一　護国鈔三巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

【十八頁上】
如來品＿一。應＿レ知觀空即護佛果也。行化十地四字不＿レ明。讀
者善思不＿レ能＿二委記＿一。
經。白佛言若諸法爾《割書：□【(国構えに考)】爾下經｜有者字》菩薩護化衆生爲化衆生耶
大王法性色受想行識常樂我淨不住色不住非色不住非
非色乃至受想行識亦不住非非住何以故非色如非非色
如世諦故三假故名見衆生一切生《割書：□【(国構えに考)】生一｜作法》性實故乃至諸
佛三乘七賢八聖亦名見《割書：□【(国構えに考)】見下經有六十二｜見亦名見之七字》大王若以名名
見一切法乃至諸佛三乘四生者非非見一切法也。
液云。此下第二問答分別。文二。初問＿二答三種般若＿一。後大
王若菩薩下擧＿レ妄返結。測云。白佛言若諸至＿二摩訶衍空＿一。第
二問答重釋。文別有＿レ 三。初明＿二實相般若＿一。次白佛言下明＿二
觀照般若＿一。後此經名味句下讚＿二文字般若＿一。《割書：液賁意同分＿レ文少｜異。以＿二 三般若＿一》
《割書：對＿二此三文＿一｜善得＿二經意＿一》若諸法爾者菩薩護化衆生爲化衆生耶者。《割書：新云。｜若菩》
《割書：薩衆生性無二者菩薩｜以何相而化衆生耶》液云。諸法爾者謂＿二同一如＿一也。此即無＿二菩
薩＿一無＿二衆生＿一。云何有＿レ化《割書：私云。順＿二｜新本＿一。》藏等意同。法性色受想行
識常樂我淨不住色不住非色不住非非色乃至受想行識
亦不住非非住者。新云。色受想行識常樂我淨法性不住

【十八頁下】
色不住非色受想行識常樂我淨亦不住淨不住非淨。測
云。自下第二如來正答。文二。初明＿二依＿レ眞觀＿レ空不＿一＿レ化。後
辨＿三依＿レ俗能化＿二衆生＿一。此初也。法性色受想行識等者。私撿＿二
維摩玄五＿一云。思議解脫滅＿レ色取＿レ空。是故有餘解脱。色心
因滅。無餘解脫色心果滅。既約＿二無色無心＿一以明＿二解脫＿一。故
無＿レ體也。若是不思議解脫觀＿二色心即是法性之色心＿一。本
無＿二因生＿一故非＿二果滅＿一。見＿二色心不生不滅＿一而得＿二解脱＿一。故有＿二
眞善妙色妙心之體＿一也。故涅槃經云。解脫有＿二 二種＿一。亦色
非色。非色者聲聞緣覺。色者諸佛如來所得解脱。又云。
妙色湛然常安住。不＿下爲＿二生老病死＿一之所＿上＿レ遷。又云。色解脫
涅槃。受想行識解脱涅槃。即是仁王經明。法性￣ノ色想行
識。解脫若無＿レ色者如＿二死人＿一。那得＿二解脱＿一也。藏云。文言＿二法
性即色受想行識＿一《割書：□【(国構えに考)】文言等十字｜恐有前後脱文》液云。五陰妄執四倒惑。見＿二
了之＿一即眞同名＿二法性＿一。不住色等者。一卷云。具足爲＿レ語應＿レ
有＿二 四句＿一。色非色亦色亦非色非色非非色。餘四陰一切法
皆爾。今文略故且云＿二非色非非色＿一。藏云。五陰四德俱離＿二
名言＿一同絕＿二 四句＿一。顯＿二本住行＿一。測出＿二異解＿一云。言＿二不住＿一者。

【十九頁上】
謂內證智不＿二執著＿一故。名爲＿二不住＿一。如＿二攝大乘＿一。色有＿二 三種＿一。
一分別色。即是遍計所執。二種類色。是依他起。三法然
《割書：□【(国構えに考)】然疏｜作性》色是圓成實。由＿二 三無性＿一 遣＿二 三性色＿一。故言＿二不住色
乃至不住非非色＿一。一云。法性眞如離＿二 四句＿一絕＿二百非＿一。液云。
色有色空色性不住。此三即名＿二法性＿一。餘陰亦然。私云。此
釋善順＿二 天台三諦＿一。恐是破＿二別三＿一。以顯＿二圓三＿一歟。然有＿二 三敎
機＿一。一意《割書：□【(国構えに考)】意疑｜音乎》異解。故不＿レ可＿レ遮＿二餘異解＿一也。乃至受想行
識亦不住非非住者。測云。類＿二釋四陰＿一而言＿二不住非非住＿一
者。爲＿二存略＿一故擧＿レ後攝＿レ前。私云。受想行識亦不住者。類＿二
釋四陰＿一。非非住者。通冠＿二 五陰＿一。上說＿二不住五陰＿一。今還破＿レ
著＿二不住＿一。何以故非色如非非色如者。《割書：新云。何以故以諸｜法性悉皆空故》一卷
云。釋＿二前不住＿一有＿レ 二。初正釋＿二眞空＿一。後對明＿二假有＿一。今此文
甚略。若廣釋一一對《割書：□【(国構えに考)】對下恐｜脱應字》釋＿二 上諸句＿一。謂色如非色如
非非色如也。測同＿レ之。藏云。非色如者。非＿二折＿レ色然後始空＿一
色體本來空故。非非色如者。非＿二離＿レ色外別有＿一＿レ空。色即空
也。液云。色性本空無＿レ色無＿二非色＿一故。私云。今且略擧＿レ色歟。
四陰及諸法亦應＿二如＿レ是說＿一。故新總云＿二諸法皆空＿一。又非色

【十九頁下】
如等者。前言＿二法性色＿一者。非色如故也。非非住色者。非非
色如故。世諦故至＿二 一切法也＿一。新云。由世諦故。由三假故。
一切有情。蘊處界法。造福非福。不動行等因果皆有。 三
乘賢聖所修諸行。乃至佛果。皆名爲＿レ有。六十二見亦名
爲＿レ有。大王若著名相。分別諸法。五《割書：□【(国構えに考)】五經｜作六》趣四生三乘行
果。即是不見諸法實性。測意自下第二依＿レ俗能化＿二衆生＿一。
三假者。法受名。一切生性實故者。本記云。非＿二勝義中實
性＿一。可得而俗諦中四生有實性。《割書：私云。此釋順＿二智論意＿一但細｜分＿レ文不＿レ明故不＿二具出＿一》
液意云。世諦故至＿二名見衆生＿一。標＿二假名＿一 一切生性實故下。
執＿レ假爲＿レ實。若以名名下。著＿二見法＿一非＿二眞見＿一也。私云。此解
無＿レ咎。但非眞見者。雖＿レ似＿二遠住非非見文＿一。而能順＿二新本
不見實性文＿一。今助顯云。言＿二非見＿一者非＿二邪見＿一也。返顯＿レ見＿二
實性＿一。非非見者。即顯＿三非見非＿二見實性＿一也。藏意云。世諦故
等者。隨＿レ俗故化＿二衆生＿一。一切生性實故者。結＿二 上衆生不可
得義＿一。衆生空寂名＿二性實＿一也。乃至諸佛至＿二見亦名見＿一明＿二見
著＿一。若以名名下結＿二正見＿一。《割書：私云。此亦無＿レ失。新｜舊異説不＿二必可＿一＿レ會。》一卷云。世諦故
至＿二名見衆＿一。明＿二假成＿一＿レ空。一切生至＿二見亦名見＿一。執＿二有性＿一者

現代語訳

【十八頁上】
如来品」と名づけるべきである。観空即ち護仏果であることを知るべきである。「行化十地」の四字は明確でない。読者は善く思惟すべきで、委しく記すことはできない。

経。仏に白して言う。もし諸法がそのようであるなら、菩薩が衆生を護り化するのは、衆生を化するためか。

大王よ、法性の色・受想行識・常楽我浄は、色に住せず、非色に住せず、非非色に住せず、乃至受想行識もまた非非住に住せず。何故かというと、非色の如く非非色の如きは、世諦の故に、三假の故に、名づけて衆生を見、一切の生の性は実の故に、乃至諸仏・三乗・七賢八聖も亦た名づけて見という。大王よ、もし名を以て一切法乃至諸仏・三乗・四生を名見するなら、これは一切法を非見することでもない。

液師は云う。この下は第二の問答分別である。文に二つあり、初めは三種般若を問答し、後の「大王若菩薩」以下は妄を挙げて返結する。測師は云う。「白仏言若諸」から「摩訶衍空」に至るまでは、第二の問答重釈である。文別に三つあり、初めは実相般若を明かし、次の「白仏言」以下は観照般若を明かし、後の「此経名味句」以下は文字般若を讃ずる。液師・賁師の意も同じく、文を分けることは少し異なるが、三般若を以てこの三文に対応させることで、善く経意を得ている。

「若諸法爾者菩薩護化衆生為化衆生耶」とは、新訳では「若し菩薩と衆生の性が無二であるなら、菩薩は何の相を以て衆生を化するのか」とある。液師は云う、「諸法爾」とは同一如を謂うのである。これは即ち菩薩も無く衆生も無い。どうして化があろうか。私云う、新本に順ずる。蔵師等の意も同じである。

「法性色受想行識常楽我浄不住色不住非色不住非非色乃至受想行識亦不住非非住」とは、新訳では「色受想行識常楽我浄の法性は色に住せず非色に住せず、受想行識常楽我浄もまた浄に住せず非浄に住せず」とある。

【十八頁下】
測師は云う。以下第二は如来の正答である。文に二つあり、初めは真に依って空を観じて化せざることを明かし、後は俗に依って能く衆生を化することを弁ずる。これは初めである。

「法性色受想行識」等について、私が維摩玄第五を検するに云う。思議解脱は色を滅して空を取る。故に有余解脱がある。色心の因滅は無余解脱で色心の果滅である。既に無色無心について以て解脱を明かす。故に体が無いのである。もしこれが不思議解脱なら、色心を観じて即ちこれ法性の色心である。本来因生が無いから果滅に非ず。色心不生不滅を見て解脱を得る。故に真善妙色妙心の体があるのである。故に涅槃経に云う「解脱に二種あり。亦た色にして非色。非色とは声聞縁覚、色とは諸仏如来の得る所の解脱」と。また云う「妙色湛然として常に安住し、生老病死の遷す所とならず」と。また云う「色解脱涅槃、受想行識解脱涅槃」と。即ちこれは仁王経に明かす法性の色想行識である。解脱若し色無くば死人の如し。那んぞ解脱を得んや。

蔵師は云う、文言は「法性即色受想行識」である。液師は云う、五陰の妄執・四倒惑を見了すれば即ち真で同じく法性と名づく。「不住色」等について、一巻に云う、具足して語を為すなら応に四句あるべし。色・非色・亦色亦非色・非色非非色。余の四陰・一切法も皆そうである。今の文は略なので且つ「非色非非色」と云う。蔵師は云う、五陰四徳俱に名言を離れ同じく四句を絶し、本住行を顕す。測師は異解を出して云う、「不住」と言うのは

【十九頁上】
内証智が執著しないからで、不住と名づける。摂大乗の如く、色に三種ある。一は分別色で即ち遍計所執、二は種類色で依他起、三は法然色で円成実である。三無性により三性色を遣ずる。故に「不住色乃至不住非非色」と言う。一に云う、法性真如は四句を離れ百非を絶つ。液師は云う、色・有色・空色・性不住、この三を即ち法性と名づく。余陰も亦然り。私云う、この釈は善く天台三諦に順ずる。恐らくは別三を破り、以て円三を顕すのか。然るに三教の機があり、一意の異解がある。故に余の異解を遮すべきでない。

「乃至受想行識亦不住非非住」について、測師は云う、四陰を類釈して「不住非非住」と言うのは、略を存するために後を挙げて前を摂するからである。私云う、「受想行識亦不住」は四陰を類釈し、「非非住」は五陰に通冠する。上で五陰に不住すことを説き、今還って不住に著することを破る。

「何以故非色如非非色如」について、新訳では「何故かというと諸法性悉く皆空なるを以ての故に」とある。一巻に云う、前の不住を釈するに二つあり、初めは正しく真空を釈し、後は対して假有を明かす。今この文は甚だ略である。もし広く釈すなら一一対して上の諸句を釈すべきである。謂わく色如・非色如・非非色如である。測師も同じである。蔵師は云う、「非色如」とは、色を折って然る後に始めて空となるのでなく、色体本来空だからである。「非非色如」とは、色を離れて外に別に空があるのでなく、色即空である。液師は云う、色性本空で色も無く非色も無いからである。私云う、今は且つ略して色を挙げるのか。四陰及び諸法も亦応にこの如く説くべきである。故に新では総じて「諸法皆空」と云う。また「非色

【十九頁下】
如」等について、前に「法性色」と言うのは、非色如の故である。「非非住色」は、非非色如の故である。

「世諦故」から「一切法也」に至る。新訳では「世諦に由るが故に、三假に由るが故に、一切有情・蘊処界法・造福非福・不動行等の因果皆有り。三乗賢聖の修する所の諸行、乃至仏果まで、皆名づけて有とす。六十二見も亦た名づけて有とす。大王よ、もし名相に著して諸法を分別し、六趣四生三乗の行果するなら、即ちこれは諸法の実性を見ざるなり」とある。

測師の意では、以下第二は俗に依って能く衆生を化することである。三假とは法受名である。「一切生性実故」について、本記に云う、勝義中の実性ではなく、得べくして俗諦中の四生に実性があるのである。私云う、この釈は智論の意に順ずるが、細分して文が明でないので具には出さない。

液師の意では、「世諦故」から「名見衆生」までは假名を標し、「一切生性実故」以下は假を執して実となし、「若以名名」以下は見法に著して真見でないことを示す。私云う、この解に咎はない。但し「非真見」は、「非非見の文」に住するに似るが、新本の「不見実性の文」に順ずることができる。今助けて顕すに云う、「非見」と言うのは邪見でないことで、返って実性を見ることを顕す。「非非見」は、即ち見でも実性を見るのでもないことを顕す。

蔵師の意では、「世諦故」等は、俗に随って故に衆生を化す。「一切生性実故」は、上の衆生不可得の義を結ぶ。衆生空寂を性実と名づく。「乃至諸仏」から「見亦名見」までは見著を明かし、「若以名名」以下は正見を結ぶ。私云う、これも失がない。新旧の異説は必ずしも会すべきではない。

一巻に云う、「世諦故」から「名見衆」までは假の空を成ずることを明かし、「一切生」から「見亦名見」までは有性を執する者

英語訳

[Page 18, Upper]
It should be called the "Tathāgata Chapter." One should know that contemplating emptiness is precisely protecting the Buddha fruit. The four characters "practicing the transformation of the ten stages" are not clear. Readers should think well on this - I cannot record it in detail.

Sūtra: Addressing the Buddha: If all dharmas are thus, when bodhisattvas protect and transform sentient beings, is it for transforming sentient beings?

Great King, the dharma-nature of form, sensation-perception-mental formations-consciousness, and permanence-bliss-self-purity does not abide in form, does not abide in non-form, does not abide in non-non-form. Even sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness also do not abide in non-non-abiding. Why? Because non-form as such and non-non-form as such, due to conventional truth, due to the three provisional designations, are called seeing sentient beings. The nature of all beings is real, therefore up to all buddhas, the three vehicles, seven sages and eight saints are also called "seeing." Great King, if one uses names to designate all dharmas up to buddhas, the three vehicles, and four births, this is neither seeing nor not-seeing all dharmas.

Master Dōeki says: From here below is the second section of question-and-answer differentiation. The text has two parts: first, questioning and answering about the three types of prajñā; second, from "Great King, if bodhisattvas..." onward, raising delusion and making a concluding return. Master Wŏnch'ŭk says: From "Addressing the Buddha: If all..." to "Mahāyāna emptiness" is the second question-and-answer re-explanation. The text has three distinct parts: first clarifying true-characteristic prajñā; next, from "Addressing the Buddha..." onward, clarifying contemplative prajñā; finally, from "This sūtra's names, flavors, and phrases..." onward, praising textual prajñā. Masters Dōeki and Liangben's understanding is the same, though they divide the text slightly differently. By using the three prajñās to correspond to these three sections of text, they well capture the sūtra's meaning.

"If all dharmas are thus, when bodhisattvas protect and transform sentient beings, is it for transforming sentient beings?" - the new version says: "If bodhisattvas and sentient beings are non-dual in nature, by what characteristics do bodhisattvas transform sentient beings?" Master Dōeki says: "All dharmas are thus" means identical suchness. This means there are no bodhisattvas and no sentient beings - how could there be transformation? I say: This follows the new version. Master Jizang and others have the same understanding.

"The dharma-nature of form, sensation-perception-mental formations-consciousness, permanence-bliss-self-purity does not abide in form, does not abide in non-form, does not abide in non-non-form, up to sensation-perception-mental formations-consciousness also do not abide in non-non-abiding" - the new version says: "The dharma-nature of form-sensation-perception-mental formations-consciousness-permanence-bliss-self-purity does not abide in form, does not abide in non-form; sensation-perception-mental formations-consciousness-permanence-bliss-self-purity also do not abide in purity, do not abide in non-purity."

[Page 18, Lower]
Master Wŏnch'ŭk says: From below, the second part is the Tathāgata's correct answer. The text has two parts: first, clarifying that depending on truth, one contemplates emptiness and does not transform; second, discriminating that depending on the conventional, one can transform sentient beings. This is the first part.

Regarding "dharma-nature form-sensation-perception-mental formations-consciousness," etc., I examine the Vimalakīrti Xuanyi, fascicle 5, which says: Conceivable liberation extinguishes form and grasps emptiness, therefore there is liberation with remainder. The extinction of form-mind causes is liberation without remainder - the extinction of form-mind effects. Since liberation is clarified in terms of no-form and no-mind, there is no substance. If this is inconceivable liberation, then contemplating form-mind, it is precisely the form-mind of dharma-nature. Since there is originally no causal arising, it is not effectual extinction. Seeing form-mind as unborn and unceasing, one attains liberation. Therefore there is the substance of true, good, wondrous form and wondrous mind. Thus the Nirvana Sūtra says: "Liberation has two types: both form and non-form. Non-form refers to śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; form refers to the liberation attained by buddhas and tathāgatas." It also says: "Wondrous form, clear and tranquil, constantly abides peacefully, not moved by birth, old age, sickness, and death." It also says: "Form-liberation nirvana, sensation-perception-mental formations-consciousness liberation nirvana." This is precisely what the Renwang Sūtra clarifies as dharma-nature's form-perception-mental formations-consciousness. If liberation were without form, it would be like a dead person - how could one attain liberation?

Master Jizang says: The text states "dharma-nature is precisely form-sensation-perception-mental formations-consciousness." Master Dōeki says: The delusory attachment to the five aggregates and the four inverted [views] - when seen and understood, they are immediately true and equally called dharma-nature. Regarding "not abiding in form," etc., the first fascicle says: To speak completely, there should be four phrases: form, non-form, both form and non-form, neither form nor non-form. The remaining four aggregates and all dharmas are likewise. The present text is abbreviated, so it simply says "non-form, non-non-form." Master Jizang says: The five aggregates and four virtues all transcend verbal designations, equally transcending the four phrases, revealing originally abiding practice. Master Wŏnch'ŭk presents a different interpretation, saying: Speaking of "not abiding" means

[Page 19, Upper]
that inner-realization wisdom does not cling or attach, hence it is called "not abiding." Like in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, there are three types of form: first, discriminated form, which is parikalpita (imagined nature); second, categorical form, which is paratantra (dependent nature); third, dharma-nature form, which is pariniṣpanna (perfected nature). Through the three naturelessnesses, the three-natured forms are eliminated. Therefore it says "not abiding in form up to not abiding in non-non-form." One interpretation says: dharma-nature suchness transcends the four phrases and transcends the hundred negations. Master Dōeki says: Form, existing-form, empty-form, nature-non-abiding - these three are called dharma-nature. The remaining aggregates are likewise. I say: This interpretation well accords with Tiantai's three truths. Perhaps it breaks the distinct three to reveal the perfect three? However, there are beings of three teaching capacities and different understandings in one meaning, so one should not obstruct other different interpretations.

Regarding "up to sensation-perception-mental formations-consciousness also do not abide in non-non-abiding," Master Wŏnch'ŭk says: Analogously explaining the four aggregates, saying "do not abide in non-non-abiding" is because, to preserve brevity, the latter encompasses the former. I say: "Sensation-perception-mental formations-consciousness also do not abide" analogously explains the four aggregates; "non-non-abiding" generally covers the five aggregates. Above it explained not abiding in the five aggregates; now it again breaks attachment to non-abiding.

"Why? Non-form as such, non-non-form as such" - the new version says: "Why? Because all dharma-natures are completely empty." The first fascicle says: Explaining the previous non-abiding has two parts: first, correctly explaining true emptiness; second, contrastively clarifying provisional existence. The present text is extremely abbreviated. If explained extensively, each should correspondingly explain the above phrases - namely, form as such, non-form as such, non-non-form as such. Master Wŏnch'ŭk agrees. Master Jizang says: "Non-form as such" means not that one breaks form and only then it becomes empty - the form-substance is originally empty. "Non-non-form as such" means not that apart from form there is separately existing emptiness - form is precisely emptiness. Master Dōeki says: Because form-nature is originally empty, there is neither form nor non-form. I say: Now perhaps briefly raising form? The four aggregates and all dharmas should also be explained thus. Therefore the new version generally says "all dharmas are empty." Also, "non-form

[Page 19, Lower]
as such," etc. - previously saying "dharma-nature form" is because of non-form as such. "Non-non-abiding form" is because of non-non-form as such.

From "due to conventional truth" to "all dharmas." The new version says: "Due to conventional truth, due to the three provisional designations, all sentient beings, aggregate-base-element dharmas, creating merit and demerit, immovable actions and other causes and effects all exist. The various practices cultivated by the three vehicles' sages and saints, up to Buddha fruit, are all called 'existing.' The sixty-two [wrong] views are also called 'existing.' Great King, if one clings to name-characteristics and discriminates dharmas, the six destinies, four births, and three vehicles' practices and fruits, this is precisely not seeing the true nature of all dharmas."

According to Master Wŏnch'ŭk's understanding, from below, the second part is depending on the conventional to be able to transform sentient beings. The three provisional designations are dharma-reception-name. Regarding "the nature of all beings is real," the original commentary says: It is not true nature in the ultimate sense, but obtainable - in conventional truth the four births have true nature. I say: This interpretation accords with the Prajñāpāramitā Treatise's meaning, but since the detailed textual divisions are unclear, I do not present them completely.

According to Master Dōeki's understanding: From "due to conventional truth" to "called seeing sentient beings" indicates provisional names; from "the nature of all beings is real" onward grasps the provisional as real; from "if using names to name" onward shows clinging to seeing dharmas as not true seeing. I say: This interpretation is without fault. However, "not true seeing," though it seems to dwell far from the "non-non-seeing text," can accord with the new version's "not seeing true nature text." Now I assist in clarifying: saying "non-seeing" means not wrong views, conversely revealing seeing true nature. "Non-non-seeing" precisely reveals neither seeing nor seeing true nature.

According to Master Jizang's understanding: "Due to conventional truth," etc. means following the conventional therefore transforming sentient beings. "The nature of all beings is real" concludes the above meaning of sentient beings being unattainable. Sentient beings' emptiness and tranquility is called "nature-reality." From "up to all buddhas" to "views also called seeing" clarifies view-attachment. From "if using names to name" onward concludes correct seeing. I say: This is also without error. New and old different explanations need not necessarily be reconciled.

The first fascicle says: From "due to conventional truth" to "called seeing sentient [beings]" clarifies the provisional accomplishment of emptiness. From "all beings" to "views also called seeing" - those who cling to existing nature