大正蔵検索 INBUDS
|
因明大疏融貫鈔 (No. 2272_ 基辨撰 ) in Vol. 69 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 [行番号:有/無] [返り点:無/有] [CITE]
T2272_.69.0082a01:
T2272_.69.0082a04: 法相大乘沙門基辨撰
T2272_.69.0082a07: 三。初陳宗相。二陳因相。三陳喩相。初陳 T2272_.69.0082a08: 宗中亦三。初牒章。二示相。三指法。初牒 T2272_.69.0082a09: 章中有二。初牒章。今云論此中宗者文是 T2272_.69.0082a10: 也。後疏主釋述曰已下文是也。此疏主釋中 T2272_.69.0082a11: 三文。初示科。二辨宗・因・喩次第。三引瑜 T2272_.69.0082a12: 伽已通難。今文牒章示科也。基辨詳云。問。 T2272_.69.0082a13: 此中陳相何云相云何陳耶。答。相謂宗・因・ T2272_.69.0082a14: 喩彼彼差別相狀・體相。若宗ニシテイハハ則宗依相 T2272_.69.0082a15: 狀宗體體相。若因ニオイテイハハ則因言相狀因體體 T2272_.69.0082a16: 相。即義三相。若喩則喩依相狀喩體體相。今 T2272_.69.0082a17: 廣陳其差別云陳相也
T2272_.69.0082a20: 立。二問答先立宗。三問答次辨因。四問答
T2272_.69.0082a24: 聲體本自安立己法性中。常與無常自相 T2272_.69.0082a25: 成就不由成立。何故今者而更成立聲是
T2272_.69.0082b02: 別云二種所成立也 答爲欲令等者。邑記 T2272_.69.0082b03: 云。此答意言。雖彼聲體本性無常。爲他不 T2272_.69.0082b04: 信令生信解故立聲無常。不是聲體本性
T2272_.69.0082b07: 生。又非爲非本來成就物今立新成就也
T2272_.69.0082b10: 依大乘。一切諸法隨言自性不成就離言 T2272_.69.0082b11: 自性本來成就。有何言説説諸法性。以何 T2272_.69.0082b12: 義故説名能立。爲顯此意今問云復何因 T2272_.69.0082b13: 縁建立二種所成立義耶。建立者能立之異
T2272_.69.0082b16: 執如言相未了離言ノ義。是故設宗等多 T2272_.69.0082b17: 言開其所執示其所迷令彼信解。非爲
T2272_.69.0082b20: 斯問答顯示如是深意自非積修觀之功 T2272_.69.0082b21: 何人亦發此解。我宗後學偏慕先徳慧業 T2272_.69.0082b22: 思惟離言之境速求離名事屬著之見而 T2272_.69.0082b23: 已
T2272_.69.0082b26: 二支也。一自性。二差別。音噵云。聲・無常義
T2272_.69.0082b29: 謂自性之上有漏・無漏・常・無常・我・無我等 T2272_.69.0082c01: 差別不同也。如是二種爲立宗等八種能立 T2272_.69.0082c02: 之所成立。是故名云所成立性也 答中自 T2272_.69.0082c03: 所愛樂宗義者。上既所述陳那以後會釋有 T2272_.69.0082c04: 三段。若准初釋。宗能詮言名愛樂宗。其所 T2272_.69.0082c05: 詮義今名爲義。依第二釋。則別爲能立宗 T2272_.69.0082c06: 總聚名義。第三釋。則能依合宗爲愛樂宗。 T2272_.69.0082c07: 合所依義爲義。此是准瑜伽所會釋。今以 T2272_.69.0082c08: 陳那實意釋。則愛樂宗義者不顧論宗不相 T2272_.69.0082c09: 離宗義也。如上已明。合宗言中有不相離 T2272_.69.0082c10: 性故併讀當得實義也
T2272_.69.0082c21: 因喩相濫故
T2272_.69.0082c24: 作無常是能成道理即喩體也。所依止トナル現
T2272_.69.0082c27: 之依止即是引喩。故云所依止。瓶盆等事
T2272_.69.0083a01: 音石以能成道理爲喩體尤勝。秋篠不云 T2272_.69.0083a02: 喩體爲不穩。此秋篠釋由後記也
T2272_.69.0083a05: 二疏主釋。三重引瑜伽釋隨應眞似所攝 T2272_.69.0083a06: 句。是即因於宗・喩相望釋似之相違・眞之
T2272_.69.0083a10: 中爲欲開示等者。備記問云。開示因・喩相 T2272_.69.0083a11: 違不相違云因・喩二種之相何故擧因耶。
T2272_.69.0083a14: 能立中同類・異類此同喩・異喩也。爾今復瑜 T2272_.69.0083a15: 伽問説此同類・異類答云爲欲開示因・ T2272_.69.0083a16: 喩二種相違不相違智。若如問應説但爲 T2272_.69.0083a17: 開示喩相違不相違。何故云説因・喩二種ヲ
T2272_.69.0083a20: 且因相違智者。因對宗或喩相違現比智皆
T2272_.69.0083a23: 及眞異喩體現比智是眞・而非似也。若 T2272_.69.0083a24: 於ケル因第二相及同喩體現比智是似而非 T2272_.69.0083a25: 眞也。復次因不相違智者ヲ於テスルハ宗及同喩 T2272_.69.0083a26: 則是眞非似也。若於テスルハ異喩則是似非 T2272_.69.0083a27: 眞。又喩不相違智者ヲ若於テスレハ異喩則是似 T2272_.69.0083a28: 非眞。若於テスレハ同喩則是眞非似。是故疏 T2272_.69.0083a29: 次文釋云隨其所應眞似所攝也。今此瑜伽 T2272_.69.0083b01: 文亦總含如是差別而説也。同類・異類之 T2272_.69.0083b02: 言雖在喩上。因・喩不相離故含容如是差 T2272_.69.0083b03: 別。欲示此義説爲欲開示因・喩二種相 T2272_.69.0083b04: 違不相違智故。至下具釋
T2272_.69.0083b07: 因異類 同類者。因於宗・喩同類喩於宗・ T2272_.69.0083b08: 因同類 即於因喩皆有等者。明前句同類・ T2272_.69.0083b09: 異類言於因・喩二上相望有眞・似。就釋
T2272_.69.0083b23: 名似因喩。問。宗中亦然。何但因・喩耶。答。宗
T2272_.69.0083b27: 知同品定有性。是不相違智。因中既爾。喩中
T2272_.69.0083c03: 能立中但是似者俱名相違一切眞者名不
T2272_.69.0083c07: 者。且亦不定因ニオイテ據異品有即相違攝。據同・ T2272_.69.0083c08: 品有即不相違。四不成・四相違准而可悉。
T2272_.69.0083c14: 眼ヲ以見有等是眞現量。如見春野之炎即 T2272_.69.0083c15: 謂溢洋流波是似現量。如見烟知有火是 T2272_.69.0083c16: 眞比量。如見水上露云下有火等是似比 T2272_.69.0083c17: 量。如是眞・似現比二量因・喩皆有。故云隨
T2272_.69.0083c24: 違眞名不相違歟。若爾則違疏文云相違
T2272_.69.0084a02: 違謂同類者。此總略釋非巨細釋。云何總略。 T2272_.69.0084a03: 且就宗因異品釋相違謂異類又就宗因同 T2272_.69.0084a04: 品釋不相違謂同類。若巨細分別辨眞似。 T2272_.69.0084a05: 如上冠注略述異類有眞有似。同類亦復如 T2272_.69.0084a06: 是。於因與喩二種有相違智亦有不相違 T2272_.69.0084a07: 智故也。今重委明。若於因相違謂異類トナルヲイハハ T2272_.69.0084a08: 者。因之於宗及同喩異類是皆似非眞。闕
T2272_.69.0084a11: 第二相圓具故。又若於喩相違謂異類ト云フヲイハハ T2272_.69.0084a12: 者。與宗相違同喩與因相違同喩俱是似
T2272_.69.0084a15: 喩不相違謂同類ナリト云フヲイハハ者。與宗因不相違 T2272_.69.0084a16: 同喩亦眞非似。第二相具故。若異喩ニヲイテイハハ則 T2272_.69.0084a17: 似非眞。闕第三相故。總含如是差別今總 T2272_.69.0084a18: 略釋 即於同喩等下疏文欲彰示此總含 T2272_.69.0084a19: 義故云隨其所應眞似所攝也。由是應知。 T2272_.69.0084a20: 云同類・異類釋偏取テハ不可成疏釋意。須 T2272_.69.0084a21: 辨隨應彰眞似彰知疏主意焉。是故秋篠 T2272_.69.0084a22: 等偏取ルノ釋失疏隨其所應眞似所攝意。後 T2272_.69.0084a23: 學勿忽諸
T2272_.69.0084b06: 許則更立量成。如次具釋。若爾更成故因・喩
T2272_.69.0084b10: 指二因縁中一不決定故。似因過中六不定
T2272_.69.0084b19: 中二同所成故。似因過中四不成及四相違。
T2272_.69.0084b22: 本立共因等下釋同所成名。共因者共許因 T2272_.69.0084b23: 也。本立者就因帶似云本也。意言。立者對 T2272_.69.0084b24: 他立用共因本意欲成立自所立宗果也 T2272_.69.0084b25: 因既帶似等者。似謂不共許過。理須更成 T2272_.69.0084b26: 者。敵者不許因。則道理更立量須以不共 T2272_.69.0084b27: 因令共因。秋篠云。如所作因聲顯不許。更 T2272_.69.0084b28: 以餘因而成立云。聲是所作。因云以隨縁
T2272_.69.0084c03: 別云同。謂本量因與更立宗無別云同
T2272_.69.0084c08: 宗爲能成因故。四相違失アル因必更成スル能違 T2272_.69.0084c09: 量ノ宗ヲ能成ルヲ云同所成。此二意中初秋篠義 T2272_.69.0084c10: 意。後基辨私所推尋也。若有所可用則後 T2272_.69.0084c11: 學翫味焉已。有難予云。疏文既釋同所成 T2272_.69.0084c12: 云因既帶スルヲハ似理須ユ更成等。若爾今云能 T2272_.69.0084c13: 成爲同非不叶疏意耶如何。答。疏釋同所 T2272_.69.0084c14: 成但就四不成釋。故云與宗無別不云 T2272_.69.0084c15: 能成爲同。秋篠亦爾。然疏文既云後是四相 T2272_.69.0084c16: 違。四相違中無因既帶似理更須ユルコト成與 T2272_.69.0084c17: 宗無別理。是故今由疏云アニ後是四相違准 T2272_.69.0084c18: 四相違釋同所成故以能成釋スルト同言。其 T2272_.69.0084c19: 理自明。所以基辨私設立此義。後學審察而 T2272_.69.0084c20: 已 若更成之與宗等者。邑記云。所成者即所 T2272_.69.0084c21: 成宗義。因・喩帶似敵者不許。更須成立。若 T2272_.69.0084c22: 更立之便同所立宗義。故名同所成。然准 T2272_.69.0084c23: 瑜伽所立法即自性・差別。不名云宗。今 T2272_.69.0084c24: 此言立宗不別者。疏主以此論宗義而談
T2272_.69.0084c27: 立宗。故以因亦爲宗義云因與宗無別義。
T2272_.69.0085a01: 喩雖無違害。以此疏本爲勝。前約因於 T2272_.69.0085a02: 二喩帶似釋同所成ト云ヲ。謂如四相違。今 T2272_.69.0085a03: 約宗於二喩帶似釋同所成。謂如喩所 T2272_.69.0085a04: 立不成及所立不遣。是亦更應成立故。在 T2272_.69.0085a05: 此攝者。同上是亦同所成故句中攝也。在 T2272_.69.0085a06: 與中同。俱第七於囀義也。問。四不成中猶豫 T2272_.69.0085a07: 不成疑不決定。何故非不決定故攝同所成 T2272_.69.0085a08: 句攝耶。又相違決定既決定。何故不決定故 T2272_.69.0085a09: 中攝不云同所成故中收耶。答。由秋篠意 T2272_.69.0085a10: 云。以理言則違決因亦是須更立故雖應 T2272_.69.0085a11: 云同所成。三支具不生決智故且望相濫 T2272_.69.0085a12: 不定義不決定故攝。又猶豫雖不決定闕 T2272_.69.0085a13: 初相故四不成收。四不定因對宗帶似故
T2272_.69.0085a18: 約因於宗・喩不相違而説。翻前六不定・ T2272_.69.0085a19: 四相違故。必非不相違但是眞不似。雖 T2272_.69.0085a20: 爾今取隨應眞不相違而釋。上既云隨其 T2272_.69.0085a21: 所應故 決定故者因於宗・喩而決定也 T2272_.69.0085a22: 異所成故者。不須更立故因是因而非宗 T2272_.69.0085a23: 也
T2272_.69.0085a26: 別耶。答。初句是眞因喩故不可更須成立。 T2272_.69.0085a27: 是故名眞因喩。後句有過因・喩今更須成 T2272_.69.0085a28: 立故無有過失。是故名眞因喩。故二別也
T2272_.69.0085b02: 是云眞因眞喩定成宗。後句此眞因眞喩。 T2272_.69.0085b03: 故無レハ帶似不レハ須更成不可以因爲宗。 T2272_.69.0085b04: 故云異所成也。此是明初・後句別
T2272_.69.0085b09: 違。今此所引大論文約成宗不成宗釋違 T2272_.69.0085b10: 不違 謂似因喩等已上文瑜伽論文。已下 T2272_.69.0085b11: 疏主釋也 不相違者已下瑜伽論文 謂眞 T2272_.69.0085b12: 因喩等下疏主釋也
T2272_.69.0085b15: 瑜伽論中説八能立。今此論但説ニヱ宗・因・喩 T2272_.69.0085b16: 次第既別。何故今引瑜伽釋今論生起次 T2272_.69.0085b17: 第耶。答。如疏文釋。疏文意言。讀大論二 T2272_.69.0085b18: 爲所立八支爲能立。今此因明論即不同 T2272_.69.0085b19: 彼。雖然宗・因・喩等生起次第擬宜亦准大
T2272_.69.0085b22: 生起等者。今論宗因喩次第生起擬宜准瑜
T2272_.69.0085b25: 部次第生起歟如何。答。爾。復問。云何此論 T2272_.69.0085b26: 一部次第生起云准瑜伽耶。答。今此論示 T2272_.69.0085b27: 教次第雖攝八義由六段。其初段示相次 T2272_.69.0085b28: 第先説極成有法・極成能別。即瑜伽所説 T2272_.69.0085b29: 自性・差別所謂宗所依也。次説差別性故
T2272_.69.0085c03: 能立宗・因・喩次第也。次説復次爲自開悟 T2272_.69.0085c04: 下現比量也。雖非全同瑜伽如是次第生 T2272_.69.0085c05: 起文准瑜伽釋也。是疏文意也 初中復三 T2272_.69.0085c06: 等者。示宗相中擧子科也。牒章者上所牒 T2272_.69.0085c07: 論此中宗者之言也。故云此即初也
T2272_.69.0085c10: 濫。四結成。初中有八。初牒論示科。二釋 T2272_.69.0085c11: 極成言。三釋有法能別四字。四就論文問 T2272_.69.0085c12: 答。五釋極成言明多不極成。六明極成言 T2272_.69.0085c13: 所簡別。七明不云共許云極成。八明但 T2272_.69.0085c14: 言宗依不云因依喩依。今即初也 此顯 T2272_.69.0085c15: 依者。今所牒論文顯宗依也
T2272_.69.0085c18: 極成言。二立云極成理。今即初也 爲依 T2272_.69.0085c19: 義立等者。謂須立敵兩宗共許極成爲依而 T2272_.69.0085c20: 宗依中宗義成立。是云不相離宗體方成。所 T2272_.69.0085c21: 依若不共許則名所依無。所依若無能依宗 T2272_.69.0085c22: 體由何成立。故宗依必須共許。共許名爲 T2272_.69.0085c23: 至極成就 至理有故等者。前記云。此意雖 T2272_.69.0085c24: 兩共許若非至實道理有者亦不名極。如 T2272_.69.0085c25: 勝論對五頂立雖是兩許然據實理不得
T2272_.69.0086a01: 有ナルヲ名至理有。簡大有同異等雖共許無 T2272_.69.0086a02: 理。若云聲時有聲理也。云無常時有無常 T2272_.69.0086a03: 理也。若以無道理言爲有法能別則至理
T2272_.69.0086a06: 分本眞自彰。若以非本眞虛妄言爲有法
T2272_.69.0086a11: 第一過。三擧第二過。四結宗依必須極 T2272_.69.0086a12: 成。若許已下四句初標有二過也 便有 T2272_.69.0086a13: 二過者。若許有法・能別共用不共許則有 T2272_.69.0086a14: 二過失。問。雖云有二過疏文但有初過 T2272_.69.0086a15: 不擧第二過失。何故云有二過耶。答。就 T2272_.69.0086a16: 釋此難古來有兩家。一者次云更有餘過。
T2272_.69.0086a20: 闕宗支過。即若許能別非兩極成等已下
T2272_.69.0086a23: 義下二擧第一過 一成異義過者古來有
T2272_.69.0086b03: 不相離性是總。即爲能對也。總別相對以
T2272_.69.0086b06: 穩。不可依用也 謂能立等者。因・喩能立 T2272_.69.0086b07: 爲立有法・法二上不相離宗非欲成立有 T2272_.69.0086b08: 法・法二所依。然宗依若不先共許則更以 T2272_.69.0086b09: 能立因喩須立 便更須立等者。噵云。更 T2272_.69.0086b10: 立不共許宗依則別更以因・喩成宗依義。 T2272_.69.0086b11: 非ナンス成不相離本宗。故有法・能別必須共 T2272_.69.0086b12: 許也 依之宗性者。依之言謂承上宗依須 T2272_.69.0086b13: 共許。宗性謂宗體。即不相離宗也。此是一許 T2272_.69.0086b14: 一不許故云方非極成。若云不相離宗體亦 T2272_.69.0086b15: 極成。則立已成故云立無果故也 更有 T2272_.69.0086b16: 餘過者。此言古來釋分兩家。一者餘過謂指
T2272_.69.0086b20: 有餘過。疏下文云。問。既言極成。何所簡別 T2272_.69.0086b21: 有幾非成言成簡別。答。能別定成且所別 T2272_.69.0086b22: 中不自不成有他不成有俱不成有俱非 T2272_.69.0086b23: 不成。如是廣有二十餘句説能別・所別不 T2272_.69.0086b24: 成之過。今指彼過故云更有餘過。有記 T2272_.69.0086b25: 云。更有餘過者即能別過也。此第二過也
T2272_.69.0086b29: 已。今此文顯第二闕宗支過。能別與有法
T2272_.69.0086c03: 二明所別不極成非圓成。今即初之文也 T2272_.69.0086c04: 闕宗支故者。音噵云。能別支闕宗言支也
T2272_.69.0086c07: 依俱無過。能依者能別。所依者所別。極成有 T2272_.69.0086c08: 法極成能別必具二義故云圓成。若不極 T2272_.69.0086c09: 成非圓成故 因中必有等者。宗有能別
T2272_.69.0086c19: 不極成ノ宗過因中也 是因者。且由邑記 T2272_.69.0086c20: 釋云。則滅壞所作性因也 同品者轉變所 T2272_.69.0086c21: 作瓶等也 非定有性過者。音噵云。不共
T2272_.69.0086c25: 有所立等者。雖無可立同喩强立同喩 T2272_.69.0086c26: 於所立宗法處有同喩不成過。故云有 T2272_.69.0086c27: 所立法不成也 異喩一分者。周云。如 T2272_.69.0086c28: 大乘對薩婆多云。眞異熟識是第八識。是
T2272_.69.0087a09: 已 若許有法等下擧辨第二過中明所別 T2272_.69.0087a10: 不極成非圓成。能別モアレ所別ニモアレ非圓成闕 T2272_.69.0087a11: 宗支過。音石噵若許有法等句云。如數
T2272_.69.0087a14: 過。所別言支非圓成名闕也 能別無依等 T2272_.69.0087a15: 者。秋篠云。義必依體。體爲所依。體若無
T2272_.69.0087a18: 須極成有法。此中無言不極成 因中亦有 T2272_.69.0087a19: 等者。所別不極成若强立因則有所依隨 T2272_.69.0087a20: 一・兩俱不成。備記云。即有二過。一者所依 T2272_.69.0087a21: 隨一不成。如大乘對小乘立第八識應生
T2272_.69.0087a26: 文之中第四結宗依須極成。由此者。上所 T2272_.69.0087a27: 申二種過今云此也。意言。若宗依用不極 T2272_.69.0087a28: 成。如是二種過失由有此必須極成理必
T2272_.69.0087b02: 成此不相離性。相難性宗體本所諍故必不 T2272_.69.0087b03: 極成。上來立宗依必須極成理已
T2272_.69.0087b06: 體義釋。二釋體義三名。三約性相因明二 T2272_.69.0087b07: 門自共二相釋。四正憑因明門以三重對 T2272_.69.0087b08: 釋。五重釋體義三名。六三名得名寄難釋。
T2272_.69.0087b12: 言體義而釋。瑜伽等論説有法者體也能別 T2272_.69.0087b13: 者義也。由是以體義釋有法・能別也 此 T2272_.69.0087b14: 上等者。基辨云。此上謂今上句所云色受想 T2272_.69.0087b15: 等五蘊別別爲體。其爲體五蘊上有無漏常・ T2272_.69.0087b16: 無常・我・非我等爲義。今文指五蘊上云此 T2272_.69.0087b17: 上也。又音石噵引備記云。一切法中略有 T2272_.69.0087b18: 二種者。此義通瑜伽・對法・佛地・因明トノ四論 T2272_.69.0087b19: 也。即三重對中初局通對也。局體名自性
T2272_.69.0087b22: 具明
T2272_.69.0087b25: 爲體者上立三名也。義三名亦同於爲義 T2272_.69.0087b26: 者立三名也 一名自性等者。瑜伽等古師 T2272_.69.0087b27: 説所立中名自性就爲體者。此論所説有 T2272_.69.0087b28: 法及所別之名亦爲體者。故云體三名。當 T2272_.69.0087c01: 知是皆於一切法爲體者上立名也 一 T2272_.69.0087c02: 名差別等者。是亦就一切法上爲義處名 T2272_.69.0087c03: 差別。瑜伽等説古師所立名差別是。此論中 T2272_.69.0087c04: 説亦就一切法上爲義處名法亦名能別 T2272_.69.0087c05: 也
T2272_.69.0087c08: 中有四。初引佛地論。二性相・因明二門ヲ以對 T2272_.69.0087c09: 辨。三欲明因明門自性・差別辨假與實。四 T2272_.69.0087c10: 正約因明門釋。今即初也 佛地論云者。是 T2272_.69.0087c11: 非引全文取意引用。後學須審察焉 基 T2272_.69.0087c12: 辨詳云。今此引佛地論意但以説因明論 T2272_.69.0087c13: 自相共相名爲證。必以此佛地論文非釋 T2272_.69.0087c14: 因明論自相共相也。所以何者。此佛地論文 T2272_.69.0087c15: 所説因明論自相。共相交合內明自相・共 T2272_.69.0087c16: 相而釋也。今此疏文引用亦取意爲自解便
T2272_.69.0087c21: 自相等者。音石噵明此文意云。有法聲名
T2272_.69.0087c24: 聲名自相也。比量心境共相中且比量心所
T2272_.69.0087c27: 定無有交雜。所餘論中隨宜互交説。謂 T2272_.69.0087c28: 於比量智境有極易解分明可見者假立 T2272_.69.0087c29: 以爲現量之義。又現量境義中定心之內 T2272_.69.0088a01: 極善比校亦有假説即名比量 佛地經論
T2272_.69.0088a06: 名現量。雖縁諸法苦無常等亦一一法各 T2272_.69.0088a07: 別有。故名爲自相。眞如雖是共相所顯。以 T2272_.69.0088a08: 是諸法自實性故自有相故亦非共相。不 T2272_.69.0088a09: 可以其與一切法不一不異即名共相。自 T2272_.69.0088a10: 相亦與一切共相不一異故。是故彼因明
T2272_.69.0088a21: 餘教中共相一分入因明門自相之中。復 T2272_.69.0088a22: 有一分入因明門自相之中。又餘教中自 T2272_.69.0088a23: 相一分入因明中自相之門。復有一分入 T2272_.69.0088a24: 因明中共相之門。故須識其教門萬差也 T2272_.69.0088a25: 唯局自體等者。説諸法上自相共相各附己 T2272_.69.0088a26: 體不共他義也 如縷貫華等者。音石噵
T2272_.69.0088a29: 詮通在諸法義。今此疏文引佛地論文採 T2272_.69.0088b01: 要引用。後學知含上來意引文須解此疏 T2272_.69.0088b02: 文已
T2272_.69.0088b12: 説色爲我。色是自性。我・非我等爲差別。 T2272_.69.0088b13: 或説我是色。即我爲自性。色・非色等爲差 T2272_.69.0088b14: 別。故不定也。理門亦云。觀所成故立法・ T2272_.69.0088b15: 有法。非徳・有徳トノ如ニ。所言徳者。謂勝論宗 T2272_.69.0088b16: 徳句。言有徳者。謂實句也。此法・有法不
T2272_.69.0088b21: 所説自性・差別不定屬一門。前陳名自性。 T2272_.69.0088b22: 後説名差別。由自性作差別差別作自性
T2272_.69.0088b25: 種。故本疏文可云此二之三種不定屬一 T2272_.69.0088b26: 門。意云。體之三種名義之三種名皆不定屬 T2272_.69.0088b27: 一門。由自性成差別差別成自性故。大師
T2272_.69.0088c09: 合次疏文義故。備第一釋以此之言指スト云 T2272_.69.0088c10: 前體三義三。又邑記・備第二釋以此言云 T2272_.69.0088c11: 指近前佛地論説因明自性差別。雖似有 T2272_.69.0088c12: 違意義全同。佛地論中説體・自性・義・差別 T2272_.69.0088c13: 故。次疏文釋體義三名推此佛地文故。唐 T2272_.69.0088c14: 前記第二釋亦好。釋此言疎。學者深思 不 T2272_.69.0088c15: 同大乘等下正明性相門自共二相對辨。不 T2272_.69.0088c16: 同者對辨之辭。大乘者標牒性相門。我宗學 T2272_.69.0088c17: 業有二。一性相門。二因明門。如唯識本疏
T2272_.69.0088c20: 無上大乘施設建立於縁廢詮眞如慧故。
T2272_.69.0088c23: 佛地論唯是大乘。所以云不同大乘。不同之
T2272_.69.0088c26: 云差別且約此義而云不同法相大乘也
T2272_.69.0089a01: 識論等不可言性名爲自相可言諸法名爲 T2272_.69.0089a02: 共相。今因明意。若體若義各附スルノミニシテ己體
T2272_.69.0089a05: 常・無常等名爲共相。是爲三教之別。文軌 T2272_.69.0089a06: 疏及淨眼疏等以唯識意釋因明自共相。今
T2272_.69.0089a10: 者。一蘊自相。二處自相。三事自相。四自相自 T2272_.69.0089a11: 相。五離言自相。此五之中二三四之三自相
T2272_.69.0089a15: 於比量境立自相名。望空無我通理共相 T2272_.69.0089a16: 蘊體相各別邊假立施設自相之名。五蘊體 T2272_.69.0089a17: 各別且名自相。三自相就テ云現量。處謂十二 T2272_.69.0089a18: 各各不同。如五識縁五塵境也。事謂靑黃 T2272_.69.0089a19: 等各各別事。自相自相者。於一靑中復有 T2272_.69.0089a20: 多微一一各別。或多分段各各有別五蘊等
T2272_.69.0089b20: 所證得名自相也。若發言説ヲ云ハ聖智離
T2272_.69.0089b23: 親依聖智證故者。謂依是於。境第七聲。又依 T2272_.69.0089b24: 謂親所縁縁依。聖智雖有相分是非相狀。 T2272_.69.0089b25: 挾帶體相起故。有處自相名爲無相也
T2272_.69.0089c01: 自共二相先由性相辨假實文。意云。除聖 T2272_.69.0089c02: 智所證以外諸法諸經論等説爲自性皆假。 T2272_.69.0089c03: 説爲自性非眞自性 非離假智等者釋 T2272_.69.0089c04: 假自性。秋篠鈔云。自相中有二種。一共相自 T2272_.69.0089c05: 相。如處・事自相等。ニ自相自相。不名言 T2272_.69.0089c06: 所及者ニ以爲自相。即現量境。此中處自相・
T2272_.69.0089c10: 爲自性等者。且如云聲無常。聲與瓶各別 T2272_.69.0089c11: 有體故名局體。無常之言通聲與瓶故云 T2272_.69.0089c12: 通他 准相違中等下擧四相違自相差別 T2272_.69.0089c13: 而示局通。音石裏云。意言。自性亦有自性
T2272_.69.0089c20: 帶等者。音裏云。意許自言顯別故名差別
T2272_.69.0089c24: 性應非有縁性。有性者有法自相。應非有 T2272_.69.0089c25: 縁性者是差別也。通有性與同異性故云 T2272_.69.0089c26: 通他。又法差別相違能違量云眼等應非 T2272_.69.0089c27: 不積聚他用勝。眼等非眞他用勝言通眼等 T2272_.69.0089c28: 與臥具等故云通他也 上來約性相・因 T2272_.69.0089c29: 明二門辨自性・差別訖。又義斷中立二門 T2272_.69.0089c30: 明二門辨自性・差別訖。又義斷中立二門 T2272_.69.0090a01: 總攝自性・差別。義斷曰。今者總攝自相・差 T2272_.69.0090a02: 別略有二門。一依諸經論。二直據因明。且 T2272_.69.0090a03: 諸經論中自共二相總有四對。一體義對
T2272_.69.0090a14: 諸於餘義釋不可輒依用已
T2272_.69.0090a17: 自性差別。一者局通者第一重局通對也。備 T2272_.69.0090a18: 記云。若依諸論聲無常ヲイハハ者。聲唯是局無常 T2272_.69.0090a19: 唯通。若依因明者聲亦是通如立量云無
T2272_.69.0090a22: 除聲無常他無常者無常ナリト云フ言ニ一切通云 T2272_.69.0090a23: 通他也。如下卷疏具明 二者先後等者。 T2272_.69.0090a24: 先陳後説對 前未有法等者釋先陳也。謂 T2272_.69.0090a25: 前無已陳法。故今發言不可分別。故名自 T2272_.69.0090a26: 性 以前有法等者釋後説也。謂前已陳 T2272_.69.0090a27: 法。今發言可分別。故名差別 三者言許 T2272_.69.0090a28: 等者。言陳意許對 言中所申等者。言所申 T2272_.69.0090a29: 但雖是一於意許有樂爲・不樂爲之別故 T2272_.69.0090b01: 名差別。至下具辨
T2272_.69.0090b11: 陳・後説。三正釋有法・法之名。今即初・二也 T2272_.69.0090b12: 故諸論云等者。以因明之餘瑜伽・唯識等
T2272_.69.0090b15: 自相。此有四對。一有無對。二自性差別對。 T2272_.69.0090b16: 三有爲無爲對。四先陳後説對。此四對中但
T2272_.69.0090b21: 常無常等義一切皆具。故云一切皆通。後 T2272_.69.0090b22: 説法軌生物解。既應差別故非徑庭。故 T2272_.69.0090b23: 云要有屈曲 初之所陳下重委細釋。初 T2272_.69.0090b24: 之所陳謂有法也 逕庭持體等者。邑記 T2272_.69.0090b25: 云。廷音戶定反。或作庭字直也。未有
T2272_.69.0090b29: 屈曲也。生他異解者。本來執常今令別新 T2272_.69.0090c01: 悟無常故云異解也。此異解生軌生物解。
T2272_.69.0090c05: 一義者具持一義也 義不殊勝者。義謂境 T2272_.69.0090c06: 即能差別。唯初陳ノミニハ雖能持自體此是何 T2272_.69.0090c07: 之自體。無能差別故云不殊勝。不得法名 T2272_.69.0090c08: 者。初陳雖能持法體故應名法。能差別不 T2272_.69.0090c09: 勝故。名有法而不名法。後之所陳者謂法 T2272_.69.0090c10: 也。具足兩義者具軌持二義。即能持一復軌
T2272_.69.0090c16: 故。但名所別不云能別。爲他所別不能 T2272_.69.0090c17: 別他。後陳是能別。能別聲等常無常等故。 T2272_.69.0090c18: 廣如彼論中
T2272_.69.0090c21: 釋。此中四文。初總標寄問生起。二難初名。 T2272_.69.0090c22: 三難次名。四難後名。今即初也 若爾此三 T2272_.69.0090c23: 等者。意云。如上來釋前説名自性・有法・所 T2272_.69.0090c24: 別。後説名差別・法・能別。體三名義三名俱 T2272_.69.0090c25: 應有失。其失者如次列三難
T2272_.69.0091a01: 何故如數論師立我是思即以義爲自性
T2272_.69.0091a05: 分別體。何今云體名自性義名差別耶
T2272_.69.0091a08: 義者持一義也 具二義者軌及持二義也 T2272_.69.0091a09: 如即此師等者示例也 何故下正難 思 T2272_.69.0091a10: 唯一義等者。邑記云。思之與我義實無差。此 T2272_.69.0091a11: 中且據思之自體未有表彰。我・無我等可
T2272_.69.0091a18: 異解屈曲。故持義上有軌義生物解。故是 T2272_.69.0091a19: 云我具二義也
T2272_.69.0091a22: 者。擧互爲能所別而難。靑色簡蓮華。蓮華 T2272_.69.0091a23: 簡靑色。能別・所別其義亦爾。更互簡別。何 T2272_.69.0091a24: 故必定前爲所別後爲能別耶
T2272_.69.0091a27: 此中有三。初答初難。二答次難。三答後難。 T2272_.69.0091a28: 此即初也 不同諸論者。釋自性差別有因 T2272_.69.0091a29: 明宗與諸論不同。如上既對辨及義斷二門。 T2272_.69.0091b01: 音裏云。此文意解若依諸論。色心體名自 T2272_.69.0091b02: 性。此上我無我等義名差別。由體與義各 T2272_.69.0091b03: 別定故。若依因明宗。立比量時立我是思 T2272_.69.0091b04: 者。以我爲體是前陳故。以思爲差別是後
T2272_.69.0091b07: 等者。仁記云。且言聲時唯局在聲而簡餘 T2272_.69.0091b08: 色香味等故云局守自性也。若言無常時 T2272_.69.0091b09: 可言此誰無常理有此無常是聲之無常
T2272_.69.0091b12: 差別此聲無常。故云即名差別 前所陳者 T2272_.69.0091b13: 等一本脱前字不可也 義貫於他者義對 T2272_.69.0091b14: 衆多等者。仁記云。且無常是所對甚多。是 T2272_.69.0091b15: 貫通諸法。故義者道理也。局自體者義對
T2272_.69.0091b18: 自體狹。後陳無常應是一切無常。皆對故云
T2272_.69.0091b21: 者。聲言但聲不通餘法。即局守自性義也
T2272_.69.0091b25: 諸論。是故立ルヲハ我是思者若依法相大乘 T2272_.69.0091b26: 言。則思是體也我是義也ト云ヘシ。今依因明立 T2272_.69.0091b27: 比量時。我者自相。唯有一義。故名有法。思
T2272_.69.0091c01: 別義立敵乖競今所成立。軌生解故名爲 T2272_.69.0091c02: 法。非所諍競等者釋有法。先陳聲言若無
T2272_.69.0091c05: 其實理等下性相・因明二門對論。實理者性 T2272_.69.0091c06: 相大乘道理。先陳後説皆具軌・持二義也
T2272_.69.0091c15: 不信十方佛説法聲。即應立云彼十方中 T2272_.69.0091c16: 定有佛説法聲。因云。彼諸有情必有感故。 T2272_.69.0091c17: 如此方有情。即有聲爲宗中法也。若亦有 T2272_.69.0091c18: 人但信有聲不信無常。即應立云聲是無 T2272_.69.0091c19: 常。法・有法有善巧者臨時迴擾。非如勝論
T2272_.69.0091c22: 法。故一切不決定 觀所立故者。觀待他 T2272_.69.0091c23: 所立法亦爲有法也 非如勝論等者簡他 T2272_.69.0091c24: 彰不屬一門意也
T2272_.69.0091c29: 能別法時各方生解。此即諍有法體上能別
T2272_.69.0092a03: 釋。此初齊答也。如前所問許而答故故名
T2272_.69.0092a07: 那等説取聲無常不相離性以之爲宗。以 T2272_.69.0092a08: 敵論者不許不相離故。謂聲是何。聲爲常 T2272_.69.0092a09: 爲無常。是無常聲。此以無常別常聲。無常 T2272_.69.0092a10: 是何。無常爲色爲聲。是聲無常。此以聲別 T2272_.69.0092a11: 無常。故云差別。如言靑蓮華。靑是何。靑 T2272_.69.0092a12: 爲葉爲華。是蓮華靑。華是何華。爲白爲靑。 T2272_.69.0092a13: 是靑蓮華。靑與蓮華更互差別互爲所別 T2272_.69.0092a14: 互爲能別。此亦應爾。前後所説更互差別。 T2272_.69.0092a15: 今陳兩諍但體上義。前陳別後其義少劣。 T2272_.69.0092a16: 後陳別前其義多勝。故約增勝以得其名
T2272_.69.0092a19: 基辨私云。於前陳上立・敵相違。如於聲上 T2272_.69.0092a20: 諍常無常相違宗。今陳兩諍等者。今因明陳 T2272_.69.0092a21: 兩宗所諍。但前陳體上別義。亦約增勝等者 T2272_.69.0092a22: 文意云。前陳有所能別二義。後説亦爾。互 T2272_.69.0092a23: 差別性故。然今前陳名所別後説名能別 T2272_.69.0092a24: 約前陳所別義勝後説能別義勝以其名也
T2272_.69.0092a29: 家別。一者仁記説。音石噵云。自下第八總答
T2272_.69.0092b06: 前陳名自性。後説 名差別。次亦結云。前陳 T2272_.69.0092b07: 有法後説皆法。第三今結云前名所別後名 T2272_.69.0092b08: 能別。上既各別結得名也。至下文中但總 T2272_.69.0092b09: 結云由此得名前後各定。豈此可爲別通
T2272_.69.0092b12: 當。仁記釋爲麁釋。秋篠意云齊釋者。准所 T2272_.69.0092b13: 難一往爲釋也。云不齊者不准所難各別 T2272_.69.0092b14: 爲開解也。疏文中釋三難意答前後互應 T2272_.69.0092b15: 云所能別之難。准難之中云互有簡。自 T2272_.69.0092b16: 前後所陳至差別性故之文是一往准難 T2272_.69.0092b17: 勢。是即齊義。又然前陳者已下正釋難勢以 T2272_.69.0092b18: 約增勝爲結。是全齊釋。意言。雖有互有 T2272_.69.0092b19: 簡之義約增勝邊前陳云所別後説云能 T2272_.69.0092b20: 別。是第三答結意也 又但先陳已下。云 T2272_.69.0092b21: 但先陳及但後説故全不用所難之中互
T2272_.69.0092b24: 總於第三難釋之下設不齊釋合釋故云
T2272_.69.0092b28: 前後各定之言自性・差別有法・法所別能別 T2272_.69.0092b29: 之得名於前陳後説各定故。雖麁釋理通。 T2272_.69.0092c01: 秋篠所釋盡始終之文意尤爲殊勝。瑞源所 T2272_.69.0092c02: 評獨吐妄惑後學已 但諍後於前等者。基 T2272_.69.0092c03: 辨云。此文亦以但言彰不齊義釋。文意云。 T2272_.69.0092c04: 後謂後説即能別。前謂前陳即所別。諍競以
T2272_.69.0092c07: 故能立等者。明因喩亦於爲諍無常カ有能 T2272_.69.0092c08: 立義。謂能立因喩成立後説無常法。非成 T2272_.69.0092c09: 立前陳聲。由是敵者起智了因但在諍無 T2272_.69.0092c10: 常義處。非在於前陳聲上起。是亦彰不齊
T2272_.69.0092c13: 自性・有法・所別名前陳上定。亦得差別・法・ T2272_.69.0092c14: 能別名後説上定。故云各定也。此二句意 T2272_.69.0092c15: 若由仁記科則總答結釋。若由秋篠答上
T2272_.69.0092c21: 者。體三名・義三名云各三名也。音裏云。此 T2272_.69.0092c22: 初問意云。前陳・後説各有三名。何故唯擧極 T2272_.69.0092c23: 成有法・極成能別之名而不云極成自性・
T2272_.69.0092c27: 故唯云極成有法而不云極成法耶。又唯
T2272_.69.0093a02: 云。設致等者第一釋答。基辨申疏意云。設 T2272_.69.0093a03: 若雖云極成所別極成法。以其餘名有擧 T2272_.69.0093a04: 不云之難。何但今就此一種須爲徵耶 T2272_.69.0093a05: 二云有法等者。就勝以釋答。基辨云。此釋答 T2272_.69.0093a06: 巧妙疏主天縱之才。寔凡庸者不能及處。此 T2272_.69.0093a07: 答意言。色聲等有法能有他常無常等法
T2272_.69.0093a14: 者。約通別釋。自性・差別一切諸法之上共
T2272_.69.0093a19: 耶。答。唯立比量時云法・有法又云能別・ T2272_.69.0093a20: 所別故云別名也。自性・差別是諸法上通
T2272_.69.0093a25: 説名爲法。後説名能別。影知先陳名所別
T2272_.69.0093a28: 光。問。但言ヲ以二燈光ト・影トモ俱二更言二炬。豈 T2272_.69.0093a29: 不繁重耶。答。雙陳二喩。任取一邊。又以
T2272_.69.0093b03: 燈。此方之燈以現人影准知彼方燈亦現
T2272_.69.0093b08: 二記共好 互擧一名等者。謂不見二知有
T2272_.69.0093b11: 擧一名相影發也 宗之別名等者。意云。不 T2272_.69.0093b12: 云通名自性・差別有法・法所別・能別之別 T2272_.69.0093b13: 名ヲ皆具顯ハサントノ故。於所能別有法法影成文
T2272_.69.0093b16: 不相離性。二者別宗。即有法法。今云宗別名 T2272_.69.0093b17: 者即別宗之名也。先陳三名自性・有法・所 T2272_.69.0093b18: 別。後説三名差別・法及能別。是名宗之別
T2272_.69.0093b21: 因明宗所須別名云宗別名。故秋篠釋未允
T2272_.69.0093b27: 是非也
T2272_.69.0093c01: 成。此中有二文。初擧問。後答釋。初問中 T2272_.69.0093c02: 有二意。以極與成問所簡別。一本何所簡 T2272_.69.0093c03: 別下脱有幾非成言成之六字不可也。秋篠 T2272_.69.0093c04: 所覽本及音石噵本有如是六字。近來瑞源 T2272_.69.0093c05: 不知脱此六字而却削去簡別二字。不知 T2272_.69.0093c06: 爲不知。誑感後學之罪不輕也
T2272_.69.0093c09: 明俱不成全有五種四句。三指下疏解偏 T2272_.69.0093c10: 句俱句文。四就宗兩俱・隨一・猶豫不成而 T2272_.69.0093c11: 釋。五結歸論文極成。初中有三。初明能別 T2272_.69.0093c12: 成所別不成偏四句。二明能別成所別一分 T2272_.69.0093c13: 不成偏四句。三倒同示所別成能別不成爲 T2272_.69.0093c14: 句結略。今即初也。繫示圖云 T2272_.69.0093c15: 能別自他定成所別中
T2272_.69.0094a01: 能別自他定成所別中
T2272_.69.0094a09: 評過非也。一本脱並字非也。有是者示非 T2272_.69.0094a10: 過也。一分非過故云有是也
T2272_.69.0094a13: 所別自他定成能別中
T2272_.69.0094a18: 已上總四句。又云全四句 T2272_.69.0094a19: 所別自他定成能別中
T2272_.69.0094b01: 已上別四句。又云一分四句 T2272_.69.0094b02: 爲句亦爾者例上結略 如是偏句等者結 T2272_.69.0094b03: 上。音裏云。能別不成四句及所別不成四句
T2272_.69.0094b06: 偏句。能所雙合自他雙合作句名雙句。即
T2272_.69.0094b11: 全四句名總也。二種不成之一分四句名
T2272_.69.0094b16: 疏。其俱不成全有五種四句 鈔曰。自下 T2272_.69.0094b17: 答五文中第二明俱不成全有五種四句。此 T2272_.69.0094b18: 中七文。初總標。二能別不成爲首二種全四 T2272_.69.0094b19: 句。三所別不成爲首二種全四句。四總明二 T2272_.69.0094b20: 四句。五兩俱不成爲首第五全四句。六結五 T2272_.69.0094b21: 種全句。七例示一分句。今即初也
T2272_.69.0094b24: 一全四句。後第二全四句。第一全四句能別 T2272_.69.0094b25: 不成爲首自他合俱不極成全四句。第二全 T2272_.69.0094b26: 四句亦能別不成爲首自俱他俱俱俱合俱 T2272_.69.0094b27: 不極成全四句。今示圖云 T2272_.69.0094c01: 第一全四句 T2272_.69.0094c02: 自能別不成他所別不成
T2272_.69.0094c11: 自能別不成俱所別不成
T2272_.69.0094c20: 非此中攝。秋篠云。如數論對佛者説色 T2272_.69.0094c21: 等五徳句所收俱所別極成。前ノ能別不成
T2272_.69.0095a01: 四句例同 所別不成亦如是者。音噵云。所
T2272_.69.0095a04: 也 T2272_.69.0095a05: 第三全四句 T2272_.69.0095a06: 自所別不成他能別不成
T2272_.69.0095a15: 自所別不成俱能別不成
T2272_.69.0095a24: 也 T2272_.69.0095a25: 能別不成爲首二種全四句 此名二 T2272_.69.0095a26: 所別不成爲首二種全四句 T2272_.69.0095b01: 四句
T2272_.69.0095b04: 四句相攝。二通伏難。今即初也 二四句者。 T2272_.69.0095b05: 音裏云。此文通也。謂能別不成爲首二種全
T2272_.69.0095b11: 總言則十六句。二種者一者能別爲首第一 T2272_.69.0095b12: 全四句・第二全四句合爲一種。二者所別 T2272_.69.0095b13: 爲首第三全四句・第四全四句亦爲一種 T2272_.69.0095b14: 於一種八句各前七句是過第八句偏過
T2272_.69.0095b17: 句中第三俱句也。邑記云。第八句者即前俱 T2272_.69.0095b18: 能別不成俱非所別之句也。此是前偏句中 T2272_.69.0095b19: 能別不成全四句中第三自他俱能別不成句
T2272_.69.0095b25: 二全四句。又所別爲首亦爾。合有四種四 T2272_.69.0095b26: 句。然今何云二四句耶。今疏主文通此伏 T2272_.69.0095b27: 難 雖總有四者。音噵云。總有四種四句。
T2272_.69.0095c07: 第五全四句 T2272_.69.0095c08: 自兩俱不成他非兩俱不成 T2272_.69.0095c09: T2272_.69.0095c10: 他兩俱不成自非兩俱不成 T2272_.69.0095c11:
T2272_.69.0095c17: 自他兩俱不成。如無過宗。初三皆過第四非
T2272_.69.0095c20: 疏。如是合有五種全句 鈔曰。明俱不成 T2272_.69.0095c21: 中第六結五種全四句
T2272_.69.0095c24: 者。音噵云。一一離之等者如中卷疏記。爲一
T2272_.69.0096a06: 應作分句。此一分句亦准前有五種一分 T2272_.69.0096a07: 句。疏文雖説恐繁且止今時末學不識且 T2272_.69.0096a08: 止故今雖似違恐繁疏意。疏説如理應思。 T2272_.69.0096a09: 故。分別思惟作爲句圖。一一立量俟後來
T2272_.69.0096a18: 四句成四五二十句。此中除重出ト非相 T2272_.69.0096a19: 攝句則合シテ除三句。所餘十七句正示過。圖 T2272_.69.0096a20: 云 T2272_.69.0096a21: 第一一分四句 能別不成爲首四句
T2272_.69.0096c11: 所云總成十句者具應云十種四句。總委 T2272_.69.0096c12: 云則成四十句也 T2272_.69.0096c13: 復將一分句對餘全句者。自此以上以分 T2272_.69.0096c14: 對分爲四句已。今此二句以分對全爲四 T2272_.69.0096c15: 句已。以一分四句爲首對全句作句也。 T2272_.69.0096c16: 此亦有五種四句。圖如左 T2272_.69.0096c17: 第一以分對全四句 能別不成爲首四句
T2272_.69.0097b07: 作句也 T2272_.69.0097b08: 第一以全對分四句 能別不成爲首四句
T2272_.69.0098a02: 句總別有四種四句。俱不成全有五種四句。 T2272_.69.0098a03: 俱不成一分有五種四句。以分對全有五 T2272_.69.0098a04: 種四句。以全對分有五種四句總計則有 T2272_.69.0098a05: 二十四種四句。即有九十六句。此中除重出
T2272_.69.0098a08: 且止餘事
T2272_.69.0098a14: 不成中者。噵云。如中卷疏俱不極成處説」
T2272_.69.0098a18: 成釋。備記云。上文明宗所依不成。自是下 T2272_.69.0098a19: 明宗兩俱・隨一・猶豫不成。於中今此文但 T2272_.69.0098a20: 明宗兩俱不成也。全分不極成者。且能別不 T2272_.69.0098a21: 成全四句中第三俱句。此宗立敵兩俱全分 T2272_.69.0098a22: 不成也。一分不極成者。一分四句中第三俱
T2272_.69.0098a25: 自全分隨一不成者。能別不成全四句中第一 T2272_.69.0098a26: 句也。他全分隨一不成者。能別不成全四句 T2272_.69.0098a27: 中第二句也。自一分隨一不成者。能別不成 T2272_.69.0098a28: 一分四句中第一句也。他一分隨一不成者。 T2272_.69.0098a29: 能別不成一分四句中第二句也。所別不成・
T2272_.69.0098b06: 釋此文古兩家。一者邑記云。二種者有法及 T2272_.69.0098b07: 法也。云自性者謂言顯也。差別者意許也
T2272_.69.0098b12: 皆應有不極成也。此皆總攝者。一切不極 T2272_.69.0098b13: 成此能・所・俱三不極成中總攝已。音石釋云。 T2272_.69.0098b14: 意言。能別・所別・俱不極成之中皆總攝也。邑 T2272_.69.0098b15: 記云。有法及法各有言顯・意許。此等不成。
T2272_.69.0098b18: 云二依。此文意言。今論文爲簡彼二種自 T2272_.69.0098b19: 性差別不極成其餘一切不極成過非於二 T2272_.69.0098b20: 宗依有法・能別言皆加極成言云極成有 T2272_.69.0098b21: 法極成能別也
T2272_.69.0098b24: 極成者。今論文云極成有法極成能別簡意 T2272_.69.0098b25: 何故但云簡能別・所別・俱三不極成不云 T2272_.69.0098b26: 簡餘五過及一相符耶。答。此中但以等者。 T2272_.69.0098b27: 基辨私云。此答文有三段。初以云宗依必 T2272_.69.0098b28: 須極成但簡三非簡一切宗過而答。次以 T2272_.69.0098b29: 理門論簡一切宗過立此論亦簡宗過盡 T2272_.69.0098c01: 之義而爲答。後擧此論餘文不簡一切過
T2272_.69.0098c07: 成能別。何以知簡三耶。答。二極成即簡俱
T2272_.69.0098c10: 所依。簡宗依中非是强勝故但簡此三
T2272_.69.0098c15: 第二意以理門論簡一切宗過爲據立此 T2272_.69.0098c16: 論亦簡宗過盡之義而爲答。文意云。理門 T2272_.69.0098c17: 説宗過但五相違。彼論成立但五違爲宗 T2272_.69.0098c18: 過簡由。言非彼相違義能遣。此即擧立此
T2272_.69.0098c27: 論文以極成有法・極成能別簡三不極成。 T2272_.69.0098c28: 相符極成以何簡之耶。今疏文通此難。釋 T2272_.69.0098c29: 通意云。相符是立敵共許故非不極成。故 T2272_.69.0099a01: 以極成不簡。然共許不相離是非正故以
T2272_.69.0099a05: 過隨便自然簡三不極成耶。今謂。相符是 T2272_.69.0099a06: 隨共也。非隨自故以隨自簡相符也。是故
T2272_.69.0099a09: 爲例彰此論主但簡三不簡餘意。亦如之 T2272_.69.0099a10: 亦言亦前ニ明ヒル初答意云宗依必須極成但 T2272_.69.0099a11: 簡三非簡一切宗過 如喩言等者。指下 T2272_.69.0099a12: 説喩論文。顯因同品者。此一句言簡喩過能 T2272_.69.0099a13: 立法不成。決定有性者。此一句言簡所立法 T2272_.69.0099a14: 不成喩過二句合言簡俱不成喩過。此是此 T2272_.69.0099a15: 論説喩文雖簡三過不簡合・結二過故。 T2272_.69.0099a16: 亦之准之自知前極成有法等論文但簡三 T2272_.69.0099a17: 過不簡餘過爲今論主意焉。復結此等 T2272_.69.0099a18: 意云故此但三。故承上此指此極成有法 T2272_.69.0099a19: 等論文。但三者結此論文不簡餘過。基辨
T2272_.69.0099a22: 釋可謂汎漫不穩。又備釋云。第二答意云 T2272_.69.0099a23: 如喩過等。釋顯因同品等三句雖無違害 T2272_.69.0099a24: 此文牒第二答意釋不穩。不辨別第一第 T2272_.69.0099a25: 二答意故。此亦汎漫無所取找
T2272_.69.0099a28: 意可知
T2272_.69.0099b02: 記云。依瑜伽答。瑜伽以自性・差別爲所 T2272_.69.0099b03: 立故不唯因明自性差別。兼亦擧諸法至極 T2272_.69.0099b04: 理。若言共成。不能顯至極理。故言極成不
T2272_.69.0099b12: 説性相條然。是即諸法至極之理。於此眞極 T2272_.69.0099b13: 邪正異途立決定理。引現見事建立眞宗。 T2272_.69.0099b14: 莫不共許。是名共成。今云極成有法者所 T2272_.69.0099b15: 立自性。極成能別者所立差別從本已來共
T2272_.69.0099b20: 依因明法若言共成者。但有共比量。應 T2272_.69.0099b21: 無自比・他比。自比量是能立。他比量是能 T2272_.69.0099b22: 破。若無是則因明法不成。故云極成不云 T2272_.69.0099b23: 共成
T2272_.69.0099b26: 謂不相離宗是所諍故不極成。對此不極成
T2272_.69.0099c05: 因依喩依。此即問也 言極簡等者。意云。因・ T2272_.69.0099c06: 喩亦言兩俱不極成隨一不極成應簡不 T2272_.69.0099c07: 極。何故因與喩但云不成不云不極成 T2272_.69.0099c08: 耶。云何獨於簡宗依過云極成有法等 T2272_.69.0099c09: 耶
T2272_.69.0099c18: 有簡彰。今於宗體云簡不極。則簡去宗依 T2272_.69.0099c19: 極成非宗體而簡彰不相離宗體不極成是
T2272_.69.0099c23: 共成。此依・體中無所簡故無云極成簡 T2272_.69.0099c24: 也。如因喩亦爾
T2272_.69.0100a05: 也
T2272_.69.0100a19: 依處言極成簡也
T2272_.69.0100a24: 喩不極成故。於因・喩上無置極成言簡因
T2272_.69.0100b01: 成不云極也。是因喩過不云不極成之由
T2272_.69.0100b04: 但云因有三相等不言極成。喩過中能立 T2272_.69.0100b05: 所立及俱不成亦攝有體無體及猶預等過。宗 T2272_.69.0100b06: 過失之中隨一不極成然○初立敵相對明 T2272_.69.0100b07: 其不極。其有體無體及猶預等恐攝之不盡 T2272_.69.0100b08: 故於此明宗相中置極成以簡之。雖宗 T2272_.69.0100b09: 過中有相違等過。非不成過亦不攝彼猶
T2272_.69.0100b12: 無別攝。既有前五。何故不以五攝不極云 T2272_.69.0100b13: 極簡耶。答。雖有前五但名相違不得名 T2272_.69.0100b14: 爲不成。後之三過立敵兩許ヲ即名極成不 T2272_.69.0100b15: 許即名不成。故前五不攝後四也。又解。 T2272_.69.0100b16: 雖有前五由狹不能攝於不極名無別
T2272_.69.0100b23: 俱等寬者。音裏云。意言。四不成等是寬故即
T2272_.69.0100b26: 爲稱故可謂未可。今謂。四不成等寬通極 T2272_.69.0100b27: 成不極成故云寬也。極者共言有體也。非極
T2272_.69.0100c09: 音石釋雖好未痛快也。又云從寬爲稱之 T2272_.69.0100c10: 釋亦由是可解。云從餘亦從寬意同也 T2272_.69.0100c11: 有體無體等者。此文明共許有過○有體者。
T2272_.69.0100c15: 共言故雖云有體然有過也。大乘對小乘 T2272_.69.0100c16: 立聲無常徳句攝故者。不共言故云無體 T2272_.69.0100c17: 因也。此因有兩俱不成也。有體喩者。聲無 T2272_.69.0100c18: 常所聞性故如瓶等者。此雖有喩體而有 T2272_.69.0100c19: 能立不成也。無體喩者。聲無常所轉變故如
T2272_.69.0100c22: 云不過等 兩許有體者。兩宗共言有體非
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: 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 [行番号:有/無] [返り点:無/有] [CITE] |