大正蔵検索 INBUDS
|
因明大疏融貫鈔 (No. 2272_ 基辨撰 ) in Vol. 69 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 [行番号:有/無] [返り点:無/有] [CITE]
T2272_.69.0101a03: 極成。但是略耳。下引二文證三支皆言極 T2272_.69.0101a04: 成也。此第四説與玄應一説同也。彼疏云。 T2272_.69.0101a05: 問。因及喩中不云極成。何故宗中極成言 T2272_.69.0101a06: 簡。答。三支極成應齊等。擧初顯後。故不名
T2272_.69.0101a09: 疏作此謬釋。如上由音石明。後學不應 T2272_.69.0101a10: 依用此秋篠説 此中宗法等者。音噵云。
T2272_.69.0101a15: 因於同品中有・非有・有非有也。謂同品有 T2272_.69.0101a16: 之三句同品非有之三句同品有非有三句亦
T2272_.69.0101a19: 是。但此入理論因喩略極言
T2272_.69.0101a22: 此論略不云極自應悉知。秋篠鈔引義斷 T2272_.69.0101a23: 云。有人云。因喩何無極成。即自解云。因喩 T2272_.69.0101a24: 必要極成。以無濫故。眞似相翻皆無此説。 T2272_.69.0101a25: 其義云何。答。此亦不爾。因中既有兩俱隨 T2272_.69.0101a26: 一不成。翻彼故論極成。但言略故准理定
T2272_.69.0101b06: 演此本疏之間以諸家釋對辨疏意判 T2272_.69.0101b07: 定是非加校正了
T2272_.69.0101b10: T2272_.69.0101b11:
T2272_.69.0101b14: 相大乘沙門基辨撰 T2272_.69.0101b15: 上來明宗依文已。自下示相廣陳中出宗 T2272_.69.0101b16: 體文也
T2272_.69.0101b19: 論示科。二釋差別性三字。三釋故字。四總 T2272_.69.0101b20: 問答。今即初也
T2272_.69.0101b23: 示體・義互相差別相。三簡古因明師正釋 T2272_.69.0101b24: 新師宗體。四總問答。今即初也 一切者示 T2272_.69.0101b25: 無一切非宗者 有法及法者即前段所 T2272_.69.0101b26: 言極成有法・能別也。謂取有法・法上體及
T2272_.69.0101c03: 謂離體・義互相差別處無別爲宗依トナリ宗
T2272_.69.0101c07: 所云極成有法・極成能別言再擧示境第七 T2272_.69.0101c08: 能差別義。云何示彰。謂若不置一切有法等 T2272_.69.0101c09: 六字。則互相差別スト云コト於何處何物何爲差 T2272_.69.0101c10: 別不辨明故。爲示於一切有法及法處有 T2272_.69.0101c11: 互相差別義擧示此六字也。今此六字能 T2272_.69.0101c12: 差別非餘處故一切有法 等言示能差別 T2272_.69.0101c13: 義也 性者體也等者釋性言示宗體 T2272_.69.0101c14: 此取二中等者釋差別即性。此者指今文差 T2272_.69.0101c15: 別性之性言。二中者。二謂有法及法之二也。 T2272_.69.0101c16: 中謂境第七言也。互相差別者。謂於有法・ T2272_.69.0101c17: 法體義互相差別。體差別義義差別體云 T2272_.69.0101c18: 互相也。不相離性者。體義互相差別而其體 T2272_.69.0101c19: 與義同一時處不可分離。是即一許一不許 T2272_.69.0101c20: 以爲宗體。取者簡取。云何簡取。謂於有法・ T2272_.69.0101c21: 法二中不但取言依。取體義不相離性處。 T2272_.69.0101c22: 是爲簡取。欲示此義今置取言。以爲宗體 T2272_.69.0101c23: 者。以謂由也故也。第五囀義。釋論故言。示 T2272_.69.0101c24: 於不相離宗體有法・法互相差別義遍轉而 T2272_.69.0101c25: 置以言。是示以差別性言爲宗體結成云
T2272_.69.0101c29: 二。初略示。次具釋。今即初也 此之二種等
T2272_.69.0102a03: 於有法・法二種上若體若義互相差別今如 T2272_.69.0102a04: 言色蘊無我。則色蘊簡別無我無我言簡
T2272_.69.0102a09: 相 謂以色蘊者。基辨云。以有法色蘊簡 T2272_.69.0102a10: 別法無我。以法無我簡別有法色蘊。又若 T2272_.69.0102a11: 如言聲無常。謂聲是何聲。爲常爲無常。 T2272_.69.0102a12: 是無常聲即簡常聲。無常是何。爲聲之無 T2272_.69.0102a13: 常爲色之無常。是聲無常簡色無常。故云 T2272_.69.0102a14: 互相差別。又如云白蓮華。白是何白。爲衣 T2272_.69.0102a15: 爲華。是蓮華白即簡衣白。蓮華是何蓮花。 T2272_.69.0102a16: 爲黃爲白。是白蓮花即簡黃花。白與蓮華
T2272_.69.0102a19: 以此二種等者。正釋宗體。以謂釋論故
T2272_.69.0102a22: 不相離性。如白蓮華白與蓮華互差別合
T2272_.69.0102a26: 宗體。今此疏文三段意別。初簡次斥後釋 T2272_.69.0102a27: 即簡先古等者。基辨云。此下初簡古師。古 T2272_.69.0102a28: 師宗有三。初有法爲宗。今云但説有法等 T2272_.69.0102a29: 是也。二法爲宗。今云或但説法是也。三以 T2272_.69.0102b01: 有法及法爲宗。今云或以有法等是也。沼
T2272_.69.0102b06: 此文。何得云有三家説耶。斷主通答云。古 T2272_.69.0102b07: 因明師豈但瑜伽等。諸釋因明者名爲古因 T2272_.69.0102b08: 明師。故理門論曰。又於負處舊因明師諸有 T2272_.69.0102b09: 所説或有墮在能破中攝或有極麁或有 T2272_.69.0102b10: 非理。如訛語類。故此不錄。又理門論云。又 T2272_.69.0102b11: 此方隅我於破古因明論中已具分別。故 T2272_.69.0102b12: 知有ラハ古説非者陳那菩薩即破スヘシ之。不指
T2272_.69.0102b15: 葉一須存此旨已 合此二種宗所成故者。 T2272_.69.0102b16: 後記云。合此二種者即自性・差別。宗所成
T2272_.69.0102b20: 宗爲能立也。二種者有法・法即先陳・後説。 T2272_.69.0102b21: 宗所成故者別別詮宗爲所立宗也 此皆 T2272_.69.0102b22: 先共許等者。二斥古也。基辨云。謂古師三 T2272_.69.0102b23: 家所言就有法・法。是即極成有法・極成能 T2272_.69.0102b24: 別。故云皆先共許。何得成宗者正斥意。此 T2272_.69.0102b25: 中宗者宗體也。共許何云宗體耶。夫宗體一 T2272_.69.0102b26: 許一不許。何用共許。若强用則立已成。應
T2272_.69.0102b29: 者一許敵者一不許。是即簡宗依極成非宗 T2272_.69.0102c01: 體。餘文准前可解
T2272_.69.0102c04: 秋篠鈔云。先陳者非是有法三重名中先陳 T2272_.69.0102c05: 名也。指陳疏中前所説也。疏前文中陳説
T2272_.69.0102c08: 也。此問意云。上來疏文擧能別言唯在法
T2272_.69.0102c11: 名能別故。而何故今此疏文云有法・法互
T2272_.69.0102c14: 篠鈔叙此問意云。聲與無常既互相差別。
T2272_.69.0102c17: 以秋篠釋先陳云指疏前文所陳爲謬釋 T2272_.69.0102c18: 却不是也。而復云此中問意即依應法師義 T2272_.69.0102c19: 而設問而引玄應疏文。基辨由大疏抄考 T2272_.69.0102c20: 覈。瑞源所引玄應疏文非彼疏全文。秋篠鈔 T2272_.69.0102c21: 中秋篠取意所用之文。然其應疏問答明能 T2272_.69.0102c22: 別但在無常。瑞源由是作此中問意即依 T2272_.69.0102c23: 應疏義設問之解焉矣。彼疏文云。問。若 T2272_.69.0102c24: 爾但云聲是無常豈不已簡色等無常。答。 T2272_.69.0102c25: 此表詮名必有遮用。故定能簡色等無常。立 T2272_.69.0102c26: 者但用無常別色故聲無常。非互相簡。由
T2272_.69.0103a01: 謂。疏主以玄應疏爲問者疏文設問答彰 T2272_.69.0103a02: 實義者歟。疏主・玄應同時出興。所以此疏 T2272_.69.0103a03: 作答釋文斥應疏問歟。後學悉察 答立 T2272_.69.0103a04: 敵相形等者。備記云。立敵相形時後陳法唯
T2272_.69.0103a07: 以色蘊別無我。以無我別色蘊。故云互
T2272_.69.0103a10: 義相待云對望有異也
T2272_.69.0103a13: 與答二文。此即初也。問中云互相差別。於 T2272_.69.0103a14: 有法・法體・義互相差別。如前具辨。然秋篠 T2272_.69.0103a15: 鈔中引玄應疏云。玄應師言。差別性故者是 T2272_.69.0103a16: 明宗體也。謂有法聲自他共許。無常能別他 T2272_.69.0103a17: 自亦成。故但宗依。非爲宗體。唯聲・無常二
T2272_.69.0103a23: 聲與無常互相簡別ス故差別スト引喩顯之。 T2272_.69.0103a24: 如前已説。若如靑蓮華互相簡別法・有法 T2272_.69.0103a25: 爾者立宗應有説言無常是聲 或應有
T2272_.69.0103a29: 簡遮色等無常。立者但以無常別聲。故聲 T2272_.69.0103b01: 無常非互相簡。由是能別唯在無常。不爾
T2272_.69.0103b06: 差別之義。其第一異解云。表詮名必有遮用。 T2272_.69.0103b07: 故定簡遮色等無常。聲無常上非互相簡。今 T2272_.69.0103b08: 返斥云。彼師不辨必有遮用即簡別爲此 T2272_.69.0103b09: 妄解。又第二異解云立者但以無常別聲 T2272_.69.0103b10: 聲非互相簡。今返斥云。此解甚非。如本疏 T2272_.69.0103b11: 云。立敵相對スレハ立者但以無常別聲故。雖 T2272_.69.0103b12: 可云互相不簡。今體・義相待彰ストキハ不相離 T2272_.69.0103b13: 宗體。必聲與無常互相簡別如云靑色蓮 T2272_.69.0103b14: 華。又第三異解云互相簡別有法法則立 T2272_.69.0103b15: 宗應言無常是聲既無此事。今返斥云。若 T2272_.69.0103b16: 立敵相對對聲論聲常ト云人則應立聲無常 T2272_.69.0103b17: 宗也。而其聲無常有法法ノ上ニ不發言道理トシテ T2272_.69.0103b18: 有無常トハ簡別聲聲簡別無常互相差別不 T2272_.69.0103b19: 相離義。若不爾則此無常言應有以何爲 T2272_.69.0103b20: 無常耶之疑。故決有互相簡別之理。復第 T2272_.69.0103b21: 三異解云無説言無常是聲故無互相簡 T2272_.69.0103b22: 義。今返斥云。甚妄談也。不辨新師宗體 T2272_.69.0103b23: 故作此妄解。新師所立不相離宗體非於説 T2272_.69.0103b24: 言上論。於極成有法能別上取互相差別 T2272_.69.0103b25: 之理以爲宗體。故但云聲無常。宗言上有 T2272_.69.0103b26: 互相簡別宗體。於應云無常是聲或不可 T2272_.69.0103b27: 云不敢拘故。上明玄應所談悉爲妄解。又 T2272_.69.0103b28: 第四異解立除互相差別言但云二法和合 T2272_.69.0103b29: 不相離性之解。今謂。是亦不解和合不相 T2272_.69.0103c01: 離也。若非互相簡別則非和合亦非不相 T2272_.69.0103c02: 離也。立敵相對時但分能別・所別。至不相 T2272_.69.0103c03: 離之理互相簡別故能所一處和合不相離 T2272_.69.0103c04: 也。是故玄應疏除互相差別言但云和合不 T2272_.69.0103c05: 相離之説麁也漫也妄也。域龍末資必勿須 T2272_.69.0103c06: 之
T2272_.69.0103c09: 二正餘師謬改故字。初中有三。初標牒故 T2272_.69.0103c10: 有二義。二簡古説釋。三據前論文釋。今即 T2272_.69.0103c11: 初・二也。故者等二句標故有二義 一簡 T2272_.69.0103c12: 古説等下彰簡古師三家爲宗説故字。而 T2272_.69.0103c13: 爲其宗句一本其作共不是 陳那簡之下 T2272_.69.0103c14: 正簡擇。之言指古師三家説 取此二上等 T2272_.69.0103c15: 者。正出新師宗體。如前具辨。音裏曰。此義 T2272_.69.0103c16: 意言。有法及法互相差別不相離性以爲宗
T2272_.69.0103c19: 者。故言釋論文故字 其能別等下。其者 T2272_.69.0103c20: 指古師所立。擧能別爲宗等所別爲宗能 T2272_.69.0103c21: 所合爲宗。此文意言。差別性爲宗體故古 T2272_.69.0103c22: 師所言能別爲宗等皆是非宗。彼此先共 T2272_.69.0103c23: 許スレハ也ト云是此文意也 此其能別等下六句 T2272_.69.0103c24: 結爲簡古遂説故字。是即遂説故字彰結 T2272_.69.0103c25: 新師不相離性爲宗也
T2272_.69.0103c28: 有法・能別極成トイヒシ宗依之文也。音裏釋此文 T2272_.69.0103c29: 意云。能依不相離宗不極成故所依有法及
T2272_.69.0104a03: 置未痛快也。初云不極成之故即論差別 T2272_.69.0104a04: 性故之故ト意同。次須極成故之故字應改以 T2272_.69.0104a05: 字置所依有法上令倒讀焉。以與故意雖 T2272_.69.0104a06: 同由字意亦具故。又周記云。釋能所別置 T2272_.69.0104a07: 極成言之所以也。由取能依以爲宗故。二
T2272_.69.0104a10: 合論文無相濫也。雖然云釋所以猶未 T2272_.69.0104a11: 痛快。意味雖無違害。若有人謬解云疏釋
T2272_.69.0104a15: 及以能別極成之言。由是可知也。今問。此 T2272_.69.0104a16: 論文云差別性故之句云何釋前論文極成 T2272_.69.0104a17: 有法極成能別之句。又云何釋前文句云 T2272_.69.0104a18: 釋所依耶。答。此論文意深難解。夾注以
T2272_.69.0104a21: 離性一許一不許不極成爲宗體故。前彰宗 T2272_.69.0104a22: 依文云極成有法極成能別也。是故今疏文 T2272_.69.0104a23: 云釋前有法等也。又前文彰宗所依。以今 T2272_.69.0104a24: 文釋前宗依句故。今云釋所依也 但以有 T2272_.69.0104a25: 法等下具明差別性故言釋前宗依。而爲宗 T2272_.69.0104a26: 故者。此故字釋論文故字○由此宗中等者 T2272_.69.0104a27: 結用故字。由此言承上。宗中者明宗體處 T2272_.69.0104a28: 説故字也。不爾下立理。意云。今以不極成 T2272_.69.0104a29: 差別性爲宗體故。前宗依文須極成言。若 T2272_.69.0104b01: 不爾而宗依若須不極成宗體若極成。則宗 T2272_.69.0104b02: 依更以因喩須成立。宗體爲立已成。俱成 T2272_.69.0104b03: 過失。是故今云差別性故示此等義也
T2272_.69.0104b06: 擧文軌等妄以故作性字説。二示翻譯流 T2272_.69.0104b07: 傳不容易。三呵責輒改翻語。四正申呵責 T2272_.69.0104b08: 辭。五結勸須據今家翻傳。今即初也 或 T2272_.69.0104b09: 有於此等者。邑記云。此是文軌法師與俗士
T2272_.69.0104b15: 古來有兩家別。一者定賓疏爲梵本異。非ト云 T2272_.69.0104b16: 改論文。秋篠鈔引彼疏。彼疏云。然軌法師 T2272_.69.0104b17: 本親禀承三藏譯論云差別爲性。其後有 T2272_.69.0104b18: 慈恩法師亦云。親承三藏論本應言差別
T2272_.69.0104b22: 意改故作爲。具如此疏文。故今云遂改論 T2272_.69.0104b23: 云差別爲性。問。此兩家是非如何。答。判此 T2272_.69.0104b24: 兩家是非古來亦兩家。一者賓疏爲謬基疏
T2272_.69.0104b29: 宗依去宗體以爲宗。是即改作差別爲性。 T2272_.69.0104c01: 又賓疏中釋差別爲性云。差別爲性者明宗 T2272_.69.0104c02: 一體而釋疑也。勿疑有法與其能別相ヲ離 T2272_.69.0104c03: 別シテ説。應須了知。但是一體ニシテ差別スルヲ爲性
T2272_.69.0104c08: 恩傳等中不云親禀三藏。復此疏既云非 T2272_.69.0104c09: 翻譯之侶。又義斷中云。呂才與文軌改云 T2272_.69.0104c10: 差別爲性。豈以昧識爲誠言靈哲爲漫語。
T2272_.69.0104c16: 二者基疏爲妄賓疏爲正之説。願曉因明義
T2272_.69.0104c20: 解釋不云改之。故賓疏第二云。文軌法師○
T2272_.69.0104c23: 了義燈中別設一解破文軌等云。如因明 T2272_.69.0104c24: 論云差別性故後文軌法師輒改論文云 T2272_.69.0104c25: 差別爲性。爲之言作。言ロハ以差別爲宗體 T2272_.69.0104c26: 性。若爾則論中前標此中宗者釋云差別 T2272_.69.0104c27: 爲性。即顯宗訖。何須更説是名爲宗。文言
T2272_.69.0105a01: 之軌轍者。論體等七各是軌轍。然今此指立 T2272_.69.0105a02: 宗之法以號軌轍。言故者所以也。謂立宗 T2272_.69.0105a03: 之法不得一向極成亦不得一向不極成。 T2272_.69.0105a04: 要須非極成非不極成和合所以方始名
T2272_.69.0105a12: 察。勿異求已。今別設私一解釋軌轍言 T2272_.69.0105a13: 云。若如文軌師等云差別爲性不言故言。
T2272_.69.0105a18: 故。一許一不許爲宗體亦不相彰。若爾則新 T2272_.69.0105a19: 師實意遂不彰故以不極成成。爲宗依以 T2272_.69.0105a20: 極成爲ルナラハ體。自成過失悉與因明法式相
T2272_.69.0105a23: 前文宗依彰宗體謬改作爲性。故云闇唐 T2272_.69.0105a24: 梵也 輒改論文等者。改作論文私設別 T2272_.69.0105a25: 解如前已辨 深爲呵責所由等如次下 T2272_.69.0105a26: 文
T2272_.69.0105a29: 易 彌天釋道安法師者。今擧此師爲示 T2272_.69.0105b01: 出此師五失三不易翻譯流傳不容易。諸此 T2272_.69.0105b02: 師事迹出高僧傳第五。稱彌天者晋襄陽習 T2272_.69.0105b03: 鑿齒者對道安自云四海習鑿齒。道安應
T2272_.69.0105b06: 於翻譯者。商略謂量度也。道安法師量度翻 T2272_.69.0105b07: 譯作五失三不易。叙其本縁如道安法師
T2272_.69.0105b17: 七字都併五萬二千四百七十五字。考挍異 T2272_.69.0105b18: 同。即今天竺沙門曇摩鞞執本。佛護爲翻 T2272_.69.0105b19: 譯對而檢之。慧進筆受。與放光光讃同者 T2272_.69.0105b20: 無所更出也。其二經譯人所落者隨其失 T2272_.69.0105b21: 處稱而正矣。其義異不知誰是者輒伴而 T2272_.69.0105b22: 兩存之。往往爲訓。其下凡四卷。其一紙二 T2272_.69.0105b23: 紙異者出別爲一卷。合爲五卷。縁多落失
T2272_.69.0105b28: 易事有三。是云三不易。道安作爲斯五失 T2272_.69.0105b29: 三不易記于放光般若經抄序。後人弄是 T2272_.69.0105c01: 載隋彥琮傳。亦出溜洲法華義決。道安每 T2272_.69.0105c02: 稱。譯胡爲秦有五失本也。一者胡語盡倒 T2272_.69.0105c03: 而使從秦一失本也。二者胡經尙質秦人好 T2272_.69.0105c04: 文。傳可衆心非文不合二失本也。三者胡 T2272_.69.0105c05: 經委悉。至於嘆詠叮嚀反覆或四或三不 T2272_.69.0105c06: 嫌其煩。而今裁斥三失本也。四者胡有義 T2272_.69.0105c07: 説。正似亂辭。尋説向語亦無以異。或千或 T2272_.69.0105c08: 五百。刊而不存四失本也。五者事已合成將 T2272_.69.0105c09: 更傍及反騰前辭已及後説。而悉除此五 T2272_.69.0105c10: 失本也。又三種不易者。何者然般若逕三達 T2272_.69.0105c11: 之心覆面所演聖必因時。時俗有易而删 T2272_.69.0105c12: 雅古以適今時。一不易也。愚智天隔。聖人 T2272_.69.0105c13: 叵陛乃欲以千載之上微言傳使合百王 T2272_.69.0105c14: 之下末俗。二不易也。阿難出經去佛未久
T2272_.69.0105c17: 兢兢若此。此生死人平平若是。豈將不知 T2272_.69.0105c18: 法者之勇於斯。三不易也。涉此五失逕三
T2272_.69.0105c21: 小旻篇之字。兢謂戒也敬也。不自安貌也。 T2272_.69.0105c22: 敬肅貌云兢兢。如臨淵恐墜履氷懼陷也。
T2272_.69.0105c25: 又苹苹草聚生貌。文選高唐賦馳苹苹。又水 T2272_.69.0105c26: 中浮萍云萍。爾雅翼云。言無定性。漂流隨 T2272_.69.0105c27: 風云萍萍。平・苹・萍音同通用。今所云平平 T2272_.69.0105c28: 喩生死人萍無定性隨風漂貌。喩文軌等 T2272_.69.0105c29: 隨自樂欲任我解改作論文如萍萍隨風 T2272_.69.0106a01: 無定性 改千代之上等者第二不易之辭
T2272_.69.0106a07: 上深責。意云。道安作五失三不易。是於翻 T2272_.69.0106a08: 經之徒明唐梵方言。況乎此文軌師及呂戈 T2272_.69.0106a09: 等非翻經侶。闇唐梵方言自是必然。何輒 T2272_.69.0106a10: 改論文。是非實學者所作。膚受末學之所爲
T2272_.69.0106a13: 何故此基疏中今云非翻經之侶乎。答。賓 T2272_.69.0106a14: 疏所言爲虚妄。恐傳説之違不訂正以疏 T2272_.69.0106a15: 記焉。檢慈恩傳八。慧立・明濬所呵責呂戈 T2272_.69.0106a16: 全與此基疏意無違。義斷・後記同斥軌師。 T2272_.69.0106a17: 如賓疏説但獨作言。誰人復雷同乎。故賓
T2272_.69.0106a20: 論語之文字。謂肌膚所受利害切身。愬寃 T2272_.69.0106a21: 者急迫而切身。則聽者不得其實。而發之
T2272_.69.0106a24: 知也。增韻云能別。十歲幼稚之所能別雖 T2272_.69.0106a25: 已能別半是非實。後學之幼識者以彼等 T2272_.69.0106a26: 所改作謬爲眞教。此即彼等所誑所欺。故
T2272_.69.0106a29: 此文意就初入未達迷者云初學童蒙。二句
T2272_.69.0106b04: 由音石噵古本改訂。應作委率胸襟迴換 T2272_.69.0106b05: 聖教解諸也。委謂猥也。率謂任也隨也。胸 T2272_.69.0106b06: 襟者。胸謂膺也。襟謂衽之交處云襟。今 T2272_.69.0106b07: 此文意不拘相承依據但隨自所欲意改 T2272_.69.0106b08: 換于文轉迴于義猥隨自意爲聖説之聖
T2272_.69.0106b11: 等猥任自欲改轉。聖者所示言辭。則當來 T2272_.69.0106b12: 一切學徒慧眼必定得縁闕不生。復今現在 T2272_.69.0106b13: 學者智心亦闕應起聖教縁故自滅不生。 T2272_.69.0106b14: 若爾則文軌・呂戈等所爲其罪不輕。鳴呼
T2272_.69.0106b18: 意言。諸有智學者當閑習此三不易義依 T2272_.69.0106b19: 據舊大唐遍覺三藏所翻之正云差別性故
T2272_.69.0106b23: 明但宗説差別性故。二明但此論説差別 T2272_.69.0106b24: 性故。今即初也。問意云。宗之所依及與因・喩 T2272_.69.0106b25: 並皆極成。何故釋宗所依説差別性因喩 T2272_.69.0106b26: 之中不説差別性耶 答意云。違他順己
T2272_.69.0106c02: 別性故耶。謂如佛者對聲生論云聲是無 T2272_.69.0106c03: 常。是違他順己立ト云。雖但宗體順己立有 T2272_.69.0106c04: 法聲與法無常互相簡別。名是爲宗體也。 T2272_.69.0106c05: 若雖違他順己無可簡別。則不可名宗 T2272_.69.0106c06: 也。故云違他順己有可簡別名爲宗也
T2272_.69.0106c09: 性故。唯成者。因・喩於立・敵上唯共成無不
T2272_.69.0106c15: 義。義不離體。是差別性故。今不欲偏取 T2272_.69.0106c16: 能依差別性爲因。不取所依體義爲因。今
T2272_.69.0106c23: 見之。則總取ルト云言中有所依體義。爾今疏 T2272_.69.0106c24: 文次句云所依便非。既云因喩所依非因 T2272_.69.0106c25: 喩。明知所依體義非因喩。若爾則後記云 T2272_.69.0106c26: 總取爲因違疏主意。故後記釋未穩當也。
T2272_.69.0106c29: 此爲スト云フコト因能協疏意歟。疏文意云。如於
T2272_.69.0107a09: 上已釋。但説現量等五相違不説能・所別 T2272_.69.0107a10: 三過故。不説極成有法・極成能別差別性 T2272_.69.0107a11: 故。但此入理論獨作斯言。後記云今此論中 T2272_.69.0107a12: 不獨作此言甚不是也
T2272_.69.0107a15: 中今文簡斯濫失。此中有五。初擧論示科。 T2272_.69.0107a16: 二略釋論文。三擧四宗釋簡別宗。四設二 T2272_.69.0107a17: 釋簡別因喩。五問答分別。今即初也
T2272_.69.0107a22: 成立性者簡別因喩者。音石裏有釋難了。基 T2272_.69.0107a23: 辨私解云。樂爲所成立性者。此言彰爲宗 T2272_.69.0107a24: 性簡別眞因喩 眞因喩是能成立性非爲 T2272_.69.0107a25: 樂爲所成立性故。簡別眞因喩非爲所成
T2272_.69.0107a28: 簡別因喩之文據 顯不顧論宗者。不顧 T2272_.69.0107a29: 論即隨自。簡別遍許等三也。隨自意立者。 T2272_.69.0107b01: 秋篠鈔設別解云。然隨自言含其三種。一 T2272_.69.0107b02: 隨自教。二隨自意。三隨自能。今言隨自非 T2272_.69.0107b03: 隨教・意。但隨自能善者立故。然隨自能必 T2272_.69.0107b04: 隨自意故。理門説隨自意言。有隨自意
T2272_.69.0107b07: 尤爲殊妙。然理門所説隨自意言顯隨自能 T2272_.69.0107b08: 之義似違今疏主意。隨自能者。但隨能善 T2272_.69.0107b09: 者立 ト云。是即先承禀宗。如佛弟子習諸法空。 T2272_.69.0107b10: 是皆隨自能善者立。如二十唯識末論主 T2272_.69.0107b11: 云我隨自能。是即世親善唯識也。故隨自 T2272_.69.0107b12: 能應先承禀宗ナル。隨自意是不顧論宗ト云ヲ爲此 T2272_.69.0107b13: 疏旨。雖隨自意上應有隨自能義。濫先承 T2272_.69.0107b14: 禀宗故。不可以隨能釋隨自意也。問。若 T2272_.69.0107b15: 爾此疏釋不顧論宗云若善外宗等。是即 T2272_.69.0107b16: 應隨自能。何故云非隨能耶。答。云若 T2272_.69.0107b17: 善外宗等者。就破斥外宗善外宗破也。 T2272_.69.0107b18: 非善外宗成立外義也。故秋篠云隨自
T2272_.69.0107b21: 者。但所成立性是云樂爲。非樂爲成立能
T2272_.69.0107b25: 文也。音石裏明此立理意云。此者眞宗也。 T2272_.69.0107b26: 異者眞因喩也。若眞因喩亦自所樂故名所
T2272_.69.0107b29: 重釋令易了云。異此者謂眞因喩。何故名異 T2272_.69.0107c01: 此者。謂此トハ眞宗也。異眞宗者即眞因喩ナレハナリ。 T2272_.69.0107c02: 其眞因喩亦是自所樂ナレハ名トイハハ樂爲所成立。 T2272_.69.0107c03: 則似因似喩亦異樂爲所成立故。是亦云 T2272_.69.0107c04: 應名宗也。是故理門論文云樂爲所立謂
T2272_.69.0107c09: 正以四宗釋今論所説宗。今即初也。後記
T2272_.69.0107c12: 類ナルカ諸遍許セハ事ヲ爲宗相諍フハ皆立已成。如眼
T2272_.69.0107c16: 空宗是立已成。吠世師資立我應體實等 T2272_.69.0107c17: 亦同 三傍憑義宗等者。是非發言正諍。傍 T2272_.69.0107c18: 思憑顯餘義意許宗也。如次具辨 四不 T2272_.69.0107c19: 顧論宗等者。邑記云。疏有二意。言隨立者 T2272_.69.0107c20: 情所樂便立等者。此即唯立自宗所愛樂 T2272_.69.0107c21: 義。於餘三宗既非愛樂決定不立。唯隨自 T2272_.69.0107c22: 意不顧彼三。故此第四名不顧論宗。又言 T2272_.69.0107c23: 若善外宗等者。此據就彼外宗立量破斥
T2272_.69.0107c26: 立論人隨自善解○即便立之如鵂鶹子立 T2272_.69.0107c27: 佛法義或佛弟子立鵂鶹義。今言隨自正
T2272_.69.0108a02: 二意自是炳然。秋篠鈔所言不顧言取不顧 T2272_.69.0108a03: 自立他義。若不顧自宗成他所立。則自 T2272_.69.0108a04: 破我宗。若破我宗成立宗。則應有自違宗
T2272_.69.0108a08: 宗言。此中三文。初明前二宗立已成故非此 T2272_.69.0108a09: 論所云宗。二明第三宗非正立不可爲此 T2272_.69.0108a10: 論所説宗。三明第四宗此論所説宗。今文即 T2272_.69.0108a11: 初科也 此中前三等者。基辨云。此文意 T2272_.69.0108a12: 明此論中宗言以前三宗不建立也。初遍 T2272_.69.0108a13: 所許宗等者。此下明前二宗不可立由。此 T2272_.69.0108a14: 是立已成故不立爲宗。次承禀宗等者。此亦 T2272_.69.0108a15: 立已成。不立爲宗。若二外道共禀等者。此 T2272_.69.0108a16: 就諍本宗云立已成。若雖同僧佉弟子各 T2272_.69.0108a17: 立一義諍時非立已成也。如護法・靑辨 T2272_.69.0108a18: 諍空有。此非佛家本宗諍故非立已成也
T2272_.69.0108a22: 諍等者。備記云。傍義准無我宗非是本正 T2272_.69.0108a23: 所成。此傍意所成故簡除也。今正取言顯所
T2272_.69.0108b01: 門辨。一者出古釋多義。二者辨是非。三者 T2272_.69.0108b02: 述如實義。初出古釋者有三家釋別。一後 T2272_.69.0108b03: 記云。意言。因明論中未見義準宗過。明知 T2272_.69.0108b04: 義準宗得是眞宗。若爾何故不立。答。本意 T2272_.69.0108b05: 但諍ヲハ言ノ所陳名不顧論宗。非言所陳不
T2272_.69.0108b08: 顯サハ苦無我等即有一分違宗失。以無漏聲
T2272_.69.0108b16: 邑記云立已成。皆是不是。疏文既云未見 T2272_.69.0108b17: 其過。何釋是爲有過。此等釋不可也。第三 T2272_.69.0108b18: 叙如實義者。秋篠鈔云。傍義准宗於因明 T2272_.69.0108b19: 旨未見其過。既於因過説法差別相違之
T2272_.69.0108b22: 解釋未詳。疏文難彰。故今委辨明之。然於 T2272_.69.0108b23: 因明等者。於因明三十三過中未見其過 T2272_.69.0108b24: 也。其過之其字爲此文字眼。其者指義准 T2272_.69.0108b25: 宗。意言。於因明似過中未見以義准宗 T2272_.69.0108b26: 爲宗過。若爾爲眞宗歟。謂不爾也。既於因 T2272_.69.0108b27: 過下擧例傍准宗爲過也。謂雖未見傍准 T2272_.69.0108b28: 宗爲似宗過。既於明因過處説法差別相 T2272_.69.0108b29: 違因之過。是即傍意許過。准是今傍准宗縱 T2272_.69.0108c01: 成宗義是非正立。應有過攝。此傍准宗有 T2272_.69.0108c02: 二。一因喩善順成傍准宗。是成宗義。雖然 T2272_.69.0108c03: 非當時樂宗。故今簡別。二因・喩雖成傍意 T2272_.69.0108c04: 望能違不樂爲宗亦成因・喩故。是四相違中 T2272_.69.0108c05: 有因過所違本量宗也。今疏文合此二云
T2272_.69.0108c08: 爾似因喩亦非所樂。何故理門等中不簡耶。 T2272_.69.0108c09: 答。以樂爲所成立言簡眞能成立性也。似 T2272_.69.0108c10: 因喩是非眞能成立故不簡也。前擧理門文
T2272_.69.0108c15: 論所説宗文也 自不樂故者。非當時樂爲
T2272_.69.0108c20: 簡別因喩之文也。此中二釋。初約新舊所
T2272_.69.0108c24: 也 能成立法謂即因喩等者。前記云。此意 T2272_.69.0108c25: 説言。若不言所成但言成立即名宗。則成 T2272_.69.0108c26: 立之名説於能與所故。因名成立亦應名
T2272_.69.0108c29: 所成但言成立即名宗者。因喩亦能成立スレハ T2272_.69.0109a01: 自宗此之因喩應亦名宗。由此道理著所
T2272_.69.0109a04: 而成宗故應名宗耶。答。因喩本來既成。非
T2272_.69.0109a09: 立。因喩本來既成已レリ共許非今所成不名 T2272_.69.0109a10: 爲宗。今顯樂爲等者。今論文顯自樂爲新 T2272_.69.0109a11: 所成立方是其宗非舊已成。雖樂因喩等者 T2272_.69.0109a12: 通伏疑。疑云。以樂爲成立名宗。則因喩亦 T2272_.69.0109a13: 樂爲立。何不名宗耶。今疏文通此疑。通釋 T2272_.69.0109a14: 意言。雖樂爲因喩。舊已成非新成。若以舊 T2272_.69.0109a15: 成立爲宗。則本來共許故是相符。故雖樂
T2272_.69.0109a23: 許聲是所作。是故更立聲是所作。因云隨
T2272_.69.0109a29: 之言須簡別也。似因似喩雖更後時可成 T2272_.69.0109b01: 立而非當新所成立。是第二時所可成立
T2272_.69.0109b05: 而簡別之。若不云所成立性但言隨自樂
T2272_.69.0109b08: 識應難了知。故今謂。與秋篠所釋併讀以 T2272_.69.0109b09: 義意自炳然。秋篠鈔云。因・喩與宗同一時申 T2272_.69.0109b10: 名爲時申。由同一時恐有濫故置所成簡
T2272_.69.0109b13: 同解了。今謂。本成眞因眞喩亦對敵者當 T2272_.69.0109b14: 時ニ宗ト同時ニ申由恐有濫以樂爲所立之言 T2272_.69.0109b15: 簡彰宗也。當時能成立性簡別非宗也。雖 T2272_.69.0109b16: 更可成非是所樂是第二時之文一本脱是 T2272_.69.0109b17: 所樂三字不可也。可補三字。音石噵本如 T2272_.69.0109b18: 是。是第二時者更立量時也。非今所諍者。非 T2272_.69.0109b19: 當時正競處對最初樂爲則疎遠故不得
T2272_.69.0109b23: 門論中説樂爲所成立者簡別因・喩之文 T2272_.69.0109b24: 也 唯簡等下。眞者音噵云簡眞因喩。又似
T2272_.69.0109c04: 樂爲所立。與此相似スルモノモ亦應具簡似・眞能 T2272_.69.0109c05: 立。彼樂爲言意簡似因喩。彼非所樂故。彼 T2272_.69.0109c06: 所立言意簡眞因喩。彼是能立故。若不爾 T2272_.69.0109c07: 者。彼論何須云若異此者説所成立似因 T2272_.69.0109c08: 似喩應亦名宗。然彼意説。若異前説樂爲 T2272_.69.0109c09: 所立即應於第二時彼所成立。似因・似喩 T2272_.69.0109c10: 亦應名宗。既爾彼樂爲所成立言應已簡
T2272_.69.0109c13: 也。若異此樂爲所立能立ノ眞因喩ヲ名ケハ所立 T2272_.69.0109c14: 者。似因喩亦可名宗也。故若異此者等之 T2272_.69.0109c15: 文顯簡眞因喩之所以也。不云直簡似因 T2272_.69.0109c16: 喩。況若以樂爲言簡似者。何下論文云雖 T2272_.69.0109c17: 樂成立由與現量等相違故名似立宗等
T2272_.69.0109c20: 異此者ヲ説カハ所成立似因似喩ヲモ應亦名宗。
T2272_.69.0109c24: 喩所以也。非直簡似。然纂主意取此文爲 T2272_.69.0109c25: 簡似因喩顯樂爲言非簡似宗過。纂主所
T2272_.69.0110a03: 一隨自樂。二樂爲也。隨自樂者簡遍所許等 T2272_.69.0110a04: 三宗。樂爲者簡似宗因喩也。所成立性者
T2272_.69.0110a07: 也。傍憑宗非正立。故云非隨自樂也。樂爲 T2272_.69.0110a08: 之簡似宗等者等似因似喩。非是此時等者 T2272_.69.0110a09: 非對敵者時所樂爲。故云樂爲簡別似宗
T2272_.69.0110a12: 當今對敵所成。今所成立者今字當時也。體 T2272_.69.0110a13: 義者有法與法也。又同裏云。意言。以眞因 T2272_.69.0110a14: 喩成自宗義。此樂爲故雖可名宗。而非所
T2272_.69.0110a17: 恐彼因喩以能成立自己所立宗義亦得名 T2272_.69.0110a18: 宗。由テ此ニ論云所成立性即簡於彼因喩。 T2272_.69.0110a19: 雖能成自宗義是能立故非今所立。故不
T2272_.69.0110a24: 明スハ理門論説唯簡於眞之解。今此後解 T2272_.69.0110a25: 簡眞與似釋樂爲所成立性故與理門異
T2272_.69.0110b01: 有二種別。一眞因喩濫。謂宗等三支俱成スレハ T2272_.69.0110b02: 自義理應因喩亦得名宗。二似因喩濫。謂 T2272_.69.0110b03: 因喩能成於宗。宗體則非能立。爲他所成 T2272_.69.0110b04: 因喩ナラハ應得名宗。如是二濫自有兩解。一 T2272_.69.0110b05: 云。爲簡初濫故云樂爲所成立性。謂所立 T2272_.69.0110b06: 宗違他順己是所樂爲。能立因喩賓主許故 T2272_.69.0110b07: 非所樂爲。故樂爲所立是宗。不樂能立非也。 T2272_.69.0110b08: 爲簡後濫故云樂爲所成立性。謂似因喩 T2272_.69.0110b09: 若更成立雖名所立。然非樂爲。故以樂爲 T2272_.69.0110b10: 所立是宗ナリト云不樂所立ハ非也。二云。爲簡後 T2272_.69.0110b11: 濫故云樂爲。謂似因喩若更成之雖名所 T2272_.69.0110b12: 立而非樂爲。故樂是宗也。不樂非也。爲簡 T2272_.69.0110b13: 初濫言所成立性。謂眞因喩是其能立。故所
T2272_.69.0110b18: 第一問答明簡別因喩無隨自樂。問意云。 T2272_.69.0110b19: 因喩成宗亦應隨自。如何所立宗ニノミ但云隨 T2272_.69.0110b20: 自耶。答意云。宗是所成當時樂爲ナレハ但云隨
T2272_.69.0110b24: 三量釋。今文先就共比量因喩辨。意言。共 T2272_.69.0110b25: 比以本來共許因喩爲能立故與宗今成 T2272_.69.0110b26: 不同。由是宗以隨自ト云ヲ簡因喩不以隨自
T2272_.69.0110b29: 成失。因喩以本來舊成爲能立故。雖用共 T2272_.69.0110c01: 許無有立已成前二失也。亦於因喩雖 T2272_.69.0110c02: 有傍意許差別爲能立理。非正立無傍准 T2272_.69.0110c03: 失。由此等義於因喩簡不以隨自言也
T2272_.69.0110c06: 隨自言不簡也。此約共比因喩也。遍許宗 T2272_.69.0110c07: 者如眼見色。此ヲ宗ニ立ルトキハ無果故以隨自ト云 T2272_.69.0110c08: 簡也。先承宗者。如二外道共承僧佉對諍
T2272_.69.0110c14: 謂因・喩二共比量中必先ヨリ共許スルヲモテ方成能 T2272_.69.0110c15: 立。然因喩故無相符失。故以隨自不簡。若 T2272_.69.0110c16: 於宗ナルニ必不爾是非本來共許。必今諍新成 T2272_.69.0110c17: 故。若用共許立已成失。是故以隨自簡。因 T2272_.69.0110c18: 喩共許無遍許等失。遍許等立已成失是宗 T2272_.69.0110c19: 過故爲過失也。因喩共許無失故以隨自 T2272_.69.0110c20: 不簡也。若以不共許爲因喩時必有隨一 T2272_.69.0110c21: 不成失。以隨自簡則他隨一不成過。後記所 T2272_.69.0110c22: 釋如是。彼記云。無遍許失及承禀等者。意 T2272_.69.0110c23: 云。宗中有遍許宗承禀宗。若更立者乃相符。 T2272_.69.0110c24: 所以宗中須隨自。若共因喩必須遍許或承 T2272_.69.0110c25: 禀等。所以因喩不言隨自。無レハナリ遍許等過
T2272_.69.0110c28: 失。音石裏云。意言。言顯所陳方名因喩。故 T2272_.69.0110c29: 因喩無義准差別。故以隨自不簡也。宗ナレハ T2272_.69.0111a01: 是言ヲモテ所陳。外別有レハ意許差別如四相違 T2272_.69.0111a02: 因之所違宗。是即正因喩所成。故以隨自
T2272_.69.0111a07: 亦以隨自言不簡也 説許執故者。仁記云。 T2272_.69.0111a08: 自比量者不顧他宗。他比量者不顧自宗。
T2272_.69.0111a11: 喩共許即是非不顧論。因喩但可隨其不顧
T2272_.69.0111a14: 執故是即不顧自他也
T2272_.69.0111a17: 等者。邑記・仁記・音石同釋云。隨應之義者
T2272_.69.0111a22: 云共自相。若立意許宗與共自相因喩相
T2272_.69.0111a25: 眞他用スルコト勝。積聚性爲因。臥具等因喩。 T2272_.69.0111a26: 及擧同喩乃成眼等爲メニ假他ノ用ルルコト勝。由 T2272_.69.0111a27: 此擧ルトキ因違自所立成違。故云立乃乖角 T2272_.69.0111a28: 共自相ト違。由此因喩違他意許。明知宗因
T2272_.69.0111b02: 者。故言承上立意許宗與共自相因喩相 T2272_.69.0111b03: 違。由是宗有傍義准四相違因中所違量 T2272_.69.0111b04: 以法差別・有法差別意許宗名與因相違 T2272_.69.0111b05: 宗也 言申決定等者。宗隨自意立。故有 T2272_.69.0111b06: 意許・言顯差別也。問。比量相違先宗違後 T2272_.69.0111b07: 因名爲相違。後因未擧。豈非義因。云何必 T2272_.69.0111b08: 言ヲ以申ルトキ方成能立耶。答。立ルトキ後正量必言 T2272_.69.0111b09: 陳中方成能立。故無以義因成ト云義也。此 T2272_.69.0111b10: 疏文意。謂以言陳申因・喩時。以其言顯 T2272_.69.0111b11: 因喩決定方成能立。不及別求意許也。故
T2272_.69.0111b16: 以四相違中意許差別起問歟。如何。答。就
T2272_.69.0111b21: 義以四相違中意許差別例答也。由是非
T2272_.69.0111c08: 許差別爲相違因。而其可聞不可聞聲皆傍 T2272_.69.0111c09: 准宗義。此所作性故因ヲモテ能成故不爲過。故 T2272_.69.0111c10: 約傍准宗云不見其過。以是爲證四相違
T2272_.69.0111c20: 決耶。基辨答云。本院私記中云四相違中意 T2272_.69.0111c21: 許差別非名傍義准宗其意難了。違疏意 T2272_.69.0111c22: 故。疏主以四宗攝一切宗竟故。若四違中 T2272_.69.0111c23: 意許宗非傍義准宗。則四宗中何所攝耶。由 T2272_.69.0111c24: 有此難私記所釋云四違中本量言陳上ニアル T2272_.69.0111c25: 意許差別宗爲不顧論宗攝。此亦難了。違疏 T2272_.69.0111c26: 意故。今疏文中既云於宗中傍有義准即 T2272_.69.0111c27: 四違中所違差別。由是明知四相違中言陳 T2272_.69.0111c28: 所違本量意許差別是四宗中傍義准宗。云 T2272_.69.0112a01: 何意許宗應云不顧論宗耶。由是本院私 T2272_.69.0112a02: 記難了。又別設一解朋輔本院云。雖無 T2272_.69.0112a03: 疏文私今立義盡道理論。則縱有意許差 T2272_.69.0112a04: 別量於本量言陳上不顧論宗。能違量亦 T2272_.69.0112a05: 不顧論宗。又立者意許ヲ樂爲トスル宗於言陳 T2272_.69.0112a06: 傍義准立故傍義准宗自是炳然。所違ニモアレ意 T2272_.69.0112a07: 許ヲ爲宗可言四宗中傍義准宗也。如是 T2272_.69.0112a08: 道理自顯然故。本院所釋全爲難了。贈僧 T2272_.69.0112a09: 正用是爲正亦難了也。又近來瑞源中爲 T2272_.69.0112a10: 秋篠釋與本院同引文。是亦不是。明燈抄 T2272_.69.0112a11: 中遂無斯説。恐以大疏抄所引有私記ト云傍 T2272_.69.0112a12: 噵明燈抄云謬以有私記爲秋篠釋歟。麁 T2272_.69.0112a13: 漫之甚不可取焉。又有問云。本院私記釋 T2272_.69.0112a14: 疏云於因明未見其過既於因過説ヲ以法 T2272_.69.0112a15: 差別相違之因等之文云。其意約傍義准 T2272_.69.0112a16: 宗無顯其過。法差別准スレハナリ因。聲上可聞 T2272_.69.0112a17: 不可聞無常上作彼縁性非彼縁性皆是差別 T2272_.69.0112a18: 義。望是所作性故因皆能成其因。望所諍 T2272_.69.0112a19: 意許差別爲相違因。其可聞不可聞聲皆
T2272_.69.0112a24: 能成故不爲過。此釋違疏文其因能成傍 T2272_.69.0112a25: 准宗皆是爲過。疏既云則傍准宗可成宗
T2272_.69.0112a28: 院釋中云望所諍意許差別爲相違因。今 T2272_.69.0112a29: 謂。若爲相違因則云何非過失耶。亦云 T2272_.69.0112b01: 傍准宗此因能成不爲過耶。若云不諍但 T2272_.69.0112b02: 自備傍義云傍准宗不爲過之意歟。今謂。 T2272_.69.0112b03: 不諍應非名宗者。由此等道理難通本院 T2272_.69.0112b04: 所釋爲不穩也
T2272_.69.0112b10: 眞宗。後時樂爲非是眞宗。似宗因喩更成立 T2272_.69.0112b11: 時眞宗中攝。故後時樂爲。故言樂爲簡彼 T2272_.69.0112b12: 三似之宗也 今顯當時等者。今謂今文眞 T2272_.69.0112b13: 宗云樂爲。不以彼爲者。彼字一本作後是也。 T2272_.69.0112b14: 彼字亦無害。更立云彼則與後同。爲言樂 T2272_.69.0112b15: 爲也。非以後時爲樂爲。簡彼三似宗者。此 T2272_.69.0112b16: 五字第一答主意也。三似者三似宗。即四宗 T2272_.69.0112b17: 中前三也。以樂爲言彰不顧論宗簡三似 T2272_.69.0112b18: 宗 似因喩等者彰似因喩更立宗攝不説 T2272_.69.0112b19: 樂爲。然秋篠所覽本作簡彼三似似宗因喩。 T2272_.69.0112b20: 有二似字。是故至鈔釋中云故云樂爲簡 T2272_.69.0112b21: 彼三似也似宗因喩設今及後等者。以似宗 T2272_.69.0112b22: 言爲次牒文。此是智者千慮一失。次疏釋文 T2272_.69.0112b23: 非以似宗爲後時樂爲釋故。以似宗言
T2272_.69.0112b26: 聲顯立聲無常因云所作性故。彼聲顯論 T2272_.69.0112b27: 不許聲所作故。當時不可爲因。後時更 T2272_.69.0112b28: 立聲是所作宗。此後時所作言非因是宗。故
T2272_.69.0112c02: 喩。若以有過更將因喩而成立之。彼成立 T2272_.69.0112c03: 已即名爲宗非因喩故。是即後時不名因
T2272_.69.0112c06: 二時。謂第二時更成立スレハ爲宗故不可説因 T2272_.69.0112c07: 及喩也。此今及後不可名因或喩且施設 T2272_.69.0112c08: 云。非實有以似因喩名因名喩者。故今文 T2272_.69.0112c09: 置設言示此義也。一本作爲喩亦爾。音石 T2272_.69.0112c10: 所覽有亦爾言。秋篠本無此言。今云。有無 T2272_.69.0112c11: 俱是。若更立之等者。明不可説因喩由。若 T2272_.69.0112c12: 第二更以似因喩成立時宗中攝。故因喩無
T2272_.69.0112c15: 宗。彼聲顯論既許所作宗。今更成立聲是 T2272_.69.0112c16: 無常宗。故云設更成立等。既成無常宗方 T2272_.69.0112c17: 用所作因故云義既成已等。從初似因乃 T2272_.69.0112c18: 至眞因故云展轉也。所作因者既成似因 T2272_.69.0112c19: 又成似宗。故云疎成不同於宗。例如上 T2272_.69.0112c20: 云似宗因喩雖更可成非是所樂是第二
T2272_.69.0112c23: 者。第三時爲本量爲眞因喩。展轉疎成 T2272_.69.0112c24: 者。自初似因至第三時爲眞因喩展轉疎 T2272_.69.0112c25: 遠成就樂爲。疎謂漸也。不同於宗者。疎遠 T2272_.69.0112c26: 漸成不同宗當時樂爲。故於因喩等者結 T2272_.69.0112c27: 成。謂似因喩更成立故無簡。是故於因喩
T2272_.69.0113a02: 簡九過。初簡所別。次簡能別。合二即簡俱 T2272_.69.0113a03: 不言隨自。者簡相符過。言樂爲者即簡現 T2272_.69.0113a04: 比等五違及似因喩亦簡十四因過喩十過。
T2272_.69.0113a07: 似因喩。然纂要中云。下論説雖樂成立猶 T2272_.69.0113a08: 與現量等相違故名似立宗。故知樂爲非
T2272_.69.0113a11: 此樂成立言含當時・後時二之樂爲。又以不 T2272_.69.0113a12: 定義置雖言欲彰樂爲ト云ハ通其今・後二時 T2272_.69.0113a13: 不定。當時樂爲所立名宗。從時樂爲名似 T2272_.69.0113a14: 立宗。今顯後時樂爲故名似立宗也。秋 T2272_.69.0113a15: 篠所言簡現比等五違及似因喩之樂爲此 T2272_.69.0113a16: 當時樂爲。又纂要所云非簡彼五之樂爲 T2272_.69.0113a17: 通今與後二時樂爲。後學了知此別而宜 T2272_.69.0113a18: 和會斯違而已。因喩略之者。因喩略樂爲
T2272_.69.0113a22: 説樂爲之言。因喩義無相濫。故不説樂爲
T2272_.69.0113b01: 相爾。第二答中以樂爲言及似因喩以現 T2272_.69.0113b02: 當二樂意周備。由是約スト云現當釋初・二難 T2272_.69.0113b03: 分。今私釋言。初答約更立與不立釋不 T2272_.69.0113b04: 説樂爲。第二約廣略答。第三約濫・非濫 T2272_.69.0113b05: 答。是云三答別 後記云初與三無差別 T2272_.69.0113b06: 甚不是也。又就云第三約濫不濫答。備記 T2272_.69.0113b07: 云義濫不濫。仁記云似宗濫眞宗。秋篠云 T2272_.69.0113b08: 但有濫不濫不辨何物濫不。雖各義通以
T2272_.69.0113b13: 言。論別解宗言是所成立性。因喩別釋何不 T2272_.69.0113b14: 説能成立耶
T2272_.69.0113b17: 所成立性影彰因喩是能成立性也
T2272_.69.0113b23: 説因喩時已彰宗訖。宗既所立此云能立。
T2272_.69.0113b26: 説宗。若此宗中不著所成立之言者能立 T2272_.69.0113b27: 所立二可相濫。由是今説宗時宗是若能立 T2272_.69.0113b28: 歟。若所立歟ト可起疑故。今宗名所成立
T2272_.69.0113c02: 者。一本作因前已彰。前字寫誤。與喩草 T2272_.69.0113c03: 書狀相同故。邑記及秋篠所覽本作因前謬。 T2272_.69.0113c04: 音噵本作因喩爲正。已彰者擧宗後申因 T2272_.69.0113c05: 喩則是能立自是炳然。更何須説能成立
T2272_.69.0113c09: 立。今違古師宗名所成。因喩不違不説能
T2272_.69.0113c12: 性示不同古師宗也
T2272_.69.0113c15: 立因喩ヲ能成ト云。論初標云宗等多言名能立。
T2272_.69.0113c20: 簡濫之三科。此等總結名爲宗相也
T2272_.69.0113c23: 論示科。二以上來論文合此式法。三引瑜 T2272_.69.0113c24: 伽顯揚證此論立宗所説。今即初也
T2272_.69.0113c27: 句正釋今文指示立・敵。此式是即共比量 T2272_.69.0113c28: 式。無簡言故。論文但説如有成立不知立 T2272_.69.0113c29: 敵何人。若對如勝論立聲無常人則此宗 T2272_.69.0114a01: 相符非眞宗式。若勝論爲立者佛者爲敵 T2272_.69.0114a02: 者亦相符非眞。是故今指示立聲無常人 T2272_.69.0114a03: 對立聲常者申此宗時眞立宗法。焉云如 T2272_.69.0114a04: 佛弟子對聲論師等。論文簡略含如是義。故 T2272_.69.0114a05: 云如有成立 聲是有法等者。此下七句正 T2272_.69.0114a06: 以上論合此式法五文中第二合上極成 T2272_.69.0114a07: 有法極成能別之論文故云聲是有法無常 T2272_.69.0114a08: 爲能別。不云聲ハ有法無常ハ法。彼此者立・敵 T2272_.69.0114a09: 也。聲及無常者相違釋。若合之一處非共 T2272_.69.0114a10: 許也。今此式法中云聲前所説宗依中極成 T2272_.69.0114a11: 有法。云無常者極成能別。故今疏中合上 T2272_.69.0114a12: 云名極成有法極成能別爲宗所依 彼聲 T2272_.69.0114a13: 論師等者。合上論文五文之中此下十句第 T2272_.69.0114a14: 三合上差別性故之文 不許聲上等者。明 T2272_.69.0114a15: 一許一不許。今但擧一不許影示一許。上有 T2272_.69.0114a16: 二字示聲與無常相離則立敵許若合一 T2272_.69.0114a17: 處云聲上有無常敵聲論者一不許。今佛 T2272_.69.0114a18: 弟子等下正合差別性故文。合之一處者。之 T2272_.69.0114a19: 言指上極成有法・極成能別及今此式法聲 T2272_.69.0114a20: 及無常。今論文云聲是無常之是言ヲ置中 T2272_.69.0114a21: 間即合一處之相。互相差別等者。若以極 T2272_.69.0114a22: 成有法・能別合之一處則聲與無常互相 T2272_.69.0114a23: 簡別而不相離爲宗體性。聲論不許等者正 T2272_.69.0114a24: 合法也。以互相差別不相離性云聲是無 T2272_.69.0114a25: 常時。敵聲論者不許聲上無常故。一許一
T2272_.69.0114a28: 一處故。疏釋云合一處不相離略是言示。 T2272_.69.0114a29: 全無相違 既成隨自等者。此下合上論 T2272_.69.0114b01: 文五文之中第四以上隨自樂爲所成立性 T2272_.69.0114b02: 論文合斯式法論文ニ云フヲ如有成立今此疏 T2272_.69.0114b03: 釋云既成隨自等合上釋也。今云。既成之 T2272_.69.0114b04: 成言即論文有成立之成字也。有成立者隨 T2272_.69.0114b05: 自樂不顧論宗。是簡宗濫也 亦是樂爲等 T2272_.69.0114b06: 者亦隨自樂。論文如有成立之言彰隨自樂 T2272_.69.0114b07: 爲不顧宗。亦是彰樂爲所成立是名眞宗。上 T2272_.69.0114b08: 云ヒシヲ樂爲今合スルコトハ此式當時樂爲ニシテ非ル後 T2272_.69.0114b09: 時樂所成立ナル性アルヨリ名爲眞宗簡能成立是 T2272_.69.0114b10: 非眞宗。即以樂爲所成立性之言簡眞因 T2272_.69.0114b11: 喩雖成自樂爲非所成立則名因喩不名 T2272_.69.0114b12: 宗者。論文含此等簡濫義云如有成立也 T2272_.69.0114b13: 恐義不明等者。五文之中第五結示法釋 T2272_.69.0114b14: 上論文。音噵云。指此者論云如有成立聲是
T2272_.69.0114b20: 論立宗。此中有四。初擧瑜伽顯揚。二釋二 T2272_.69.0114b21: 論意。三擧三釋釋自宗所許。四以三類十 T2272_.69.0114b22: 句釋立宗。今即初也 瑜伽論云者。第十五 T2272_.69.0114b23: 之論文 依二種所成立義者。音噵云。二種 T2272_.69.0114b24: 所成立者自性差別 各別者。立・敵所尊所 T2272_.69.0114b25: 主各別 攝受者。所宗衆多隨自意樂 自 T2272_.69.0114b26: 品所許者。自謂各自也。品者品類。所宗各各 T2272_.69.0114b27: 有別云品。所許者即宗。此瑜伽中説一許 T2272_.69.0114b28: 一不許之所據也。就此瑜伽論文以陳那 T2272_.69.0114b29: 釋。則此中自性・差別二種所成立義陳那所 T2272_.69.0114c01: 言宗依。瑜伽説依二種義故各別攝受。自
T2272_.69.0114c06: 不相離性ト云フ者ヲ瑜伽今文云各別攝受也。次 T2272_.69.0114c07: 瑜伽文釋攝受之言云自意樂故。又攝受 T2272_.69.0114c08: 自品所許者是不顧論宗也 品是宗義者。 T2272_.69.0114c09: 自意樂品類有ト云ハ別即隨自意不顧眞宗也 T2272_.69.0114c10: 故顯揚云等者。第十一卷文也。故言承上 T2272_.69.0114c11: 句許品是宗義。瑜伽説自品所許。顯揚云 T2272_.69.0114c12: 自宗所許也。顯揚説瑜伽之樞要論故彰
T2272_.69.0114c16: 揚云此。斯二論中意説。依二所立者自性・ T2272_.69.0114c17: 差別二所立義。此爲宗依云依二所立也。 T2272_.69.0114c18: 立論各別等者。立論二字彰能詮言論。有所 T2272_.69.0114c19: 詮則有能詮。由是今云依二所立立論。即 T2272_.69.0114c20: 立論對揚時云立論也。立敵意樂若非各 T2272_.69.0114c21: 別無應對論故云各別。若立論對揚時不
T2272_.69.0114c25: 不得名立宗。故今云自宗所許故説名宗
T2272_.69.0114c29: 上所引瑜伽・顯揚所言自宗所許故説名
T2272_.69.0115a10: 爲能立。今者陳那因喩爲能立宗爲所立。 T2272_.69.0115a11: 今此云自宗所許者爲古所云能立亦爲 T2272_.69.0115a12: 今云所立如何。答。爲會此違設此三釋。
T2272_.69.0115a16: 同所由。可謂麁略。後學迷岐不臻其眞。 T2272_.69.0115a17: 自破斥去。至次悉明。又後記云。此中三釋等
T2272_.69.0115a20: 私併考疏前後文云。先徳諸家云與前古 T2272_.69.0115a21: 今同異中三釋。無別未穩。今按非全同。雖 T2272_.69.0115a22: 立三釋同正會釋與會已釋意稍有差別。 T2272_.69.0115a23: 前古今同異會釋意以古師會新師。由是 T2272_.69.0115a24: 不唱不相離性言。今此三釋新古 師意義 T2272_.69.0115a25: 合釋。故正會釋與會已釋意義稍別而全會 T2272_.69.0115a26: 同。問。若爾邑記云義有別。又前記云。即
T2272_.69.0115a29: 有別約彼名能立此名所立爲別。而復
T2272_.69.0115b03: 釋爲未穩當又前記所言爲異意與今所 T2272_.69.0115b04: 言有異。前記中釋前後異云。前第一釋中 T2272_.69.0115b05: 但取自性・差別爲宗。今此但取詮自性・差 T2272_.69.0115b06: 別上言爲宗不取二宗依。故云自宗所許
T2272_.69.0115b09: 自性・差別爲宗麁漫之甚矣 又前記云。 T2272_.69.0115b10: 第二釋以別對總。總者總五蘊中且取聲
T2272_.69.0115b13: 能立。今文亦爾。然前記云有異麁漫之甚
T2272_.69.0115b17: 文爲有異故爲大麁謬。基辨今釋云與前 T2272_.69.0115b18: 稍有別。會已釋稍有別。非云會意有異。 T2272_.69.0115b19: 有問予云。何故云稍有別耶。基辨答云。 T2272_.69.0115b20: 前正會古今同異。以古師會今故第三釋 T2272_.69.0115b21: 中不云不相離性。但云合宗含不相離。 T2272_.69.0115b22: 今此中三釋者前既會釋古今異已立今此 T2272_.69.0115b23: 三釋故總合古今二師意而釋。故第三釋 T2272_.69.0115b24: 云不相離宗與古師合宗同。前是會釋。今 T2272_.69.0115b25: 非會釋。以前會已三釋今作三釋釋自宗 T2272_.69.0115b26: 所許言。後學須深思焉。秋篠所釋於一 T2272_.69.0115b27: 一釋下先擧會已義次古師後新師各云依 T2272_.69.0115b28: 此立。其此之言未辨指會已義歟不故雖 T2272_.69.0115b29: 不分明恐指會已義焉歟。又音石噵文簡 T2272_.69.0115c01: 約。雖然以會已義之噵歟不。由是先徳作 T2272_.69.0115c02: 前・後三釋全無別之釋非疏主意炳然。後 T2272_.69.0115c03: 學勿迷。大疏鈔中雖設此問答釋義意不 T2272_.69.0115c04: 痛快故基辨私設此委釋已。今謂。此疏設 T2272_.69.0115c05: 三釋明。而此中但以第三釋二論自宗所許 T2272_.69.0115c06: 與此論不相離性會合爲要。前以古會今 T2272_.69.0115c07: 義。今以會已今義會古師義。今此所云初・ T2272_.69.0115c08: 二兩釋乘上明三釋義會自宗所許故因 T2272_.69.0115c09: 擧前二。實今此文第三釋以會已今師言
T2272_.69.0115c15: 而今音石云以會已義不相雖宗爲所立 T2272_.69.0115c16: 歟。噵文簡故其意難了。又秋篠鈔云。以言 T2272_.69.0115c17: 對理等者。言謂宗能詮言也。理謂宗所詮義 T2272_.69.0115c18: 也。其立宗言對スルトキ敵論者因喩所成。是故 T2272_.69.0115c19: 陳那依此名爲所立自宗所許。能成義故亦
T2272_.69.0115c23: 今私以會已義解此第一釋云。取依義能 T2272_.69.0115c24: 詮等者。此文依古師以能詮宗名爲各別 T2272_.69.0115c25: 自宗所許。今云依義者。若無所詮義非 T2272_.69.0115c26: 有能詮故云依義能詮。亦依新師。依謂宗 T2272_.69.0115c27: 依。義謂不相離宗義自宗所許也。宗依・宗體 T2272_.69.0115c28: 同處有故云依義也。此依義與能詮同時 T2272_.69.0115c29: 處故云依義能詮。今取如是含義意名爲 T2272_.69.0116a01: 自宗所許。謂自之宗自宗即所許兩重離合 T2272_.69.0116a02: 得名也。名爲各別等者。此第一釋中云依義 T2272_.69.0116a03: 能詮者。立者所立一許一不許不相離宗義ノ T2272_.69.0116a04: 依タル宗依。故結云名爲各別自宗也。各別者。 T2272_.69.0116a05: 立敵各別ノ自宗ナレハ是一許一不許ナリト云是會已 T2272_.69.0116a06: 義ヲ以今會自宗所許言第一釋義也 二者以 T2272_.69.0116a07: 別等者。音石噵云。以別爲能立名自宗所 T2272_.69.0116a08: 許。別者謂總中一分。總集隨應之義名爲所
T2272_.69.0116a16: 總中一分對敵所申自性ト差別トノ若言若義 T2272_.69.0116a17: 俱名爲宗即名能立。此別對宗ハ因喩ヲ以所成。 T2272_.69.0116a18: 亦是所立。而能立總。故名能立。古師依此 T2272_.69.0116a19: 宗名能立。因喩所成故亦所立。陳那依此
T2272_.69.0116a22: 所許釋爲麁。此第二釋爲要如道慈釋取 T2272_.69.0116a23: 別言及義名自宗所許。此自所許宗古師名 T2272_.69.0116a24: 能立。能立總宗一分故。今師名所立。然 T2272_.69.0116a25: 其體同取依總之別言與義立名。此義以 T2272_.69.0116a26: 會訖義言則不相離宗體也。故同一自宗所 T2272_.69.0116a27: 許也 三者以合對離等者。音石噵云。不相 T2272_.69.0116a28: 離合名爲能立名自所許。相離シタル自性・差
T2272_.69.0116b05: 能依總宗也。離者自性・差別各各別離也。自 T2272_.69.0116b06: 性・差別トハ合カ所依義ナレハ名爲所立。能依合宗
T2272_.69.0116b09: 立。陳那依此宗名所立自宗所許。自性差 T2272_.69.0116b10: 別但是宗依非是所立。所立之具。所望義殊
T2272_.69.0116b13: 別也。取彼能依不相離性合等者。古師未 T2272_.69.0116b14: 唱不相離性之辭。然今前已會訖。由是彰 T2272_.69.0116b15: 釋古師二論能依合宗必有所依不相離性 T2272_.69.0116b16: 宗體。能依・所依同時同處不可離故。古師
T2272_.69.0116b25: 許之文即是此論所説隨自樂爲不相離性。 T2272_.69.0116b26: 言名雖異意全同也。隨自與各別義無二 T2272_.69.0116b27: 故以不相離性合爲自宗所許。是疏第三釋 T2272_.69.0116b28: 意。又前記中設三釋明。第一釋是。第二義
T2272_.69.0116c05: 許之文總標宗也。此宗中有十句三類別。 T2272_.69.0116c06: 然今此文總含但云各別攝受等。故彰此義 T2272_.69.0116c07: 云此文總也。下有十句等者。下言上所引瑜 T2272_.69.0116c08: 伽論次下文。即説此十句故云下有。分爲 T2272_.69.0116c09: 三類者。略纂釋此十句爲三類。與此同也。 T2272_.69.0116c10: 十句之中初二句三類中第一宗體。次三句 T2272_.69.0116c11: 三類第二立宗因縁。後五句三類第三立宗
T2272_.69.0116c17: 謬也。是本于備釋。備記云。攝受論宗者即先 T2272_.69.0116c18: 承禀宗也。問。若爾何故上文簡捨不爲宗 T2272_.69.0116c19: 耶。答。上文意者直立自宗不對他敵故簡 T2272_.69.0116c20: 捨也。今文意者據依自所師宗對他敵故 T2272_.69.0116c21: 爲正宗也。謂立自宗對他敵故云攝受論
T2272_.69.0116c24: 隨自。隨自即不顧論宗。次疏文云二同宗承 T2272_.69.0116c25: 非隨自樂故。備記云承禀宗爲攝受論宗 T2272_.69.0116c26: 大謬。音石由是亦誤。有問。今此疏文既云 T2272_.69.0116c27: 依自所師宗對異師敵立自宗。依自師 T2272_.69.0116c28: 宗立自宗豈非先承禀宗耶。備釋自云上 T2272_.69.0116c29: 文不對他故簡捨今文以自師宗對他爲 T2272_.69.0117a01: 正。正宗故云攝受論宗。爾則備釋應非謬。 T2272_.69.0117a02: 如何 答。疏文云初依自師宗對異師敵而 T2272_.69.0117a03: 立自宗意彰先承禀宗非攝受論宗。既云 T2272_.69.0117a04: 對異師敵。明知非承禀宗。以自宗對他敵 T2272_.69.0117a05: 不顧論宗是攝受論宗炳然可知。復疏次文 T2272_.69.0117a06: 云不爾便爲相符等正簡捨承禀宗非攝受 T2272_.69.0117a07: 論宗之文。備釋亦似非不解了此疏意。然 T2272_.69.0117a08: 彼師云攝受論宗者即先承禀宗也今吾詳 T2272_.69.0117a09: 爲大謬。後學由是生迷亂故。後來學者對 T2272_.69.0117a10: 他敵申ルハ自師宗不顧論宗ニシテ攝受論宗隨 T2272_.69.0117a11: 自樂爲ナリト明察熟了而須解此疏文。如キハ佛 T2272_.69.0117a12: 者依自宗對外聲生云聲無常不顧論宗。 T2272_.69.0117a13: 若佛者對佛者立時此承禀故相符極成非ト
T2272_.69.0117a18: 宗義云立他宗義。不顧他面爲破他立宗 T2272_.69.0117a19: 義是云不顧論宗。非爲建立他宗立他宗
T2272_.69.0117a22: 斥佛者立他外宗應有自宗相違。必勿相 T2272_.69.0117a23: 濫。如上已明 唯此二種等者。音石裏云。 T2272_.69.0117a24: 一攝受論宗。二若自辨才宗。唯此二種是正
T2272_.69.0117a27: 宗非別攝受自意。先承禀宗非隨自樂爲 T2272_.69.0117a28: 也。故非眞實者。彰遍許承禀非隨自故立 T2272_.69.0117a29: 已成非眞宗承上句云故。復以此言彰 T2272_.69.0117b01: 傍義准非本宗故非眞宗。次云立已成故 T2272_.69.0117b02: 示遍許承禀二宗非眞宗之由。復次云非 T2272_.69.0117b03: 本成故示傍義准宗非根本所成立故非
T2272_.69.0117b09: 標第二類三句。而申宗趣是名因縁此二句 T2272_.69.0117b10: 於若輕蔑等三句一一下加此二句讀而得 T2272_.69.0117b11: 義之文也。今簡略文不令一一。應如若 T2272_.69.0117b12: 輕蔑他而申宗趣是名因縁等一一作文 T2272_.69.0117b13: 而解焉已 若覺眞實而申宗趣等者。問。申 T2272_.69.0117b14: 宗趣是能立。爾由上論文云能立是悟他。 T2272_.69.0117b15: 今釋此覺眞實次文云若覺眞實自悟故。何 T2272_.69.0117b16: 故如是前後相違耶。答。秋篠鈔中雖設廣 T2272_.69.0117b17: 釋煩重難了。故今採要解是。大凡立者立 T2272_.69.0117b18: 宗時。若先無自悟則無義生因。無義生因 T2272_.69.0117b19: 則無智生。無智生因則由何發生言。不 T2272_.69.0117b20: 發言因則遂無有悟他。故今云覺眞實申 T2272_.69.0117b21: 宗趣彰由自悟有悟他也。覺眞實者自悟。 T2272_.69.0117b22: 申宗趣者悟他。是能立發言故全與前文無 T2272_.69.0117b23: 違。次云若覺眞實自悟故者釋由自悟有 T2272_.69.0117b24: 能立悟他。如立他義申宗趣有能立由輕 T2272_.69.0117b25: 他故又立自所立申宗趣有能立由有 T2272_.69.0117b26: 從他師聞故等。准宜釋焉。備記云。若覺眞 T2272_.69.0117b27: 實等者。從他聞已後正自覺眞實而自悟圓
T2272_.69.0117c01: 疏釋旨須云先自悟後悟他宗義立破而 T2272_.69.0117c02: 已 立自義等者。噵云。邑師言フ自所立義從
T2272_.69.0117c05: 宗先悟他覺眞實申宗先自悟之別漫 T2272_.69.0117c06: 設解已
T2272_.69.0117c09: 也。二爲破壞於他者他比量也。若共比量者 T2272_.69.0117c10: 則具二意。成自時他必自破故。由是云一
T2272_.69.0117c13: 標列十句三類云。十句分三類。第一類二 T2272_.69.0117c14: 句者。一攝受論宗。二若自辨才。第二類三句 T2272_.69.0117c15: 者。一若輕蔑他。二若從他聞。三若覺眞實。 T2272_.69.0117c16: 第三類五句者。一爲立自宗。二爲破於他
T2272_.69.0117c21: 示宗相竟 自下大文第二示因相文也」
T2272_.69.0117c24: 安城客舍爲正法久住任見聞尋思 T2272_.69.0117c25: 不顧庸愚早早鈔記之竟。後學哲鑒 T2272_.69.0117c26: 幸訂正之云 T2272_.69.0117c27: 囘向四恩法界海 迴向無上大菩提 T2272_.69.0117c28: 寬政第二庚戌年正月十日去歲於寺
T2272_.69.0118a02: 爲予删整綴補云 T2272_.69.0118a03: 願以此功徳 普及於一切 T2272_.69.0118a04: 臨命終時 心不顚動 一切諸佛 T2272_.69.0118a05: 現前安慰 願求衆生 速得往生 T2272_.69.0118a06: 都史內衆 面見慈尊
T2272_.69.0118a09: T2272_.69.0118a10:
T2272_.69.0118a13: 末學沙門 釋基辨 撰
T2272_.69.0118a16: 第二示因相文。此中大分爲三。初擧論結 T2272_.69.0118a17: 前生後。二四門分別。三隨文解釋。此文
T2272_.69.0118a23: 因明。今即初也 因有二種等者。生・了二 T2272_.69.0118a24: 因。本出涅槃經三十八迦葉品及憍陳如品 T2272_.69.0118a25: 中。經曰。一者生因。二者了因。生因者如泥 T2272_.69.0118a26: 出瓶。了因者如燈照物。如次具引 如種 T2272_.69.0118a27: 生芽下釋生因。秋篠音石同釋云。生因者
T2272_.69.0118b09: 名離合有二意。一云。經説生・了二因通一 T2272_.69.0118b10: 切法之名。又因言所由。二因通名。以生與 T2272_.69.0118b11: 了顯ストイハハ二因別則生之因了之因依士釋。二 T2272_.69.0118b12: 云。能起用名爲生。能顯果名爲了。雖能 T2272_.69.0118b13: 爲ト因及爲因義ト通是似一。既有能起・能顯 T2272_.69.0118b14: 二爲因相爲別。一因體能持能起用又一
T2272_.69.0118b17: 通一切因之名。今於其上立二因名則依 T2272_.69.0118b18: 士ト云ヲ爲勝也。如憍陳如品説。佛言云何有二 T2272_.69.0118b19: 因。婆羅門言。一者生因。二者了因。佛言。云 T2272_.69.0118b20: 何生因云何了因。婆羅門言。生因者如泥 T2272_.69.0118b21: 出瓶。了因者如燈照物。佛言。是二種因 T2272_.69.0118b22: 因性是一ナリヤ。若是一者可令生因作了因可 T2272_.69.0118b23: 令了因作生因不。答言不也。佛言。若使 T2272_.69.0118b24: 生因不作了因生因不作了因可得説 T2272_.69.0118b25: 言是因相不。婆羅門言。雖不相作故有因 T2272_.69.0118b26: 相。佛問婆羅門。婆羅門。了因所了即同了
T2272_.69.0118b29: 樂我淨。從生因得故無常無樂無我無淨。是 T2272_.69.0118c01: 故如來所説有二。如是二語無有二也。是
T2272_.69.0118c13: 字承上故。此是釋生因文也。又按此理門 T2272_.69.0118c14: 論文釋二因之引證也。翻顯釋生因亦釋
T2272_.69.0118c19: 因。非如生因由能親起他智解。但照了スルノミ T2272_.69.0118c20: 宗果非生宗果。故是疎顯。如燈照物非燈
T2272_.69.0118c25: 即初也
T2272_.69.0118c28: 因。後辨三了因。初中亦二。初別釋三生 T2272_.69.0118c29: 因。後釋疑辨三生因有兼正別。今文已下 Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 [行番号:有/無] [返り点:無/有] [CITE] |