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

因明大疏裏書 (No. 2274_ 明詮著 ) in Vol. 69

[First] [Prev] 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 [Next] [Last] [行番号:有/無]   [返り点:無/有] [CITE]

T2274_.69.0230a01: 有無常故。周云。若擧合已。能別極成。喩得依
T2274_.69.0230a02: 能別。雖擧因已。能別未極成故。不得依能別
T2274_.69.0230a03: 云云
T2274_.69.0230a04: 言若爾者擧因已即解宗者依所立不者。周
T2274_.69.0230a05: 云。若擧因已。敵即解能別。因依能別不。即
T2274_.69.0230a06: 答云。亦不得。同喩要須合已方依能別。擧因
T2274_.69.0230a07: 未合故。不得依能別云云邑云。答亦不同喩。
T2274_.69.0230a08: 先已合故者。先言諸所作者皆是無常。即已
T2274_.69.0230a09: 解訖。彼方擧喩。所依所立因已。後方始解
T2274_.69.0230a10: 生。由此不可因依能別云云
T2274_.69.0230a11: 第三正義意者。喩上所立依喩所依爲依。
T2274_.69.0230a12: 擧喩體時。未解人者。擧喩所依時。方能解
T2274_.69.0230a13: 也
T2274_.69.0230a14: 言若爾擧喩未解如何者。周云。若言擧喩解
T2274_.69.0230a15: 宗喩依能別。依喩未解。喩依於何。此更無
T2274_.69.0230a16: 答。爲有此妨。下解爲正
T2274_.69.0230a17: 言細准而言有自他共全分者。所立不成。
T2274_.69.0230a18: 他所立不成。共所立不成。自全分所立不
T2274_.69.0230a19: 成。他全分所立不成。共全分所立不成等准
T2274_.69.0230a20: 知◎
T2274_.69.0230a21: 因明大疏裏書下本
T2274_.69.0230a22:
T2274_.69.0230a23:
T2274_.69.0230a24:
T2274_.69.0230a25: 因明大疏裏下末
T2274_.69.0230a26: ◎言理門但擧有喩所依者。意云。理門論中。
T2274_.69.0230a27: 但擧有喩所依倶不成。而不説無喩所依之
T2274_.69.0230a28: 倶不成也。故理門云。如立聲常。無觸對故。同
T2274_.69.0230a29: 法喩言。諸無觸對見彼皆常。如業。如極微如
T2274_.69.0230b01: 瓶等云云此三種喩。如次別配所立不成･能
T2274_.69.0230b02: 立不成･倶不成也。勝論宗業是無礙而非常
T2274_.69.0230b03: 住故。極微是常非無礙故。瓶等是非常亦非
T2274_.69.0230b04: 無礙故。不成宗因也
T2274_.69.0230b05: 言兩倶隨一猶預所依及喩無依皆略不明
T2274_.69.0230b06: 者。意云。理門論中爾波喩四不成及無倶不
T2274_.69.0230b07: 成。皆略不明也。但入正理中方明也
T2274_.69.0230b08: 言准此有無有即初二無即第四或有或無即
T2274_.69.0230b09: 第三過者。備云。此文甚難。然今且云。有即初
T2274_.69.0230b10: 二者。兩倶･隨一也。無即第四者。第四所依不
T2274_.69.0230b11: 成也。或有或無者。第三猶預不成云云邑云。
T2274_.69.0230b12: 有即初二無即第四者。此且以義配於有無。
T2274_.69.0230b13: 設喩無依。得有初二。如下自述云云周云。問。
T2274_.69.0230b14: 此不成等准下作法。各通有體無體。云何今
T2274_.69.0230b15: 言有即初二無即第四。但約有體耶。答。師云。
T2274_.69.0230b16: 且據論文有體而説。非盡理談云云
T2274_.69.0230b17: 言宗因倶有體無倶不成等者。如聲論師對
T2274_.69.0230b18: 無空論。聲常。無質礙故。如虚空。宗因是共言
T2274_.69.0230b19: 故云有體也。虚空喩是不共言故云無也
T2274_.69.0230b20: 言四宗因無體無倶不成等者。如數論師對
T2274_.69.0230b21: 無空論立。思是我。以受用二十三諦故。猶如
T2274_.69.0230b22: 虚空。所立我宗。能立二十三諦因。不共言
T2274_.69.0230b23: 故。云宗因無體也。又虚空喩是不共言。故云
T2274_.69.0230b24: 無也。不成宗因故。云倶不成也
T2274_.69.0230b25: 言兩倶不成如聲論説是者。如聲論師對勝
T2274_.69.0230b26: 論師立。聲常宗。無質礙故。猶如瓶等。是云
T2274_.69.0230b27: 有倶不成也
T2274_.69.0230b28: 言如外道立我能受若樂至爲同喩者。周云。
T2274_.69.0230b29: 外道雖許有虚空。而彼自不許虚空受苦樂
T2274_.69.0230c01: 作業等。是自隨一。虚空之上能所立無。名倶
T2274_.69.0230c02: 不成。對經部師。彼不許有虚空體性。但自許
T2274_.69.0230c03: 有。名自隨一云云意云。約立者邊。名自隨一。
T2274_.69.0230c04: 又有他隨一無倶不成。然今此處但釋有倶
T2274_.69.0230c05: 不成故。不擧無倶不定也
T2274_.69.0230c06: 言二他隨一有倶不成者。周云。此擧業爲同
T2274_.69.0230c07: 喩。其佛法者雖許有業。而不許是常無礙。意
T2274_.69.0230c08: 業雖是無礙。今且取身語故。成他隨一也云云
T2274_.69.0230c09: 邑云。佛法身語是無常有質礙云云
T2274_.69.0230c10: 言二倶不立有第八識故者。備云。此即兩倶
T2274_.69.0230c11: 不成過。立敵兩倶不立第八識故。又通兩倶
T2274_.69.0230c12: 所依不成失。望立敵兩無喩所依故。即顯經
T2274_.69.0230c13: 部虚空亦同第八識。後宗都不立故。文輒師
T2274_.69.0230c14: 云。經部虚空同龜毛者。不爾。所以者何。經部
T2274_.69.0230c15: 虚空都不共言故。喩所依無。雖龜毛亦都
T2274_.69.0230c16: 無。然共言故成喩所依有也。虚空不成有喩
T2274_.69.0230c17: 所依也
T2274_.69.0230c18: 言答立宗法略有二種等者。總答意顯云。約
T2274_.69.0230c19: 正比量。若遮宗必因亦遮。若通遮表宗。必
T2274_.69.0230c20: 因喩亦是通遮表也。此明道理。由此即顯聲
T2274_.69.0230c21: 常無質礙故如虚空者。宗因通遮表。其喩唯
T2274_.69.0230c22: 遮。故無乃倶不成止云也。表必通遮。遮不必
T2274_.69.0230c23: 表
T2274_.69.0230c24: 言如説我常者。如數論外道立量云。神我是
T2274_.69.0230c25: 常。除二十三諦許諦攝故。如自性諦
T2274_.69.0230c26: 言依前喩無體有遮亦得成者。經部立量曰。
T2274_.69.0230c27: 我都無。非作故。如虚空。既是遮宗故。同喩亦
T2274_.69.0230c28: 遮也。若宗是遮。而因喩非遮。是非正比量
T2274_.69.0230c29: 也。雖無喩所依。而有遮喩體故。亦得成喩
T2274_.69.0231a01: 也
T2274_.69.0231a02: 言有云聲宗上遮表虚空喩上遮等者。邑云。
T2274_.69.0231a03: 此舊疏假叙聲論救云。聲宗之上常與無礙。
T2274_.69.0231a04: 皆具遮表。虚空無體亦但有遮言別既兩成
T2274_.69.0231a05: 總非能立闕者。聲上常與無礙。能所立異。稱
T2274_.69.0231a06: 之爲別。名具遮表。名兩倶成。喩上二立名總
T2274_.69.0231a07: 能立者。虚空既許有遮。即非喩中全闕二立。
T2274_.69.0231a08: 如何説是倶不成耶
T2274_.69.0231a09: 言答至所立不成過者。古師答前救云。無礙
T2274_.69.0231a10: 之因遮礙。表於非礙。虚空無體。雖無所表非
T2274_.69.0231a11: 礙。而亦能遮於礙。不闕能立。可知所説其立
T2274_.69.0231a12: 常宗。正立所表之常。不立所遮無常。虚空既
T2274_.69.0231a13: 無所表。寧非所立不成等云云可見彼抄。周
T2274_.69.0231a14: 云。別既兩倶成者。即所立宗上。及能立喩上。
T2274_.69.0231a15: 皆有其遮故。言兩倶成。立敵倶許宗喩有遮
T2274_.69.0231a16: 云云
T2274_.69.0231a17: 邑云。又破他救至亦不反成者。此先牒他救
T2274_.69.0231a18: 詞　問。此誰救耶。答。前既聲論對無空論者。
T2274_.69.0231a19: 此即經部救也。彼云。具遮表。虚空無體。可
T2274_.69.0231a20: 唯有遮。喩不似因故。汝聲論立聲爲常量不
T2274_.69.0231a21: 成也
T2274_.69.0231a22: 言如咽等所作至亦得成喩者。此疏主牒軌
T2274_.69.0231a23: 公破經部意咽杖雖別。所作同故。其喩得成。
T2274_.69.0231a24: 表非表別。餘遮義既同離。何不成喩云云
T2274_.69.0231a25: 沼法師云。古又云。聲宗無礙。但取其遮故。空
T2274_.69.0231a26: 同喩能立得有。又叙難云。宗喩具二。取遮非
T2274_.69.0231a27: 表。亦無能立者。即自破云。亦應小乘對大乘
T2274_.69.0231a28: 立等云云餘又同故不注
T2274_.69.0231a29: 言古又云聲宗無礙等者。邑云。此聲論救。雖
T2274_.69.0231b01: 宗因上倶有遮表。今唯取遮故喩無過云云周
T2274_.69.0231b02: 又云。此是文軌法師叙聲論救云云
T2274_.69.0231b03: 言又叙難至亦無能立者。邑云。此有人難聲
T2274_.69.0231b04: 論。宗喩皆須具遮表二。汝唯取遮亦無能立。
T2274_.69.0231b05: 軌云。破此故先牒之云云
T2274_.69.0231b06: 言亦應小乘至不約具遮表者。邑云。此軌公
T2274_.69.0231b07: 擧別破前難也。意云。大乘既無虚空。非作
T2274_.69.0231b08: 故因唯遮非表。此量望彼小乘自宗。既無他
T2274_.69.0231b09: 隨一過。故知但遮即得成喩云云意云。汝聲
T2274_.69.0231b10: 論師伊雖聲常宗無質礙因皆通遮表。而今
T2274_.69.0231b11: 唯取遮義爲宗因故。喩亦唯遮義故。喩無能
T2274_.69.0231b12: 立不成者。今引例云。小乘立量虚空是常等
T2274_.69.0231b13: 者。此非作故因伊立者小乘波許通遮表。敵者
T2274_.69.0231b14: 大乘許唯有遮。不許有表。既不許故。因應有
T2274_.69.0231b15: 他隨一不成過。既無此過。故知
T2274_.69.0231b16: 言此意以至方是喩過者。周云。疏主釋文軌
T2274_.69.0231b17: 立意云云
T2274_.69.0231b18: 新疏本云。故將此量爲決定相違過者。此正
T2274_.69.0231b19: 指過別名。舊本疏奄含總説也云云　此二行
押紙		｣
T2274_.69.0231b20: 言故將此量爲不定過者。周云。此疏主總牒
T2274_.69.0231b21: 他意也。准新疏祕引疏
異本		意云。不定過者。相違
T2274_.69.0231b22: 決定名爲不定也。備云。此意。以立對敵。敵但
T2274_.69.0231b23: 許有遮。亦得成喩者。意云。以聲論立者對無
T2274_.69.0231b24: 空論敵者。敵伊虚空喩上許有遮者。亦成正
T2274_.69.0231b25: 喩。全不許者。是可喩過。故將此虚空常以非
T2274_.69.0231b26: 作故之量。爲不定過。以上軌師難意也云云｣
T2274_.69.0231b27: 言此量亦非至故所引非者。周云。此並疏主
T2274_.69.0231b28: 出前量過。若對無空論。即所別不成因犯隨
T2274_.69.0231b29: 一不成。空體敵者既不許有。非作之因亦不
T2274_.69.0231c01: 有立故。空有法既無故。成因無依過。及不成
T2274_.69.0231c02: 過者。汝空爲如擇滅具遮表。以非作故。是常
T2274_.69.0231c03: 耶。爲如龜毛不具遮表。以非作故。是無常耶。
T2274_.69.0231c04: 猶有此等四過。此小乘立自量。對大乘不著
T2274_.69.0231c05: 自許言簡。犯此四過云云
T2274_.69.0231c06: 言又擇滅喩常與非作等者。此第二破。意云。
T2274_.69.0231c07: 虚空常。以非作故。如擇滅者。此喩上之常與
T2274_.69.0231c08: 非作爾波皆共許有遮表。是故此喩無四不成
T2274_.69.0231c09: 過也
T2274_.69.0231c10: 言設若救云聲空倶取於遮不取前表等者。
T2274_.69.0231c11: 問云。此文軌師假作聲論作此救也云云邑
T2274_.69.0231c12: 云。此即前救。若唯約遮可許。能立不闕。由闕
T2274_.69.0231c13: 表故。仍爲喩過云云意云。如聲論師救云。聲
T2274_.69.0231c14: 常。無質礙故。猶如虚空。若對無空論時。宗
T2274_.69.0231c15: 因喩皆並唯取遮故。無能立不成過。既不闕
T2274_.69.0231c16: 能立義故。非無倶不成也。唯有所立不成過
T2274_.69.0231c17: 也
T2274_.69.0231c18: 言然有破云若聲取遮等者。邑云。此淨眼法師
T2274_.69.0231c19: 破前唯取遮救。言違理教者。常無質礙。正取
T2274_.69.0231c20: 所表義也。同喩亦然。故但取遮。便違於理。
T2274_.69.0231c21: 彼理門之前是遮詮。詮即是表。故知同喩
T2274_.69.0231c22: 必具遮表。今許唯遮。即違彼教云云
周意同
T2274_.69.0231c23: 言今云此約虚空辨無二立者據彼本計等
T2274_.69.0231c24: 者。意云。聲常。無質礙故。如虚空者。若對經
T2274_.69.0231c25: 部。有無倶不成也。所以者何。聲常與無質礙
T2274_.69.0231c26: 因。倶通遮表。虚空喩上無能立無礙及所立
T2274_.69.0231c27: 常。故云無倶不成也。既常與無質礙。倶通遮
T2274_.69.0231c28: 表。唯取遮不取表止波不可云也
T2274_.69.0231c29: 言有云不合等者。仁云。此文軌師。除聲外餘
T2274_.69.0232a01: 瓶等。有所作故。無常必應止云波顯聲亦有
T2274_.69.0232a02: 所作故無常必隨也。故諸皆者合隨除宗外
T2274_.69.0232a03: 餘所作及無常爾文
軌意也
T2274_.69.0232a04: 今基師云。諸所作者。合聲上所作也。皆是無
T2274_.69.0232a05: 常者。所作爾無常乎隨逐也。故理門云。説因
T2274_.69.0232a06: 宗所隨也云云
T2274_.69.0232a07: 文軌疏云。若諸所作者皆是無常猶如瓶等者。
T2274_.69.0232a08: 即所立無常隨逐能立所作。能立所作能成
T2274_.69.0232a09: 所立無常。即更相屬著。是有合義。由此合故。
T2274_.69.0232a10: 即顯聲上無常所作亦相合也。所作性因。敵
T2274_.69.0232a11: 論許諸言合。故可合故重出因。聲是無常。他
T2274_.69.0232a12: 所不成。皆是無常言如何合云云　沼法師云。言配
合者。相屬着義
T2274_.69.0232a13: 云云沼法師云。故云諸所作者。即簡瓶等一切
T2274_.69.0232a14: 所作及聲上所作。者是無常者。即瓶等一切
T2274_.69.0232a15: 無常。無聲無常即以無常合屬所作云云
T2274_.69.0232a16: 言異喩未欲至如何得合者。邑云。此明異喩
T2274_.69.0232a17: 本離無籠括義云云
T2274_.69.0232a18: 言如何得合者。意云。如何以異喩而得籠括
T2274_.69.0232a19: 宗因耶云云
T2274_.69.0232a20: 言返顯至合屬著因者。邑云。由異喩離故。翻
T2274_.69.0232a21: 能顯彼順成之上諸皆之言定合宗因令相屬
T2274_.69.0232a22: 著。此言屬著因者。意顯諸皆之言是相屬
T2274_.69.0232a23: 因也者所以也云云
T2274_.69.0232a24: 周云。古師據此喩上別義。別立合結與也云
T2274_.69.0232a25: 云
T2274_.69.0232a26: 言即成非所立有違自宗及相符等者。由倒
T2274_.69.0232a27: 合故。以不共許無常。而成共許所作。即違自
T2274_.69.0232a28: 意。故云違自宗也。又既以無常成所作。故
T2274_.69.0232a29: 云相符也
T2274_.69.0232b01: 言此後二過倶有共全無所餘也者。意云。無
T2274_.69.0232b02: 合倒合二過之中。但有共無倒合及全無倒
T2274_.69.0232b03: 合也。無自之無倒合他之無倒合及一分無
T2274_.69.0232b04: 倒合。故云無所餘也
T2274_.69.0232b05: 言總計似同等者。沼法師云。總計似同。初
T2274_.69.0232b06: 二各四。第三有六。以有之四･無中有二。成其
T2274_.69.0232b07: 十四。兼後二過。總有十六云云以有之四者。
T2274_.69.0232b08: 有倶不成中。有四不成也。無中有二者。無
T2274_.69.0232b09: 倶不成中但有二不成也
T2274_.69.0232b10: 言分自他共有四十二者。備云。能立所立倶
T2274_.69.0232b11: 不成。此三爾各有自他共。故成九也。此九之
T2274_.69.0232b12: 中各有兩倶等四不成。即成三十六。又無合
T2274_.69.0232b13: 倒合各分自他共。即成六也。前三十六加六
T2274_.69.0232b14: 故。四十二也　問。何故後二過中無四不成
T2274_.69.0232b15: 耶。答。不可云兩倶無合及隨一無合＊又兩倶
T2274_.69.0232b16: 倒合及隨一倒合等故。無四不成也。倶可分
T2274_.69.0232b17: 自他共。若自比量者自無合。若他比量者他
T2274_.69.0232b18: 無合。若共比量者共無合也。倒合亦爾也云云｣
T2274_.69.0232b19: 言於中細分全分一分者。沼法師云。於中細
T2274_.69.0232b20: 分有體無體全分一分云云
T2274_.69.0232b21: 言復以似因問同喩過數乃無量者。備云。此
T2274_.69.0232b22: 文意云。問兩倶不成亦能立不成耶。乃至所
T2274_.69.0232b23: 依不成亦能立不成耶等。復以似因乃一千四
T2274_.69.0232b24: 百五十八種不成過。同於似喩過四十二時。
T2274_.69.0232b25: 數乃無量也。同者各也云云＊沼法師云。復
T2274_.69.0232b26: 以因問似喩過乃無量。恐繁且止云云
T2274_.69.0232b27: 言或亦有之如立我無許諦攝故異喩如空
T2274_.69.0232b28: 等者。邑云。問。此既有理。何不勝耶。答。既對
T2274_.69.0232b29: 無空元無此喩。何得唯遣能立不遣所立。若
T2274_.69.0232c01: 以所立無故。此喩體無故不遣者。前説無倶
T2274_.69.0232c02: 不成虚空同喩。亦應得有能立。無體之喩必
T2274_.69.0232c03: 無礙故。彼既不許。此亦應然。故前解勝云云
T2274_.69.0232c04: 沼法師云。然前解勝云云故今解。彼言如立
T2274_.69.0232c05: 我無等者
T2274_.69.0232c06: 周云。問。此量以句爲因喩耶。答。此量闕宗
T2274_.69.0232c07: 因喩。今正明異喩故。同喩不論云云
T2274_.69.0232c08: 前解爲勝者。問。據何義爲勝耶。答。前解異喩
T2274_.69.0232c09: 無體。但此宗因既無其過。故前爲勝。後解
T2274_.69.0232c10: 杼道非無此理。據實非妙云云周記
T2274_.69.0232c11: 言此論所明聲對勝論兩倶不違者。今此
T2274_.69.0232c12: 論中。聲論對勝論立。聲常。無質礙故。異喩如
T2274_.69.0232c13: 極微也。聲勝二師兩倶皆計極微常故。宗法
T2274_.69.0232c14: 異喩亦無。倶同無故。前解勝。此論所明不
T2274_.69.0232c15: ＊違所立常宗若聲論對薩婆多立此量者。薩
T2274_.69.0232c16: 婆多計極微無常故。聲論師計極微常故。有
T2274_.69.0232c17: 自隨一所立不遣失也
T2274_.69.0232c18: 言今據顯相等者。邑云。上言然有火處亦無
T2274_.69.0232c19: 其烟者。據顯相即無也。微細烟必有云云
T2274_.69.0232c20: 今云。此文會相違也。上文云。諸無火處皆不
T2274_.69.0232c21: 現烟者。無烟之處無火。有火之處有烟也。若
T2274_.69.0232c22: 汝立者伊無烟處無火者。何故經云如無烟火
T2274_.69.0232c23: 耶。豈無烟。火非有耶。是故會云。有火處必有
T2274_.69.0232c24: 烟。然經意者。據無麁顯烟相而言無烟也。然
T2274_.69.0232c25: 必有微細烟相也。故不相違。他隨准知
T2274_.69.0232c26: 言牒計顯有以影彰無者。意云。以顯有能立
T2274_.69.0232c27: 因。而影顯無所立宗也。故論云彼説諸業無
T2274_.69.0232c28: 質礙故者。顯有能立因也。此論文中應言彼
T2274_.69.0232c29: 説業體是無常無質礙故。既不言體是無常
T2274_.69.0233a01: 故。今云影顯無所立也。對勝論兩倶能立不
T2274_.69.0233a02: 遣。對薩婆多等隨一不遣。餘思可悉
T2274_.69.0233a03: 言答前望一宗故同開二者。仁云。前似同喩
T2274_.69.0233a04: 之中倶不成。是宗一而喩二故。開有無也
T2274_.69.0233a05: 言此約別立故合爲一者。此似異喩之中倶
T2274_.69.0233a06: 不遣。是宗一及喩一故。不開有無二種也云云
T2274_.69.0233a07: 備云。此約別立等者。此倶不遣唯望一有宗。
T2274_.69.0233a08: 不具有無二不遣也。若立有宗立無宗時。望
T2274_.69.0233a09: 此二宗。具二不遣也云云意云。別立有宗無
T2274_.69.0233a10: 宗二時。唯約一有宗立爲一倶不遣也。又唯
T2274_.69.0233a11: 約一無宗立爲一倶不遣也。沼法師云。答前
T2274_.69.0233a12: 望二宗對立聲常故。同開二。此約別立故合
T2274_.69.0233a13: 爲一云云問詞同本也
T2274_.69.0233a14: 周云。答前望二宗者。對有空無空二宗。此意。
T2274_.69.0233a15: 似同喩倶中開二。言此約別立等者。比中偏
T2274_.69.0233a16: 對有空論説。不據雙對有空無空二論而説。
T2274_.69.0233a17: 故不開二也云云　已上
周説		又邑云。答前望二宗等
T2274_.69.0233a18: 者。前同喩過中。望兩宗喩故。有有體無體二
T2274_.69.0233a19: 倶不成。今此約有無二宗各別立量故不開
T2274_.69.0233a20: 二。立有體宗因。以有爲異。即倶不遣。以無
T2274_.69.0233a21: 爲異。必二立倶遣。立無翻此。必無但立有
T2274_.69.0233a22: 無二宗而成有無二倶不遣者。故不開之云云｣
T2274_.69.0233a23: 邑云。此中亦有兩倶不遣者。如論應知。言隨
T2274_.69.0233a24: 一倶不遣亦。如大乘師對勝論立。我不離
T2274_.69.0233a25: 識。以無體故。如畢竟。異喩云。諸離識者皆非
T2274_.69.0233a26: 無體。猶如虚空。大乘自許虚空不離識無
T2274_.69.0233a27: 體。即自隨一倶不＊違也。若勝論對佛法立。
T2274_.69.0233a28: 我能作業。許無礙故。同喩如空。異喩如意。此
T2274_.69.0233a29: 對大乘他隨一倶不遣也。猶預倶不＊違者。如
T2274_.69.0233b01: 立此山處有火。以現烟故。如厨。異喩云。諸無
T2274_.69.0233b02: 火處皆不現烟。如彼山有雲等處。然於彼山
T2274_.69.0233b03: 烟之與雲。既懷猶預。故倶不＊違。所依倶
T2274_.69.0233b04: 不遣。如疏應知云云
T2274_.69.0233b05: 言將彼質礙屬著無常者。備云。以道理言者。
T2274_.69.0233b06: 異喩可云將彼無常屬著有礙。然今且據不
T2274_.69.0233b07: 離故。倒而言也云云沼法即云。將彼無常屬
T2274_.69.0233b08: 著質礙云云餘文同也
T2274_.69.0233b09: 言依第五顯喩者。四明疏云。初半頌。如次
T2274_.69.0233b10: 第。頌前長行同異二喩。後半頌。頌上方便。依
T2274_.69.0233b11: 第五轉所説故言説二喩者。由同喩中合喩
T2274_.69.0233b12: 法則爲方便故。顯有法上所作等因。即依此
T2274_.69.0233b13: 義。略辨七轉。一説體聲。二所作業。如説斫
T2274_.69.0233b14: 木。三能作具聲。如人及斧。四所爲聲。如言
T2274_.69.0233b15: 斫石爲諸王等。五所因聲。斫此木爲造堂。
T2274_.69.0233b16: 六所屬聲。如木屬宦。七所依聲。如木依付
T2274_.69.0233b17: 百姓家等。今二喩處説第五轉所因聲説。故
T2274_.69.0233b18: 知方便所説異喩也云云意云。諸所作者皆
T2274_.69.0233b19: 見無常止云此諸無之言。是聲上乃所作與
T2274_.69.0233b20: 無常乎令相屬著之所因也。此約喩合也。若
T2274_.69.0233b21: 約異喩離者。諸非常者皆見非作云諸皆之
T2274_.69.0233b22: 言。是聲上爾常與非作乎令遠離之所因也。故
T2274_.69.0233b23: 云依第五轉所因聲顯同異二喩也。故上文
T2274_.69.0233b24: 云。返顯須成諸皆之言。定合聲上所作與彼
T2274_.69.0233b25: 無常令屬著因云云因者所因也
T2274_.69.0233b26: 言返顯正因除其不定等者。邑云。立異喩而
T2274_.69.0233b27: 有二意。一爲返顯。二者爲簡濫。今既倒離。
T2274_.69.0233b28: 便以質礙成於無常。失前二意。言簡濫＊者。
T2274_.69.0233b29: 簡相違不定。如前明之云云
T2274_.69.0233c01: 言此有二過等者。意云。倒離有二過。謂一成
T2274_.69.0233c02: 非本所説。二犯相符過。何者。諸有質礙者皆
T2274_.69.0233c03: 見無常止云時。以質礙因爲因。成無常宗。是
T2274_.69.0233c04: 故勝論師云。若爾者有相符過也。故周法師
T2274_.69.0233c05: 云。此有二過者。一成非本所説。二相符過。以
T2274_.69.0233c06: 質礙因成無常宗。故有相符云云
T2274_.69.0233c07: 言復言等者顯有不盡等者。周云。此文意云。
T2274_.69.0233c08: 今此等字上似宗因喩三支過中。論文中。除
T2274_.69.0233c09: 四相違自餘諸過。名據言陳未明意許。今言
T2274_.69.0233c10: 等者。等彼意許。又缺減過。論文之中。言陳意
T2274_.69.0233c11: 許倶並不説。又闕過中有分有全兼單雙者。
T2274_.69.0233c12: 二闕三闕是也。此等諸過。論亦不明。今此等
T2274_.69.0233c13: 言並皆等彼諸過失也云云
T2274_.69.0233c14: 言同辨三支皆據申言而有過故者。意云。上
T2274_.69.0233c15: 來所辨九種似宗･十四似因･十種似喩。皆據
T2274_.69.0233c16: 申言而有過故
T2274_.69.0233c17: 言與頌先後次第不同如前已辨者。疏上卷
T2274_.69.0233c18: 云。問。何故長行牒前。頌文不依次釋。又與
T2274_.69.0233c19: 前頌開合不同。答。略有三釋。一云。前頌據
T2274_.69.0233c20: 宗。二悟類別。立･破･眞･似相對次明。所以八
T2274_.69.0233c21: 義次第如是。長行廣釋逐便即牒。性相求之。
T2274_.69.0233c22: 何須次牒。頌以眞似各別。開成八義。長行以
T2274_.69.0233c23: 體類有同。合成六段。亦不相違等云云餘釋
如疏説
T2274_.69.0233c24: 今顯問意云。如前頌云。能立與能破。及似唯
T2274_.69.0233c25: 悟他。現量與比量。及似唯有悟云云長行論
T2274_.69.0233c26: 中。一明能立。二明似立。三明二眞量。四明二
T2274_.69.0233c27: 似量。五明能破。六明似能破云云既頌與長
T2274_.69.0233c28: 行。如是先後次第不同。故今問也
T2274_.69.0233c29: 言明此二量親能自悟等者。周云。問現量二
T2274_.69.0234a01: 量。親能自悟。並隱悟他及能立二稱。能立
T2274_.69.0234a02: 能破親能悟他。唯隱自悟。不言隱能立。何故
T2274_.69.0234a03: 所隱一二不同耶。答。其理正齊。能立能破顯
T2274_.69.0234a04: 明二義。能立及悟他唯隱自悟。現比二量唯
T2274_.69.0234a05: 顯一義。即是自悟隱於二義。能立與悟他
T2274_.69.0234a06: 雖隱顯不同。其數相似故。不應責等云云
T2274_.69.0234a07: 言猶二燈二炬互相影者。意云。如二箇燈彼
T2274_.69.0234a08: 此互相照。又如二炬彼此互相熙。眞似二立
T2274_.69.0234a09: 亦有自悟。眞似二量亦有悟他也。邑云。二
T2274_.69.0234a10: 立二量各有疏疎。文但擧親顯二疎也云云
T2274_.69.0234a11: 周云。此燈既發彼燈之影。彼燈亦發此燈
T2274_.69.0234a12: 影。炬亦如此。自悟悟他互影亦爾云云
T2274_.69.0234a13: 言悟他比量亦不離此得成能立者。意云。眞
T2274_.69.0234a14: 似二立悟他比量。亦不離此眞似二量得成
T2274_.69.0234a15: 能立也。明知眞似二量亦復悟他也。仁云。宗
T2274_.69.0234a16: 因喩三支。亦不離此現比二量而得成眞能
T2274_.69.0234a17: 立也
T2274_.69.0234a18: 言故知能立籍於此量者。備云。依理門文。
T2274_.69.0234a19: 故知眞似二立籍二眞量也。依現量智及比
T2274_.69.0234a20: 量智。立比量故。即頌現比二量體是智故
T2274_.69.0234a21: 云云
T2274_.69.0234a22: 言明此二量親疎合説等者。意云。現二量親
T2274_.69.0234a23: 能自悟故名親也。即疎悟他及能立故名疎
T2274_.69.0234a24: 也此能立具故
云能立也
T2274_.69.0234a25: 言此即兼明立量竟説者。周云。此立意者。本
T2274_.69.0234a26: 勤欲悟他。此文既明自悟悟他。即是兼明立
T2274_.69.0234a27: 量意云云備云。正明二眞量亦通悟他。兼亦
T2274_.69.0234a28: 明立量意也
T2274_.69.0234a29: 言意欲佛弘於本論者。周云。即瑜伽對法等
T2274_.69.0234b01: 是也云云邑云。謂瑜伽八能立。及論軌式中
T2274_.69.0234b02: 皆有至教量等云云問。古人立六量。現量･比
T2274_.69.0234b03: 量･至教量･譬喩量･義准量･無體量。何故今
T2274_.69.0234b04: 但立二量耶。答。今論意者。後四種者攝入
T2274_.69.0234b05: 現比二量中故唯二量。故上卷疏云。陳那
T2274_.69.0234b06: 菩薩廢後四種。隨其所應攝入現比。故理門
T2274_.69.0234b07: 云。彼聲喩等攝在此中。由此論主但立二量
T2274_.69.0234b08: 云云問。後四種量攝入現比中云何。答。備云。
T2274_.69.0234b09: 基師意云。至教量者唯現量攝。譬喩量等皆
T2274_.69.0234b10: 比量攝。現量不攝基意西明意云。至教量等六
T2274_.69.0234b11: 量皆並唯量攝。現量不攝。今以基説爲正義
T2274_.69.0234b12: 也云云　如西明理門疏
下卷初及文軌疏下卷
T2274_.69.0234b13: 言古師從詮及義智開三量者。邑云。能詮爲
T2274_.69.0234b14: 一。即至教量。所詮之義即自共相爲現比量。
T2274_.69.0234b15: 由能縁智從三境故。開爲三量。以境從智。其
T2274_.69.0234b16: 理亦然云云周云。義者境義。即自性與義別。
T2274_.69.0234b17: 詮即能詮之教。縁自相智名現量。縁共相智
T2274_.69.0234b18: 名比量。縁其境智名至教量。古師約此詮義
T2274_.69.0234b19: 分三量也
T2274_.69.0234b20: 言陳那以後以智從理唯開二量者。邑云。謂
T2274_.69.0234b21: 自共二相理云云周云。所縁之理。不過自共
T2274_.69.0234b22: 二種。能縁之智但分理比云云
T2274_.69.0234b23: 言有依於此唯二量文等者。周云。如文軌法
T2274_.69.0234b24: 師疏中述。言有過者。將似現比等皆比量
T2274_.69.0234b25: 攝。即是過也云云
T2274_.69.0234b26: 邑云。二似非量。寧入量中。以似從眞。即二量
T2274_.69.0234b27: 攝。如何皆許比量耶。況彼量中。實簡諸過
T2274_.69.0234b28: 云云周云。廢詮談旨者即是理也
T2274_.69.0234b29: 言當知唯言等者。但遮避前義准等量。不
T2274_.69.0234c01: 遮古師三量故。云不相違也云云
T2274_.69.0234c02: 言又傳云外道立宗等者。周云。此是賢法師
T2274_.69.0234c03: 在北川傳量法師集此比量也云云
T2274_.69.0234c04: 言非比極成現所有量等者。邑云。此説至教
T2274_.69.0234c05: 極成現外之所有也　問。何不直以至教量
T2274_.69.0234c06: 爲有法耶。答。若極成至教量非現量攝。即有
T2274_.69.0234c07: 一分相符過。大乘亦説散心縁教非現量故。
T2274_.69.0234c08: 若別成一分定心縁至教非量攝。復恐大
T2274_.69.0234c09: 乘與作決定相違過云。定心縁至教是現量
T2274_.69.0234c10: 攝。比量所不攝量所攝故。猶如現量。由此不
T2274_.69.0234c11: 可直言至教非現量攝故。下言狹帶是也
T2274_.69.0234c12: 言量所有量者。周云。陳現量外所有之量。
T2274_.69.0234c13: 名現所有量。即至教等是也云云
T2274_.69.0234c14: 言即爲顯因具足三相故者。意云。既取比量
T2274_.69.0234c15: 爲同喩故。此因具足三相也
T2274_.69.0234c16: 言然狹帶説者。周云。以所有言含至教等。名
T2274_.69.0234c17: 爲狹帶云云
T2274_.69.0234c18: 言因中言極成簡隨一過等者。意云。爲不極
T2274_.69.0234c19: 成現量故。云極成現量也。何者。佛法所立現
T2274_.69.0234c20: 比二量之中現量。是名不極成現量也。至教
T2274_.69.0234c21: 量亦現量中攝故。云不極成。外道不許至教
T2274_.69.0234c22: 量乎現量爾攝止云事故。者佛法亦同外道
T2274_.69.0234c23: 立三量。謂現量比量至教量也。此三之中現
T2274_.69.0234c24: 量爾波不攝至教量故。云極成現量也若不簡
T2274_.69.0234c25: 不極成現量者。有自隨一不成失。外道波二
T2274_.69.0234c26: 量中現量爾至教量乎攝止云事不許故
T2274_.69.0234c27: 言量所攝者。意云。量者通三量等。謂現量比
T2274_.69.0234c28: 量至教量等也。量止云爾所攝故也
T2274_.69.0234c29: 言爲如非量所不攝故非別有體者。問。此義
T2274_.69.0235a01: 難思。既有非量心。何云無別體耶。答。安況
T2274_.69.0235a02: 大徳記云。雖有非量心體。而今意者。現量
T2274_.69.0235a03: 等並名量也。其非量者不名量也。非如二量
T2274_.69.0235a04: 是有體故。云無體也。非量止之
天波		有無云云
T2274_.69.0235a05: 此猶未了
T2274_.69.0235a06: 言又量所攝簡非量相符等者。邑云。問。擧宗
T2274_.69.0235a07: 之時。已相符訖。至因方簡。豈不遲耶。答。量
T2274_.69.0235a08: 既未成。因簡何失。宗中未簡。故此簡之。疏之
T2274_.69.0235a09: 意也。然依非量雖現所有非是現所有量。
T2274_.69.0235a10: 宗中説言現所有量。即已簡訖。故知量所攝
T2274_.69.0235a11: 言不簡相符過也。宗中已簡因。更簡之。一何
T2274_.69.0235a12: 繁長。今以義。彼因中言量所攝者。意遮有
T2274_.69.0235a13: 法自相相違過也。且彼量云非比極成現所
T2274_.69.0235a14: 有量者。意許至教是現所有。大乘不許現比
T2274_.69.0235a15: 外有至教量。尋意難云。汝非比極成現所有
T2274_.69.0235a16: 量非是現所有量。極成現比所不攝故。如非
T2274_.69.0235a17: 量。准四相違量。因喩許改。故此無違。又決
T2274_.69.0235a18: 定相違有其四種。此即有法自相決定相違
T2274_.69.0235a19: 過也。爲簡此過故。因中置量所攝言。非必簡
T2274_.69.0235a20: 彼非量相符過也。且爲此釋。然疏深意。愚未
T2274_.69.0235a21: 詳之云云備云。因時總簡宗過。即顧因時亦
T2274_.69.0235a22: 簡喩時亦簡宗因過也云云
T2274_.69.0235a23: 言陳那菩薩至作決定相違等者。邑云。問。夫
T2274_.69.0235a24: 決定相違。有法仍舊。今何改之。答。外道本
T2274_.69.0235a25: 量。正以現所有量比所有量而爲有法。餘文
T2274_.69.0235a26: 簡過。非正有法。設餘不同。無違理失。然此相
T2274_.69.0235a27: 違量。理稍難解。且有法既言非現。法中而言
T2274_.69.0235a28: 是現。豈無自語相違。又云極成比所有一分
T2274_.69.0235a29: 不極成量者。即散心縁至教及義准量。亦在
T2274_.69.0235b01: 其中。今若成此是現量攝。復有一分違宗
T2274_.69.0235b02: 過。若以一分言簡義准等。即因不定。爲如
T2274_.69.0235b03: 現量。比量所不攝量所攝故。一分定心所縁
T2274_.69.0235b04: 至教是現量攝。爲如散心所縁至教。極成比
T2274_.69.0235b05: 量所不攝量所攝故。一分不極成量非是現
T2274_.69.0235b06: 量攝耶。宗中既云極成比故。得以不極成比
T2274_.69.0235b07: 以爲不定也。有此多過。消息亦難。本量既稱
T2274_.69.0235b08: 得傳立。陳那量亦是傳聞。既無典據可憑有
T2274_.69.0235b09: 過。不即爲責。但是疏主因言叙云云又周云。
T2274_.69.0235b10: 問。相違決定有法必同因喩及法。而即是別
T2274_.69.0235b11: 成其決定。前他量云非比極成等。今云非現
T2274_.69.0235b12: 極成等。有法既別。何成相違決定。答。此量
T2274_.69.0235b13: 之中言所有量。正是有法。非比等言有法
T2274_.69.0235b14: 之具不是有法。今者還取彼所有量以爲有
T2274_.69.0235b15: 法。故亦無失云云
T2274_.69.0235b16: 言有説自相至此名共相者。邑云。軌公疏云。
T2274_.69.0235b17: 自共相者。一切諸法皆離名言。言所不名。唯
T2274_.69.0235b18: 證智知。此爲自相。故經云。如火勢相證者乃
T2274_.69.0235b19: 知。若爲名言所詮顯者。此爲共相云云彼以
T2274_.69.0235b20: 經中自共二相。而釋此論現比所縁。理不相
T2274_.69.0235b21: 符。故疏非也云云
T2274_.69.0235b22: 言此釋全非違佛地論等者。佛地論云。彼因
T2274_.69.0235b23: 明論立自共相。與此少異。彼説。一切法上實
T2274_.69.0235b24: 義皆名自相。以諸法上自相共相名附己體。
T2274_.69.0235b25: 不共他故。若分別散心立一種類。能詮所詮
T2274_.69.0235b26: 通在諸法。如縷貫花。名爲共相。此粟散心分
T2274_.69.0235b27: 別假立。是比量境。一切定心離此分別。皆
T2274_.69.0235b28: 名理量。雖縁諸法若無常等。若一一法各
T2274_.69.0235b29: 別有故。名爲自相云云今此文中。可説因明自
T2274_.69.0235c01: 共二相。然釋因明自共相之處。擧經自共相
T2274_.69.0235c02: 説。云違佛地論所説因明自共相也
T2274_.69.0235c03: 言定心縁火不得彼熱等者。但身識及彼倶
T2274_.69.0235c04: 意覺熱觸故。餘定心等不覺熱觸故。應云縁
T2274_.69.0235c05: 共相也
T2274_.69.0235c06: 言即有解云等者。邑云。相傳徳咸法師此解
T2274_.69.0235c07: 也
T2274_.69.0235c08: 言由此前難等者。意云。外道例難。汝文軌師
T2274_.69.0235c09: 伊定心離取故不被燒者。我義亦爾。心是離
T2274_.69.0235c10: 取。如何心應被燒止離耶。是故但口應被
T2274_.69.0235c11: 燒止乃未應難也。不可總難應燒心口也
T2274_.69.0235c12: 言言依語表表即依身等者。意云。言既依口。
T2274_.69.0235c13: 口即身根。彼合取境。故應燒口也。演祕一云。
T2274_.69.0235c14: 問。若詮於火。名若得火。名被燒。何難口。
T2274_.69.0235c15: 答。名依於聲。聲發於口。聲名二法皆非可燒。
T2274_.69.0235c16: 故難所發令燒於口云云太抄一云。自口出
T2274_.69.0235c17: 聲。聲上有名句文。名等既詮於火。火既燒名
T2274_.69.0235c18: 等。名等不離聲。聲亦被燒。聲不離口。口應燒
T2274_.69.0235c19: 云云
T2274_.69.0235c20: 言今問此難等者。邑云。此中意云。外道所計
T2274_.69.0235c21: 名言得自相者。此云自相。不出二途。或同
T2274_.69.0235c22: 因明。或同經意。今問前師。汝難外道。令口被
T2274_.69.0235c23: 燒。爲依何難。疏兩異難。其理可知云云
T2274_.69.0235c24: 言若據外宗彼非假智等者。周云。此意。若外
T2274_.69.0235c25: 道計實智得火自相故。可難彼實智應被燒
T2274_.69.0235c26: 也。即次文云可依此智者。即是實智也云云｣
T2274_.69.0235c27: 言可依此智以難於彼者。仁云。彼得自相云云
T2274_.69.0235c28: 實乎可難也云云
T2274_.69.0235c29: 備云。此智者假智也。豈可難假智耶也云云｣
T2274_.69.0236a01: 言又於極熱至既不被燒者。此於道理。顯意
T2274_.69.0236a02: 識唯取合境然不被燒。但覺熱觸故悶絶及
T2274_.69.0236a03: 與苦倶也。是故軌師縁合境被燒者。地獄意
T2274_.69.0236a04: 識既縁合境。豈被燒耶。明知前答全非也。立
T2274_.69.0236a05: 道理云。地獄身識意識覺熱觸故。即與苦倶
T2274_.69.0236a06: 及悶絶也。然不被燒也。定心尋名縁火。及實
T2274_.69.0236a07: 智等＊唯得自相。而不覺熱觸也云云備説。瑜
T2274_.69.0236a08: 伽十六云。問。幾界合而能取。幾界不合能
T2274_.69.0236a09: 取。答乃至一界合不合二倶能取云云明知意
T2274_.69.0236a10: 識通合離也。定心既是第六意識。既云取合
T2274_.69.0236a11: 離境。如何汝云唯離取耶。沼法師續云。瑜伽
T2274_.69.0236a12: 説通離合取故。不許定中起五識者。可不通
T2274_.69.0236a13: 離合。既許起五識。意與彼倶。故通離合云云
T2274_.69.0236a14: 周云。既許起五識。意與彼倶者。且五識中。鼻
T2274_.69.0236a15: 舌身三並合中知。餘二意識通離取。故知定
T2274_.69.0236a16: 中通離合取云云
T2274_.69.0236a17: 言前救及難二並成非者。上文云。即有解云。
T2274_.69.0236a18: 境有＊離殊。縁合境者被燒。定心離取故不被
T2274_.69.0236a19: 燒者。此救也。又云。有救難外云。汝若名言得
T2274_.69.0236a20: 火自相説及心縁應燒心口。以得自相者。此
T2274_.69.0236a21: 難也
T2274_.69.0236a22: 言彼外道等至故總難之者。意云。彼外道等。
T2274_.69.0236a23: 但云火時。得火自相止乃未云天不言共相故。
T2274_.69.0236a24: 云不立共相也。又彼不分別經與論自相。云
T2274_.69.0236a25: 得自相故。今亦不分別總難之也
T2274_.69.0236a26: 言或可抑難等者。此第二解意云。口應不燒
T2274_.69.0236a27: 者。此抑難。難彼外道。非正難也。但應心所燒
T2274_.69.0236a28: 者。此正難亦。故云。正難。於彼尋名所燒之
T2274_.69.0236a29: 心。亦得自相等也
T2274_.69.0236b01: 言若他返難言至不得熱等相故假智攝者。
T2274_.69.0236b02: 備云。若他返難。大乘依因明。尋名縁火。心
T2274_.69.0236b03: 所燒者。彼外人自取屈。所以者何。依唯識
T2274_.69.0236b04: 論。尋名縁火假智。不得火自相故。即不可
T2274_.69.0236b05: 言自相。設依唯識。定心尋名縁火。亦是假智。
T2274_.69.0236b06: 得共和故。若依因明。尋名縁火。各附己體。
T2274_.69.0236b07: 故自相攝。現量心故云云
T2274_.69.0236b08: 言若觀熱觸即非假智稱境智故者。備云。地
T2274_.69.0236b09: 獄身識及意識。能稱境知故。得火不可言自
T2274_.69.0236b10: 相也云云周云。此意。五識別別親得自相。
T2274_.69.0236b11: 不作觸等及四塵解故。云稱境知云云
T2274_.69.0236b12: 言如假想定至者無燒溫等用者。周云。引此
T2274_.69.0236b13: 一段文意。證彼假智在於定中。雖尋名縁火
T2274_.69.0236b14: 等亦是假智不得自相。得名現量。故引此文
T2274_.69.0236b15: 云云備云。下引例成也。假想定所變水火
T2274_.69.0236b16: 等者。如八勝處及十遍處所變者黄赤白地
T2274_.69.0236b17: 水火風八勝處空無邊處識無邊處十遍處此觀
T2274_.69.0236b18: 心所變火等。是身雖在中。無燒＊溫用也。又
T2274_.69.0236b19: 上界定心縁下界火時。所變火等亦無燒用。
T2274_.69.0236b20: 然能觀心皆是現量各附己體故。是自相收
T2274_.69.0236b21: 也。又備徳仁徳倶云。上界定心所變火等無
T2274_.69.0236b22: 燒用者。上界身等極微妙故。不所燒也。下界
T2274_.69.0236b23: 麁身是所燒也。上界定心既是現量。唯得
T2274_.69.0236b24: 性境。而無實用。不能欲界火麁燒上界細身
T2274_.69.0236b25: 故。且初禪梵王作欲界化故。其身雖色界法。
T2274_.69.0236b26: 而欲界火所燒也等云云難思
T2274_.69.0236b27: 言問身根實智倶得火之自相等者。此問答
T2274_.69.0236b28: 是約外道言也。謂外道執。名言親得法自相。
T2274_.69.0236b29: 如身根親得火自相也。既許身根所燒熱故。
T2274_.69.0236c01: 故今此問答也。故燈三云。釋燒心口。外人
T2274_.69.0236c02: 返難。如汝定心及五八識得法自相。縁火之
T2274_.69.0236c03: 時。何不燒心。答。宗計有別。汝執言説得自相
T2274_.69.0236c04: 者。如似身根得火自相。即覺燒熱。火以燒熱
T2274_.69.0236c05: 爲自相故。心等亦然。既得自相。何不燒熱。此
T2274_.69.0236c06: 就外道難。非大乘宗。大乘宗者。根非所燒。而
T2274_.69.0236c07: 得自相者。各附己體。分明而得。非分別貫通
T2274_.69.0236c08: 餘法。名得自相。不同外道。若外道餘乘各執。
T2274_.69.0236c09: 言説得法自相。亦同身根。故作此難。大乘不
T2274_.69.0236c10: 爾。故自無過云云
T2274_.69.0236c11: 言答火者微盛等者。意云。以火若對心時。
T2274_.69.0236c12: 其用微者。若對根時。其用強盛。是故有根
T2274_.69.0236c13: 燒心等不燒也。此外道答也
T2274_.69.0236c14: 言設定心縁因彼名言等者。備云。依此文明
T2274_.69.0236c15: 知。定心尋名縁火。既是共相亦是自相云云｣
T2274_.69.0236c16: 言同名句詮所體共相者。因明共相同於唯
T2274_.69.0236c17: 識共相也。所依者能詮之所依故
T2274_.69.0236c18: 言若佛心縁比量共相等者。邑云。此説佛心
T2274_.69.0236c19: 縁於比量境之共相。非謂佛心有比量也云云
T2274_.69.0236c20: 周問。佛縁比量境不。若縁者。共相應有體。
T2274_.69.0236c21: 若不縁者。應不遍智。答。佛恒在定。縁共相
T2274_.69.0236c22: 境。亦無有體。既無其體。何須縁耶。答。許佛
T2274_.69.0236c23: 遍縁故亦無失云云備云。佛縁凡夫比量心
T2274_.69.0236c24: 所縁共相亦無體也云云
T2274_.69.0236c25: 義心云。問。比量所縁共相爲假爲實。答。但
T2274_.69.0236c26: 是名言及分智於法自相増益假立。無別實
T2274_.69.0236c27: 體。故唯識云。由此但依似事而轉。似謂増益
T2274_.69.0236c28: 非實有相。若爾。假有二種。有體無體。假是
T2274_.69.0236c29: 何收。答有二解。一云。無體解雖非所執我
T2274_.69.0237a01: 法。由名言及分別智詮縁作。説名爲共相。廢
T2274_.69.0237a02: 假智詮都無實體等云云一云。有體假於百
T2274_.69.0237a03: 法中衆同分攝。諸法相似有同分故。云西明
T2274_.69.0237a04: 師三性之中依他起性攝　問。上二説中何
T2274_.69.0237a05: 者爲勝。答。初爲勝也等云云
T2274_.69.0237a06: 言有云有體即此色等非我我所等者。邑云。
T2274_.69.0237a07: 問。既云。即此色等非我我所。名空無我。即以
T2274_.69.0237a08: 色非無故。説空無我名爲有體。疏何不許。答。
T2274_.69.0237a09: 苦空無我遍通諸法。此即體無。若約色論。便
T2274_.69.0237a10: 非共相。故下破之云云
T2274_.69.0237a11: 言問空無我者。邑云。問。無常二亦是共相。
T2274_.69.0237a12: 此中何偏問空無我耶。答。大般若云。若是諸
T2274_.69.0237a13: 有漏共相無常。是諸有爲法共相。空無我是
T2274_.69.0237a14: 一切法共相。由空無我寛故。此偏問。理實
T2274_.69.0237a15: 餘二亦合擧之。或有疏本。於空無我下。有等
T2274_.69.0237a16: 字者。即不須此牒云云
T2274_.69.0237a17: 言四又諸行中無常等者。邑云。此中無常者
T2274_.69.0237a18: 生滅相也。無恒者異相也。不實住相也。諸
T2274_.69.0237a19: 有爲中具四相皆非實。共相觀識即縁於
T2274_.69.0237a20: 此。故知共相非有體也。應檢瑜伽云云
T2274_.69.0237a21: 言此中正智即彼無迷亂離旋火輪等。意云。
T2274_.69.0237a22: 正智者。即對法言無迷亂也。即離旋火輪等
T2274_.69.0237a23: 迷亂分別也。雖火非輪。而速迴故。謂見火輪。
T2274_.69.0237a24: 故云迷亂也。等者爲實色等也
T2274_.69.0237a25: 言義謂境義離諸映障者。備云。言現量者。謂
T2274_.69.0237a26: 於境義離諸映障分別也云云
T2274_.69.0237a27: 言若唯簡外及假名言等不簡比量心之所縁
T2274_.69.0237a28: 過亦不盡者。備云。此文並破上三説不盡理
T2274_.69.0237a29: 也。就理門論。雖有三説。並不盡理。論文局
T2274_.69.0237b01: 故。是可依天主論也。既云所有分別。明離一
T2274_.69.0237b02: 切所有分別。第一説意者。唯簡假名言及
T2274_.69.0237b03: 勝數二外道。不簡餘外道及比量心之所縁。
T2274_.69.0237b04: 就第二説。唯簡假名言及比量心之所縁。不
T2274_.69.0237b05: 簡外道。就第二説。唯簡外道。不簡名言及比
T2274_.69.0237b06: 量心之所縁也。故簡過皆不盡云云
T2274_.69.0237b07: 言若一往唯言無二感三所有分別等者。下
T2274_.69.0237b08: 破文軌師也。彼師云。分別有三。一自性分別。
T2274_.69.0237b09: 二隨念分別。三計度分別。又分別有二。一名
T2274_.69.0237b10: 言分別。二種類分別。此二三分別皆五識無
T2274_.69.0237b11: 也云云此取意引也。今難云。五識等皆離三
T2274_.69.0237b12: 分別等故是現量者。有太寛失。自性分別是
T2274_.69.0237b13: 現量故。豈亦離自性分別耶
T2274_.69.0237b14: 言准七攝三等者。若七分別中攝三分別者。
T2274_.69.0237b15: 第六意識中除無分別智餘後得智等。隨應
T2274_.69.0237b16: 有彼七分別。豈非現量耶。邑云。既言唯除
T2274_.69.0237b17: 無分別智。即後得有分別智及有漏定等。皆
T2274_.69.0237b18: 在其中。豈無現量云云
T2274_.69.0237b19: 言有法者。謂色等諸蘊能有苦無常等法故
T2274_.69.0237b20: 云有法
T2274_.69.0237b21: 言非一相者。謂色等上。有色等自相空無我
T2274_.69.0237b22: 等共相故。言非一相
T2274_.69.0237b23: 言根非一切行者。五根唯取色等自相。餘非
T2274_.69.0237b24: 所行也云云
T2274_.69.0237b25: 文軌云。五根但於有法自相中行。不於一切
T2274_.69.0237b26: 常無常等相中行也。唯内證離言者。五識縁
T2274_.69.0237b27: 自境界。但了自相。故云内證。不帶名縁。故云
T2274_.69.0237b28: 離言。是色境界者。五識縁境與根同故。約
T2274_.69.0237b29: 色根境界。必顯五識内證云云可存
T2274_.69.0237c01: 言意地亦有離諸分別唯證行轉者。西明云。
T2274_.69.0237c02: 五識同時第六意識及第八識。如是二種離
T2274_.69.0237c03: 諸分別。唯證自相行解而轉。故名現量。第
T2274_.69.0237c04: 七識中若有漏者皆我故。皆非現量。非量所
T2274_.69.0237c05: 攝。若無漏者雖是現量。在定位故。此中不説
T2274_.69.0237c06: 云云文軌師云。阿頼耶識了境自相。雖是意
T2274_.69.0237c07: 地現量所收。然非大小乘内外兩道所同許
T2274_.69.0237c08: 故。此中所爲現量。若對大乘自宗。第八即
T2274_.69.0237c09: 是意地現量所收云云
T2274_.69.0237c10: 言又欲貪等諸自證分者。邑云。此説。一切
T2274_.69.0237c11: 自證分及證自證分。於一切時。恒現量故。見
T2274_.69.0237c12: 分或時通比非量。故不取之　問。何故此中
T2274_.69.0237c13: 擧貪等耶。心心所中隨擧一故。又前言。現
T2274_.69.0237c14: 量詮分別。其貪等煩惱於境多起分別。恐疑
T2274_.69.0237c15: 貪等自證分亦非現量故。遍擧此通接於餘
T2274_.69.0237c16: 云云可存
T2274_.69.0237c17: 言問此入正理爲同於彼言於聲等但是五
T2274_.69.0237c18: 識亦有餘三者。意云。此入正理言於色等境
T2274_.69.0237c19: 者。若同於理門本頌。唯説五識耶。若亦長
T2274_.69.0237c20: 行所説餘三種類乎毛兼説耶云云　備説
T2274_.69.0237c21: 言文同理門義何妨耶者。邑云。理門云由不
T2274_.69.0237c22: 共縁現現別轉者。彼唯約五識身解。此言現
T2274_.69.0237c23: 現別轉者。雖與彼同。既不言由不共縁。何妨
T2274_.69.0237c24: 義。與彼別故。此以不實多法名爲別轉。通
T2274_.69.0237c25: 明四類。於現無失云云
T2274_.69.0237c26: 言此四類心或唯五識現體非一名爲現現至
T2274_.69.0237c27: 其義相似者。此第一釋意云。能縁現量識非
T2274_.69.0237c28: 故名現現。各附己體而親分明取。不貫通故。
T2274_.69.0237c29: 云別轉也。根即量故名爲同現量。持業釋也。
T2274_.69.0238a01: 即四類心現量也此第一説同文
軌師第二釋也		論云。現現別轉
T2274_.69.0238a02: 故名現量止云釋此論文有三説耳
T2274_.69.0238a03: 言各附境體離貫通縁者。意云。四類現量心
T2274_.69.0238a04: 是各附自境體。而離共相貫通分別縁故。云
T2274_.69.0238a05: 別轉也
T2274_.69.0238a06: 言具合有五者。應有故是名現量之五字也。
T2274_.69.0238a07: 又有本云。具合有之云云此本好也
T2274_.69.0238a08: 言依理門論云由不共縁至即無此妨者。此
T2274_.69.0238a09: 第二釋意云。論云現現者。初乃現波是五根之
T2274_.69.0238a10: 現也。後乃現波能依識之現也。故云現現也。
T2274_.69.0238a11: 後依於現現根故。識名現現也。現即量故
T2274_.69.0238a12: 名爲現量。持業釋也
T2274_.69.0238a13: 言若依前解即無此妨者。邑云。前解親明而
T2274_.69.0238a14: 取離貫通縁名爲別轉。不言各別取境。名爲
T2274_.69.0238a15: 別轉。是故便無互用之妨云云　此第二釋餘
師所無
T2274_.69.0238a16: 言或現之量五根非一名現現識名爲量現唯
T2274_.69.0238a17: 屬根等者。此第三釋意云。言現量者。現之量
T2274_.69.0238a18: 也。依主釋也。五根非一故云現現。現者五
T2274_.69.0238a19: 根。量者五識。故依主釋也。依此説者。五倶意
T2274_.69.0238a20: 識及自證分諸定心。此三類不可名現量也。
T2274_.69.0238a21: 所以者何。五倶意也所依根。是等無問意
T2274_.69.0238a22: 根是非現。云何前念意根云現。後念識云量
T2274_.69.0238a23: 耶。是故不可云現之量也　問。第八識是第六
T2274_.69.0238a24: 識之所依根。何故不可現之量耶。答。第七八
T2274_.69.0238a25: 識是大小乘内道不共許故。不以爲根也｣
T2274_.69.0238a26: 言准理門釋等者。理門論既五根名現故。唯
T2274_.69.0238a27: 彼五根名現。而云現之量也
T2274_.69.0238a28: 言若通明説四意根非現者。意云。若通四種
T2274_.69.0238a29: 現量。名現之量。依至釋者。彼三種現量心
T2274_.69.0238b01: 之所依。前念意根。是非現故。不可云現之量
T2274_.69.0238b02: 也
T2274_.69.0238b03: 言又闕其識自體現名者。此通伏難。難云。第
T2274_.69.0238b04: 六識是以第七識爲倶有根。是故五倶意識
T2274_.69.0238b05: 亦現之量故。應云依＊至釋。不可取前念意
T2274_.69.0238b06: 根也。今通之云。彼第七識自體是顛倒取境
T2274_.69.0238b07: 故。不分明也。故非現量。是故第七云現。第六
T2274_.69.0238b08: 云量。而不可云現之量也。現乃闕故
T2274_.69.0238b09: 言但隨應所應依主持業二種釋者。意云。五
T2274_.69.0238b10: 識名現量者。是現之量故云現量。依主釋也。
T2274_.69.0238b11: 五倶意識等三類名現量者。現即量故名爲
T2274_.69.0238b12: 現量。持業釋也。能依識體。亦云現亦云量
T2274_.69.0238b13: 此第三釋同文
軌師第一説也
T2274_.69.0238b14: 言於所影結比故者。備云。於所二字頌結
T2274_.69.0238b15: 比量智所由也。又云。＊頌結所比義所由也
T2274_.69.0238b16: 云云仁云。此文應無。都無用故云云又沼法
T2274_.69.0238b17: 師續中亦無此文也
T2274_.69.0238b18: 言此簡因濫者。意云。有正智生者。簡相違
T2274_.69.0238b19: 決定濫也。彼相違決定因雖具三相。而不生
T2274_.69.0238b20: 正比量智。謂不令生敵證者決定智故。沼法
T2274_.69.0238b21: 師續云。論有正智生。述曰。此別＊頌具初明
T2274_.69.0238b22: 生因果。次明了因果。此即初也。若從他生。若
T2274_.69.0238b23: 自比解。倶名正智。或簡因濫。謂雖有智藉三
T2274_.69.0238b24: 相因而觀。所立猶預解起。或違智生。此即因
T2274_.69.0238b25: 失云云
T2274_.69.0238b26: 言正比量智者。備云。了宗智云正比量智也。
T2274_.69.0238b27: 此了宗智望宗果。名了宗因也云云又云。知
T2274_.69.0238b28: 所作智･現烟智･憶念智。亦云正比量智也。了
T2274_.69.0238b29: 宗智之因故名了因也。然准下疏。以初説爲
T2274_.69.0238c01: 正也云云
T2274_.69.0238c02: 言了火從烟現量因起者。意云。了火者。了有
T2274_.69.0238c03: 火宗。了宗智也。此即敵者智也。此了宗智。是
T2274_.69.0238c04: 從知現烟。現量智之因起也
T2274_.69.0238c05: 言了無常等從所作等比量因生者。意云。了
T2274_.69.0238c06: 無常等者。此敵證者了宗智也。此了宗智是
T2274_.69.0238c07: 從智所作因之比量智因生也。此現量智比
T2274_.69.0238c08: 量智。倶望了宗智爲遠因也　問。何故知現
T2274_.69.0238c09: 烟智云現量智。知所作智云比量智耶。答。
T2274_.69.0238c10: 無分別現量而知於現烟。是眼識故。云現量
T2274_.69.0238c11: 智也。第六意識是分別而知所作故。云比量
T2274_.69.0238c12: 智也
T2274_.69.0238c13: 言由是成前擧所説力者。邑云。謂理門前擧
T2274_.69.0238c14: 頌云。餘所説因生言所説因者。謂能立因喩
T2274_.69.0238c15: 等。此中意説。由憶念故。成前所説因等。不相
T2274_.69.0238c16: 離力能生果智。故名近因云云
T2274_.69.0238c17: 言是境現所縁從心名現量者。初説意云。現
T2274_.69.0238c18: 烟境是現量心止有眼識之所縁故。云現量
T2274_.69.0238c19: 也。此現之量。依主釋也
T2274_.69.0238c20: 言或體顯現爲心所縁名爲現量者。後説意
T2274_.69.0238c21: 云。烟境體顯而爲心所縁故。云現量也。此現
T2274_.69.0238c22: 即量。持業釋也
T2274_.69.0238c23: 言答即所觀因及知此聲所作因智者。備云。
T2274_.69.0238c24: 正了宗智名比量智。知所作因智。是了宗智
T2274_.69.0238c25: 之遠因故。以因從果。名比量智也。所觀所
T2274_.69.0238c26: 作性因。是心之境故。以境從心。名比量也
T2274_.69.0238c27: 云云
T2274_.69.0238c28: 言或復翻此者。周云。憶因之念爲作因。現
T2274_.69.0238c29: 比量智爲作者云云此當西明釋也
T2274_.69.0239a01: 言避前二釋者。備云。以本疏釋爲正義時。避
T2274_.69.0239a02: 西明説。爲正義時避本疏釋云云
T2274_.69.0239a03: 言問理門論中現比量境至但説於智者。周
T2274_.69.0239a04: 云。此是他問也
T2274_.69.0239a05: 言何理得知至亦名比量者。此即却質問家
T2274_.69.0239a06: 云云
T2274_.69.0239a07: 言答理門論中云問何故此中與前現量別異
T2274_.69.0239a08: 建立等者。前他問家引理門論。答他質家云云
T2274_.69.0239a09: 中現量但明果。比量他明因。比量明因顯有
T2274_.69.0239a10: 果。現量明果。定知有因云云
T2274_.69.0239a11: 言問何故此中與前現量別異建立者。問意
T2274_.69.0239a12: 云。何故比量處唯説因名比量不説果也。現
T2274_.69.0239a13: 量處唯説果名現量。不説因耶。比量因者知
T2274_.69.0239a14: 所作智及憶因智。果者可宗智也。現量因者。
T2274_.69.0239a15: 眼等五根及意根等。果者。一五識身。二五倶
T2274_.69.0239a16: 意。三諸自證。四諸定心　問。比量處。論云。
T2274_.69.0239a17: 謂於所比審觀察智者。此可宗智。此果也。
T2274_.69.0239a18: 何故今云不説果耶。答。備云。此比量處並
T2274_.69.0239a19: 説因果。名爲比量云云今云。不爾。論云。此
T2274_.69.0239a20: 處亦應於其比果説爲比量云云釋此本疏即
T2274_.69.0239a21: 初後互明也云云若因果並説者。何故如此
T2274_.69.0239a22: 説耶。今且　答云。論云。是近及遠比度因
T2274_.69.0239a23: 故。倶名比量云云知所作智。知現烟智。並
T2274_.69.0239a24: 名遠因。憶念因智。名爲近因。既此近遠二
T2274_.69.0239a25: 因名比量。故云倶説因名比量也。此亦難
T2274_.69.0239a26: 思
T2274_.69.0239a27: 言爲現二門者。爲顯比量差別不同故言二
T2274_.69.0239a28: 門。即理門。邑云。答。理門論中云。問。何故此
T2274_.69.0239a29: 中與前量別異建立者。謂彼前明現量。即説
T2274_.69.0239b01: 五識身五倶意自語分定中意識倶是現量之
T2274_.69.0239b02: 體。不説現因。彼明比量。但説現比二因及
T2274_.69.0239b03: 審觀智並憶自念。唯言比因。不説比果。故彼
T2274_.69.0239b04: 問之。言爲現二門等者。此答互擧之意。爲現
T2274_.69.0239b05: 比二門説果。皆不遮止。此等並答前徴。今者
T2274_.69.0239b06: 此中下正答初問云云已上邑説
T2274_.69.0239b07: 言能觀能證彼二境相者。見分量智能觀於
T2274_.69.0239b08: 火與無常故。名能量也
T2274_.69.0239b09: 言既於一心以義分能取故量果又名爲量
T2274_.69.0239b10: 果者。此第一説意者。見分爲現量。又名量
T2274_.69.0239b11: 果也。此即以義分也。此文意者。既一心上以
T2274_.69.0239b12: 義分見相分。見分名能量。相分名所量。如是
T2274_.69.0239b13: 以義見分爲能量。亦爲所量也
T2274_.69.0239b14: 言或彼所量等者。仁云。此第二解意云。非唯
T2274_.69.0239b15: 能縁之心名爲能量。所縁之相亦名能量。不
T2274_.69.0239b16: 離縁心故云云意者。色不離識故。名爲唯識。
T2274_.69.0239b17: 如是此亦爾也。又云。第二説意者。見分爲能
T2274_.69.0239b18: 量。相分爲所量。即所量相分亦名爲量果。如
T2274_.69.0239b19: 色不離必故。云唯識也。此釋應好。所以爾者。
T2274_.69.0239b20: 既見分爲能量。何亦相分名爲能量古意同｣
T2274_.69.0239b21: 言或此中意至體不離用即智名果者。意云。
T2274_.69.0239b22: 量果。果自證分體伊不離能量見分用故。能
T2274_.69.0239b23: 量見分智亦名量果也。即者不離義也備説
T2274_.69.0239b24: 言一散心散過去至三散意縁末來者。仁云。
T2274_.69.0239b25: 問。何故縁過去縁未來。如次散心散意。而
T2274_.69.0239b26: 縁現在名獨頭耶。答。縁過去未來。必唯意識。
T2274_.69.0239b27: 非餘識故。其理實也。若縁現在世者。通五倶
T2274_.69.0239b28: 意及餘識故。今擧獨頭意識也云云意云。五
T2274_.69.0239b29: 倶意識縁現在者。是通現量故。餘擧獨以意
T2274_.69.0239c01: 識簡五倶意也　問。縁過去世是何意識。
T2274_.69.0239c02: 答。備云。此五倶意識也。五心章云。五倶意識
T2274_.69.0239c03: 通現比及非量。通縁三世及非世境云云明知
T2274_.69.0239c04: 五倶意識通似現量云云
T2274_.69.0239c05: 言但不攝境別作餘解即名非量者。問。若
T2274_.69.0239c06: 爾。縁青作青解心。亦應非量。何故云比量
T2274_.69.0239c07: 耶。既非青青解。豈不名非量。答。燈三云。今
T2274_.69.0239c08: 縁青作青解者。此比量智不稱前境。如眼識
T2274_.69.0239c09: 縁色稱自相故。不作也解。後起意識縁色共
T2274_.69.0239c10: 相作青等解　問。前言。縁瓶雖不堅執。是非
T2274_.69.0239c11: 量收。非青青作。何名比量。答。瓶依多法作一
T2274_.69.0239c12: 解。不稱法體。非量收。青不依多。順法體。由
T2274_.69.0239c13: 有分別比量攝。若爾。定心作青等解不。若不
T2274_.69.0239c14: 作。云何遍處勝處作青等觀。若作青等解定
T2274_.69.0239c15: 心應比量。若。雖作青解。各附自體。不貫通
T2274_.69.0239c16: 餘。得是現量。不淨觀等准此可知云云
T2274_.69.0239c17: 燈云。問。縁瓶衣食等心。是何量攝。＊若。本云。
T2274_.69.0239c18: 非量收。不親縁得法自體故。非比度故。非
T2274_.69.0239c19: 量所收。非量不要唯堅執故　問。若爾。定
T2274_.69.0239c20: 心諸佛菩薩豈不縁執。答。不障縁瓶。但心不
T2274_.69.0239c21: 作實有。瓶解得。瓶所依四塵自相。於實有
T2274_.69.0239c22: 中假合餘義分別轉故。以了知世間縁彼作
T2274_.69.0239c23: 實瓶解故。現量境。如遍計性。聖者違無亦
T2274_.69.0239c24: 爲境。非同凡執。説爲聖境。本疏之。縁瓶之
T2274_.69.0239c25: 心是非量者。據作實瓶解説。非約了瓶段。
T2274_.69.0239c26: 亦是非量收。設復縁瓶作比量解云比量。非
T2274_.69.0239c27: 眞比量。無實瓶體。故亦非量。以似現比是非
T2274_.69.0239c28: 量攝。不稱境故。邪謬智故云云
T2274_.69.0239c29: 言又但分別執爲實有謂自識現得等者。周
T2274_.69.0240a01: 云。第二解意。即約執心。謂自眼識現得亦名
T2274_.69.0240a02: 似現。亦者亦上意識云云
T2274_.69.0240a03: 備云。此後説意者。五倶意識獨頭意識。倶
T2274_.69.0240a04: 名似現也。諸分別執爲實有者。皆是似現量
T2274_.69.0240a05: 也。此説盡理。初説意者。唯五倶意識名似現
T2274_.69.0240a06: 量云云
T2274_.69.0240a07: 邑云。前解翻言。實非眼識現得自。謂眼見
T2274_.69.0240a08: 瓶衣。以現根得。名爲似現。即有縁過去未來
T2274_.69.0240a09: 世空花等。要執非是自。謂眼識現得即攝不
T2274_.69.0240a10: 盡。今言分別執著悉。謂爲現得。不唯言眼。故
T2274_.69.0240a11: 皆攝盡　問。善心亦縁瓶衣空花水月。此皆
T2274_.69.0240a12: 似現。既非執著。如何攝耶。答。雖非執著。而
T2274_.69.0240a13: 是分別。此言分別執爲實有。皆名似現。設不
T2274_.69.0240a14: 執著者。攝其中無不盡矣云云
T2274_.69.0240a15: 言三句三文如次配釋者。論云。若似因智者。
T2274_.69.0240a16: 初標似因也。次論云爲先所起諸似義智者。
T2274_.69.0240a17: 次標似體也。次論云名似比量者。後標似名
T2274_.69.0240a18: 也。又云。論云似因多種如先已説用彼爲因
T2274_.69.0240a19: 者。此釋初似因也。次論云於似所比諸有智
T2274_.69.0240a20: 生者。此釋次似體也。似體者了宗智也。次
T2274_.69.0240a21: 論云不能正解名似比量者。此釋後似名也。
T2274_.69.0240a22: 既云如次配釋故。周云。即此似比據文各有
T2274_.69.0240a23: 三句。科文亦有三段。一段配一句。如次可解。
T2274_.69.0240a24: 論云若似因智爲先所起。此爲一句一文。下
T2274_.69.0240a25: 二句二文亦准可解云云
T2274_.69.0240a26: 言准標有智及因等者。前論文標之。若似因
T2274_.69.0240a27: 知云云以因者。所知之似因也。似智者。知
T2274_.69.0240a28: 之似知也。准此標而&MT02557;之中亦可有能知所
T2274_.69.0240a29: 知
T2274_.69.0240b01: 言或總無言者。一云。約世親宗因喩三總無
T2274_.69.0240b02: 故云無言也。一云。約陳那因三相並無故云
T2274_.69.0240b03: 無言也
T2274_.69.0240b04: 言或言無義者。雖擧因喩言支。而無義理也｣
T2274_.69.0240b05: 言古師約宗因喩或七六句者。解云。此約宗
T2274_.69.0240b06: 因喩三立闕也。過或七者。世親所立義也。故
T2274_.69.0240b07: 疏上卷云。世親菩薩缺減過性。宗因喩中闕
T2274_.69.0240b08: 一有三。闕二有三。闕三有一云云或六者。自
T2274_.69.0240b09: 餘諸師所立義也。故疏云。世親已後皆除第
T2274_.69.0240b10: 七。以宗因喩三爲能立。總闕便非既本體。
T2274_.69.0240b11: 何成能立。有何闕而得似名云云
T2274_.69.0240b12: 問。初義云。若宗因喩三並無者。有何所闕而
T2274_.69.0240b13: 似名。答。宗有二。一能詮宗。二所詮宗。謂宗
T2274_.69.0240b14: 能詮言爲能詮宗也。宗言之所詮義爲所詮
T2274_.69.0240b15: 宗也。今闕宗者。據能詮宗。不闕所詮宗也。故
T2274_.69.0240b16: 有第七闕也　問。既無能詮宗言。豈有所詮
T2274_.69.0240b17: 義耶
T2274_.69.0240b18: 言陳那已後約因三相亦六或七者。解云。或
T2274_.69.0240b19: 六者。陳那賢愛所立義也。或七者。自餘諸師
T2274_.69.0240b20: 所立義也。故上卷云。陳那菩薩因一喩二説
T2274_.69.0240b21: 有六過。即因三相六過是也。闕一有三闕二
T2274_.69.0240b22: 有三無闕三者。賢愛論師亦除第七。自餘諸
T2274_.69.0240b23: 師不旨除之。因一喩二即因三相雖有申宗
T2274_.69.0240b24: 不申因喩。如數論者。執我爲思。不申因喩豈
T2274_.69.0240b25: 不過也云云
T2274_.69.0240b26: 言如立聲非勤發眼所見故至闕初二相者。
T2274_.69.0240b27: 周云。問。眼所見因。瓶既是異。即合闕異。如
T2274_.69.0240b28: 何不闕異喩。答。擧瓶爲異。眼唯見四塵。不
T2274_.69.0240b29: 見瓶盆等。故成異喩云云此聲論對佛法立
T2274_.69.0240c01: 故。如是説也。第七句量。是聲論對勝論立故
T2274_.69.0240c02: 三相倶闕也。備云。第四句量雖三相闕。然今
T2274_.69.0240c03: 取闕初二相邊也云云
T2274_.69.0240c04: 邑云。傳生起等者。此釋同法相似起言所
T2274_.69.0240c05: 以。謂由同法相似而生能破之心。撃動齊轉
T2274_.69.0240c06: 風故。轉上撃咽喉風等。能令唇口動即發
T2274_.69.0240c07: 破言聲故。云傳生起也
T2274_.69.0240c08: 私云。疏異本文
T2274_.69.0240c09: 沼法師云。宗過性等下。別明支過。此等或於
T2274_.69.0240c10: 能立所破名。故理門云。此中能破闕等。謂
T2274_.69.0240c11: 前説闕等言詞諸過失。彼一一言皆名能破。
T2274_.69.0240c12: 或於所破立能破名。理門又云云何同法相
T2274_.69.0240c13: 似＊能於所作中説能作故傳生故作如是説
T2274_.69.0240c14: 云云
T2274_.69.0240c15: 言或於所作説能作名等者。周云。問。云何
T2274_.69.0240c16: 於所作説能作名耶。答。據實而論。闕減等
T2274_.69.0240c17: 實是所破。境是所作。今言能作者。即闕減
T2274_.69.0240c18: 等爲因。能起能破言故。名能作也。所起能破
T2274_.69.0240c19: 之言。即名所作。何以故。由從他境上生故。云
T2274_.69.0240c20: 所作也云云可見邑記
T2274_.69.0240c21: 言或云此唯約境者。周云。境是所破。言是能
T2274_.69.0240c22: 破。故言此唯約境云云
T2274_.69.0240c23: 邑云。若據理門。前解爲當。若依此論。後釋爲
T2274_.69.0240c24: 優。尋文可悉云云意云。論云。謂勤能立缺
T2274_.69.0240c25: 減過性乃至及喩過性者。是據所破境也
T2274_.69.0240c26: 言以下更云顯示此言等者。意云。此後論文
T2274_.69.0240c27: 方説能破言也。前論文説所破境也。若前説
T2274_.69.0240c28: 者。何頌後説耶。明知前不説能破言也｣
T2274_.69.0240c29: 言謂於圓滿等者。初明妄言闕也。論云。謂於
T2274_.69.0241a01: 圓滿能立。顯宗缺減性。言於無過宗有過宗。
T2274_.69.0241a02: 言於成就因不成因。言於決定因不定因。言
T2274_.69.0241a03: 於不相違因相違因。言於無過喩有過喩。言
T2274_.69.0241a04: 疏中略不牒故。今注之也
T2274_.69.0241a05: 言於無過宗有過宗言乃至於無過喩有過喩
T2274_.69.0241a06: 言者。後辨正言邪也
T2274_.69.0241a07: 言立者量圓妄言有闕者。釋謂於圓滿等論
T2274_.69.0241a08: 文也。因喩無失虚語過言者。釋於無過宗有
T2274_.69.0241a09: 過宗言等論文也
T2274_.69.0241a10: 因明大疏裏書下末大尾
T2274_.69.0241a11:
T2274_.69.0241a12:
T2274_.69.0241a13:
T2274_.69.0241a14:
T2274_.69.0241a15:
T2274_.69.0241a16:
T2274_.69.0241a17:
T2274_.69.0241a18:
T2274_.69.0241a19:
T2274_.69.0241a20:
T2274_.69.0241a21:
T2274_.69.0241a22:
T2274_.69.0241a23:
T2274_.69.0241a24:
T2274_.69.0241a25:
T2274_.69.0241a26:
T2274_.69.0241a27:
T2274_.69.0241a28:
T2274_.69.0241a29:
T2274_.69.0241b01:
T2274_.69.0241b02:
T2274_.69.0241c01:
T2274_.69.0241c02:
Footnote:
 
Footnote:
 
Footnote:
 
Footnote:
 
Footnote:
 
Footnote:
 
Footnote:
 
Footnote:
 
Footnote:
 
Footnote:
 

[First] [Prev] 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 [Next] [Last] [行番号:有/無]   [返り点:無/有] [CITE]