大正蔵検索


punctuation    Hangul    Eng   

Citation style A:
Citation style B:
()
Citation style C:
()
Citation style D:
()
TextNo.
Vol.
Page

  INBUDS
INBUDS(Bibliographic Database)
  Digital Dictionary of Buddhism
電子佛教辭典
パスワードがない場合は「guest」でログインしてください。
Users who do not have a password can log in with the userID "guest".

本文をドラッグして選択するとDDBの見出し語検索結果が表示されます。

Select a portion of the text by dragging your mouse to view all terms in the text contained in the DDB. ・

Password Access Policies

因明大疏融貫鈔 (No. 2272_ 基辨撰 ) in Vol. 69

[First] [Prev+100] [Prev] 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 [Next] [Next+100] [Last] [行番号:/]   [返り点:/] [CITE]

T2272_.69.0101a01: 又秋篠意言。此文非別一解。第四答文。
T2272_.69.0101a02: 前同義。鈔云。以理而言。宗・因・喩三皆言
T2272_.69.0101a03: 極成。但是略耳。下引二文三支皆言
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
T2272_.69.0101a07: 之。似同喩中不成過故眞因喩必極云云 已上
秋篠
T2272_.69.0101a08: 基辨詳云。此秋篠釋未穩當。彼先徳由玄應
T2272_.69.0101a09: 此謬釋。如上由音石。後學不
T2272_.69.0101a10: 用此秋篠説 此中宗法等者。音噵云。
T2272_.69.0101a11: 宗者有法宗也。法者因法也云云又裏云。有
T2272_.69.0101a12: 法宗也。是總宗之一分故即其極聲聲於
T2272_.69.0101a13: 有法亦轉故也。法者因也云云決定同許者
T2272_.69.0101a14: 是極成義 於同品中等者。音石裏云。意言
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_.69.0101a17: 必須共許云云故知同喩等者。基辨私
T2272_.69.0101a18: 云。承上成因喩亦須極成言。理門論既如
T2272_.69.0101a19: 是。但此入理論因喩略極言
T2272_.69.0101a20: 疏。唯識亦言故知此略 鈔曰。下引因喩
T2272_.69.0101a21: 極成言成唯識第五文也。由此等文
T2272_.69.0101a22: 此論略不極自應悉知。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_.69.0101a27: 云云上來顯宗依文終
T2272_.69.0101a28: 因明入正理論疏智解融貫鈔卷六
T2272_.69.0101a29:  安永第四年正月三十日於南都興福寺
T2272_.69.0101b01:  菩提院內妙光院南窓記之
T2272_.69.0101b02:           沙門基辨生五十八歲
T2272_.69.0101b03:   囘向四恩法界海 囘向無上大菩提
T2272_.69.0101b04:  寬政改元年臘月望日於同寺蓮成院南
T2272_.69.0101b05:  窓訂正。自安永今年數度令
T2272_.69.0101b06:  演此本疏之間以諸家釋辨疏意
T2272_.69.0101b07:  定是非校正
T2272_.69.0101b08:   法相大乘末學沙門基辨生年七十二歲
T2272_.69.0101b09:
T2272_.69.0101b10:
T2272_.69.0101b11: 因明入正理論疏智解融貫鈔卷
T2272_.69.0101b12: 第七宗體
宗相
T2272_.69.0101b13:  南都右京藥師寺法
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
T2272_.69.0101b16: 文也
T2272_.69.0101b17: 疏。論差別性故曰出宗體 鈔曰。自下示
T2272_.69.0101b18: 宗相中第二出宗體。此中大分爲四。初牒
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_.69.0101b21: 疏。差別者謂以爲宗體 鈔曰。此下第二
T2272_.69.0101b22: 差別性三字。此中有四。初離釋三字。二
T2272_.69.0101b23: 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: 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_.69.0101b27: 也 互相差別者體與義互差別今云。體先
陳。局守
T2272_.69.0101c01: 。義後説。屈曲生他異解。此
體與義互差別也。如次具釋
以者故第五囀聲。
T2272_.69.0101c02: 論故字。以此故字囀義示不相離性
T2272_.69.0101c03: 謂離體・義互相差別處別爲宗依トナリ
T2272_.69.0101c04: トナル也。其互相差別義遍轉於宗依前論文
言極
T2272_.69.0101c05: 成有法極
成能別者
宗體前論文牒章云
此中宗者四字也
。彰示此遍轉
T2272_.69.0101c06: 今置以言 一切有法及法者。即前段論
T2272_.69.0101c07: 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。謂若不一切有法等
T2272_.69.0101c09: 六字。則互相差別スト云コト何處何物何爲
T2272_.69.0101c10: 辨明故。爲一切有法及法處
T2272_.69.0101c11: 互相差別義示此六字也。今此六字能
T2272_.69.0101c12: 別非餘處故一切有法 等言示能差別
T2272_.69.0101c13: 也 性者體也等者釋性言宗體
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: 體義互相差別。體差別義義差別體
T2272_.69.0101c18: 互相也。不相離性者。體義互相差別而其體
T2272_.69.0101c19: 義同一時處不分離。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: 法二中但取言依。取體義不相離性處
T2272_.69.0101c22: 是爲簡取。欲此義今置取言。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: 不相離宗體有法・法互相差別義遍轉
T2272_.69.0101c25: 以言。是示差別性言宗體結成云
T2272_.69.0101c26: 以爲宗體已上基
辨私注
T2272_.69.0101c27: 疏。如言色蘊互相差別 鈔曰。二明體義
T2272_.69.0101c28: 互相差別相是即且示一作法也。此中有
T2272_.69.0101c29: 二。初略示。次具釋。今即初也 此之二種等
T2272_.69.0102a01: 者。音噵云。有法及法云二種云云 基辨
私云
T2272_.69.0102a02: 之二種言境第七能差別義也。准前可知。謂
T2272_.69.0102a03: 有法・法二種上若體若義互相差別今如
T2272_.69.0102a04: 色蘊無我。則色蘊簡別無我無我言簡
T2272_.69.0102a05: 別無常無我色蘊色蘊簡別無我者。此無我非
餘無我示色蘊無我
T2272_.69.0102a06: 也 已上
略示已
T2272_.69.0102a07: 疏。謂以色蘊方是其宗 鈔曰。示體義互
T2272_.69.0102a08: 相差別相二文中二具釋體・義互相差別
T2272_.69.0102a09:  謂以色蘊者。基辨云。以有法色蘊
T2272_.69.0102a10: 別法無我。以法無我別有法色蘊。又若
T2272_.69.0102a11: 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: 色之無常。是聲無常簡色無常。故云
T2272_.69.0102a14: 互相差別。又如白蓮華。白是何白。爲
T2272_.69.0102a15: 華。是蓮華白即簡衣白。蓮華是何蓮花。
T2272_.69.0102a16: 黃爲白。是白蓮花即簡黃花。白與蓮華
T2272_.69.0102a17: 互相差別也。簡別者即差別也已上
又玄應疏
T2272_.69.0102a18: 互相差別相此疏。如次下委辨
T2272_.69.0102a19:  以此二種等者。正釋宗體。以謂釋論故
T2272_.69.0102a20: 。如前已辨已上基
辨私
合之一處者示不相離
T2272_.69.0102a21: 。體與義互相差別而體義不分離。是
T2272_.69.0102a22: 不相離性。如白蓮華白與蓮華互差別合
T2272_.69.0102a23: 一處不相離。性言示宗體已上基辨由
疏文意私注
T2272_.69.0102a24: 疏。即簡先古以爲宗體 鈔曰。釋差別
T2272_.69.0102a25: 性三字四文中第三簡古因明師正釋新師
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: 有法及法宗。今云或以有法等是也。沼
T2272_.69.0102b02: 法師義斷中擧有人難此疏古
師三説
云。有
T2272_.69.0102b03: 古因明師説宗三家別。相傳雖此分
T2272_.69.0102b04: 理恐不有人
正難
若如有説古師有異説
T2272_.69.0102b05: 別應古師所傳論文。檢如實論等並無
T2272_.69.0102b06: 此文。何得三家説耶。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: 所説或有在能破中或有極麁或有
T2272_.69.0102b10: 非理。如訛語類。故此不錄。又理門論云。又
T2272_.69.0102b11: 此方隅我於古因明論已具分別。故
T2272_.69.0102b12: 知有ラハ古説非者陳那菩薩即破スヘシ之。不
T2272_.69.0102b13: 瑜伽等古因明師已上
斷文
基辨云。斷主所
T2272_.69.0102b14: 明實以應爾。有人所難爲穩當。域龍末
T2272_.69.0102b15: 葉一須此旨已 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_.69.0102b17: 故者即喚合宗能成依宗爲所成。所以
T2272_.69.0102b18: 宗所成故云云基辨云。後記所釋無
T2272_.69.0102b19: 違害。爾爲了。今謂。合此二種者。能詮合
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_.69.0102b27: 宗義所顯現。故云無果已上斥
古意也
但應
T2272_.69.0102b28: 取互相等者。三正結新師宗體。許不許者立
T2272_.69.0102b29: 者一許敵者一不許。是即簡宗依極成非
T2272_.69.0102c01: 。餘文准前可
T2272_.69.0102c02: 疏。問先陳能別亦不相違 鈔曰。釋差別
T2272_.69.0102c03: 性三字四文中第四總問答 先陳能別者。
T2272_.69.0102c04: 秋篠鈔云。先陳者非是有法三重名中先陳
T2272_.69.0102c05: 也。指陳疏中前所説也。疏前文中陳
T2272_.69.0102c06: 能別唯在法中云云基辨詳云。秋篠釋
T2272_.69.0102c07: 先陳字尤有道理。疏文對次今字先陳
T2272_.69.0102c08: 也。此問意云。上來疏文擧能別言唯在
T2272_.69.0102c09: 無常。既云ヘハナリ能別。若爾雖法應
T2272_.69.0102c10: 差別法於有法上能差別義。有法不
T2272_.69.0102c11: 能別故。而何故今此疏文云有法・法互
T2272_.69.0102c12: 相差別耶。是此問意也已上私申秋篠釋
疏文問
T2272_.69.0102c13: 秋篠鈔云疏前文所陳甚有道理。又秋
T2272_.69.0102c14: 篠鈔叙此問意云。聲與無常既互相差別。
T2272_.69.0102c15: 何故能別獨在法中云云基辨亦詳云。秋
T2272_.69.0102c16: 篠叙疏所云問意義意實穩當。近來瑞源中
T2272_.69.0102c17: 秋篠釋先陳疏前文所陳謬釋
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
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
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: 者但用無常色故聲無常。非互相簡。由
T2272_.69.0102c27: 是能別唯在無常。不爾便應相濫失
T2272_.69.0102c28: 基辨詳瑞源所引應疏文云。瑞源由
T2272_.69.0102c29: 疏答文此疏問爲應疏。尤爾歟非耶。今
T2272_.69.0103a01: 謂。疏主以玄應疏問者疏文設問答
T2272_.69.0103a02: 實義者歟。疏主・玄應同時出興。所以此疏
T2272_.69.0103a03: 答釋文應疏問歟。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_.69.0103a05: 是能別而不所別故不互相差別云云
T2272_.69.0103a06: 又云。體義相待等者。自性名體差別名義。
T2272_.69.0103a07: 色蘊無我。以無我色蘊。故云
T2272_.69.0103a08: 通能別云云基辨詳云。此答備兩釋尤
T2272_.69.0103a09: 好。由纂要意 對望有異者。立敵相對。體
T2272_.69.0103a10: 義相待云對望有異
T2272_.69.0103a11: 疏。問互相差別須説故字 鈔曰。此下出
T2272_.69.0103a12: 宗體。章有四文中第三釋故字。此中有
T2272_.69.0103a13: 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: 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。非宗體。唯聲・無常二
T2272_.69.0103a18: 法和合不相離性以之爲敵者不
T2272_.69.0103a19: 立者
自云
所立故。爲宗體差別言已上
玄應
T2272_.69.0103a20: 疏四箇異解之中
第四所立異解
又謂。立論者説聲無常
T2272_.69.0103a21: 無常言別有法是無常非常性。故即顯
T2272_.69.0103a22: 無常與聲和合不相離之宗體也。諸人釋云。
T2272_.69.0103a23: 聲與無常互相簡別故差別スト喩顯之。
T2272_.69.0103a24: 前已説。若如靑蓮華互相簡別法・有法
T2272_.69.0103a25: 爾者立宗應説言無常是聲 或應
T2272_.69.0103a26: 是聲無常。既無此事。故但依此句意云。
但依前無
T2272_.69.0103a27: 常簡
問。若爾但言聲是無常豈不已簡
T2272_.69.0103a28: 色等無常。答。此表詮名。必有遮用。故定能
T2272_.69.0103a29: 遮色等無常。立者但以無常聲。故聲
T2272_.69.0103b01: 無常非互相簡。由是能別唯在無常。不
T2272_.69.0103b02: 便應相濫失云云 已上玄
應疏
基辨詳云。或問
T2272_.69.0103b03: 予云。玄應疏意似本疏互相差別之義
T2272_.69.0103b04: 斯義是非如何答云。玄應所釋麁漫。雖
T2272_.69.0103b05: 理都非實義。彼師爲四箇異解互相
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。彼師不必有遮用即簡別
T2272_.69.0103b09: 妄解。又第二異解云立者但以無常
T2272_.69.0103b10: 聲非互相簡。今返斥云。此解甚非。如本疏
T2272_.69.0103b11: 。立敵相對スレハ立者但以無常聲故。雖
T2272_.69.0103b12: 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靑色蓮
T2272_.69.0103b14: 。又第三異解云互相簡別有法法則立
T2272_.69.0103b15: 宗應無常是聲既無此事。今返斥云。若
T2272_.69.0103b16: 立敵相對對聲論聲常ト云則應聲無常
T2272_.69.0103b17: 也。而其聲無常有法法ノ上ニ言道理トシテ
T2272_.69.0103b18: 無常トハ別聲聲簡別無常互相差別不
T2272_.69.0103b19: 相離。若不爾則此無常言應何爲
T2272_.69.0103b20: 無常耶之疑。故決有互相簡別之理。復第
T2272_.69.0103b21: 三異解云説言無常是聲故無互相簡
T2272_.69.0103b22: 。今返斥云。甚妄談也。不新師宗體
T2272_.69.0103b23: 故作此妄解。新師所立不相離宗體非
T2272_.69.0103b24: 言上。於極成有法能別上互相差別
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。於無常是聲或不
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。是亦不和合不相
T2272_.69.0103c01: 也。若非互相簡別則非和合亦非不相
T2272_.69.0103c02: 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
T2272_.69.0103c06:
T2272_.69.0103c07: 疏。答故者所以遂説故字 鈔曰。此下第
T2272_.69.0103c08: 二答文。此中大分爲二。初正明故字
T2272_.69.0103c09: 二正餘師謬改故字。初中有三。初標牒故
T2272_.69.0103c10: 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
T2272_.69.0103c17: 爲言故字。簡古師義云云 已上
一本
T2272_.69.0103c18: 不相離此不是也。此當性。方成宗故
T2272_.69.0103c19: 者。故言釋論文故字 其能別等下。其者
T2272_.69.0103c20: 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: スレハト云是此文意也 此其能別等下六句
T2272_.69.0103c24: 古遂説故字。是即遂説故字
T2272_.69.0103c25: 新師不相離性爲宗也
T2272_.69.0103c26: 疏。二釋所依更成立哉 鈔曰。明故字
T2272_.69.0103c27: 三文中第三據前文釋 釋所依者釋前文
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: 云。能依不相離宗不極成故所依有法及
T2272_.69.0104a01: 法須極成爲言故字已上
基辨詳云。
T2272_.69.0104a02: 此音石釋得疏文意。而釋言中故字兩處安
T2272_.69.0104a03: 置未痛快也。初云不極成之故即論差別
T2272_.69.0104a04: 性故之故意同。次須極成故之故字應
T2272_.69.0104a05: 所依有法上倒讀焉。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。由能依以爲宗故。二
T2272_.69.0104a08: 所依亦必須極成已上
周記
基辨詳云。此釋用
T2272_.69.0104a09: 故字兩處。但於能依處故甚好。能
T2272_.69.0104a10: 論文相濫也。雖然云所以猶未
T2272_.69.0104a11: 痛快。意味雖違害。若有人謬解云疏釋
T2272_.69.0104a12: 所依所依者所以也則非疏意已上私判
周記。音
T2272_.69.0104a13: 基辨釋疏文意云。釋所依者云前論
T2272_.69.0104a14: 文極成有法極成能別也。疏云釋前有法
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
T2272_.69.0104a18: 所依耶。答。此論文意深難解。夾注以
T2272_.69.0104a19: 示。今論文意云有法・法
互相
差別シテ不相
一許一不許
以爲
T2272_.69.0104a20: 故。此論文含是意。如是互相差別スル不相
T2272_.69.0104a21: 離性一許一不許不極成爲宗體故。前彰
T2272_.69.0104a22: 文云極成有法極成能別也。是故今疏文
T2272_.69.0104a23: 釋前有法等也。又前文彰宗所依。以
T2272_.69.0104a24: 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: 故字。由此言承上。宗中者明宗體
T2272_.69.0104a28: 故字也。不爾下立理。意云。今以不極成
T2272_.69.0104a29: 差別性宗體故。前宗依文須極成言。若
T2272_.69.0104b01: 爾而宗依若須不極成宗體若極成。則宗
T2272_.69.0104b02: 依更以因喩成立。宗體爲立已成。俱成
T2272_.69.0104b03: 過失。是故今云差別性故此等義
T2272_.69.0104b04: 疏。或有於此深爲呵責 鈔曰。答文有
T2272_.69.0104b05: 中第二正餘師謬改故字。此中有五。初
T2272_.69.0104b06: 文軌等妄以故作性字。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: 。五結勸須今家翻傳。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_.69.0104b10: 呂才共改之耳。具如慈恩傳第八明義燈・
義斷
T2272_.69.0104b11: 及後記
等皆同
於此不悟等者。意云。於此論文
T2272_.69.0104b12: 故字有古説及不相離性爲宗體
T2272_.69.0104b13: 二義所由遂改作論文云云遂改論云
T2272_.69.0104b14: 差別爲性者。就此改作セル差別爲性之文
T2272_.69.0104b15: 古來有兩家別。一者定賓疏爲梵本異。非ト云
T2272_.69.0104b16: 論文。秋篠鈔引彼疏。彼疏云。然軌法師
T2272_.69.0104b17: 本親禀承三藏論云差別爲性。其後有
T2272_.69.0104b18: 慈恩法師亦云。親承三藏論本應差別
T2272_.69.0104b19: 性故定賓
今見
梵本益有兩異乃至兩本會通
T2272_.69.0104b20: 相違云云二者基疏意舊無兩本。唯一
T2272_.69.0104b21: 梵本翻云差別性故。文軌法師不故字
T2272_.69.0104b22: 故作爲。具如此疏文。故今云遂改
T2272_.69.0104b23: 差別爲性。問。此兩家是非如何。答。判
T2272_.69.0104b24: 兩家是非古來亦兩家。一者賓疏爲謬基疏
T2272_.69.0104b25: 義斷・後記・
慈恩傳等
慈恩傳中具載呂才與文軌
T2272_.69.0104b26: 俱談作書破之有四十餘條慧立・明濬
T2272_.69.0104b27: 文軌・
呂才
還述請三藏呂才對定屈退
T2272_.69.0104b28: 其中明濬還述第二條云又以宗依宗體
T2272_.69.0104b29: 宗依宗體以爲宗。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
T2272_.69.0104c02: 一體而釋疑也。勿有法與其能別
T2272_.69.0104c03: シテ。應了知。但是一體ニシテ差別スルヲ
T2272_.69.0104c04: 云云 基辨詳此賓疏意云。但是一體者。古師所云有
法・法合爲宗文軌取之爲宗體。故云是一體。差
T2272_.69.0104c05: 別者。有法法差別所詮義。爲性者爲宗體性意也。彼
文軌呂才意同古師有法法合處別別所詮義差別爲
T2272_.69.0104c06: 體性
之意也
今謂。是即留以爲宗也。又
T2272_.69.0104c07: 定賓疏云文軌法師親禀三藏此是妄言。慈
T2272_.69.0104c08: 恩傳等中不親禀三藏。復此疏既云
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_.69.0104c11: 若是翻譯之輩可義正以改之。彼文軌
T2272_.69.0104c12: 疏尙破之改論那宜還許已上
斷文
又賓疏
T2272_.69.0104c13: 梵本有兩異甚妄言也。基疏既云
T2272_.69.0104c14: 差別性故。由疏文自知舊一梵本譯
T2272_.69.0104c15: 差別性故呂才・文軌遂改云差別爲性
T2272_.69.0104c16: 二者基疏爲妄賓疏爲正之説。願曉因明義
T2272_.69.0104c17: 骨上云。問。基疏云。論差別性故乃至深爲呵
T2272_.69.0104c18: 云云云何會之耶。答。改論文者此妄語。何
T2272_.69.0104c19: 者論本有二。文軌由差別爲性。如
T2272_.69.0104c20: 解釋不之。故賓疏第二云。文軌法師○
T2272_.69.0104c21: 兩本會通不相違云云基辨詳云。願曉所
T2272_.69.0104c22: 言全由賓疏。賓既妄言。云何願曉爲正 又
T2272_.69.0104c23: 了義燈中別設一解文軌等云。如因明
T2272_.69.0104c24: 論云差別性故後文軌法師輒改論文
T2272_.69.0104c25: 差別爲性。爲之言作。言ロハ差別宗體
T2272_.69.0104c26: 。若爾則論中前標此中宗者釋云差別
T2272_.69.0104c27: 性。即顯宗訖。何須更説是名爲宗。文言
T2272_.69.0104c28: 煩重云云 已上燈破文軌文。此
破亦非道理
非直違因明等
T2272_.69.0104c29: 者出文軌非深爲呵責。秋篠鈔云。違因明
T2272_.69.0105a01: 之軌轍者。論體等七各是軌轍。然今此指
T2272_.69.0105a02: 宗之法以號軌轍。言故者所以也。謂立
T2272_.69.0105a03: 之法不一向極成亦不一向不極成
T2272_.69.0105a04: 要須非極成極成和合所以方始名
T2272_.69.0105a05: 宗。是以稱故。言非極成極成デモナイト云コ
トヲ非極成ト云ナリ
T2272_.69.0105a06: 即簡ヱラビアラ
ハスナリ
合説不相離ナルヲ
合説ト云ナリ
也。非不極
T2272_.69.0105a07: 成者即簡別説極成有法極成能
別云別説
是所
T2272_.69.0105a08: 宗義方立。亦可簡別所以同性所以
T2272_.69.0105a09: 其宗方立。是以稱故。今文軌等云フ
處ナレハ
因明
T2272_.69.0105a10: 。故云違因明之軌轍已上秋篠
鈔之釋
基辨詳
T2272_.69.0105a11: 云。秋篠所釋大得此論疏旨。後學深應
T2272_.69.0105a12: 。勿異求已。今別設私一解軌轍言
T2272_.69.0105a13: 云。若如文軌師等差別爲性不故言
T2272_.69.0105a14: 則但以言依宗云互相差別一許一不
T2272_.69.0105a15: 許爲宗體自不相彰。差別言但簡却古師
T2272_.69.0105a16: 過非唯能別唯所別爲
宗。爲過非
宗依一體。差別
T2272_.69.0105a17: 宗體。由是前文宗依置極成言亦不
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
T2272_.69.0105a20: 極成ルナラハ體。自成過失悉與因明法式
T2272_.69.0105a21: 違。故云違因明等已上基
辨私
闇唐梵之方言
T2272_.69.0105a22: 者。俗士呂才及文軌師不故字成
T2272_.69.0105a23: 前文宗依宗體謬改作爲性。故云闇唐
T2272_.69.0105a24: 也 輒改論文等者。改作論文私設
T2272_.69.0105a25: 前已辨 深爲呵責所由等如次下
T2272_.69.0105a26:
T2272_.69.0105a27: 疏。彌天釋道安豈不痛哉 鈔曰。正餘師
T2272_.69.0105a28: 謬改故字。五文之中第二示翻譯流傳不
T2272_.69.0105a29:  彌天釋道安法師者。今擧此師
T2272_.69.0105b01: 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_.69.0105b04: 聲答曰。彌天釋道安。時人聞以爲名答云云
T2272_.69.0105b05: 彌天是始。出世説新語補 乃商略
T2272_.69.0105b06: 於翻譯者。商略謂量度也。道安法師量度翻
T2272_.69.0105b07: 五失三不易。叙其本縁道安法師
T2272_.69.0105b08: 般若經抄具述。彼經抄序秋篠鈔引
用之
云。昔在
T2272_.69.0105b09: 漢陽十有五載講放光經放光經具題云放光
般若波羅蜜經。有
T2272_.69.0105b10: 十三卷。後漢于闐國無叉羅與竺叔闌
譯。與大般若第二會同本也云云
歲常再遍。
T2272_.69.0105b11: 後至京都漸四年亦恒歲二遍。未敢墜息
T2272_.69.0105b12: 然從每至句首尾隱沒シテ卷深思。恨不
T2272_.69.0105b13: 護云
叉羅
等會也。建元十八年西國沙門鳩
T2272_.69.0105b14: 摩羅跋提來朝吳國胡大品一部四百二
T2272_.69.0105b15: 。言二十千首盧。首盧三十二字胡人數
經法也
T2272_.69.0105b16: 審數之凡一萬七千二百六十首盧。殘二十
T2272_.69.0105b17: 七字都併五萬二千四百七十五字。考挍異
T2272_.69.0105b18: 。即今天竺沙門曇摩鞞執本。佛護爲
T2272_.69.0105b19: 對而檢之。慧進筆受。與放光光讃同者
T2272_.69.0105b20: 更出也。其二經譯人所落者隨其失
T2272_.69.0105b21: 稱而正矣。其義異不誰是者輒伴而
T2272_.69.0105b22: 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。縁落失
T2272_.69.0105b24: 五失三不易云云爲五失三不易云者。
T2272_.69.0105b25: 一本作三不異。秋篠云。三不異正作三不
T2272_.69.0105b26: 。今借音云云云五失者。翻譯則失
T2272_.69.0105b27: 五。此云五失。三不易者。翻譯流傳不
T2272_.69.0105b28: 事有三。是云三不易。道安作爲斯五失
T2272_.69.0105b29: 三不易于放光般若經抄序。後人弄
T2272_.69.0105c01: 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: 而使秦一失本也。二者胡經尙質秦人好
T2272_.69.0105c04: 文。傳可衆心文不合二失本也。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: 其煩。而今裁斥三失本也。四者胡有
T2272_.69.0105c07: 。正似辭。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: 更傍及騰前辭已及後説。而悉除此五
T2272_.69.0105c10: 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: 陛乃欲千載之上微言傳使百王
T2272_.69.0105c14: 之下末俗。二不易也。阿難出經去佛未
T2272_.69.0105c15: 尊者大迦葉令五百六通阿羅漢云
六通
迭察迭
T2272_.69.0105c16: 。今離千年而以近意量截。彼阿羅漢乃
T2272_.69.0105c17: 兢兢若此。此生死人平平若是。豈將不
T2272_.69.0105c18: 法者之勇於斯。三不易也。涉此五失
T2272_.69.0105c19: 不易胡爲秦詎可愼乎已上五失
三不易也
結集
T2272_.69.0105c20: 之羅漢等者。第三不易之辭也。兢兢者詩經
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。如淵恐墜履氷懼陷也。
T2272_.69.0105c23: 平平者一本作
誤也
坦也均也。又云。平平萍萍
T2272_.69.0105c24: 也。陸生云苹。詩小雅呦呦鹿鳴⻝野之苹
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: 生死人萍無定性風漂貌。喩文軌等
T2272_.69.0105c29: 自樂欲我解作論文萍萍隨
T2272_.69.0106a01: 定性 改千代之上等者第二不易之辭
T2272_.69.0106a02: 也。微言者。音噵云。印度微言云云微妙言
T2272_.69.0106a03: 音甚深義言稱美之詞。末俗者。同噵云。支那
T2272_.69.0106a04: 俗語云云已上擧三不易之語
T2272_.69.0106a05: 疏。況非翻經學之童蒙 鈔曰。五文中三
T2272_.69.0106a06: 責輒改翻語 況非翻經等者。況言承
T2272_.69.0106a07: 上深責。意云。道安作五失三不易。是於
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: 論文。是非實學者所作。膚受末學之所爲
T2272_.69.0106a11: 也。誑惑後學迷童蒙已上基辨私
釋已下亦爾
問。
T2272_.69.0106a12: 賓疏中云文軌師親禀承三藏別梵本
T2272_.69.0106a13: 何故此基疏中今云翻經之侶乎。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: 賓疏説但獨作言。誰人復雷同乎。故賓
T2272_.69.0106a18: 疏説爲妄説已上基辨
私問答
但是膚受之輩者。
T2272_.69.0106a19: 一本作庸受。雖意味通膚爲是。膚受是
T2272_.69.0106a20: 論語之文字。謂肌膚所受利害身。愬
T2272_.69.0106a21: 者急迫而切身。則聽者不其實。而發
T2272_.69.0106a22: 者暴矣。由是膚受ト云ヲ已上
誑後徒之幼
T2272_.69.0106a23: 識者。幼謂少也。曲禮ニ人生十年此云幼。識者
T2272_.69.0106a24: 知也。增韻云能別。十歲幼稚之所能別
T2272_.69.0106a25: 已能別半是非實。後學之幼識者以彼等
T2272_.69.0106a26: 改作謬爲眞教。此即彼等所誑所欺。故
T2272_.69.0106a27: 誑後徒等已上
誘初學之童蒙者。童謂
T2272_.69.0106a28: 冠十五以下云童子。蒙謂昧也。稚也。今
T2272_.69.0106a29: 此文意就初入未達迷者初學童蒙。二句
T2272_.69.0106b01: 共彰文軌・呂戈所爲非實學者已上基
辨私
T2272_.69.0106b02: 疏。委率胸襟由斯自滅 鈔曰。五文之中
T2272_.69.0106b03: 四正申呵責辭。基辨云。現流本寫誤多。今
T2272_.69.0106b04: 音石噵古本改訂。應委率胸襟迴換
T2272_.69.0106b05: 聖教諸也。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: 此文意不相承依據但隨自所欲意
T2272_.69.0106b08: 換于文迴于義猥隨自意聖説之聖
T2272_.69.0106b09: 。文軌・呂戈之意誰應已上
私注
當來慧眼
T2272_.69.0106b10: 等者。此下四句正呵責辭。此辭意云。若如
T2272_.69.0106b11: 猥任自欲轉。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_.69.0106b15: 怖乎。是今正呵責之意也已上基
辨私注
T2272_.69.0106b16: 疏。諸有學者差別性故 鈔曰。五文之中
T2272_.69.0106b17: 五結勸須今家翻傳 應閑此義等者。
T2272_.69.0106b18: 意言。諸有智學者當習此三不易義
T2272_.69.0106b19: 據舊大唐遍覺三藏所翻之正差別性故
T2272_.69.0106b20: 舊者對文軌等新翻入正理論出後改作文
新翻論云舊也。賓疏文軌云前本義非也
T2272_.69.0106b21: 疏。問何故但宗差別性故 鈔曰。當出宗
T2272_.69.0106b22: 體章四文中第四總問答結。此中三文。初
T2272_.69.0106b23: 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。何故釋宗所依差別性因喩
T2272_.69.0106b26: 之中不差別性耶 答意云。違他順
T2272_.69.0106b27: 無過宗。有簡故互相差別
簡也
宗依ヲイフノ
T2272_.69.0106b28: 之中説差別性故言若以互相差別
則不彰宗體。故説
T2272_.69.0106b29: 別性
因・喩唯順無曾違他。無簡故不
T2272_.69.0106c01: 差別性故也。云何宗中有簡別
T2272_.69.0106c02: 別性故耶。謂如佛者對聲生論聲是無
T2272_.69.0106c03: 。是違他順己立ト云。雖但宗體順己立
T2272_.69.0106c04: 法聲與法無常互相簡別。名是爲宗體也。
T2272_.69.0106c05: 若雖他順己無簡別。則不
T2272_.69.0106c06: 也。故云他順己有簡別名爲宗也
T2272_.69.0106c07: 已上問答兩重
意基辨私意注
此已上文明宗説差別性故
T2272_.69.0106c08:  因喩唯成等者。此下明因・喩不差別
T2272_.69.0106c09: 性故。唯成者。因・喩於立・敵上唯共成無
T2272_.69.0106c10: 成。無一許一不許故無互相簡已上
私注
如因
T2272_.69.0106c11: 三相等者。秋篠云。此下引例顯云云基辨
T2272_.69.0106c12: 云。擧因例喩。就此文古來兩家釋別。一
T2272_.69.0106c13: 者後記云。如因三相所依便非者。意云。其
T2272_.69.0106c14: 因有體有義。所作是體。三相是義。體不
T2272_.69.0106c15: 義。義不體。是差別性故。今不偏取
T2272_.69.0106c16: 能依差別性因。不所依體義因。今
T2272_.69.0106c17: 但總取總取聲所依
所作能依
因。由此因中不
T2272_.69.0106c18: 差別性故喩體即因准因可知也云云二者
T2272_.69.0106c19: 仁記云。雖因三相亦互相綺差別。而不
T2272_.69.0106c20: 差別不相離。而以別三相因也云云
T2272_.69.0106c21: 辨詳二家云。後記釋中云總取總取能所
所作聲
T2272_.69.0106c22: 因。自上句云偏取能依所依
T2272_.69.0106c23: 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
T2272_.69.0106c25: 。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_.69.0106c27: 意以仁記説允當也。仁記云別三
T2272_.69.0106c28: 因。此別三相者。能依體義中之義也。
T2272_.69.0106c29: 此爲スト云フコト因能協疏意歟。疏文意云。如
T2272_.69.0107a01: 因之三相義雖所作
相三
差別
T2272_.69.0107a02: 此因三相上體與
相離一許一不
T2272_.69.0107a03: 成其能立因喩之義。因・喩所依便非
T2272_.69.0107a04: 音噵云。因所依聲。
喩所依瓶等言也
此以別三相因不
T2272_.69.0107a05: 因依因不因喩依極成共許
T2272_.69.0107a06: 差別性故秋篠鈔釋所依便非法・有法依便
非如是。甚不是也。以音石
T2272_.69.0107a07: 疏。理門唯云此論獨言 鈔曰。總問答二
T2272_.69.0107a08: 文中二明但此論説差別性故。理門論文如
T2272_.69.0107a09: 上已釋。但説現量等五相違能・所別
T2272_.69.0107a10: 三過故。不極成有法・極成能別差別性
T2272_.69.0107a11: 。但此入理論獨作斯言。後記云今此論中
T2272_.69.0107a12: 獨作此言甚不是也
T2272_.69.0107a13: 疏。論隨自樂此簡濫失 鈔曰。自下示
T2272_.69.0107a14: 宗相四文中第三簡スル。濫失者。宗有
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。三擧四宗別宗。四設
T2272_.69.0107a17: 別因喩。五問答分別。今即初也
T2272_.69.0107a18: 疏。隨自者簡應亦名宗 鈔曰。此文二略
T2272_.69.0107a19: 論文 簡別於宗者。音石裏云。隨自者
T2272_.69.0107a20: 遍所許等宗唯取第四宗已上
今云。
T2272_.69.0107a21: 第四不他發論即隨自意也 樂爲所
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
T2272_.69.0107a24: 別眞因喩 眞因喩是能成立性非
T2272_.69.0107a25: 樂爲所成立故。簡別眞因喩非所成
T2272_.69.0107a26: 立宗已上
故理門論等者。故言承上疏
T2272_.69.0107a27: 隨自者簡遍許等三宗樂爲所成立性
T2272_.69.0107a28: 別因喩之文據 顯不顧論宗者。不
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
T2272_.69.0107b03: 隨教・意。但隨自能善者立故。然隨自能
T2272_.69.0107b04: 自意故。理門説隨自意言。有自意
T2272_.69.0107b05: 自能。故隨自言顯隨能云云 已上秋
篠抄
T2272_.69.0107b06: 基辨詳云。秋篠採集諸説三種隨自別
T2272_.69.0107b07: 尤爲殊妙。然理門所説隨自意言顯隨自能
T2272_.69.0107b08: 之義似今疏主意。隨自能者。但隨能善
T2272_.69.0107b09: 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: 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
T2272_.69.0107b13: 疏旨。雖隨自意上應隨自能義。濫先承
T2272_.69.0107b14: 禀宗故。不隨能隨自意也。問。若
T2272_.69.0107b15: 爾此疏釋不顧論宗若善外宗等。是即
T2272_.69.0107b16: 隨自能。何故云隨能耶。答。云
T2272_.69.0107b17: 善外宗等者。就斥外宗外宗破也。
T2272_.69.0107b18: 外宗成立外義也。故秋篠云隨自
T2272_.69.0107b19: 言顯隨自能未可已上基
辨私詳
樂爲所立謂
T2272_.69.0107b20: 不樂爲等者。基辨云。此文意言。論樂爲所立
T2272_.69.0107b21: 者。但所成立性是云樂爲。非爲成立能
T2272_.69.0107b22: 成立性眞因喩已上基
辨私
能成立性者。音噵云。
T2272_.69.0107b23: 眞因喩云云若異此者等者。此下四句理門
T2272_.69.0107b24: 論中立爲所成立爲能成立之理
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
T2272_.69.0107b27: 者。似因似喩亦自所樂故應宗也云云
T2272_.69.0107b28:  今云。此音石釋雖好文簡幼學難了。基辨
T2272_.69.0107b29: 重釋令了云。異此者謂眞因喩。何故名
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: 宗也。是故理門論文云樂爲所立謂
T2272_.69.0107c05: 爲能成立性已上
已上引理門
T2272_.69.0107c06: 略釋今論文疏釋竟
T2272_.69.0107c07: 疏。凡宗有四不須定顧 鈔曰。五文中三
T2272_.69.0107c08: 四宗別宗。此中二文。初擧四宗。後
T2272_.69.0107c09: 正以四宗今論所説宗。今即初也。後記
T2272_.69.0107c10: 云。理門論中凡明宗義皆是四宗也云云
T2272_.69.0107c11: 遍所許宗等者。約內外道自他宗ニヲイテ各各部
T2272_.69.0107c12: ナルカ諸遍許セハ宗相諍フハ皆立已成。如眼
T2272_.69.0107c13: 見色者。音噵云。又如聲所聞云云今云。此等
T2272_.69.0107c14: 皆遍許事。爲宗發言スレハ立已成トナル已上
 已下
亦同
T2272_.69.0107c15: 二先承禀宗等者。約或佛弟子兩人立諸法
T2272_.69.0107c16: 空宗是立已成。吠世師資立我應體實
T2272_.69.0107c17: 亦同 三傍憑義宗等者。是非言正諍。傍
T2272_.69.0107c18: 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。言立者
T2272_.69.0107c20: 情所樂便立等者。此即唯立自宗所愛樂
T2272_.69.0107c21: 。於餘三宗既非愛樂決定不立。唯隨
T2272_.69.0107c22: 彼三。故此第四名不顧論宗。又言
T2272_.69.0107c23: 若善外宗等者。此據彼外宗量破斥
T2272_.69.0107c24: 彼敵論顧戀不顧論宗云云 已上
邑記
T2272_.69.0107c25: 又秋篠鈔云。四不顧論宗者亦名隨自宗。謂
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
T2272_.69.0107c28: 因明立論之道。但所ヲ云ナリ自能立云云
T2272_.69.0107c29: 已上
明燈
基辨詳兩家説云。以邑記勝。若
T2272_.69.0108a01: 善外宗疏一本作或善外宗。若・或兩共疏文
T2272_.69.0108a02: 二意自是炳然。秋篠鈔所言不顧言取
T2272_.69.0108a03: 自立他義。若不自宗成他所立。則自
T2272_.69.0108a04: 我宗。若破我宗成立宗。則應自違宗
T2272_.69.0108a05: 。故秋篠釋甚爲不是已上
T2272_.69.0108a06: 疏。此中前三立已成故 鈔曰。此下擧
T2272_.69.0108a07: 別宗二文中後由四宗此論所説
T2272_.69.0108a08: 宗言。此中三文。初明前二宗立已成故非
T2272_.69.0108a09: 論所云宗。二明第三宗非正立
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: 此論中宗言以前三宗建立也。初遍
T2272_.69.0108a13: 所許宗等者。此下明前二宗不立由。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: 本宗立已成。若雖同僧佉弟子
T2272_.69.0108a17: 一義諍時非立已成也。如護法・靑辨
T2272_.69.0108a18: 空有。此非佛家本宗諍故非立已成
T2272_.69.0108a19: 已上
T2272_.69.0108a20: 疏。次義憑宗皆不可立 鈔曰。此文二明
T2272_.69.0108a21: 第三宗非正立此論所説宗言 非言所
T2272_.69.0108a22: 諍等者。備記云。傍義准無我宗是本正
T2272_.69.0108a23: 成。此傍意所成故簡除也。今正取言顯所
T2272_.69.0108a24: 成聲無常論宗云云 已上備記。
今私云。此
T2272_.69.0108a25: 備釋爲好。疏意云。凡諍之根本由言義顯。由顯令
他解起。而傍意許思別義但在內外不顯。不顯故他
T2272_.69.0108a26: 智不起非所諍體。無諍體則無諍用。是故傍意許所
成宗義非本所諍。不立爲正論宗也。而備釋文約雖
T2272_.69.0108a27: 了義意不
疏意
然於因明等者。音噵云。初二
T2272_.69.0108a28: 若立相符過。此第三宗未何過云云
T2272_.69.0108a29: 基辨云。將此疏文古來有多義。今以
T2272_.69.0108b01: 辨。一者出古釋多義。二者辨是非。三者
T2272_.69.0108b02: 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: 但諍ヲハ所陳不顧論宗。非言所陳
T2272_.69.0108b06: 是正諍。但傍準故。今不立也云云二前記
T2272_.69.0108b07: 云。即助一釋亦得トス過。立聲無常
T2272_.69.0108b08: サハ苦無我等即有一分違宗失。以無漏聲
T2272_.69.0108b09: 是無常而非苦故云云故未其過
T2272_.69.0108b10: 已上三邑記云。諸有爲法既許無常。義許
T2272_.69.0108b11: 。若更立之亦立已成。今約言所陳
T2272_.69.0108b12: 云云音石評云。邑記釋好云云第二判是非
T2272_.69.0108b13: 者。後記中云義憑宗是眞宗非正所諍
T2272_.69.0108b14: 所簡之中云云基辨判云。義憑宗非當時樂
T2272_.69.0108b15: 競。何得眞宗。又前記中云違宗失
T2272_.69.0108b16: 邑記云立已成。皆是不是。疏文既云未見
T2272_.69.0108b17: 其過。何釋是爲過。此等釋不可也。第三
T2272_.69.0108b18: 如實義者。秋篠鈔云。傍義准宗於因明
T2272_.69.0108b19: 其過。既於因過法差別相違之
T2272_.69.0108b20: 。即傍准宗可成宗義。而非正立云云
T2272_.69.0108b21: 辨詳云。秋篠申實義。順疏文違害。雖
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。於因明三十三過中其過
T2272_.69.0108b24: 也。其過之其字爲此文字眼。其者指義准
T2272_.69.0108b25: 。意言。於因明似過中義准宗
T2272_.69.0108b26: 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。謂雖傍准
T2272_.69.0108b28: 宗爲似宗過。既於因過法差別相
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
T2272_.69.0108c03: 當時樂宗。故今簡別。二因・喩雖成傍意
T2272_.69.0108c04: 能違不樂爲宗亦成因・喩故。是四相違中
T2272_.69.0108c05: 因過所違本量宗也。今疏文合此二
T2272_.69.0108c06: 然非正立已上基
辨私詳
今簡前三皆等者。仁記
T2272_.69.0108c07: 云。問。何故簡前三宗耶。答。非所樂故。若
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_.69.0108c11: 中若異此等文此其義也云云 已上
仁記
基辨云。
T2272_.69.0108c12: 此仁記釋尤好。順疏文
T2272_.69.0108c13: 疏。唯有第四自不樂故 鈔曰。由四宗
T2272_.69.0108c14: 此論所説宗言三文中第三明第四宗此
T2272_.69.0108c15: 論所説宗文也 自不樂故者。非當時樂爲
T2272_.69.0108c16: 故簡前三今云。瑞源中此疏文注牒秋篠音云
問答一解。今見明燈抄
T2272_.69.0108c17: 。大疏抄中引本院私記釋今所引秋篠
意云之文。後學率爾不依用。擇而居矣
T2272_.69.0108c18: 疏。樂爲所成故不名宗 鈔曰。當章大文
T2272_.69.0108c19: 第四釋別因喩。即釋樂爲所成立者
T2272_.69.0108c20: 別因喩之文也。此中二釋。初約新舊所
T2272_.69.0108c21: 成簡別因喩此第一釋依理門論
解。如次具明
後約
T2272_.69.0108c22: 四宗簡別此第二解次疏文云。若依
理門眞似圓備
初釋
T2272_.69.0108c23: 中有三。初正釋。次寄難釋。後結成。今即初
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
T2272_.69.0108c27: 宗。喩准此知。言自義者即自宗也已上
前記
T2272_.69.0108c28: 後記云。因喩成立等者。此意説云。若不
T2272_.69.0108c29: 所成但言成立即名宗者。因喩亦能成スレハ
T2272_.69.0109a01: 自宗此之因喩應亦名宗。由此道理
T2272_.69.0109a02: 成言能成已上前後記同意釋也。二之中
後記所釋了故爲
T2272_.69.0109a03: 記云若樂爲於宗所立者。因喩亦自所樂
T2272_.69.0109a04: 而成宗故應宗耶。答。因喩本來既成。非
T2272_.69.0109a05: 今新所成故不宗也云云基辨詳三記
T2272_.69.0109a06: 云。後記・前記・仁記雖意相同中後記爲
T2272_.69.0109a07: 巧妙釋也・成立自宗等者。因喩成スルヲ自宗
T2272_.69.0109a08: 亦應宗。但名能立ルコトハ所成
T2272_.69.0109a09: 。因喩本來既成已レリ共許非今所成
T2272_.69.0109a10: 宗。今顯樂爲等者。今論文顯自樂爲新
T2272_.69.0109a11: 成立方是其宗非舊已成。雖樂因喩等者
T2272_.69.0109a12: 伏疑。疑云。以樂爲成立宗。則因喩亦
T2272_.69.0109a13: 樂爲立。何不宗耶。今疏文通此疑。通釋
T2272_.69.0109a14: 意言。雖爲因喩。舊已成非新成。若以
T2272_.69.0109a15: 成立爲宗。則本來共許故是相符。故雖
T2272_.69.0109a16: 宗也已上基
辨私注
T2272_.69.0109a17: 疏。既爾似宗疎故非宗 鈔曰。初解釋三
T2272_.69.0109a18: 文中二寄難釋 既爾者。若以新成立
T2272_.69.0109a19: 宗者ト云此二字意也基辨
私注
備記云。此難意
T2272_.69.0109a20: 云。新所成立方是眞宗ナラハ者。似宗・因・喩亦
T2272_.69.0109a21: 宗。新更可成立云云 基辨云。此
備釋爲
似因
T2272_.69.0109a22: 者如聲顯聲無常所作性故。聲顯不
T2272_.69.0109a23: 聲是所作。是故更立聲是所作。因云
T2272_.69.0109a24: 縁變故。如ト云燈焰等似喩ナルコト准知云云 已上音石
裏。今云。
T2272_.69.0109a25: 此釋
亦好
當時所競方是等下答難文也。邑記云。
T2272_.69.0109a26: 初對敵者名爲當時。以因後立非正宗
T2272_.69.0109a27: 云云 今云。此邑
釋爲
備記云。當時所競是新所成立
T2272_.69.0109a28: 眞宗也。眞因喩亦當時申故以樂爲所立性
T2272_.69.0109a29: 之言簡別也。似因似喩雖更後時可成
T2272_.69.0109b01: 而非當新所成立。是第二時所成立
T2272_.69.0109b02: 故疎而非宗也云云 今云。此備釋解當時樂爲
所立性言眞因喩亦與眞
T2272_.69.0109b03: 同時申。簡別非眞宗
義尤爲悉。自邑此爲
因喩時申等者。邑
T2272_.69.0109b04: 記云。因喩與宗同時所申故。以所成立性
T2272_.69.0109b05: 而簡別之。若不所成立性但言隨自樂
T2272_.69.0109b06: 。則能成因喩亦得宗。故須簡別云云
T2272_.69.0109b07:  基辨詳云。此邑師釋雖義允當文約ナレハ
T2272_.69.0109b08: 識應了知。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。由同一時濫故置所成
T2272_.69.0109b11: 云云基辨云。以此釋文併讀須疏意。前
T2272_.69.0109b12: 明備釋當時言亦與是同。故須簡別之言皆
T2272_.69.0109b13: 同解了。今謂。本成眞因眞喩亦對敵者
T2272_.69.0109b14: 同時申由濫以樂爲所立之言
T2272_.69.0109b15: 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
T2272_.69.0109b17: 所樂三字不可也。可三字。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: 當時正競處最初樂爲則疎遠故不
T2272_.69.0109b20: 宗也已上基辨私注
疏文意
T2272_.69.0109b21: 疏。此上一解不簡於似 鈔曰。初解三
T2272_.69.0109b22: 文中第三結成初解 依理門論等者。指
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。眞者音噵云眞因喩。又似
T2272_.69.0109b25: 者云似因喩已上
又大疏鈔云。問。理門論中
T2272_.69.0109b26: 樂爲所立説名云云爾者可似因似喩
T2272_.69.0109b27: 耶。答。疏云但簡眞因喩云云之見理門文
T2272_.69.0109b28: 樂爲所立謂不爲能成立性。若異此者
T2272_.69.0109b29: 所成立。似因似喩亦應云云既簡
T2272_.69.0109c01: 似因喩。何不此耶。邑記意簡眞・似
T2272_.69.0109c02: 因喩云云邑記云。理門所言樂爲所立唯簡
T2272_.69.0109c03: 眞因・眞喩似因似喩。然准理門既云
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: 。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
T2272_.69.0109c07: 者。彼論何須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: 所立即應第二時彼所成立。似因・似喩
T2272_.69.0109c10: 亦應宗。既爾彼樂爲所成立言應已簡
T2272_.69.0109c11: 於似。宜更詳云云如何。答贈僧
私云。理
T2272_.69.0109c12: 門論文樂爲所立之言簡能成立性眞因喩
T2272_.69.0109c13: 也。若異此樂爲所立能立眞因喩ケハ所立
T2272_.69.0109c14: 者。似因喩亦可宗也。故若異此者等之
T2272_.69.0109c15: 文顯眞因喩之所以也。不直簡似因
T2272_.69.0109c16: 。況若以樂爲言似者。何下論文云
T2272_.69.0109c17: 樂成立現量等相違故名似立宗等
T2272_.69.0109c18: 已上贈
僧正意
又纂要中云彼樂爲言簡於似因喩
T2272_.69.0109c19: 故彼論云樂爲所立謂不爲能成立性
T2272_.69.0109c20: 此者カハ所成立似因似喩ヲモ亦名宗。
T2272_.69.0109c21: 若爾纂主意云樂爲言簡似因喩已上
大疏
T2272_.69.0109c22: 抄中贈僧正疑難但
疑無通釋文
基辨私通釋云。是亦如贈僧
T2272_.69.0109c23: 正會通前文疑難。此纂引文亦顯眞因
T2272_.69.0109c24: 所以也。非直簡似。然纂主意取此文
T2272_.69.0109c25: 似因喩樂爲言非似宗過。纂主所
T2272_.69.0109c26: 釋可謂麁釋。以疏主意此上一解
之意也
正的
T2272_.69.0109c27: 也。如次下悉辨
T2272_.69.0109c28: 疏。又解樂者體義名宗 鈔曰。釋簡別因
T2272_.69.0109c29: 第二解約四宗簡別也。貫通上
T2272_.69.0110a01: 下者。音噵云。一隨自樂。二樂爲云云又音裏
T2272_.69.0110a02: 云。又解樂者下第二解也。貫通上下者。意云。
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_.69.0110a05: 眞因喩云云 已上
簡前三宗等者。基辨
T2272_.69.0110a06: 云。簡前三宗等者。遍所許・先承禀二宗共許
T2272_.69.0110a07: 也。傍憑宗非正立。故云隨自樂也。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: 敵者時所樂爲。故云樂爲別似宗
T2272_.69.0110a10: 因喩已上
雖成已義者音石噵云。眞因・眞
T2272_.69.0110a11: 喩雖成自己宗義是能成立。本來共許非
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: 成自宗義。此樂爲故雖宗。而非
T2272_.69.0110a15: 故不宗也。故今簡因喩云云又邑
T2272_.69.0110a16: 記云。雖成已義等者。此意云。若不因喩
T2272_.69.0110a17: 恐彼因喩以能成立自己所立宗義亦得
T2272_.69.0110a18: 宗。由論云所成立性即簡於彼因喩
T2272_.69.0110a19: 能成自宗義是能立故非今所立。故不
T2272_.69.0110a20: 宗也云云基辨云。邑記・音石意相同。爲
T2272_.69.0110a21: 是正
T2272_.69.0110a22: 疏。若依後解略圓備故鈔曰。第二解
T2272_.69.0110a23: 文餘也。此疏主評後解 雖異理門者。前
T2272_.69.0110a24: スハ理門論説唯簡於眞之解。今此後解
T2272_.69.0110a25: 眞與似釋樂爲所成立性故與理門
T2272_.69.0110a26: 已上基
辨私
簡眞與似者。音石云。簡眞宗因喩及
T2272_.69.0110a27: 似宗因喩云云 已上
略圓備故者。略謂總略
T2272_.69.0110a28: 也。總略眞似故圓滿周備一切簡別也已上基
辨私
T2272_.69.0110a29: 又秋篠鈔釋此疏二解云。簡別因喩之濫
T2272_.69.0110b01: 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: 因喩ナラハ宗。如是二濫自有兩解。一
T2272_.69.0110b05: 云。爲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: 所樂爲。故樂爲所立是宗。不樂能立非也。
T2272_.69.0110b08: 後濫故云樂爲所成立性。謂似因喩
T2272_.69.0110b09: 若更成立雖所立。然非樂爲。故以樂爲
T2272_.69.0110b10: 所立是宗ナリト云不樂所立非也。二云。爲
T2272_.69.0110b11: 故云樂爲。謂似因喩若更成之雖
T2272_.69.0110b12: 而非樂爲。故樂是宗也。不樂非也。爲
T2272_.69.0110b13: 初濫所成立性。謂眞因喩是其能立。故所
T2272_.69.0110b14: 成是宗。能立非也云云 已上
明燈
基辨云。秋篠
T2272_.69.0110b15: 斯兩釋之所釋善得疏主意
T2272_.69.0110b16: 疏。問何故因喩不説隨自 鈔曰。簡
T2272_.69.0110b17: 五文中五問答分別。此下有四問答。今文
T2272_.69.0110b18: 第一問答明別因喩隨自樂。問意云。
T2272_.69.0110b19: 因喩成宗亦應隨自。如何所立宗ニノミ但云
T2272_.69.0110b20: 耶。答意云。宗是所成當時樂爲ナレハ但云
T2272_.69.0110b21: 。因喩能立宗故先已共許セルヲ方成。故隨自
T2272_.69.0110b22: 言唯在宗內已上
私注
因喩二種如共等下
T2272_.69.0110b23: 因喩隨自樂ト云ノ之簡自他共
T2272_.69.0110b24: 三量釋。今文先就共比量因喩辨。意言。共
T2272_.69.0110b25: 比以本來共許因喩能立故與宗今成
T2272_.69.0110b26: 同。由是宗以隨自ト云ヲ簡因喩不隨自
T2272_.69.0110b27: 已上
私注
無遍許失等者。基辨云。明共比因喩無
T2272_.69.0110b28: 前三失。謂宗當時所立故雖遍許承禀立已
T2272_.69.0110b29: 成失。因喩以本來舊成能立故。雖
T2272_.69.0110c01: 立已成前二失也。亦於因喩
T2272_.69.0110c02: 傍意許差別爲能立。非正立傍准
T2272_.69.0110c03: 。由此等義因喩簡隨自言
T2272_.69.0110c04: 已上基
辨私
又音石云。意言。因喩必先共許スルヲ以
T2272_.69.0110c05: 方成能立。即立非無果。故無相符失。故以
T2272_.69.0110c06: 隨自言簡也。此約共比因喩也。遍許宗
T2272_.69.0110c07: 者如眼見色。此ルトキハ果故以隨自ト云
T2272_.69.0110c08: 簡也。先承宗者。如二外道共承僧佉對諍
T2272_.69.0110c09: 本宗。此亦立ルニ果故以隨自言簡也云云
T2272_.69.0110c10: 已上
又秋篠鈔曰 凡立因喩要先ヨリ共許スルヲ云
T2272_.69.0110c11: 是故更無遍許之失及承禀失。宗義者。違
T2272_.69.0110c12: 己方名爲宗故有遍許等失云云 已上
秋篠
T2272_.69.0110c13: 辨云。此二師釋雖好難了。今助釋令了。
T2272_.69.0110c14: 謂因・喩二共比量中必先ヨリ共許スルヲモテ方成
T2272_.69.0110c15: 。然因喩故無相符失。故以隨自簡。若
T2272_.69.0110c16: 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: 簡也。若以不共許因喩時必有隨一
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。所以因喩不隨自。無レハナリ遍許等過
T2272_.69.0110c26: 基辨云。後記所釋殊勝易了。後學須
T2272_.69.0110c27: 依用諸 要言所陳等者下彰因喩無傍准
T2272_.69.0110c28: 。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。故以隨自簡也。宗ナレハ
T2272_.69.0111a01: 是言ヲモテ陳。外別有レハ意許差別四相違
T2272_.69.0111a02: 因之所違宗。是即正因喩所成。故以隨自
T2272_.69.0111a03: 簡也云云基辨云。因喩以言顯。無意許
T2272_.69.0111a04: 因喩能立。故無レハ義准失トスヘキコト隨自
T2272_.69.0111a05: 簡也已上音石
意如
此上明共比因喩隨自言
T2272_.69.0111a06: 簡竟 自他比量等下明自他二比因喩
T2272_.69.0111a07: 亦以隨自言簡也 説許執故者。仁記云。
T2272_.69.0111a08: 自比量者不他宗。他比量者不自宗
T2272_.69.0111a09: 既説許執故也云云邑記云。宗有乖諍。意
T2272_.69.0111a10: 即是不顧論宗。故於宗中隨自。因
T2272_.69.0111a11: 喩共許即是非不顧論。因喩但可其不顧
T2272_.69.0111a12: 之宗。不因喩説言隨自云云基辨云。隨
T2272_.69.0111a13: 其不顧等者。因喩亦隨其自・他比別
T2272_.69.0111a14: 故是即不自他
T2272_.69.0111a15: 疏。問何故宗中義准能立 鈔曰。四問答
T2272_.69.0111a16: 中第二問答明義准因喩 隨應之義
T2272_.69.0111a17: 等者。邑記・仁記・音石同釋云。隨應之義者
T2272_.69.0111a18: 應種種意許差別也云云立乃乖角共自
T2272_.69.0111a19: 相違者。邑記意云。以隨應意許義立爲
T2272_.69.0111a20: 時。與共許言陳自相相違也云云基辨私云。
T2272_.69.0111a21: 共自相者本ヨリ成スル因喩也。因・喩以言陳成故
T2272_.69.0111a22: 共自相。若立意許宗共自相因喩
T2272_.69.0111a23: 違也已上
私記
後記釋云。且如數論師對佛法
T2272_.69.0111a24: 眼等必爲他用。意中所許擬成眼等是
T2272_.69.0111a25: 眞他用スルコト。積聚性爲因。臥具等因喩。
T2272_.69.0111a26: 同喩乃成眼等爲メニ假他ルルコト。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。由此因喩違他意許。明知宗因
T2272_.69.0111a29: 義准宗之差別。因・喩定言。熟思已上
後記
T2272_.69.0111b01: 基辨云。此後記釋尤爲殊勝 故於宗中等
T2272_.69.0111b02: 者。故言承上立意許宗共自相因喩
T2272_.69.0111b03: 。由是宗有傍義准四相違因中所違量
T2272_.69.0111b04: 法差別・有法差別意許宗因相違
T2272_.69.0111b05: 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
T2272_.69.0111b07: 名爲相違。後因未擧。豈非義因。云何必
T2272_.69.0111b08: ヲ以ルトキ方成能立耶。答。立ルトキ後正量必言
T2272_.69.0111b09: 陳中方成能立。故無義因成ト云也。此
T2272_.69.0111b10: 疏文意。謂以言陳因・喩時。以其言顯
T2272_.69.0111b11: 因喩決定方成能立。不別求意許也。故
T2272_.69.0111b12: 因・喩義准能立已上基
辨私注
又基
T2272_.69.0111b13: 辨私問。大疏鈔中引本院空晴四相違三卷
T2272_.69.0111b14: 私記中卷云。問。疏云。問何故宗中義准
T2272_.69.0111b15: 能立此問意以四宗中義準宗問耶。亦
T2272_.69.0111b16: 四相違中意許差別問歟。如何。答。就
T2272_.69.0111b17: 四宗中義准宗問也已上本
院答
有復問。若爾
T2272_.69.0111b18: 問中就四宗中義准宗言答中以四相違
T2272_.69.0111b19: 中意許差別。此相違如何本院答。所立宗傍
T2272_.69.0111b20: 差別義名義准宗。故欲傍有差別
T2272_.69.0111b21: 四相違中意許差別例答也。由是非
T2272_.69.0111b22: 四相違中意許差別爲義准宗已上本
院答
 
T2272_.69.0111b23: 此本院答云。今見疏文故於宗中傍有
即四相違所違差別爾今此答云四相違中意許
T2272_.69.0111b24: 差別例答也。由是非四相違中意許差別爲義准宗
答甚難了。既疏文云即四相違所違差別。既置即言
T2272_.69.0111b25: 傍義准宗即四違中所違差別。本院云
何云例答非義准宗耶。甚難
復有問。若
T2272_.69.0111b26: 爾四相違意許差別不義准宗本院答。
T2272_.69.0111b27: 傍義准宗四宗中傍義准宗
T2272_.69.0111b28: 已上本
院答
 基辨難此本院答云。疏中以四宗一切
盡。今此答中云四宗中傍義准宗
T2272_.69.0111b29: 了。若爾四宗外傍義准宗疏文中
何處之耶 已上基辨難
又有問。若爾義
T2272_.69.0111c01: 准宗有多類本院答。不爾。四相違中意許
T2272_.69.0111c02: 差別不顧論宗似傍義准宗故名傍義准宗
T2272_.69.0111c03: 已上
本答
有問。疏中釋義准宗云。既於因過
T2272_.69.0111c04: 法差別相違之因。即傍准宗可成宗義
T2272_.69.0111c05: 然非正立已上
疏文
若由此釋則四相違中意許
T2272_.69.0111c06: 差別猶可傍義准宗本院答。此疏文意
T2272_.69.0111c07: 傍義准宗意許故無其過。望諍意
T2272_.69.0111c08: 許差別相違因。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過。故
T2272_.69.0111c10: 傍准宗其過。以是爲證四相違
T2272_.69.0111c11: 中意許差別ヲハ傍准宗已上本
院答
 
T2272_.69.0111c12: 此答了。既云違意許差別相違
。亦云其可聞不可聞聲雖傍准宗義所作性ヲモテ
T2272_.69.0111c13: 能成過。答釋文段似前後相違。若救云
傍意許宗雖相違因諍傍義不過。則今返難應
T2272_.69.0111c14: 云。陳那家以諍一許一不許宗。不諍非宗。今
既云傍憑義宗四宗。云何以諍意許傍義而今
T2272_.69.0111c15: 宗耶。不諍但名意許傍義宗也。故本院
答難了。既疏云亦有傍義差別義准失已上
T2272_.69.0111c16: 基辨難
院答云云
大疏鈔中引此本院私記問答
T2272_.69.0111c17: 贈僧正評云。此文可之。不此旨之人
T2272_.69.0111c18: 多致異論云云又有對基辨問云。大疏
T2272_.69.0111c19: 鈔所引本院私記問答贈僧正評是非云何
T2272_.69.0111c20: 決耶。基辨答云。本院私記中云四相違中意
T2272_.69.0111c21: 許差別非傍義准宗其意難了。違疏意
T2272_.69.0111c22: 故。疏主以四宗一切宗竟故。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: 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
T2272_.69.0111c26: 故。今疏文中既云宗中傍有義准
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: 何意許宗應不顧論宗耶。由是本院私
T2272_.69.0112a02: 記難了。又別設一解輔本院云。雖
T2272_.69.0112a03: 疏文私今立義盡道理論。則縱有意許差
T2272_.69.0112a04: 量於本量言陳上不顧論宗。能違量亦
T2272_.69.0112a05: 不顧論宗。又立者意許樂爲トスル宗於言陳
T2272_.69.0112a06: 義准立故傍義准宗自是炳然。所違ニモアレ
T2272_.69.0112a07: 宗可四宗中傍義准宗也。如
T2272_.69.0112a08: 道理自顯然故。本院所釋全爲了。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
T2272_.69.0112a12: 明燈抄云謬以有私記秋篠釋歟。麁
T2272_.69.0112a13: 漫之甚不取焉。又有問云。本院私記釋
T2272_.69.0112a14: 疏云因明其過既於因過ヲ以
T2272_.69.0112a15: 差別相違之因之文云。其意約傍義准
T2272_.69.0112a16: 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
T2272_.69.0112a19: 意許差別相違因。其可聞不可聞聲皆
T2272_.69.0112a20: 傍准宗。此因能成故不云云此本院
T2272_.69.0112a21: 釋是非如何。基辨答。此所釋中云是所作
T2272_.69.0112a22: 性因皆能成意許諍意許差別
T2272_.69.0112a23: 相違因可聞不可聞聲皆當傍准宗此因
T2272_.69.0112a24: 能成故不過。此釋違疏文其因能成
T2272_.69.0112a25: 准宗皆是爲過。疏既云則傍准宗可成
T2272_.69.0112a26: 然非正立云云此文中然字彰過。故傍
T2272_.69.0112a27: 准宗雖成宗義皆是爲過爲疏實義也。本
T2272_.69.0112a28: 院釋中云諍意許差別相違因。今
T2272_.69.0112a29: 謂。若爲相違因則云何非過失耶。亦云
T2272_.69.0112b01: 傍准宗此因能成不過耶。若云諍但
T2272_.69.0112b02: 自備傍義云傍准宗過之意歟。今謂。
T2272_.69.0112b03: 諍應宗者。由此等道理難通本院
T2272_.69.0112b04: 所釋爲穩也
T2272_.69.0112b05: 疏。問何故宗內因喩不説 鈔曰。第三問
T2272_.69.0112b06: 答明因喩樂爲。此即問也 宗內
T2272_.69.0112b07: 者音噵云。眞宗云云
T2272_.69.0112b08: 疏。答似宗因喩不説樂爲 鈔曰。此下答
T2272_.69.0112b09: 文。此中有三説。初説意云。當時樂爲方爲
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
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。非後時樂爲。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。以樂爲言不顧論宗三似
T2272_.69.0112b18:  似因喩等者彰似因喩更立宗攝不
T2272_.69.0112b19: 樂爲。然秋篠所覽本作簡彼三似似宗因喩
T2272_.69.0112b20: 二似字。是故至鈔釋中故云樂爲
T2272_.69.0112b21: 彼三似也似宗因喩設今及後等者。以似宗
T2272_.69.0112b22: 次牒文。此是智者千慮一失。次疏釋文
T2272_.69.0112b23: 似宗後時樂爲故。以似宗言
T2272_.69.0112b24: 次句首甚不是也。後學擇而取焉已上
私注
T2272_.69.0112b25: 今及後等者。音石裏云。道慈法師言。如
T2272_.69.0112b26: 聲顯聲無常因云所作性故。彼聲顯論
T2272_.69.0112b27: 聲所作故。當時不因。後時更
T2272_.69.0112b28: 聲是所作宗。此後時所作言非因是宗。故
T2272_.69.0112b29: 今及後俱不可説爲因云云又周記云。設
T2272_.69.0112c01: 今及後等者。以因喩二由過故現非
T2272_.69.0112c02: 。若以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
T2272_.69.0112c04: 云云基辨云。設者且也。今者似因・似喩當
T2272_.69.0112c05: 時正用時似故不ナリ及喩ナリトハ。後者第
T2272_.69.0112c06: 二時。謂第二時更成立スレハ宗故不
T2272_.69.0112c07: 及喩也。此今及後不因或喩且施設
T2272_.69.0112c08: 云。非實有似因喩因名喩者。故今文
T2272_.69.0112c09: 設言此義也。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。明因喩。若
T2272_.69.0112c12: 第二更以似因喩成立時宗中攝。故因喩無
T2272_.69.0112c13: 樂爲簡別已上基
辨私注
設更成立等者。音石
T2272_.69.0112c14: 裏云。道慈法師言。謂對聲顯論聲所作
T2272_.69.0112c15: 。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
T2272_.69.0112c17: 所作因故云義既成已等。從初似因
T2272_.69.0112c18: 眞因故云展轉也。所作因者既成似因
T2272_.69.0112c19: 又成似宗。故云疎成不於宗。例如上
T2272_.69.0112c20: 似宗因喩雖更可成非是所樂是第二
T2272_.69.0112c21: 時所成故非今所諍疎故非云云
T2272_.69.0112c22: 辨云。義既成已者。更立宗義成已。方爲因喩
T2272_.69.0112c23: 者。第三時爲本量眞因喩。展轉疎成
T2272_.69.0112c24: 者。自初似因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_.69.0112c28: 樂爲已上基
辨私注
T2272_.69.0112c29: 疏。又於宗內因喩略之 鈔曰。第二答文。
T2272_.69.0113a01: 秋篠云。第二説意。宗樂爲言ヲ以似周已。即
T2272_.69.0113a02: 九過。初簡所別。次簡能別。合二即簡
T2272_.69.0113a03: 隨自。者簡相符過。言樂爲者即簡
T2272_.69.0113a04: 比等五違及似因喩亦簡十四因過喩十過
T2272_.69.0113a05: 故理因喩中可樂爲。略故無耳云云基辨
T2272_.69.0113a06: 詳云。問。秋篠意以樂爲言現比等五違。
T2272_.69.0113a07: 似因喩。然纂要中云。下論説樂成立
T2272_.69.0113a08: 現量等相違故名似立宗。故知樂爲非
T2272_.69.0113a09: 彼五已上
纂要
此釋與秋篠違。如何和會耶。
T2272_.69.0113a10: 答。由下疏解。論説雖言義兼タルヲ以以徳失
T2272_.69.0113a11: 此樂成立言含當時・後時二之樂爲。又以
T2272_.69.0113a12: 定義雖言樂爲ト云ハ其今・後二時
T2272_.69.0113a13: 不定。當時樂爲所立名宗。從時樂爲名
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。又纂要所云非彼五之樂爲
T2272_.69.0113a17: 今與後二時樂爲。後學了知此別而宜
T2272_.69.0113a18: 會斯違而已。因喩略之者。因喩略樂爲
T2272_.69.0113a19: 已上基辨私會
燈之違
T2272_.69.0113a20: 疏。又宗有諍不言樂爲 鈔曰。第三答文。
T2272_.69.0113a21: 此答意備記云。此答意言。宗中義有相濫。故
T2272_.69.0113a22: 樂爲之言。因喩義無相濫。故不樂爲
T2272_.69.0113a23: 之言云云基辨云。此備釋爲殊勝。以更須成
T2272_.69.0113a24: 者。更謂非第二。今別須立量成也已上
私注
T2272_.69.0113a25: 義相濫者。音噵擧仁説云。似宗濫於眞宗
T2272_.69.0113a26: 云云後記云。第三解與第一解義意無
T2272_.69.0113a27: 云云秋篠明三答別云。初約現當。次約
T2272_.69.0113a28: 廣略。後約濫非濫。故三説別云云基辨詳云。
T2272_.69.0113a29: 此秋篠釋爲穩當。初答云現當
T2272_.69.0113b01: 相爾。第二答中以樂爲言似因喩
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。初答約更立與立釋
T2272_.69.0113b04: 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。又就第三約濫不濫答。備記
T2272_.69.0113b07: 義濫不濫。仁記云似宗濫眞宗。秋篠云
T2272_.69.0113b08: 但有濫不濫何物濫不。雖各義通
T2272_.69.0113b09: 備記殊勝。疏文既云宗義相濫已上基
辨私注
T2272_.69.0113b10:
T2272_.69.0113b11: 疏。問何獨宗標能成立也 鈔曰。第四
T2272_.69.0113b12: 問答明因喩不能成立。秋篠云。問意
T2272_.69.0113b13: 言。論別解宗言是所成立性。因喩別釋何不
T2272_.69.0113b14: 能成立
T2272_.69.0113b15: 疏。答宗言所立更不須説 鈔曰。答中有
T2272_.69.0113b16: 四説別。此文第一説也。初説意云。以宗説
T2272_.69.0113b17: 所成立性影彰因喩是能成立性
T2272_.69.0113b18: 疏。又宗前未説更何須説 鈔曰。答中第
T2272_.69.0113b19: 二説。秋篠鈔云。宗前未説者。宗頌及長行前
T2272_.69.0113b20: 説。恐濫須所成
立性
因喩前頌已標
T2272_.69.0113b21: 能立。由前已彰。更何須云云又邑記云。
T2272_.69.0113b22: 此所立宗先來未説今時對説。故云所成
T2272_.69.0113b23: 因喩時已彰宗訖。宗既所立此云能立
T2272_.69.0113b24: 更何須云云又音石裏云。宗前未説等者。
T2272_.69.0113b25: 意云。從此論文已前未説宗所立也。今方
T2272_.69.0113b26: 宗。若此宗中不所成立之言者能立
T2272_.69.0113b27: 所立二可相濫。由是今説宗時宗是若能立
T2272_.69.0113b28: 歟。若所立歟疑故。今宗名所成立
T2272_.69.0113b29: 云云基辨詳云。秋篠釋難了。工者顧失。
T2272_.69.0113c01: 邑記直釋也。音裏爲理 因喩已彰等
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: 音噵本作因喩正。已彰者擧宗後申
T2272_.69.0113c05: 則是能立自是炳然。更何須能成立
T2272_.69.0113c06: 已上基辨
私注判
T2272_.69.0113c07: 疏。又宗違古以簡別也 鈔曰。第三説答
T2272_.69.0113c08: 秋篠鈔云。第三説答意古師等説宗是能
T2272_.69.0113c09: 。今違古師宗名所成。因喩不違不
T2272_.69.0113c10: 成云云基辨云。言所成立以別古今者。新師
T2272_.69.0113c11: 不相離性所立宗。故今宗名所成立
T2272_.69.0113c12: 古師宗
T2272_.69.0113c13: 疏。又前標云後更不須 鈔曰。第四説答意
T2272_.69.0113c14: 云。古今二師雖所立別。且同古師宗名
T2272_.69.0113c15: 因喩能成ト云。論初標云宗等多言名能立
T2272_.69.0113c16: 先説能立已。由是後更不説也已上基
辨私注
又前
T2272_.69.0113c17: 標等音石噵本無文字異本
云云
T2272_.69.0113c18: 疏。論是名爲此結成也 鈔曰。明宗相
T2272_.69.0113c19: 中大文第四結成宗相。是言遠指上依・體・
T2272_.69.0113c20: 濫之三科。此等總結名爲宗相
T2272_.69.0113c21: 疏。論如有成三指法也 鈔曰。示宗相
T2272_.69.0113c22: 中第三大文指示眞宗式法。此中三文。初牒
T2272_.69.0113c23: 論示科。二以上來論文此式法。三引
T2272_.69.0113c24: 伽顯揚此論立宗所説。今即初也
T2272_.69.0113c25: 疏。如佛弟子指此令解 鈔曰。二以上來
T2272_.69.0113c26: 論文此式法。此中五文。初如佛弟子等三
T2272_.69.0113c27: 句正釋今文示立・敵。此式是即共比量
T2272_.69.0113c28: 式。無簡言故。論文但説如有成立
T2272_.69.0113c29: 敵何人。若對勝論聲無常則此宗
T2272_.69.0114a01: 相符非眞宗式。若勝論爲立者佛者爲
T2272_.69.0114a02: 亦相符非眞。是故今指示立聲無常
T2272_.69.0114a03: 聲常此宗時眞立宗法。焉云
T2272_.69.0114a04: 佛弟子對聲論師等。論文簡略含是義。故
T2272_.69.0114a05: 如有成立 聲是有法等者。此下七句正
T2272_.69.0114a06: 上論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: 能別。不有法無常。彼此者立・敵
T2272_.69.0114a09: 也。聲及無常者相違釋。若合之一處
T2272_.69.0114a10: 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
T2272_.69.0114a12: 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
T2272_.69.0114a17: 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
T2272_.69.0114a21: 即合一處之相。互相差別等者。若以
T2272_.69.0114a22: 成有法・能別之一處聲與無常互相
T2272_.69.0114a23: 簡別而不相離宗體性。聲論不許等者正
T2272_.69.0114a24: 法也。以互相差別不相離聲是無
T2272_.69.0114a25: 時。敵聲論者不聲上無常故。一許一
T2272_.69.0114a26: 不許簡前三示失謂簡立已成等
前三宗失者
不顧論眞宗
T2272_.69.0114a27: 今正得成。論文云聲是無常是言
T2272_.69.0114a28: 一處故。疏釋云合一處不相離是言示。
T2272_.69.0114a29: 全無相違 既成隨自等者。此下合上論
T2272_.69.0114b01: 五文之中第四以上隨自樂爲所成立性
T2272_.69.0114b02: 論文斯式法論文フヲ如有成立今此疏
T2272_.69.0114b03: 釋云既成隨自等上釋也。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: ヒシヲ樂爲今合スルコトハ此式當時樂爲ニシテ
T2272_.69.0114b09: 時樂所成立ナルアルヨリ名爲眞宗能成立是
T2272_.69.0114b10: 眞宗。即以樂爲所成立性之言眞因
T2272_.69.0114b11: 喩雖成自樂爲所成立則名因喩
T2272_.69.0114b12: 宗者。論文含此等簡濫義如有成立
T2272_.69.0114b13:  恐義不明等者。五文之中第五結法釋
T2272_.69.0114b14: 上論文。音噵云。指此者論云如有成立聲是
T2272_.69.0114b15: 無常之文云云此疏文意。謂上來論文雖
T2272_.69.0114b16: 立宗義相其義猶未明著今此論文指
T2272_.69.0114b17: 示式法眞宗義相已上基辨
私注釋
T2272_.69.0114b18: 疏。瑜伽論云自宗所許 鈔曰。此下指
T2272_.69.0114b19: 眞宗式法三文之中第三引瑜伽顯揚
T2272_.69.0114b20: 論立宗。此中有四。初擧瑜伽顯揚。二釋
T2272_.69.0114b21: 論意。三擧三釋自宗所許。四以三類十
T2272_.69.0114b22: 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: 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。瑜伽説二種義故各別攝受。自
T2272_.69.0114c02: 品所許者陳那所言能依宗體也已上基
辨私注
秋篠
T2272_.69.0114c03: 鈔云。古因明師未唱不相離性之辭故云
T2272_.69.0114c04: 各別攝受自品所許云云基辨云。此秋篠
T2272_.69.0114c05: 釋尤妙也。新師所言一許一不許互相差別スル
T2272_.69.0114c06: 不相離性ト云フ瑜伽今文云各別攝受也。次
T2272_.69.0114c07: 瑜伽文釋攝受之言自意樂故。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
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_.69.0114c13: 品是宗義已上基辨由秋篠
私注今疏文
T2272_.69.0114c14: 疏。此中意説故説名宗 鈔曰。二釋二論
T2272_.69.0114c15: 。基辨私注云。此中者指上所引瑜伽顯
T2272_.69.0114c16: 此。斯二論中意説。依二所立者自性・
T2272_.69.0114c17: 差別二所立義。此爲宗依依二所立也。
T2272_.69.0114c18: 立論各別等者。立論二字彰能詮言論。有
T2272_.69.0114c19: 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
T2272_.69.0114c21: 對論故云各別。若立論對揚時不
T2272_.69.0114c22: 自他立者情


T2272_.69.0114c23: 三量隨自意樂。於能詮能立上
T2272_.69.0114c24: 他順已隨自各別自所尊所許義。若無是則
T2272_.69.0114c25: 立宗。故今云自宗所許故説名宗
T2272_.69.0114c26: 已上基
辨私注
T2272_.69.0114c27: 疏。此中三釋正與此同 鈔曰。三以三重
T2272_.69.0114c28: 自宗所許。此中三釋者。基辨私云。如
T2272_.69.0114c29: 上所引瑜伽・顯揚所言自宗所許故説名
T2272_.69.0115a01: 今指示云此中也。三釋者以上所
T2272_.69.0115a02: 陳那已後會古師三重釋而釋自宗所許。由
T2272_.69.0115a03: 是牒云此中三釋已上基
辨私注
又音裏云。即
T2272_.69.0115a04: 上文上卷十
一丁
中會古師宗爲能立中三釋是
T2272_.69.0115a05: 云云 基辨詳云。此釋
盡難
道慈法師云。第一説以
T2272_.69.0115a06: 能詮自宗所許。第二説以別宗
T2272_.69.0115a07: 宗所許。第三説以合宗自宗所許云云
T2272_.69.0115a08: 基辨詳云。此道慈法師釋尤
殊勝。而文簡約難意味
又秋篠鈔云。問。彌
T2272_.69.0115a09: 勒無著等自性・差別以爲所立。宗因喩等皆
T2272_.69.0115a10: 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。爲此違此三釋
T2272_.69.0115a13: 前所擧陳那已後會古今
之違
三釋同也
T2272_.69.0115a14: 已上
秋篠
基辨詳云。此秋篠釋問意尤好。答文麁
T2272_.69.0115a15: 略難意昧。今言。秋篠但云同未
T2272_.69.0115a16: 同所由。可麁略。後學迷岐不其眞
T2272_.69.0115a17: 自破斥去。至次悉明。又後記云。此中三釋等
T2272_.69.0115a18: 者。即前古今同異中三釋無別。任自思
T2272_.69.0115a19: 基辨詳云。後記云三釋無別甚不可也。今
T2272_.69.0115a20: 私併考疏前後文云。先徳諸家云前古
T2272_.69.0115a21: 今同異中三釋。無別未穩。今按非全同。雖
T2272_.69.0115a22: 三釋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新師。由
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_.69.0115a27: 前會古今三釋云云今全會同者
T2272_.69.0115a28: 邑周二記而言歟。如何。答邑記云義即
T2272_.69.0115a29: 別約彼名能立此名所立別。而復
T2272_.69.0115b01: 今此三釋即前古今同異中云云今詳邑
T2272_.69.0115b02: 師未正會與會已之釋稍有別故。邑記
T2272_.69.0115b03: 釋爲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・差別宗。今此但取自性・差
T2272_.69.0115b06: 上言宗不二宗依。故云自宗所許
T2272_.69.0115b07: 已上前記
第一釋辨
基辨詳云。前記此釋不爾。前第一
T2272_.69.0115b08: 重釋以能詮言宗爲能立。然今云但取
T2272_.69.0115b09: 自性・差別宗麁漫之甚矣 又前記云。
T2272_.69.0115b10: 第二釋以別對總。總者總五蘊中且取
T2272_.69.0115b11: 宗。若言若義皆名宗。即是自宗所許云云
T2272_.69.0115b12: 基辨詳云。前第二釋以別言義別宗
T2272_.69.0115b13: 能立。今文亦爾。然前記云異麁漫之甚
T2272_.69.0115b14: 已上
私注
又云。第三釋中同前取不相離性云云
T2272_.69.0115b15: 已上
前記
基辨詳云。此亦不爾。前第三釋不
T2272_.69.0115b16: 不相離性。如是前記中云異謬解前後
T2272_.69.0115b17: 異故爲大麁謬。基辨今釋云
T2272_.69.0115b18: 稍有別。會已釋稍有別。非會意有異。
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。以古師今故第三釋
T2272_.69.0115b21: 中不不相離性。但云合宗不相離
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: 不相離宗古師合宗同。前是會釋。今
T2272_.69.0115b25: 會釋。以前會已三釋今作三釋自宗
T2272_.69.0115b26: 所許言。後學須深思焉。秋篠所釋於
T2272_.69.0115b27: 一釋下先擧會已義次古師後新師各云
T2272_.69.0115b28: 此立。其此之言未會已義歟不故雖
T2272_.69.0115b29: 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・後三釋全無別之釋疏主意炳然。後
T2272_.69.0115c03: 學勿迷。大疏鈔中雖此問答釋義意不
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: 此論不相離性會合爲要。前以古會
T2272_.69.0115c07: 。今以會已今義古師義。今此所云初・
T2272_.69.0115c08: 二兩釋乘上明三釋義自宗所許故因
T2272_.69.0115c09: 前二。實今此文第三釋以會已今師言
T2272_.69.0115c10: 不相
離性
古師自宗所許言要。後學須
T2272_.69.0115c11: 已上基辨
私注也
一者以言對理等者。音噵云。
T2272_.69.0115c12: 能詮言能立・宗亦爲自宗所許。所詮
T2272_.69.0115c13: 不相離宗爲所立已上音
石噵
基辨詳此噵云。
T2272_.69.0115c14: 上所云第一釋不不相離宗名爲所立
T2272_.69.0115c15: 而今音石云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_.69.0115c20: 能立此意云。能詮宗依能成
義理故古師亦名能立
古師依是宗名
T2272_.69.0115c21: 能立自宗所許云云 已上秋
篠抄
基辨詳云。此秋
T2272_.69.0115c22: 篠釋雖違害上已會了意味未顯。由
T2272_.69.0115c23: 今私以會已義此第一釋云。取依義能
T2272_.69.0115c24: 詮等者。此文依古師能詮宗名爲各別
T2272_.69.0115c25: 自宗所許。今云義者。若無所詮義
T2272_.69.0115c26: 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
T2272_.69.0116a04: タル宗依。故結云名爲各別自宗也。各別者。
T2272_.69.0116a05: 立敵各別自宗ナレハ是一許一不許ナリト云是會已
T2272_.69.0116a06: 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。以別爲能立自宗所
T2272_.69.0116a08: 。別者謂總中一分。總集隨應之義名爲
T2272_.69.0116a09: 云云基辨詳云。此噵麁也。雖爾以疏第
T2272_.69.0116a10: 三釋文所噵併見スレハ會已義故可穩也
T2272_.69.0116a11: 已上
又音石裏云。別者謂於總中彼一分
T2272_.69.0116a12: 聲無常等敵所敵所申即名爲別。此別
T2272_.69.0116a13: 宗能成總聚隨應之義故名能立云云 已上
裏書
T2272_.69.0116a14: 噵意同麁
釋也。無
又秋篠云。第二釋中以別對
T2272_.69.0116a15: 等者。諸法總聚自性・差別言與義俱是所立
T2272_.69.0116a16: 總中一分對敵所申自性差別トノ若言若義
T2272_.69.0116a17: 俱名爲宗即名能立。此別對宗因喩ヲ以成。
T2272_.69.0116a18: 亦是所立。而能立總。故名能立。古師依
T2272_.69.0116a19: 宗名能立。因喩所成故亦所立。陳那依
T2272_.69.0116a20: ナレハ所立。所據不同故不相違云云 已上
明燈
T2272_.69.0116a21: 基辨詳云。此秋篠釋無害爲好。不自宗
T2272_.69.0116a22: 所許麁。此第二釋爲要如道慈釋
T2272_.69.0116a23: 別言及義自宗所許。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
T2272_.69.0116a28: 合名爲能立自所許。相離シタル自性・差
T2272_.69.0116a29: 別名爲所立。合所依義
能詮
合宗
別故
T2272_.69.0116b01: 云云 已上
基辨詳云。此噵大得疏主實義。以
T2272_.69.0116b02: 相離性與能詮合宗會合彰會已義
T2272_.69.0116b03: 自宗所許言。可殊妙已上
又秋篠鈔
T2272_.69.0116b04: 云。第三釋中以合對離等者。合謂不相離性
T2272_.69.0116b05: 能依總宗也。離者自性・差別各各別離也。自
T2272_.69.0116b06: 性・差別トハ所依義ナレハ名爲所立。能依合宗
T2272_.69.0116b07: 説爲能立。總別故。古師依此宗爲
T2272_.69.0116b08: 。能依合宗對敵合申ルトキ因喩成故亦是所
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_.69.0116b11: 相違已上
明燈
基辨詳云。此秋篠釋爲
T2272_.69.0116b12: 痛快。如靴搔痒。未正會與會已
T2272_.69.0116b13: 也。取彼能依不相離性合等者。古師未
T2272_.69.0116b14: 不相離性之辭。然今前已會訖。由是彰
T2272_.69.0116b15: 古師二論能依合宗必有所依不相離性
T2272_.69.0116b16: 宗體。能依・所依同時同處不離故。古師
T2272_.69.0116b17: 離處別別
所詮
以爲所依。今師以是名云宗依
T2272_.69.0116b18: 今釋此自宗所許言離處別別
所詮
但以
T2272_.69.0116b19: 能依合處。是故自宗所許爲ルヤ體約古師
T2272_.69.0116b20: 合約新師不相離宗體。雖此別
T2272_.69.0116b21: 能依合不相離宗體。非分離
T2272_.69.0116b22: 故。今釋以不相離性自宗所許已上
基辨
T2272_.69.0116b23: 正與此同者。此句正會瑜伽・顯揚所
T2272_.69.0116b24: 此論所説。謂二論所説各別攝受自宗所
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
T2272_.69.0116b27: 故以不相離性合自宗所許。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_.69.0116b29: 通。第三不是已上基
辨私
T2272_.69.0116c01: 疏。此文總也非本成故 鈔曰。自下第四
T2272_.69.0116c02: 十句三類立宗也 此文總也者。邑記
T2272_.69.0116c03: 云。前所引之瑜伽論文是總文也云云基辨
T2272_.69.0116c04: 云。如上所引伽・顯二論云各別攝受自品所
T2272_.69.0116c05: 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: 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_.69.0116c12: 已上
一攝受論宗者。音石噵云。承禀宗云云
T2272_.69.0116c13: 此釋
非也
二若自辨才者。同噵云。不顧論宗云云
T2272_.69.0116c14: 此釋
又秋篠鈔云。初宗體中攝受論宗若自
T2272_.69.0116c15: 辨才者。四種宗中第四不顧論宗也云云
T2272_.69.0116c16: 云。秋篠爲勝。音石釋攝受論宗承禀宗
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
T2272_.69.0116c19: 耶。答。上文意者直立自宗他敵故簡
T2272_.69.0116c20: 捨也。今文意者據自所師宗他敵
T2272_.69.0116c21: 正宗也。謂立自宗他敵故云攝受論
T2272_.69.0116c22: 。由受隨自樂爲義云云基辨詳
T2272_.69.0116c23: 云。大謬釋也。疏文已云攝受論宗。是即
T2272_.69.0116c24: 隨自。隨自即不顧論宗。次疏文云二同宗承
T2272_.69.0116c25: 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: 自所師宗異師敵自宗。依自師
T2272_.69.0116c28: 自宗豈非先承禀宗耶。備釋自云
T2272_.69.0116c29: 文不他故簡捨今文以自師宗他爲
T2272_.69.0117a01: 正。正宗故云攝受論宗。爾則備釋應謬。
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: 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: 大謬。後學由是生迷亂故。後來學者對
T2272_.69.0117a10: 他敵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此疏文。如キハ
T2272_.69.0117a12: 者依自宗外聲生聲無常不顧論宗。
T2272_.69.0117a13: 若佛者對佛者立時此承禀故相符極成非
T2272_.69.0117a14: 攝受論宗隨自樂爲當了知已上基辨
私自義
T2272_.69.0117a15: 由自辨才等者。音石噵云。隨自意樂
T2272_.69.0117a16: 宗義不顧論宗云云立他宗義者。上四宗文
T2272_.69.0117a17: 邑記釋。今由其意則此是爲斥他
T2272_.69.0117a18: 宗義立他宗義。不他面他立
T2272_.69.0117a19: 是云不顧論宗。非立他宗他宗
T2272_.69.0117a20: 不顧論宗已上
又秋篠等云
T2272_.69.0117a21: 者立勝論宗義。此是麁漫謬釋。若非
T2272_.69.0117a22: 佛者立他外宗自宗相違。必勿
T2272_.69.0117a23: 。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_.69.0117a25: 所立宗也云云基辨云。此釋尤好。不
T2272_.69.0117a26: 用備釋也 非別攝受等者。同私云。遍所許
T2272_.69.0117a27: 宗非別攝受自意。先承禀宗非自樂爲
T2272_.69.0117a28: 也。故非眞實者。彰遍許承禀非隨自故立
T2272_.69.0117a29: 已成非眞宗上句故。復以此言
T2272_.69.0117b01: 傍義准非本宗故非眞宗。次云立已成故
T2272_.69.0117b02: 遍許承禀二宗非眞宗之由。復次云
T2272_.69.0117b03: 本成故傍義准宗非根本所成立故非
T2272_.69.0117b04: 眞宗之由已上基
辨私
音噵云。唯此二種者初
T2272_.69.0117b05: 二句。立已成者初二宗。非本成者次一宗
T2272_.69.0117b06: 云云
T2272_.69.0117b07: 疏。次三句是如次配之 鈔云。此文明
T2272_.69.0117b08: 二類三句。基辨云。一若輕蔑他下三句正擧
T2272_.69.0117b09: 標第二類三句。而申宗趣是名因縁此二句
T2272_.69.0117b10: 若輕蔑等三句一一下此二句讀而得
T2272_.69.0117b11: 義之文也。今簡略文一一。應
T2272_.69.0117b12: 蔑他而申宗趣是名因縁一一作
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
T2272_.69.0117b17: 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: 言因則遂無悟他。故今云覺眞實申
T2272_.69.0117b21: 宗趣自悟悟他也。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
T2272_.69.0117b23: 違。次云若覺眞實自悟故者釋自悟
T2272_.69.0117b24: 能立悟他。如他義宗趣能立
T2272_.69.0117b25: 他故又立自所立宗趣能立
T2272_.69.0117b26: 他師故等。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_.69.0117b28: 滿而立宗也云云基辨云。備釋先悟他
T2272_.69.0117b29: 自悟而作一解。雖理尤難解了。任
T2272_.69.0117c01: 疏釋旨自悟悟他宗義立破
T2272_.69.0117c02: 已 立自義等者。噵云。邑師言自所立義從
T2272_.69.0117c03: 師所云云基辨云。備釋先悟他自悟
T2272_.69.0117c04: 而作一解恐依此邑師釋自義
T2272_.69.0117c05: 宗先悟他眞實宗先自悟之別
T2272_.69.0117c06: 解已
T2272_.69.0117c07: 疏。後五句是皆悲愍故 鈔曰。此明第三
T2272_.69.0117c08: 類五句。基辨云。一爲成立自宗者自比量
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
T2272_.69.0117c11: 切立宗不此。此者音噵云。此二種云云
T2272_.69.0117c12: 謂今此文立自・破他之二。餘文易了。今總
T2272_.69.0117c13: 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。一爲自宗。二爲於他
T2272_.69.0117c17: 此名五句中
初二句
三爲伏於他初二句中
成立自宗
四爲
T2272_.69.0117c18: 屈於他初二句中
破於他宗
五爲愍於他
T2272_.69.0117c19: 初二句成自破他皆悲愍故。此三・四・
五後三句釋。與初二句合第三類五句也
上云
T2272_.69.0117c20: 十句三類也 上來示相廣陳中大文第一
T2272_.69.0117c21: 宗相竟 自下大文第二示因相文也」
T2272_.69.0117c22: 因明入正理論疏智解融貫鈔卷第七
T2272_.69.0117c23:   安永第四歲次辛未六月十一日於
T2272_.69.0117c24:   安城客舍正法久住見聞尋思
T2272_.69.0117c25:   不庸愚早早鈔記之竟。後學哲鑒
T2272_.69.0117c26:   幸訂正之
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
T2272_.69.0117c29:   門京師講演及于數度。每講硏究考
T2272_.69.0118a01:   覈評正已。雖爾謬解過半。後來哲賢
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_.69.0118a07:     法相大乘宗沙門釋基辨七十三歲
T2272_.69.0118a08:
T2272_.69.0118a09:
T2272_.69.0118a10: 因明入正理論疏智解融貫鈔卷
T2272_.69.0118a11: 第八因相
初相名第六段終
T2272_.69.0118a12:  南都西京藥師寺法相大乘
T2272_.69.0118a13: 末學沙門  釋基辨 撰 
T2272_.69.0118a14: 疏。論因有三相下示因相 鈔曰。上來示
T2272_.69.0118a15: 相廣陳中大文第一宗相竟。自下大文
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_.69.0118a18: 即初科也四門分別者。基辨云。今牒論文就因一
立四門分別也。有三相三字論文次
T2272_.69.0118a19: 下立五段科釋。如下釋。今名因出體・釋名・差
別 癈立。今疏文云此相略等者此論文名因者差別今
T2272_.69.0118a20: 指云
T2272_.69.0118a21: 疏。此相略以四明廢立 鈔曰。此下第二
T2272_.69.0118a22: 因體相。此有二文。初約二因明。後約
T2272_.69.0118a23: 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: 。經曰。一者生因。二者了因。生因者如
T2272_.69.0118a26: 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_.69.0118b01: 謂生芽等。親辨體故云云能別起用者。基辨
T2272_.69.0118b02: 私云。如穀未生芽時由能起後生芽之用
T2272_.69.0118b03: 所以用在其前其穀處云
其前
因生其後芽云
後也
T2272_.69.0118b04: 能起用爲生因也。且如言生因ト云カ能別
T2272_.69.0118b05: 穀親
芽爲
芽状與穀別ナル
ニ同スルユヘ他トイフ
智解
T2272_.69.0118b06: 言爲生因。言未發時有發則能別親起
T2272_.69.0118b07: 他智解之用此喩穀時有
芽用
故言體即生因。於
T2272_.69.0118b08: 一切生因是可知。又於生了二因
T2272_.69.0118b09: 離合有二意。一云。經説生・了二因通
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
T2272_.69.0118b13: 因及爲因義通是似一。既有能起・能顯
T2272_.69.0118b14: 二爲因相別。一因體能持能起用又一
T2272_.69.0118b15: 因體能持ストイハハ能顯用則持業釋基辨謹按雖
T2272_.69.0118b16: 依士・持業二義。二因之名本是經説因言
T2272_.69.0118b17: 一切因之名。今於其上二因名則依
T2272_.69.0118b18: ト云ヲ勝也。如憍陳如品説。佛言云何有
T2272_.69.0118b19: 。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
T2272_.69.0118b21: 瓶。了因者如燈照物。佛言。是二種因
T2272_.69.0118b22: 因性是一ナリヤ。若是一者可生因作了因
T2272_.69.0118b23: 了因作生因不。答言不也。佛言。若使
T2272_.69.0118b24: 生因不了因生因不了因
T2272_.69.0118b25: 是因相不。婆羅門言。雖相作故有
T2272_.69.0118b26: 。佛問婆羅門。婆羅門。了因所了即同
T2272_.69.0118b27: 能了不。答言。不也。佛言。我法雖無常
T2272_.69.0118b28: 涅槃而非無常。婆羅門從了因得故常
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。如是二語無二也。是
T2272_.69.0118c02: 故如來名無二語乃至廣説。由是等説因體
T2272_.69.0118c03: 是一トイヒヒルト云ヲ已上基
辨私注
故理門云等者。
T2272_.69.0118c04: 是理門論釋了因文。云生因由能起
T2272_.69.0118c05: 用。以是相翻知生因有能起
故此是釋
T2272_.69.0118c06: 生因之引證也已上基
辨注
周記云。此是引證。理
T2272_.69.0118c07: 門論中釋了因云。非生因能起用。故知
T2272_.69.0118c08: 此因生因能起用即名生因。即此種子
T2272_.69.0118c09: 別起芽莖等也。名爲生因云云
T2272_.69.0118c10: 辨詳云。此釋尤勝秋篠鈔云。非如者今釋
T2272_.69.0118c11: 了因。乃是爲先果後因云云基辨詳云。
T2272_.69.0118c12: 此秋篠釋未穩當也。云故理門云故。有
T2272_.69.0118c13: 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_.69.0118c15: 了因疎顯義ト云是釋亦有已上
T2272_.69.0118c16: 燈照物等者。秋篠・音石同釋云。謂燈照物疎
T2272_.69.0118c17: 物故云云 今云。此
釋尤好
能顯困故者。基辨云。且
T2272_.69.0118c18: 智了因。智能照了宗果故名智爲
T2272_.69.0118c19: 。非生因由能親起他智解。但照スルノミ
T2272_.69.0118c20: 宗果宗果。故是疎顯。如燈照物非
T2272_.69.0118c21: 已上
私注
T2272_.69.0118c22: 疏。生因有三三義生因 鈔曰。出體之中
T2272_.69.0118c23: 第二約六因釋。已下文名六因章音石裏等
T2272_.69.0118c24: 此中有三。初標章。二別釋六因。三總評。今
T2272_.69.0118c25: 即初也
T2272_.69.0118c26: 疏。言生因者未了義故 鈔曰。六因章中
T2272_.69.0118c27: 第二別釋六因。此中大分二文。初辨三生
T2272_.69.0118c28: 。後辨三了因。初中亦二。初別釋三生
T2272_.69.0118c29: 。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:
 

[First] [Prev+100] [Prev] 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 [Next] [Next+100] [Last] [行番号:/]   [返り点:/] [CITE]