大正蔵検索 INBUDS
|
因明大疏融貫鈔 (No. 2272_ 基辨撰 ) in Vol. 69 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 [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 T2272_.69.0119a01: 別辨三生因三文也。初此文明言生因。基 T2272_.69.0119a02: 辨解云。謂立論者等者指示言生因體。立因 T2272_.69.0119a03: 等者等立宗立喩。離立論者立因等言別無
T2272_.69.0119a06: 謂立論者立因等言能生敵智解了立因等 T2272_.69.0119a07: 言義果。故立者言即生智了之因。言即生
T2272_.69.0119a10: 切法自本安立名故。問。若爾可云言即生 T2272_.69.0119a11: 之因耶。答。此是持業・依主兩重離合。如云 T2272_.69.0119a12: 有漏眼識。眼識依眼根之識トイヘハ依主得名。而 T2272_.69.0119a13: 云有漏眼識則眼識持漏相屬業用。故眼識 T2272_.69.0119a14: 即有漏ナレハ持業得名。此云兩重離合。今言生 T2272_.69.0119a15: 因亦復如是。故此前云等下擧立論者立因 T2272_.69.0119a16: 等言名言生因證。此前者此論前文也。宗等 T2272_.69.0119a17: 多言名爲能立者。即立論者立因等言。由 T2272_.69.0119a18: 此多言者。由謂所由。彰立言發スルトキ爲生他 T2272_.69.0119a19: 智所由也。開示諸有問者等者。立言能生 T2272_.69.0119a20: 敵智之證也。初二句釋言字。次一句釋因 T2272_.69.0119a21: 言。後開示等十字釋生字。是故立言名言生
T2272_.69.0119a25: 一涅槃經中自始安立。今就安立六因加 T2272_.69.0119a26: 言等字云言生因等也。是故先以生因二 T2272_.69.0119a27: 字離合已次加言字應云言即生因。爾秋 T2272_.69.0119a28: 篠釋自始云言即生不盡理也。若生因ト云名 T2272_.69.0119a29: 但在言上於智・義上不云生因則應如 T2272_.69.0119b01: 秋篠釋。生因名通言・智義故。先釋生因得 T2272_.69.0119b02: 名而後加言智義釋是此文實義也。故秋篠
T2272_.69.0119b11: 不許故立論者以因成之。若必生敵智故 T2272_.69.0119b12: 名生因者。宗言亦是能生敵智。同異喩言 T2272_.69.0119b13: 亦生敵智。則應宗言及兩喩言並得名爲
T2272_.69.0119b17: 容云宗言得生敵智。擧因言時敵智方生。 T2272_.69.0119b18: 解宗無常故。言生因望敵者智爲親生因。 T2272_.69.0119b19: 同異喩言亦雖有生敵智義。是疎遠故不 T2272_.69.0119b20: 爲生因。但令敵智見所立邊成立究竟爲 T2272_.69.0119b21: 喩勝能。非如言因親生敵智故非生因也
T2272_.69.0119b24: 法不顧管見助設會釋。賓師云望宗説 T2272_.69.0119b25: 因。理不應然。夫正因明在令生他智解。若 T2272_.69.0119b26: 但云但望宗果説生因。則如違決量雖正 T2272_.69.0119b27: 宗果不生他智故云非正因明。復云能立 T2272_.69.0119b28: 唯悟他。此即以敵智果之生因爲正因明。 T2272_.69.0119b29: 若爲言生因他智是非果則云何有宗果。 T2272_.69.0119c01: 無智解宗果非眞宗因故。由是賓師所言 T2272_.69.0119c02: 爲妄説。恐膚受輩見賓疏釋妄斷基疏。無 T2272_.69.0119c03: 厭煩文聊贅小言。讀者自知
T2272_.69.0119c06: 之體。正生他解等者釋立者發言之智名生 T2272_.69.0119c07: 因之由。謂正生敵他智解爲因實在立者 T2272_.69.0119c08: 多言。其立者言從何處生。是由立者智生。 T2272_.69.0119c09: 故云智能起言。是故立者智言生因之生因。 T2272_.69.0119c10: 故名智云智生因。離立者智餘無爲言生 T2272_.69.0119c11: 因之生因者。智即生因持業得名。生因者生 T2272_.69.0119c12: 之因依士釋。言生因カ因者言生因之生因依 T2272_.69.0119c13: 主釋也。生之因故略次生字也。若委言則立 T2272_.69.0119c14: 智即言生因之生因。中含持業・依主。兩重 T2272_.69.0119c15: 合釋也。略中言生因名則智即生因持業得
T2272_.69.0119c22: 彼。立論者智觀所作義。既自悟已對敵立 T2272_.69.0119c23: 義。將悟他時爲唯觀義悟敵者耶。爲亦 T2272_.69.0119c24: 發言悟敵者耶。若唯觀義但是自悟。何以 T2272_.69.0119c25: 能立爲悟他耶。若亦發スルナレハ言ヲモ其所作ト云言 T2272_.69.0119c26: 非立者智之所發生由何發言。言是非智 T2272_.69.0119c27: 之果。是何之果。因明宗中非唯據宗説名 T2272_.69.0119c28: 爲果。以言亦是智之果故。言因既爾。義因 T2272_.69.0119c29: 亦同。是故言・義二生因爲智生因之果。妙
T2272_.69.0120a03: 舍之何處異求。又明燈鈔中擧玄應妄説。破 T2272_.69.0120a04: 斥明實。學者必識。勿濫眞妄
T2272_.69.0120a07: 由能詮・能縁二皆得悟解。故今擧二種義。 T2272_.69.0120a08: 問。何爲立此二種義耶。答。對立論言立道 T2272_.69.0120a09: 理義。對敵證智立境界義。若但立道理義 T2272_.69.0120a10: 而不立境界義。則由言生因敵證智起後 T2272_.69.0120a11: 能縁智上爲所縁境義不相彰故。次立境 T2272_.69.0120a12: 界義不待言爾。雖立二種義其體是一。但 T2272_.69.0120a13: 望能詮能縁之邊別而立此二種義。有二 T2272_.69.0120a14: 之中義生因爲本體初道理義是也。敵證智 T2272_.69.0120a15: 縁此義則次境界義也。不可分離。有二種
T2272_.69.0120a20: 所詮義。雖能詮・所詮不可分離。能詮是言 T2272_.69.0120a21: 生因故。今此義生因但取所詮義。秋篠云筌 T2272_.69.0120a22: 旨相稱必然之理雖理必然。於釋此名道 T2272_.69.0120a23: 理義者深釋却失。學者擇不居焉得實。此 T2272_.69.0120a24: 道理義ト云ノ之道理謂深密・瑜伽所説四種道 T2272_.69.0120a25: 理差別即義也。境界名義者所縁境界差別
T2272_.69.0120a28: 故云言所詮義 生因詮等者。明所詮義 T2272_.69.0120a29: 名義生因由。今私解言。若無所詮義則無 T2272_.69.0120b01: 能詮立言。故所詮義爲能詮言爲生因。離 T2272_.69.0120b02: 所詮義無爲詮言之生因者故。義即言生
T2272_.69.0120b06: 句釋生因之言也。意云。所作道理言生因ノタメニ
T2272_.69.0120b12: 上無所縁境。無所縁境能縁智起無其 T2272_.69.0120b13: 處。故云境界義。亦名生因者。此義名生 T2272_.69.0120b14: 因之釋也。亦所詮義名生因。謂若無所 T2272_.69.0120b15: 縁境界義則無敵證能縁智故。境界義爲 T2272_.69.0120b16: 敵證智爲生因。離境界義無爲他智ノ之 T2272_.69.0120b17: 言生因能生ノ生因トナル體故。境界義即生因持 T2272_.69.0120b18: 業釋也。有問。略纂云。所作ノ因ノ義雖能爲境ト
T2272_.69.0120b21: 雖立二種義以所詮義爲義生因本體。雖 T2272_.69.0120b22: 不待立者言有本來所具義。未發立言已 T2272_.69.0120b23: 前無爲他智爲境界義。立言發後爲所詮 T2272_.69.0120b24: 故能詮・所詮同一時處ニシテ此所詮義爲道理 T2272_.69.0120b25: 義。立言發後爲境界義。是故略纂云隔立 T2272_.69.0120b26: 言大麁謬也。含境界義トナルコトヲ道理義即言生 T2272_.69.0120b27: 因之生因也。義即生因トナレハ名義生因。持業得
T2272_.69.0120c02: 別。基辨解云。根本立義等者釋疑。疑云。前 T2272_.69.0120c03: 立テテハ言・智二生無辨二種差別。今此辨義 T2272_.69.0120c04: 生何立二種義耶ト云此疑。今疏文通如文。根 T2272_.69.0120c05: 本立義者。謂立者發言云立。其言上所詮義 T2272_.69.0120c06: 云義。故今云立義非云本具未論時義。能 T2272_.69.0120c07: 詮所詮同時處義。能所詮合生他智解。若雖 T2272_.69.0120c08: 有能所詮他智不生非正因明。故示境界 T2272_.69.0120c09: 義彰非生他智爲境則非義生因。 由是 T2272_.69.0120c10: 今云根本立義擬生他解。然爲所縁境生 T2272_.69.0120c11: 他智於能詮發義爲所詮。故亦示道理義 T2272_.69.0120c12: 彰非發立言義爲所詮則非義生因。 由 T2272_.69.0120c13: 是今云他智解起本藉言生 故言爲正生 T2272_.69.0120c14: 等者。故言承上示兼正別。言爲正生者如 T2272_.69.0120c15: 前已辨。未發立言已前義非所詮。立言發 T2272_.69.0120c16: 時義爲所詮。無所詮義則無能詮。同時處 T2272_.69.0120c17: 具生他智解。故他智生本在立言。故爲正 T2272_.69.0120c18: 生 智義兼生攝者。雖有立智不發立言 T2272_.69.0120c19: 則無他智生。雖有本具義不發立言義 T2272_.69.0120c20: 爲所詮則無他智生。故無立言智義無生 T2272_.69.0120c21: 因義今云兼生攝也 故論上下等者擧誠 T2272_.69.0120c22: 證也 多言開悟他等者。此就正生而言也
T2272_.69.0120c26: 因耶。答。欲明言説ヲ以詮三相義方是正因 T2272_.69.0120c27: 故擧之也。此上三種之生因者局據立論明
T2272_.69.0121a01: 略纂所釋雖文少言爲正生炳然
T2272_.69.0121a04: 三了因。此中亦二。初別明三了因。後承上 T2272_.69.0121a05: 辨兼正別。今即初科中初明智了因 謂證 T2272_.69.0121a06: 敵者等者。基辨云。此出智了因體。意言。若 T2272_.69.0121a07: 敵證者雖了立者宗不解立者能立因所 T2272_.69.0121a08: 作性言則非實了宗。故今文云能解能立
T2272_.69.0121a11: 裏所出有解。裏書有云。解能立言了宗之 T2272_.69.0121a12: 智者。了因智引了宗智令了宗果故名
T2272_.69.0121a15: 前文云由言生故未生之智生由智了故 T2272_.69.0121a16: 未曉之義今顯也。故今此六因章云由言
T2272_.69.0121a19: 解所説等者。基辨云。此釋敵證智名了因 T2272_.69.0121a20: 由。照謂了即了宗。解謂達解即解能立因
T2272_.69.0121a23: 也。照顯於宗解了於因故名照解所説也
T2272_.69.0121a26: 疏主釋。秋篠評斥是解申疏主意。大爲殊 T2272_.69.0121a27: 勝。爾秋篠申疏主意文短難了。由是基辨 T2272_.69.0121a28: 重釋具斥玄應具申疏意。如次具明。三云。 T2272_.69.0121a29: 嵩山定賓斥疏主釋立立敵二論智了因。秋 T2272_.69.0121b01: 篠救疏主意申疏主意。其救釋失于相傳。 T2272_.69.0121b02: 由是基辨今具斥賓師。如次具辨。賓師以 T2272_.69.0121b03: 理門文由智力爲立者自智力故爲謬釋
T2272_.69.0121b06: 由智力者。由言因。謂敵證者自智力爲因 T2272_.69.0121b07: 了立者所説・宗義。所説者立者言。又義者立 T2272_.69.0121b08: 者所立宗義也。所説與義相違釋。若爾所 T2272_.69.0121b09: 説下何故不置及言耶。謂置及言了爲智 T2272_.69.0121b10: 了因義爲宗果之義隱沒故。存相違釋・依 T2272_.69.0121b11: 主釋二義不云及也。此了即自智力。離智 T2272_.69.0121b12: 無了。智即了。持業釋。能了智爲因彰宗果。 T2272_.69.0121b13: 智即了因。如前。次明言義亦了因義意相同。 T2272_.69.0121b14: 今明智了因。智是體持了因業用。持業釋也
T2272_.69.0121b20: 解宗之智親能顯了所立宗理。故名了因。 T2272_.69.0121b21: 後智了因名雖同前親・疎義別。謂敵論者解 T2272_.69.0121b22: 因之智念三相義親生宗智。智了因因故
T2272_.69.0121b25: 了宗智非是因智。了因之智何名了宗。若 T2272_.69.0121b26: 了因智名了宗者應色等智名聲等智。故
T2272_.69.0121b29: 但由智力了所説義。豈由因智了所説義。
T2272_.69.0121c03: 應具申疏主意云。秋篠云但取敵證了宗 T2272_.69.0121c04: 之智爲智了因既如前辨。今復重釋。謂敵 T2272_.69.0121c05: 證者不解能立因則不名了宗智。故了宗 T2272_.69.0121c06: 智即解能立智。疏云智了因者謂敵證者能 T2272_.69.0121c07: 解能立言了宗之智。云了宗智則了因智 T2272_.69.0121c08: 同時已具。由是今疏文云能解能立言了宗 T2272_.69.0121c09: 之智。若但云因智則非宗智。故秋篠云疏 T2272_.69.0121c10: 主意但取等。應知非解因智了宗不名了 T2272_.69.0121c11: 宗智。若如玄應所言。立二智了因離因智 T2272_.69.0121c12: 餘別云宗智。不了因則何得云了宗智。故 T2272_.69.0121c13: 立二智了因爲不是矣。有問。疏主意以 T2272_.69.0121c14: 了宗智爲智了因。則此了宗智即了因生 T2272_.69.0121c15: 何果耶。答。了宗果是即果。望宗果了宗
T2272_.69.0121c18: 以返破云。賓師難。諸人多言。智了因者是 T2272_.69.0121c19: 敵論者解所作智ヲ以了聲無常。今當問彼
T2272_.69.0121c22: 從此生智解スト云コト宗無常。此是自悟比量門 T2272_.69.0121c23: 收。解宗之智從因智生ストイハハ此是智生ナルヘシ。此 T2272_.69.0121c24: 即生因何得名了。又立論者立宗之後證 T2272_.69.0121c25: 宗之智能説所作ト云コトヲ。其智豈非智了因乎。 T2272_.69.0121c26: 何以專説立論之人智是生因而不説其立 T2272_.69.0121c27: 宗之後有智了因了所説義。而乃倒説是 T2272_.69.0121c28: 敵論人證宗之了也。前浪引論但由智力 T2272_.69.0121c29: 了所説義。若將證敵論有智了因者謬也。 T2272_.69.0122a01: 理門正辨立論之人立宗之後由智力後取 T2272_.69.0122a02: 共許因證了前宗。非是敵論智了之義。不 T2272_.69.0122a03: 應謬引。而彼文云。但由智力了所説義 T2272_.69.0122a04: 者。謂但由其立論之人立宗之後以其智力 T2272_.69.0122a05: 取共許因證前所説宗無常義。故知妄用
T2272_.69.0122a08: 能解スルノミニシテ親顯所成宗故隔言智故。敵證 T2272_.69.0122a09: 者言不名生者。以不能生敵證智故。救
T2272_.69.0122a12: 在ト理門問答鈔云。雖爾其問答抄未詳罹 T2272_.69.0122a13: 于治承兵火否。遂未得見其書。明燈抄中 T2272_.69.0122a14: 雖少擧救。其文短簡未得痛快。我今不顧 T2272_.69.0122a15: 井蛙管見聊辨釋是欲助補疏主意。偏惟 T2272_.69.0122a16: 志但在於護法。後學勿云好辨。賓師解理 T2272_.69.0122a17: 門論但由智力文云由立者立宗後以我智 T2272_.69.0122a18: 力取共許因證前所説宗無常義。而以本 T2272_.69.0122a19: 疏將證敵論有智了因爲妄謬也。我今讀 T2272_.69.0122a20: 理門論硏究義味全無有如賓師所言義 T2272_.69.0122a21: 意。論文簡約義味尤豐。非膚受所解盡。故 T2272_.69.0122a22: 今夾註論文令識知義味。論曰。此中宗カ
T2272_.69.0122b04: 知疏釋智了因爲正賓師破斥是妄也。今 T2272_.69.0122b05: 謂。大凡因明之法本生他解。他解照達所立 T2272_.69.0122b06: 宗義本由立者能立之言。其言生因正是能 T2272_.69.0122b07: 立。由立言生他智。敵證智解爲正了因亦 T2272_.69.0122b08: 名能立。若不爾則違決量言三支具。應名 T2272_.69.0122b09: 能立。既由他智不生決解名似能立。故可 T2272_.69.0122b10: 知通立言與他智爲能立體。理門論云。宗 T2272_.69.0122b11: 等多言説能立者。由宗因喩多言辨説他未 T2272_.69.0122b12: 了義。又云隨其所應爲開悟他説此能立
T2272_.69.0122b16: 他。然賓師云立宗後立論者由自智取共 T2272_.69.0122b17: 因證了前宗。此是爲自悟歟。爲悟他歟。 T2272_.69.0122b18: 若云自悟則立宗後自悟於立論應無益。 T2272_.69.0122b19: 若云悟他則立者由自智力證了前念宗。 T2272_.69.0122b20: 如何令開悟他耶。由理門意能立本意惟 T2272_.69.0122b21: 在悟他。非證敵智即爲了因則宗果由自 T2272_.69.0122b22: 智顯。若云但由自智顯則但在自悟。失 T2272_.69.0122b23: 立論本意。由是理門論云但由智力了所 T2272_.69.0122b24: 説義。如本疏意由他智力了立論所説宗 T2272_.69.0122b25: 義之釋陳那菩薩本意也。如賓所言失立 T2272_.69.0122b26: 論本意違理門意。又彼不辨雖他敵聞聲 T2272_.69.0122b27: 無常言不共許。次聞所作性言決定同許 T2272_.69.0122b28: 故。敵智初證了聲無常。是自立者欲令悟 T2272_.69.0122b29: 他言。則悟他爲本意。敵智爲證了因。宗果 T2272_.69.0122c01: 於他智上自彰。妄作智了因在立者説。又 T2272_.69.0122c02: 彼不辨解能立因智即證了宗智。而妄作 T2272_.69.0122c03: 解宗之智從因智生此是智生何得名了 T2272_.69.0122c04: 耶之解。妄謬之甚無所取找。後學擇而居 T2272_.69.0122c05: 焉。勿漫必執也已
T2272_.69.0122c08: 明言了因。此中有三。初出言了因體辨名 T2272_.69.0122c09: 言了因由。二擧證成。三結釋言即了因義。 T2272_.69.0122c10: 今文即初也 言了因者四字標牒。音石噵
T2272_.69.0122c13: 者釋立者能立言名言了因由。意言。由此 T2272_.69.0122c14: 立者能立言故敵證二徒自了解所立宗也
T2272_.69.0122c22: 言生故未生之智得生。由智了故未曉之
T2272_.69.0122c25: 非但由智了等者。證敵二徒非但由智了因 T2272_.69.0122c26: 能照宗解因。亦謂亦智了。亦同由立者言 T2272_.69.0122c27: 故他智照顯所立宗義。故名言爲了因。 T2272_.69.0122c28: 問。了因因故名爲了因。此義意未彰顯如 T2272_.69.0122c29: 何。答。就言了因具持業・依主二釋。若以 T2272_.69.0123a01: 具二釋義釋了因二字。則了一字是智了 T2272_.69.0123a02: 因。因言言了因之因言也。雖云智了因智 T2272_.69.0123a03: 即證了。證了即因。故了一字彰智了因。又若 T2272_.69.0123a04: 無立者能立之言則但敵者智了因ノミニシテハ無 T2272_.69.0123a05: 照顯宗義。故立者能立之言爲智了因之 T2272_.69.0123a06: 因。屬他法體成爲因義。故第六囀依主ヲ以 T2272_.69.0123a07: 釋此了因二字。又由音石噵意就言了因 T2272_.69.0123a08: 三字釋。則以テスレハ言當體即持令他智照顯 T2272_.69.0123a09: 宗之因義用。言即智了因之因持業釋也。依 T2272_.69.0123a10: 主・持業同時彰義。故云了因因故。已上由 T2272_.69.0123a11: 音石噵意之釋。此釋尤得本疏意。又周記亦 T2272_.69.0123a12: 云具依主・持業。然與疏違意爲別。雖違 T2272_.69.0123a13: 爲甚有道理也。謂言是智了因之因依主得 T2272_.69.0123a14: 名。又云。立言不發宗不明淨。能立言即有
T2272_.69.0123a20: 順疏意。周記雖不順疏尤有道理。秋篠所 T2272_.69.0123a21: 釋甚爲麁昧。又秋篠鈔云。此因應約二門 T2272_.69.0123a22: 解釋。一約立論者自望了宗名爲了因。二
T2272_.69.0123a25: 了宗義。云發言自了宗是有何益
T2272_.69.0123a28: 爾等者。此難意言。既先云立論者言生因爲 T2272_.69.0123a29: 能立。然次復云敵證者智了爲正了因。由 T2272_.69.0123b01: 是今難云。若取敵證智爲正了因。則立論
T2272_.69.0123b06: 敵證憶念立者言本來極成因喩故言有能 T2272_.69.0123b07: 成立義 因喩舊許等者釋本極成也
T2272_.69.0123b10: 意言。由能立言了因成所立義令彼敵證 T2272_.69.0123b11: 智了因憶念本極成因・喩。故言即智了因之
T2272_.69.0123b14: 三明義了因。此中四文。初標牒義了因。二 T2272_.69.0123b15: 出義了因體。三明立言上義名了因由。四 T2272_.69.0123b16: 擧義名了因之證。今即初也。音石噵云。義
T2272_.69.0123b20: 所詮義此是體也。下謂上也處也
T2272_.69.0123b23: 界義釋了因名。後約道理義ナル因三相釋。今 T2272_.69.0123b24: 即初也。基辨解云。此文意言。立言カ上ノ所ノ詮ノ T2272_.69.0123b25: 義爲他能縁智爲所縁境。由是生敵證他 T2272_.69.0123b26: 之智了。義即智了因之因故以持業・依主二 T2272_.69.0123b27: 得名。具釋如前。了因因故等者。了言含智 T2272_.69.0123b28: 了因三字。智了因之因言義了因之因言如 T2272_.69.0123b29: 前可知。離所詮義無智了因之因者體。故
T2272_.69.0123c04: 之義。能立義者因三相能立義。以此三相 T2272_.69.0123c05: 義爲因成各自所立宗照顯自宗亦名了 T2272_.69.0123c06: 因。若由此義則因三相義即照顯宗因。照
T2272_.69.0123c09: 言下所詮之義。問。前明生因文初道理義後 T2272_.69.0123c10: 境界義分二種辨。今明了因初境界義後 T2272_.69.0123c11: 道理義列二種明。前後相違有何由耶。答。 T2272_.69.0123c12: 前生因文對正生因立論言以道理義爲 T2272_.69.0123c13: 義生因。生因初道理義爲義生因本體。對敵 T2272_.69.0123c14: 證智以境界義爲義生因。道理義爲初境 T2272_.69.0123c15: 界義爲後立言先發他智後生。此次第自可 T2272_.69.0123c16: 知。今此了因文辨敵證智了因之因。境界爲 T2272_.69.0123c17: 先三相義爲後其理自爾。前後與前別明可
T2272_.69.0123c21: 因者。就此二因言古來有兩家釋。一者邑
T2272_.69.0123c25: 引理門文已前已説竟。今引理門説十四過 T2272_.69.0123c26: 類之處是文但説言・義二因也。故今二因者 T2272_.69.0123c27: 云言義二。故論初云。今此唯依證了因故但 T2272_.69.0123c28: 由智力了所説・義。智力者説智了因。故知 T2272_.69.0123c29: 二因者言・義二了因也 於義所立者。此二
T2272_.69.0124a03: 所立宗果。於所詮義即所立果處爲了因
T2272_.69.0124a07: 立者之智者智生因也。能立成宗者言生因
T2272_.69.0124a10: 生因。故云本生。正是了因者。智了因爲正 T2272_.69.0124a11: 了因宗果爲果。言義兼之等者言義二了兼
T2272_.69.0124a14: 六因之圖
T2272_.69.0124b05: 六因。雖然正因相體唯取立論者言生・敵證 T2272_.69.0124b06: 者智了二因。所以何者。由立論主言生發故 T2272_.69.0124b07: 敵證者達解宗智顯。由敵證達解智了故 T2272_.69.0124b08: 隱密未曉宗義方顯。由是正立量體取言生 T2272_.69.0124b09: 智了二因爲因相。兼爲ルコトハ因相餘四因ヲ攝
T2272_.69.0124b13: 第二釋名科也。此中二文。初正釋名因。後 T2272_.69.0124b14: 辨親疎釋得因稱。今即初也。基辨解云。初 T2272_.69.0124b15: 正釋名因中以四義釋。初之二釋由諸教 T2272_.69.0124b16: 説。後之二義由瑜伽説。因者所由等者第一 T2272_.69.0124b17: 義釋。所由者所依據。謂對敵他示所立宗 T2272_.69.0124b18: 義時敵但聞立宗義未得達解。爾時立論 T2272_.69.0124b19: 爲釋示所立宗説釋宗義所依據。即因・喩 T2272_.69.0124b20: 俱爲所依據故以所由義釋則因喩俱因。 T2272_.69.0124b21: 寬通釋宗義所依據故。或所以義等者第二
T2272_.69.0124b24: 無常。佛者答云。以所作性故。由此所以得 T2272_.69.0124b25: 知聲是無常。故知因者即所以也。問。初二 T2272_.69.0124b26: 義同成所立宗。若爾云何分初與二義釋 T2272_.69.0124b27: 耶。答。所以必是所由。有所由非所以者 T2272_.69.0124c01: 名因故今分爲二釋也。所由是寬。通因喩 T2272_.69.0124c02: 故。所以爲狹。但在因故。今云釋所立宗義 T2272_.69.0124c03: 之所由中攝因・喩二同得因名。又云由此 T2272_.69.0124c04: 所以所立義成中示但是因非喩名也。是
T2272_.69.0124c07: 益義等者第四義之釋也。故瑜伽云下擧建 T2272_.69.0124c08: 立・順益二義證。邑記云。爲欲成就所立宗 T2272_.69.0124c09: 義故建立シ順益スル道理ノ言論名之爲因。即此 T2272_.69.0124c10: 言論依彼宗・喩及諸量等不相違背故名 T2272_.69.0124c11: 順益道理。由此文證因通建立及順益義。 T2272_.69.0124c12: 問。因於同品可順益宗。於異品何名順 T2272_.69.0124c13: 益。答。有二解。一云。順成返成俱能建宗俱 T2272_.69.0124c14: 名順益。異若不返即不成宗。何名順益。故 T2272_.69.0124c15: 理門云。於同有及二在異無是因。由異無
T2272_.69.0124c22: 作無常。即陳那合結二支。異類者云若常住 T2272_.69.0124c23: 者見非所作止因之濫也 現量比量等 T2272_.69.0124c24: 者陳那所云發言自悟智觀察智。於其言 T2272_.69.0124c25: 智觀察スルヲ同類・異類即因第二第三相ナリト云。故
T2272_.69.0124c28: 順益二義此因義也。如邑記釋
T2272_.69.0125a02: 可知。答中正云見邊者如下示喩相中。基 T2272_.69.0125a03: 辨解云。見其邊際者説見義也。究竟圓滿者 T2272_.69.0125a04: 説邊義也。由此比況令宗成立究竟。名之 T2272_.69.0125a05: 爲邊。他智解起照其宗極名之爲見。喩疎 T2272_.69.0125a06: 後成等者。因名有二。一者親。二者疎。初親 T2272_.69.0125a07: 因名正立宗所以。同異二喩雖疎名因非 T2272_.69.0125a08: 是正立宗所以。故不得因稱。但親因與因 T2272_.69.0125a09: 名也。二疎因名凡諸能立皆名爲因。非但 T2272_.69.0125a10: 因一相ヲ云。同異二喩於宗是能立故亦名因 T2272_.69.0125a11: 也。今云不得因稱者就初親因釋也。説 T2272_.69.0125a12: 所因時等者示因無見邊義。因謂所以。故今 T2272_.69.0125a13: 所作性云所因。宗次雖申因未擧譬況不 T2272_.69.0125a14: 極明了。故因不名見邊。今由比況宗義彌 T2272_.69.0125a15: 明解智究竟スレハ離因別申。故別稱喩示見邊 T2272_.69.0125a16: 義。至後當知者至説喩下廣具解釋
T2272_.69.0125a19: 次辨六因果別。後四句分別。今即初也 雖 T2272_.69.0125a20: 依建立等者。雖言示不定。此通伏難辨差 T2272_.69.0125a21: 別。難云。建立・順益等義ヲ以總是名因則有何 T2272_.69.0125a22: 別立二因或六因等別耶ト云。有此難故今 T2272_.69.0125a23: 辨差別通也。以總建立・順益等因義今由 T2272_.69.0125a24: 別義立差別故有二因・六因之差而答。非
T2272_.69.0125a27: 成生・了也。敵者智是言生因之果也。所立 T2272_.69.0125a28: 宗是敵智了因之果也。故云有果不同。分 T2272_.69.0125a29: 爲二果。一言生因之果。謂敵證智。二智
T2272_.69.0125b06: 雖開爲六因剋論其體則但是四。一立者
T2272_.69.0125b10: 智雖俱是智。而立與敵各異不可合爲一 T2272_.69.0125b11: 體。言・義等四約義分四據體唯二。故下文
T2272_.69.0125b14: 文正釋六因別。辨開六因。謂生因有言・義・ T2272_.69.0125b15: 智三。亦了因有言・義・智三。故云各殊等。由 T2272_.69.0125b16: 此應言等下承上結釋 得果分兩者。音石 T2272_.69.0125b17: 噵云。一生果。謂了宗智。二了果。謂所立宗
T2272_.69.0125b23: 文云立者義言ヲ望ムルニ果二用除是無體。由 T2272_.69.0125b24: 是第二釋爲是。總此一段諸家釋中周記爲 T2272_.69.0125b25: 好。秋篠・音石同釋殊勝。但此初有釋爲不 T2272_.69.0125b26: 是 ○據類有三者。言・義・智之三也。望義爲
T2272_.69.0125c01: 初智了。智生相對辨言義因果。後言・義相對 T2272_.69.0125c02: 辨互爲因果。今即初文。基辨解云。智了因 T2272_.69.0125c03: 等者。敵者智了因唯是言生因之果。而非 T2272_.69.0125c04: 爲言生因爲因。智生因等者立者智生因。 T2272_.69.0125c05: 唯是言生因之因。而非爲智了因爲果。言 T2272_.69.0125c06: 義二生因等者。立者言。義二生因是立者智 T2272_.69.0125c07: 生因之果。亦爲敵者智了因之兼因。言義二 T2272_.69.0125c08: 了因等者。立者言・義二了因是敵者智了因 T2272_.69.0125c09: 之因。非爲敵者智了因之果。此言・義二 T2272_.69.0125c10: 了因是智生因之果。不作爲智生因之因
T2272_.69.0125c14: 云。以言望於義等者。以能詮言爲能望以 T2272_.69.0125c15: 所詮義爲所望相對辨顯了因・果。此言・義 T2272_.69.0125c16: 字含生・了二對辨是疏主意。必勿分是。亦 T2272_.69.0125c17: 成顯了因者。亦言亦爲顯了果。即示互爲 T2272_.69.0125c18: 因果。云何互爲因果。謂能詮言於生因邊 T2272_.69.0125c19: 則爲義生因之果。亦於爲言了因邊則
T2272_.69.0125c22: 爲所望辨因・果。亦成顯了果者亦言示互 T2272_.69.0125c23: 爲因果。謂此所詮義於於生因邊作言生因 T2272_.69.0125c24: 之生因。亦於爲果邊此所詮義爲言了・智 T2272_.69.0125c25: 了二因作顯了宗果。即智了因之果所立
T2272_.69.0125c28: 因・果。前明顯了因果今辨能生因所生 T2272_.69.0125c29: 果。亦作能生因者。亦言明互爲因果。謂所 T2272_.69.0126a01: 詮義於了因邊作智了因之果。亦於能生 T2272_.69.0126a02: 邊此所詮義作言生因之因。以言望於義等 T2272_.69.0126a03: 者以能詮言爲能望以所詮義爲所望 T2272_.69.0126a04: 辨因果亦言彰互義。謂能詮言於了因時 T2272_.69.0126a05: 作義了因之因。亦於生因邊作義生因之
T2272_.69.0126a08: 徳義也。二者六因之中因果也。是文備法師
T2272_.69.0126a11: 者。於自悟門前後念智互爲因果。然悟他 T2272_.69.0126a12: 門因果決定不相雜亂。今約悟他云唯因 T2272_.69.0126a13: 不是果謂智生因全無違也。爲果亦成因者 T2272_.69.0126a14: 是通因果。是示亦句。餘五果者除智生餘 T2272_.69.0126a15: 五果五果亦成因也。智生因是局因無果
T2272_.69.0126a19: 者。音石噵云。芳野言。了宗之智亦此句攝
T2272_.69.0126a22: 五常騰。六信叡也。南寺六祖者。一道昭。二 T2272_.69.0126a23: 行基。三勝虞。四護命。五仲繼。六明
T2272_.69.0126a28: 問答也。問意可知。答中總苞稱。一者秋篠
T2272_.69.0126b04: 云違順
T2272_.69.0126b11: 意云。爲敵者智能詮言・所詮義俱爲所縁 T2272_.69.0126b12: 境故不云親狹云疎寬也。疎謂寬也麁 T2272_.69.0126b13: 也顯也。謂敵智能照顯言・義之二故云疎 T2272_.69.0126b14: 云寬也。疎寬是敵智用ナレハ不云生名了。了 T2272_.69.0126b15: 謂照顯。若物一ツ著サルレハ則應云生。今敵智 T2272_.69.0126b16: 境能所詮言・義。俱所縁取故非境一。所
T2272_.69.0126b20: 狹者。立者言爲言生因生唯一敵智果無 T2272_.69.0126b21: 生餘果。故云親狹。令起名生者。令言示 T2272_.69.0126b22: 能起用。言生因有能令生起敵智用。故立 T2272_.69.0126b23: 言名生。果既有差等者。果有二種。一所了 T2272_.69.0126b24: 果。謂所立宗。二所生果。謂敵智了因。有生・ T2272_.69.0126b25: 了二果別故因亦分生・了。同能得果者。雖 T2272_.69.0126b26: 有生了二因別得果亦二於稱果邊是同
T2272_.69.0126c01: 敵者智而不生餘智故云狹也。二云唯智 T2272_.69.0126c02: 了因一果故云狹也。基辨會二義云。敵智 T2272_.69.0126c03: 即智了因故二義無別。又果有差者如前已 T2272_.69.0126c04: 釋。一所了果即所立宗。二所生果即敵智了 T2272_.69.0126c05: 因。因分生了者。初所了果因。智了因。次所生
T2272_.69.0126c09: 故以生・了二因各分言・義・智三種爲六 T2272_.69.0126c10: 因耶。答中生果照果等者。生果謂生因生 T2272_.69.0126c11: 果。照果謂了因照果。此義用有同分爲六 T2272_.69.0126c12: 因。如次引古釋。音石裏釋義用不同云。意 T2272_.69.0126c13: 言。生因三種是生果義用不同。謂智生因 T2272_.69.0126c14: 生言生因也。言生因生智了因也。義生因
T2272_.69.0126c17: 解能立方宗果所顯故。言了因亦遠顯宗
T2272_.69.0126c20: 能者。言生・言了爲一類。義生・義了爲一類。 T2272_.69.0126c21: 智生・智了爲一類。各隨其類有生・了能。故 T2272_.69.0126c22: 分三種。生能之類分爲三種。了能之類分
T2272_.69.0126c27: 疑云。立者智何故不名智了因但云智生 T2272_.69.0126c28: 因。又敵者智亦不名智生但云智了耶。爲 T2272_.69.0126c29: 通此疑有今疏文。通疑意云。立者之智 T2272_.69.0127a01: 望ムルニ敵者智了宗隔言・義及了宗故立智
T2272_.69.0127a04: 不生立者悟解。故無可名生由。故立智外 T2272_.69.0127a05: 立敵智了此爲有三名云了因。即智了・言 T2272_.69.0127a06: 了・義了。故但分三等者故言承上。由上來 T2272_.69.0127a07: 道理故生果分三了果亦三。不増云四不 T2272_.69.0127a08: 減云三但爲有三
T2272_.69.0127a19: 所釋文巧義至妙境寔所不及也。順果義 T2272_.69.0127a20: 別者。基辨云。順ルニ生・了二果生因義・了因義
T2272_.69.0127a23: 體有四也。望果二用者。果有二。一生果。謂 T2272_.69.0127a24: 智了因。二了果。謂所立果。雖有二果合名
T2272_.69.0127a27: 言・義爲能了因照顯所立宗由有能照了 T2272_.69.0127a28: 用云言了・義了。雖如是有四不過立者 T2272_.69.0127a29: 義・言。義謂所詮。言謂能詮。除此無體者。立 T2272_.69.0127b01: 者義・言約生・了二果有言生了・義生了用。 T2272_.69.0127b02: 雖然生・了二用言・義除立者能詮言所詮 T2272_.69.0127b03: 義外無別體。故言生了・義生了合爲體二。
T2272_.69.0127b13: 初説。音石噵云。因三相中初・後二相名宗・ T2272_.69.0127b14: 喩。故云別也。初説意云。宗・喩別故不開。因
T2272_.69.0127b17: 釋通稱因由。二之法者。謂因是宗・喩之上 T2272_.69.0127b18: 法則者。故遍宗・喩之二爲則。故宗・喩通云 T2272_.69.0127b19: 因稱也 又因必寬等者後説答也。音石噵
T2272_.69.0127b26: 以四門分別因體相・因名義・因差別・因 T2272_.69.0127b27: 廢立已。自下釋上牒有三相論文三字 T2272_.69.0127b28: 次牒論文ヲ生起。是即就隨文解釋爲生 T2272_.69.0127b29: 起也
T2272_.69.0127c03: 連上論文示五段總科。二總釋三相名。三
T2272_.69.0127c06: 擧者上所標牒論文云因有三相是也。今 T2272_.69.0127c07: 此科終云此即初也即指上牒已論文 其 T2272_.69.0127c08: 言生因下二總釋三相名生起次論文。此中 T2272_.69.0127c09: 亦三。初總釋三相。次釋相言示無別體。三
T2272_.69.0127c13: 因者立者言生因。及敵證智者智了因。所詮
T2272_.69.0127c16: 除智生因餘五因皆具三相。以言生因説 T2272_.69.0127c17: 所作義時能詮言生因具因三相。然正具三 T2272_.69.0127c18: 相者義生因也。言了・義了即言生・義生故
T2272_.69.0127c22: 生因立者自悟智。此智不具三相云何言生 T2272_.69.0127c23: 因具三相。今可此智生上雖具三相自悟 T2272_.69.0127c24: 故不相顯。今於能立論三相義云除智生
T2272_.69.0127c27: 言一詮三義故從義名三。智縁三相故亦
T2272_.69.0128a03: 此疏文但云敵證智除智生因。故以備釋 T2272_.69.0128a04: 爲勝。今云。雖三相體一能縁智・能詮言・所 T2272_.69.0128a05: 詮義之邊ニオイテ別故云各有三。其體但所詮義 T2272_.69.0128a06: 一也。由是秋篠釋尤爲勝。又私云。相者 T2272_.69.0128a07: 向也者。離向云向。如次釋也。若不爲此 T2272_.69.0128a08: 釋則恐三箇三相別別三因上有云各有三 T2272_.69.0128a09: 相今云相者向也。彰三相義體一非有三 T2272_.69.0128a10: 但取詮言上 正取言生等者明三相正在 T2272_.69.0128a11: 言生處 正能生故者。一本作正能立故不 T2272_.69.0128a12: 是。謂言生因正能生智了因故論三相正 T2272_.69.0128a13: 在言生 此生智了等者釋正能生故。謂此 T2272_.69.0128a14: 言生因生敵智照解宗果故。正因三相體 T2272_.69.0128a15: 言生與智了 兼亦義生等者。能建宗故四 T2272_.69.0128a16: 字釋兼義生之由。就生ニ三アル中言生是即 T2272_.69.0128a17: 因能立體智・義是彼言因之境故兼名能立。
T2272_.69.0128a21: 説。後寄難釋。此即初也。備記云。宗同異喩 T2272_.69.0128a22: 等者。宗以不相離性爲體。同喩以瓶所作 T2272_.69.0128a23: 無常爲體。異喩以空常非所作爲體。故云
T2272_.69.0128a26: 喩三。三上所作更無別體。由此理故説相 T2272_.69.0128a27: 者向也。秋篠釋因相貫三二句云。此説向
T2272_.69.0128b07: 因相名爲向耶。答。於宗・同・異皆貫通故往 T2272_.69.0128b08: 向三處故也。問。異品既無。何名爲向耶。答。
T2272_.69.0128b12: 理門既以闕一相云一向離。是即相者向義
T2272_.69.0128b22: 相貫三更無別體。既是一因。何説多言能
T2272_.69.0128b25: 雖多而能詮言是一故於三相中致一因 T2272_.69.0128b26: 言也。又云。所詮義生因其相雖多而能詮之 T2272_.69.0128b27: 言生因是一故。於三相中致一因言也。此
T2272_.69.0128c01: 三別處故云多也。備第二釋爲好。能詮言 T2272_.69.0128c02: 一者。所作義因三相是多。所作言是一 於 T2272_.69.0128c03: 三相中等者。所詮之所作義通三別處是云 T2272_.69.0128c04: 三相。於其三相中置一所作性能詮言也
T2272_.69.0128c14: 對釋 古師解云者異本作文軌師云不是。
T2272_.69.0128c24: 故云初相同此。後之二相如次即以同異 T2272_.69.0128c25: 二品有法爲體。故云餘二各以有法爲性
T2272_.69.0128c28: 如前辨已。由是以如實論爲今疏文所云 T2272_.69.0128c29: 古師意之證未穩當也 陳那不許等者。基 T2272_.69.0129a01: 辨釋云。古師以陳那所言喩依爲同・異爲 T2272_.69.0129a02: 後二相。同・異之有法依主釋。此今云同異有 T2272_.69.0129a03: 法。陳那已後不許是喩依同異之有法爲能
T2272_.69.0129a10: 義爲第二相。於異品上無因之義爲第三 T2272_.69.0129a11: 相。故有差別。無如前過。説古今別基説
T2272_.69.0129a14: 取彼同異二喩之體上義爲後二相故云 T2272_.69.0129a15: 三相之相言是義相非云體。故今云故相 T2272_.69.0129a16: 非體也
T2272_.69.0129a19: 擧數。二列名。三別釋三相。四總論三相。今 T2272_.69.0129a20: 即初二也。俱牒論示科也。就國讀三相名 T2272_.69.0129a21: 應訓讀遍シテ是宗ニ法タル性ト同品ニハ定テ有ナル性ト異 T2272_.69.0129a22: 品ニハ遍シテ無ナル性ト也。近來瑞源等附點云遍シテ T2272_.69.0129a23: 是レ宗カ法タル性ト妄謬也。因點謬義爲遍宗法 T2272_.69.0129a24: 之類多。必勿依用
T2272_.69.0129a27: 三釋第三相。釋初相中有六。初總釋初相。 T2272_.69.0129a28: 二釋宗法言。三釋性言。四示遮過立名。五 T2272_.69.0129a29: 示二名非重言。六四句分別。今即初也 顯 T2272_.69.0129b01: 因之體以成宗故者。秋篠鈔云。因三相中唯 T2272_.69.0129b02: 以初爲因之自體。以因初相正詮宗故。 T2272_.69.0129b03: 此疏文義意云。初相是主。正爲能立。籍テ伴ニ T2272_.69.0129b04: 助成。故須第二。雖有主・伴其濫未除故 T2272_.69.0129b05: 須第三。主・伴・止濫顯宗義周。故不可増
T2272_.69.0129b08: 顯因之自體。以此初相成不相離宗。不欲 T2272_.69.0129b09: 成喩。必須遍是宗等者。必須言若闕此初
T2272_.69.0129b12: 是於有法宗上非全分遍則非正因。爲示 T2272_.69.0129b13: 此義云遍是宗。宗之法性者遍是有法宗 T2272_.69.0129b14: 爲因法性爲初相也。爲示此義云宗之 T2272_.69.0129b15: 法隔是。恐云遍スル是宗法ニ性ト置之言云
T2272_.69.0129b18: 即因義也。謂此因法遍有法宗成不相離宗
T2272_.69.0129b21: 宗故。若不彰宗誰之因法。二云。以因初相 T2272_.69.0129b22: 於宗依上而建立故。總顯意云。第一相云 T2272_.69.0129b23: 遍是宗法性者。聲有法體名之爲宗。是ハ有 T2272_.69.0129b24: 法ノ上ノ所作性義或勤發義。通附聲上而成 T2272_.69.0129b25: 差別。異相法門是初相性。故云遍是宗法
T2272_.69.0129b29: 引理門論釋因法・宗法。三以六合釋解宗 T2272_.69.0129c01: 法別。今即初也 此中宗言等者。基辨云。先 T2272_.69.0129c02: 示因所依。宗有二。法有法。亦有二。總及 T2272_.69.0129c03: 別。釋總別者分法・有法。是爲別宗。不相離 T2272_.69.0129c04: 性爲總宗。今初相ノ名ノ中ノ宗ノ之言是指何宗 T2272_.69.0129c05: 耶。謂若據總別唯取別宗。法・有法中唯取 T2272_.69.0129c06: 有法以爲因之所依也。故云有法之別義 T2272_.69.0129c07: 等也。此法有二者。此言指有法上別義法
T2272_.69.0129c11: 法時無諍。擧能別時方有諍故云不共 T2272_.69.0129c12: 有也。意云。有法及法是須立敵共許。雖不 T2272_.69.0129c13: 許聲上有無常。然許餘法無常。非不都
T2272_.69.0129c16: 共有法也。是彰示有法上別義法有二竟」
T2272_.69.0129c19: 許因法。二寄難釋共許爲因。三疏主明引 T2272_.69.0129c20: 理門意釋遍是宗法之宗言。四通伏難釋。 T2272_.69.0129c21: 五擧證釋但取有法名宗。此即初也 理 T2272_.69.0129c22: 門論云等者。釋此引文意古來有三家別。 T2272_.69.0129c23: 初備記意云。爲證共許因法引此理門論
T2272_.69.0129c26: 法性義乃同也。因亦是喩之法性。何故但 T2272_.69.0129c27: 説是宗法耶。答。本欲以因成宗故不 T2272_.69.0129c28: 欲以是成瓶等故。由是但取有法上 T2272_.69.0129c29: 共許之法成於後陳不共許法。故説此因
T2272_.69.0130a04: 此中宗法トハ立論及敵者決定因許。謂同許是
T2272_.69.0130a07: 須依用此説。與備意同。秋篠所釋未盡 T2272_.69.0130a08: 不穩也 決定同許者。音石噵引備記云。 T2272_.69.0130a09: 決定同許者共許因法也。又智了因也。若不
T2272_.69.0130a12: 許之所以。謂若能立因非共許時因智不 T2272_.69.0130a13: 生。若無因智本宗不了。是故要須彼此共
T2272_.69.0130a17: 詳疏意。今此之此言指次上句決定同許者。
T2272_.69.0130a24: 下理門論取意文。既爾者承上難。此意言。既 T2272_.69.0130a25: 云敵智爲證了因則智成立所成立義故
T2272_.69.0130b01: 不憶本極成因喩者應不同許。故憶因之
T2272_.69.0130b04: 失スレハ智遂不生。今以言詮令憶共許宗法
T2272_.69.0130b11: 門論而釋之意也 因體共許法者如云所 T2272_.69.0130b12: 作性故也 宗之中不共許法者如云聲無 T2272_.69.0130b13: 常也 故此二法者不共有法及共有因法 T2272_.69.0130b14: 之二。此二法共是有法上所具別義 故今 T2272_.69.0130b15: 唯以等者。故言承上。今者今論文遍是宗法 T2272_.69.0130b16: 性之宗言。此宗言但以有法名宗。二法是 T2272_.69.0130b17: 能依。以宗有法爲其所依。故今以有法名
T2272_.69.0130b21: 以爲宗體何但取有法方名宗耶。今疏文
T2272_.69.0130b26: 初段文中所申者對敵申所立宗。二依者 T2272_.69.0130b27: 極成有法・極成能別。此二爲所依有不相
T2272_.69.0130c07: 云總也。有法是不相離總宗之所依一分也
T2272_.69.0130c10: 相離宗名爲總宗則此次文云何會。故以有 T2272_.69.0130c11: 法爲四宗一分爲正也。由此等義故但有
T2272_.69.0130c16: 所以。故於諸家中以備記初釋爲順疏意。 T2272_.69.0130c17: 後學勿牽一盲陷大澤矣
T2272_.69.0130c20: 法名宗。即釋總宗一分也。此中二文。初寄 T2272_.69.0130c21: 難徵。二答釋。豈不總以下初寄難徵釋。此 T2272_.69.0130c22: 無有失下理門論主答釋。後記云。理門論云
T2272_.69.0130c26: 因法。今此引證明有法名宗。故前後有別。 T2272_.69.0130c27: 爾爲同引證後記渺漫不知所取材也。鳴
T2272_.69.0131a01: 前文豈既不云乎。不相離總宗以但隨自意 T2272_.69.0131a02: 樂他不許名爲宗。若爾有法・法合名宗。云
T2272_.69.0131a06: 答釋。此無有失一句總答 以其總聲等者 T2272_.69.0131a07: 正答釋。總言不相離總宗。別者總之中別。謂 T2272_.69.0131a08: 取有法・法合中之一分有法別名爲宗也。 T2272_.69.0131a09: 秋篠釋此正答文云。聲者名也。總謂不相離
T2272_.69.0131a13: 何義故得有總中之別非是別中之別也。 T2272_.69.0131a14: 基辨云。此秋篠釋尤爲殊勝。別云望合後 T2272_.69.0131a15: 總中別不望未合之前別中別之釋可謂 T2272_.69.0131a16: 巧妙釋 如言燒衣者擧喩示總聲於別 T2272_.69.0131a17: 轉。秋篠釋此喩云。以喩釋云如言燒衣 T2272_.69.0131a18: 者。謂於一衣望於燒處得名燒衣。及不 T2272_.69.0131a19: 燒處亦名燒衣。兩處雖別然是一衣總名 T2272_.69.0131a20: 燒衣。以其總聲於別亦轉其不燒處亦名 T2272_.69.0131a21: 燒衣。即如無常違於敵論兩得名宗。其聲 T2272_.69.0131a22: 有法不違敵論亦得名宗。二義雖別然
T2272_.69.0131a29: 或有宗聲等二句理門論文。明以後陳名 T2272_.69.0131b01: 宗。秋篠釋云。或者不定義也。或有法名宗。 T2272_.69.0131b02: 或復處法名宗。不須定執也。若望局據 T2272_.69.0131b03: 違敵論故名爲宗者。二義之中或時偏説
T2272_.69.0131b06: 言承上示不定義。以能別法名宗法雖 T2272_.69.0131b07: 非今明遍是宗法處之所用。若不擧示此 T2272_.69.0131b08: 義難彰宗法言有二得名。故欲委細離合
T2272_.69.0131b11: 名。後陳名法者。以宗中能別法名初相名 T2272_.69.0131b12: 之法。則能別宗即法持業得名。又總宗之
T2272_.69.0131b15: 宗法之所依故名總宗也。之法者能別法宗
T2272_.69.0131b20: 今因名法等者。基辨釋云。今字指示遍是宗 T2272_.69.0131b21: 法之法言。此是因三相中初相名云宗法性 T2272_.69.0131b22: 故。法之言即共有法因法也。宗言如上所成 T2272_.69.0131b23: 有法宗也。有法宗之因法性ナレハ唯依立釋無 T2272_.69.0131b24: 餘離合。無有法宗即因法之義故。彰無持
T2272_.69.0131b28: 也而復云此唯義性非是體性。且似自語 T2272_.69.0131b29: 相違然疏意云。諸處通論スルハ性者體也。此中 T2272_.69.0131c01: 因相ニ所言性者唯取義性。義相應故。與彼 T2272_.69.0131c02: 體性不相應故。如所作性唯是有法之別
T2272_.69.0131c05: 性言義性非如餘論取體。簡云唯也。以義 T2272_.69.0131c06: 性爲ルハ初相云義相應。餘二亦然者。後二相 T2272_.69.0131c07: 性之言亦是義性非體云亦然也。故邑釋 T2272_.69.0131c08: 爲好。後記有釋。雖無違害麁釋難了
T2272_.69.0131c11: 明無過如實義。二明遮因兩俱立名。三 T2272_.69.0131c12: 明遮相符立名。四明不違因明理立名。 T2272_.69.0131c13: 五明遮因所依不成立名。六明因法必依 T2272_.69.0131c14: 宗有法成宗法而結釋。今即初也。秋篠科 T2272_.69.0131c15: 云。先釋宗法性之三字後超明遍是二字。此
T2272_.69.0131c18: 此共許因者。謂所作性故因。此所作因聲有 T2272_.69.0131c19: 法宗上義性共許因也。此文意言。此共許因 T2272_.69.0131c20: 法依有法成宗法。是有法宗之義性故云 T2272_.69.0131c21: 唯得遍シテ是レ有法宗カ之義性ト云コトヲ。唯言彰更 T2272_.69.0131c22: 無餘義餘皆有過。由是秋篠所立秋不穩。 T2272_.69.0131c23: 今改作科考覈前後文出之。後來哲鑒君子 T2272_.69.0131c24: 請删正已。以宗之法等者明因法依有法宗 T2272_.69.0131c25: 之由。以者故也。第五囀聲。謂以有法宗聲上 T2272_.69.0131c26: 之因法ナル所作性ノ義即成能別宗即法無常。 T2272_.69.0131c27: 故遍是宗法性之宗法言彰因法依宗有法
T2272_.69.0132a02: 實義遮過。謂若不由上如實義云遍能
T2272_.69.0132a05: 記釋云。因犯兩俱不成者。所作生義。無常
T2272_.69.0132a08: 上所作。無常是滅所作是生故不許同處有
T2272_.69.0132a11: 宗者因犯兩俱不成立敵兩俱不許所作性
T2272_.69.0132a14: 爲勝。同後記委細釋故。秋篠釋文簡約難 T2272_.69.0132a15: 了 T2272_.69.0132a16: 疏。又不欲成宗有法故 鈔曰。遮過立名 T2272_.69.0132a17: 中二明遮相符立名。此文意言。若有人釋 T2272_.69.0132a18: 言遍是有法宗之因法性成宗有法義則 T2272_.69.0132a19: 犯相符故今文云不欲成故。云何犯スト云ハハ相 T2272_.69.0132a20: 符。則如音石噵云。意言。有法聲是立敵共
T2272_.69.0132a23: 何更成立。若強立則立已成也ト云是兩師意。故 T2272_.69.0132a24: 以此二句翻可知宗法性言彰遍是有法 T2272_.69.0132a25: 宗之因法性成能別宗法爲如實義也
T2272_.69.0132a28: 文意云。即釋以有法成有法以有法上之 T2272_.69.0132a29: 因法成能別宗法是如實義 謂若強云以 T2272_.69.0132b01: 有法成有法。則有法即作能立因。立量可 T2272_.69.0132b02: 云聲是聲ナルヘシ聲ナルカ故耶。聲爲因成スルヲ聲有 T2272_.69.0132b03: 法何名因明。因明之法以有法宗上之因法 T2272_.69.0132b04: 義性成能別宗法。違因明故不云以有
T2272_.69.0132b08: 中亦有六文。初示有所依不成故遮過立 T2272_.69.0132b09: 名。二引理門述外難。三引理門答外難。 T2272_.69.0132b10: 四立理示過。五通外所疑。六重引總攝頌 T2272_.69.0132b11: 明宗因之法式。今即初也。由諸家釋難了 T2272_.69.0132b12: 基辨私今釋云。此者指宗有法。亦者亦於 T2272_.69.0132b13: 不成有法。法謂宗法。因謂指今爲能成有 T2272_.69.0132b14: 法。有法爲能成則無所別有法。故因無所 T2272_.69.0132b15: 依也。此文意言。若謂以有法成宗法。則有 T2272_.69.0132b16: 法能成故是即因法。有法作因法已無有法 T2272_.69.0132b17: 者。無是則無所依。無所依因即犯所依不 T2272_.69.0132b18: 成。由是遍是宗法性名以有法宗上之因法 T2272_.69.0132b19: 成宗法義非以有法爲因成宗法義也。 T2272_.69.0132b20: 秋篠鈔擧所依不成釋不與此疏同意。而
T2272_.69.0132b24: 初理門文。次疏主釋。此即初也。此文外人 T2272_.69.0132b25: 難今所云有法不成有法有法不成法也。 T2272_.69.0132b26: 此中難意音石裏引仁記云。烟與火俱是法
T2272_.69.0132b29: 觸是用非眼見故非有法。是外人意也。如 T2272_.69.0132c01: 以烟立火下指事示有法ヲ以成有法或以有 T2272_.69.0132c02: 法成法也。謂烟與火俱是眼見有法。故以 T2272_.69.0132c03: 烟成火以有法成有法。以火立ルハ熱觸熱 T2272_.69.0132c04: 觸是離火無別體。是火上法。是即以有法 T2272_.69.0132c05: 成法。如言即彰指事。其義云何者正表難
T2272_.69.0132c09: 裏云。以有法成有法者。烟下有ルヘシ火以現烟 T2272_.69.0132c10: 故如ト云厨等因ニ有リト云所依不成。問。此以有 T2272_.69.0132c11: 法成法。何故今云以有法成有法耶。答。
T2272_.69.0132c15: 有成立火言是有以現烟故。即以火爲 T2272_.69.0132c16: 有法。今復以烟有法而成於火。故以有法
T2272_.69.0132c26: 者有法立法。此即外道・古古因明師立此兩
T2272_.69.0133a03: 如前已辨邑文難了。義意三家無違。仁 T2272_.69.0133a04: 文短意難彰。但秋篠釋意味易了。又後記
T2272_.69.0133a07: 欲決定。如勝論立徳及有徳一向決定。火 T2272_.69.0133a08: 雖在於宗法之中亦名有法。如是定故所
T2272_.69.0133a11: 而了前三家意全同自可臻其眞已 又 T2272_.69.0133a12: 如見火云等者。秋篠云。又如見火云定有熱
T2272_.69.0133a22: 此中亦二。初理門文。後疏主文。今即初也。基 T2272_.69.0133a23: 辨釋云。今於此中者。此謂前云初後二量。即 T2272_.69.0133a24: 以烟立火以火立觸名爲二量。非以成立 T2272_.69.0133a25: 火觸等者。以謂用也。非用烟成立火爲宗 T2272_.69.0133a26: 也。非用火成立觸爲宗也。今合成文。今 T2272_.69.0133a27: 改前量云非。改立量作法如次明疏主釋。 T2272_.69.0133a28: 意言。外道及古師云遠見烟有下有ヘシト火 T2272_.69.0133a29: 亦云遠處火中定有ルヘシト熱。此二量宗誤作宗 T2272_.69.0133b01: 言故。云以有法立有法以有法立法。今
T2272_.69.0133b05: 疏主釋中。又邑記釋此二句云。凡諸體・義 T2272_.69.0133b06: 名云相應。如前聲體有所作無常義。即是 T2272_.69.0133b07: 聲體。是所作等相應之物。即以山爲有法。 T2272_.69.0133b08: 取此山上有火義爲所立宗法。復以山上 T2272_.69.0133b09: 所現烟義以爲因法。故無有法ヲモテ成有法
T2272_.69.0133b15: 文云。成山處決定等者。此以烟相應物改
T2272_.69.0133b19: 云非以火爲宗也。因云。以有烟故ト云ン此亦 T2272_.69.0133b20: 不以烟體爲因。但以谷能有烟爲因故。 T2272_.69.0133b21: 理門上文説。是遍非宗法故不然也。喩云 T2272_.69.0133b22: 如此近處厨中 爐中定熱以有火故者。此 T2272_.69.0133b23: 以火相應物改立量也。應立後量云。遠處
T2272_.69.0133b27: 故者。亦是炭體有彼火故不取火體。准前 T2272_.69.0133b28: 可知。遠處山谷與火相應遠處爐中與熱相 T2272_.69.0133b29: 應。是故名爲烟火相應之物。非以有法烟 T2272_.69.0133c01: 還成有法火。亦不以有法火而成熱觸法
T2272_.69.0133c05: 初理門文。後疏主釋。今即初也。基辨解云。若 T2272_.69.0133c06: 不爾者等者。陳那菩薩意云。若不如前明 T2272_.69.0133c07: 所改之量取相應物上有火以爲所立宗
T2272_.69.0133c11: 分者前陳後陳一分也。秋篠鈔云。宗義一分 T2272_.69.0133c12: 爲因過者。如本量云烟下有火以見烟故。 T2272_.69.0133c13: 見烟即是見其宗中有法之體。於有法上
T2272_.69.0133c17: 義門。宗有兩分。有法及法。今者還用有法
T2272_.69.0133c20: 不應異求。此釋義中於有法上無別義者。此 T2272_.69.0133c21: 意雖前已私注復就疏文加示一釋。於云 T2272_.69.0133c22: 烟下有法無別義門以其烟直爲因故。 T2272_.69.0133c23: 以有法爲因故全無有法。無有法故此因 T2272_.69.0133c24: 無所依。故次疏主釋云因乃有所依不成也
T2272_.69.0134a01: 依亦犯相符。烟下有火依火有觸共知有 T2272_.69.0134a02: 故。故不得以有法成法等ト云。若如我立ルトキハ T2272_.69.0134a03: 遠谷有火爐中有熱人即未知。故須立量。
T2272_.69.0134a06: 辨故不強可依用也。此文云因有所依不 T2272_.69.0134a07: 成者如前已辨。有法爲因無有法故。無有
T2272_.69.0134a10: 不以法成有法。後記中擧二釋。第一釋意 T2272_.69.0134a11: 云。亦者亦不可以有法成有法。以法者 T2272_.69.0134a12: 謂以後陳之法。不以後陳成前陳也。第 T2272_.69.0134a13: 二釋意云。亦字同第一釋。以法者謂以因 T2272_.69.0134a14: 法。不以因法成於有法也。立量本意爲 T2272_.69.0134a15: 成敵不許。故但以因法遍前陳而欲成
T2272_.69.0134a18: 耶。答。若以法成有法者。即闕同喩及因第 T2272_.69.0134a19: 二相同品定有性即成有法自相相違。如薩 T2272_.69.0134a20: 婆多對大乘立。眼識所縁定是離識實色ナルヘシ T2272_.69.0134a21: 以五境中隨一攝故如香味等。取五境別 T2272_.69.0134a22: 香非是色。闕同喩故因此遍轉。故成相違
T2272_.69.0134a25: 義。又後記後解以法之法爲因法釋非疏主 T2272_.69.0134a26: 意。次疏文云名爲能別亦名爲法故。前以 T2272_.69.0134a27: 法言以能別法爲法顯然。由是用後記第 T2272_.69.0134a28: 一釋諸家釋爲殊勝也。宗中所陳等下具 T2272_.69.0134a29: 釋不以法成立有法句。有法・法二云宗中所 T2272_.69.0134b01: 陳。既云前陳・後陳故。後能別前者後陳能 T2272_.69.0134b02: 別前陳故云能別。謂後陳無常言能差別 T2272_.69.0134b03: 前陳聲常無常。故後陳亦名能別。因成於此 T2272_.69.0134b04: 等下明前後二陳中能立因以何爲所成。此 T2272_.69.0134b05: 謂指上句名爲能別亦名爲法句。大凡能立 T2272_.69.0134b06: 所作性因爲成立聲上無常義即能別也。不 T2272_.69.0134b07: 欲以因等者彰以因不成前陳。前陳是所 T2272_.69.0134b08: 別故。因焉成是。不用能別但以用成前 T2272_.69.0134b09: 陳所別意於因明理曾無是也。是所別故 T2272_.69.0134b10: 者釋以因不成前陳由。非別後故者明前 T2272_.69.0134b11: 陳爲所別由。立量初但云聲。此言非別後
T2272_.69.0134b15: 二。初論主文。後疏主釋文。今即初也。就釋 T2272_.69.0134b16: 此文古來有兩家別。一云此文通外人所 T2272_.69.0134b17: 疑。周記本解及邑記釋。秋篠・音石共用之。 T2272_.69.0134b18: 周記云。此釋疑難。難意云。火之與烟俱是 T2272_.69.0134b19: 有法。陳那意言。山處有ルヘシ火以現烟故。此 T2272_.69.0134b20: 還以有法烟成有法火如何。爲有此難
T2272_.69.0134b23: 外難意云。法與有法體用已定。不應囘換。 T2272_.69.0134b24: 本立烟火以爲有法別取相應之物以爲 T2272_.69.0134b25: 有法。豈不違眞比量中聲是有法無常是法
T2272_.69.0134b29: 許即名爲法。若於無常兩皆共許。即以無 T2272_.69.0134c01: 常名爲有法。於聲色等有許不許即以
T2272_.69.0134c07: 實不決定。無此是決有法永不可名法亦 T2272_.69.0134c08: 決是法非有法之義。但前陳者名有法後 T2272_.69.0134c09: 陳者名法。故云觀所成故立法有法也。非 T2272_.69.0134c10: 徳有徳者彰非如勝論師決定云徳是徳非
T2272_.69.0134c13: 人但信無常不信有聲。如小乘人不信
T2272_.69.0134c18: 聲是無常所作性故譬如瓶等。故法・有法有 T2272_.69.0134c19: 善巧者臨時迴換。非如勝論徳句爲所有 T2272_.69.0134c20: 實句爲能有一向決定。故云非徳有徳也
T2272_.69.0134c26: 火決定爲有法。其文易了
T2272_.69.0134c29: 式也。此中三文。初理門論文。次疏主釋文。 T2272_.69.0135a01: 釋成但由法成其法。後亦疏主文。明因依 T2272_.69.0135a02: 不共許法則有所依不成過。此即初也。基辨 T2272_.69.0135a03: 釋云。今所引總攝頌遣非示正頌也。有法 T2272_.69.0135a04: 非成等二句遮非。前所云本量以烟立火。
T2272_.69.0135a07: 過失。故眞比量有法ヲ以非成有法也 及法 T2272_.69.0135a08: 此非成等者。音裏引邑記云。此釋以後陳
T2272_.69.0135a12: 句中法。謂有法非成於法也。復次句云此 T2272_.69.0135a13: 非成有法者。此謂前所云及法之法言。此即 T2272_.69.0135a14: 法ヲ以非成有法也。故云法言通上下也 T2272_.69.0135a15: 但由法故等二句示正。但謂更無餘義。法 T2272_.69.0135a16: 謂所作性因法。其法謂宗中法。如是者如 T2272_.69.0135a17: 是展轉資益成立有法。意言。眞比量但由 T2272_.69.0135a18: 所作性因法成立宗中無常能別法如是相 T2272_.69.0135a19: 資成有法也
T2272_.69.0135a22: 與因兩共許互相依宗之中能別法不相離 T2272_.69.0135a23: 時敵未許故不可爲因依。故眞比量共許 T2272_.69.0135a24: 之因遍宗有法成不共許宗法。如是展轉 T2272_.69.0135a25: 資益成立有法義也。何得因成等者立理 T2272_.69.0135a26: 成。何言猶云有何所由。因謂共有因法。不 T2272_.69.0135a27: 共許者宗法也。在・中二字境第七聲即所依 T2272_.69.0135a28: 處也。住彼中者。彼謂不共許宗法。在中言所 T2272_.69.0135a29: 依處。此文意言。若云因非遍有法。則有何 T2272_.69.0135b01: 所由得共有因法以不共許宗法爲所依 T2272_.69.0135b02: 處。若許以不共許宗法爲所依處。則無可
T2272_.69.0135b06: 凡所立因等者示一切因有所依不成 皆 T2272_.69.0135b07: 有他隨一言古來有兩本所覽爲別。一者 T2272_.69.0135b08: 作他隨一。前記及備記同所覽也。二者作似 T2272_.69.0135b09: 隨一。後記及邑記同所覽。初作他隨一意 T2272_.69.0135b10: 言。備記云。共許之所作因依不共許能別無 T2272_.69.0135b11: 常者。所作性因皆有隨他一所依不成也。 T2272_.69.0135b12: 所以者何。所作是生義無常是滅義。立敵兩 T2272_.69.0135b13: 俱不許滅義上有生義故。問。若爾云何不 T2272_.69.0135b14: 云兩俱不成耶。答。以理言則應云兩俱不 T2272_.69.0135b15: 成也。然今云文意者。立者既立量發言故。彼 T2272_.69.0135b16: 許炳然。約唯敵不許邊云他隨一所依不
T2272_.69.0135b21: 似隨一意言。邑記曰。凡所立因皆有似隨 T2272_.69.0135b22: 一所依不成者。謂所依不成中有兩俱隨一。 T2272_.69.0135b23: 宗中之法ヲ云トキハ一許一不許。其不許者因無依 T2272_.69.0135b24: 故非實隨一。故置似言。以セハ實隨一據有
T2272_.69.0135b27: 義全無相違。備記云約敵者不許邊作 T2272_.69.0135b28: 他。邑記亦云其不許者因無依故非實隨
T2272_.69.0135c02: 是。若云他隨則濫因據有法他隨一故
T2272_.69.0135c05: 隨一所依不成故不説有法爲因所依。而 T2272_.69.0135c06: 但以其宗中法爲因所依。則宗法自本非 T2272_.69.0135c07: 立敵共許。縱唯立者許豈得言決定無他似
T2272_.69.0135c12: 所作等者。意言。若云不立遍是宗法性相 T2272_.69.0135c13: 而因所作不遍聲宗。則豈得因所作遍在 T2272_.69.0135c14: 無常上。若強言得遍有。則一切正因應有 T2272_.69.0135c15: 兩俱不成。以不共許法爲所依因故 由 T2272_.69.0135c16: 此故知下結因必依有法成宗法。因但是 T2272_.69.0135c17: 宗等者。因雖成立宗法依宗有法之因法 T2272_.69.0135c18: 依主釋也 非法法者非依宗法之因法也
T2272_.69.0135c22: T2272_.69.0135c23:
T2272_.69.0135c26: 大乘宗沙門釋基辨撰
Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: Footnote: 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 [行番号:有/無] [返り点:無/有] [CITE] |