翻刻
【右頁 「大乗法相研神章五巻」最終頁】
【枠外右上】
96
【枠外右横上】
大乘法相硏神章卷第五
【枠外右横下】
九六
【二段構成】
【上段】
應。自幸等補＿二其闕略＿一。加＿中其繕装＿上。傳＿二永世＿一了。是倂
爲＿二敬寶律師等披見＿一也。仰願。曩祖早廻＿二慈眼＿一。令＿レ滿＿二
愚願＿一而已
寶曆第五。歲次乙亥。六月十五日。
眞言一宗勸學院僧正賢賀《割書：春秋｜七十二》
【以下空白】
【末尾】
大乘法相硏神章卷第五
【下段】
【空白】
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
97
【枠外左横上】
唯識分量決
【枠外左横下】
一
【上段】
唯識文量決
四分義 掌珍比量《割書：(考)#1以下缺｜損不明》
開＿二-發論端＿一 二門分別。初標＿二論三分＿一。後釋＿二義《送り仮名：ヲ以》四分＿一。初標＿二
論三分＿一▢《割書：(考)▢恐｜者字》此論本頌唯有＿二正說＿一。闕＿二初後分＿一。判＿二彼
《割書：(考)判彼二字疏｜一本作論其》釋文＿一具有＿二 三分＿一。初歸敬頌及次《割書：(考)頌及次三字原｜本全不明依疏補》
長行是宗前敬敍分。云何世《割書：(考)世字原本｜不明依疏補》間及諸聖敎下名＿二
依敎廣成《割書：(考)敎廣成三｜不明依疏補》分＿一。此論三分成立唯識下第三釋結
施願分。此乃《割書：(考)願分此乃原本｜全不明依疏補》判＿レ彼釋文＿一有＿二斯三分＿一。後釋＿二
義《送り仮名：ヲ以》四分＿一者。於＿レ 中有＿レ 二。初明＿二自體＿一。後《割書：(考)明自體後四字｜原本不明依疏補》廣
問答。初明＿二▢《割書：(考)▢｜恐自》體＿一者。一相分。二見分。三自證。四證自
證《割書：(考)一相分等十三字｜原本全不明依記補》名＿二 四分＿一。謂佛聖敎多說＿二 一分＿一。未＿レ分＿二相
《割書：(考)相原本｜無恐脫》見＿一。如＿三契經說＿二 三界唯心＿一。《割書：(考)契經等原本｜全不明依記補》從＿レ此已《割書：(考)已｜字記》
《割書：作以》後至＿二 九百年＿一。無著世親等開爲＿二 二分＿一。謂相及見。見者
見照能緣爲＿レ義。心性明了能照＿二前境＿一故名爲＿レ見。相者相
貌▢分《割書：(考)▢分二字｜私記作所緣》爲＿レ義。相貌差別爲＿二心所緣＿一故名爲＿レ相。
然此二分猶未＿レ盡＿レ理。是故陳那造＿二集量論等＿一立＿二 三分義＿一。
【下段】
於＿二前二分＿一加＿二自證分＿一。見分體用非＿レ他名＿レ自。此第三分能
知彼＿レ故名爲＿二自證＿一。從＿レ此▢▢▢《割書：(考)原本全不明案已後至｜三字或已後更過󠄁四字歟》一百
年＿一。護法菩薩依＿二厚嚴經＿一。造＿二成假論＿一立＿二 四分義＿一。於▢▢▢
《割書：(考)三字全不明案前三｜分三字或第三更三字》加＿二證自證分＿一。第三體用名爲＿二自證＿一。此第
四分能知＿レ彼故名＿二證自證分＿一。若依＿レ名出＿レ體。相分惣以＿二 十
八界＿一爲＿レ體。▢《割書：(考)▢恐餘之二｜字又後一字》三分總以＿二 八識心及心所＿一爲＿レ
體。總相雖＿レ然約＿二別相門＿一細彰＿二其體＿一。其如＿二文載＿一。後問答
者。於＿レ 中惣有＿二 十五門＿一。《割書：(考)依之准知此寫本恐｜缺＿二 四分相緣門一分＿一》如＿二 下別列＿一。
釋名決疑門
問。若諸如來唯說＿二 一分＿一。未＿レ分＿二相見＿一者。如何厚嚴經說＿レ
有＿二 二分＿一。故彼經云。一切唯有＿レ覺。所覺儀皆無。能覺所覺
分各自《割書：(考)各自二字原本｜全不明依論六補》然而轉。其師疏釋＿二此文＿一云。上之二
句明＿二内心有外境是無＿一。《割書：(考)無原本全不｜明依疏三本補》下二句明＿二自心内《割書：心｜内二》
《割書：字恐｜倒置》見相二分有＿一。《割書：(有)相二分有四字原｜本全不明依疏補》請《割書：(考)請疏作｜謂是也》卽似＿二能所緣
相＿一。是等《割書：(考)等｜疏無》《割書：云云》由＿レ此明知。彼經唯說＿二 二分＿一。 答。理實如
來且《割書：(考)且記｜作亦》說＿二 四分＿一。從＿二多分＿一判故。但《割書：(考)但記｜作且》言＿二 一分＿一。如＿下諸
部般若《割書：(考)記所引｜有經字》具明＿二 三性＿一。而而《割書：(考)而記｜所引無》解深密經判＿二諸般
現代語訳
【右頁「大乗法相研神章五巻」最終頁】
応に自ら幸いにしてその闕略を補い、その繕装を加え、永世に伝えるべし。これは併せて敬宝律師等の披見のためなり。仰ぎ願わくは、昔の祖師が早く慈眼を廻らし、愚願を満たしめんことを。
宝暦第五年、歳次乙亥、六月十五日
真言一宗勧学院僧正賢賀（春秋七十二）
大乗法相研神章巻第五
【左頁】
唯識分量決
四分義 掌珍比量（考：以下欠損不明）
論の端緒を開発するに、二門に分別する。初めに論の三分を標し、後に四分の義を釈す。初めに論の三分を標すとは、この論の本頌には正説のみ有り、初後分を闊く。その釈文を判ずるに、三分を具有する。初めの帰敬頌及び次の長行は宗前敬叙分である。「云何なる世間及び諸聖教」以下を依教広成分と名づく。「この論の三分成立唯識」以下第三を釈結施願分とする。これは彼の釈文を判ずれば、この三分有りということである。
後に四分の義を釈すとは、その中に二有り。初めに自体を明かし、後に広く問答する。初めに自体を明かすとは、一に相分、二に見分、三に自証、四に証自証、これを四分と名づく。
仏の聖教は多く一分を説き、未だ相見を分たず。契経に「三界唯心」と説くが如し。これより已後九百年に至り、無著・世親等がこれを開いて二分となす。謂く相及び見である。見とは見照能縁を義とする。心性明了にして能く前境を照らす故に名づけて見となす。相とは相貌所縁を義とする。相貌差別して心の所縁となる故に名づけて相となす。
然れどもこの二分は猶未だ理を尽くさず。是の故に陳那が集量論等を造って三分義を立つ。前の二分に自証分を加う。見分の体用は他に非ず、自と名づく。この第三分は能くそれを知る故に自証と名づく。
これより已後一百年、護法菩薩が厚厳経に依って成仮論を造り、四分義を立つ。前の三分に証自証分を加う。第三の体用を自証と名づく。この第四分は能くそれを知る故に証自証分と名づく。
名に依って体を出だすに、相分は総じて十八界を以て体となす。余の三分は総じて八識心及び心所を以て体となす。総相は然りと雖も、別相門に約して細かにその体を彰す。その文載の如し。
後の問答とは、その中に総じて十五門有り。下の別列の如し。
釈名決疑門
問：もし諸如来が唯だ一分を説き、未だ相見を分たずとするならば、如何にして厚厳経に二分有りと説くのか。故にその経に云く「一切唯だ覚有り、所覚の儀は皆無し、能覚所覚分各自然として転ず」と。その師がこの文を疏釈して云く「上の二句は内心有りて外境は是れ無なることを明かす。下の二句は自心内の見相二分有ることを明かす」と。謂く即ち能所縁相に似たり。これ等により明らかに知る、その経は唯だ二分を説くと。
答：理実として如来は且く四分を説く。多分より判ずる故に、但だ一分と言う。諸部般若が具に三性を明かすが如く、而して解深密経は諸般若を判ず...
英語訳
【Right page: Final page of "Daijō Hōsō Kenshin-shō, Volume 5"】
One should fortunately supplement its omissions, add proper binding, and transmit it to posterity. This is also for the perusal of Reverend Keihō and others. I humbly pray that the ancient patriarchs quickly turn their compassionate eyes and fulfill this humble wish.
Fifth year of Hōreki era, year of the Metal Boar, fifteenth day of the sixth month
Kanga, Priest-Administrator of the Shingon Sect's Kangaku-in (aged seventy-two)
Daijō Hōsō Kenshin-shō, Volume 5
【Left page】
Yuishiki Bunryō-ketsu (Decisions on Yogācāra Syllogisms)
The Four-Division Theory and Zhangzhen Syllogisms (Note: text below is damaged and unclear)
Opening the discourse, there are two divisions for analysis. First, the three divisions of the treatise are established; second, the meaning of the four divisions is explained. Regarding the first establishment of the three divisions of the treatise: this treatise's root verses contain only the main exposition, lacking the initial and final sections. Judging the commentary text, it completely possesses three divisions. The initial verses of reverence and subsequent prose constitute the preliminary reverent exposition section. From "What worldly [teachings] and various sacred teachings" onward is named the section of extensive establishment based on teachings. From "The three divisions of this treatise establish consciousness-only" onward, the third section is the concluding dedication section. This judges that the commentary text has these three divisions.
Regarding the later explanation of the meaning of the four divisions: within this there are two parts. First, the essence is clarified; second, extensive questions and answers follow. Regarding the initial clarification of essence: first is the aspect-division (ākāra-bhāga), second is the perception-division (darśana-bhāga), third is self-witnessing (svasaṃvedana), fourth is witnessing of self-witnessing (svasaṃvedana-sākṣin). These are called the four divisions.
The Buddha's sacred teachings mostly explain one division, not yet distinguishing aspect and perception. As the sūtra says, "The three realms are mind-only." From this point until nine hundred years later, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu and others opened this into two divisions: aspect and perception. "Perception" means the function of seeing and illuminating what can be cognized. Because the nature of mind is clear and can illuminate objects before it, it is called perception. "Aspect" means the function of characteristics that can be cognized. Because characteristic distinctions become objects of mind's cognition, it is called aspect.
However, these two divisions still do not exhaust the principle. Therefore, Dignāga composed the Pramāṇasamuccaya and other works to establish the three-division theory. To the previous two divisions, the self-witnessing division was added. The essence and function of the perception-division is not other but self. This third division can know that, hence it is called self-witnessing.
From this point, after one hundred years, Bodhisattva Dharmapāla, based on the Ghanavyūha Sūtra, composed the Treatise on Establishing Provisional [Designations] and established the four-division theory. To the previous three divisions, the witnessing of self-witnessing division was added. The essence and function of the third is called self-witnessing. This fourth division can know that, hence it is called the witnessing of self-witnessing division.
According to names to derive essences: the aspect-division generally takes the eighteen elements as its essence. The remaining three divisions generally take the eight consciousnesses, mind, and mental factors as their essence. Although the general characteristics are thus, according to the gate of specific characteristics, their essences are minutely clarified, as recorded in the texts.
Regarding the later questions and answers: within this there are altogether fifteen sections, as separately listed below.
Section on Explaining Names and Resolving Doubts
Question: If the Tathāgatas only explained one division and had not yet distinguished aspect and perception, how does the Ghanavyūha Sūtra speak of having two divisions? Therefore, that sūtra says: "All exists only as awareness; the forms of what is perceived are all nonexistent; the divisions of perceiver and perceived each naturally transform." The master's commentary on this passage says: "The upper two lines clarify that inner mind exists while outer objects are nonexistent. The lower two lines clarify that within one's own mind, the two divisions of perception and aspect exist." This means they resemble the characteristics of cognizer and cognized. From this it is clearly known that the sūtra explains only two divisions.
Answer: In reality, the Tathāgata provisionally explains four divisions. Judging from the majority, it simply speaks of one division. Just as the various Prajñāpāramitā [sūtras] fully clarify the three natures, while the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra judges the various Prajñāpāramitā [teachings]...