応理大乗伝通要録二巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

【右頁】
【枠外右上】
400
【枠外右横上】
應理大乘傳通要錄下
【枠外右横下】
一四
【二段構成】
【上段】
《題：應理大乘傳通󠄁要錄》　下
　　　　　　　　　　　　　興福寺勝󠄁願院良遍󠄁艸
《割書：第九》。次破迷󠄁究竟勝󠄁。謂諸愚夫。無始以來。多著＿二有見＿一。輪
廻無＿レ際。大聖󠄁愍＿レ此。說＿レ空破＿レ有。是爲＿二淺破＿一。衆生由＿レ此
亦著＿二空執＿一。大聖󠄁愍＿レ此。說＿レ 中破＿レ 二。是爲＿二深破＿一。如＿レ是亦
則無始以來多著＿二離執＿一。生死無＿レ息。大聖󠄁愍＿レ此。說＿レ卽破＿レ
離。衆生由＿レ此亦著＿二卽見＿一。大聖󠄁愍＿レ此。說＿レ 中破＿レ 二。淺深顯
然。偏有偏空。旣是妄執。偏離偏卽。何非＿二妄執＿一。由＿レ此如
來解深密經相卽相離深敎＿二-誡之＿一。愚癡頑鈍不明不善不
如理行。《割書：文》則佛自擧＿二種種微妙重重委細不可說難《返り点：一》。廣成＿二
不卽不離之義＿一。其言甚殷重。其理至深奧。誰人向＿レ此生＿二
一念疑＿一。若强留＿二於卽一邊＿一者。恐󠄁非＿二 中道＿一。恐󠄁非＿二離言＿一。豈
說＿二言辭相寂滅＿一耶。何云＿二不可思議法＿一耶。明知。他宗相卽
法門。且破＿二-除下賤凡夫一向各別無始執＿一歟。據＿レ實彼宗
亦是不卽不離義歟。如＿二風聞＿一者。恐󠄁是末學之偏執歟。若
云＿下不＿レ言＿二 一向相卽＿一。難《返り点：レ》除＿二離執＿一故。須＿上レ說者。當＿レ知。卽是
【下段】
初破迷󠄁也。聞＿二此說＿一已。起󠄁《返り点：二》卽見＿一時。便說＿二我宗＿一應＿レ破＿二兩
見＿一。豈非＿二究竟＿一。說＿二於一乘＿一。破＿二 三乘執＿一。說＿二雲雨喩＿一。破＿二乘
一執＿一等。亦此意歟。所以他宗亦是正法。然隱密故。且
說＿二 一門＿一。例如＿下般若雖＿二是正法＿一。而隱密故。且說＿中 一門＿上。如＿レ
是隱密。有＿二相濫＿一故。學者多著＿二於一邊＿一歟。若猶󠄁諍＿レ之。深
密所說重重無盡如來難破。云何遁＿レ之。　《割書：第十》次三學次
第勝󠄁。夫三學三藏相配如＿レ常。淺深次第。其義無＿レ諍。其中
我宗依＿二-學大乘阿毘達磨󠄁《返り点：一》。唯心慧業爲＿二本旨＿一也。其論藏
者。如來所說三藏之中阿毘達磨󠄁。是爲＿二根本＿一。可＿レ通󠄁《返り点：二》菩薩
所說論＿一也。其佛所說阿毘達磨󠄁大乘敎者。卽解深密經。及
阿毘達磨󠄁經等是也。《割書：宗家｜定判󠄁。》雖＿二是經典＿一。性相決擇究竟了義
奧藏故也。夫素怛覽帶＿二於意趣＿一。阿毘達磨󠄁決＿二於性相＿一。帶＿二
意趣＿一者。雖＿二是甚深＿一。而有＿レ濫故。學者多迷󠄁。決＿二性相＿一者。
雖＿レ似＿二分隔＿一。而無＿レ濫故。學者能解。所謂一切皆顯＿二-了之＿一。都
無＿二覆相＿一。有說爲＿レ有。無說爲＿レ無。事說爲＿レ事。理說爲＿レ理。淺
說爲＿レ淺。深說爲＿レ深。詮說爲＿レ詮。肯說爲＿レ肯。卽說爲＿レ卽。
離說爲＿レ離。是爲＿二最極敎＿一。佛意盡顯故。一切敎之中。豈
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
401
【枠外左横上】
應理大乘傳通要錄下
【枠外左横下】
一五
【二段構成】
【上段】
有＿二如＿レ之敎＿一。然則設雖＿レ學＿二於經藏＿一。若不＿レ顯＿二於其意趣＿一者。
云何依＿レ此而得＿レ立＿レ宗。其所＿二顯了＿一。皆當＿二性相＿一。非＿二邪正決
了義＿一之外。以＿二顯了義不可得＿一故。假令餘人私所＿二決了＿一。尙
立爲＿レ宗。何況如來自顯＿二意趣＿一。決＿二-判󠄁性相＿一。了了明明建＿二-
立法門＿一。以＿二大乘至極阿毘達磨󠄁《返り点：一》爲＿二其本經＿一。以＿下補處重廣＿二
如來所＿一レ顯微妙大藏＿上爲＿二本論等＿一之我宗耶。《割書：第十一》次摧邪
妙業勝。夫因明門者。雖稱＿二 九十六道󠄁規模＿一。源唯佛說。雖＿レ
爲＿二 二十八師軌轍＿一專在＿二我宗＿一。是以本經一段大論五分。
其說獨明。十支諸論。百本章疏。其釋誠盛。含＿二-藏無邊深
法＿一。而兼󠄁《返り点：二》-帶此妙用＿一。譬如＿三聖󠄁王帶＿二-持輪寶＿一。何異見敵。不＿レ
破＿レ之耶。是大悲之至極也。能滅＿二衆生四生本原＿一故。又大
智之最要󠄁也。能引＿二自證二空妙解＿一故。然則順世飜＿レ邪也。
忽興＿二倶摩󠄁羅王之信心＿一。戒日歸＿レ正也。早伏＿二般若啒多之
妄見＿一。立破甚速󠄁。何事如＿レ之。誠同＿三喬山押＿二春卵＿一。猶󠄁比＿三驚
颷卷＿二秋■#1＿一。何況於＿下其慈氏說＿二 七因＿一。截＿二於誹謗大乘之邪
網＿一。陳那開＿二 八門＿一。摧＿二於冥性轉變之盤石＿一。世親製＿二 七十＿一
之日。眞他論鼓失＿レ聲。護法降＿二 一百＿一之時。實法堅城刊＿レ跡
【下段】
等＿上哉。是則性相懸＿レ鏡。三量風飛。有空消󠄁《返り点：レ》影。二因泉涌
者也。　《割書：第十二》次道󠄁理極成勝󠄁。謂聖敎中。說＿二 二類人＿一。一者
有＿二佛姓＿一 人。二者無＿二佛姓＿一 人。此二種人。旣同聖󠄁說。於＿レ此
何故愛＿レ 一如＿レ文爲＿二實有姓＿一。憎《返り点：レ》一狂＿レ文刊＿二實無性＿一。同聖󠄁
說中。偏頗何由。若引＿二敎證＿一。我亦引＿レ敎。若立＿二道󠄁理＿一。我
亦立＿レ理。若恐󠄁《返り点：二》我身有無疑惑＿一。强爲＿レ權者。豈以＿二自身決
疑＿一定＿二聖󠄁敎權實＿一耶。如＿三彼敎中說＿レ有＿二 地獄＿一。未＿レ知我身可＿レ
得＿レ脫否。以＿レ有＿二此疑＿一。豈可＿二撥無＿一。空寂敎中。皆遣󠄁《返り点：レ》之故。
當＿レ知。此二如＿レ文皆實。又彼三乘所被機中。菩薩旣有＿二定
姓之人＿一。二乘何無＿二定姓之人＿一。彼此俱是乘所被中。何愛＿二
菩薩＿一許＿二其定姓＿一。何憎《返り点：二》二乘＿一刊＿二定姓＿一。偏頗不審。重重如＿レ
上。又三乘中。勝󠄁乘修行。次第長遠󠄁。菩薩超＿二-過󠄁二乘人＿一無
量倍故。決定經＿二-歷三大僧祇＿一。萬行難《返り点：レ》修。大果叵＿レ證。非頓
方便卽能入＿一故。然聖󠄁敎中。或說＿三超越速󠄁成＿二正覺＿一。是爲＿二
怯弱󠄁之衆生＿一故所＿二示現＿一也。或說＿三無量阿僧祇劫方成＿二正
覺＿一。是爲＿二懈怠之衆生＿一故所＿二示現＿一也。而實菩薩種姓根等。
發心亦等。所證亦等。無＿レ有＿二超過󠄁速󠄁證之法＿一。一切必經＿二 三

現代語訳

【右頁】

応理大乗伝通要録　下
　　　　　　　　　　　　　興福寺勝願院良遍草

第九、次に破迷究竟勝について。すなわち諸々の愚夫は、無始以来、多く有見に著して、輪廻に際がない。大聖がこれを愍れんで、空を説いて有を破る。これを浅破とする。衆生はこれによってまた空執に著する。大聖がこれを愍れんで、中を説いて二を破る。これを深破とする。このように、また無始以来多く離執に著して、生死に息むことがない。大聖がこれを愍れんで、即を説いて離を破る。衆生はこれによってまた即見に著する。大聖がこれを愍れんで、中を説いて二を破る。浅深は顕然である。偏有偏空は、既に妄執である。偏離偏即は、どうして妄執でないことがあろうか。これにより如来は解深密経で相即相離の深教でこれを誡めた。「愚癡頑鈍にして明らかでなく善くなく如理に行じない」（文）。則ち仏が自ら種種微妙重重委細不可説難を挙げて、広く不即不離の義を成ずる。その言は甚だ殷重であり、その理は至って深奥である。誰人がこれに向かって一念の疑いを生じようか。もし強いて即の一辺に留まる者は、恐らく中道ではない。恐らく離言ではない。どうして「言辞相寂滅」を説こうか。何故「不可思議法」と云おうか。明らかに知る。他宗の相即法門は、ただ下賤凡夫の一向各別無始執を破除するのではないか。実に拠れば、彼の宗もまた不即不離の義ではないか。風聞のごときは、恐らく末学の偏執ではないか。もし「一向相即を言わなければ、離執を除き難いが故に、須らく説くべし」と云うならば、知るべし、即ちこれは

【下段】

初破迷である。この説を聞き已って、即見を起こす時、便ち「我が宗は応に両見を破るべし」と説く。豈に究竟でないであろうか。一乗を説いて、三乗執を破る。雲雨の喩を説いて、乗一執を破る等も、また此の意であろうか。所以に他宗もまた正法である。然るに隠密であるが故に、ただ一門を説く。例えば般若は正法であると雖も、而も隠密であるが故に、ただ一門を説くが如し。このように隠密で、相濫があるが故に、学者は多く一辺に著するのではないか。もし猶これを諍うならば、深密所説の重重無尽の如来の難破を、云何ぞこれを遁れん。

第十、次に三学次第勝について。それ三学三蔵相配は常の如く、浅深次第、その義に諍いなし。その中、我が宗は大乗阿毘達磨を依学し、唯心慧業を本旨とする。その論蔵とは、如来所説の三蔵の中の阿毘達磨を根本とし、菩薩所説の論に通ずべきである。その仏所説阿毘達磨大乗教とは、即ち解深密経、及び阿毘達磨経等である（宗家の定判）。経典であると雖も、性相決択究竟了義の奥蔵であるが故である。それ素怛覧は意趣を帯び、阿毘達磨は性相を決する。意趣を帯びるものは、甚深であると雖も、而も濫があるが故に、学者多く迷う。性相を決するものは、分隔に似ると雖も、而も濫がないが故に、学者能く解す。いわゆる一切皆これを顕了し、都て覆相がない。有は有として説き、無は無として説き、事は事として説き、理は理として説き、浅は浅として説き、深は深として説き、詮は詮として説き、肯は肯として説き、即は即として説き、離は離として説く。これを最極教とする。仏意が尽く顕されるが故である。一切教の中に、豈に

【左頁】

これに如く教があろうか。然れば設い経蔵を学ぶと雖も、もしその意趣を顕さなければ、云何ぞこれに依って宗を立てることを得ん。その顕了する所は、皆性相に当たり、邪正決了義の外に、顕了義を得べからざるを以てである。仮令余人が私に決了する所も、尚宗として立てる。何況んや如来が自ら意趣を顕し、性相を決判し、了了明明として法門を建立し、大乗至極阿毘達磨をその本経とし、補処が如来所顕の微妙大蔵を重ねて広めたものを本論等とする我が宗であろうか。

第十一、次に摧邪妙業勝について。それ因明門は、九十六道の規模と称すると雖も、源は唯仏説である。二十八師の軌轍となると雖も、専ら我が宗にある。これを以て本経一段、大論五分、その説独り明らかである。十支諸論、百本章疏、その釈誠に盛んである。無辺深法を含蔵して、而もこの妙用を兼帯する。譬えば聖王が輪宝を帯持するが如し。何の異見の敵を見て、これを破らざることがあろうか。これ大悲の至極である。能く衆生四生の本原を滅するが故に。また大智の最要である。能く自証二空の妙解を引くが故に。然れば順世が邪を翻し、忽ち倶摩羅王の信心を興す。戒日が正に帰し、早く般若啒多の妄見を伏す。立破甚だ速い。何事がこれに如かん。誠に喬山に春卵を押すに同じ。猶驚颷が秋■を巻くに比す。何況んや、その慈氏が七因を説いて、誹謗大乗の邪網を截ち、陳那が八門を開いて、冥性転変の盤石を摧き、世親が七十を製した日に、真他論の鼓が声を失い、護法が一百を降した時に、実法の堅城が跡を刊んだ

【下段】

等においてをや。これ則ち性相が鏡を懸け、三量の風が飛び、有空が影を消し、二因の泉が涌くものである。

第十二、次に道理極成勝について。すなわち聖教中に、二類の人を説く。一つは仏姓有る人。二つは仏姓無き人。この二種の人は、既に同じ聖説である。これにおいて何故一を愛して文の如く実有姓となし、一を憎んで文に狂って実無性を刊むのか。同じ聖説の中で、偏頗は何に由るか。もし教証を引くならば、我もまた教を引く。もし道理を立てるならば、我もまた理を立てる。もし我が身に有無疑惑があることを恐れて、強いて権となすならば、豈に自身の決疑を以て聖教の権実を定めるであろうか。彼の教中に地獄有りと説くが如く、未だ我が身が脱することを得べきや否やを知らない。この疑いがあることを以て、豈に撥無すべけんや。空寂教中に、皆これを遣うが故に。知るべし、この二つは文の如く皆実である。また彼の三乗所被の機の中に、菩薩は既に定姓の人があるのに、二乗は何故定姓の人がないのか。彼此俱に乗所被の中である。何故菩薩を愛してその定姓を許し、何故二乗を憎んで定姓を刊むのか。偏頗不審、重重上の如し。また三乗の中、勝乗の修行は、次第長遠である。菩薩は二乗人を超過すること無量倍であるが故に。決定して三大僧祇を経歴し、万行は修し難く、大果は証し難い。頓方便では即ち入ることができないが故である。然るに聖教中に、或いは超越速成正覚を説くのは、怯弱の衆生のために示現する所である。或いは無量阿僧祇劫にして方に正覚を成ずると説くのは、懈怠の衆生のために示現する所である。而も実に菩薩種姓根等しく、発心もまた等しく、所証もまた等しく、超過速証の法はない。一切必ず三を経る

英語訳

【Right Page】

Essentials of Transmission of Reasonable Mahāyāna, Volume Two
　　　　　　　　　　　　　Draft by Ryōhen of Shōganin, Kōfukuji Temple

Ninth, next on the excellence of ultimate delusion-breaking. That is, all foolish ordinary beings, since beginningless time, have been largely attached to views of existence, with endless cycles of rebirth. The great sage, taking pity on this, taught emptiness to break attachment to existence. This is called shallow breaking. Sentient beings, through this, also became attached to grasping emptiness. The great sage, taking pity on this, taught the middle [way] to break both [extremes]. This is called deep breaking. Similarly, since beginningless time [beings] have been largely attached to grasping separation, with birth and death never ceasing. The great sage, taking pity on this, taught identity to break separation. Sentient beings, through this, also became attached to views of identity. The great sage, taking pity on this, taught the middle [way] to break both [extremes]. The shallow and deep are evident. Since partial existence and partial emptiness are already false attachments, how could partial separation and partial identity not be false attachments? Therefore the Tathāgata in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra warned with profound teachings on mutual identity and separation: "foolish, obtuse, unclear, unskillful, not practicing in accordance with principle" (text). The Buddha himself raised various subtle, layered, detailed, ineffable difficulties, extensively establishing the meaning of neither identity nor separation. His words are extremely earnest and his principle profoundly mysterious. Who could harbor a moment's doubt toward this? If one forcibly remains attached to the one side of identity, it is probably not the middle way. It is probably not beyond language. How could one speak of "the cessation of verbal characteristics"? Why call it "inconceivable dharma"? Clearly, other schools' dharma-gates of mutual identity merely break and eliminate the beginningless attachments of inferior ordinary beings to complete separateness. In reality, don't those schools also hold the meaning of neither identity nor separation? What we hear as rumors are probably the partial attachments of beginning students. If one says "without speaking of complete identity, it would be difficult to eliminate attachment to separation, therefore one must teach [identity]," know that this is precisely

【Lower Section】

the initial breaking of delusion. Having heard this teaching, when attachment to identity arises, one immediately teaches "our school should break both views." Is this not ultimate? Teaching the one vehicle to break attachment to three vehicles, teaching the analogy of clouds and rain to break attachment to vehicle-oneness, etc.—is this not also this meaning? Therefore other schools are also correct dharma. However, because they are hidden and secret, they teach only one gate. For example, though Prajñāpāramitā is correct dharma, because it is hidden and secret, it teaches only one gate. Being thus hidden and having similarities [with wrong views], students often become attached to one side. If one still argues about this, how can one escape the layered, endless difficult refutations of the Tathāgata as explained in the Profound Secret [Sūtra]?

Tenth, next on the excellence of the sequential stages of the three trainings. The correspondence of the three trainings with the three baskets is as usual; the sequential stages from shallow to deep have no controversy. Among these, our school studies and relies on Mahāyāna Abhidharma, taking consciousness-only wisdom-practice as its fundamental aim. As for the treatise basket: among the three baskets taught by the Tathāgata, Abhidharma is the foundation, and should be understood to include treatises taught by bodhisattvas. The Buddha-taught Abhidharma Mahāyāna teachings are precisely the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, the Abhidharma Sūtra, etc. (determination by our school's founders). Though they are sūtra texts, they are the inner treasury of nature-characteristics analysis, ultimate definitive meaning. Sūtras carry implicit intentions; Abhidharma determines nature and characteristics. What carries implicit intentions, though profound, has ambiguities, so students are often confused. What determines nature and characteristics, though appearing divisive, has no ambiguities, so students can understand. That is to say, everything is clearly revealed with absolutely no concealed aspects. Existence is taught as existence, non-existence as non-existence, phenomena as phenomena, principle as principle, shallow as shallow, deep as deep, explanation as explanation, affirmation as affirmation, identity as identity, separation as separation. This is called the most ultimate teaching because Buddha's intention is fully revealed. Among all teachings, could there be

【Left Page】

any teaching like this? Therefore, even if one studies the sūtra basket, if one does not reveal its implicit intentions, how could one rely on this to establish a school? What is clearly revealed all corresponds to nature and characteristics; beyond correct-incorrect decisive definitive meaning, clear definitive meaning cannot be obtained. Even if other people's private determinations can still be established as schools, how much more so our school, where the Tathāgata himself revealed implicit intentions, determined nature and characteristics, clearly and distinctly established dharma-gates, took ultimate Mahāyāna Abhidharma as its base sūtra, and took the subtle great treasury revealed by the Tathāgata and further expanded by the [future] Buddha [Maitreya] as base treatises, etc.?

Eleventh, next on the excellence of the marvelous activity of destroying heterodoxy. The gate of logic (hetuvidyā), though called the model of ninety-six [non-Buddhist] paths, originally derives only from Buddha's teaching. Though serving as the track for twenty-eight masters, it resides exclusively in our school. Therefore the base sūtra's one section and the great treatise's five divisions—their explanations alone are clear. The ten-branch various treatises and hundred base commentaries—their interpretations are truly flourishing. Containing and storing boundless profound dharmas while also carrying this marvelous function—like a sage king bearing the wheel-treasure, what enemy with deviant views would one encounter without defeating them? This is the ultimate of great compassion because it can eliminate the fundamental source of sentient beings' four kinds of birth. It is also the most essential of great wisdom because it can induce marvelous understanding of personally realized emptiness of both [persons and dharmas]. Therefore when Cārvāka overturned heterodoxy, he suddenly aroused Prince Kumāra's faith. When Harṣa returned to orthodoxy, he quickly subdued Prajñāgupta's false views. Establishing and refuting is extremely swift—what compares to this? It is truly like Mount Qiao pressing spring eggs, still comparable to a fierce wind rolling autumn [leaves]. How much more so when Maitreya taught the seven reasons to cut through the evil net of slandering Mahāyāna, Dignāga opened eight gates to crush the bedrock of primordial nature transformation, on the day Vasubandhu composed the Seventy [Verses], the drums of true other-school theories lost their sound, when Dharmapāla defeated one hundred [opponents], the solid fortress of substantial dharmas

【Lower Section】

erased its traces, etc.? This is when nature-characteristics hang up mirrors, winds of three valid cognitions fly, existence and emptiness dissolve shadows, and springs of two causes gush forth.

Twelfth, next on the excellence of perfectly established doctrinal principle. That is, within sacred teachings, two types of people are explained: first, people with Buddha-nature; second, people without Buddha-nature. Since these two types of people are equally taught in sacred texts, why love one and treat the text as literally teaching real possession of nature, while hating one and going mad over the text to eliminate real absence of nature? Within the same sacred teachings, what causes such partiality? If you cite textual evidence, I also cite texts. If you establish doctrinal reasoning, I also establish reasoning. If you fear having doubt about your own existence or non-existence and forcibly make [one teaching] expedient, how can you use personal doubt-resolution to determine the expedient or ultimate nature of sacred teachings? Just as those teachings speak of hell existing—not yet knowing whether my own self can escape or not, having this doubt, how could one reject and deny [hell's existence]? In emptiness-quiescence teachings, all [substantial entities] are eliminated. Know that these two [types of people] are both real as the texts state. Also, among the practitioners targeted by the three vehicles, since bodhisattvas already have people of determined nature, why do the two [lesser] vehicles lack people of determined nature? Both sides are equally among those targeted by the vehicles—why love bodhisattvas and permit their determined nature while hating the two [lesser] vehicles and eliminate [their] determined nature? Such partiality and lack of examination is layer upon layer as above. Also, among the three vehicles, the practice of the superior vehicle has sequential stages that are long and distant. Because bodhisattvas surpass two-vehicle practitioners by immeasurable multiples, they definitely pass through three great incalculable eons. The myriad practices are difficult to cultivate and the great fruit difficult to realize, because one cannot immediately enter through sudden expedient means. However, in sacred teachings, sometimes teaching transcendent swift attainment of perfect enlightenment is what is demonstrated for timid sentient beings. Sometimes teaching that perfect enlightenment is achieved only after immeasurable incalculable eons is what is demonstrated for lazy sentient beings. But in reality, bodhisattvas' inherent nature and faculties are equal, their initial inspiration is also equal, and what they realize is also equal. There is no dharma of transcendent swift realization. All must pass through three