妙法蓮華經玄義 2.135

2.135

三、開麁顯妙者，先敘諸經意。《大品》止明三種四諦。文云：「色即是空，非色滅空」，無生意也。「一切法趣色，是趣不過」，無量意也。「色尚不可得，何況有趣、有不趣」，無作意也。《中論》偈亦有三意，後兩品明小乘觀法，即生滅意也。《無量義》明一中出無量，是從無作開出三種四諦也。《法華》明無量入一，是會三種四諦，歸無作一種四諦也。《涅槃．聖行》，追分別眾經，故具說四種四諦也。〈德王品〉追泯眾經，俱寂四種四諦。文云：「生生不可說；生不生不可說；不生生不可說；不生不生不可說。」經釋初句云：「云何生生不可說？生生故生，生生故不生，故不可說。」若依文，但舉生不生釋生生，此之生生即生不生，那可偏作生生而說？佛為利根人舉一而例諸。若取意者，生生即生不生，亦即不生生，亦即不生不生，那可偏作生生一句而說！若得此意，下三句例皆如此。

Third, opening the crude and revealing the subtle: first, recounting the purport of the various sūtras. The Pañcaviṃśati clarifies only three kinds of four truths. The text states: "Form is precisely emptiness, not emptiness through the annihilation of form"—this is the meaning of unarisen. "All dharmas converge into form, and this convergence cannot be surpassed"—this is the meaning of immeasurable. "Form is still unattainable, how much less could there be convergence or non-convergence"—this is the meaning of unconstructed. The verses of the Madhyamakaśāstra also contain three meanings, and the latter two chapters clarify the contemplation method of the Small Vehicle, which is the meaning of arising and ceasing. The Anantanirdeśa-sūtra clarifies that from the one emerge the immeasurable, which is opening up the three kinds of four truths from the unconstructed. The Lotus Sūtra clarifies that the immeasurable enter the one, which is converging the three kinds of four truths back to the single unconstructed four truths. The "Noble Practices" [chapter] of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] retrospectively distinguishes the various sūtras, hence it expounds all four kinds of four truths. The "King of Virtue Bodhisattva" chapter retrospectively eliminates the various sūtras, silencing all four kinds of four truths together. The text states: "Arising-arising is ineffable; arising-non-arising is ineffable; non-arising-arising is ineffable; non-arising-non-arising is ineffable." The sūtra's explanation of the first phrase states: "How is arising-arising ineffable? Arising arises, hence it arises; arising arises, hence it does not arise; therefore it is ineffable." If one relies on the text, it merely adduces arising-non-arising to explain arising-arising; this arising-arising is itself arising-non-arising, so how could one speak of it one-sidedly as arising-arising? For people of sharp faculties, the Buddha raised one [example] to extrapolate to the rest. If one grasps the meaning: arising-arising is itself arising-non-arising, and is also non-arising-arising, and is also non-arising-non-arising; how could one speak of it one-sidedly as the single phrase "arising-arising"? If one grasps this meaning, the three phrases below are all by analogy like this.