信解品の窮子の譬の中で、父が子を誘引せんと欲するの詞である。具文に云う「爾の時長者、將に其の子を誘引せんと欲して、而も方便を設く。密かに二人の形色憔悴して威徳無き者を遣わす」と。玄賛に云う「実に二体無し。設い二乗の教有るとも、故に『密遣』と言う。方便の教は、但だ二乗を化するのみ。故に『二人』と言う。智慧狭劣なることを『色憔悴』と名づけ、神通大ならざることを『無威徳』と名づく」と。既に二乗教を「二人」と名づく。若し菩薩を加えれば「三人」と云うべし。故に知る、二を破して三を破せざることを。

問：章に云う「息処に二を説く」とあるが、意は何か。

【左頁】

答：是れ第四証である。

問：如何にこれを証するか。

答：是れ化城譬品の末の頒文である。具文に云う「諸仏の方便力もて、分別して三乗を説く。唯だ一仏乗のみ有り。息処の故に二を説く」と。即ち長行に「止息の為めの故に二涅槃を説く」という文と同じである。玄賛に云う「二機の所学、二智の所証を、二涅槃と名づく」と。既に二乗の所証を二涅槃と名づけて化城に譬える。明らかに知る、二を破して三を破せざることを。

問：古師が会して云う「有余無余の二涅槃を二涅槃と名づく。二乗の所証なる故に二涅槃と名づくるに非ず」と。是れ如何に破すべきか。

答：玄賛に云う「有余無余を説いて二と為すに非ず」と。意に云う、二乗が無余涅槃に入れば、灰身滅智して、身智都て尽きて、心想永く生起せず。何ぞ「廻心して大に向かい、化城を捨てて宝所に至る」と云わん。故に古師の義は、聖教に違うの失有り。

問：古師が難じて云う「若し爾らば何ぞ楞伽経に『大慧菩薩仏に白して言さく「世尊、云何が声聞、仏の阿耨菩提を得成すと説き給う」と。仏大慧に告げ給わく「無余涅槃の者の為めに説く」』と云わん」と。また智度論に云う「三界の業煩悩を断じて、無余涅槃に入って、而も浄土に生じて、法華経を聞く」と。此れを以って見るに、二乗終に成仏せざること無し。無余涅槃に住すと雖も、亦た遂に廻心して大に向かいて仏と成る者なり。瑜伽等で唯だ有余涅槃に住する者と説くは、近く知り易きについて説くなり。而して何ぞ無余に入る者は都て廻心せずと説かん。此れ如何に通ずべきか。

答：瑜伽の説の如く、楞伽経の文は、方便に無余依に入ることを示現して、假にこの人を無余に入る者と為すと説く。実は是れ廻向菩提の声聞で、有余涅槃に住して、三昧酒に醉う。是れ不定性人で、寂定に住して、後に定を出で已って、大乗に趣向して、変易身と為るなり。智度論の文は、変易報を受けて、往反して化土に至り、法華経を聞くのであって、往を以って生と為すも、是れ受生に非ず。故に相違せざるなり。

問：章に云う「羊鹿は真に非ず。三言を説かず」とあるが、意は何か。

答：是れ第五証である。

問：この文を以って如何に証するか。

答：譬喩品中の所説の羊鹿二車について、論中に釈して云う「第一の人は、世間中の種々の善根三昧功徳を示現して、方便に喜ばしめ、然る後に大涅槃に入らしむる故なり」と。その「方便に喜ばしむ」とは、羊鹿二車の名有って体無きの所以を釈するものである。故に「羊鹿は真に非ず」と云うなり。若し三を破するなら、「牛車も亦た実車に非ず」と言うべし。而して只だ「二車」と言って「三車」と言わず。明らかに知る、二を破して三を破せざることを。故に能く証を成すなり。然るに「三言を説かず」の句は、上の余の四証文に貫通するものである。今結ぶ処なる故に、第五証の下に在り。学者察すべし。

問：章に云う「勝より劣に至るまで数えて、仏乗第一、独覚第二、声聞第三なり。第二の独覚無く、第三の声聞無きも、三乗の中の大乗体の極無きに非ず。梵本を勘するに『第二第三無し』と云う。今これを翻ずること略なる故に、『二も無く亦た三も無し』と云うなり」とあるが、意は何か。

答：是れ上で証を引いて自義を成し了わって、還って古師の朦昧を撃って、彼をして信知せしむるなり。古師は三乗が勝より

英語訳

【Right Page】

The Water Commentary states: "There has never been abandoning the One Vehicle outside the four vehicles to take the definitive fruits among the remaining four vehicles."

Question: The treatise states: "Also it is not breaking five. Making them cling to the indeterminate vehicle is the same as clinging to three." What does this mean?

Answer: This is the second successive refutation. Among the ancient masters' doctrines, there may also be the doctrine of teaching one to break attachment to the five vehicles as ultimate. Therefore it also successively refutes this.

Question: Then what is the meaning of this refutation?

Answer: The intention of this sūtra in teaching the One Vehicle is also not to break attachment to the five vehicles taught in the Laṅkāvatāra and other sūtras as ultimate in order to teach the One Vehicle. Why is this? Among the five vehicles there are those of indeterminate vehicle nature—namely, those whose three-vehicle nature is indeterminate. Within these people's bodies are the spiritual capacities of the three vehicles. If they cling to the two vehicles as ultimate, breaking this is as before. If they cling to the Mahāyāna as ultimate, this is not what should be broken. Therefore it says "making them cling to the indeterminate vehicle is the same as clinging to three." Regarding human and heavenly vehicles, it is as explained in the previous refutation. Therefore one cannot say that one is taught to break attachment to the five as ultimate.

The Water Commentary states: "If clinging to the two vehicles among the five as ultimate, it is no different from breaking two to return to one. If clinging to Mahāyāna, it is no different from the fault of breaking three. If clinging to human and heavenly vehicles, it is also the same as the previous refutation's meaning. Also, if generating śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha minds and cultivating śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha practices, this breaks the previous two-vehicle attachments. If generating Mahāyāna mind, it does not transgress the great. Why would it need to be broken? Speaking according to reality, both break attachment to the two vehicles and do not break the great."

Question: What are those five vehicles?

Answer: Regarding the five vehicles there are two explanations. One says: śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and buddha vehicles make three; the fourth is human vehicle; the fifth is heavenly vehicle. Two says: the three vehicles are as before; the fourth is indeterminate

【Lower Section】

vehicle (also called various-seed vehicle); the fifth is human-heavenly vehicle. What the current treatise quotes is the latter explanation.

Question: The treatise states: "Therefore the Śrīmālā only says 'arhats and pratyekabuddhas have fear; saying they attain the four wisdoms and nirvāṇa is the Buddha's expedient.'" What does this mean?

Answer: Having finished refuting other masters above, now to establish one's own doctrine, testimonial passages are quoted. Therefore it says "therefore." There are five quoted testimonies; this is the first testimony.

Question: How does this passage establish one's own doctrine?

Answer: Since it only says "arhats and pratyekabuddhas have fear" etc. and does not include bodhisattvas, it is clearly known that two are broken but not three.

Question: The treatise states: "This sūtra also says 'Only this one reality exists; the other two are not true.'" What does this mean?

Answer: This is the second testimony.

Question: What does it testify to?

Answer: Since it says "the other two are not true" and does not say "the other three," it is clearly known that only two are broken and three are not broken.

Question: The treatise states: "Secretly dispatching two people." What does this mean?

Answer: The third testimony.

Question: How does it testify?

Answer: This passage is from the poor son parable in the Chapter on Faith and Understanding, where the father wishes to entice and guide his son. The complete text states: "At that time the elder, wishing to entice and guide his son, devised expedient means and secretly dispatched two people of haggard appearance without威德." The Profound Praise states: "There are actually no two essences. Even if there are two-vehicle teachings, therefore it says 'secretly dispatched.' The expedient teaching only transforms the two vehicles, therefore it says 'two people.' Limited wisdom is called 'haggard appearance'; spiritual powers not being great is called 'without威德.'" Since two-vehicle teaching is called "two people," if bodhisattvas were added it should say "three people." Therefore it is known that two are broken but not three.

Question: The treatise states: "At the resting place two are taught." What does this mean?

【Left Page】

Answer: This is the fourth testimony.

Question: How does this testify?

Answer: This is from the verse at the end of the Phantom City Parable chapter. The complete text states: "Through the Buddhas' expedient power, they distinguish and teach three vehicles. There is only one Buddha Vehicle; for the sake of a resting place, two are taught." This is the same as the prose passage saying "for the sake of stopping and resting, two nirvāṇas are taught." The Profound Praise states: "What the two spiritual capacities study and what the two wisdoms realize are called two nirvāṇas." Since what the two vehicles realize is called two nirvāṇas and compared to phantom cities, it is clearly known that two are broken but not three.

Question: The ancient masters reconcile this saying: "The two nirvāṇas with remainder and without remainder are called two nirvāṇas, not because they are what the two vehicles realize." How should this be refuted?

Answer: The Profound Praise states: "It does not speak of with remainder and without remainder as two." The meaning is: if the two vehicles enter nirvāṇa without remainder, with body reduced to ash and consciousness extinguished, body and consciousness completely exhausted, and mental formations never arising again, how can one speak of "turning mind toward the great, abandoning the phantom city to reach the treasure place"? Therefore the ancient masters' doctrine has the fault of contradicting the sacred teachings.

Question: The ancient masters object: "If so, why does the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra say 'Mahāmati Bodhisattva addressed the Buddha saying: "World-Honored One, how do you say śrāvakas attain anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi?" The Buddha told Mahāmati: "This is spoken for those in nirvāṇa without remainder"'? Also the Treatise on Great Wisdom states: 'Severing the karma and afflictions of the three realms, entering nirvāṇa without remainder, yet being born in pure lands and hearing the Lotus Sūtra.' From this we see there are no two vehicles that ultimately do not become Buddha. Though dwelling in nirvāṇa without remainder, they eventually turn their minds toward the great and become Buddha. The Yogācāra and others speak of only dwelling in nirvāṇa with remainder, explaining according to what is near and easy to know. Why say those who enter the without-remainder completely do not turn their minds?" How should this be reconciled?

Answer: As the Yogācāra explains, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra passage expeditiously shows entering dependence without remainder, provisionally speaking of such people as those who enter the without-remainder. In reality these are śrāvakas who turn toward bodhi, dwelling in nirvāṇa with remainder, intoxicated by samādhi wine. These are people of indeterminate nature dwelling in quiescent concentration who later emerge from concentration and advance toward Mahāyāna, becoming transformation bodies. The Treatise on Great Wisdom passage refers to receiving transformation recompense, going back and forth to transformation lands, and hearing the Lotus Sūtra—taking going as birth, but this is not actual rebirth. Therefore there is no contradiction.

Question: The treatise states: "Sheep and deer are not real; it does not speak of three." What does this meaning?

Answer: This is the fifth testimony.

Question: How does this passage testify?

Answer: Regarding the two carts of sheep and deer explained in the Parable chapter, the treatise commentary states: "The first person demonstrates various good roots, samādhi, and merits in the world, expeditiously making them rejoice, then afterwards making them enter great nirvāṇa." That "expeditiously making them rejoice" explains the reason why the two carts of sheep and deer have names but no substance. Therefore it says "sheep and deer are not real." If three were broken, it should say "the ox cart is also not a real cart." But it only says "two carts" and does not say "three carts." It is clearly known that two are broken but not three. Therefore it successfully establishes testimony. However, the phrase "does not speak of three" runs through the above four other testimonial passages. Since this is now the concluding place, it appears under the fifth testimony. Students should examine this.

Question: The treatise states: "Counting from superior to inferior: buddha vehicle is first, solitary enlightenment second, śrāvaka third. There being no second solitary enlightenment and no third śrāvaka does not mean there is no ultimate essence of Mahāyāna among the three vehicles. Examining the Sanskrit original, it says 'there is no second and third.' The present translation is abbreviated, therefore it says 'there is no two and also no three.'" What does this mean?

Answer: Having finished quoting testimony to establish one's own doctrine above, this now strikes back at the ancient masters' confusion to make them believe and understand. The ancient masters do not understand that the three vehicles from superior to